Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, February 21, 2023

February 21, 2023 - 1 - 5:54 PM A G E N D A • C I T Y C O U N C I L M E E T I N G

February 21, 2023 6:00 PM Council Chamber

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to access the City Council Chamber to participate at this meeting, please contact the City Clerk or General Services Director at (559) 324 -2060 (TTY – 711). Notificatio n 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the Council Chamber.

The Clovis City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical address listed above. There are numerous ways to participate in the City Council meetings: you are able to attend in person; you may submit written comments as described below; you may participate by calling in by phone (see “Verbal Comments” below); and you may view the meeting which is webcast and acces sed at www.cityofclovis.com/agendas.

Written Comments

 Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments at:
www.cityofclovis.com/agendas at least two (2) hours before the meeting (4:00 p.m.). You will be prompted to provide:

 Council Meeting Date
 Item Number
 Name
 Email
 Comment

 Please submit a separate form for each item you are commenting on.

 A copy of your written comment will be provided to the City Council noting the item number.

If you wish to make a verbal comment, please see instructions below.

 Please be aware that any written comments received that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the agenda.

 If a written comment is received after 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, efforts will be made to provide the comment to the City Council during the meeting. However, staff cannot guarantee that written comments received after 4:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council during the meeting. All written comments received prior to the end of the meeting will be made part of the record of proceedings.

Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 324-2060 www.cityofclovis.com
1 February 21, 2023 - 2 - 5:54 PM Verbal Comments

 If you wish to speak to the Council on an item by telephone, you should contact the City Clerk at (559) 324-2060 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

 You will be asked to provide your name, phone number, and your email. You will be emailed instructions to log into Webex to participate in the meeting. Staff recommends participants log into the Webex at 5:30 p.m. the day of the meeting to perform an audio and mic check.

 All callers will be placed on mute, and at the appropriate time for your comment your microphone will be unmuted.

 In order for everyone to be heard, please limit you r comments to 5 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic

Webex Participation

 Reasonable efforts will be made to allow written and verbal comment from a participant communicating with the host of the virtual meeting. To do so, a participant will need to chat with the host and request to make a written or verbal comment. The host w ill make reasonable efforts to make written and verbal comments available to the City Council. Due to the new untested format of these meetings, the City cannot guarantee that these written and verbal comments initiated via chat will occur. Participants w anting to make a verbal comment via call will need to ensure that they accessed the WebEx meeting with audio and microphone transmission capabilities.

CALL TO ORDER

FLAG SALUTE - Councilmember Pearce

ROLL CALL

PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS

1. Presentation of Proclamation Recognizing the African-American Historical & Cultural Museum of the San Joaquin Valley in Celebration of its 30th Anniversary.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the City Council on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic. Anyone wishing to be placed on the Agenda for a specific topic should contact the City Manager’s office and submit correspondence at least 10 days before the desired date of appearance.

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - With respect to the approval of resolutions and ordinances, the reading of the title shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete resolution or ordinance and unless there is a request by a Councilmember that the resolution or ordinance be read in full, further reading of the resol ution or ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council.

2 February 21, 2023 - 3 - 5:54 PM CONSENT CALENDAR - Items considered routine in nature are to be placed upon the Consent Calendar. They will all be considered and voted upon in one vote as one item unless a Councilmember requests individual consideration. A Councilmember’s vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Motions in favor of adoption of the Consent Calendar are dee med to include a motion to waive the reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items.

2. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the February 13, 2023, Council Meeting.

3. Administration - Approval – Award the Request for Proposals and approve the purchase of Cis co Network Hardware to Axelliant LLC. The total cost for the Cisco Core network equipment and shipping is $128,395.45 plus tax.

4. General Services – Approval – Res. 23 -___, Authorizing the General Services Manager to Execute Documents for the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno Council of Governments FY 2022 -2023 Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program for Advan ced Transit Projects; and Approval – Res. 23 -___, Amending the FY 2022 -2023 Transit Budget to Reflect Receipt of $425,000 of Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program Funds.

5. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for CIP 21 -12, Nees Avenue Widening – Rule 20B.

6. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6174, located at the southeast corner of Ashlan Avenue and Leonard Avenue (Wilson Premier Homes, Inc.)

7. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Res. 23-___, Adopting Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - A public hearing is an open consideration within a regular or special meeting of the City Council, for which special notice has been given and may be required. When a public hearing is continued, noticing of the adjourned item is required as per Government Code 54955.1.

8. Consider Approval - Res. 23 -___, Resolution of Necessity to determine that public interest and necessity require acquisition of property for public purposes and; authorizing proceedings in eminent domain for two properties located between Locan Avenue and DeWolf Avenue. APN/Owner: 553 -030-05/Zepeda and 565 -042- 14/Samarin.

Staff: Ryan C. Burnett, Engineering Program Supervisor
Recommendation: Approve

9. Consider Approval – Res. 23-___, AC2022-001, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Clovis making findings and tentatively approving petition for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273, and authorizing the recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancelation for property located near the southeast corner of Shaw and De Wolf Avenues. Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., applica nt; Frank and Georgia W.

Sorrenti, property owners.

Staff: George González, Senior Planner
Recommendation: Approve
3 February 21, 2023 - 4 - 5:54 PM ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - Administrative Items are matters on the regular City Council Agenda other than Public Hearings.

10. Receive and File – Public Utilities Department Update.

Staff: Scott Redelfs, Public Utilities Director
Recommendation: Receive and File

11. Consider – Various Options Addressing the Findings and Recommendations Provided by the Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Regarding the Required Zero-Emission Conversion of the Transit Fleet.

Staff: Amy Hance, General Services Manager
Recommendation: Consider and Provide Direction

COUNCIL ITEMS

12. Consider Approval – To Submit a Letter of Support for Senate Bill 14, Senator Shannon Grove, to include Human Trafficking in the lists of Crimes Defined as Serious and Violent Under California Law.

Staff: John Holt, City Manager
Recommendation: Approve

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

13. Update on Founders' Day Event and Activities.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

CLOSED SESSION - A “closed door” ( not public) City Council meeting, allowed by State law, for consideration of pending legal matters and certain matters related to personnel and real estate transactions.

14. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Case Name: Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis, et al., Case No. F082914

15. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation
Three potential cases based on claims received for the Sunnyside Avenue water main break and property flooding incident on January 3, 2022.

16. Government Code Section 54957.6

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Designated Representatives: John Holt and Shonna Halterman Employee Organization: Clovis Public Safety Employees Association

4 February 21, 2023 - 5 - 5:54 PM

ADJOURNMENT

FUTURE MEETINGS

Regular City Council Meetings are held at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber. The following are future meeting dates:

Mar. 6, 2023 (Mon.)
Mar. 13, 2023 (Mon.)
Mar. 20, 2023 (Mon.) (Joint Meeting with Planning Commission) 5 6
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Page 1 of 2 ends

CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 13, 2023 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber

Meeting called to order by Mayor Ashbeck
Flag Salute led by Councilmember Mouanoutoua

Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Basgall, Bessinger, Mouanoutoua, Pearce Mayor Ashbeck

PUBLIC COMMENTS – 6:01

CONSENT CALENDAR – 6:02

Motion by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Councilmember Pearce, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

1. Administration - Approved - Minutes from the February 6, 2023, Council Meeting.

2. Administration - Received and Filed – Business Organization of Old Town (BOOT) Second Quarter Report, October through December 2022.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – 6:03

6:03 – ITEM 3 - APPROVED – SELECTION OF SPRYPOI NT SERVICES, INC., T O PROVIDE

UTILITY BILLING SOFTWARE AND SERVICES WI TH AN IMPLEMENTATION COST OF $599,900, AND ANNUAL COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $170,500.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Basgall, seconded by Councilmember Mouanoutoua. Motion carried 3-2 with Mayor Ashbeck and Councilmember Bessinger voting no.

6:30 – ITEM 4 - APPROVED – BID AWARD FOR CIP 21-07 FIRE STATION 2 REBUILD; A ND

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE

CITY WITH FORTUNE RA TLIFF GENERAL CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,566,341.00.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Councilmember Pearce.

Motion carried by unanimous vote.

6:41 – ITEM 5 - RECEIVED AND FILED – POLICE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.

Kim Armstrong, President of Clovis Community College, shared her goals to collaborate with the Police Department and the City on efforts in engaging the youth in the community.

Desiree Haus, resident, shared information regarding mental health resources for youth. 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Page 2 of 2 ends

It was the consensus of the Council to place an item on the agenda to discuss funding options to be considered for November 2024 election.

COUNCIL ITEMS – 7:35

7:35 – ITEM 6 - CONSIDER – UPDATE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND SEEK POLICY DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD.

Sayre Miller, spoke in support of forming the committee.

Tom Wright, spoke in support of forming the committee.

Motion for each Councilmember to appoint 1-2 members who live, work, own property, or can articulate their historical ties to Clovis to the ad hoc committee by the February 21, 2023, Council Meeting. Motion for approval by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Councilmember Mouanoutoua. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – 7:54

COUNCIL COMMENTS – 7:54

CLOSED SESSION – 8:08

ITEM 7 - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL

COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION THREE

POTENTIAL CASES BASED ON CLAIMS RECEIVED FOR THE SUNNYSIDE AVENUE WATER MAIN BREAK AND PROPERTY FLOODING INCIDENT ON JANUARY 3, 2022.

No action was taken by the City Council during the closed session.

Mayor Ashbeck adjourned the meeting of the Council to February 21, 2023

Meeting adjourned: 8:40 p.m.

______________________________ ________________________________ Mayor City Clerk
8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Administration - Approval – Award the Request for Proposals and approve the purchase of Cisco Network Hardware to Axelliant LLC. The total cost for the Cisco Core network equipment and shipping is $128,395.45 plus tax.

ATTACHMENTS: None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to approve the purchase of Cisco Network hardware and award the Request for Proposal to Axelliant LLC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Included in the 2022-2023 Budget are funds to replace the two Core Network Switches and other network devices that run most of the City’s network and telecommunications services. The core network equipment has been in operation since 2013 and has met its life expectancy.

Staff requested proposals and received nine responses with Axelliant LLC submitting the lowest- cost, responsible proposal.

BACKGROUND
The city’s current network infrastructure was implemented in 2013, it consists of the two core network switches in City Hall and the Planning and Development Services (PDS) building.

These devices are the central c ontrollers for all network services and provide connectivity to most systems including city-wide servers and applications, email, internet, telecommunications services, connections to other agencies and the cities remote locations (Fire Stations, Corporation Yard, Animal Services, etc.).

9 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

After nearly ten years of operation, the network hardware has met its life expectancy . The chassis (main housing for all the embedded/internal components) is going end of support in 2025. However, Cisco has announced th at some of the internal components are no longer supported while others will only be supported until December 2023.

For the last six (6) months, staff has been analyzing the various options available to either replace these core network switches or keep the current equipment through 2025 by refreshing the components that are no longer supported with new internal hardware. In our research, staff looked at the existing data and voice network s and what platform would best support these services for the next ten years.

Staff’s recommendation is to replace the current core network to be able to provide increased bandwidth and equipment that would support today’s needs and allow for future growth.

On January 4, 2023, staff went out with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the replacement Cisco network hardware using the City’s Online Bidding system. A total of 358 vendor firms were notified and nine proposals were received. In an ‘apples to apples’ comparison of the proposals, the pricing (before tax) for the equipment and shipping was as follows:

VENDOR NAME TOTAL
Axelliant LLC $128,395.45
Zones, LLC $128,641.78
Diltex Inc. $190,194.40
Saitech Inc $198,560.63
AVIATE ENTERPRISES, INC. $204,710.40
Sunflower Lab LLC $216,233.20
Ricoh USA, Inc. $222,552.00
Kambrian Corporation $234,112.97
FED CON LLC $312,810.49

Staff is recommending Axelliant LLC as they submitted the lowest-priced, responsible proposal.

They are a certified Cisco Partner and have met all the requirements of RFP.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for the Cisco Core network equipment and shipping is $128,395.45 plus tax. Funds have been allocated in the IT Division budget.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The current Cisco core network switches have met their normal life expectancy and will no longer be supported by the vendor. Staff went out with an RFP for replacement Cisco Hardware and Axelliant LLC submitted the lowest-priced, responsible proposal.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will order the core network equipment; upon receipt, it will be installed and configured to run the City’s network and telecommunications systems and services. 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Prepared by: Jesse Velez, I.T. Deputy Director

Reviewed by: City Manager AH

11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: General Services – Approval – Res. 2 3-___, Authorizing the General Services Manager to Execute Documents for the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno Council of Governments FY 2022-2023 Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program for Advanced Transit Projects; and Approval – Res. 23-___, Amending the FY 2022-2023 Transit Budget to Reflect Receipt of $425,000 of Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program Funds.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract

2. Resolution 23 -___, Authorization

3. Resolution 23 -___, Budget Amendment

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to authorize the General Services Manager to execute documents for the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno Council of Governments FY 2022 - 2023 Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program for Advan ced Transit Projects; and amend approve the 2022-2023 Transit budget to reflect receipt of $425,000 of Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant funds.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has been awarded $425,000 through Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno Council of Governments’ (FCOG) - Measure C New Technology grant. This grant will fund the purchase of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) which includes Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator and Automated Voice Annunciator (CAD/AVL/AVA), Passenger Info tainment, and Historical and Real -time Application Programming Interfac es (APIs). This new technology will be incorporated in fixed-route (Stageline) vehicles to provide passengers real-time information, bus arrival times, trip planning, vehicle capacity, and travel options.
12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

BACKGROUND
Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) invited eligible public agencies to apply for the Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant. The grant required advanced transit projects that have the potential to benefit Fresno County residents and assist the region in meeting its air quality goals. Fresno COG is focused on technological advances in public systems, safety features, fuel efficiencies and alternatives, intelligent transportation system (ITS) applications, and information dissemination. Some examples of eligible projects or project components included, but are not limited to:

1. The evaluation of viability and local benefits of new transit technologies.

2. Planning, design, and construction of new transit technologies, including construction of track and ancillary improvements.

3. Purchase of vehicles only if they are an integral part of a new -technology system, not replacement vehicles in an already existing system; hiring of staff to seek additional funding for new transit technologies after project is awarded.

4. Environmental Review.

5. Right-of-Way Acquisition.

6. Other necessary projects, programs, systems, or services that enable new technology transit and transportation systems to provide the desired objectives.

The City of Clovis was an eligible applicant through the proposed Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project. The Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) will be incorporated into fixed- route (Stageline) vehicles and will include Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator and Automated Voice Annunciator (CAD/AVL/AVA), Passenger Infotainment, and Historical and Real-time Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). This technology will provide passengers, through a mobile application, real-time data including bus location, flexibility to modify travel plans, and vehicle capacity . The benefits of this system include an increase in passenger participation, minimizing vehicle us age, and increasing public transportation reliability; thus, improving greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

A budget amendment is required for the FY2022-2023 budget to account for receipt of $425,000 from FCTA and Fresno COG’s Measure C New Technology Subprogram funds.

 Transit Fund 515: Increase revenue budget by $425,000 and expenditures by $425,000 for the purchase of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) for fixed-route (Stageline) vehicles.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding in the amount of $425,000 for FY 2022 -2023 will be allocated to the City of Clovis.

These funds will be used to purchase an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) which includes 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator and Automated Voice Annunciator (CAD/AVL/AVA), Passenger Info tainment, and Historical and Real -time Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). This technology will augment fixed-route service on (Stageline) vehicles.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Clovis has been awarded the FCTA and Fresno COG’s Measure C New Technology Reserve Program Grant in the amount of $425,000. Authorization for the General Services Manager to execute documents is required by the grant, and the City needs to reflect receipt of grant funds to be used for the purchase an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). An amendment to the Transit Fund is required.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The grant documents will be executed, and the ITS system will be purchased. An a mendment of the Transit FY2022-2023 budget to reflect the budgetary changes to revenue and expenditure accounts will be completed.

Prepared by: Amy Hance, General Services Manager

Reviewed by: City Manager AH

14 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
1 MEASURE C

AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY

AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Regional Public Transit Program: New Technology Reserve Sub Program Cycle IV
Grantee: City of Clovis
Project: Clovis Transit Intelligent Technology Project

This Program Eligibility and Funding Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on___________, 2023 by and between the City of Clovis (hereinafter referenced as “ Grantee”) and the Fresno County Transportation Authority (“Authority”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, passage of the Measure C Extension created within the Regional Public Transit Program a subprogram entitled “ New Technology Reserve” (aka Advanced Transportation Technology), the purpose of which was to finance research, or to provide funding for implementation of projects intended to reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption and air emissions; and to improve mobility in more densely developed areas by providing convenient and direct transit service; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the M easure C Extension Expenditure Plan, adopted on July 19, 2006 (“Expenditure Plan”), and most notably Appendix B thereto, further details regarding the funding and implementation of the New Technology Reserve subprogram (“NTR”) are set forth in the “Measure C Extension Strategic Implementation Plan,” approved on May 5, 2013, and revised and reapproved on May 30, 2018 (“SIP”); and

WHEREAS, the SIP identifies entities eligible for NTR funding as well as eligible projects, which include evaluation, planning, design, and construction of new transit technologies; and

WHEREAS, in April 2022 , Fresno COG issued a Call for Projects to those eligible entities for Cycle IV of NTR funding for advanced transit projects of regional significance in the area of research, development, demonstration, and deployment that would advance public transit and transportation to be funded through the NTR; and

ATTACHMENT 1
15 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
2 WHEREAS, Grantee submitted a “Project Application” that requested reservation from eligible Measure C Extension funds of a grant in the amount of $425,000 to purchase intelligent technology for fixed -route operations, including a CAD/AVL System that will deliver real-time passenger data via a smart phone app and website with bus arrival time, trip planning, alternative routes/buses, and vehicle capacity data (hereinafter the “Project”) , with a matching fund commitment of $170,400. Said application was evaluated by the New Technology Multidisciplinary Advisory Group (“MAG”), who recommended the approval of the full amount of grant funding requested; and

WHEREAS, funding made available through this Agreement shall be available solely for the purchase of the above-mentioned intelligent technology systems as identified in the Project Application; and

WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized to approve funding for payment to Grantee in accordance with this Agreement, the SIP, and the Expenditure Plan, for funding of the Project; and

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, based primarily on the recommendations of the MAG, which were based upon the MAG’s review of the applications and supporting documentation submitted by applicants for NTR funding, including the Grant Application dated July 19, 2022 and submitted by Gran tee for this Project (hereinafter “the Application,” which is incorporated by this reference in its entirety and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein), the Authority’s Board approved the reservation of $425,000 in NTR funding to be made avai lable for implementation of this Project; and

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Authority’s Board further directed Authority staff to draft an Agreement, for the purpose of establishing program implementation requirements and the terms and conditions governing the rights and obligations of the respective parties hereunder; and

WHEREAS, Authority and Grantee now desire to enter into this Agree ment, which serves to establish requirements for Grantee’s use of the funding provided hereunder, as well as delineating the respective rights and obligations of the parties regarding use of Measure C funds as authorized for use by Grantee for the purposes specified hereunder, including but not limited to conditions and limitations on Grantee’s right to receipt of payment hereunder.

16 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein made and the mutual benefits to be deriv ed therefrom, the parties hereto represent, covenant and agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

ARTICLE I

Covenants of Grantee

Grantee hereby expressly agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the applicable provisions of the SIP, and the Application, which acknowledgment and agreement is a condition for Grantee’s receipt of Measure C funds available under the NTR; and Grantee further agrees to comply with the Expenditure Plan , a nd all adopted Policies and Procedures of the Authority as applicable, as well as any subsequent amendments , updates, or other applicable plans.

1.1 Project Scope , Schedule and Funding Program . The project scope, schedule, and funding details are included in the Grantee’s Project Application.

The City Council of the City of Clovis previously has approved, by appropriate Resolution, the participation by Grantee in the Project.

1.2 Eligibility for Funding. The Authority’s Board has determined, in reliance upon the recommendation of the MAG, which was based on the MAG’s review and evaluation of the Application, that the Project meets one or more of the following eligibility requirements for NTR funding, as set forth in the Application and the SIP:

1.2.1 Reduce traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled

1.2.2 Reduce energy consumption and dependence on fossil fuels

1.2.3 Reduce air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.

1.2.4 Improve access to safer, more convenient travel for Fresno County residents.

1.3 Compliance with California PUC Code 142257 . Grantee agrees to the following:
17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
4 1.3.1 Grantee shall account for Project funds received pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 142257. Grantee shall maintain current records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and shall separately record expenditures for each type of eligible purpose.

Grantee shall make such records available to the Authority for inspection or audit at any time.

1.4 Compliance with Other Laws . In performance of its obligations relating to implementation and administration of Project, Grantee shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations currently in force as well as those that are subsequently enacted, promulgated or amended and thereby become applicable during the term of this Agreement.

1.5 Measure C Funds Defined. For purposes of this Agreement, Measure C funds are deemed to be available under the NTR, subject to the limitations and conditions specified in this Agreement, the SIP, and the Application. Provided, however, that unless another amount receives formal advance approval b y means of a subsequent written amendment to this Agreement, the total cumulative amount of Measure C funds allocated under the NTR for the Project shall not exceed the maximum amount of $425,000 specified in the initial paragraph of Article II herein below.

1.6 Maintenance of Project Records . Grantee shall maintain complete and accurate records for the Project for which funding is made available hereunder.

All such records shall be maintained on a generally accepted accounting basis and be clearly identified and readily accessible. Grantee shall provide f ree access to the Authority at all times to such books and records. Grantee shall maintain all work data, documents, and proceedings relating to this Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date of final audit from the Authority.

1.7 Invoices. Grantee shall submit invoices to the Authority no more frequently than monthly for activities conducted over the prior unbilled month. These documents shall include the following specified information:

1.7.1 Monitoring Expenditures and Progress Payments. Grantee will monitor expenditures and progress payments against the “not to exceed” limits specified both in Article II and Section 1.5 of this Agreement , and for substantial conformity with the projections set forth in the Budget/Schedule as set forth in the Grantee’s Project Application. 18 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
5 1.7.2 Project Progress . If Project costs have not been invoiced for a six - month period, Grantee agrees to submit a written explanation of the absence of the Project’s progress to the Authority, along with a target billing date and a target billing amount.

1.7.3 Direct and Indirect Costs. Grantee may include in the Project invoice, direct and indirect costs of the Project. Indirect costs (as defined by OMB Circular A-87) will be considered an eligible expense.

1.7.4 Copies of Invoices . Grantee shall provide the Authority with two (2) copies of appropriate source documentation to substantiate Project expenses or costs.

1.7.5 Eligible Project Cost Request Deadline. Invoices for eligible Project costs incurred by Grantee shall be submitted to the Authority on the approved form. The appropriation request will specify the use of the funding and the manner in which other sources of funding for the Project were applied, in substantial conformity with the projections set forth in the Budget/Schedule a s set forth in the Application which is attached hereto as Appendix 1 . The Authority ’s Executive Director will review invoices for accuracy and sufficiency in terms of compliance with the foregoing requirements. Unsatisfactory or inadequate invoices will be returned to Grantee for correction and resubmission. Upon receipt of a proper invoice, eligible Measure C NTR funds (as applicable) shall be provided to the Grantee within 45 days.

1.7.6 Use of Funds. Grantee shall use Measure C NTR funds in accordance with this Agreement and in a manner consistent with all applicable provisions of the Expenditure Plan and SIP, and the Application.

1.8 Award of Project. Grantee shall administer the Project, including but not limited to its advertisement and award of all contracts relating to the Project, in accordance with all applicable legal requirements as provided above in Section

1.4 and in full conformity with the standards applied by Grantee in the administration of its own projects or activities.

1.9 Monitoring and Performance Evaluation. Grantee shall submit periodic reports to Authority, on either a quarterly or semi-annual basis, as directed by the Authority’s administration based on the nature and duration of that specific 19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
6 project. Each such report will provide a status of activities completed or achieved during the immediately preceding period and also will include an evaluation of the Project’s performance based on those metrics identified in the Performance Measures portion of the project application. Said reports are due to Authority within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.

ARTICLE II

Covenants of Authority

Authority agrees to provide to the Grantee Measure C Extension funds available under the NTR, up to the maximum amount of $425,000 approved for the implementation of the Project , in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth her ein, and in compliance with the Expenditure Plan and the SIP, the Application, and all adopted Policies and Procedures of the Authority as applicable , as well as any subsequent amendments, updates, or other applicable plans.

2.1 Eligible Project Cost Payments. The Authority shall make payments to Grantee for actual incurred eligible Project costs in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and applicable provisions of the SIP. To receive payments for eligible Project work completed, Grantee shall comply with the following procedures:

2.1.1 Ineligible Costs. The Authority reserves the right to recover payment from Grantee if an invoice includes ineligible Project costs.

2.1.2 Payment Amount. The amount of payments to Grantee for eligible Project costs shall be made pursuant to the SIP and this Agreement.

2.1.3 Suspension of Payment. Payments for eligible Project costs shall be suspended without interest when a dispute arises as to whether or not a cost item(s) is eligible for payment.

2.1.3.1 Dispute Resolution. All disputes shall be settled in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Once a dispute has occurred, the Authority and Grantee shall attempt to resolve the dispute informally in a mutually agreeable manner.

20 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
7 2.2 Right to Conduct Audit. The Authority shall have the right to conduct an audit of all Grantee’s records pertaining to the Project at any time following completion of the eligible Project work.

2.2.1 Notice of Audit. The Authority must provide at least 30 days’ advance notice to Grantee if an audit is to be conducted.

ARTICLE III

Mutual Covenants

The Authority is released from any liability to Grantee regarding the Authority’s administration and issuance of the Measure C proceeds except for any breach of Authority’s fiduciary duty as set forth in the Expenditure Plan and SIP.

3.1 Effective Date and Term . This Agreement shall become effective as of the date of its full execution by the parties and shall remain in full force and effect following its final approval by the Authority’s Board, for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of Grantee’s completion of eligible Project work, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 3.2 or in Section 3.4 or unless the Agreement’s term is extended by formal approval of a subsequent amendment hereto in accordance with Section 3.8.

3.2 Discharge. This Agreement shall be subject to discharge as follows:

3.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of Grantee and Authority. If this Agreement is mutually terminated by the parties, Grantee will no longer receive Measure C funds under the NTR for its proposed Project, unless a new agreement between Grantee and Authority relating to such Project is formed; and in the event of such mutual termination, those funds remaining from the originally reserved funding allocation of $425,000 shall be returned by the Authority to the general NTR funding pool.

3.2.2 Discharge Upon Completion of Grantee’s Program. Except as to any rights or obligations which survive discharge as specified in Section

3.14, upon completion of Grantee’s completion of eligible Project work, this Agreement shall be discharged, and the parties shall have no further obligation to each other.
21 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
8 3.2.3 Termination by Authority. The Authority reserves the right to terminate the Agreement at any time by giving written notice to Grantee of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. If this Agreement is terminated by the Authority as p rovided herein, Grantee will be paid by the Authority for eligible Project costs incurred prior to termination of the Agreement , consistent with the requirements of the Program as referenced herein or in either the SIP or the Application. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials shall, at the option of the Authority, become its property subject to the terms and conditions of Section 1.6.

3.3 Indemnity. It is mutually understood and agreed, relative to the re ciprocal indemnification of Authority and Grantee:

3.3.1 Grantee shall fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless Authority, and any officer or employee of Authority, against any and all damages, liabilities, claims and expenses, arising out of Grantee's errors, omissions, negligent acts or willful misconduct during the term of this Agreement. It is also fully understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Grantee shall fully defend, indemnify and hold the Authority harmless from a ny liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code Section 810.8 occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Grantee under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to Grantee under this Agreement.

3.3.2 Authority shall fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantee, and any officer or employee of Grantee, against any and all damages, liabilities, claims and expenses, arising out of Authority’s errors, omissions, negligent acts or w illful misconduct during the term of this Agreement. It is also fully understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Authority shall fully defend, indemnify and hold Grantee harmless from any liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code Section 810.8 occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Authority under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to Authority under this Agreement.

22 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
9 3.4 Limitation. All obligations of the Authority under the terms of this Agreement are expressly subject to the Authority’s continued authorization to collect and expend the sales tax proceeds provided by Measure C Extension funds. If for any reason the Authority’s right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part, the Authority shall promptly notify the Grantee, and the parties shall consult on a course of action. If, after twenty- five (25) working days, a course of action is not agreed upon by the parties, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent; provided, that any future obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by and subject to : (i) the lawful ability of the Auth ority to expend sales tax proceeds for the purposes of the Agreement; and (ii) the availability, taking into consideration all the obligations of the Authority under all outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of the Authority, of funds for such purposes.

3.5 Notices. Except as may be otherwise required by law, any notice to be given shall be written and shall be either personally delivered, sent by facsimile transmission or by first class mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Mike Leonardo, Executive Director
Fresno County Transportation Authority
2220 Tulare Street, Suite 2101
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 600-3282

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:

John Holt, City Manager
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 324-2060

3.5.1 Notice personally delivered is effective when delivered. Notice sent by electronic mail transmission is deemed to be received upon successful transmission. Notice sent by first class mail shall be deemed received on the fifth day after the date of mailing. Either party may change the above address by giving written notice pursuant to this paragraph.

23 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
10 3.6 Additional Acts and Documents. Each party agrees to do all such things and take all actions, and to make, execute and deliver such o ther documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of the Agreement.

3.7 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement of the partie s with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements.

3.8 Amendment. This Agreement may not be changed, modified, or r escinded except in writing, signed by all parties hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.

3.9 Independent Agency. Grantee renders services under this Agreement as an independent agency under the Agree ment. None of the Grantee’s agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the Authority and none of the Authority’s agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the Grantee agency.

3.10 Assignment. The Agreement may not be assigned, transferred or pledged by any party without the express written consent of all parties hereto.

3.11 Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon each of the parties and their respective successor(s), a ssignee(s)or transferee(s).

Provided however that this provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement, other than as provided in Section

3.10 above.

3.12 Severability. Should any part of this Agreemen t be determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect; provided t hat, the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.

3.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by all of the parties; each counterpart shall be deemed an original but all counterparts shall constitute a single document.
24 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
11 3.14 Survival. The following provisions in this Agreement shall survive discharge:

3.14.1 Grantee. As to the Grantee agencies , the following sections shall survive discharge: Section 3.3 (Indemnity),

3.14.2 Authority. As to Authority, the following section shall survive discharge: Section 2. 2 (Right to Conduct Audit) and Section 3.3 (Indemnity).

3.15 Time. Time is and shall be of the essence of this Agreement and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor.

3.16 Remedies Cumulative. No remedy or election of remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be deemed exclusive, but shall be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity. Each remedy shall be construed to give the fullest effect allowed by law.

3.17 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that this contract is made in and shall be performed in Fresno County, California.

3.18 Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions of this Agreement and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions.

3.19 No Continuing Waiver. The waiver by any party of any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same, or of any other provision of this Agreement.

3.20 No Rights in Third Parties. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any third party, nor is anything in this Agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or li ability of any third party to any party to this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Agreement give any third party any right of subrogation or action over or against any party to this Agreement.

25 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
12 3.21 Attorney’s Fees and Costs . Authority and Gran tee each will bear its own respective costs, including attorney’s fees, in connection with any legal proceedings related to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement or any of the terms and conditions hereof.

3.23 Exhibits and Recitals. The Recitals and Exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated into and are integral parts of this Agreement.

3.24 Signator’s Warranty. Each party warrants to each other that he or she is fully authorized and competent to enter into this Agreement in the capacity indicated by his or her signature and agrees to be bound by this Agreement as of the day and year first mentioned above upon the execution of this Agreement by each other party.

3.25 Force Maj eure. Any party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including but not limited to: any incidence of fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act or omission by any party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to that other party, and provided further such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the party not performing

Signatures on next page

26 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above.

FRESNO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

ATTEST

By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)

Name: Ernest “Buddy” Mendes Name: Mike Leonardo
(Typed) (Typed)

Title: Chairman of the Authority Title: Executive Director

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: APPROVED AS TO ACCOUNTING DANIEL C. CEDERBORG, FORM
COUNTY COUNSEL:

By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)

Name: Michael E. Rowe Name: Oscar J. Garcia, CPA
(Typed) (Typed)

Title: Principal Deputy County Counsel Title: Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector

CITY OF CLOVIS
ATTEST

By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)

Name: John Holt Name:
(Typed) (Typed)

Title: City Manager Title:

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

By: ______________________

Name: _____________________

Title: City Attorney
27 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS AUTHORIZING

THE GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS FOR THE

FRESNO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FY 2022-2023 MEASURE C NEW TECHNOLOGY RESERVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT PROJECTS.

WHEREAS, the City of Clovis is an eligible project applicant and may receive funding from the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and Fresno County of Governments (FCOG) Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program for Advanced Transit Projects; and

WHEREAS, the Fresno Cou ncil of Governments has issued a call for eligible applicants to submit proposals for projects to be funded in fiscal year 2022-2023; and

WHEREAS, the City of Clovis has prepared an application in the amount of $425,000 for the purchase of a comprehensive Intelligent Transportation System; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of The City of Clovis that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the documents and applicable statutes, regulatio ns, and guidelines for all FCTA and FCOG funded transit projects.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the General Services Manager be authorized to execute all required documents of the Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program for Advanced Transit Projects and any Amendments thereto with FCTA and FCOG.

* * * * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on February 21, 2023, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: February 21, 2023

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
28 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2022-2023

GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the FY2022-23 budget on June 13, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City of Clovis has been awarded Measure C New Technology Reserve Grant Program funds for transit capital purchases; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the expenditure of Measure C New Technology Reserve Subprogram funds for the purchase of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS); and

WHEREAS, the Measure C New Technology Reserve Subprogram funds were not originally included in the FY 2022-23 General Services budget.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of The City of Clovis hereby approves the budget amendment shown in the “Summary of Expenditures/Revenues by Department” “Summary of Expenditures/Revenues by Fund”, attached as Attachment A.

* * * * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on February 21, 2023, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: February 21, 2023

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

29 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

Attachment A

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT

DEPARTMENT – GENERAL SERVICES

Transit $425,000
TOTAL DEPARTMENT $425,000

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY FUND

Transit $425,000
TOTAL FUND $425,000

SUMMARY OF REVENUES BY DEPARTMENT

DEPARTMENT – GENERAL SERVICES

Transit $425,000
TOTAL DEPARTMENT $425,000

SUMMARY OF REVENUE BY FUND

Transit $425,000
TOTAL FUND $425,000

NET GENERAL FUND SUPPORT

TOTAL $0

30 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for CIP 21-12, Nees Avenue Widening – Rule 20B.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to accept the work performed as complete and authorize the recording of the notice of completion for this project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project consisted of conduit and substructure installation and coordination with dry utility companies for the PG&E Rule 20B, which involved the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility and communication lines, and removal of existing utility poles along the north side of Nees Avenue from Minnewawa to Clovis Avenue. This work was in conjunction with the Nees Avenue Widening project that is currently in construction.

BACKGROUND
Bids were received on April 19, 2022, and the project was awarded b y the City Council to the low bidder, Westech Systems, LLC., on May 9, 2022. The project was completed in accordance with the construction documents and the contractor has submitted a request for acceptance of the project.

31 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

FISCAL IMPACT

1. Award $594,650

2. Cost increases/decreases resulting from differences $0.00 between estimated quantities used for award and
actual quantities installed.

3. Contract Change Orders $256,464.00
CCO 1
This change order was for Westech to furnish and install AT&T underground conduits and substructures with PG&E joint trenching on the north side of Nees Ave from Minnewawa to Clovis to avoid delays by AT&T.

___________
Final Contract Cost $851,114.00

This project was approved in the Community Investment Program 2021-2022 fiscal year budget and was funded by Development Impact fees for undergrounding of overhead facilities.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Public Utilities Department, the City Engineer, the Engineering Inspector, and the Project Engineer agree that the work performed by the contractor is in accordance with the project plans and specifications and has been deemed acceptable. The contracto r, Westech Systems, LLC, Inc., has requested final acceptance from the City Council.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. The Notice of Completion will be recorded; and

2. All remaining retention funds will be released no later than 35 calendar days following recordation of the notice of completion, provided no liens have been filed. Retention funds may be released within 60 days after the date of completion, provided no liens have been filed, with "completion" defined as the earlier of either (a) beneficial use and occupancy and cessation of labor, or (b) acceptance by the City Council per Public Contract Code Section 7107(c)(2).

Prepared by: Rami Abunamous, Engineering Inspector

Reviewed by: City Manager AH

32 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

Willow
Peach
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
De Wolf
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Alluvial
Herndon
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Leonard
Highland
Minnewawa
4 ATTACHMENT A

CITY LIMITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT 1
Prepared By:

Project Location
Attachment 1
April 25, 2022 John Armendariz
CIP 21-12 Nees Avenue Widening - Rule 20B
33 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6174, located at the southeast corner of Ashlan Avenue and Leonard Avenue (Wilson Premier Homes, Inc.)

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent ( Wilson Premier Homes, Inc. ) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to:

1. Accept the public improvements for Tract 6 174, and authorize recording the Notice of Completion; and

2. Authorize the release of the Performance Surety immediately and then release of the Labor and Materials Surety ninety (90) days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion, (provided no lien have been filed) and release of Public Improvements Maintenance Surety upon the expiration of the one -year warranty period and provided any defective work has been repaired to the City’s satisfaction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, Wilson Premier Homes, Inc., has requested final acceptance of th e public improvements constructed or installed in conjunction with this tract. The public improvements include all those shown on the subdivision improvement plans approved by the City Engineer.

The construction or installation of the public improvements i s complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

34 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

All landscaping, including sidewalks along the side yards of lots have been constructed. The construction or installation of the public improvements is complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for periodic routine maintenance, as well as repairs needed as the improvements deteriorate with age and usage, will be incorporate d to the annual maintenance budget of the Public Utilities Department as these costs are identified.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Subdivision Map Act requires that once construction of the required improvements has been completed in compliance with all c odes, plans and specifications, and all other required documents have been completed and submitted, final acceptance is required and the appropriate sureties are released.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Record the Notice of Completion and release the Performa nce, Labor and Materials, and Maintenance Sureties as appropriate.

Prepared by: Gene G. Abella, Civil Engineer

Reviewed by: City Manager AH

35 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Attachment 1
36 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services Department
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Res. 23-___, Adopting Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 23-___ Adoption of City of Clovis Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to a pprove Resolution 23 -___, Adoption of City of Clovis Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) 2.2.113(a)(3) refers to a policy adopted by City Council for approving and signing contract change orders on executed contracts . The policy that staff is currently following has not been adopted by council. Resolution 23-___ will formalize the policy with council adoption.

BACKGROUND
Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) 2.2.113(a)(3) refers to a policy adopted by City Council for approving and signing contract change orders on executed contracts. The purpose of the policy is to provide direction to City staff in the appropriate use of contract change orders to amend contracts for public works projects. Th e policy is designed to provide policies and principles to be used in determining when use of a contract change order is appropriate, and to provide staff with appropriate levels of approval authority for contract change orders. The policy shall apply to al l contracts for public projects (as defined in the policy) awarded by the City for the: (1) construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, repair, painting, and repainting of City buildings, improvements, facilities, and works; (2) street or sewer 37 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
work except maintenance or repair; and (3) furnishing supplies or materials for any such project, including maintenance or repair of streets or sewers.

When new or unforeseen conditions are encountered on a project, the City’s response must be very timely. Any time the contractor is prevented from continuing with the progress of the work due to delays waiting for direction from the City, such delays may be compensable under the terms of the contract. It is therefore prudent that appropriate change order approval authority be delegated to the City Manager, City Engineer, and Public Utilities Director to allow for timely processing of a CCO. The City Council has authorized the City Engineer, Public Utilities Director, and City Manager to approve changes in the work being performed under public project contracts awarded by the City based on the monetary levels set forth in the policy, provided the amount of the CCO is within budget authorization. Change orders in excess of the authorized amounts require City Council approval prior to execution of the change order.

The policy authorizes the City Engineer or Public Utilities Director an aggregate total of all change orders not to exceed 15% of the original contract amount and the City Manager an aggregate total of all change orders not to exceed 20% of original contract amount . All CCOs approved and issued by the City Engineer , Public Utilities Director and City Manager shall be reported to the City Council no later than the time of final acceptance of the work by the City Council.

The policy that staff is currently following has not been adopted by council. Adoption of the policy will clarify the intent of CMC 2.2.113(a)(3).

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts clarifies the intent of CMC 2.2.113(a)(3) by giving a policy to follow.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will implement the Policy and Procedure for the Application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts as approved.

Prepared by: Thad Avery, Supervising Civil Engineer

Reviewed by: City Manager AH
38 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 23-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS ADOPTING POLICY

AND PROCEDURES FOR THE APPLICATION OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS

WHEREAS, Section 2.2.113(a)(3) of the Clovis Municipal Code requires a policy be adopted by council that explains the procedures for the application of contract change orders.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the “City of Clovis Policy and Procedure for the application of Contract Change Orders for Public Works Contracts,” (“Policy”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment A, is hereby approved.

* * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on February 21, 2023, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: February 21, 2023

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

39 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

CITY OF CLOVIS

POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE APPLICATION OF CONTRACT CHANGE

ORDERS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS

Purpose – The purpose of this policy and procedure is to provide direction to City staff in the appropriate use of contract change orders to amend contracts for public works projects. This policy is designed to provide policies and principles to be used in determining when use of a contract change order is appropriate, and to provide staff with appropriate levels of approval authority for contract change orders.

Application – This policy shall apply to all contracts for public projects (as defined below) awarded by the City for the: (1) construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, repair, painting, and repainting of City buildings, improvements, facilities, and works; (2) street or sewer work except maintenance or repair; and (3) furnishing supplies or materials for any such project, including maintenance or repair of streets or sewers.

I. Definitions

As used in this policy and procedure document, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed thereto:

Contract: The agreement entered into between the City and that Contractor duly licensed by the State of California to construct the public work of improvement as prescribed in the Plans and Specifications and all related documents therefore and which form a part of the contract.

Emergency: A sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. (Public Contract Code Section 20168)

Public Improvements: Improvements that will be owned, operated, and maintained by the City, including, but not limited to, streets and related facilities, sewers, water mains, storm drains, parks, trails, landscaping, buildings, parking lots, underground fiber-optic systems, reclaimed water systems, water supply wells, water and wastewater treatment facilities and related pumping systems, hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as “infrastructure.”

Public project: “Public project” is as defined in section 22002 of the Public Contract Code, and means any of the following, but does not include “maintenance work”:

(1) Construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, and repair work involving any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility.
(2) Painting or repainting of any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility.

Attachment A 40
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Maintenance Work: “Maintenance work” includes all of the following:

(1) Routine, recurring, and usual work for the preservation or protection of any publicly owned or publicly operated facility.
(2) Minor repainting.
(3) Resurfacing of streets and highways at less than one inch. (4) Landscape maintenance, including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, replacement of plants, and servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems. (5) Work performed to keep, operate, and maintain publicly owned water, power, or waste disposal systems.

Facility: “Facility” is as defined in section 22002 of the Public Contract Code, and means any plant, building, structure, ground facility, real property, streets and highways, or other public work improvement.

II. Introduction

In the course of normal aging through use, and in providing new or expanded public facilities to meet the needs of a growing community, the City undertakes considerable and continuous construction and re-construction of its infrastructure and facilities. This work is typically performed by private contractors under contract with the City.

To assure that public projects are awarded appropriately, various provisions of the Public Contract Code pertaining to public bidding must be followed. However, the City has elected to be subject to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (Public Contract Code Section 22000, et seq.), and therefore has increased flexibility and monetary thresholds in performing, bidding, and awarding public projects. This policy addresses the proper use of contract change orders, including compliance with the Public Contract Code and the City’s Municipal Code.

With most public projects, as a practical matter it is not possible during the preparation of the design drawings and specifications to foresee all possible conditions or situations that might be encountered on the job during the construction. As a result, changes must be made to the original contract documents to address the unforeseen work or conditions. The Contract Change Order (CCO) is the universal tool used by public agencies to provide a legally binding vehicle to amend a contract to set forth the means and methods to accomplish the added work caused by the changed conditions, and the additional compensation that might be due the contractor. However, in incorporating new or additional work into an existing public project contract, City staff must be aware of the proper application of CCO’s so as to avoid unlawfully circumventing the public bidding requirements of the Public Contract Code or Municipal Code.

III. Public Contract Code and Municipal Code Requirements

There are three essential Public Contract Code requirements which form the basis for the proper application of CCOs on public projects. They are:

41 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A. Generally, when an expenditure required for a public project exceeds $60,000, it must be bid using the City’s informal bidding process (CMC section 2.9.03) and contracted for and let to the lowest responsible bidder (Public Contract Code Sections 22032, 22038). However, this does not apply to certain kinds of new or unforeseen work within the project area for which a contract has already been awarded. This will be described later.

B. It is unlawful to split or separate orders or projects into smaller work orders or projects, any public work project for the purpose of evading the requirement for competitive bids and doing so is a misdemeanor. (Public Contract Code Section 22033)
C. The bidding requirement may only be circumvented due to an emergency (as above defined).

Also, after bids are received, the City may reject all bids, and thereafter, if the City Council determines by a four-fifths (4/5) vote that the project can be more economically performed by City employees, then the City does not need to re-bid the project. (Public Contract Code Sections 22035, 22038)

IV. Applicability of the Contract Change Order to Existing Contracts

A. For new and unforeseen work located within the limits of work of a project for which a contract has already been awarded:

1. Work that is deemed by the City Engineer or Public Utilities Director to be necessary to carry out the original scope and intent of the project plans and specifications. A CCO for this work, even if it exceeds $60,000 in value, is appropriate and may be used in this case to add the work to the existing contract.

2. Work that is deemed not to fall within the original scope and intent of the plans and specifications for the project as originally bid, but it would be “convenient” or “expedient” to add it to the existing contract.
“Convenient” or “expedient” is not an “emergency” as defined in the Public Contract Code.

Therefore, the following apply.

a) If in excess of $60,000, a CCO is not appropriate and shall not be used. The work must be competitively bid using either the City’s informal bidding process or the formal bidding process depending on the cost of the work (refer to CMC Section 2.9.03) and awarded as a separate contract. This may result in the new work being delayed until completion of the existing contract. The new work shall not be separated into increments less than $60,000 each to avoid this requirement.
b) If $60,000 or less, a CCO may be used, but consideration should be given to whether City employees or another contractor can perform the work less expensively than using a CCO with the current contractor. Remember, for work of $60,000 or less, the City can perform the work with its own employees or can negotiate a contract with any contractor it wants without any bidding or competitive process (Refer to CMC Section 2.9.03). However, keep in mind the prohibition against separating work to avoid the bidding requirements, as discussed in Section III. B. above.

B. For additional work located outside the limits of work of a project for which a contract has been awarded:

42 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1. If in excess of $60,000, a CCO adding the work to an existing contract is not appropriate and shall not be used. The work must be competitively bid using either the City’s informal bidding process or the formal bidding process depending on the cost of the work (refer to CMC Section

2.9.03) and awarded as a separate contract. This may result in the new work being delayed until completion of the existing contract. The new work shall not be separated into increments less than $60,000 each to avoid this requirement.

Exception: A small portion of a future project that would directly connect to the existing contract work may be added, provided there is high similarity in the work and a good justification to do so, such as the necessity to damage or reconstruct the new improvements at a later date if the additional work is delayed to the future.

2. If $60,000 or less, a CCO may be used, but consideration should be given to whether City employees or another contractor can perform the work less expensively than using a CCO with the current contractor. Remember, for work of $60,000 or less, the City can perform the work with its own employees or can negotiate a contract with any contractor it wants without any bidding or competitive process (Refer to CMC Section 2.9.03). However, keep in mind the prohibition against separating work to avoid the bidding requirements, as discussed in Section III. B. above.

C. By definition, the CCO is to be used to affect any change in the original contract awarded for the work. The foregoing requirements pertain only to adding new, unforeseen, or additional work to an existing contract. There are other appropriate applications for a CCO that fall into the normal course of administering a construction contract. Some examples include:

1. Normal increases or decreases in the various quantities of the work to reflect actual installed versus design quantities of the various contract items. This is known as a Balancing Change Order and is used to reconcile final quantities to the quantities originally bid. This is normally processed at the end of the project.

2. Adjusting the allowable contract time limits.

D. In all cases where a CCO increases the cost of the original contract, the source of funding for the work shall be identified and secured prior to approving the COO.

V. Contract Change Order Approval Levels

A. When new or unforeseen conditions are encountered on a project, the City’s response must be very timely. Any time the contractor is prevented from continuing with the progress of the work due to delays waiting for direction from the City, such delays may be compensable under the terms of the contract. It is therefore prudent that appropriate change order approval authority be delegated to the City Manager, City Engineer, and Public Utilities Director to allow for timely processing of a CCO. The City Council has authorized the City Engineer, Public Utilities Director and City Manager to approve changes in the work being performed under public project contracts awarded by the City based on the monetary levels set forth below, provided the amount of the CCO is 43 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

within budget authorization. Change orders in excess of the authorized amounts require City Council approval prior to execution of the change order.

Authorized CCO Approval Authority
$300,000 or less.

City Engineer or Public Utilities Director: Aggregate total of all change orders shall not exceed 15% of the original contract amount.

City Manager: Aggregate total of all change orders shall not exceed 20% of original contract amount.

B. Neither the total of any one CCO nor the aggregate total of all CCOs for any one project shall exceed the above approval limits, unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. Any CCO in excess of the authorized amount, or any CCO which causes the aggregate of CCOs for any one project to exceed the approval limits, shall be authorized by the City Council prior to execution of the CCO by the City Engineer, Public Utilities Director or City Manager.

C. Recognizing there may be certain public projects for which a higher contingency amount may be necessary, the City Manager, City Engineer or Public Utilities Director may request the City Council, at the time the contract is awarded, for an increase in the approval authority stated above for the particular project, provided good justification is given therefor.

D. Whenever the City Council has by ordinance, resolution, or other action of the Council, delegated authority to the City Manager or any other officer or employee under the control of the City Manager, such authority and responsibility shall reside primarily with the City Manager, and the City Manager shall have the authority to make written delegations of such authority to other officers or employees.

E. All CCOs approved and issued by the City Engineer, Public Utilities Director and City Manager shall be reported to the City Council no later than the time of final acceptance of the work by the City Council, with the report giving both the amount and the justification for each CCO.

F. This policy is intended to complement the City’s adoption of the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. The dollar amount of $60,000 provided in this policy is intended to reflect the “no-bid” threshold found in Public Contract Code section 22032(a) and shall automatically adjust upon the effectiveness of any adjustment notification by the State Controller in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22020, without the necessity of amending this policy or any subsection herein to reflect any such adjustment.

J:\wdocs\00611\003\oth\00217756.DOC
44 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider Approval - Res. 23-___, Resolution of Necessity to determine that public interest and necessity require acquisition of property for public purposes and; authorizing proceedings in eminent domain for two properties located between Locan Avenue and DeWolf Avenue.

APN/Owner: 553-030-05/Zepeda and 565-042-14/Samarin.

Staff: Ryan C. Burnett, Engineering Program Supervisor
Recommendation: Approve

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res. 23-___ Resolution of Necessity – APNs 553-030-05 and 565 - 042-14

2. Locations Map

3. Notice of Hearing

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to hold a public hearing and approve the attached Resolution of Necessity (Attachment 1), approving the eminent domain process to acquire property for public street purposes at the northeast corner of Herndon and DeWolf Avenues and the southeast corner of Herndon and Locan Avenues (Attachment 2).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to approve a Resolution of Necessity approving the eminent domain process to acquire right-of-way for the widening of Herndon Avenue in the vicinity from Temperance to DeWolf Avenues. Staff has not been able to come to an agreement with the property owners to purchase the needed right -of-way. This action is to avoid further delays in the construction of improvements to Herndon Avenue from Temperance to DeWolf Avenues.

45 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

California Code of Civil Pr ocedure Section 1245.240 requires the Resolution of Necessity be approved by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the City Council.

BACKGROUND
City staff is currently in discussion with Jose and Carmen Zepeda property owners of APN 553- 030-05 and Wi lliam, Cheryl, and Timothy Samarin property owners of APN 565 -042-14 respectively. The acquisitions consist of 2,655 square feet of new street right-of-way across APN 553-030-05 and 16,520 square feet of new street right -of-way across APN 565 -042-14.

Attachment 1A shows the areas needing to be acquired (see Attachment 2).

This right-of-way is needed for the widening of Herndon Avenue from Temperance Avenue to DeWolf Avenue. Improvements to Herndon Avenue includes construction to finish lanes, curb, gutter, drive approaches, curb ramps, landscaping, irrigation, and paving and overlay as necessary to match the existing pavement.

City staff ha ve been working with the property owners since September 2021 to come to an agreement for the acquisitions. Sta ff has worked with the property owners to try to address issues and questions they have related to the acquisition and the future development of their properties. Due to lack of agreement on the terms of the acquisition and timing of the Herndon Avenue street improvements, staff is moving forward with this request for the City Council to approve the Resolution of Necessity and authorize staff to begin the eminent domain process, if necessary. The Resolution of Necessity is the first step in the eminent domain process.

Staff will continue to work with these property owners with the goal of coming to an agreement on the terms of the right -of-way acquisition; however, the start of construction related activities on Herndon Avenue will be delayed if right-of-way is not acquired in a timely manner.

The property owners have been notified of the public hearing date and their right to appear and be heard on the Resolution of Necessity. Council is advised that the only issues under consideration at the public hearin g are considering necessity to invoke eminent domain, and whether there exist relevant findings required for adopting a Resolution of Necessity. The fair market value of the property is not a proper topic for consideration or discussion at the Resolution of Necessity hearing.

The findings for the Resolution of Necessity are:

1. Public interest and necessity require the proposed project;

2. The proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;

3. The property described in the Resolution is necessary for the proposed project;

4. An offer to acquire the real property, pursuant to section 7267.2 of the Government Code, was made to the owners of record as provided by law;

5. The City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the portion of the property described herein.
46 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

6. The City has fully complied with all provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project and related right-of-way acquisitions are budgeted and funded by Measure "C" with a local match. There are no fiscal impacts to the City of Clovis.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The eminent domain action is necessary to acquire the necessary right -of-way and allow the improvements to Herndon Avenue between Temperance and DeWolf Avenue to proceed.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will pursue the eminent domain action in the manner required by law.

Prepared by: Jomar Rushdan, Management Analyst

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
47 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 23-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS DETERMINING THAT

THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR

PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN

WHEREAS, it appears necessary and desirable that the City of Clovis (hereinafter "City"), acquire public street easements on and over portions of two parcels of real property commonly known as APN 553 -030-05 and A PN 565 -042-14, which are more particularly described as set forth in Attachment A, and as depicted in Attachment B attached hereto (the easement interests are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"); and

WHEREAS, the underlying project for which the Property is needed is the widening and related improvements to Herndon Avenue from Temperance Avenue to DeWolf Avenue, CIP No. 16 -09 (“Project”), and this resolution is necessary to acquire the Property, consisting of public street easements over approximately 2,655 square feet from APN 553-030-05 and 16,520 square feet from APN 565-042-14, for the Project; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Hearing on the Intent of the City Council of the City of Clovis (hereinafter "Council") to Adopt the Resolution of Necessity was mailed to the record owners of the Property in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235(a) and (b).

The Notice of Hearing advised the property owners of their right to be heard on the matters referred to therein on the date and at the time and place stated therein; and

WHEREAS, the hearing set out in the Notice of Hearing was duly held on February 21, 2023 at the time and place stated therein, and all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing was then closed and the matter considered by the Council, all in accordance with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, this Council has received and considered all relevant facts and evidence, including, but not limited to, the Planning and Development Services staff r eport and matters referenced therein; facts which are otherwise commonly known and matters of public record; and all other relevant and proper evidence offered at the hearing by staff, affected property owners who made timely requests for hearing, and others who appeared and were heard.

48 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Clovis by a vote of not less than 2/3 of its members, declares, finds, and resolves as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and, by this reference, incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The staff report for this Resolution of Necessity and all Attachments thereto and all Exhibits attached to this Resolution are incorporated by reference.

2. The City is authorized to acquire the Property for the Project by eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Section 37350.5 and 40404 of the California Government Code.

3. The Property to be acquired is generally located on Herndon Avenue between Locan Avenue and DeWolf Avenue, in the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California. The interests in the Property to be taken consists of those certain easements hereinafter described in the legal description attached as Attachment A, and depicted in the diagram attached as Attachment B.

4. Based on all evidence presented in this matter, the Council specifically finds and determines that:

a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project.

b. The proposed Project is planned or located i n the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

c. The Property as described is necessary for the proposed Project.

d. The offers required by Section 7267 .2 of the Government Code have been made to the identified and known owners of record of the Property.

e. The City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the portion of the Property described herein.

5. The easement interests in the Property which are authorized to be acquired by this resolution are as delineated on the attached exhibits, being real property completely situated within the territorial boundaries of the City.

6. The City plans th at the date of use of the Property for the Project will be within seven years from the date the complaint for eminent domain proceedings is filed.

49 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

7. The City Attorney of the City of Clovis is authorized and directed to institute and conduct to conclusion in the name of the City, proceedings in eminent domain. The proceedings are to be in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure in order to acquire in the name of the City easements i n and to a portion of the Property herein described and such other interests as may be necessary for construction and operation of the Project. This Council finds and determines the public interest, necessity, and welfare require prejudgment possession of the Property as soon as the same may be lawfully obtained. The City Attorney is authorized and directed to obtain such possession.

8. The Director of Finance of the City is authorized to pay, out of funds authorized or received, for the acquisition of the Property, for prejudgment possession of the Property, and for all other costs and expenses of acquisition, including, but not limited to, final compensation for the take and all fees and costs charged for City services in connection with this litigation.

9. The City Manager and City Attorney are hereby authorized, without further action of this Council, to enter into any settlement regarding acquisition of the Property by way of agreement and/or stipulation so long as the settlement is based upon approv ed evidence and appraisal opinion.

* * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on February 21, 2023, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: February 21, 2023

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

50 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

APN: A Portion of 553-030-05
Herndon Avenue Right-of-Way Dedication

That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 2134, Sierra View Estates, according to the map thereof recorded in Volume 23 of Plats, at Page 57, Fresno County Records, lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to the Official Plat thereof, in the State of California, C ounty of Fresno, more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the North Quarter corner of said Section 2; thence South 0°06'55" West, along the West line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 115.66 feet; thence South 89°53'05" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the East line of Locan Avenue, as shown on said Tract Map and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence South 72°30'44" East, along the South line of Herndon Avenue, as shown on said Tract Map, a distance of 10.48 feet to a point of intersection thereof with a line which is parallel with and 40.00 feet East of said West line;
thence South 0°06'55" West, along said parallel line, a distance of 238.97 feet;

thence South 11°25'31" West, a distance of 50.99 feet to the East line of said Locan Avenue and a point of intersection thereof with a line which is parallel with and 30.00 feet East of said West line;
thence North 0°06'55" East, along last said parallel line, a distance of 292.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 2,655 square feet or 0.06 acres, more or less.

The above described Right-of-Way Dedication is graphically depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" and made a part of this description by reference thereto.

END DESCRIPTION

This legal description was prepared by me, or under my direction, in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors' Act.

Blair, Church & Flynn
April 2. 2021
Date
P:1218-03691_Docwnents \Legaldescription \553-030-05\218369_APN -553-030-05_ROW_Herndon_Legaldescription.Docx Attachment A of Attachment 1 51
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
...t_

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

APN: A Portion of 565-042-14
Herndon Avenue Right-of-Way Dedication

A portion of that parcel of land granted by that Gift Deed, recorded December 30, 1993, as Document No. 93204334, of Official Records of Fresno County, lying in the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to the Official Plat thereof, in the State of California, County of Fresno, more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00°46'17" East, along the West line said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 50.17 feet; thence South 89°13'43" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to a point of intersection thereof with a line which is parallel with and 30.00 feet East of said West line and the POINT OF BEGINNING;

thence North 00°46'17" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 3.47 feet; thence leaving said parallel line, South 45°08'00" East, a distance of 28.15 feet; thence North 89°33'40" East, a distance of 600.38 feet to a point of intersection thereof with a line which is parallel with and

43.00 feet North of the South line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 89°33'27" East, along last said parallel line, a distance of 455.38 feet; thence leaving last said parallel line, South 88°40'34" East, a distance of 845.10 feet to a point of intersection thereof with a line which is parallel with and 30.00 feet North of said South line; thence North 89°33'27" West, along last said parallel line, a distance of 1,900.93 feet to the northeasterly line of that certain parcel of land as described in the Grant Deed to the County of Fresno, recorded February 23, 1995 as Document No. 95023556, Official Records of said County; thence North 44°23'34" West, leaving last said parallel line and along said northeasterly line, a distance of 28.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 16,520 square feet or 0.38 acres, more or less.

END DESCRIPTION

This legal description was prepared by me, or under my direction, in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors' Act.

Type text here

Analisa RaquelGnzales,PLS9496
Blair, Church & Flynn

April 2, 2021
Date

P:1218,0369 \_Documents \Legaldescription \565-042-141218369_APN -565-042-14_ROW_Legaldescription.Docx 52 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Attachment B of Attachment 1
53 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
54 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

E Herndon Ave
N Locan Ave
Copyright nearmap 2015
µ
553-030-05
Zepeda Jose Luis & Carmen
Existing Property Lines ROW to be Acquired
55 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

CIP 16-09
APN: 565-042-14
ROW2020-14
Existing Property Line ROW to be Acquisition4/26/2021 0 5025Feet De Wolf
De
Wolf
Locust
Herndon
Alluvial
Copyright nearmap 2015
56 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Attachment 3
57 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
58 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
59 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
60 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
61 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
62 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
63 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
64 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – Res. 23-___, AC2022-001, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Clovis making findings and tentatively approving petition for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 , and authorizing the recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancelation for property located near the southeast corner of Shaw and De Wolf Avenues. Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., applicant; Frank and Georgia W. Sorrenti, property owners.

Staff: George González, Senior Planner
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution, AC2022-001, Conditions of Approval

2. Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract Submitted by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., With Specified Alternative Use of Land

3. Certificate of Tentative Cancellation

4. Cancellation Valuation Issued by the Fresno County Assessor’s Office

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution (Attachment 1) making findings and tentatively approving petition for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 and authorizing the recording of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted a petition (Attachment 2) to cancel Agricultural Land Conservation Contract No. 6273, for approximately 35.71 acres of land located near the southeast corner of Shaw and De Wolf Avenues (see Figure 1 below). The subject parcel is part of the Loma Vista 65 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Community Centers North and South Master Plan, which was approved by the City Council in 2009.

FIGURE 1
Project Location Map

BACKGROUND
Frank and Georgia W. Sorrenti are the owners of real property subject to Agricultural Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 and have petitioned the City of Clovis for cancellation of said contract in order to proceed with development.

Williamson Act and Land Conservation Contracts

The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was enacted in 1965 to preserve a gricultural and open space lands from unnecessary conversion to urban uses. A Williamson Act contract is a voluntary contract between the property owner and the County, in which the property owner would like to restrict their land to agricultural and open space uses only. In return for this land use restriction, the property owner receives lower property tax assessments each fiscal year while the contract is in effect. Williamson Act contracts are 10 - year contracts that automatically renew each year on January 1 st, unless the property owner opts out. There are two ways for a property owner to exit the cont ract. First, the owner may record a notice of nonrenewal on their own initiative, which then requires 10 years for the contract to expire. Second, the owner may petition the local agency to cancel the contract. The second Shaw Avenue
De Wolf Avenue
AC2022-001
66 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
option can be immediate, but it is subject to the discretion of the local agency and requires that findings be made and a cancellation fee to be paid.

In Fresno County, Williamson Act contracts are initiated by the property owner while the real property is in the County and the contracts typically expire before annexation occurs into the City. However, the City can agree to succeed to the contract and then becomes responsible for administering the contract and ultimately considering a cancellation, if proposed.

Subject Property and Zoning
The property subject to Agricultural Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 is located near the southeast corner of De Wolf and Shaw Avenues. As indicated above, the property is part of the Loma Vista Community Centers North and South Master Plan and it is currently zoned P-C-C (Planned Commercial Center), R-4 (High Density Residential) and P-F (Public Facility). In order to proceed with development of this land, the City Council must approv e the removal of this parcel from the agricultural land conservation contract according to the requirements of the Williamson Act.

Cancellation Process
Before cancellation can be considered, the owner must have first filed a notice of non -renewal for the contract. The cancellation process then consists of the City Council conducting a public hearing, making specific findings required by the Williamson Act, and setting a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% of the land’s current fair market value. The cancellation fee is set by statute and cannot be changed or waived by the City for this proposed cancellation. Along with the payment of the cancellation fee, the City must also include a condition of approval requiring that the owner obtain permits for the alternative (non -Williamson Act) land use on the subject property (Attachment A of Attachment 1 ). After the public hearing is held and the c onditions outlined have been approved, the City Council may issue a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation (Attachment 3). As soon as the conditions are satisfied by the Landowner , a Certificate of Cancellation may be issued . T he applicant must complete th e conditions within one year of issuance of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation.

Appraisal to Determine Fair Market Value and Cancellation Fee Pursuant to Government Code Section 51283(a), the County Assessor performed an appraisal of the affected property and determined the 35.71-acre parcel’s current fair market value to be $6,900,000 ( Attachment 4). Based upon the assessment, the cancellation fee of 12 .5% is $862,500.

PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
Williamson Act Required Findings (Government Code Section 51282)

If the City Council wishes to proceed with the cancellation, it must, after receiving public testimony, approve a resolution making the following five findings:

1. A notice of nonrenewal has been served;

2. Cancellation is not likely to result in removal of adjacent land from agricultural use; 67 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

3. The alternative use is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Loma Vista Specific Plan;

4. Discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result; and

5. There is no pr oximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land, or, development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land.

Information in Support of the City’s Findings

As indicated above, to cancel the contract, the City Council must make the findings required under Government Code Section 51282. The information in support of the required findings is discussed below.

1. Notice of nonrenewal was prepared and recorded on Monday, January 23, 2023 . City staff has verified that the notice of nonrenewal has been recorded and the Council may now consider the proposed cancellation.

2. Cancellation of the affected parcel will not result in subsequent removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. The property is surrounded by urban development or land planned for urban development by the Loma Vista Specific Plan.

3. The alternative use of the property is consistent with City’s General Plan and Loma Vista Specific Plan . The proposed alternative use is for commercial, retail, multi -family residential, and public facility uses, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Loma Vista Specific Plan.

4. Discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result. The subject parcel is surrounded by, and is contiguous to, existing and planned urban development.

Discontiguous patterns of development will not occur.

5. The subject parcel is surrounded by existing and planned urban development. The property provides for more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontract land. The cancellation will allow contiguous urban development consistent with the City’s General Plan and Loma Vista Specific Plan.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Project is in substantial conformance with the environmental analysis performed for Rezone 2008-007 and Site Plan Review 2008-010 (Community Centers North and South Master Plan).

No major revisions wil l be required with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to accommodate the proposed project, therefore, subject to CEQA Sections 15162 and 15182, no further environmental review is required for this project.

The City published notice of this public hearing in The Business Journal on Friday, February 3, 2023.

68 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
California Government Code Section 51200 et seq. designates the City as the administrative authority to respond to petitions for cancellation when made on land which is in the City’s jurisdiction.

In light of the above findings, this application for cancellation of an agricultural preserve contract meets the requirements of the Williamson Act. Furthermore, the findings for cancellation, required by Government Code Section 51282, can be supported. Therefore, staff recommends that a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation be issued.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. Property owner is required to pay the cancellation fee ( $862,500) directly to the County Treasurer, with evidence of such payment being certified to the City by the Treasurer.

2. Within 30 days of the Co uncil decision, a notice of the decision will be published in the Business Journal in the form of a display ad, and the notice will be submitted to the Director of Conservation within 30 days of the decision.

3. A certificate of tentative cancellation will be recorded in the Fresno County recorder’s office.

4. Property owner must obtain approvals from the City for the alternative use (non-Williamson Act) of the property.

5. After notice from the Landowner that the cancellation fee has been paid and approvals for the alternative use of the property have been obtained, a Certificate of Cancellation will be prepared for the Mayor’s signature, recorded with the County Recorder, and a copy sent to the State Director of Conservation as required by Government Code Secti on 51283.4(b).

Upon recordation, the cancellation becomes effective.

Prepared by: George González, Senior Planner

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
69 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment 1

RESOLUTION 23-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS MAKING FINDINGS

AND TENTATIVELY APPROVING PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT NO. 6273 AND FINDING THE PROJECT IN SUBSTANTIAL

CONFORMANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED FOR REZONE 2008-007 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 2008-010 (COMMUNITY CENTERS NORTH AND SOUTH MASTER PLAN) PURSUANT TO CEQA SECTIONS 15162 AND 15182, AND

AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF A CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (the Williamson Act, Government Code section 51200 et seq.), the City of Clovis is the administrative authority to consider petitions for cancellation of land conservation contracts within the City’s jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, Frank and Georgia W. Sorrenti, are the owners of real property who hold a portion of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 and ha ve petitioned the City of Clovis for cancellation of said contract in order to convert the agricultural use to urban use consistent with the City’s General Plan, Loma Vista Specific Plan and the Community Centers North and South Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, the owners petitioned the City for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 governing their property; and

WHEREAS, a description of the boundaries of the territory to be cancelled is set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation of the land conservation contract shall be subject to a condition requiring the payment of the cancellation fee ($862,500.00) equal to 12½% of the land’s assessed value ($6,900,000.00) directly to the County Treasurer. If the fee is not paid within one year of the issuance of the Certificate of Tentative Canc ellation, the land’s value shall be reassessed; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation of the land conservation contract shall be subject to a condition requiring that the landowner obtain all permits necessary to commence the alternative land use project on the subject property; and

WHEREAS, the City published notice of the Public Hearing in the Fresno Business Journal, mailed public notices to all landowners (in accordance with Government Code Section 51284) with similar contracted property within a one -mile radius of said property boundaries ten days prior to the Public Hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the Public Hearing according to applicable law; and
70 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held on February 21, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to the cancellation of that portion of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273 on February 21, 2023, and considered the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record which determines that the Project is in substantial conformance with the environmental analysis performed for Rezone 2008 -007 and Site Plan Review 2008 -010 (Community Centers North and South Master Plan); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and consid ered the entire Administrative Record relating to the Project, which is on file with the Department, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessa rily limited to, the staff report, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing, and the conditions of approval attached as Attachment A to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, the City finds and resolves as follows:

1. Findings:

A. Notice of nonrenewal has been served:

A notice of nonrenewal has been served to the City by the property and said notice has been recorded in the Fresno County Recorder’s Office.

B. Cancellation is not likely to result in removal of adjacent land from agricultural use:

The surrounding land uses are urban or planned for urban uses consistent with the City’s General Plan, Loma Vista Specific Plan and the Community Centers North and South Master Plan. Since the surrounding area is planned for urban development, cancellation will not result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use.

C. Alternative use is consistent with City’s General Plan:

The proposed alternative uses are for commercial, retail, multi-family residential, and public facility developments. These uses are consistent with the City’s General Plan, Loma Vista Specific Plan and the Community Centers North and South Master Plan.

71 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

D. Discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result:

The subject parcel is surrounded by existing and planned urban devel opment. The property provides for more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontract land. The cancellation will allow contiguous urban development consistent with the City’s General Plan, Loma Vista Specific Plan and the Community Centers North and South Master Plan.

E. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land ; or, development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of ur ban development than development of proximate noncontracted land.

The subject parcel is surrounded by existing and planned urban development. The property provides for more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontract land. The cancellation will allow contiguous urban development consistent with the City’s General Plan and Loma Vista Specific Plan.

2. Based on the findings described above, which are de tailed in the February 21, 2023, staff report incorporated herein by reference, the entire Administrative Record in this proceeding, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing on February 21, 2023, the City Council hereby resolves as follows:

A. The City Council hereby approves AC2022-001, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution.

B. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to this end the City Council finds that the Project is in substantial conformance with the environmental analysis performed for Rezone 2008 -007 and Site Plan Review 2008 -010 (Community Centers North and South Master Plan). No major revisions will be required with the adopted Mitigated Negative D eclaration to accommodate the proposed project, therefore, subject to CEQA Sections 15162 and 15182, no further environmental review is required for this project.

C. A certificate of tentative cancellation in a form substantially as set forth in Attachment B hereto shall be recorded in the office of the Fresno County Recorder.

72 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

* * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on February 21, 2023, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: February 21, 2023

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

73 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment A

Conditions of Approval – AC2022-001

Planning Division Comments
(George González, Senior Planner - (559) 324-2383)

1. Landowner shall pay the cancellation fee ($862,500) equal to 12½% of the land’s assessed value ($6,900,000) directly to the County Treasurer. Unless the fee is paid, or a certificate of cancellation of contract is issued within one year from the date of the valuation certified by the assessor , the fee shall be recomputed as provided in Government Code Section 51283.4.

2. Issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation is contingent upon the Landowner obtaining all permits necessary to commence the project.

74 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment B

CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

The City Council of the City of Clovis has, by Resolution No. 23 -___, dated February 21, 2023, granted tentative approval to the petition presented by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273, said contract having been recorded with the Fresno County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 297273, dated February 15, 1977.

This certificate applies to real property situated in the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 555-031-37 and more particularly described in the attached legal description (Exhibit “A”).

A Certificate of Cancellation of the above -described contract shall be issued by the City and recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of Fresno at such time as the following conditions and contingencies are satisfied:

1. The Landowner shall pay the cancellation fee ( $862,500.00) equal to 12½% of the land’s assessed value ($6,900,000.00) directly to the County Tre asurer. Unless the fee is paid, or a certificate of cancellation of contract is issued within one year from the date of the valuation certified by the assessor, the fee shall be recomputed as provided in Government Code Section 51283.4.

2. Issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation is contingent upon the Landowner obtaining all permits necessary to commence the project.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have unto this certificate set my hand and seal this _____day of __________________.

______________________________
Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor

75 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

EXHIBIT A

The land described herein is situated in the State of California, County of Fresno, City of Clovis, described as follows:

The Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 13 South, Range21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to the United States Government Township Plat approved by the Surveyor General on July 15, 1854.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 265 feet of the West 265 feet thereof.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, described as follows:

COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, thence South 89° 56' 55" East, along the South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 20.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 00° 04' 59" West, parallel with and 20.00 feet East of the West line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 375.04 feet, thence North 89° 55' 01" East, a distance of 1.37 feet, thence South 010 18' 59" East, a distance of 375.15 feet to a point on the South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, thence North 89° 56' 55" West, along the South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 9.45 feet to the true point of beginning.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 13 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows:

BEGINNING at the intersection of the East line of that parcel deeded to the County of Fresno for a public road as per deed recorded July 22, 1904 in Book 219, page 375 as Instrument No. 11851 of Deeds, Fresno County Records and the South line of the North 265.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter, thence South 89° 55' 15” East, along the South line of the North 26 5.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 17.00 feet, thence South 0o 04’ 59" East, parallel with and 17.00 feet East of the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, a distance of 1060.25 feet to the intersection with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter, thence North 890 56’ 55” West, along the South line of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 7.55 feet, thence North 1' 18’ 59" West, a distance of 375.15 feet, thence South 89° 55’ 01" West, a distance of 1.37 feet to the intersection with the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, thence North 0° 04’ 59” West, along the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, a distance of 685.22 feet to the P oint of Beginning.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 55 feet thereof.

76 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

T
O: George González , City of Clovis
F
ROM: Precision Civil Engineering
RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancelation – AC2022-001
Date: December 2, 2022
G
eorge,
P
lease accept this letter as written request for cancelation of the Williamson Act Contract on the property located at 352 0 Shaw Avenue (APN 555- 031-37). Should you have any questions or required additional information, please feel free to reach out.

S
incerely,
K
elsey George, Senior Planner
1234 O Street ∙ Downtown Fresno, CA 93721 ∙ Phone (559) 449-4500 ∙ Fax (559) 449-4515 ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 2
77 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Findings for Williamson Act Contract Cancellation
Southeast of Shaw Avenue and De Wolf Avenue, City of Clovis Per Government Code Section 51282:
a. That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act.

The purpose of the Williamson Act is to restrict specific parcels to agricultural or related open space use.

The subject parcel (APN 555-031-37) is within the city of Clovis and is zoned and planned for urban use , including residential, commercial, and public facilities. Since the parcel is not designated for agricultural use, the cancellation is consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act. b. That cancellation is in the public interest.

The parcel is within the city of Clovis and is zoned and planned for urban use. The cancellation application facilitates a mixed-use development, as intended in the city of Clovis General Plan. Thus, the cancellation is in the public interest.
c. That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245.

A notice of non -renewal is required for the Williamson Act Cancellation and will be filed as specified by the city. The notarized non -renewal document will be returned to the city for recordation in order to continue processing of the cancellation of the subject parcel. d. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.

The parcel currently contains three (3) structures and dirt roads, and the land is primarily operated as agricultural use. The parcel is surrounded by single-family residential use (west and north) and vacant or agricultural lands (north, east, and south ). The parcel and its surroundings are located within city limits and is zoned and planned for urban use. As such, the cancellati on is not likely to result in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.
e. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan.

The city of Clovis General Plan identified Lom a Vista Urban Center, inclusive of the subject parcel, “to promote a high quality residential community focused around two community centers, a business campus, and the Reagan Educational Center.” The parcel is in the P-C-C Planned Commercial Center, R -4 H igh Density Multiple Family Residential, and P -F Public Facilities zoning district with a planned use for MU-V Mixed Use Village, VH Very High Density Residential, and P Public Facilities. The proposed commercial and residential mixed-use of the parcel, is consistent with current zone districts as well as the provisions of the General Plan and the Urban Center’s guiding plan – Loma Vista Community Center Master Plan. f. That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development.

The subject parcel is in the P -C-C Planned Commercial Center, R -4 High Density Multiple Family Residential, and P -F Public Facilities zoning district with a planned use for MU-V Mixed Use Village, VH Very High Density Reside ntial, and P Public Facilities . The parcel is within the city of Clovis and is 78 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
surrounded by planned urban uses , thus it would not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development.
g. That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patters of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land.

The parcel is zoned and pl anned for urban uses in the Loma Vista Urban Area. The parcel is surrounded by single-family residential use (west and north) and vacant lands (north, east, and south). The parcel and its surrounding areas are intended for urban development, per the city of Clovis General Plan Land Use Map (last modified on October 13 , 2017). The cancellation will facilitate the development of the parcel consistent with current zoning and planned land use.

Properties in the vicinity of the subject parcel are all noncontracted land. Lands that are not developed to its zoning potential include properties north, east, and west of the subject parcel. Regarding suitability for the proposed use, properties north and south of the subject parcel are ruled out since zoning does not allow the mixed-use development on those parcels. As such, only the properties east of the subject parcel are both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put. However, this property is already approved for development and is thus not a viable alternative.

However, the development of the subject parcel would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of the land on its west. This is because urban development of the city of Clovis expands from west to east. Additionally, properties west of the subject parcel are developed with residential uses, thus the proposed development would be contiguous of existing development. 79 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment 3

CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

The City Council of the City of Clovis has, by Resolution No. 23-___, dated February 21, 2023, granted tentative approval to the petition presented by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 6273, said contract having been recorded with the Fresno County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 297273, dated February 15, 1977.

A Certificate of Cancellation of the above-described contract shall be issued by the City and recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of Fresno at such time as the following conditions and contingencies are satisfied:

1. The Landowner shall pay the cancellation fee ($862,500.00) equal to 12½% of the land’s assessed value ( $6,900,000.00) directly to the County Treasurer. Unless the fee is paid, or a certificate of cancellation of contract is issued within one year from the date of the valuation certified by the assessor, the fee shall be recomputed as provided in Government Code Section 51283.4.

2. Issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation is contingent upon the Landowner obtaining all permits necessary to commence the project.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have unto this certificate set my hand and seal this _____day of __________________.

______________________________
Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor

80 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

EXHIBIT A

The land described herein is situated in the State of California, County of Fresno, City of Clovis, described as follows:

The Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 13 South, Range21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, accord ing to the United States Government Township Plat approved by the Surveyor General on July 15, 1854.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 265 feet of the West 265 feet thereof.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, described as follows:

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 13 South, Ra nge 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows:

BEGINNING at the intersection of the East line of that parcel deeded to the County of Fresno for a public road as per deed recorded July 22, 1904 in Book 219, page 375 as Instrument No. 11851 of Deeds, Fresno County Records and the South line of the North 265.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter, thence South 89° 55' 15” East, along the South line of the North 265.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 17.00 feet, thence South 0o 04’ 59" East, parallel with and 17.00 feet East of the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, a distance of 1060.25 feet to the intersection with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter, thence North 890 56’ 55” West , along the South line of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 7.55 feet, thence North 1' 18’ 59" West, a distance of 375.15 feet, thence South 89° 55’ 01" West, a distance of 1.37 feet to the intersection with the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, thence North 0° 04’ 59” West, along the East line of said parcel deeded to the County of Fresno, a distance of 685.22 feet to the Point of Beginning.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 55 feet thereof.

81 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
82 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment 4
83 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Attachment 4
84 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration Department
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Receive and File – Public Utilities Department Update.

Staff: Scott Redelfs, Public Utilities Director
Recommendation: Receive and File

ATTACHMENTS: 1. None.

Public Utilities Director Scott Redelfs will provide a verbal presentation on this item.

Please direct questions to the City Manager’s office at 559-324-2060. 85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Department
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider – Various Options Addressing the Findings and Recommendations Provided by the Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Regarding the Required Zero-Emission Conversion of the Transit Fleet.

Staff: Amy Hance, General Services Manager
Recommendation: Consider and Provide Direction

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Clovis Transit Fleet Zero-Emission Feasibility Study

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to consider options and provide direction addressing the findings and recommendations in the Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study regarding the required zero-emission conversion of the Transit fleet.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) implemented the Innovative Clean Transit Rule (ICT), which mandates the transition of all public transit fleets to 100% zero -emission vehicles. Clovis Transit is required to complete several elements inside the ICT Rule including a non-binding Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan (ZEB Rollout Plan) that must be submitted to CARB by July 1, 2023. To better understand what the conversion to a zero-emission fleet would look like for Clovis Transit, staff successfully competed for a Sustainable Communities Grant that funded an electrification master plan. The plan, entitled The Clovis Transit Electrification Feasibility Study, was authored by a tea m led by CALSTART, a consul ting firm focusing on sustainable fuels and clean technologies. The study has determined the cost of vehicles, infrastructure, and land to accommodate the vehicles and infrastructure. The costs for a 86 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
maintenance facility, adminis trative offices, and other associated operational needs are not included in the estimate. Four scenarios were developed: a battery-electric fleet, a hydrogen fuel cell fleet, a hybrid fleet with a combination of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell, or the option to purchase enough internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to meet service needs until zero- emission vehicle technology and grid capacity mature. Once staff has received direction from the City Council, this information will be used to inform the required ZEB Rollout Plan. As the conversion to a zero -emission transit fleet progresses, staff will provide regular updates to council and will modify the non-binding Fleet Rollout Plan as required by CARB.

BACKGROUND
The CARB ICT Rule requires all public transit operators in California to begin working toward a zero-emission fleet. Clovis Transit has been designated a ‘small fleet operator’ and as such, is required to meet two primary elements:

 Submit a non-binding ZEB Fleet Rollout Plan to CARB by July 1, 2023  Adhere to a graduated zero-emission vehicle purchasing schedule, which is:
o Any v ehicle purchases made in 2026 – 2028 must includ e at least 25% zero - emission vehicles.
o Any vehicle purchase in 2029 or later must be 100% zero-emission.

Transit staff has been working closely over the past two (2) years with a consultant team led by CALSTART to develop The Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Plan. This plan analyzed the current transit fleet and service levels, and then used that data to model the co st of four scenarios that would comply with the ICT Rule. Much of the modeling was completed in 2021 and 2022 and reflects costs from those years. Escalations in the cost of materials, goods, and services are anticipated as the conversion to zero -emission commences in the future. The actual capital investment required to adhere to the ICT may be much greater than what’s reflected in the study, but for now, the document is a snapshot of what will be needed to attain compliance.

The Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Plan provides a significant amount of data about fleet conversion beginning in 2024 through 2040 using assumptions that may or may not hold true as the conversion to zero-emission progresses. Technology in the zero-emission space is changing rapidly and while the plan provides an in-depth analysis, the first step in the process is to decide whether to move forward with zero -emission fleet con version now or wait for the vehicles, infrastructure, and power grid to mature to a point where the path way to conversion has less unknowns and is more predictable.

The plan estimate s one-time capital investment costs, and expenses that will be incurred annually for each of the four scenarios. The land costs are based on the amount of space needed to install the fueling infrastructure, parking for vehicles, and additional facility upgrades. Facility upgrades are the required adjacent infrastructure necess ary to support zero -emission fueling and could include transformer upgrades, permitting, gas detection systems, etc.

87 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Projected costs are below and have been split into estimated one-time costs and annual costs.

One-Time Costs

*BEB: Battery Electric Bus
*FCEB: Fuel Cell Electric Bus (Hydrogen)
*ICE: Internal Combustion Engine

Annual Costs

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the required co nversion of the Clovis Transit fleet to zero -emission is estimated to be between $33.3 million to $41. 1 million. These estimates include the capital required to purchase vehicles, land, and infrastructure. There will be significant additional investments in maintenance facilities, administrative facilities, and other associated oper ational needs which have not yet been determined. Funding for the project will be through a variety of federal, state, and local grants.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
Clovis Transit is mandated under the ICT Rule to submit a non -binding Zero-Emission Rollout Plan to CARB by July 1, 2023. Staff is requesting City Council direction regarding the chosen zero-emission fueling strategy scenario. Prior to submission to CARB, the Zero-Emission Rollout Plan will be brought back to City Council for review and approval through a resolution.

Fleet Mix Total No.

Vehicles Vehicle Cost
Fueling
Infrastructure
Cost
Land Cost Facility
Upgrades Training TOTAL
100% BEB 57 $30.7 million $5.8 million $3.6 million $1 million $78,000 $41.1 million 100% FCEB 35 $20.4 million $4.6 million $3.6 million $1.5 million $153,000 $30.2 million Mixed Fleet 37 $22.1 million $4.8 million $3.7 million $2.5 million $232,000 $33.3 million ICE Fleet 35 $11.7 million N/A N/A N/A N/A $11.7 million Fleet Mix Total No.

Vehicles Fuel Cost Maintenance
Cost TOTAL
100% BEB 57 $358,000 $279,000 $637,000
100% FCEB 35 $1.1 million $326,000 $1.4 million
Mixed Fleet 37 $464,000 $309,000 $773,000
ICE Fleet 35 $165,000 $450,000 $615,000
88 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Transit staff will prepare the Zero-Emission Rollout Plan and resolution, and then will bring both back to City Council for review and approval. Staff will develop a project plan to implement council’s direction for zero-emission conversion of the transit fleet.

Prepared by: Amy Hance, General Services Manager

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
89 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Fleet
Electrification Feasibility
Study
Katrina Sutton
Bryan Lee
Kristian Jokinen
February 2023
Final Report
ATTACHMENT 1 90
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study i Acknowledgments
This report was made possible by generous support from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The authors would like to thank key CALSTART staff for their critical review of and additions to this report, including Emily Varnell, Fred Silver, Mike Hynes, Jared Schnader, Susan Cavan, Sara Stith, Aditya Kushwah, and Deepak Tripathi. Any errors are the authors’ own.

CALSTART
www.CALSTART.org
@CALSTART
© Copyright 2023 CALSTART
91 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. iv Figures and Tables ....................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 1 ZEB Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Replacement Plan ................................................................................................................. 2 Route Modeling Results ......................................................................................................... 2 Charging and Fuel Cost Consideration ............................................................................... 2 Depot Conceptual Design .................................................................................................... 4 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................. 4 Maintenance Considerations ............................................................................................... 4 Estimated Costs and Financial Resources ........................................................................... 5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 5 I. Introduction to Zero-Emission Buses .......................................................................................... 7 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 7 Overview of ZEBs .................................................................................................................... 7 Charging Infrastructure for Electric Buses .......................................................................... 13 Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Overview ........................................................................ 19 Route Modeling .................................................................................................................... 22 Charging and Fueling Cost Considerations ...................................................................... 25 Resiliency ............................................................................................................................... 31 Training and Workforce Development .............................................................................. 39 Maintenance Costs .............................................................................................................. 45 Financing Strategies & Resources....................................................................................... 54 II. Clovis Transit ............................................................................................................................. 64 Clovis Transit Overview ........................................................................................................ 64 Clovis Transit Fleet................................................................................................................. 64 Energy Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 64 Fleet Replacement Plan ...................................................................................................... 68 Utility Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 70 92 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study iii I
nfrastructure Analysis .......................................................................................................... 72 Resiliency ............................................................................................................................... 76 Depot Conceptual Design .................................................................................................. 78 Estimated Costs .................................................................................................................... 79 Financing Strategy ............................................................................................................... 88 III. Sustainability and Environmental Impact ............................................................................. 92 GHG Emissions Comparisons ............................................................................................... 92 Battery Recycling ................................................................................................................. 94 Fuel Cell Stack/Module Recycling ..................................................................................... 97 References .................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix A: ZEB Specifications ................................................................................................ 101 Appendix B: Charging Infrastructure Specifications ............................................................... 111 Appendix C: Managed Storage Solutions ............................................................................... 124 Appendix D: Energy Storage Solutions ..................................................................................... 129 Appendix E: Clovis Transit Route Modeling Results ................................................................. 140 Appendix F: Clovis Transit Conceptual Framework and Supporting Documents ................ 142 Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report ............................ 152 Appendix H: ICE Bus Fleet Cost Calculation Report ............................................................... 173 93 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
AC alternate current
APCD Air Pollution Control District
AQMD Air Quality Management District
BEB battery-electric bus
BEV Electric Schedule Business Electric Vehicle
BTM behind-the-meter
CAPEX capital expenditure
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCS combined charging system
CEC California Energy Commission
CLEEN California Lending for Energy and Environmental Needs CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
CNG compressed natural gas
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e/MWh carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour
CTTC California Transit Training Consortium
DAC disadvantaged community
DAR Dial-A-Ride
94 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

Acronym Definition
DCFC direct current fast charger
DER distributed energy resource
DGS Department of General Services
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EBCM Electric Bus Corridor Model
EnergIIZE Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero -Emission Commercial Vehicles
EV electric vehicle
EVITP Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FCEB fuel cell electric bus
FCRTA Fresno County Rural Transit Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTM front-of-the-meter
GGRF Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
HRDSAM Heavy-Duty Refueling Station Analysis Model
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HVIP Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project 95 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

Acronym Definition
IAAS infrastructure-as-a-service
ICE internal combustion engine
ICT Innovative Clean Transit (regulation)
IIJA Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act
ISRF Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
ITC Investment Tax Credit
kg kilogram
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
lbs. pounds
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
Low-No Low or No Emissions Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOx nitrogen oxides
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OCPP Open Charge Point Protocol
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OpenADR Open Automated Demand Response
OPEX operating expenditure
PEM proton exchange membrane
96 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

vii

Acronym Definition
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM particulate matter
PPA power purchase agreement
PV photovoltaic
RAISE Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity RFID radio frequency identification
RFP Request For Proposal
SARTA Stark Area Regional Transit Authority
SMR steam methane reforming
SOC state of charge
STURAA Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act TCO total cost of ownership
TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program
TOU time-of-use
V volts
VW Volkswagen
ZEB zero-emission bus
97 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study viii Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Burden Map ............................................................. 8 Figure 2. Plug-in Chargers Example ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Buses Parked in Lanes Example (Source: ABB) ....................................................... 14 Figure 4. Overhead Plug-in Charging Example (Source: Burns McDonnell Foothill Transit In-Depot Charging and Planning Study) ................................................................................ 15 Figure 5. In-Depot Overhead Charging Example (Source: CALSTART) ............................... 16 Figure 6. In-Depot Overhead Charging Example (Source: CALSTART) ............................... 17 Figure 7. Inductive Charging at Antelope Valley Transit Authority (Source: CALSTART) .... 18 Figure 8. On-route Overhead Charging (Source: ABB) ......................................................... 19 Figure 9. EV Peak Power Demand Scenarios (Source: CALSTART) ....................................... 33 Figure 10. Typical Hydrogen Contaminants (CARB, 2016) .................................................... 52 Figure 11. Historical LCFS Prices January 2020 – May 2022 (SRECTrade, 2022) ................... 60 Figure 12. Clovis Transit BEB Replacement Plan ..................................................................... 69 Figure 13. Clovis Transit Facility Construction Timeline ........................................................... 72 Figure 14. TCO for BEBs and ICE Vehicles ............................................................................... 80 Figure 15. Annual TCO for ICE Vehicle .................................................................................... 80 Figure 16. Yearly TCO for BEBs .................................................................................................. 83 Figure 17. Annual Discounted TCO for ICE Buses ................................................................... 84 Figure 18. Sensitivity Analysis for Fuel Cost .............................................................................. 85 Figure 19. Annual GHG Emissions by Fuel Pathway ............................................................... 93 98 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
xiCALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Tables
Table ES-1. Cost Breakdown Estimates by Utility Rate and Charging Type ......................... 3 Table ES-2. Onsite Hydrogen Production Equipment Costs .................................................. 3 Table 1. Customizable Parameters for EBCM ......................................................................... 23 Table 2. Daily Energy Consumption and Power Demand .................................................... 33 Table 3. ZEB Maintenance and Operator Training Costs ...................................................... 44 Table 4. Battery Leasing Options ............................................................................................. 55 Table 5. EBCM Fixed-Route Assumptions ................................................................................ 65 Table 6. Fixed-Route Modeling Results .................................................................................... 66 Table 7. FCEB Energy Capacity ............................................................................................... 67 Table 8. Paratransit EBCM Assumptions .................................................................................. 67 Table 9. Paratransit Battery Capacity ..................................................................................... 68 Table 10. Annual Cost Breakdown Estimates by Utility Rate and Charging Type ............... 71 Table 11. Onsite Hydrogen Production Equipment Costs ..................................................... 74 Table 12. Resiliency Analysis ..................................................................................................... 78 Table 13. Electric Equipment for Bus Charging ...................................................................... 78 Table 14. Estimated Costs to Transition to a BEB Fleet ........................................................... 79 Table 15. Overall Discounted Cost to Replace BEBs ($ Millions) ........................................... 82 Table 16. ICE Bus Induction Plan .............................................................................................. 83 Table 17. Annual CAPEX, OPEX, and Discounted TCO for ICE Fleet .................................... 84 Table 18. Mixed Fleet Land Requirements for Infrastructure ................................................. 86 Table 19. One-Time and Annual Costs for Mixed Fleet ......................................................... 87 Table 20. LCFS Credit for Fixed-Route Fleet ............................................................................ 90 Table 21. LCFS Credits for Paratransit Fleet ............................................................................. 91 Table 22. Criteria Pollutants by Fuel Pathway ......................................................................... 94 Table E-1. Route 10 Modeling Results ...................................................................................... 140 Table E-2. Route 50 Modeling Results ...................................................................................... 140 Table E-3. Route 70 Modeling Results ...................................................................................... 141 Table E-4. Route 80 Modeling Results ...................................................................................... 141 Table E-5. Paratransit Route Modeling Results ........................................................................ 141 Table H-1. TCO for ICE Bus Fleet ............................................................................................... 173 Table H-2. Scheduled Replacement Planning of ICE to BEB ................................................ 174 99 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 1 Executive Summary
Project Overview
Clovis Transit provides public transportation to the City of Clovis with four fixed routes (Stageline) and a demand -response paratransit service (Roundup). To roll out a zero - emission bus (ZEB) fleet that will help combat climate change and improve air quality , Clovis Transit is preparing a Transit Fleet Electrification Plan to examine the economic and technological feasibility of this transition . The study is intended to provide transit agency personnel, elected officials , and policymakers with information needed to help make decisions to achieve full deployment of ZEBs and plan in accordance with Califor nia’s Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation, which commences in 2026 for Clovis Transit and mandates that all transit fleets be 100% zero-emission by 2040.

ZEB Introduction
The deployment of a ZEB fleet generates substantial environmental and health benefits for residents within a transit agency's service areas. Two ZEB technologies currently exist:
the battery-electric bus (BEB), which uses electricity from a battery to power the bus, and the hydrogen fuel cell electric bus (FCEB), which uses hydrogen to produce electricity that propels the bus.
• BEBs are propelled by an electrified drivetrain, use batteries to store electricity, produce zero tailpipe emissions, and make little noise when moving. Battery technology is expected to improve over time, and BEBs may become a drop -in replacement for all internal combustion engine (ICE) bus duty cycles in the future. • FCEBs also have an electrified drivetrain to propel the bus but instead use hydrogen to produce electricity. FCEBs have a longer range than BEBs and are generally considered to be a drop-in replacement for an ICE bus, with a refuel time of about 15-20 minutes.
100
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
2 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Replacement Plan
Although the ICT regulation does not obligate Clovis Transit to start purchasing ZEBs until 2026, Clovis Transit plans to transition to zero-emission between 2024 and 2040, with its first three new ZEBs to be deployed by the end of 2024. Clovis Transit is considering expanding the existing service with new routes, increased frequency, and wider service territory. The replacement plan includes additional vehicles for a planned fleet expansion and spare buses. Because of this expansion, Clovis Transit’s fleet is expected to grow from 41 vehicles to 56, including an expected 10 spare buses (four full-sized spares and six small bus spares).

Route Modeling Results
Clovis Transit’s current fleet is made up of 41 vehicles. Bus route modeling for Clovis Transit’s fixed-route service showed that some BEBs cannot serve as a drop -in replacement depending on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). However, it is anticipated that in coming years technological improvements will allow BEBs to serve as a direct replacement for an increasing amount of Clovis Transit's service. On the other hand, both FCEBs used for CALSTART’s route modeling can serve as a drop -in replacement for fixed- route service because their energy capacity exceeds energy demand for each shift.

Results for Clovis Transit’s paratransit fleet, which uses shuttle buses, showed that the BEB tested has sufficient battery capacity to complete the current paratransit duty cycle.

Based on the current cost of ZEBs, fueling infrastructure implications, and Clovis Transit’s needs, BEBs are recommended due to their lower overall total cost of ownership (TCO).

The costs, infrastructure needs, and other considerations behind this recommendation are explained in more detail below.

Charging and Fuel Cost Consideration
The utility costs for a ZEB fleet are dependent on two main factors: energy and power.

There are strategies to reduce utility charges, including overnight charging during off-peak hours, sequentially charging the fleet in different batches, and managed charging. For FCEBs, the cost of hydrogen is influenced by several factors, one of which is the location of hydrogen production. It is important to remember that electricity is a required input to produce hydrogen, and the fueling station uses electricity. The use of hydrogen fuel thus entails operational costs beyond that of the hydrogen and the fueling station. 101
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
3 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study C
lovis Transit’s utility costs were calculated assuming all vehicles charge during off -peak hours. Clovis Transit will be using Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E’s) BEV-2 rates. Because Clovis Transit will need to relocate their depot to house the new electric fleet and this location has not yet been determined, CALSTART wa s unable to account for potential utility upgrades needed and the amount of power available at the future depot in Table ES-1 below.

Table ES-1. Cost Breakdown Estimates by Utility Rate and Charging Type BEV-2 (secondary)
Sequential Unmanaged
OEM 1
Total Annual
Electric Cost
($/yr)
$358,067.10 $367,240.86
OEM 2
Total Annual
Electric Cost
($/yr)
$353,194.00 $373,834.96
OEM 3
Total Annual
Electric Cost
($/yr)
$353,596.82 $371,944.34
If Clovis Transit were to roll out a fleet of FCEBs, the main requirement would be to obtain hydrogen fuel (Table ES-2). Depending on the number of FCEBs Clovis Transit choses to purchase, the cost of refueling can vary. The fleet would consume approximately 1,650 kilograms (kg) of hydrogen per week, which equates to approximately 85,800 kg per year.

Table ES-2. Onsite Hydrogen Production Equipment Costs
Expense Onsite
Electrolysis
Delivered
Liquid
Hydrogen
Delivered
Gaseous
Hydrogen
Onsite
Steam
Methane
Reforming
Offsite
Retail
Fueling
Capital
Expenditure $7,024,829 $3,247,254 $2,658,633 $5,524,829 $0 Annual
Cost of
Hydrogen
Fuel
$1,648,976.16 $1,593,926.88 $1,526,366.40 $1,648,976.16 Offsite
fueling not
currently
available
102
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
4 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Depot Conceptual Design
Clovis Transit needs to identify a possible location for their new transit facility. A hypothetical depot was created to understand the space requirements needed to store and charge a BEB fleet. The depot was assumed to house and charge 21 full- sized BEBs and 35 shuttle buses, which anticipates expansion plans and spare buses. At Clovis Transit’s request, staff parking, a bus wash, and one office/maintenance building were included in the space estimate. The electrical demand of these additional buildings was not assessed. If all of the buses are housed at one location, the space required for bus parking and infrastructure is estimated to be approximately 163,000 square feet or 3.75 acres.

Resiliency
In addition to building a transit facility, installing charging infrastructure is vital for the successful deployment of a BEB fleet. Deploying BEB chargers is more than simply installing the chargers. In addition to front -of-the-meter (FTM) utility infrastructure, electrification requires the deployment of behind-the-meter (BTM) infrastructure (on the customer’s side of the meter).

Clovis Transit faces several unique resiliency risks in the Central Valley that can disrupt utility power to bus yards. Extreme heat, an expected common occurrence as climate change progresses, will further increase the possibility of grid outages and damage to electrica l equipment used by transit agencies. Resiliency can be obtained through FTM and BTM approaches, but since Clovis Transit is using PG&E’s BEV -2 rate, it is unlikely any FTM rates will be applicable. There are many options for Clovis Transit’s BTM resiliency, however.

Since Clovis Transit will need to build a new depot, it will be possible to install a solar photovoltaic and battery storage system, which can be sized to provide resiliency for some or all of Clovis Transit’s needs.

Maintenance Considerations
A number of transit agencies have reported that BEBs have fewer moving parts and therefore fewer parts to replace, meaning the main cost of preventative care is labor and time. While transit agencies have reported some issues regarding unscheduled maintenance for BEBs, which have proved to be costly, OEMs and other transit agencies in California have reported that newer generations of buses have proven to be more reliable and have had lower maintenance costs. FCEBs are unique in that energy is provided to the battery by a fuel cell. Since FCEBs use high pressure gases, many maintenance tasks are similar to that of a compressed natural gas -powered bus. 103
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
5 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study H
owever, the fuel cell and its supporting systems introduce maintenance needs that increase the amount of required maintenance tasks and the overall maintenance cost.

ZEBs have unique systems like electric drivetrains, batteries, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage tanks that require specialized training to service effectively and operate with maximum performance. The City of Clovis’s staff will need training to be able to maintain and repair zero-emission vehicles.

Estimated Costs and Financial Resources
Transitioning to a ZEB fleet will be more expensive than operating an ICE fleet. CALSTART calculated the TCO for operating Clovis Transit’s BEB fleet to be around $58.4 million (with a 14% discount factor and over a 14-year time horizon).

The TCO for Clovis Transit’s ICE bus fleet, calculated over 11 years starting in 2022 when 11 new ICE buses will be added to Clovis Transit’s bus fleet, is estimated to be $2.08 million.

However, due to fluctuations in the economy , fuel cost can impact TCO significantly .

CALSTART completed a sensitivity analysis considering the change in fuel cost from $3 per gallon to $7.5 per gallon.

Clovis Transit will need a financing strategy to transition to zero-emission. Transitioning to a ZEB fleet will require substantial financial resources, but there are myriad financing options for transit age ncies to deploy ZEBs. These include state and federal incentive programs and prospective financing mechanisms, in addition to traditional financing models. The most important item that Clovis Transit will need to accomplish is securing the location and funding to build a transit facility. If Clovis Transit can utilize property already owned by the City of Clovis, they can avoid having to purchase land. The purchase of the buses will need to be financed, which can be done through various grant and funding so urces to cover the incremental cost of ZEBs, or the difference between the cost of a ZEB and a fossil fuel-powered bus. Using grants to cover the incremental cost of the buses would allow Clovis Transit to purchase ZEBs with the funding sources they normally employ to purchase ICE buses.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Tailpipe emissions are not the only emissions associated with the operation of buses. Buses also produce upstream emissions, which are emitted during the production of the fuel that buses use. For example, diesel must be extracted, processed, and transported to buses.

The production processes of electricity and hydrogen also generate emissions. As a result, even ZEBs will produce some upstream emissions . Upstream emissions are generally 104
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
6 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study em
itted where the fuel is produced and not in the area where the buses operate, but greenhouse gases contribute to climate change regardless of origin. CALSTART found that all electric and hydrogen pathways produce fewer emissions than diesel. 105
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 7 I. Introduction to Zero-Emission Buses
Project Description
Clovis Transit provides public transportation to the City of Clovis with four fixed routes (Stageline) and a demand -response paratransit service (Roundup ). Clovis Transit is preparing a Transit Fleet Electrification Plan to examine the economic and technological feasibility of this transition. The study is intended to provide transit agency personnel , elected officials , and policymakers with information needed to help make decisions regarding the rollout of a fully zero-emission bus (ZEB) transit fleet.

Overview of ZEBs
The Benefits of ZEBs
In California, most transit agencies use a fleet of buses powered by compressed natural gas ( CNG). These buses have an internal combustion engine (ICE) that burns CNG to create torque and propel the bus. The current CNG buses have proven to be reliable technology capable of handling most transit bus duty cycles, but they do have several drawbacks, including noise pollution, tailpipe emissions, and high infrastructure costs. The combustion of CNG produces carbon dioxide (CO2) —a greenhouse gas (GHG) that contributes directly to climate change— and other pollutants. One of the most potent pollutants is nitrogen oxide (NOx). NOx, when combined with heat and sunlight, produces ozone, which is harmful to the respiratory system and human health. NOx emissions are regulated by the State of California. Many parts of Clovis and surrounding areas of Fresno have elevated levels of ozone and are also designated as a disadvantaged community (DAC) by the California Environmental Protection Agency, as seen in the CalEnviroScreen

3.0 data (Figure 1). This designation is based on a combination of air quality, pollution, and economic metrics. The areas shaded in dark blue are considered a DAC. 106
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
8 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Figure 1. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Burden Map
Z
ero-emission buses (ZEBs ) are buses that produce zero tailpipe emissions and therefore do not produce any GHGs or criteria emissions during bus operations. In practical terms, a ZEB cannot use an ICE and must use an electrified drivetrain. There are currently two ZEB technologies in existence: the battery -electric bus ( BEB), which uses electricity from a battery to power the bus, and the fuel cell electric bus ( FCEB), which uses hydrogen to produce electricity that propels the bus. These two technologies do not produce any tailpipe GHG or NOx emissions, which helps to improve air quality. The electricity to charge the bus and the hydrogen production process do produce GHG emissions, but since the drivetrain of a ZEB is twice as efficient as that of an ICE, ZEBs produce less GHG emissions than CNG buses. ZEBs also generate less noise.

The Innovative Clean Transit Regulation
The Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandates that all transit agencies in California transition to ZEBs. Fleets must be 100% zero-emission by 2040, and the regulation provides a timeline for phasing in ZEB procurements. Under the ICT regulation, Clovis Transit qualifies as a small transit agency— it is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and operates fewer than 65 buses in annual maximum service. Small transit agencies must submit a non-binding ZEB Rollout Plan to the Executive Officer of CARB by July 1, 2023, with the following items:
107
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
9 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study a. A g
oal of full transition to ZEBs by 2040 with careful planning that avoids early retirement of conventional ICE buses.
b. Identification of the types of ZEB technologies a transit agency is planning to deploy, such as BEB or FCEB.
c. A schedule for construction of facilities and infrastructure modifications or upgrades, including charging, fueling, and maintenance facilities, to deploy and maintain ZEBs.

This schedule must specify the general location of each facility, type of infrastructure, service capacity of infrastructure, and a timeline for construction. d. A schedule for zero-emission and conventional ICE bus purchases and lease options.

This schedule for bus purchases must identify the bus types, fuel types, and number of buses.
e. A schedule for conversion of conventional ICE buses to ZEBs, if any. This schedule for bus conversion must identify the number of buses, bus types, and the propulsion systems being removed and converted.
f. A description on how a transit agency plans to deploy ZEBs in DACs as listed in the latest version of CalEnviroScreen.
1 g. A t
raining plan and schedule for ZEB operators and maintenance and repair staff. h. Identification of potential funding sources.

The ICT timeline for phasing in ZEB procurements for a small transit agency is as follows:
• By 2026: 25% of new bus purchases must be zero-emission. • By 2029: 100% of new bus purchases must be zero-emission.

Altoona Bus Testing
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) created the Standardized Bus Testing program . The Standardized Bus Testing program, which is frequently referred to as Altoona Bus Testing, is a federal program that tests the maintainability, reliability, safety, performance, structural integrity and durability, fuel and/or energy economy, noise, and emissions from buses. Altoona Bus Testing is intended to serve as quality control and aims to ensure that new bus models can safely and reliably operate in real-world conditions. Under Altoona Bus Testing, buses are scored on a scale of 1 – 100 based on their performance in each of the testing categories . A bus must receive a score of 70 to pass testing . STURAA mandates that no new bus model can be 1 View the latest version of CalEnviroScreen at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen. 108
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
10 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study a
cquired with federal funding without having received a passing score during Altoona Bus Testing. Since Clovis Transit may use federal funding towards the purchase of transit vehicles and operations, this study only examines buses that have already passed Altoona Bus Testing or are likely to begin testing in the near future.

BEBs
Battery-Electric Technology
BEBs are propelled by an electrified drivetrain and use batteries to store electricity. When the bus needs to move, it draws energy from the battery to power a traction motor . The traction motor uses magnets to generate torque and propel the bus. BEBs also have a regenerative braking system that can capture some energy from the bus when it decelerates and use it to recharge the battery during braking . BEBs produce no tailpipe emissions and are very quiet when mov ing. BEBs do suffer from some drawbacks, mainly that their range is constrained by how much energy can be stored in the battery. Batteries are heavy and require a lot of space. This factor puts constraints on how many batteries can be placed on the bus safely and may further limit the range of the bus. The range of the bus can be decreased if ridership is high, which increases the weight of the bus, or if the bus must gain elevation on its routes . The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems a re also energy intensive and in temperature extremes can consume more energy than the propulsion system itself . This can reduce the range of the bus on days that are very hot or cold . Lastly, driver behavior can have a large impact on the range of the bus. BEBs are designed to be driven in a certain manner , and bus operators must receive driver training to properly drive the buses. Deviations from this training will impact the bus’s performance. Consequently, BEBs cannot serve as a “drop-in” or a one- to-one replacement for a CNG bus for some cycles/routes. This problem is exacerbated by battery charge time. While a CNG bus can be fully refueled in minutes, a BEB can take hours to fully recharge.

Appendix A: ZEB Specifications provides an overview of some of the relevant BEBs currently on the market, and more information on charging technology can be found in the Charging Infrastructure section and Appendix B: Charging Infrastructure Specifications.

Transit BEBs
Classified in the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA’s) 12 year/ 500,000-mile service-life category, transit buses are Class 7 or 8 vehicles, typically used for fixed-route service, and generally range between 30 and 40 feet in length. A transit BEB is a battery-powered bus that has a length of 30 feet or more. Transit BEBs are considered a mature technology .

Multiple BEB models have passed Altoona Bus Testing, and there are several original 109
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
11 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study eq
uipment manufacturers (OEMs) that produce and sell transit BEBs. Articulated 60 -foot ZEB models, which have two sections connected by a joint and can be up to 60 feet in length, have also been Altoona-tested. As of December 2021, there were 3,364 transit BEBs that have been purchased, are on order, or deployed across the United States (Hamilton, 2021).

Transit BEBs generally have a range of up to 225 miles, depending on the duty cycle. CNG buses, on the other hand, have a range of about 350 miles. The lower range of the BEB may require additional vehicles to provide the same level of service, depending on the duty cycle. Battery technology is expected to improve over time, however, and it is possible that a BEB can become a drop -in replacement for a CNG bus in the future. BEB charging technology and infrastructure will be discussed further in the Charging Infrastructure section.

Battery-Electric Shuttle Bus and Transit Vans
A battery-electric shuttle bus (also commonly referred to as a small bus) is classified in the FTA’s 5 year/150,000 mile or 7 year/200,000- mile service-life category and is defined as a battery-powered cutaway bus with a length of less than 30 feet and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of greater than 14,000 pounds (lbs.). Shuttle buses are generally medium - duty Class 4 -6 buses. These buses are typically used for demand response service and have a wheelchair lift to serve disabled passengers. Most shuttle buses can carry 19 -24 passengers. OEMs also have the ability to customize configurations based on transit needs, such as changing the floorplan and adding equipment such as fareboxes and wheelchair lifts. Battery -electric transit vans have recently been introduced to the market. These vehicles are smaller than shuttle buses and can typically carry fewer than 10 passengers.

A few OEMs offer electric shuttle buses of varying battery pack sizes, vehicle lengths, and options. At the time of writing, only one 24 -foot shuttle van BEB model, manufactured by GreenPower Motor Company, has passed Altoona Bus Testing, and the overall market for electric shuttle buses is small. However, Phoenix Motorcars' shuttle bus is anticipated to complete Altoona Bus Testing in 2022. Clovis Transit’s paratransit service includes minivans in their fleet, but zero-emission minivan options are unavailable. As of December 2021, 652 battery-electric shuttle buses have been purchased, are on order, or deployed across the United States (Hamilton, 2021).

Battery-electric shuttle buses generally have a range of up to 150 miles, depending on the duty cycle, and cost about $275,000. Fossil fuel-powered counterparts, on average, have a range of 350 miles and cost around $75,000. Again, additional vehicles may be required to provide the same level of service, depending on the duty cycle, but battery technology 110
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
12 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study c
ontinues to improve. By the time Clovis Transit is subject to the ICT regulation, shuttle buses will likely have a longer range. The market for transit vans is expected to grow, and there will likely be more commercial offerings in the coming years.

FCEBs
Fuel Cell Electric Technology
FCEBs use an electrified drivetrain to propel the bus, but unlike BEBs, FCEBs use gaseous hydrogen to produce electricity. When the bus needs to move, hydrogen is drawn from the bus's hydrogen tank and processed through a fuel cell to produce electricity. This electricity is stored in a battery until it is sent to the traction motor to generate torque and propel the bus. Since gaseous hydrogen has low energy density per volume, hydrogen must be compressed into the storage tank. The compression process allows more hydrogen to be stored in the tank. Fuel cell electric vehicles typically store hydrogen in their tanks at a pressure of 350 bar (5,000 lbs. per square inch) or 700 bar (10,000 lbs. per square inch). FCEBs use hydrogen compressed to a pressure of 350 bar. The tanks on a bus typically store 50 kilograms (kg) of hydrogen, 90 -95% of which can be used. An FCEB has the advantage of a longer range than a BEB. Since hydrogen is energy d ense and lightweight, the hydrogen tanks can store more energy on the bus than a battery. FCEBs are generally considered to be a drop-in replacement for a CNG bus. In addition, an FCEB can refuel quickly in about 15-20 minutes. While FCEBs must also contend with the HVAC, ridership, and driver behavior problems that BEBs face, these tend to be less severe due to FCEBs' ability to store more energy. While FCEBs have these advantages, FCEBs currently cost more than BEBs and must use hydrogen, which is more expensive than CNG and unleaded fuel and has unique challenges in obtaining/producing it (see page 19).

Transit Fuel Cell Electric Buses
A transit FCEB is a hydrogen fuel cell- powered bus that has a length of greater than 30 feet and, like transit BEBs, are Class 7 or 8 vehicles, classified in the FTA’s 12 year/ 500,000- mile service- life category, and typically used for fixed -route service. Most current FCEB models have a length of 35 -40 feet. At the time of writing, there is no Altoona -tested 30- foot FCEB model, but 60-foot articulated models have been Altoona-tested. Transit FCEBs are considered a mature technology, but to date there are fewer commercial offerings for transit FCEBs than BEBs; however, this is anticipated to change. As of this writing, two models of FCEBs have passed Altoona Bu s Testing. As of December 2021, there were 169 transit FCEBs that have been purchased, are on order, or deployed across the United States (Hamilton, 2021). Transit FCEBs generally have a range of up to 300 miles, depending on the duty cycle. CNG buses, on the other hand, have a range of about 350 miles. Since 111
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
13 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study t
ransit FCEBs have a longer range, they are generally considered to be a drop -in replacement for a CNG bus.

Fuel Cell Electric Shuttle Buses
A hydrogen fuel cell electric shuttle bus is defined as a hydrogen fuel cell cutaway bus with a length of less than 30 feet, a GVWR of greater than 14,000 lbs. , and is classified in the FTA’s 5 year/150,000 mile or 7 year/200,000-mile service-life category. Similar to shuttle BEBs, fuel cell electric shuttle buses are generally medium -duty Class 4 -6 buses, typically used for demand response service, have a wheelchair lift to serve disabled passengers, and can carry 19-24 passengers, depending on the floorplan configuration.

The market for fuel cell electric shuttle buses is less developed than battery-electric shuttle buses, with fewer models of fuel cell electric shuttle buses currently available. Fuel cell electric shuttle buses are also at an earlier stage of commercialization and have a lower technology readiness level than battery-electric shuttle buses. As of December 2021, only nine fuel cell electric shuttle buses have been purchased, are on order, or deployed across the United States (Hamilton, 2021). It is unclear how mature this technology will be and how many vehicle options will be available by 2026, when Clovis Transit must begin purchasing ZEBs under the ICT regulation.

Fuel cell electric shuttle buses generally have a range of 230 miles and cost around $275,000. Data on the cost of a fuel cell electric shuttle bus is scarce. However, cost data from pilot/demo fuel cell electric shuttle buses in dicates that the price is approximately equal to a battery-electric shuttle bus. Fossil fuel-powered counterparts have a range of 350 miles and cost around $75,000. Since fuel cell electric buses have a longer range than BEBs, they are closer to serving as a drop-in replacement. Both full-sized and shuttle FCEBs refuel at 350 bar, but the filling speed may have to be adjusted for the shuttle buses to maintain hydrogen tank integrity. Hydrogen fueling challenges are discussed in more detail under Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Overview.

Charging Infrastructure for Electric Buses
Depot Plug-in Charging
Most electric buses are charged using a plug -in charger, which consist s of the dispenser and a charging cabinet. The dispenser has a plug that connects with the bus to provide energy to charge the battery, and the plug connects to the dispenser via a hose. The dispenser is then connected to the charging cabinet, which contains the power electronics and communications equipment used to control charging with the bus and to communicate with the charging provider’s network . The most common current 112
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
14 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study techno
logy requires workers to manually plug in the bus when it returns from its ro ute but wireless technology is gaining maturity and acceptance. The communications protocols between vehicle and charger can vary among BEB OEMs (see Charger Interoperability section for additional details).

Buses can be charged with Level 2 chargers
or direct current f ast chargers (DCFC). A
Level 2 charger delivers alternate current
(AC) power to the bus at voltages of up to
240 volts (V). Level 2 chargers can deliver
up to 19.2 kilowatts ( kW) and are typically
used to charge electric cars, vans, and
shuttle buses. Buses can also be charged
with a DCFC. DCFCs deliver DC power to
the bus a t voltages of up to 600 V . DCFCs
are typically used to charge transit buses.

They can also be used to quickly charge shuttle buses.

A plug -in charging system has a large physical footprint. The charging cabinet is responsible for much of the footprint and typically requires concrete pads. Bollards are also required to protect the
charging cabinets from being hit by
buses or other vehicles . S ome
flexibility in the design/layout of a
charging site does exist: T he charging
cabinet must typically be located
within a few hundred feet of the
dispenser and, as a result, the charging
cabinets can be put in areas of the
yard with more space ( e.g., the
edges). Most depots are designed with
the dispensers and charging cabinets
adjacent to parked buses. For example, a depot might have parking spots for the buses with a dispenser for each parking spot, as illustrated in Figure 2. In most cases, this design is the least expensive option for charging.

Since space is a major constraint, space-saving designs can be developed. A depot can also be designed whereby the buses are parked in lanes, and the dispensers and charging cabinets are located next to the buses in between the lanes, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Plug-in Chargers Example
Figure 3. Buses Parked in Lanes Example
(Source: ABB)
113
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
15 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Ano
ther possible design would be
overhead plug -in charging . In this
design, the buses are parked in
lanes and a structure is built over
the parking lanes , similar to the
example shown in Figure 4.

A retractable spool is installed on
the overhead structure, which
allows the plug to be pulled down
for charging. This design does not
require the charging cabinets to be
located next to the bus, which is
advantageous when there is not
enough space in between parking
lanes to install the charging
cabinets or dispensers. The overhead structure can also be used for other purposes, such as housing a solar photovoltaic (PV) installation. While this design does save space, the construction cost for the overhead structure is higher because a foundation needs to be laid. Foothill Transit currently uses this design.

Charger Interoperability
A key factor in plug -in charging infrastructure is charger interoperability . Charger interoperability refers to a bus charger's compatibility with multiple types of buses—if a bus charger can charge buses from multiple manufacturers, it is considered interoperable.

Interoperability has multiple dimensions : the charger must be able to plug -in to, charge, and communicate with buses from multiple manufacturers. Since transit agencies tend to phase-in their fleets over time, it is possible that a fleet will consist of buses from multiple OEMs and that chargers from multiple manufacturers will be deployed . The use of a fleet with buses from multiple OEMs and multiple types of chargers increases the risk that there will be interoperability problems. To promote interoperability, charger standards have been developed. There are several different charger standards . SAE J1772 standardizes the charging plug for Level 2 charging up to 19.2 kW. The Combined Charging System (CCS) standardizes the charging plug and offers a protocol for charging communication.

CHAdeMO is a competing charging standard that offers a standard for the charging plug and charging communications. The major OEMs have adopted CCS standards.

Other interoperability concerns exist, one being that the plug -in charger must be able to communicate with vehicles via a compatible communications protocol. Another concern Figure 4. Overhead Plug-in Charging Example
(Source: Burns McDonnell Foothill Transit In-
Depot Charging and Planning Study)
114
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
16 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study is
whether the charger can provide either AC or DC power. The type of power the plug-in charger operates on must be the same as that of the onboard charger. Before purchasing, buses and infrastructure should be tested to ensure interoperability. For example, charging infrastructure for the shuttle BEBs and transit vans can vary. Most shuttle buses and transit vans can charge with a Level 2 charger, though many of these vehicles can also charge faster with a DCFC. The type of charger required for DC fast charging varies by OEM, and some buses must use a high voltage DCFC. It is important to purchase charging equipment that is compatible with the specific bus purchased.

Depot Overhead Charging
Buses can also be charged with an overhead pantograph charger, which is placed over the bus. When the bus parks, a radio frequency identification ( RFID) sensor on the bus signals to the charger, the charger and the bus make contact, and charging begins. There are two types of pantograph chargers : a top-down charger, in which the pantograph lowers itself down to the bus to initiate charging , and a bottom-up charger, in which the pantograph is mounted on the bus and raises itself to the charger to begin charging .

Pantograph chargers tend to charge at a higher power level than plug-in charging. Most overhead chargers charge at 150-200 kW, though
some can charge at 450 -600 kW . Most depot
overhead chargers charge in the 150 -200 kW
range to manage utility demand chargers.

An overhead pantograph charger requires an
overhead structure to be built in order to mount
the charger a bove the bus parking spots . At a
very minimum, a steel structure is required .

Typically, the installation of a steel structure
involves building a foundation to anchor the
structure. Installing the structure itself is one of the most expensive parts of the construction process,
but a dding additional features to the structure
can be done at a relatively low incremental cost.

As a result, solar panels are often installed on the
structure, which provides the benefit of providing
power for the facility and sheltering the bus from
sunlight (to prevent heat gain) and rain. P arking lanes are also built underneath the structure, and a curb is necessary to guide the buses to align with the charger and protect the charging cabinet from collisions.

Figure 5. In-Dep ot Overhead
Charging Example (Source:

CALSTART)
115
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
17 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study T
he main advantage of depot pantograph charging is that the pantographs can automatically charge the bus without workers present to manage plugs . Smart charging software can be used to control when to
start and stop charging, which means
that some charging operations can be
automated, thereby saving labor costs .

However, o verhead pantograph
charging, as depicted in Figure 5 and
Figure 6 , is more expensive than regular
plug-in charging . The pantographs add
about 30% to the cost of the charger (per
correspondence with Amply Power) , but
this amount excludes the
construction/installation costs . Since
construction/installation comprise the
majority of the cost, the overall
incremental cost of the pantograph is
relatively small. A n overhead structure is expensive, but this solution, which becomes economical when installed to charge at least 30 buses, is not much more expensive than overhead plug-in charging. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation is currently planning to deploy a depot overhead charging solution for some of their yards to charge a total of 104 buses.

SAE J3105 is the standard by which conductive automated connection charging devices for electric vehicles (EVs) are designed. It supports a DC power output of up to 1.2 MW.

There are multiple types of chargers that are governed by this standard including overhead pantograph chargers. SAE J3105 provides standards for both top -down and bottom-up chargers. SAE J3105/1: Infrastructure -Mounted Cross Rail Connection is the portion of SAE J3105 that governs top -down chargers. SAE J3105/2: Vehicle-Mounted Pantograph Connection is the part of SAE J3105 that governs bottom -up chargers. Top- down chargers that comply with SAE J3105/1 will be interoperable with each other whereas bottom -up chargers that comply with SAE J3105/2 will be interoperable with each other. A SAE J3105/1 -compliant top-down charger will not be interoperable with a SAE J3105/2-compliant bottom-up charger.

Figure 6. In-Depot Overhead Charging
Example (Source: CALSTART)
116
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
18 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study In-Ground Inductive
A potential variation of this setup
includes in- ground inductive
chargers, shown in Figure 7 .

Inductive chargers can charge a
vehicle without plugging in or
needing an overhead charger.

Instead, inductive chargers can
charge vehicles wirelessly . The
charger consists of a pad on the
ground; the bus parks on top of the
charging pad and wireless
charging begins. Inductive
chargers can charge at powers of
up to 250 kW for on -route
charging. If these chargers are
used for depot applications, the
bus parks on the inductive chargers at the end of the day’s service . Smart charging software then controls the charging overnight. In-ground inductive chargers are currently produced by Momentum Dynamics, WAVE, and Electreon. At this point in time, few transit agencies use depot inductive chargers. However, this is a technology that agencies might begin to consider as an alternative to depot overhead pantograph charging.

On-route Charging
Most transit agencies use depot charging as the primary method of charging their buses.

However, buses are sometimes deployed on routes that they cannot serve on a single charge. This issue can occur if the bus is on a lengthy or high-grade route, or alternatively, on days with extreme weather that increases the energy consumption of the bus’s HVAC system. This is highly problematic , as the bus will run out of battery before it finishes the route.

Overhead on- route charg ing is one way to address this problem. On- route charging occurs during a gap in service—the bus will typically drive underneath an overhead on- route charger and the bus and the charger will interface and connect in a similar manner as depot overhead charging. Most buses have only short breaks during their schedule. To charge as much of the battery as possible during a break, these overhead chargers usually charge at high power levels. The typical on-route overhead charger will charge at Figure 7. Inductive Charging at Antelope Valley
Transit Authority (Source: CALSTART)
117
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
19 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
ower levels of 450 -600 kW. These chargers are commonly built at a bus stop or a bus terminus to use when the bus is on a scheduled break.

One major issue with an overhead charger is
that the driver needs to align the bus with the
pantograph. To achieve this, transit agencies will
add markings to the ground underneath the
charger to assist the driver . See Figure 8 as an
example of this setup. In-ground inductive
charging can also be used for on- route
charging. Inductive charging can charge a bus
at a power level up to 250kW . The benefit of in-
ground charging is that it has no moving parts
and is less impactful visually to the cityscape.

Hydrogen Fueling
Infrastructure Overview
FCEBs utilize hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle. To fuel a fleet of FCEBs, a transit agency needs to obtain and dispense hydrogen to the buses. Currently, FCEBs have a hydrogen tank that receives hydrogen at a pressure of 350 bar. Most F CEBs store 35-50 kg of hydrogen in the tank. One kg of hydrogen has approximately 33.33 kWh of usable energy (diesel has about 12 kWh/kg). Transit agencies have several options for obtaining hydrogen. A transit agency can either produce the hydrogen onsite or buy hydrogen from a fuel provider and have it delivered to the fueling site. Since the transportation of hydrogen is expensive, onsite hydrogen production is usually the less expensive option. However, onsite hydrogen production requires installing fueling infrastructure (similar to CNG), which can present challenges depending on the space available.

Hydrogen is a flammable gas, and as a result, hydrogen infrastructure, as with other types of propulsion infrastructure, must comply with fire safety standards, especially the prominent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes. Hydrogen infrastructure installations often have a lead time of ten months to two years, including the permitting process. There are a lot of safety sensors and training required as well.

Onsite Steam Methane Reforming
Hydrogen can be produced using steam methane reforming ( SMR). SMR requires a reformer that combines natural gas and steam at high temperatures to produce Figure 8. On-route Overhead
Charging (Source: ABB)
118
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
20 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study hy
drogen. SMR uses little electricity, using instead a catalyst to produce hydrogen.

However, SMR does require the use of natural gas and water.

An onsite SMR system would need a minimum of 60 feet by 60 feet, or 3,600 square feet .

The system can also be split into two 60 -foot by 30-foot rectangles, as long as the two areas can be placed near each other. Typically, the SMR comes in two parts. One part is a container that houses the SMR modules, the electronics, and hydrogen compression equipment. The second part is the fueling station and storage. An onsite SMR system also requires a compressor to compress the hydrogen in order to dispense at a pressure of 350 bar.

Since this process produces GHGs, the State of California requires that 33% of the natural gas comes from renewable sources. SMR also consumes about 4.6 gallons of water per kg of hydrogen produced (Webber, 2007) . Still, SMR can produce hydrogen in a less expensive manner, but SMR production does require investment in production equipment.

See page 29 for more information on hydrogen fueling cost considerations.

Onsite Electrolysis
Hydrogen can also be produced via onsite electrolysis. Electrolysis produces hydrogen by running an electrical current through pure water to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then captured, compressed, and stored until it is dispensed into the bus. Electrolysis uses approximately 2.4 gallons of water per kg of hydrogen (Webber, 2007). An electrolyzer has a similar footprint as a n SMR system and comes in two containers, with one container housing the electrolyzer and compression equipment and the second container housing storage and fueling equipment . An onsite electrolyzer system also requires a compressor to compress the hydrogen to dispense at a pressure of 350 bar.

Electrolysis is considered the cleanest method of producing hydrogen, as it does not produce any direct GHG emissions . In using electricity, indirect GHG emissions are generated when producing the electricity. However, these emissions can be mitigated if the electricity is produced from renewable sources. Electrolysis is currently an expensive method of producing hydrogen and is energy intensive —see page 30 for more information on hydrogen utility cost considerations.

Delivered Gaseous Hydrogen
Hydrogen can be produced offsite at a centralized location and then delivered to the bus fueli ng location. Gaseous hydrogen is typically produced at a central production facility at low pressures of 20-30 bar, then compressed to a higher pressure. The hydrogen 119
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
21 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study i
s stored in cylindrical tubes that are then loaded onto a truck trailer and transported to the bus fueling location. Once the tube trailer arrives at the location, the hydrogen is delivered to the fueling station. A compressor is used to increase the pressure of the hydrogen in the tube trailer. This compressed hydrogen is then delivered to storage tanks where it can be dispensed to the buses.

These tube trailers can carry only a limited amount of hydrogen, however. U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations limit compression pressures to 250 bar.

Furthermore, truck payload weight restrictions effectively limit a tube trailer to delivering a maximum of 320 kg of hydrogen ( U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Office, n.d. ). As a result, this option is more advantageous for fleets that require relatively low volumes of hydrogen. See page 29 for more information on hydrogen delivery cost considerations.

Delivered Liquid Hydrogen
To be delivered in liquid form, hydrogen is produced at a centralized production facility and then liquified by reducing its temperature to -253 degrees Celsius. The liquid hydrogen is then put onto a truck for delivery. Once the truck reaches the depot, it will pump the liquid hydrogen into a liquid hydrogen storage tank. The hydrogen from the storage tank is processed by liquid compression pumps, which deliver the hydrogen to a vaporizer. The vaporizer converts the liquid hydrogen to gaseous hydrogen, which is then delivered to gaseous storage tanks. The hydrogen is subsequently dispensed to the buses.

Liquid hydrogen has economical advantages compared to gaseous hydrogen, but some drawbacks exist. Mainly, liquid hydrogen is lost if it is left in storage for a long time. As liquid hydrogen warms up, it evaporates and turns into a gas. Hydrogen systems are designed to release this gas, known as off-gassing. Off-gassing can result in losses of 1% per day, but off-gassing can be reduced if hydrogen is dispensed to vehicles on a daily basis. A system that captures off-gassed hydrogen and compresses it into the gaseous storage tanks can also be employed.

Offsite Retail Fueling
If a transit agency is unable to invest in hydrogen fueling infrastructure, they could theoretically fuel buses at offsite retail fueling stations. A retail fueling station is a privately owned station that sells hydrogen to customers and would be analogous to a gas station or a CNG station.

The market for retail hydrogen fueling is in the early stages of development. As the fuel cell electric vehicle market has matured, more retail stations have been built. While there are 120
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
22 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study m
ultiple retail stations, light -duty and heavy-duty retail fueling are distinct markets. Light - duty stations typically have 700 bar dispensers and lower levels of storage. Heavy -duty stations typically have 350 bar dispensers and require larger storage capacity. Currently, there are no heavy-duty stations near Clovis Transit. As a result, retail fueling would not be a viable option for a fleet of transit FCEBs. As the market for hydrogen fuel increases, there may be retail fueling stations built near Clovis Transit.

Retail fueling could potentially be appropriate for fuel cell electric shuttle buses and paratransit vehicles. Hydrogen shuttle buses use less hydrogen than a transit FCEB , and it is theoretically possible to fuel them at retail hydrogen stations . However, there are no hydrogen fueling stations in the Fresno area at this time this study was conducted.

Route Modeling
Overview of the Electric Bus Corridor Model
CALSTART, in partnership with Utah State University SELECT, developed a modeling tool to analyze and predict the performance of a BEB on a predetermined route. Environmental factors like terrain and climate can have a significant impact on the range of BEBs. The Electric Bus Corridor Model (EBCM) uses seasonal weather data, bus specifications, route characteristics, ridership, and other operational data to estimate the energy consumption of a BEB for various charging scenarios (depot only, on- route only, or both). EBCM is a dynamic and highly customizable input model that can be modified according to individual transit agency preferences and needs.

CALSTART was tasked with analyzing the electrification of bus routes as part of the Clovis Area Transit System Electrification Feasibility Study. Identifying the current and future operational needs, specific to the routes each agency runs, was imperative to determine which EV solutions (vehicle and charging infrastructure) may be suitable replacements for the existing fleet.

To complete this analysis, route level data such as ridership, average speed, number of trips per day, number of stops, topography, and time in operation was collected.

CALSTART referenced the Altoona Bus Testing data for the potential electric bus models that could operate these routes. See Table 1 below for the complete set of customizable parameters that contributed to the modeling results.
121
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
23 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Table 1. Customizable Parameters for EBCM
As the first step in the analysis, CALSTART interviewed Clovis Transit’s fleet manager. The purpose of this initial touchpoint was to establish a mutual understanding of the agency’s goals for th is analysis, as well as to gather key input parameters for the model. These meetings and subsequent follow up communications yielded important information, such as desired electric bus model options, existing bus routes of interest for electrification, bus passenger cabin HVAC and state of charge ( SOC) preferred settings, charging preferences (depot vs. on-route), and other details.

Following this level- setting step, CALSTART determined geographic information for the routes to be modeled by EBCM. For the fixed -route buses, the agencies supplied geographic information system (GIS) data that was converted into a useful format for the tool. Because the on -demand paratransit service routes vary by day and by passenger, CALSTART worked with the fleet manager to determine a hypothetical route with similar mileage and topography to some of the usual service routes. CALSTART then traced these routes on Google Earth to collect topographical inputs for distance and slope to input in Vehicle Inputs Route Information Inputs Bus Charging
Infrastructure Inputs
Bus type and length (feet) Service operation times Depot charger power & user specified output (kW)
Frontal area (square feet) Number of passengers Bus state of charge upper & lower bounds
Curb weight (lbs.) Average driving speed
(miles per hour)
Overnight dwelling time at
depot charger
Battery-to-wheel and
regenerative braking
efficiencies
Number of bus stops along
the route Charging efficiency
Battery size (kWh) Distance and slope of route
topography -
HVAC cooling and heating
performance factors
Service area elevation &
geographic coordinates -
Desired cabin temperatures
by season (°F)
Seasonal temperature
highs, lows, and averages
(°F)
-
122
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
24 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study t
he model. The electric bus performance modeled in EBCM was also based on battery - to-wheel and regenerative braking efficiencies from published Altoona Bus Testing reports.

The aim of using Altoona data is to ensure that the model is operating on verifiable third - party data, rather than relying exclusively on marketing materials from bus manufacturers.

The next step in the process is gathering locational (longitude, latitude, elevation, and time zone) and seasonal weather inputs. This step is essential for the customization of bus performance specifications for a particular agency’s needs. It is also noteworthy that in the California context, extreme heatwaves are increasing in frequency and intensity. More instances of fluctuations in temperature are projected to have a significant impact on vehicle HVAC energy consumption, especially air conditioning. Air conditioning is a very energy intensive auxiliary function that can, in some cases, dramatically reduce the overall range of the electric bus. To account for these challenges, the EBCM analysis included a temperature maximum parameter of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) for the summer season forecast.

The analysis yielded kilowatt- hour (kWh) energy consumption outputs by bus subsystem , which is divided into dynamic, heating, and auxiliary sources, and the average expected energy consumption by season. Additionally, the model estimates the remaining SOC per lap on a given route to give an approximation of how much of the regular service day can be covered by a single electric bus. The energy consumption outputs from this analysis were used to inform the development of charging schedules, costs, and location(s) for the future electric buses . The route modeling/energy analysis results are discussed in Section II. Clovis Transit.

Assumptions
CALSTART used the following assumptions to model Clovis Transit’s routes:
• 40-foot buses for the fixed-route service
• Maximum temperature in summer of 120°F
• Depot charging only
• Lowest temperature in winter of 36°F
• Summer cabin setpoint of 77°F
• Winter cabin setpoint of 68°F
123
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
25 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Charging and Fueling Cost Considerations
Charging Cost Considerations
Energy and Power
The utility costs for a ZEB fleet are dependent on two main factors: energy and power .

Energy represents the total amount of electrical fuel consumed by the bus . Energy is denoted in units of kWh . The battery of a BEB has capacity limits and can only store a certain amount of kWh of energy. The energy capacity of the battery is analogous to the number of gallons that can be stored in a gas tank. Utility companies typically sell energy by kWh. The price of kWh can also change depending on how much demand occurs during the day . Energy is usually most expensive in the afternoon when demand is high and costs less at night when demand is lower . As a result, transit agencies typically schedule their charging to coincide with the lowest energy rates.

Power represents the rate at which energy is consum ed and is typically measured in kW.

Utilities care about power; if there is too much aggregate demand, it can overwhelm the grid and cause a blackout. As a result, utilities incentivize lower power demand from their customers by charging per kW. Customers are usually charged for the maximum amount of power they demand over the course of the month, regardless of how long they draw power at that level. For example, if a transit agency normally has a power demand of 50 kW but experiences a surge in demand and consume s 100 kW for 15 minutes over the course of a month, they would be charged for demanding 100 kW. Charges for power demand are typically high and can be extremely costly . These charges are typically responsible for the majority of the utility bill.

Primary and Secondary Service
Utilities also charge based on the type of electrical service they provide. Utilities can provide primary and secondary service. Type of service refers to the voltage at which the utility delivers the electricity to the customer. Primary service occurs when the utility delivers electricity to the customer at a high voltage. When primary service is provided, the utility delivers electricity directly to the customer without stepping down the voltage. In this case, the customer is r esponsible for stepping down the voltage with their own transformer.

Secondary service occurs when the utility steps down the voltage with their own transformer and delivers the electricity to the customer at a lower voltage. Primary service usually involves lower electricity rates. The decision to provide primary or secondary service is typically determined by the utility.
124
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
26 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Utility Rate Structures
P
acific Gas and Electric (PG&E) offers two different rate options under its Electric Schedule Business Electric Vehicle (BEV) schedule for commercial vehicle charging: BEV-1 and BEV-

2. BEV -1 is applicable for customers with kW usage at or below 100 kW and so is not relevant for Clovis Transit. In addition to BEV-2, a separate Schedule B-20 is also available.

See the descriptions below for differences between the rates and when each would apply. There is no specific rate option for hydrogen production or storage. Depending on the product and amount of hydrogen stored, power and energy costs can vary. For example, producing hydrogen onsite is estimated to consume anywhere from 48- 65 kWh/kg of hydrogen produced. See Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report for more information.

BEV-2
BEV-2 separates commercial EV charging from non- EV commercial usage and/or any other loads. This rate is applicable for fleets with over 100 kW charging demand and was designed for both primary or secondary service options (see above for definitions). As with other rates, energy is charged on a $/kWh basis with seasonal and hourly variations. There is a monthly meter charge.

Demand Charges
Traditional maximum kW demand charges are replaced with monthly kW allocation subscription charges. For this rate, the customer chooses how many 50-kW blocks of power to subscribe to per month. This amount can be adjusted throughout the month until the last day of the billing cycle. I f the customer exceeds their maximum kW block, the customer pays twice the price per kW.
2 B-20
Electric Schedule B-20 is available for customers that have exceeded 999 kW for at least three consecutive months during the past year, regardless of transportation needs or any other business application. Clovis Transit would be utilizing this rate if BEV -2 was not an option. Like BEV-2, energy is charged on a $/kWh basis with seasonal and hourly variations. 2 For more information on the BEV-2 rate structure, see https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELE C_SCHEDS_BEV.pdf
125
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
27 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study D
emand Charges
Traditional maximum kW demand charges are similar to other rates. Maximum demand is defined as the highest in 15-minute increments for the billing month. Unlike BEV -2, there is a daily meter charge.3
Strategies for Managing Utility Costs
Utility charges are determined by a variety of factors such as energy and power demand, which have a major impact on the utility charges that a transit agency must pay to charge their buses. However, there are strategies to reduce utility charges. This section will discuss some of the strategies that transit agencies can employ to minimize this cost.

Overnight Charging
Transit agencies are charged for the energy they consume. Transit agencies are typically charged by the kWh, and utilities usually have different rate structures that their customers can use. Most transit agencies use tim e-of-use (TOU) tariffs. Under a TOU tariff, energy charges vary throughout the day. Energy charges are typically lowest during times of low energy demand (off -peak rates) at night and are highest during the day in the late afternoon/evening hours —solar pro duction decreases as the sun begins to set, and energy consumption increases as air conditioning loads come online. As a result, peak energy charges usually occur from approximately 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. Some utilities also offer flat rate tariffs, where the cost per kWh is constant throughout the day.

Transit agencies aim to reduce the energy costs associated with charging, but transit agencies cannot reduce energy costs by reducing the amount of energy they consume, which would entail cutting transit service. If a transit agency is on a TOU tariff, they can reduce energy charges by shifting the times during which they charge the buses. Since off-peak rates are lower than peak rates, energy costs can be reduced by shifting the charging schedule so that the majority of buses charge at night during off-peak hours.

Managed/Networked Charging
Another method of reducing utility costs and demand charges is the use of managed charging. Managed charging minimizes power demand by remotely monitoring the bus battery status, communicating with the chargers to prioritize which buses get charged, and regulating the amount of energy and power each bus receives. Managed charging uses algorithms to control which buses should get charged and when. Managed charging software usually avoids having all buses charge at the same time and can control the 3 For more information on the B-20 rate structure, see https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC _SCHEDS_B-20.pdf
126
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
28 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
ower level at which they charge, thus reducing power demand. Managed charging optimizes charging and can result in even lower power demand than sequential charging.

Many smart charging systems support the use of Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), which is a standard for charger -to-network communication. OCPP compliant chargers allow multiple types of chargers to be integrated by a smart charging provider. While these features are not necessary for charging electric buses, they are a useful tool for larger fleets, as they can ensure all buses charge on time while also reducing maximum power demand. Reducing maximum power demand is important—demand charges and utility interconnection charges are a function of max power demand. Smart charging systems can control charging behavior to reduce maximum power, decreasing maximum power draw by up to 31 % – 65% and greatly reducing demand charges and the cost to operate the buses (Eichman, 2020). Sometimes the charger manufacturer (e.g., ABB and Siemens) will offer their own networked charging solution. However, there are also other companies who specialize in this space as network providers.

The most basic software solution will remotely monitor the bus battery status while charging. This usually comes in the form of a web portal or app that the fleet manager can access at any time. The web portal can integrate data from the fleet operations/dispatch control system, yard management system, and energy management/smart charging system. In addition, if a fleet purchases buses and chargers from multiple manufacturers, the web portal can integrate this data in one place. Basic analysis such as which buses use the most energy, which buses are having range problems, which buses are having a disproportionate amount of maintenance downtime, and battery state -of-charge can be regularly reported to the manager. Some smart charging companies can also integrate telematics and real-time data from the buses into their smart charging systems. This information can be used by the smart charging software to prioritize which buses should be charged first to assure that all buses are ready for their respective duty cycles.

More advanced solutions will allow the charger to communicate with the utility grid. The data could be passed through in several ways, including aggregated at a network provider’s cloud service or individually sent to the utility via the Open Automated Demand Response (OpenADR) 2.0b protocol, or using the OpenADR with OCPP protocol. In this case, the utility could use OpenADR with OCPP to have open communication between the EV charging stations and central management software, enabling the charging system to serve as a demand response or excess supply asset. Demand response and excess supply programs incentivize customers to shift electricity load to different times of day to facilitate grid operations and system -wide cost savings. Using OCPP on its own is 127
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
29 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study a
lso an option. Several charging manufacturers support the OCPP standards, which allows the end user to manage various chargers with one compatible software management system.

To provide managed charging solutions, a network provider will typically need to collaborate with the utility serving the transit agency. In most cases, managed charging companies provide turnkey infrastructure construction and installation services. In doing so, the managed charging company provides the capital expenditures (CAPEX) for the chargers and then signs a power purchasing agreement to sell the electricity to the transit agency. Appendix C: Managed Storage Solutions provides details for managed/networked charging providers.

Hydrogen Fueling Cost Considerations
Onsite vs. Delivered Hydrogen vs. Offsite Refueling Station The cost of hydrogen is influenced by several factors. One key factor is the location of hydrogen production. In general, the least expensive option is to produce hydrogen onsite at the bus fueling location. Hydrogen can be produced onsite using commercialized and technologically mature equ ipment—see Onsite Steam Methane Reforming and Onsite Electrolysis sections for detailed descriptions of these processes . Using this technology, hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply. Some SMR equipment manufacturers have estimated that hydrogen can be produced for as low as $6 per kg. However, onsite production requires capital investment, so it is not economically feasible to produce hydrogen onsite until a volume of 200 kg of hydrogen is reached.

Delivered hydrogen must be transported to the bus fueling location—see Delivered Gaseous Hydrogen and Delivered Liquid Hydrogen sections for de scriptions of these options. The transportation of hydrogen via truck is an expensive process, and the majority of the cost of delivered hydrogen comes from transportation. Since delivered hydrogen requires less onsite infrastructure, this solution is more economically feasible for transit agencies that use low volumes of hydrogen. Delivered gaseous hydrogen is the best option for transit agencies that consume less than 200 kg of hydrogen per day, which is below the threshold at which onsite production is economically feasible. Liquid hydrogen has less volume than gaseous hydrogen, and therefore more liquid hydrogen can be stored on a truck than gaseous hydrogen, making liquid hydrogen delivery more economical. Due to off -gassing, delivered liquid hydrogen is most economical when a transit agency requires a large amount of hydrogen and will refuel daily.

Even though no heavy-duty stations currently exist near C lovis Transit, retail fueling could be appropriate for fuel cell electric shuttle buses and paratransit vehicles . Based on 128
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
30 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
ricing data collected in February 2022, the at -the-pump price charged at local retail stations is about $16-$17 per kg of hydrogen. However, it might be possible to negotiate a lower fuel price with a retail fuel provider in exchange for guaranteed fuel volume. See Offsite Retail Fueling section for more information.

Utility Charges for Producing Hydrogen
Utility charges are also an important factor in the price of hydrogen. Electricity is a required input for hydrogen. If hydrogen is produced by electrolysis, electricity is used as an input to produce the hydrogen. Electrolysis is energy intensive and producing hydrogen with this methodology will entail high energy and power demand (see Onsite Electrolysis). The production of one kg of hydrogen requ ires 55 kWh. Additional energy is also required to compress the hydrogen so it can be dispensed. An electrolyzer would also have high power demands, which would lead to high utility bills . Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis for about $10 -$12 per kg . Furthermore, regardless of the source of the hydrogen, electricity is required to prepare hydrogen to be dispensed. Once hydrogen is produced or delivered, it must be compressed. In addition, the fueling station uses electricity. As a result, the use of hydrogen fuel will entail operational costs beyond that of the cost of the hydrogen and the fueling station.

Summary of Clovis Transit’s Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report CALSTART engaged with external consultant Jerald A. Cole to complete a deep dive into Clovis Transit’s hydrogen vehicle refueling options. The full report is provided in Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report, but the following paragraphs summarize the key takeaways from Cole’s research.

This study used a framework of 11 FCEBs of 40 feet in length traveling 135 miles per day to model what a hydrogen refueling station would like for Clovis Transit, considering both delivered hydrogen and onsite hydrogen production. These 11 FCEBs would need 25 kg of hydrogen daily per bus, adding up to a total of 275 kg per day. To ensure sufficient reserve is on hand, this report recommends constructing a 1,000 kg storage system for hydrogen fuel. T he impact of station costs on hydrogen cost was estimated using the Department of Energy’s Heavy-Duty Refueling Station Analysis Model (HRDSAM).

Because of transportation costs, liquid hydrogen is relatively cheaper according to HRDSAM modeling. However, if Clovis Transit were to have gaseous hydrogen delivered from the H2B2 project (in Kerman, California, about 25 miles away ; see FCEB Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Deployment Plan for more detail on this project), it could be more cost effective then shipping liquid hydrogen from Sacramento. However, Plug Power is planning to build a liquid hydrogen production facility in Fresno County, which could 129
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
31 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
rovide Clovis Transit with an affordable option for liquid hydrogen delivery (Adler, 2021).

Liquid hydrogen can provide enough fuel for about two weeks, and distributors could plan to make deliveries every 10 days to ensure a buffer.

Onsite hydrogen production is generally more expensive than delivered hydrogen. Plant ownership models and equipment vary among providers: some offer the entire system (i.e., compressor, storage, delivery) while others provide only the hydrogen production equipment. A hydrogen- as-a-service model may also be available . Cost can vary depending on the hydrogen configuration distribution, from necessary storage to the dispenser. Space requirements, including set back requirements, with tube trailer storage are 5,100 square feet ( 61 feet by 84 fee t). Without tube trailer storage, meaning only pump, compressor, and minimal storage equipment are implemented , space requirements decrease to approximately 3,200 square feet (37 feet by 84 feet).

Resiliency
BEBs introduce unique concerns relating to resiliency. All ZEBs are reliant on access to electricity. Electricity is needed to charge a BEB and to produce hydrogen. Even if hydrogen is produced and stored onsite, large amounts of power are required to compress and dispense the hydrogen. As a result, if there is a loss of power, transit agencies would be unable to charge or refuel their buses. Extreme events, such as storms, hurricanes, natural disasters, terrorism, or cyberattacks, can cause the grid to go offline for longer periods of time. For example, in 2017, the American Northeast experienced extreme winter storms, which caused disruptions to power service to the region. Likewise, in 2017, states such as Florida and Georgia experienced outages from hurricanes; in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico experienced the worst blackouts in American history. More recently, in February 2021, Texas experienced a lengthy grid outage following a polar vortex. Lengthy outages such as these could easily prevent transit agencies from engaging in routine charging of their buses, which would then disrupt normal service and core transit operations. Since many members of the community use public transport to get to and from work, such disruptions would have major economic implications and negatively affect public perception of ZEBs.

Clovis Transit faces unique resiliency risks. California’s Central Valley is subject to several factors that can disrupt utility power to bus yards. One major threat is extreme heat, which is expected to become a much more common occurrence as climate change progresses. Extreme heat poses a threat to the grid because it decreases utilities' generation and transmission capabilities. Extreme heat also increases air conditioning usage and consequently power demand ( Burrillo, 2018). These factors raise the chances 130
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
32 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study f
or grid infrastructure o verload, which further increases the risks of a brownout, blackout, or other grid outage. Extreme heat can also cause equipment to overheat, posing a threat to any electrical equipment owned by a transit agency (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).

Public Safety Power Shutoffs are a major risk to power supply in the Central Valley . These shutoffs occur when environmental conditions increase the chances that utility infrastructure will spark a wildfire. While the risk of wildfire occurring in Clovis proper is low, there is a high risk that wildfire can disrupt electrical supplies. PG&E supplies electricity to Clovis Transit. PG&E obtains power from a variety of sources (CEC, 2020). PG&E has three options available to Clovis Transit to decide how much GHGs the electricity they use generates – base plan, 50% solar, and 100% solar. The base plan has a GHG intensity of 160 lbs. carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour (CO2e/MWh) with the majority of energy coming from renewables and nuclear power. The 50% solar plan guarantees a minimum of 50% energy comes from solar and has a reported GHG intensity of 80 lbs.

CO2e/MWh. The100% solar choice guarantees 100% of the customer’s energy comes from solar power and produces zero lbs. CO2e/MWh. Natural disasters can pose resiliency risks.

Earthquakes can potentially down power lines and damage utility substations, which would threaten power supply to bus depots.

Addressing resiliency concerns should be a priority for transit agencies deploying ZEBs.

Clovis Transit can obtain resiliency through two main meth ods: front-of-the-meter (FTM) resiliency and behind-the-meter (BTM) resiliency. FTM resiliency is provided on the utility’s side of the meter. BTM refers to resiliency solutions located on the customer’s side of the meter. A BTM resiliency solution would be controlled by the transit agency . Both FTM and BTM solutions are discussed in more detail below.

Regardless of whether the resiliency is BTM or FTM, providing full resiliency for a bus depot is difficult. ZEBs consume a large amount of energy and draw a lot of power from the grid.

This is especially true for BEBs, which use electricity directly as fuel. Figure 9 depicts a hypothetical scenario in which fifty electric buses are charged at a power level of 60 kW.

This illustration shows that a fleet of fifty buses would generate power demand of 3 megawatts (MW), which exceeds the power demand from the Chrysler Building . In the event of a grid outage, it is difficult to replace the energy and power lost from the grid. 131
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
33 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Figure 9. EV Peak Power Demand Scenarios (Source: CALSTART) Cl
ovis Transit’s fleet is expected to have significant energy consumption and power draw, which is provided in Table 2 below. These figures represent energy consumption and power draw for weekday service (fixed- route and paratransit) , the maximum energy consumption and power draw. Furthermore, these figures exclude any energy or power demand from onsite buildings or maintenance bays.

Table 2. Daily Energy Consumption and Power Demand
Energy Consumption / Power
Demand Time
Clovis
Transit
Weekday Energy Consumption (kWh) 5,872
Weekday Power Demand
(unmanaged, kW) 2,235
Weekday Power Demand (sequential,
kW) 1,335
132
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
34 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study FTM Resiliency
FTM resiliency is provided by the utility, and the utility can provide resiliency in several ways, such as installing energy storage assets or distributed generation assets at power plants or at a substation. If power is lost, the assets can be deployed and can provide power to customers downstream. Utilities typically charge for resiliency services to offset the cost of these assets. Some utilities offer special electrical tariffs to customers that opt to accept utility resiliency services. These tariffs often entail higher energy charges.

For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) offers various options for resiliency, including a special pilot rate for electric buses. Under these rates, fleets have the option of providing their own resiliency, accepting FTM resiliency from LADWP, or not having any resiliency. If a customer opts to receive FTM resiliency from LADWP, they can choose the length of time they will receive resiliency in the event of a grid outage. LADWP’s resiliency is provided by FTM batteries. Each of these options is associated with a specific tariff. No similar rate structure was found for PG&E customers.

Utilities can also provide FTM resiliency in other ways. Typically, a fleet is served with a single feeder. A utility could bring a second feeder to the fleet to act as a redundant source of power. Alternatively, if a utility has local power plants, they can potentially use the power plants as a backup source of power in the event of an outage.

In a study recently conducted by FCRTA, examined the grid constraints and resiliency needs in Fresno County. It concludes that developing shared charging infrastructure and adding solar and energy storage can be beneficial as more electricity demand and harsh weather impact the region in the coming years (FCTRA, 2022).

BTM Resiliency
A fleet can also receive BTM resiliency. BTM resiliency consists of generation and storage assets that are located on the customer’s side of the meter and, in most cases, onsite at the fleet’s depot. Transit agencies have multiple options for deploying BTM resiliency, such as opting to serve as the owner -operator of resiliency equipment. Under this ownership model, the transit agency provides the capital funding to purchase and install the equipment and is responsible for operating and maintaining the equipment.

Transit agencies can also engage with a third-party energy services company to purchase power. The third-party energy services company would be responsible for purchasing and installing the equipment. The energy services company would retain ownership of the equipment and would sign a power purchasing agreement with the transit agency to sell the energy produced by the equipment. There are also myriad other hybrid business 133
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
35 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study m
odels that can be used to operate BTM resiliency equipment. The following is an overview of different assets that can be used to provide BTM resiliency.

Solar and Storage
Solar PV systems can be used to provide BTM resiliency. Solar PV panels convert solar radiance from light to produce electricity. As a result, solar PV produces electricity during the day, with peak production occurring at about 1 pm. Solar PV arrays can be installed anywhere with access to direct sunlight. Solar PV arrays are often installed on rooftops, but arrays can also be constructed over parking lots. This solution requires the construction of a steel structure over the parking lot to install the panels. Many transit agencies have started installing solar panels over the bus parking lanes. This configuration allows the transit agency to maximize the solar potential of their yard and provides shade for the buses, keeping the buses cool and reducing the HVAC load.

While solar PV can produce renewable energy, it does suffer from two main drawbacks.

First, solar PV is not an energy dense generation asset. ZEBs are extremely energy intensive, and a large quantity of solar panels is required to power the charging for a fleet of ZEBs.

Since many bus depots are space constrained, it is usually not possible to install enough solar panels on a depot to power the charging for a ZEB fleet, especially for transit agencies in urban areas. It is difficult, then, to provide full resiliency to a ZEB fleet from solar PV alone. Solar PV is also an intermittent resource that only produces power during the day, which can be used to help power facilities at a bus depot, but the majority of the buses will be charging at night to take advantage of lower energy charges. As a result, a mismatch arises between when the solar panels produce electricity and when charging occurs; if a transit agency were to experience a grid outage, they would not have any resources to power charging at night.

One way to solve the intermittent power problem would be to pair solar PV with battery storage. Under this solution, battery storage would be used to absorb excess energy that is produced during the day and store it for later use. The batteries could be used to store power until nighttime or until there is a grid outage. Batteries can help to mitigate the intermittency problem. In addition, batteries can respond very quickly to grid outages and can ensure continuity of power. However, batteries are expensive and have a large physical footprint, resulting in limits to energy storage capacity on a bus depot.

Another variation of solar and storage would be battery swapping. ZEBs are currently designed so that the batteries remain on the bus at all times. When the batteries need to be recharged, the bus must physically go to a charger. The charging process requires hours, which prevents the bus from being used during that time. However, it is theoretically 134
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
36 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
ossible to recharge a bus by removing the depleted batteries from the bus and swapping them with fully charged batteries. The concept of battery swapping is not new and has been considered to speed up the charging process in light -duty EVs. If battery swapping were employed, depleted batteries can be removed from the bus and then charged during the day using solar power. The charged batteries could then be installed on the bus at the end of the day. This is a common strategy for industrial vehicles such as forklifts.

While battery swapping is a theoretical possibility, the current ZEB design, which is optimized for meeting safety regulations, is not conducive to this option. Batteries are extremely heavy, and they are often placed on the roof of the bus or in other areas that are not easily accessible. It would therefore be difficult to remove batteries on a regular basis. At the time of writing, none of the OEMs have a bus that can employ battery swapping, though some industry interest exists in conducting research to develop battery swapping and business models that can support this practice.

Generators
A transit agency could also use a generator to provide power in the event of a grid outage. Generators typically use fossil fuels such as diesel or natural gas. These fuels are combusted in an ICE , which is used to produce electricity. Most generators are reciprocating engines. Generators are useful; they are energy dense, produce a large amount of power without having a large physical footprint, and can feasibly be sized to power a majority of or the entire fleet. The physical footprint required for resiliency is described in Appendix F: Clovis Transit Conceptual Framework and Supporting Documents. Generators can also respond relatively quickly to outages and take about 10 minutes to fully ramp up to maximum power generation. In addition, generators do not have to operate at full power at all times and can run at partial capacity without major efficiency losses. However, this solution is problematic —since generators burn fossil fuels, they produce GHG emissions. In addition, they can produce criteria emissions such as particulate matter (PM) and NOx. As a result, there are environmental and air quality consequences to using generators.

Further, there are regulatory restrictions on the use of generators. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has a mandate to regulate stationary sources of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. Since generators emit criteria emissions, they are subject to regulation by APCD . APCD regulates engines above 50 horsepower and all such engines must have a permit. If a transit agency were to use engines of 50 horsepower or below, the generator can be installed without a permit. However, due to the high loads associated with charging buses, using engines with 50 horsepower or below is unlikely to be practical. If a diesel generator is used, it must be a Tier 4 Final Engine. APCD allows for 135
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
37 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study t
he use of backup generators during an emergency, which is defined as an unforeseen power outage. Backup generators are allowed to operate during an emergency power outage and may operate for the duration of the outage. The generator may also be used for up to 200 hours per year to conduct testing and maintenance. Backup generators cannot be used to provide demand response services to utilities. Using a generator for this purpose requires a full- time permit. This permit has more stringent emissions limits and in many cases requires the use of exhaust treatment equipment.

To receive a permit for a backup generator, a transit agency would need to obtain an Authority to Construct permit. This permit allows the transit agency to physically install a generator. To obtain this permit, a transit agency needs to submit an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate Application Form and a Supplemental Application Form .

Once the generator is installed, a startup inspection needs to be conducted. During this inspection, an inspector from APCD verifies that the installed generator is the same model as the generator that was permitted. Once the startup inspection is completed, a Permit to Operate is awarded. The Permit to Operate gives the holder the right to operate the generator. This permit lasts for the life of the generator.

This process can be lengthy as APCD has a backlog of permits that need to be processed.

It is advisable to apply for a permit early in the construction process and to not procure a generator until the Authority to Construct permit has been awarded . There are some factors that can also delay a permit. If a school is within 1,000 feet of a proposed generator, this triggers a public notice. During the public notice, the parents of students who attend that school are given 30 days to comment on the permit for the generator.

The parents can also request a public hearing. Public notices can be triggered if the generator is large and is expected to produce a disproportionate amount of air pollution or if the generator is deemed likely to produce disproportionate health risks to the public (based on public health modeling).

If a transit agency wanted to avoid obtaining a backup generator permit, they theoretically could rent a backup generator during a grid outage. If a transit agency decided to do this, they would need to rent a generator that has been permitted by CARB or APCD. The rented generator can only be operated during an emergency and must be removed from the site after the emergency ends. Renting a generator in the event of an outage cou ld be beneficial as it would allow the transit agency to avoid the CAPEX associated with purchasing and installing a generator. However, it does take time to rent a generator and have it delivered to the site; the bus depot would be without power until the generator arrives. Furthermore, in the event of a grid outage, other entities would be seeking backup generators, making it difficult to find a generator during an emergency 136
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
38 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study o
utage. It might be possible to secure a gener ator from a rental company. Generat or rental companies can guarantee access to a rental generator in exchange for a monthly payment.

Stationary Fuel Cells
A stationary fuel cell can also be used to provide power in the event of a grid outage.

Fuel cells typically consume hydrogen as a fuel where the oxidation reaction takes place to produce electricity. Fuel cells are most often associated with hydrogen vehicles, which use a fuel cell that oxidizes hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle.

However, a fuel cell, like those designed by Bloom Energy and Doosan, can also be designed to use other hydrogen- rich fuels such as natural gas as the source of fuel.

Stationary fuel cells are fuel cells deployed for non-vehicle usage and serve an equivalent function as a backup generator.

Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells use hydrogen to produce power. PEM fuel cells are used in FCEBs, but they can also be used for stationary applications. One advantage of PEM fuel cells is their ability to load follow (i.e., quickly increase and decrease their power level) for rapid response to outages and/or changes in power demand that occur during charging.

Solid oxide fuel cells can use natural gas to produce power. These fuel cells use an oxidation reaction to convert natural gas to electricity. They operate most effectively at a constant power level and therefore struggle to load follow. This can be problematic because charging tends to have rapid increases and decreases in power demand. This solution is ideal when a base load (like a building) requires a constant load for which the fuel cell can provide power.

Stationary fuel cells are advantageous in that they produce zero criteria emissions. As a result, they are less heavily regulated than generators , and it is likely that they would not require a permit to operate. However, there are few examples of fuel cells being used to support vehicle charging. AC Transit is currently using a stationary fuel cell as a part of their energy portfolio. It is likely that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for fuel cells will need to fall to make this solution more economically viable.

Microgrids
A microgrid is a local grid that uses distributed energy resources (DER) and energy storage assets to provide power to a specific campus or locality. In the transit context, a microgrid would consist of DERs that can provide power and resiliency services to the transit agency’s depot. A microgrid can use a combination of DERs. A key feature of a microgrid is that it can disconnect from the utility grid and generate power for itself. This functionality 137
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
39 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study is
managed by a switch at the point of connection with the utility grid and a controller that decides when to connect to and disconnect from the grid. When microgrids use a variety of generation and storage sources, it provides the microgrid with options for deploying the most appropriate type of power generation. For example, if a grid outage were to occur during the day, the microgrid could opt to provide power with solar panels to maximize its use of carbon- free energy, whereas if the outage were to occur at night, the microgrid could opt to use a natural gas generator or batteries when intermittent energy sources are not generating power.

A microgrid can also provide other services for a transit agency. Microgrids can help transit agencies engage in demand response. While transit agencies can reduce their pow er demand by using smart charging software, many larger agencies will still have high power needs. A microgrid can allow agencies to further reduce their demand by storing self - generated energy or excess power from the grid during times of low power demand and deploying it to partially or completely charge a fleet of buses. This solution would reduce the spike in power demand caused by charging, which would aid in grid management and reduce demand charges for the transit agency. The microgrid controller can also be programmed to interact with energy markets and sell self -generated power during times when demand for grid power is high, allowing the transit agency to help manage the utility grid and generate revenue. The utility could also benefit from microgrids being used in this manner. If the microgrid is able to prevent demand spikes, it could also potentially reduce the need to upgrade utility distribution infrastructure. It should be noted that the function of the microgrid can be limited. If a microgrid includes a backup generator, the generator can only be used for emergency purposes and cannot be used to provide ancillary services.

Training and Workforce Development
Many similarities exist between ZEBs and CNG buses , but ZEBs have unique systems such as electric drivetrains, batteries, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage tanks that require specific operational and maintenance needs. These systems have particular needs and require specialized training to service. In addition, ZEBs must be operated and drive n differently than a CNG bus to obtain the maximum performance from the buses.

Clovis Transit’s fleet is maintained by the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis has a Public Works facility that is used to maintain the City’s municipal fleet. Clovis Transit’s fleet is also housed and maintained at this facility by city employees. This section will provide an overview of the maintenance and training that is required to operate a ZEB fleet and associated infrastructure.
138
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
40 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Bus Operator Training
Bus operators will need training to drive and operate ZEBs. ZEBs need to be driven in a certain manner to optimize performance and bus range. Typically, electric buses maximize their range when accelerated slowly . Poor driver behavior, such as rapidly accelerating from a stop , can reduce bus energy efficiency by up to 25 %. As a result, ensuring the bus operators drive the buses in the correct manner is vital to maximizing the benefits of ZEBs. Range anxiety, where the driver fears that they do not have enough charge to complete their route, has also been widely documented. This fear has resulted in operators prematurely ending their route and returning to the depot to charge the bus.

To avoid this problem, bus operators need to understand the range and capabilities of the bus . Bus operators also need to learn how to correctly use technologies such as regenerative braking.

Bus Technician Training
ZEBs have different maintenance needs and operation best practices than traditional ICE buses. ZEBs replace the ICE with an electric drivetrain, which changes the maintenance needs of the bus. While maintaining a traditional bus, a maintenance technician needs to have expertise in maintaining and repairing ICEs and moving parts like belts, alternators, and pumps. In addition, expertise in mechanical systems such as steering, HVAC, and suspension is vital. However, with ZEBs, the vast majority of the moving parts are replaced with electric components, such as batteries, DC -to-DC converters, and electric motors.

Since there are few moving parts on a ZEB, the majority of the maintenance tasks relate to preventative maintenance. As a result, the most vital skills for maintenance technicians to become proficient in are high voltage safety and proper use of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of electrical shocks and arc flashes. Mechanics should consider obtaining the NFPA 70E: Standards for Electrical Safety in the Workplace and High Voltage OSHA 1910.269 8 Hour Qualified Training Course certificates. Maintenance technicians will also need to become proficient in bus inspection, preventative maintenance, and how to handle removed battery systems to effectively maintain the buses. Knowledge of standard bus mechanical systems is also important. If a fleet has hydrogen FCEBs, the maintenance technicians need additional skills. Hydrogen is a highly flammable gas, meaning that it requires specialized skills. Technicians working on hydrogen buses need training in high pressure gases and hydrogen safety. Local first responders need to receive training in EV and hydrogen safety so they can effectively respond in the event of an accident.
139
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
41 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study T
echnicians receive their training through a variety of sources, which usually starts in an automotive program at either a community college or trade school. While at community college/trade school, technicians are introduced to automotive safety, vehicle systems, engines, and mechanical systems. Many students will also learn about electric and hybrid drivetrains. Many nearby community colleges such as Fresno City College, Kern Community College District, and San Joaquin Delta College have devoted EV Associate of Sciences programs.

After completing community college/trade school, technicians are then hired by a fleet or a transportation services company. Technicians usually receive on-the-job training after they are hired. Their employer often provides one- on-one training so the technician can work on real -life maintenance and repair issues. Bus OEMs also provide training to technicians. This training typically begins one week before the bus is delivered. The OEM will send a field service representative to provide bus operator training to the contractor’s drivers. The field service representative provides safety, preventative maintenance, and diagnostic/troubleshooting training to the mechanics. Since this training is specific to the buses and is generally at a more advanced level, it is important that the technicians have some experience with the basics of zero-emission vehicle maintenance before attending the OEM’s training. The pricing for OEM-specific training is provided on page 43.

The field service representative is also vital for training mechanics on more advanced maintenance tasks. During the warranty period, if repairs or troubleshooting beyond preventative maintenance are needed, the field service representative can be called to teach the mechanics how to fix the issue. It is important to use the warranty period to provide further training for its mechanics. If there are problems with any of the non- drivetrain components on the bus ( e.g., the HVAC system), many component manufacturers offer similar services.

Workforce Development Training Plan
The City of Clovis has three types of maintenance staff. The most skilled employees , Journeymen Mechanics, have a deep understanding of the vehicles, vehicle systems, and how the vehicle systems interact with each other. Journeymen Mechanics are responsible for carrying out major vehicle repairs. The City of Clovis currently employs seven Journeymen Mechanics. The City also employs Assistant Mechanics. Assistant Mechanics assist the Journeyman Mechanics. The City currently employs two Assistant Mechanics.

The City also hires Service Technicians, who work on low-level repairs like vehicle lights and oil changes. The City of Clovis currently employs three service technicians. 140
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
42 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study S
ince many traditional vehicle maintenance competencies (such as suspension, mechanical systems, HVAC systems, etc.) are transferable for maintaining ZEBs, the easiest way to develop a workforce is to upskill the existing bus operators and maintenance staff.

CALSTART interviewed maintenance staff to better understand their expertise in maintaining zero-emission vehicles and to assess their training needs. City maintenance staff reported that they have limited experience maintaining ZEBs. While they have experience maintaining mechanical systems like suspension and braking and low-voltage systems, they do not feel safe working on high voltage electrical systems or the drivetrain.

Maintenance staff stated that receiving high voltage electrical safety is their main priority.

Clovis Transit currently has two battery-electric shuttle buses. Maintenance staff has relied heavily on the OEM for maintenance of high voltage electrical systems.

The City of Clovis intends to upskill their current maintenance staff so they can maintain ZEBs. The City of Clovis will prioritize training for their Journeymen Mechanics and Assistance Mechanics. CALSTART recommends the following training sequence for the Journeymen and Assistant Mechanics:

1. High voltage Electrical Safety: The prerequisite knowledge required to begin ZEB maintenance training is a firm understanding of high voltage electrical systems and safety. During this training, maintenance staff learn how to use multimeters, how to identify high voltage components and cables, how to use personal protective equipment, and safety procedures for working with high voltage equipment. OEMs view high voltage electrical training as a prerequisite for OEM -provided maintenance training. As a result, maintenance staff need to receive high voltage safety training before they receive any instruction on bus maintenance. There are several options for obtaining this training:

2. The California Transit Training Consortium (CTTC) provides high voltage safety training. The prerequisite for their high voltage safety training course is a course in using a digital volt -ohm meter. CTTC provides three levels of high voltage safety training. Awareness t raining is a four -hour course that is offered to any employee who is on the floor of the vehicle repair workshop. Certification training is a 16 -hour course that teaches workers how to use personal protective equipment, tools, and arc flash rescue equipment and procedures. Lastly, the advanced class is offered to any technicians who will physically be working on the vehicle. This training aligns with NFPA 70E and OSHA 1910.269 certification.

3. SunLine Transit’s West Coast Center of Excellence has a ZEB Maintenance course that includes instruction on high voltage safety.
141
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
43 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

4. H
igh Pressure Gases and Hydrogen Safety Training: If Clovis Transit opts to deploy an FCEB fleet, the maintenance staff will need to learn how to safely handle high pressure gases and hydrogen.

5. OEM-provided training: Bus OEMs provide training to teach maintenance staff to repair their specific system. Clovis Transit should purchase training packages from the OEM. OEM- provided training teaches maintenance staff how to operate and maintain a zero-emission drivetrain system. The OEM-provided training begins about a week before the delivery of the buses. The OEM sends a field service representative to provide bus operator training to the drivers and maintenance staff. Since there are few moving part s on a ZEB , the majority of the maintenance tasks relate to preventative maintenance. Bus OEMs also provide training on their diagnostic tools and how their bus systems function. Maintenance staff learn how to use the diagnostic tool to identify and resolve faults.

6. Warranty Period: During the warranty period, if repairs or troubleshooting beyond preventative maintenance are needed, Clovis Transit may call out the field service representative to fix the issue and teach the mechanics how to fix it. Using the warranty period to provide on-the-job training for the mechanics is vital to developing the skills of the maintenance staff . Overtime the maintenance staff will accrue enough knowledge to work independently from the field service representative. This knowledge can be institutionalized by pairing more experienced maintenance staff with junior staff and new hires to teach them maintenance best practices.

7. Supplemental Training: Clovis Transit can obtain additional training from SunLine Transit’s West Coast Center of Excellence and CTTC . CTTC provides specialized training on topics like electronic brakes and electrical system diagnosis . Other organizations like the California Transit Association, American Public Transportation Association, CalACT, and the National Transit Institute also provide supplementary training.

Training Costs
The City of Clovis’s staff will need training to be able to maintain and repair zero-emission vehicles. There are costs associated with training. This section will provide an overview of these costs.

The City of Clovis has multiple options for obtaining training. CTTC offers training in high voltage electrical safety, as well as specialized training in bus systems. Transit agencies can access CTTC’s trainings by joining the consortium as a member. Current membership 142
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
44 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study f
ees range from $1,000 per year for small transit agencies (around 5-7 vehicle technicians) to $5,000 per year for large transit agencies (more than 100 vehicle technicians). Members of the consortium receive unlimited access to training courses. It is important to note that membership fees are subject to change. In the short -term, CTTC will likely raise membership fees by 20%. Membership structure can also be changed in the future.

OEM-specific training is typically part of procurement contracts. California Department of General Services (DGS) has procurement contracts that transit agencies can use to purchase buses at a fixed price without having to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). These DGS contracts also include pricing for bus technician and bus operator training, as well as for maintenance manuals. See Table 3 for a breakdown of these costs.

Table 3. ZEB Maintenance and Operator Training Costs
Item OEM 1 OEM 2 OEM 3 OEM 4
Operator
Training
(Total of 56
hours)
$12,250.00 $11,667.04 $11,200.00 $11,667.04
Technician
Training
(Total of 304
hours)
$66,500.00 $107,001.92 $44,797.44 $141,657.92
Maintenance
Packages
Manual (per
manual)
$300.00 $741.00 $500.00 $815.54
Preventative
Maintenance
and
Procedure
Manual
(Per manual)
$300.00 $298.15 $100.00 $298.15
Parts Manual
(per manual) $200.00 $153.46 $500.00 $153.46
Operator's
Manual
(Per manual)
$100.00 $87.69 $250.00 $87.69
143
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
45 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Maintenance Costs
BEB Maintenance
BEBs have an electric drive train that is powered by electricity from an energy storage system, and consequently lack some of the components in an ICE bus, especially some of the mechanical systems in the propulsion system . T he maintenance need s for the propulsion system are therefore different in BEBs than ICE buses. Despite these differences, BEBs do share many mechanical systems with ICE buses, such as brakes, suspension, door opening systems, the cab, and chassis, so some of the maintenance needs will be similar.

Those transit agencies that have already deployed BEBs, can provide lessons about the maintenance needs for these vehicles. A number of these agencies reported that BEBs have fewer moving parts and therefore fewer parts to replace. BEBs do not require oil changes and do not have belts that need to be replaced . As a result, certain aspects of preventative maintenance for BEBs are lower than for fossil fu el-powered buses, with the main cost being labor and time.

Transit agencies have reported some issues in regard to unscheduled maintenance for BEBs, with the earlier generation of BEBs experiencing some problems and failures with major components such as h igh voltage batteries and inverters. Another common issue has been the wires from the high voltage batteries. These wires are held together by connector pins. On many buses, these connector pins have corroded and come apart, preventing energy from being transferred from the battery to the drivetrain. Some BEBs have also experienced problems with the low voltage batteries. In these buses auxiliary equipment such as the security camera system continued to draw power even after the bus was turned off. This issue depletes the battery. Despite these problems, the drivetrain itself has proven to be very reliable, and most buses only experience minor problems with the drivetrain, but these problems can be costly.

The following maintenance data compares maintenance costs between CNG buses and BEBs; although Clovis Transit uses diesel buses, there is more data available for transiting from CNG buses to BEBs. The cost of unscheduled maintenance is higher for BEBs than for CNG buses. The bus availability in a fleet of BEBs has also been significantly lower than for CNGs. One transit agency reported that the availability for CNG buses is about 95%, while BEB availability is about 70%. This low rate of availability has been caused by the fact that repairs on BEBs can take time to resolve . Some parts can be difficult to obtain, and sometimes diagnosis of a problem is not quickly resolved. As a result , BEBs can be out of service for up to 20 -30 days in the event of an issue. To improve bus availability, ensuring 144
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
46 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study t
he quick delivery of parts is vital. Transit agencies can also mitigate this problem by stocking extra parts.

Since some transit agencies have already deployed BEBs, there is data available on maintenance needs and costs . Foothill Transit has a fleet of BEBs: twelve 35-foot Model year 2014 buses and two 40- foot Model year 2016 buses ( Eudy, 2020) . The National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) has been tracking the maintenance costs for this fleet and has compared it to the costs for the CNG fleet . NREL found that the maintenance costs for the 35 -foot BEB fleet are $0.84 per mile and $0.53 per mile for the 40-foot BEB fleet. CNG buses have lower maintenance costs of $0.23-$0.42 per mile. Since all three fleets are out of warranty and Foothill Transit has taken over maintenance, these figures are comparable.

Although this data indicates that the maintenance costs are higher for the BEB fleet, there are several caveats in the data to consider . First, the BEBs had lower scheduled maintenance costs than the CNG fleet. The 35-foot and 40-foot BEB fleet had scheduled maintenance costs of $0.05 and $0.04 per mile, respectively. The CNG fleet had scheduled maintenance costs of $0.10 per mile. As a result, the main difference in cost between the BEB fleets and the CNG fleet is unscheduled maintenance. Some of the unscheduled maintenance figures were also skewed by an issue with the low -voltage batteries, which had to be changed out frequently. The bus manufacturer is working to resolve these issues, and the low-voltage battery problem is not expected to emerge in future generations of their bus. When the cost of the low-voltage battery problem is excluded, the maintenance cost for the 35-foot and 40-foot BEBs are $0.72 and $0.48 per mile, respectively.

NREL also measures data on bus availability, which is defined as the percent age of days the bus is available for service. NREL issued a report analyzing BEB a vailability at Foothill Transit. This report found that Foothill Transit's CNG bus fleet had an availability of 95.1 %.

The fleet of 35 -foot BEBs had a bus availability of 83.1% , and the 40 -foot fleet had a bus availability of 81.6%. In most cases, general maintenance is the cause of bus unavailability.

However, other issues such as problems with the electric drive or energy storage system can cause the buses to be unavailable. Significant variation of bus availability exists within the fleet; that is, some buses will have lower availability than others. For example, between Q3 and Q4 2019, some buses had a bus availability as high as 82 % and others as low as 42%. Moreover, bus unavailability tends to increase as the buses get older, much like bus maintenance costs.

Maintenance and bus availability figures are also less common for newer generations of buses. Since buses have continued to develop and become more technologically 145
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
47 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study m
ature, newer generations of buses are likely to have fewer problems with unscheduled maintenance and unavailability. During interviews with CALSTART, OEMs and other transit agencies in the Southern California region reported that newer generations of buses have proven to be more reliable and have had lower maintenance costs. Data from Antelope Valley Transit Authority indicates that maintenance costs for 40-foot BEBs are an average of $0.29 per mile (July 2019 – March 2022). Utah Transit Authority reported maintenance costs of $0.41 per mile (April 2019 – October 2021) for their 40-foot BEBs.

FCEB Maintenance
Like BEBs, FCEBs have an electric drivetrain that is powered by energy from a battery.

Many of the maintenance tasks will be similar for both BEBs and FCEBs, but FCEBs are unique in that energy is provided to the battery by a fuel cell. Since FCEBs use high pressure gases, many maintenance tasks are similar to that of a CNG bus. However, the fuel cell and its supporting systems introduce maintenance needs that increase the amount of required maintenance tasks and the overall maintenance cost. NREL has been investigating the maintenance needs and costs for FCEBs: tracking and reporting on the maintenance needs of several FCEBs deployed at SunLine Transit, NREL has compared them to the CNG buses deployed at the same agency. NREL reports that on a cost per mile basis, the FCEBs have a higher maintenance cost than the CNG buses. The maintenance cost for CNG buses has been reported at $0.23 - $0.42 per mile whereas the maintenance cost for the FCEB fleet was reported at $0.56/mile (Eudy, 2020a).

It is important to note that many of the maintenance tasks are common between a CNG fleet and an FCEB fleet. Like BEBs, FCEBs still have many of the same mechanical systems as CNG buses. This includes systems such as brakes, suspension, door opening systems, the cab, and the chassis. Not surprisingly, both types of buses had to undergo maintenance on systems such as the brakes, low voltage batteries, and suspension. However, there are a couple of systems that seem to be responsible for the majority of the difference in cost between the two types of buses, such as the propulsion system. The maintenance cost of the propulsion system is more than three times higher for FCEBs than for CNG buses . In addition, basic preventative maintenance and inspection is also approximately twice as high for FCEBs than for CNG buses.

NREL also reports on the reliability of FCEBs. NREL uses bus availability as their metric to measure reliability. NREL’s analysis of SunLine’s fleet indicates that FCEBs have lower bus availability than CNG buses . SunLine’s CNG fleet had an availability of 87 % whereas the FCEBs had an availability of 73%. The availability for each individual bus ranged from 60% to 89% between January 2017 and July 2019. Approximately one third of bus unavailability 146
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
48 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study w
as caused by routine problems with bus mechanical systems . However, one quarter of bus unavailability was caused by issues with the fuel cell and/or propulsion system . The FCEB’s lower availability was influenced heavily by an event in 2017, where two of the older buses were both unavailable for an entire month—t his outlier event lowered the availability figure for the FCEBs.

As a part of this study, CALSTART interviewed SunLine Transit to better understand their experiences with a n FCEB fleet . SunLine Transit stated that their experience ha s been positive and that much of the maintenance for FCEBs is similar to CNG buses. Most of the maintenance work they have done has been routine maintenance. However, there are some general preventative maintenance and inspection tasks that are unique to FCEBs .

For example, the fuel cell system has several components that need to be replaced regularly, such as particulate filters, deionizing filters (to deionize the water in the fuel cell coolant system), and air filters . These additional tasks increase the cost in comparison to preventative maintenance for CNG buses.

SunLine Transit also provided information about maintenance for the propulsion system .

SunLine stated that they do not directly perform maintenance on the fuel cell. Instead, any fuel cell maintenance is handled by the fuel cell manufacturer. The fuel cell manufacturer has a field representative that can be onsite within one day to fix any fuel cell-related issues that arise. If there is a problem that cannot be solved quickly, the fuel cell can be removed and sent to the fuel cell manufacturer for repairs. If this occurs, the fuel cell manufacturer provides a replacement fuel cell that can be used until the issue is resolved. SunLine Transit noted that the drivetrain and fuel cell systems have been very reliable and that they have not needed to receive a replacement fuel cell yet . Instead, most of the maintenance on the propulsion system has been due to balance- of-plant components and systems that support the fuel cell, including pumps and the fuel cell cooling system. Other transit agencies have also had this experience and have reported that most bus outages result from problems with balance-of-plant components or auxiliary components such as the HVAC system, rather than from the fuel cell or the drivetrain.

SunLine noted that they have been able to obtain replacement parts easily from the fuel cell manufacturer, which get s buses back in operation quickly . In addition, most of the maintenance performed on the buses to date has been through their warranty and helped to reduce the cost of maintenance. H owever, once the warranty is finished, the cost of maintenance is subject to increase. According to NREL’s data, out of warranty, older buses have higher maintenance costs per mile than newer buses in warranty.

In addition, the amount of unscheduled maintenance for FCEBs at SunLine fell b etween 2017 and 2019, which implies that the buses have become more reliable. This decrease 147
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
49 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study m
ight be occurring as the buses become more technologically mature—it is possible that maintenance costs between FCEBs and CNG buses can converge in the future.

Infrastructure Maintenance Requirements
Plug-in Charging Infrastructure
Charging infrastructure requires maintenance, though most of the components are non- moving parts with fewer maintenance needs. Most maintenance tasks focus on changing air filters in the charger and performing inspections . However, components can break from time to time. Since there is an established supply chain for these components, repairs are usually routine and completed quickly. For many chargers, the biggest threat is accidentally damaging the charger receptacle by driving over it . The use of DCFC and networked chargers can increase maintenance needs ; DCFCs have cooling equipment that can need maintenance and repair. Furthermore, any worker who maintains or repairs DCFCs must be a certified electrician. Networked chargers also have data and communications equipment that can potentially break.

Transit agencies can rely on their charger manufacturer to provide maintenance. The chargers usually come with a warranty during which the manufacturer is responsible for maintenance and repair tasks . If the transit agency opts to pay for networked charging services, the chargers can communicate with the network and can alert the charging company to any problems the charger is experiencing. After the warranty period expires, the transit agency can opt for an extended warranty, pay for a maintenance package, or take over maintenance with their own staff. Charging companies typically plan for up to two planned outages per year to do routine maintenance. Although the actual maintenance tasks are relatively easy to carry out, the labor costs of the maint enance can be expensive, as a certified electrician is needed to perform all maintenance tasks on DCFCs. Data from NREL indicates that maintenance costs for DCFCs are approximately $1,500 per year per charging cabinet ( Johnson, 2020). In addition, if the transit agency uses overhead plug -in chargers, a manlift is required to elevate maintenance worker to the chargers.

The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) provides training to electricians on how to install EV charging infrastructure. Electricians who complete this program can receive EVITP certification. This certification is accepted as industry -standard, and some California Energy Commission (CEC) grants even require that a certain percent age of electricians working on EV charging infrastructure have EVITP certification. EVITP also provides training on maintaining, troubleshooting, and commissioning EV chargers . It is recommended that maintenance staff who work on chargers obtain EVITP certification. 148
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
50 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Overhead Charging Maintenance

Unlike plug-in chargers, overhead chargers have moving parts that require a prescribed set of preventative maintenance that needs to be performed regularly. Every month, the overhead charger requires an inspection to ensure that the wiring and the brushes are functioning properly. Every six months, maintenance technicians measure the energy and charging capacity to make sure the charger is outputting the correct amount of power.

On a yearly basis, maintenance technicians inspect the charger to ensure that the wiring and communication systems are working properly . Maintenance is typically carried out by the OEM, and the manufacturer will normally offer a maintenance service package.

Hydrogen Production Equipment and Fueling Stations Maintenance The type of maintenance onsite hydrogen production equipment requires depends on the type of hydrogen infrastructure in place. If hydrogen is produced onsite , the transit agency will require an electrolyzer or SMR, in addition to compression and dispensing equipment. If the transit agency receives delivered hydrogen, storage tanks and a fueling station are required.

NREL has conducted research on maintenance needs for hydrogen productio n equipment and fueling stations . According to NREL, the compressor is the single component most likely to fail (Eudy, 2018). The compressor is used to take hydrogen from the hydrogen production equipment and compress it to be placed in high pressure storage. Since hydrogen cannot be compressed into the dispenser without the compressor, this component is very important to ensure fuel availability. Therefore, NREL recommends that transit agencies have redundant compressors so their system can still operate if one compressor fails. NREL also notes that dispensers and the hydrogen chilling system also frequently require maintenance (Saur, 2020) . CALSTART estimated this frequency by using Argonne National Laboratory's Heavy -Duty Refueling Station Analysis Model (HDRSAM). This analysis has been included in Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report.

To better understand maintenance needs for electrolyzers, CALSTART interviewed SunLine Transit. SunLine Transit has an electrolyzer and has paired the electrolyzer with a solar panel array to power it. SunLine Transit states that most of the maintenance for their electrolyzer has focused on route maintenance tasks . Maintenance workers perform a daily walk - through to inspect for safety issues or operating malfunctions. Maintenance workers also perform a weekly inspection to check water plumbing systems, compressor oil levels, and any system faults or alarms. SunLine also stated electrolyzers are more vulnerable to problems. Since SunLine Transit operates in extreme heat during the summer, cooling and 149
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
51 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study c
hilling of the hydrogen has historically been an obstacle. However, to address this issue, SunLine Transit added auxiliary cooling systems, which has effectively eliminated this problem.

SunLine Transit reported few problems with infrastructure unavailability , partly because obtaining replacement hardware components such as compressors is relatively easy with an established supply chain. Some of the controls are manufactured in Europe and were previously difficult to obtain, but these parts are now stocked in Northern California .

SunLine Transit did mention that a brief power outage prevented them from operating the electrolyzer. To mitigate this problem, SunLine Transit is building a redundant system to store and produce hydrogen in the event of an outage.

Another factor in infrastructure maintenance is hydrogen p urity. It is vital that hydrogen, whether produced onsite or delivered, is pure and does not contain contaminants .

Contaminants in the hydrogen, as listed in Figure 10, can reduce the performance of the fuel cell. The impact of contaminants on fuel cell performance depends on the type and concentration of the contaminant. Some contaminants will only cause the fuel cell to lose power, which will degrade the performance of the bus. This issue could be fixed by flushing out the hydrogen storage tanks and the fuel cell, which is difficult and costly . However, some contaminants can cause catastrophic damage to the fuel cell. SAE J2719 outlines the relevant contaminants . Sulfur compounds are the most serious and destructive contaminants. Carbon compounds such as carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 block the catalyst surface on the fuel cell, which reduces efficiency. Compounds such as ammonia affect the membrane, which reduces the efficiency of the fuel cell system . Removing water from the hydrogen gas is also important because it can facilitate the infiltration of other contaminants into the system (Tiger Optics, 2020).

The hydrogen production pathway affects the types of contaminants that are likely to be present. Electrolysis is the least likely to produce contaminants , as it uses pure water for input. SMR, however, uses natural gas and is at risk of being contaminated with ammonia, sulfur compounds, CO, and CO2. After the hydrogen is produced, atmospheric compounds such as nitrogen, water, and oxygen can contaminate the hydrogen through leaks in the system (Tiger Optics, 2020).

The State of California recognizes the problem from contaminants , and the CEC requires that any hydrogen fueling station that receives grant funding must be tested for contaminants at least every three months. The CEC also requires that hydrogen quality be tested any time the hydrogen could have been exposed to contaminants during maintenance or other activities.
150
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
52 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Figure 10. Typical Hydrogen Contaminants (CARB, 2016)
T
he cost of maintenance for hydrogen infrastructure can vary depending on the ownership model for the equipment. Many hydrogen infrastructure providers prefer to own the infrastructure and sign an agreement to provide hydrogen to the fleet . Under these agreements, the infrastructure provider is responsible for providing maintenance. For example, the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) ( the transit agency serving Canton, Ohio, and the surrounding Stark County) receives delivered liquid hydrogen that is trucked from Canada. SARTA has 9,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen storage and a fueling station. The liquid hydrogen storage and fueling equipment is owned by Air Products .

SARTA has a contract with Air Products, who owns, operates, and maintains the equipment. SARTA pays $10,000 per month plus the cost of fuel (Eudy, 2019). However, other hydrogen companies have a different business model and will construct the fueling station. After completing the fueling station, the hydrogen infrastructure company will provide maintenance for a fixed cost. The maintenance cost can be reduced if the transit agency’s staff can carry out routine maintenance tasks, leaving major maintenance tasks to the hydrogen company.

Required Tools and Facility Upgrades
To adequately service the buses, the maintenance staff will need to have proper tools and facilities. Many of the tools used to maintain traditional ICE buses can also be used to service electric buses. However, some specialized equipment is needed to handle EV high voltage components such as batteries, inverters, and traction motors . The following are examples of necessary tools and equipment:
• OEM-specific diagnostic tools to troubleshoot problems on the bus 151
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
53 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study • High impedance multimeters to monitor current in the electrical systems • Insulated hand tools (wrenches, screwdrivers, pliers, etc.) to protect workers from shock
• Personal protective equipment including Class 0 rubber high voltage gloves (which need to be inspected and tested regularly), leather overgloves, insulated dielectric boots, face shield, insulating rubber apron, and insulated electrical rescue hook • Overhead crane to lift batteries from the roof of the bus • Forklift to remove inverters and HVAC systems from the roof of the bus • Scaffolding with fall protection so technicians can access the roof of the bus • Lifting jigs for batteries and inverters
• OEM-specific tools to fix bus mechanical systems
• Manlift (if using overhead plug -in or pantograph chargers) to perform routine maintenance and repairs
Although FCEBs operate in a similar manner as BEBs , they have additional maintenance and operational needs . Since hydrogen is a highly flammable gas, there are m any regulations that govern the maintenance of hydrogen vehicles. NFPA has published safety standards for hydrogen facilities . These standards are published in the NFPA 2 Hydrogen Technologies Code. NFPA 2 was most recently updated in 2020. NFPA 2 has several provisions that are relevant to FCEB maintenance depots:
• Repair rooms must be separated from the rest of the building by a one- hour fire resistant wall.
• A gas detection system must be provided and ready to activate the following if hydrogen level exceeds 25% of the lower flammability limit:
○ Initiation of audible and visual signals
○ Deactivation of heating systems
○ Activation of the exhaust system (unless the exhaust system operates continuously)
• Infrared flame detectors are required to detect hydrogen fires since hydrogen burns invisibly.
• Defueling is required for all work on the fuel system or all hot works (welding or open flame) within 18 inches of vehicle fuel supply container . The maintenance garage must have equipment to defuel the bus’s hydrogen tanks. 152
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
54 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Lo
cal authorities and fire departments can impose additional fire safety requirements .

Meeting these requirements can be expensive and var y depending on the type of improvements required. For example, when AC Transit adopted FCEBs, they were required to install a two-hour fire wall, an ignition- free heating system for the garage, a hydrogen lower flammability limit detector, and Class 1 Div . 2 electrical equipment throughout the garage. AC Transit spent $1.5 million to provide these upgrades (CALSTART, 2016). SARTA, however, had an existing garage and only needed to purchase air handlers to ventilate the garage and sensors to detect the presence of hydrogen. These upgrades cost about $100,000 (Eudy, 2019).

Financing Strategies & Resources
Transit agencies have multiple options for funding the deployment of ZEBs. Bus OEMs offer several models for financing the procurement of buses and infrastructure. In addition, there are myriad governmental programs available to help fund vehicles and infrastructure. This section provides an overview of financing options.

Traditional Private Financing Models
Bus OEMs offer a variety of financing mechanisms that transit agencies can use to obtain buses. This includes capital purchases, bus/battery leasing, and infrastructure as a service.

Capital Purchases
Traditionally, buses are obtained through capital purchases. A capital purchase is a transaction in which an OEM or infrastructure provider transfers ownership of a bus or infrastructure to a transit agency in exchange for a capital payment. In a traditional capital purchase, a transit agency typically releases RFPs, in which they outline the number of buses and type of infrastructure they would like to procure and release the duty specifications the buses need to meet. OEMs and infrastructure providers are then invited to submit bids, and the transit agency selects a winning bid and awards a contract.

However, several states have now issued statewide contracts for buses. Under a statewide contract, the state negotiates a contract with bus OEMs to purchase buses at a fixed price. Transit agencies can purchase buses from a statewide contract and thereby avoid the RFP process. The State of California has statewide contracts with several bus OEMs through Cal ifornia DGS. CalACT has also developed a statewide contract for zero - emission shuttle buses.

A capital purchase allows a transit agency to make a single payment to obtain a bus. The bus’s value is then depreciated over the entire life of the bus. Capital purchases can be problematic; they require transit agencies to have access to a large amount of money. It 153
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
55 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study is
often difficult for transit agencies to obtain enough funding to make a lump sum payment, especially smaller transit agencies.

Battery Leasing
When compared to conventional diesel- and/or gas-powered vehicles, EVs often come at a higher upfront capital cost. In most cases, the largest cost is the battery itself, which is why some OEMs have developed battery leasing programs to lower the barrier to entry for fleets and allow the manufacturer to recoup the cost of the battery over an extended contract. In this model, the BEB can be purchased without the battery pack at a lower price that is cost competitive with conventional vehicles. The upfront cost of the battery itself is covered by a participating financial partner and enables battery warranties to be guaranteed for the duration of the lease. Under this model, the transit agency would then make monthly or annual lease payments for the battery . Battery leasing helps transit agencies because it reduces CAPEX for the buses . This model effectively shifts a large portion of the bus cost into lease payments, which allows transit agencies to finance their purchase through operational budgets, rather than CAPEX.

While this is a promising model for the acceleration of transit fleet electrification, it is a newer idea that is still in development at most OEMs. A price comparison between leasing and owning the battery remains uncertain; battery leasing is a na scent business model, and it is unclear which, if any, transit agencies have utilized this option. Table 4 provides a brief overview of BEB OEM battery leasing options.

Table 4. Battery Leasing Options
Bus OEM Battery Leasing Options
BYD Yes
New Flyer Unknown
Proterra Yes
GreenPower Motor
Company
No
Phoenix Motorcars No, but considering offering
battery leasing in the future
Infrastructure-as-a-Service
Like bus/battery leasing, infrastructure-as-a-service (IAAS) is another method for reducing CAPEX associated with deploying ZEBs, particularly charging and resiliency infrastructure.

IAAS can also be combined with battery leasing to further reduce CAPEX. Under an IAAS model, a company will provide turnkey service, managing the construction and 154
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
56 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study ins
tallation of charging infrastructure. Under this model, the infrastructure company will typically maintain ownership of the chargers and any resiliency equipment. The infrastructure company then signs a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the transit agency to sell the power produced and dispensed to the buses. IAAS companies can develop PPAs where power is sold on a per kWh basis or a per mile basis. Most IAAS companies prefer to sell power on a per kWh basis. IAAS companies typically combine the infrastructure with managed/networked charging to minimize demand charges and the cost of electricity.

The IAAS model can also provide tax benefits in some cases. Some types of infrastructure can qualify for the Investment Tax Credit ( see page 61) and other tax benefits. Since a transit agency is a public agency that does not pay taxes, they cannot directly take advantage of these tax credits. However, under the IAAS model, the infrastructure provider retains ownership, and they can benefit from the tax credits. This option would allow the infrastructure provider to pass some of the tax benefits onto the transit agency in the form of lower PPA rates. In some cases, an IAAS company may also give transit agencies the option to convert the PPA to a capital purchase of the infrastructure once the tax benefits have been realized. An overview of IAAS companies can be found in Appendix D: Energy Storage Solutions.

Funding Sources and Incentives for Buses and Infrastructure Clovis Transit is currently funded with local funds and does not accept federal funding.

However, due to the high cost of transitioning to ZEBs, Clovis Transit will likely need to accept federal funding in the future. The promising funding option that Clovis Transit has to fund the transition to a ZEB fleet is to apply for competitive grants to pay for buses or bus facilities. Grant funding can be used to reduce CAPEX associated with pu rchasing buses or chargers. Alternatively, there are situations where grants can be combined with traditional financing models to fund the fleet. This section provides an overview of governmental funding opportunities.

State Funding Sources and Incentives
California State Budget Allocations
The California State Budget has allocated $2.7 billion for the 21 -22 fiscal year and a total of $3.9 billion over the next three years. Millions of dollars of funding are specifically being earmarked for ZE transit buses and associated refueling/charging infrastructure:
• $1.3 billion over 3 years to deploy over 3,000 ZE drayage trucks, transit buses, and school buses
155
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
57 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study • $
500 million for zero emission clean truck, buses, and off‑road equipment • $200 million for medium-and heavy-duty ZEV fueling and charging infrastructure • $407 million to demonstrate and purchase or lease clean bus and rail equipment and infrastructure that increase intercity rail and intercity bus frequencies.

Clean Transportation Program - CEC
The Clean Transportation Program was created to fund projects that help transition California’s fuels and vehicle types to achieve California’s climate policies. The Clean Transportation Program is funded from fees levied on vehicle and vessel registrations, vehicle identification plates, and smog abatement. The Clean Transportation Program was created by Assembly Bill 118 and the collection of fees that supports the program was extended to January 1, 2024, by Assembly Bill 8. The Clean Transportation Program funds multiple classes of vehicles. Every year the CEC develops an Investment Plan Update to identify how the program’s funds will be allocated. The CEC proposed $30.1 million of funding for FY 2022-23 and $13.8 million in funding for FY2023-24 for zero emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and infrastructure under the Clean Transportation Program. The Clean Transportation Plan also plans to invest $30 million from zero -emission vehicles and infrastructure general funds into transit activities (CEC, 2022).

Carl Moyer Program – CARB
The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funding for engines, equipment, and other sources of air pollution that exceed CARB’s regulations for on- road heavy-duty vehicles. The Carl Moyer Program is managed by CARB in collaboration with local APCD s and air quality management districts (AQMDs). ZEBs with a GVWR of greater than 14,000 lbs. are eligible for funding under Carl Moyer. The APCDs and AQMDs are the entities that issue the grants and determine funding for the program. This is a competitive funding opportunity.

Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-Emission Commercial Vehicles (EnergIIZE) – CEC,

CALSTART
EnergIIZE is a program that was launched by the CEC and is being managed by CALSTART.

EnergIIZE will provide $50 million of funding to entities to help finance the purchase of charging and hydrogen infrastructure. EnergIIZE will fund medium - and heavy -duty infrastructure and is intended to primarily benefit communities with disproportionately high levels of air pollution. EnergIIZE program will only cover a part of the infrastructure hardware and software costs. For EV projects, charging equipment eligible for funding includes Level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), DCFC EVSE , charge management software, switchgear, electrical panel upgrades, wiring and conduit, and meters. For hydrogen projects, equipment that is eligible for funding includes compressors, 156
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
58 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study liq
uid and gaseous pumps, piping and pipelines, hydrogen dispensers with hoses and nozzles, high- pressure storage, onsite production equipment, chillers, switchgear, electrical panel upgrades, wiring and conduit, and meters. Construction, labor, and utility upgrade costs are not eligible for funding under this program.

The EnergIIZE program offers four pathways to fund infrastructure. Each of these pathways has different eligibility criteria:
• EV Fast Track – for fleets that own or have a purchase order for a vehicle registered in the State of California as a result of s tate or f ederal vehicle incentive funded projects.
• EV Jump Start – for transit agencies in a designated DAC (according to CalEnviroScreen 3.0)
• EV Public Charging Stations – for public charging station developers • Hydrogen – for the development of hydrogen refueling stations for medium - and heavy-duty vehicles (either liquid hydrogen or gaseous hydrogen) The pathway that a transit agency qualifies for determines the amount of funding that they can receive. Under the EV Fast Track pathway, applications are evaluated on a first- come, first -served basis. EV Fast Track will fund 50% of hardware and software costs incurred, up to a maximum of $500,000. EV Jump Start funding is awarded on a competitive basis. EV Jump Start will fund 75% of hardware and software costs incurred, up to a maximum of $750,000. Hydrogen pathway funding is awarded on a competitive basis. The Hydrogen pathway will finance 50% of hardware and software costs incurred, up to a maximum of $2,000,000.

At the time of writing, CALSTART opened the first round of funding for EV Fast Track in March 2022. A second round of funding is planned to open in Q3 2022. The first round for EV Jump Start is planned to open in Q2 and close in Q3 2022. A second round of EV Jump Start is scheduled to open in Q4 2023. The hydrogen pathway is scheduled to open in Q2 2022.

A second round is scheduled to open in Q4 2022. 70% of funding will be allocated to EV projects and 30% will be allocated to hydrogen (CALSTART, 2021). This is a competit ive funding opportunity.

Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) – CARB,

CALSTART
California HVIP is a program that was launched by CARB and is managed by CALSTART.

HVIP provides vouchers that are used to finance the purchase of clean transportation vehicles. HVIP’s vouchers are applied at the point -of-purchase, which reduces the 157
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
59 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
urchase price of the vehicle when it is purchased. ZEBs are eligible to receive vouchers under HVIP. Vouchers are allocated on a first -come, first-serve basis. This is a competitive funding opportunity.

California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) The IBank was created in 1994 to fund infrastructure and economic development projects in California. The IBank was started by the Bergeson -Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act and is operated by GO-Biz. IBank can issue low-interest bonds that can be used to finance projects for public agencies or nonprofits. The IBank has programs that can be used to finance the transition to a zero-emission fleet. The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) program provides low -Interest financing for infrastructure projects.

ISRF provides loans of $50,000 to $25 million over a term of up to 30 years at a fixed interest rate. These loans are funded through the sale of Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Revenue Bonds. Public transit projects, which include but is not limited to vehicles and maintenance and storage yards, are eligible for funding through ISRF. ISRF applicants must be a public agency, joint power authority, or nonprofit corporation formed by an eligible entity. ISRF accepts applications on an ongoing basis (California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, 2016).

The IBank also offers the California Lending for Energy and Environmental Needs (CLEEN) program. CLEEN provides loans from $500,000 to $30 million over a term of up to 30 years.

These loans can be used to fund projects that use commercially proven technology to reduce GHG emissions or pursue other environmental objectives. Eligible projects include energy storage, renewable energy generation assets, stationary fuel cells, EVs, alternative fuel vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles refueling stations (California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, n.d.).

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program – CARB
The LCFS Program is run by CARB and creates a mechanism for the users and producers of low -carbon fuels (including electricity) to generate credits for the use of these low - carbon fuels. These credit s can then be sold in the LCFS market . The LCFS program sets standards for the maximum carbon intensity that a fuel can have. If an entity uses fuels that are below the carbon intensity standards, they generate LCFS credits. However, if an entity uses fuels that exceed the carbon intensity standards, they generate deficits and must purchase LCFS credits to negate their deficits.

LCFS credits are generated based on the fuel type, fuel quantity, and carbon intensity of the fuel used (in this case electricity or hydrogen). Over time, the standards for carbon intensity become more stringent, making it more difficult to earn LCFS credits. Transit 158
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
60 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study a
gencies must comply with CARB reporting requirements to earn LCFS credits. To generate LCFS credits, the chargers or hydrogen production equipment must be registered with CARB. Once the equipment is registered, the owner of the equipment can begin generating LCFS credits.

LCFS credits can be sold to polluters that need to negate their deficits based on the going market rate. However, as of 2021, CARB has set a purchase price for LCFS credits at $221.67 per credit, effectively creating a price ceiling. The price of LCFS credits has been volatile in recent years. Prior to 2021, LCFS credits were trading at about $200 per credit. However, the price of LCFS credits has fallen substantially in 2022. At the beginning of 2022, LCFS credits traded at about $150. As of May 2022, the price has fallen to about $115 per credit.

Since May, the price has fallen further to about $100 per credit. This decline in price has been attributed to increasing adoption of renewable diesel, RNG, and electric vehicles leading to an increase in the supply of credits.

S
ales of LCFS credits can provide a significant revenue mechanism. The profits from LCFS credits can be used to fund either vehicle purchases or charging infrastructure. Figure 11 shows historic LCFS prices from January 2020 through May 2022.

Figure 11. Historical LCFS Prices January 2020 – May 2022 (SRECTrade, 2022) T
ransit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) – Caltrans TIRCP provides grants to fund capital improvements that will modernize California’s rail, bus, and ferry public transit facilities. The objective of the program is to reduce GHG 159
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
61 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study em
issions, expand transit service, increase transit ridership, and improve transit safety.

Funded projects are expected to reduce GHG emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. TIRCP is funded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and the Cap-and-Trade program. TIRCP funds can be used to finance site upgrades and the deployment of zero-emission infrastructure at bus depots and facilities. This is a competitive funding opportunity.

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) – Caltrans The LCTOP is one of several programs that is funded by the GGRF, which is funded by revenues from the state’s cap -and-trade system. State law requires continual appropriation of 5 % of the revenue from the GGRF to be allocated to the LCTOP. This funding is available through an allocation request. State law requires the program’s funds to provide transit operating or capital assistance that meets any of the following criteria:

1. The funding can directly enhance or expand transit service by enabling new or expanded bus or rail services, water -borne transit, or expanded intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, and maintenance, and other costs to operate those services or facilities.

2. The funding can fund OPEX that increase transit mode share.

3. The funding can fund the purchase of ZEBs, including electric buses, and the installation of the necessary equipment and infrastructure to operate these ZEBs.

Volkswagen (VW) Mitigation Trust – CARB
The purpose of the VW Environmental Mitigation Trust is to fully mitigate the excess NOx emissions released during the Volkswagen emission scandal. This program was established as a part of the settlement that VW reached with the EPA. The VW Mitigation Trust has allocated $423 million to the State of California to fund the deployment of clean transportation vehicles. $130 million of these funds is devoted to replacing older, high emission buses with BEBs or FCEBs. Transit, school, and shuttle buses are eligible for funding.

Federal Funding Sources and Incentives
Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) – U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)/Caltrans The Bus and Bus Facilities program is managed by the FTA. This program provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase transit vehicles and construct bus -related facilities. The FTA allocates funding to states to administer these grants. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) increased funding for the Bus and Bus Facilities program for five years between FY2022 and FY2026. Approximately $1 billion per year in both formula funding and competitive grants will be provided through the Bus and Bus Facilities 160
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
62 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study p
rogram for the entire United States (FTA, 2021). In California, Caltrans has been delegated the responsibility of managing Bus and Bus Facilities formula grants. Public agencies and nonprofit organizations that are involved in public transit may apply for competitive grants.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Plan – DOT CMAQ provides funds directly to states. These funds may be used to finance projects that reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. The main objective of this program is to reduce CO, ozone, and PM emissions. This program is primarily intended to fund projects in areas that do not meet national air quality standards. The IIJA provides $13.2 billion of funding over five years. Under IIJA, there are new project types that are eligible for funding under CMAQ. The purchase of medium - or heavy -duty zero emission vehicles and supporting infrastructure is eligible for funding under CMAQ. Shared micromobility projects are also eligible for funding. CMAQ funds can also be used to provide operating assistance for public transportation projects.

Investment Tax Credit (ITC) - IRS
Internal Revenue Code Section 48 provides a tax credit for investments in certain types of energy projects. Section 48 provides tax credits for a wide range of renewable energy investments. Renewable energy technologies such as solar PV, fuel cells, small wind microturbines, and combined heat and power are eligible for tax credits. Solar PV projects are eligible for a tax credit equal to 10 % of the cost of system for projects that begin construction in 2022 or after . Only the owner of the system can claim the ITC . Small wind power (100 kW of capacity or less) is eligible for the same tax credits as solar. Fuel cells are eligible for the ITC and are limited to $1500 per 0.5 kW in capacity. Lastly, combined heat and power equipment qualifies for an ITC of 10% (Congressional Research Service, 2018).

It is important to note that the ITC for some technologies will phase out over time. The solar ITC is permanent and will remain at 10% beyond 2022. However, the ITC for wind, fuel cells, and CHP has been approved until 2024. It is unclear whether the ITC for these technologies will be enacted beyond this date. Since transit agencies are tax-exempt entit ies, they would not be able to directly take advantage of these tax credits. However, if a separate entity, such as an IAAS company, owned and operated the energy assets, they would be able to benefit from these tax credits and pass these benefits on to Clovis Transit.

Low or No Emissions Program (Low-No) – DOT/FTA
Low-No provides funding to state and local governmental authorities for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses. Low-No funding can also be used to acquire charging or fueling infrastructure for the buses, pay for construction costs, or 161
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
63 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study o
btain or lease facilities to house a fleet. In FY2021, $182 million was allocated for the Low- No program. However, the IIJA expanded funding for the Low-No program. IIJA allocates an additional $5.25 billion for the Low -No program over five years , starting in FY2022 .

Approximately $1.12 billion will be allocated per year (FTA, 2021). This represents a major increase in funding for ZEBs. This is a competitive funding opportunity.

To be eligible for this funding, a transit agency will need to submit a plan for transitioning to zero emission buses. This plan must demonstrate a long -term fleet management plan that addresses how the transit agency will meet the costs of transitioning to zero emission, the facilities and infrastructure that will be needed to be deployed to serve a zero-emission fleet, the transit agency's relationship with their utility or fuel provider, and the impact that the transition will have on the transit agency's current workforce. Under IIJA, transit agencies may apply for Low -No funding with other entities, such as an OEM, which will participate in the implementation of the project. IIJA also requires that 5% of grant funds awarded be used to fund workforce training to prepare their current workforce to maintain and operate the buses.

Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants – DOT The RAISE grant is the latest iteration of the BUILD and TIGER grant program. This program is intended to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects. The objective of this program is to fund projects that are difficult to support through traditiona l DOT programs. Public entities, such as municipalities, are eligible to apply for this program. RAISE is a competitive grant program. This is a competitive funding opportunity.

Prospective Financing Mechanisms
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Fleet Purchasing Assistance Program - CARB
Under existing California law, CARB administers an Air Quality Improvement Program which promotes the use of zero-emissions vehicles by providing rebates for their purchase.

SB-372, was introduced in the California Senate in early 2021. This bill establishes a Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Fleet Purchasing Assistance Program, within the Air Quality Improvement Program, to make financing tools and nonfinancial support available for t he operators of medium - and heavy -duty vehicle fleets to help them transition to zero -emissions vehicles. This bill passed the State Senate with broad support and was approved by the Governor in October 2021. The bill requires that the financial tools offered by this program be available to fleets by January 1, 2023. 162
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 64 II. Clovis Transit
Clovis Transit Overview
Clovis Transit provides public transportation to the City of Clovis with four fixed routes (Stageline) and a demand -response paratransit service (Roundup) using a fleet of 30 buses, nine vans, and one trolley. Fixed -route and paratransit services are provided Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and on Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Paratransit service runs on Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

The fixed-route service provides transit options to key destinations in and around the City of Clovis, including the Sierra Vista Mall, the Civic Center, Walmart, Target, city schools, and Fresno State University. However, some of the more newly developed areas remain unserved by transit, including Clovis Community College. Three of the four fixed -route service lines offer easy connections to Fresno Area Express transit network. The City pays over $300,000 to Fresno Area Express to provide se rvice to one route with 15 -minute headway times.

The Clovis Transit fleet is part of the City’s emergency plan. A ll vehicles need to be available in case of an emergency even if the power is out.

Clovis Transit Fleet
The current fleet is made up of 41 vehicles: 13 Glaval/GMC cutaway (27-foot) buses, six Arboc low floor (26-foot) buses, three Champion low floor (28 -foot) buses, seven Champion (32 -foot) buses, nine vans for the paratransit service, one trolley for special events, and two all-electric Phoenix Motorcar Zeus buses. All vehicles except for the Zeus buses have ICE s. Both Zeus shuttle buses had operation challenges associated with charging and charging infrastructure; they are not dedicated to any specific duty cycle.

Clovis Transit’s bus depot is located at 155 N . Sunnyside Avenue in Clovis. The City is considering a new location as the current facility cannot accommodate more buses.

Energy Analysis
To understand the energy needs of the fleet, CALSTART used its proprietary EBCM to model the amount of energy the buses would use over the course of a day. EBCM uses several transit-specific variables to calculate energy needs, like the speed of the bus, r idership, and HVAC setpoints. CALSTART worked with Clovis Transit to obtain parameters for these 163
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
65 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study v
ariables. EBCM also considers variables that are specific to the route and the environment the bus will encounter while in operation, like grade and temperature (which affects HVAC load). To obtain data about grade, CALSTART collected GIS data to determine the path that the buses travel on their route. This data was used to obtain the elevation at multiple points along the bus es’ routes. HVAC load is also a major factor; in extreme climates, HVAC can consume more energy than the propulsion system. As a result, HVAC load has a major impact on energy needs and the range of the bus. The Central Valley has mild winters and hot summers. To ensure that the buses will be able to perform under worst-case conditions, EBCM was programmed to model temperatures of 120°F in the summer.

These results can be used to determine whether ZEBs can serve as a drop-in replacement for the current fleet and which routes are most suitable to deploy ZEBs. A BEB is considered a drop-in replacement if it can complete its shift with an SOC of at least 30%. Likewise, an FCEB is considered a drop -in replacement if it can complete its shift with 10 % of its hydrogen capacity remaining.

Fixed-Route
Clovis Transit provides service for R outes 10, 50, 70, and 80. Routes 70 and 80 are school routes that run only during the school year . To estimate the energy needs for the fixed - route fleet, EBCM was used to estimate the amount of energy that the buses would consume on these routes. CALSTART worked with Clovis Transit to calibrate the assumptions for those variables. The assumptions used in EBCM are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5. EBCM Fixed-Route Assumptions
Variable Value
Average Number of People
on Bus During Service
10 Average Driving Speed 20 miles per hour
Heating HVAC Setpoint 68°F
Cooling HVAC Setpoint 77°F
164
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
66 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study C
lovis Transit currently runs cutaway buses under 35 feet on all routes. Below shows the route modeling results for summer months, the most energy intensive season for Clovis Transit. OEMs 1–3 are 40- foot buses, and OEM 4 is a 25 -foot bus. In Table 6, some buses cannot serve as a drop -in replacement for a fossil fuel -powered bus. A drop -in replacement is defined as a run that completes its route with a n SOC of less than 30% .

Runs that complete their route with an SOC of 10% to 30% have been highlighted in yellow.

While these buses are not a drop -in replacement with technology in 202 2, it is likely that, with improvements in battery technology over time, these buses could become a drop-in replacement. Buses that return to the depot with less than 10% SOC have been highlighted in orange. Orange denotes that it is uncertain whether these buses will become a drop-in replacement in the future.

Table 6. Fixed-Route Modeling Results
Route Laps
OEM 1
(kWh)
OEM 2
(kWh)
OEM 3
(kWh)
OEM 4
(kWh)
10 6 331.67 344.12 377.81 121.07
50 6 371.29 386.06 437.44 116.57
70 2 46.29 48.29 53.00 16.82
80 2 29.95 31.45 35.26 10.27
The results from Table 6 show that all buses can complete Routes 70 and 80. For Routes 10 and 50, OEM 1 would be the closest to completing these routes as operated currently.

OEMs 2–4 end the day with SOC below 10%. Routes 10 and 50 run about 135 miles per day.

Other transit agencies report BEBs can consistently complete routes of about 150 miles.

EBCM models worst -case scenarios , so it is possible t hat EBCM has overestimated the energy needed to complete the routes. Technology changes in the future may allow the buses to complete the routes with enough range at the end of the day. 165
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
67 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study An F
CEB is considered a drop -in replacement if it can complete its shift with 10 % of its hydrogen capacity remaining. The usable hydrogen tank capacity of each OEM was calculated. Each kg of hydrogen has 33.333 kWh of energy. However, the efficiency of the fuel cell is 50%, meaning that 16.667 kWh is available to the drivetrain. Based on these assumptions, the energy capacity of each FCEB is detailed in Table 7.

Table 7. FCEB Energy Capacity
OEM
kWh
Equivalent
OEM 5 562.51
OEM 6 750.02
Based on these figures, both FCEB OEMs can serve as a drop -in replacement because their energy capacity exceeds energy demand for each shift. It is estimated that transit FCEBs will consume approximately 275 kg of hydrogen per weekday.

Paratransit
Clovis Transit’s Roundup fleet provides paratransit service to seniors and people with disabilities. Clovis Transit uses shuttle buses for this service and wants to continue to use that vehicle vocation for this service. To estimate the energy needs for the paratransit fleet, CALSTART used EBCM. Clovis Transit provided a list of the most frequent locations the DAR service visits. Because the route the vehicles travel varies, this average was used as a placeholder for a typical service day. The route was 21 miles over an assumed eight-hour workday. The assumptions used in EBCM are outlined in Table 8.

Table 8. Paratransit EBCM Assumptions
Variable Value
Average Number of People
on the Bus During Service
3 Average Driving Speed 25 miles per hour
Heating HVAC Setpoint 68°F
Cooling HVAC Setpoint 77°F
166
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 68 T
he results of the model are summarized in Table 9 . OEM 4 was the only manufacturer to complete Altoona Bus Testing at the time of modeling. The modeling results from EBCM show OEM 4 has sufficient battery capacity to complete the daily DAR duty cycle.

Table 9. Paratransit Battery Capacity
Route OEM 4 (kWh)
Paratransit 54.47
Fleet Replacement Plan
Clovis Transit plans to replace the current ICE fleet with ZEBs as the buses reach the end of their useful life. Clovis Transit currently owns 41 buses. Although the ICT regulation does not obligate Clovis Transit to start purchasing buses until 2026, Clovis Transit plans to deploy ahead of this deadline. Many of the buses are reaching or have reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Clovis Transit plans to purchase three ZEBs that will be deployed by the end of 202 4. Clovis Transit also intends to purchase six ZEBs and deploy them by the end of 2025. In 2026, Clovis Transit plans to acquire two ZEBs, followed by two in 2027, and four in 2029. Figure 12 below illustrates the fleet replacement plan. A 100% ZEB fleet will occur in 2035. Clovis Transit is planning to expand the existing service with at least one additional route.

The replacement plan includes additional vehicles for a planned fleet expansion and spare buses. Because of the expansion and spare buses, Clovis Transit’s fleet is expected to grow to 56, including 10 spare buses—four full-sized spares and six small-bus spares.

Light-duty vehicles in the paratransit fleet are not included as they are exempt from ICT compliance.

This report focuses on a fleet of 100% BEB or 100% FCEB. Mixed technology fleets (i.e., having both BEBs and FCEBs) are a viable option for many transit agencies . However, operating a mixed-fuel fleet involves maintaining charging and refueling infrastructure, which is often infeasible from a space and cost perspective. A mixed fleet analysis for Clovis Transit can be found in the Mixed Fleet Analysis section. 167
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
69 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Figure 12. Clovis Transit BEB Replacement Plan
Fleet Type
Vehicle
Length
(ft)
Planned
Replacement
Date
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 27' 2020 1
27' 2020 1
27' 2022 1 1
27' 2022 1 1
27' 2022 1 1
26' 2024 1 1
26' 2024 1 1
26' 2024 1 1
26' 2024 1
26' 2024 1
26' 2024 1
28' 2030 1
28' 2030 1
28' 2030 1
NA 2025 - new 1 1
NA 2025 - new 1 1
NA 2025 - new 1 1
NA 2025 - new 1 1
NA 2025 - new 1 1
NA 2030 - new 1
NA 2030 - new 1
NA 2030 - new 1
NA 2030 - new 1
NA 2030 - new 1 1
NA 2038 - new 1 1
NA 2038 - new 1 1
NA 2038 - new 1 1
NA 2038 - new 1 1
NA 2038 - new 1 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2031 1
40' 2031 1
40' 2031 1
40' 2031 1
40' 2031 1
40' 2027 1
40' 2027 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2020 1
40' 2035 - new 1
40' 2035 - new 1 1
40' 2035 - new 1 1
40' 2035 - new 1 1
40' 2035 - new 1 1
2028 1
2028 1
2023 1
2023 1
Clovis Transit BEB Replacement Plan
Stangeline
(Fixed route)
Vans and
Trolleys
168
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
70 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Utility Analysis
Clovis Transit will be using BEV-2 rates (see Utility Rate Structures). The costs were calculated assuming all vehicles charge off-peak between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Because Clovis Transit has space constraint issues at their current location, they will need to relocate their depot to house the new electric fleet. Since this location has not yet been determined, CALSTART is unable to account for potential utility upgrades needed and the amount of power available at the future depot. Table 10 below has a breakdown of cost estimates depending on the utility rate (BEV-2 vs . B- 20) and charging type (sequential vs . unmanaged). Utility and charging infrastructure costs were not included. 169
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Table 10. Annual Cost Breakdown Estimates by Utility Rate and Charging Type OEM Charge/Cost Type B-20 (secondary) BEV-2 (secondary) % Change Sequential Unmanaged Sequential Unmanaged Sequential Unmanaged OEM 1
Meter Charges $19,609.92 $19,609.92 $16,992.00 $ 16,992.00 -13% -13% Energy Charge $257,826.37 $257,826.37 $310,113.66 $310,113.66 20% 20% kW Charges $421,165.80 $539,470.80 $30,961.44 $40,135.20 -93% -93% Total Annual Electric
Cost ($/yr) $698,602.09 $816,907.09 $358,067.10 $367,240.86 -49% -55% OEM 2
Meter Charges $19,609.92 $19,609.92 $16,992.00 $16,992.00 -13% -13% Energy Charge $253,774.91 $253,774.91 $305,240.56 $305,240.56 20% 20% kW Charges $421,165.80 $705,097.80 $30,961.44 $51,602.40 -93% -93% Total Annual Electric
Cost ($/yr) $694,550.63 $978,482.63 $353,194.00 $373,834.96 -49% -62% OEM 3
Meter Charges $19,609.92 $19,609.92 $16,992.00 $16,992.00 -13% -13% Energy Charge $254,109.81 $254,109.81 $305,643.38 $305,643.38 20% 20% kW Charges $414,856.20 $667,240.20 $30,961.44 $49,308.96 -93% -93% Total Annual Electric
Cost ($/yr) $688,575.94 $940,959.94 $353,596.82 $371,944.34 -49% -60% CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 71 170
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 72 As
broken down above, the BEV -2 rate has a slightly higher energy cost ($/kWh) , but overall, it results in significantly lower power cost (see kW C harge rows). Peak kW unmanaged charging was 2,235 kW, and managed charging peaked at 1,335 kW.

Infrastructure Analysis
BEB Charging Infrastructure Deployment Plan
To deploy a BEB fleet, Clovis Transit will first need to build a permanent transit facility. To move forward, Clovis Transit must secure property and funding to build this facility. After the property and funding has been secured, environmental review and a final draft of the depot will need to be completed.

Next, Clovis Transit will need to ensure it has completed public outreach on the proposed design and develop a construction bid package. In addition, the project will go through the permitting process. Once a construction firm has been selected and permitting is complete, construction may begin. Construction is expected to take 20 months. During the construction phase, utility infrastructure will also need to be installed. After construction is complete, commissioning will take place. After commissioning, the facility will be ready for use. A Gantt chart outlining the proposed construction timeline is included below in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Clovis Transit Facility Construction Timeline I
f the construction process adheres to the proposed timeline, construction is expected to take 39 months. The main barrier to beginning this process is obtaining land and funding to build the depot.

In addition to building a transit facility, installing charging infrastructure is vital for the successful deployment o f a BEB fleet. Deploying BEB infrastructure is more than simply installing the chargers. In addition to FTM utility infrastructure, electrification requires the deployment of BTM infrastructure (on the customer’s side of the meter). BTM infrastructure carries the power from the utility transformer (where the utility delivers power to the depot) to the actual chargers. BTM infrastructure upgrades entail installing appropriately sized transformers and switchgear. In addition, conduit through which the circuits can deliver Months from Grant Award 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NE
PA Determination
Develop Final Design
Public Outreach Complete
Construction Bid Package
Permitting
Construction Phase
Install Utility Infrastructure
Commissioning
Facility in Service
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
171
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

73 power to the chargers is required. Conduit is typically underground, and the depot must be trenched to install this equipment.

The depot will need FTM equipment , mainly a transformer. Clovis Transit will also need to deploy BTM equipment at their depot to bring power from the transformer to the chargers.

To serve the charging site, Clovis Transit will need to deploy the following infrastructure:
• Seven transit bus power cabinets
• 21 transit bus depot chargers
• 35 shuttle bus chargers
• Three DCFCs (shuttle bus backup chargers)
• One electric bus switchboard (480 V)
• Four electrical panelboards (120/208 V)
• One 500-kVA transformer (see Utility Analysis section for more details) • Main service switchboard
• Automatic transfer switch (if natural gas generators are used to provide resiliency) If all of the buses are housed at one location, the space required for bus parking and infrastructure is estimated to be approximately 163,000 square feet. More information can be found in Appendix F: Clovis Transit Conceptual Framework and Supporting Documents.

Clovis Transit will transition to zero -emission between 2 024 and 2040. To minimize the amount of construction work needed to install BTM infrastructure, it is advisable to install all BTM up grades at the same time. To save time and reduce costs, BTM infrastructure installation should begin during the construction phase to allow the infrastructure to be installed before concrete is laid and to reduce the cost of deploying conduit by reducing the amount of trenching. In addition, Clovis Transit will need to install conduit directly to the location where each of the chargers will be located. This strategy allows Clovis Transit to install the infrastructure without having to do multiple rounds of trenching. The site will then be charger -ready, and as the buses are deployed, additional chargers can be added by simply running circuitry through the conduit to the chargers. To achieve this, preplanning will need to be conducted to identify where each o f the chargers will be located on the site.

FCEB Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Deployment Plan
If Clovis Transit were to roll out a fleet of FCEBs, the main requirement would be to obtain hydrogen for the fleet. Depending on the number of FCEBs Clovis Transit choses to 172
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

74 purchase, the cost of refueling can vary. The fleet would consume approximately 1,650 kg of hydrogen per week, which equates to approximately 8 5,800 kg per year. Clovis Transit would have several options for obtaining hydrogen for the fleet: produce hydrogen onsite via SMR or electrolysis, or alternatively opt to receive delivered gaseous or liquid hydrogen. Lastly, Clovis Transit could fuel at public fueling stations. Table 11 below has a breakdown of costs per hydrogen source.

Table 11. Onsite Hydrogen Production Equipment Costs
Expense
Onsite
Electrolysis
Delivered
Liquid
Hydrogen
Delivered
Gaseous
Hydrogen
Onsite SMR
Offsite
Retail
Fueling
CAPEX $7,024,829.00 $3,247,254.00 $2,658,633.00 $5,524,829.00 $0 Annual
Cost of
Hydrogen
Fuel
$1,648,976.16 $1,593,926.88 $1,526,366.40 $1,648,976.16 Offsite
fueling not
currently
available
Several of these options can be eliminated immediately. Producing hydrogen onsite via electrolysis is not viable because the utility costs would be high. Producing 1 kg of hydrogen via electrolysis requires 55 kWh of energy. Furthermore, compressing the hydrogen so it can be dispensed at 350 bar consumes between 1.7 and 6.4 kWh per kg of hydrogen (Monterey Gardner, 2009). This analysis uses the average of this range, which is 4.1 kWh per kg. Based on these figures, the production of hydrogen via electrolysis would require 59.1 kWh per kg of hydrogen. Clovis Transit would consume about 16,253 kWh per day to produce hydrogen. Assuming the best -case scenario (that minimizes power demand) where the electrolyzer produces hydrogen 24 hours per day, power demand would be 677 kW. This method for producing hydrogen is not viable; the amount of energy required to produce this much hydrogen is more than double the amount of energy the entire BEB fleet uses. In addition, there would still be high power demand for electrolysis.

To model the cost of obtaining, storing, and dispensing hydrogen, CALSTART used NREL’s HDSAM model. The CAPEX for h ydrogen produced onsite is expected to cost $7,024,829.

The annual cost for fuel (assuming $6/kg) is $1,648,976.16. As a result, the utility bills would be higher than that of a BEB fleet, which makes this option financially infeasible. In addition, utility upgrades might be required to deliver this much power to the site.

The use of delivered gaseous or liquid hydrogen is also financially infeasible. Hydrogen can be delivered in gaseous form but only in limited quantities. Most trucks can only deliver 173
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

75 approximately 250–280 kg of hydrogen; some newer tube trailers can deliver up to 1 ,100 kg of gaseous hydrogen at once. To serve the entire fleet, Clovis Transit would need to receive one truck delivery per day or once every two to three days. This situation would likely be incompatible with Clovis Transit’s operations. However, if this option was pursued, the expected annual cost of hydrogen would be approximately $1,593,926.88.

Liquid hydrogen is typically delivered in larger quantities, and most liquid hydrogen trucks can deliver up to 4,500 kg of hydrogen. When Clovis Transit is fully zero-emission, the fleet could consume enough fuel to justify the use of liquid hydrogen. The annual hydrogen fuel cost is projected to be approximately $1,526,366.40, but these figures still greatly exceed the utility charges incurred for a BEB fleet.

Another option would be retail fueling. At the time of writing, there are no heavy -duty hydrogen stations currently in existence or planned in or near Clovis. The closest light-duty station is along I-5 at Harris Ranch about 60 miles away. This distance would be too far to feasibly travel to refuel, and the price of retail hydrogen is currently high. A new hydrogen production plant is being commissioned about 25 miles away in Kerman, CA . 4 CALSTART
spoke to a representative for the H2B2 project, and they are planning to use the hydrogen to open a light -duty refueling station. An agreement could be made to procure local hydrogen. Local hydrogen can cut down on transportation costs. At this point in time, the use of retail fueling is currently infeasible due to the lack of heavy -duty hydrogen fueling stations and the high price of hydrogen at light -duty station s. However, the market for retail hydrogen fueling is rapidly changing, and the CEC has awarded grants to expand California’s retail hydrogen fueling market (CEC, 2020 a). As a result, the market for retail hydrogen fueling could change in the future.

The most viable option for Clovis Transit to fuel an FCEB fleet would be to use onsite SMR.

Onsite SMR is only economically viable at volumes of at least 200 kg per day. Although delivered hydrogen is not a viable option for fueling the entire fleet, it could be used temporarily to fuel the fleet until the fleet size increases to consume more than 200 kg per day. There are two options for using delivered hydrogen. One option would be to use a mobile refueler. A mobile refueler is usually delivered in a shipping container, trailer, or other non-permanent structure. The mobile refueler would accept delivered hydrogen.

When the fleet grows to the point where it consumes more than 200 kg per day, a hydrogen station with onsite production can be built and the mobile refueler removed.

The pricing for deploying a mobile refueler is not available. Alternatively, Clovis Transit

4 For more information about the H2B2 project, go to https://www.h2b2.es/project/solar-pv-hydrogen- production-plant-in-central-california/
174
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

76 would need to build a hydrogen station. The station would be designed to accept hydrogen from a tube trailer. Clovis Tr ansit would then schedule deliveries of hydrogen.

Once demand reaches 200 kg per day, an onsite SMR can be deployed at the location.

The capital cost of this approach is not clear because this process involves replacing equipment as the fleet grows.

When the onsite SMR is installed, the equipment used to accept delivered hydrogen can be left onsite. This will allow Clovis Transit to accept delivered hydrogen when the SMR is undergoing scheduled maintenance or if there is an equipment fault. Clovis Transit is projected to pay approximately $1,648,976.16 per year for hydrogen . This amount also exceeds the utility costs that would be associated with charging a BEB fleet.

It is important to note that, in addition to the cost of the fuel, there are CAPEX associated with some of these options, such as a hydrogen fueling station. Clovis Transit would need to invest in a fueling station if it decides to obtain hydrogen via onsite electrolysis, delivered liquid hydrogen, or onsite SMR. Clovis Transit could avoid this CAPEX if it was able to obtain hydrogen from retail fueling stations; however, this is currently not a feasible option. The CAPEX and annual fuel costs are displayed in Table 11. There are additional costs associated with deploying onsite hydrogen production equipment, which is explored further in Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling Options Report.

Resiliency
FTM Resiliency
In utilizing PG&E’s BEV-2 rate, it is unlikely Clovis Transit can take advantage of any FTM rates. FTM batteries and energy assets are managed and maintained so the utility can continue to provide power to their customers in the event of an outage. These utilities typically finance this resiliency through a special utility tariff. Under this tariff, customers pay a higher rate for energy (per kWh) in exchange for resiliency. This strategy is beneficial because it allows the transit agency to obtain resiliency while avoiding the CAPEX associated with deploying resiliency assets. PG&E does not currently offer a special utility rate for resiliency. A utility can feasibly offer a special utility rate if there are multiple customers that can make use of it. PG&E has a large service territory, and there could be other customers in Clovis Transit’s area that could make use of this rate.

BTM Resiliency
There are many options for Clovis Transit’s BTM resiliency. Since Clovis Transit will need to build a new depot, it will be possible to install a solar PV and battery storage system. Clovis Transit is in a region prone to grid interruptions, which would impact refueling the ZEB fleet 175
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

77 and revenue service. First, extreme heat will increase the likelihood of grid failures and damage the electrical equipment used by transportation agencies, which is expected to become more regular as climate change intensifies. Second, as the climate changes and high heat risk grows, the chance of events such as wildfire might also cause an interruption in power at the transit agency.

Clovis Transit must take some action to overcome these issues by adding resiliency measures (i.e., solar, battery storage, and/or a backup generator), which will provide grid independence. CALSTART developed a few system sizing scenarios based on the hour of outage from 24 hours to 35 hours and various combinations of critical load as show n in Table 12. The critical load is the bus charging electricity load. Each case represents the system sizing associated with the outage hours and critical electric load. For example, to have 24 hours of resiliency with the 50% critical load, the required solar sizing would be 600 kW with the battery sizing of 827 kW and 3,200 kWh. The addition of the infrastructure would add a lifetime cost of $5 million, as shown in Table 12. All calculations were completed with the help of NREL REOPT tool; all assumptions made for the calculation are listed below:
• The future depot will host a solar infrastructure of up to 1 MW. • The BEV-2 utility rate structure was used to estimate the operational cost, considering the solar infrastructure’s 25-year useful life.
• A discount factor of 14% was used to evaluate the life-cycle cost. • The Clovis Transit depot’s present address was used to calculate the solar potential. • An average of 3% of the inflation rate in fuel wa s used , a s per the EIA- predicted average nominal annual commercial escalation rate from 2020 –2045 in their reference case scenario.
• The current LCFS credits were considered in this analysis to estimate the life- cycle cost.
• The fuel burn rate by the generator was considered at 0.076 gal/kwh.

Due to a limited available area for installing more solar, CNG/diesel generators were used for system sizing. However, at a later stage, either stationary fuel cell generators or additional solar power at the depot might replace these generators.

176
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

78 Table 12. Resiliency Analysis
Resiliency Analysis
Scenario Outage
Hours
Critical
Load
Factor
Battery Solar
Sizing
(kW)
Generator
Sizing
(kW)
Result
Life-cycle
Cost (25
Years)
Battery
Power
(KW)
Battery
Energy
(kWh)
Case 1 24 50% 830 3,300 600 0 Yes $5,027,880
Case 2 24 50% 500 2,000 1,000 300 Yes $5,726,224
Case 3 24 50% 450 1,800 320 300 Yes $5,166,057
Case 4 24 100% 720 2,000 1,000 780 Yes $6,080,386
Case 5 24 100% 1,200 4,500 800 300 Yes $5,347,112
Case 6 35 100% 1,200 5,300 1,000 300 Yes $5,409,815
Depot Conceptual Design
A hypothetical depot for Clovis Transit was created to understand the space requirements needed to store and charge a BEB fleet. The depot was assumed to house and charge 21 full-sized BEBs and 35 shuttle buses.

The electrical equipment for charging the vehicles is in Table 13 below. At Clovis Transit’s request, staff parking, a bus wash, and one office/ maintenance building were included in the space estimate. The electrical demand of these additional buildings was not assessed.

Table 13. Electric Equipment for Bus Charging
Equipment Quantity
Transit bus power cabinet (ABB HVC 150C) 7
Transit bus depot charger (ABB HVC 150C) 21
Shuttle bus charger (ClipperCreek CS-100) 35
DCFC (ABB Terra 54) 3
Electric bus switchboard (480 V) 1
Electrical panelboard (120 / 208 V) 4
Transformer (primary: 480 V, secondary:
120/208 V) 1
Utility transformer 1

177
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

79 The site assessment estimated approximately 163,000 square feet (3.75 acres) of space would be needed for Clovis Transit’s new depot. For a complete report and single line diagram of the site design, see Appendix F: Clovis Transit Conceptual Framework and Supporting Documents.

Estimated Costs
Transitioning to a ZEB fleet will require substantial financial resources. Table 14 provides a cost comparison for maintaining an ICE fleet and transitioning to a fully BEB fleet. Because the most economically feasible option for Clovis Transit to obtain hydrogen fuel exceeds the utility costs that would be associated with charging a BEB fleet, CALSTART did not compute TCO for a fully FCEB fleet. These c osts assume that the buses and infrastructure will be purchased according to Clovis Transit’s fleet replacement plan.

Table 14. Estimated Costs to Transition to a BEB Fleet
Fleet Type Fleet Size Discounted
TCO
ICE Fleet Cost 11 shuttle buses $1.9 million
BEB Fleet Costs
57 buses (35 large
transit buses and 22
shuttle buses)
$58.3 million
The discounted TCO of converting Clovis Transit’s conventional fleet of 57 buses (35 large transit buses and 22 shuttle buses) to BEBs is $58.3 million. This study takes a 14% discount factor (i.e., discounting the amount to 2022 dollars) into account. Figure 14 shows the corresponding costs for each year from 2022 to 2040. ( Figure 12. Clov is Transit BEB Replacement Plan is provided in the Fleet Replacement Plan section, which also lists the assumptions used to calculate these total costs.) The acquisition cost of BEBs and infrastructure was incorporated in CAPEX for this cost calculation, while additional costs such as operation, mid-life maintenance, and periodic maintenance were incorporated in operating expenditures (OPEX).

178
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

80 Figure 14. TCO for BEBs and ICE Vehicles

Similarly, adding ICE buses to the present fleet will also have a significant impact of around $2.2 million, considering the average diesel cost of $6.88 per gallon in California. The capital cost of purchasing 11 new buses is the most significant contributor to TCO (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Annual TCO for ICE Vehicle

The running cost of ICE shuttle buses also depends considerably on fuel cost . (T he relationship between fuel cost and the overall cost is shown on page 85.)

179
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

81 TCO for BEB Fleet
CALSTART estimated the TCO of Clovis Transit’s BEB fleet from 2022 to 2040. Table 15 below shows the replacement planning and strategy. This replacement plan includes a spare bus as well as replacement buses for ICE vehicles. The whole fleet replacement will add 57 new BEBs to fleet operations, including 35 large transit buses and 22 small shuttle buses.

The TCO estimates were based on various factors, such as vehicle parameters and end- of-life assumptions. The assumptions used to conduct the analysis are detailed below:
• The capital cost of the BEBs was considered to be $700,000. • The maintenance cost of a transit bus was considered to be $0.72/mile. • The maintenance cost of the shuttle bus was considered to be $0.20/mile. • The average annual miles traveled for a transit bus was considered to be 42,244. The average for shuttle buses was considered to be 7,665 miles. • The utility cost/cost of charging for transit buses was estimated to be $16,350 per bus per year.
• Similarly, utility cost/charging cost for shuttle bus es was estimated to be $2 ,762 per bus per year.
• Siemens chargers have a capital cost of $85,000 (for two buses), while ABB chargers have a capital cost of $96,635 (for three buses).
• The construction/installation cost for these chargers was considered to be $125,000. • In this TCO calculation, incentives were not considered.

180
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

82 The TCO for operating Clovis Transit’s BEB fleet is $100.1 million dollars, including $28 million for CAPEX and $72.5 million for OPEX. CALSTART also estimates the overall discounted cost for the complete replacement of BEBs with a 14% discount factor to be approximately $59 million, as shown in Table 15. The overall yearly cost, considering the 14% discount factor, is shown in Figure 16.

Table 15. Overall Discounted Cost to Replace BEBs ($ Millions) Year CAPEX OPEX Total Cost
Yearly
Discounted Cost
(14%)
2022 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.9
2023 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
2024 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.7
2025 4.7 0.3 5.0 4.1
2026 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.9
2027 1.6 1.0 2.6 2.0
2028 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.0
2029 3.0 1.8 4.8 3.4
2030 2.3 2.2 4.5 3.0
2031 3.9 2.9 6.8 4.4
2032 0.8 3.6 4.4 2.8
2033 1.1 4.2 5.4 3.2
2034 0.8 4.9 5.8 3.3
2035 5.4 5.9 11.2 6.2
2036 0.0 6.8 6.8 3.6
2037 0.0 7.8 7.8 4.0
2038 1.4 8.7 10.1 5.0
2039 0.0 9.7 9.7 4.6
2040 0.0 10.6 10.6 4.9
Total 27.6 72.4 100.1 58.3

181
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

83 Figure 16. Yearly TCO for BEBs

TCO for ICE Fleet
The TCO for Clovis Transit’s ICE fleet was calculated over 11 years starting from 2022 to 2031, when 11 new ICE buses will be added to Clovis Transit’s fleet (Table 16). In 2031, ICE buses will be replaced by BEBs, which was considered in the BEB cost analysis section above.

Table 16. ICE Bus Induction Plan
Year Number of New Buses
Added to Fleet
2022 3
2024 3
2025 5
The T CO calculations were based on route characteristics, vehicle specifications , and end-of-life assumptions. The assumptions for the cost calculations were as follows:
• Upfront capital cost per vehicle was assumed as $180,000. • The annual average distance traveled by each vehicle wa s considered to be 8,000 miles.
• The maintenance cost was considered to be $ 0.60 per mile (DOT, 2011). 182
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

84 • The lifetime of a vehicle was assumed to be seven years. • End-of-life cost for each vehicle wa s considered to be $10,000 (American Bus Sales, 2015).

A discount factor of 14% was assumed for calculating the TCO for the ICE fleet. Assuming the current scenario to be true until 2030, buses at an average will be travelling 8,000 miles per year with diesel cost ing an average of $ 6.88 per gallon . The yearly cost for CAPEX and OPEX is shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Annual CAPEX, OPEX, and Discounted TCO for ICE Fleet Years CAPEX
Cost OPEX cost Discounted
TCO (million $)
2022 $540,000 $ 26,191 $0.52
2023 $0 $ 26,191 $0.02
2024 $540,000 $ 52,382 $0.51
2025 $900,000 $ 96,033 $0.82
2026 $0 $ 96,033 $0.08
2027 $0 $ 96,033 $0.07
2028 $0 $ 69,842 $0.03
2029 $0 $ 69,842 $0.05
2030 $0 $ 43,651 $0.01
2031 $0 $0 -$0.03
The TCO for Clovis Transit’s ICE vehicles would be $ 2.08 million (discounted to 2022 dollars).

Figure 17 shows the annual discounted TCO.

Figure 17. Annual Discounted TCO for ICE Buses

183
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

85 However, due to fluctuations in the economy , fuel cost can impact TCO significantly— hence the need to assess the impact of fuel cost on TCO. CALSTART completed a sensitivity analysis considering the change in fuel cost from $3 per gallon to $ 7.5 per gallon (as shown in Figure 18). The details for the TCO calculations are shown in Appendix H: ICE Bus Fleet Cost Calculation Report.

Figure 18. Sensitivity Analysis for Fuel Cost

Mixed Fleet Analysis
Clovis Transit can also consider a mixed fleet of BEBs and FCEBs. For this analysis, the mixed fleet was assumed to be four full-sized BEBs, 11 full-sized FCEBs, and 22 small BEBs. Full BEB and FCEB estimates were compared as reference. An estimate of the cost of a continued fossil fuel-powered fleet is also listed below.

It is important to note that these results represent modeling data and do not necessarily reflect a real-world scenario. Different methodologies were applied to arrive at the mixed fleet calculations than those applied to the BEB and ICE TCO results —caution should be taken when comparing these sections. Construction costs and labor were not included in the mixed fleet analysis ; constructions costs for hydrogen facilities are likely to be higher than electric infrastructure due to the specialized nature of the equipment.

Table 18 below outlines the estimated depot space requirements. Electric infrastructure and hydrogen refueling infrastructure must both be accounted for with a mixed fleet .

These land requirements include an average space requirement for delivered and onsite hydrogen along with bus parking, maintenance space, an office building, bus wash, and staff parking.
184
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 86 Table 18. Mixed Fleet Land Requirements for Infrastructure Fleet Mix
Stageline
(Fixed
Route)
Roundup
(Paratransit) Vehicle Total
Depot Land
Requirement
(avg; acres)
100% BEB
Fleet 35 22 57 3.66
100% FCEB
Fleet 13 22 35 3.67
Mixed Fleet 15 22 37 3.72
Fossil Fuel
Fleet 13 22 35 3.56
Table 19 details one-time costs and annual costs for Clovis Transit’s mixed fleet. One-time costs include the vehicle purchase costs, land costs, facility upgrade, and personnel training costs. Annual costs include fuel costs and maintenance costs. The assumptions used to arrive at these results are provided below:
• Bus costs:
○ Full-sized FCEB: $1,195,000
○ Full-sized BEB: $700,000
○ Full-sized fossil fuel-powered
bus: $650,000
○ Small BEB: $282,674
○ Small FCEB: $225,000
○ Small fossil fuel-powered bus:
$150,000
• BEB utility upgrades: $1,000,000
• Hydrogen facility upgrades:
$1,500,000
• Fuel costs: $2.34/gal
• Charger and installation costs:
$210,000
5 View this report at https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Best-Practices-in-Hydrogen.pdf. • Space assumptions: See Appendix
F: Clovis Transit Conceptual
Framework and Supporting
Documents, Appendix G:

Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle
Refueling Options Report, and Best
Practices in Hydrogen Fueling and
Maintenance Facilities for Transit
Agencies.
5 • Land cost: $1 million/acre
• Training costs for BEB: $78,750
• Training costs for FCEB: $153,325
• Maintenance costs for BEB:
$0.48/mile
• Maintenance costs for FCEB:
$0.56/mile
185
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Table 19. One-Time and Annual Costs for Mixed Fleet
Fleet
Mix
Vehicle
# Total
Vehicle cost
($)
Fuel Cost
($/yr)
Fueling
Infrastructure
Cost (avg; one
time)
Total Est Land
Cost
Facility
Upgrades
(one time)
Maintenance
Costs ($/yr)
Training
Costs (one
time) Total ($)
100%
BEB
Fleet 57 $30,718,828 $358,067.10 $5,880,000 $3,655,303.03 $1,000,000 $279,446.40 $78,750 $41,970,394.53 100%
FCEB
Fleet 35 $20,485,000 $1,140,399 $4,613,886.25 $3,674,242.42 $1,500,000 $326,020.80 $153,325 $31,846,299.07 Mixed
Fleet 37 $22,163,828 $464,833.55 $4,861,471.75 $3,723,599.63 $2,500,000 $309,870 $232,075 $34,225,254.33 Fossil
Fuel
Fleet 35 $11,750,000 $165,148.35 - $3,556,588.61 - - - $15,471,736.97 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 87 186
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 88 Financing Strategy
Clovis Transit will need a financing strategy to transition to a zero -emission fleet. The most important step that Clovis Transit will need to take is to secure both the location and funding to build a transit facility. If Clovis Transit can utilize property already owned by the City of Clovis , they can avoid having to purchase land. Otherwise, land will need to be acquired to house the fleet. The financial resources needed for a facility may potentially be obtained by winning a competitive grant(s) that funds CAPEX . Grant programs such as Caltrans’s TIRCP and the DOT’s RAISE can also be used toward purchasing a bus depot or financing utility and BTM infrastructure upgrades. The DOT also provides other competitive federal grants that could potentially be used as funding. For example, the Bus and Bus Facilities grant, if awarded, could be used to help fund the purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus facilities. However, grant funding should not be considered as a guaranteed source of funding as these are highly competitive programs.

Once a transit property has been acquired and the infrastructure upgrades have been completed, the operational costs are expected to be covered by Clovis Transit’s operating budget. However, the purchase of the buses needs to be financed. Bus purchases can be financed with various grant and funding sources (see Financing Strategies & Resources). Most of these grant and finance programs will only partially finance the cost of the buses. To maximize funding for bus purchases, it would be advisable to apply for and stack multiple grants, though it is unlikely that grants will pay for the entire transition to a zero -emission fleet. The main objective when pursuing grants should be to cover the incremental cost of ZEBs, or the difference between the cost of a ZEB and a fossil fuel-powered bus. Using grants to cover the incremental cost of the buses would allow Clovis Transit to purchase ZEBs with the funding sources they normally employ to purchase buses.

Clovis Transit should also consider which finance methods would be most appropriate for their agency. If Clovis Transit is amenable to CAPEX , then traditional financing models would be the most appropriate. However, if Clovis Transit prefers to avoid or reduce CAPEX, then financing models such as bus/battery leasing or IAAS would be more appropriate. These financing models would effectively allow Clovis Transit to pay CAPEX from their operational budget.

There are additional financial considerations that need to be factored in when deploying resiliency assets. The most likely candidates for Clovis Transit would be solar and storage or natural gas generators. However, there are unique financial considerations that need to be evaluated when selecting an asset. One major drawback of natural gas generators is 187
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

89 that they are subject to air quality regulations and would likely be permitted as backup generators. As a result, they can be used only in the event of a grid outage and would remain idle for the vast majority of the time. This solution is problematic because generators have a high capital cost, meaning that the levelized cost of energy (per kWh) produced by the generator would be very high. Unlike generators, there are no restrictions on when solar and storage can be used. A solar and storage system is eligible for net metering, and excess energy produced can be exported to the grid and sold back to the utility. Furthermore, the storage system can be used to peak shave and reduce overall power draw from the grid during times of high-power demand when using the battery to provide energy. This scenario is useful because it can reduce demand charges, which are a major component of utility costs. Furthermore, a solar and storage system could potentially generate revenue by providing ancillary grid services. Since solar and storage can provide a transit agency with savings and/or revenue, the levelized cost of energy would be much lower than for a natural gas generator.

In addition, solar and storage is better situated to take advantage of the ITC. The ITC provides a tax credit for investment in specific DERs. Solar is eligible for a 10%, permanent ITC. Generators are only eligible for a 10 % ITC if they are used in a combined heat and power system (i.e., a system where waste heat from the generator is captured and used to provide heating for a building or industrial process). Since air quality regulations limit backup generator use to 200 hours per year, they would likely not be usable in a combined heat and power system. Furthermore, the ITC for combined heat and power systems expires at the end of 2023.

If Clovis Transit opts to deploy DERs that are eligible for the ITC, acquiring them through a third-party ownership model, such as IAAS, would likely be the best option. The entity that owns the DER is eligible for the ITC. As a public agency, Clovis Transit is a tax-exempt entity and would not be able to benefit from the ITC. However, if Clovis Transit were to finance the ITC -eligible DERs through an IAAS model where a third party owns th e asset, the infrastructure provider can realize the benefits of the ITC and pass the benefits on to Clovis Transit in the form of lower PPA rates. If Clovis Transit opts to deploy DERs that are eligible for the ITC, the use of an IAAS financing model should be seriously considered.

LCFS Credits
Once the buses are deployed, LCFS credits can also be used to finance CAPEX and OPEX.

LCFS credits can be used in many ways. If Clovis Transit owns the charging equipment, they would earn the LCFS credits and c ould redeem them for cash. In addition, transit agencies can transfer their LCFS credits to their utility for a certain period of time to fund 188
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

90 utility upgrades. LCFS credits can also benefit a transit agency even if they do not own the charging equipment or if they opt to use an IAAS financing model. Under an IAAS model, the infrastructure provider would receive the LCFS credits. The infrastructure provider could then pass on the benefits of the LCFS credits to the transit agency in the form of lower PPA rates.

CALSTART developed a model to estimate the value of the LCFS credits over the lifetime of the project. This projection assumes that the price of LCFS credits is $100. The projected value of the LCFS credits for the fixed-route fleet is displayed in Table 20.

Table 20. LCFS Credit for Fixed-Route Fleet
Year Revenue Net Present Value Levelized Revenue
per kWh
2022 $0 $0 0
2023 $0 $0 0
2024 $0 $0 0
2025 $32,946 $29,289 0
2026 $32,335 $27,640 0
2027 $31,728 $26,078 $0.10
2028 $31,117 $24,592 $0.09
2029 $30,510 $23,185 $0.09
2030 $29,899 $21,847 $0.08
2031 $54,815 $38,512 $0.08
2032 $54,815 $37,031 $0.07
2033 $54,815 $35,606 $0.07
2034 $54,815 $34,237 $0.07
2035 $79,730 $47,884 $0.07
2036 $79,730 $46,042 $0.06
2037 $79,730 $44,271 $0.06
2038 $79,730 $42,569 $0.06
2039 $79,730 $40,931 $0.06
2040 $104,646 $51,656 $0.05
Total $911,091 $571,372 $0.07

189
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

91 The projected value of the LCFS credits for the paratransit fleet is displayed in Table 21.

Table 21. LCFS Credits for Paratransit Fleet
Year Revenue Net Present Value Levelized Revenue
per kWh
2022 $0 $0 $0.00
2023 $0 $0 $0.00
2024 $6,365 $5,885 $0.00
2025 $6,250 $5,556 $0.00
2026 $10,224 $8,739 $0.00
2027 $10,032 $8,245 $0.10
2028 $9,838 $7,775 $0.09
2029 $9,647 $7,331 $0.09
2030 $24,579 $17,959 $0.08
2031 $24,579 $17,269 $0.08
2032 $30,251 $20,436 $0.07
2033 $41,595 $27,019 $0.07
2034 $47,267 $29,523 $0.07
2035 $56,720 $34,065 $0.07
2036 $56,720 $32,754 $0.06
2037 $56,720 $31,495 $0.06
2038 $66,173 $35,330 $0.06
2039 $66,173 $33,972 $0.06
2040 $66,173 $32,665 $0.05
Total $589,305 $356,018 $0.07

190
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 92 III. Sustainability and Environmental Impact
GHG Emissions Comparisons
ZEBs provide environmental benefits for transit service areas. As noted in detail under Section I. Introduction to Zero-Emission Buses, buses with an ICE produce tailpipe emissions such as GHGs, NOx, and PM during operation that drive climate change, harm air quality, and affect human health. Clovis Transit plans to transition from fossil fuel-powered buses to ZEBs. ZEBs produce no tailpipe emissions and therefore aide in improving local air quality and residents' respiratory health.

Tailpipe emissions are not the only emissions associated with bus operations. Buses also produce upstream emissions , which are emitted during the production of fuel. For example, diesel must be extracted, processed, and transported to buses. The production processes of electricity and hydrogen also generate emissions . As a result, even ZEBs will produce some upstream emissions. Upstream emissions are generally emitted where the fuel is produced and not in the area where the buses operate, but GHGs contribute to climate change regardless of origin.

CALSTART analyzed emissions by using Argonne National Laboratory’s Alternative Fuel Life- Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool. AFLEET calculates GHG, PM, NOx, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions for diesel-, CNG-, and battery- powered buses. AFLEET uses data from Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model to calculate upstream emissions. AFLEET calculates tailpipe emissions using data from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES).

Users can provide customized inputs to AFLEET to generate emiss ions calculations.

CALSTART programmed AFLEET with the following assumptions:
• Vehicle Type: Transit Bus
• State: California
• Diesel Bus Fuel Economy: 7.39 miles per gallon
• BEB Fuel Economy: 43 miles per diesel gallon equivalent (GreenPower, n.d.) • FCEB Fuel Economy: 15.9 miles per diesel gallon equivalent (Eudy and Post, 2020a) • Source of Electricity: Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) 191
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

93 • Annual Mileage per Bus: 7,757 miles per year (46 buses travelling 356,820 miles per year)
All other parameters were left with the default values. Based on these parameters, emissions were calculated for diesel buses, BEBs, and FCEBs. Several hydrogen pathways for FCEBs were calculated assuming that the hydrogen was produced with 100% renewable energy, including:
• Centralized SMR: Gaseous hydrogen produced at a centralized plant using SMR • Onsite SMR: Gaseous hydrogen produced onsite using SMR • Onsite Electrolysis: Gaseous hydrogen produced onsite using electrolysis The GHG emissions analysis is displayed below in Figure 19, which shows the number of short tons of GHG emissions produced annually for each fueling pathway.

Figure 19. Annual GHG Emissions by Fuel Pathway

CALSTART found that all electric and hydrogen pathways produce fewer emissions than diesel. The reduction in emissions is heavily dependent on the fuel pathway adopted. SMR hydrogen pathways produce fewer GHG emissions reductions than BEB or onsite electrolysis pathways.

118.68

3.18 319.68
361.39
662.36

0.00 100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
BEB Onsite Electrolysis Centralized SMR Onsite SMR Diesel Short Tons
Fuel Pathway
192
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

94 Emissions analysis for criteria pollutants are displayed in Table 22 below . Figures are expressed as lbs. of emissions per year.

Table 22. Criteria Pollutants by Fuel Pathway
Fuel Pathway CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC
BEB 0.00 0.00 80.24 10.23 0.00
Onsite Electrolysis 0.00 0.00 80.24 10.23 0.00
Centralized SMR 0.00 0.00 80.24 10.23 0.00
Onsite SMR 0.00 0.00 80.24 10.23 0.00
Diesel 1,382.79 2,033.22 84.17 13.37 72.46
CALSTART found that transitioning to ZEBs would entirely eliminate CO, NOx, and VOC emissions regardless of the fuel pathway pursued. Deploying ZEBs would also provide small reductions in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

Battery Recycling
As vehicle electrification expands across all market segments, the demand for batteries will increase. T he growth of the EV industry and parallel renewable energy sectors has contributed to an exponentially increasing demand for critical materials such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt, among others . The extraction processes for these materials ha ve environmental and social impacts. Furthermore, batteries degrade over time and have a finite lifespan. These factors raise questions about how to process batteries when they reach the end of their useful life and the life-cycle sustainability of this technology . As demonstrated in the Emissions Comparisons section above on page 92, BEBs have a lower life-cycle environmental impact than fossil fuel-powered buses. However, there are opportunities to further improve the life-cycle environmental impact by recycling and re- manufacturing the materials that have been extracted. The technological benefit of EV batteries is that many of the materials used in primary production can be recycled nearly an infinite number of times and retain the same level of quality or performance. This means that recycled secondary materials maintain the same characteristics and quality as raw - earth primary materials for a fraction of the environmental, social, and economic cost .

This section outlines options for recycling and reusing batteries.

Battery Recycling Companies
One of the main concerns about using battery technology is its life- cycle environmental impact. The materials that are used to produce batteries have environmental and social consequences. Furthermore, as batteries reach the end of their useful life, they produce 193
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

95 a waste stream that has environmental ramifications. Forward-thinking leaders are already developing solutions to these problems . Battery recycling companies take batteries that have reached the end of their useful life, break them down into their raw materials, and reinsert them back into the manufacturing process. These steps help to lessen the impacts of battery materials and reduce the amount of waste associated with batteries . A few companies and research teams have emerged as foundational stakeholders in battery recycling and are highlighted below.

Li-Cycle is a rapidly growing company t hat is focused on the mission of transforming the lithium-battery economy into a circular supply chain. Li-Cycle is based on a “Spoke & Hub” model where batteries are transformed into a static product at the Spoke facility and are then transferred to the Hubs where the cathode and anode materials are processed into battery-grade materials for remanufacturing or other applications. Once this process is completed, materials such as copper, aluminum, and ferrous metals are provided back to the commodity market s. Their technology can recycle any type of lithium -ion battery from all kinds of vehicle with any cathode chemistry, any SOC (meaning that batteries do not require discharging prior to recycling), any format (pack, module, battery, cell), and any conditio n (damaged/undamaged). Li -Cycle works with all sources of batteries, including but not limited to OEMs, fleets, battery collection organizations, and refurbishment centers. To incentivize parties to collaborate in battery sourcing, Li- Cycle offers different financial models based on the percentage of battery grade materials in collected batteries. As an additional value add, Li- Cycle offers services such as replacement kit management, logistics, and witnessed destruction. In a first for the industry, Li-Cycle is in the process of building a hydrometallurgical refinery in Rochester, NY, that will be able to take lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and other materials from lithium-ion batteries and produce chemicals that can be used to make new batteries. The company currently serves the North American market ( the United States, Canada, and Mexico) and expects to serve markets outside of the continent soon. In the future, Li-Cycle plans to build out a global network of recycling and refinery facilities to creat e a closed loop system across all markets.

RecycLiCo is a patented process of American Manganese Inc, a critical materials and metals company. In partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, several universities, national laboratories, and research institutes, this is a research and development project in the demonstration stage that aims to target the downstream phase of battery recycling in the commercial refining process. RecycLiCo can refine materials from many types of batteries, including lithium-manganese-cobalt-oxide and lithium-manganese-oxide, with a focus on chemistries with the highest recovery rates. Since it is not yet a commercialized 194
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

96 process, the team has relied upon OEMs and other battery collection organizations to send pre- shredded materials for recycling, but they have the goal to serve a global market in the future with Extended Producer Responsibility legislation emerging in many countries. RecycLiCo seeks a holistic approach to the battery supply chain to enable localized regions to become less reliant on raw materials from faraway places and achieve higher self-sufficiency in remanufacturing and production.

Redwood Materials is a battery materials company with a major focus on recycling as an input to produce advanced battery materials domestically while mining used products to do so. Once a battery is fully recycled, the secondary materials are funneled directly back to major battery production facilities such as Panasonic and Envision AESC. While the company recycles electronics beyond the vehicle sector, it has prioritized the EV industry as one where battery recycling can make the largest impact on sustainability, economics, and supply chain resiliency. Redwood Materials currently processes approximately 45,000 vehicle batteries per year with an estimated output of 20,000 tons of material and has built partnerships with several vehicle OEMs and fleets to source the batteries it recycles. While the batteries they process can come from anywhere, they have strategically placed their Nevada facilities in close vicinity to the largest EV market (i.e., California) to keep the logistics, economic, and environmental footprints as small as possible with plans to scale up in the future in areas where EVs become more prevalent. Their process is technology agnostic, meaning that they can process all lithium -ion battery technologies, as well as research recycling methods for future battery technologies, such as solid state. Redwood is committed to defining pathways for closing the loop to create a circular supply chain model in collaboration with its partners with the understanding that future critical material supplies will face shortages and with the goal to drive down the cost of battery production in the United States.

Second-Life Batteries
Batteries used in transportation applications have a large energy storage capacity. Many BEB OEMs install batteries in excess of 300 kWh. Batteries used in EVs are typically replaced when they degrade to 80 % capacity. While these batteries are no longer suitable for transportation applications, they still retain high energy storage capacity. As a result, these batteries can theoretically be refurbished and reused in a second -life application. A second-life battery is most suited for an application where it would undergo fewer charge/discharge cycles, such as in a stationary energy storage system or a microgrid .

Once the battery degrades to the point where it can no longer serve in a stationary energy storage application, the battery can be sent to a battery recycling company for disposal.
195
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

97 Reusing a battery is a promising way to extend its lifespan and reduce its life- cycle environmental impact . Some EV OEMs have started experimenting with repurposing retired batteries for second-life applications. Nissan and Renault have formal programs for reusing retired batteries. In addition, many of the bus OEMs are examining ways to design batteries to easily integrate into second -life applications and are exploring the possibility of selling second-life batteries. The use of second -life batteries is expected to increase in the future.

Fuel Cell Stack/Module Recycling
Similar to batteries, fuel cell manufacturers are innovating processes to optimize the usage and lifetime of the materials used in the production of fuel cell stacks and modules.

Although fuel cells function like batteries in zero -emission vehicles, they are structurally different (consisting of an anode and cathode with hydrogen being supplied to the cathode to create a flow of electricity) and do not gradually degrade over time in the same way as a battery . While there is currently not a sound business model for fuel cell second-life applications, the future of recycling this hardware looks positive.

Ballard Power Systems Inc is a manufacturer of PEM fuel cell products for heavy -duty vehicle applications. The company supplies its FCMove module for partner transit bus OEMs New Flyer of America and ElDorado National. Ballard has operationalized its fuel cell takeback system where fleet owners assume the responsibility of returning the fuel cell module after it reaches its end of life at 20,000–30,000 hours. Once the module is sent back to the facility, it is disassembled into individual cells where some materials can be cleaned and reused up to six more times in newly produced modules. A key component of the module, platinum, is almost completely recovered during this process , which helps to reduce production costs since it is the most expensive material. Research to determine how all c omponents of the fuel cell can be either recycled or reused is under way, but there are currently very few buses at the end of life on roads since the technology is still relatively new . (The average transit bus lifetime is 12 years .) Once the process is f ully in place, Ballard will be able to serve all its global markets and is committed to making their entire value chain circular, including the production of the hydrogen that is used to fuel their modules (i.e., hydrogen produced from waste streams). Additionally, Ballard is exploring requirements that will mandate their upstream suppliers to use only recyclable components to ensure smoother and more economically viable recycling options for its customers.
196
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 98 References
Adler, K. (2021). S&P Global. Plug Power to build 30 mt/day green hydrogen plant in California. Retrieved from: https : //cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.com/research- analysis/plug-power-to-build-30-mtday-green-hydrogen-plant-in-california.html American Bus Sales (2015). What Happens After “Retirement” For Used Buses? Retrieved from: https://americanbussales.net/happens-retirement-used-buses/ Burrillo, Daniel, et al. (2018). California Energy Commission. Climate Change in Los Angeles County: Grid Vulnerability to Extreme Heat. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-1 1/Energy_CCCA4-CEC-2018- 013_ADA.pdf
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (2018). California Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment.

Retrieved from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 California Air Resources Board (2016). 2016 Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development.

Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018 - 12/ab8_report_2016.pdf
CALSTART (2016). Best Practices in Hydrogen Fueling and Maintenance Facilities for Transit Agencies. Retrieved from: https://calstart.org/wp -c ontent/uploads/2018/10/Best- Practices-in-Hydrogen.pdf
CEC (2020). 2020 Power Content Label PG&E. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.ca.g ov/filebrowser/download/3882
CEC (2020a). Energy Commission Approves Plan to Invest Up to $115 million for Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2020 - 12/energy-commission-approves-plan-invest-115-million-hydrogen-fueling CEC (2022). 2022- 2023 Investment Plan Update Proceeding. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-an d-topics/programs/clean-transportation- program/clean-transportation-program-investment-7
California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (2016). Criteria, Priorities, and Guidelines for the Selection of Projects for Financing Funder the Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program. Retrieved from: https://www.ibank.ca.gov/wp - content/uploads/2020/06/Board-Approved-Final-ISRF-Criteria.pdf California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (n.d.). CLEEN Program:

California Lending for Energy and Environmental Needs. Retrieved from:
https://ibank.ca.gov/climate-financing/cleen-programs/
CALSTART (2016). Best Practices in Hydrogen Fueling and Maintenance Facilities for Transit Agencies. Retrieved from: https://calstart.org/wp -c ontent/uploads/2018/10/Best- Practices-in-Hydrogen.pdf
197
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 99 C
ALSTART (2021). EnergIIZE Commercial Vehicles: Public Meeting on Project Design.

Retrieved
from: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=240636& DocumentCo ntentId=73956
Congressional Research Service (2018). The Energy Credit: An Investment Tax Credit for Renewable Energy. Retrieved from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10479.pdf DOT (2011). Bus Lifecycle Cost Model for Federal Land Management Agencies. Retrieved from: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9548/dot_9548_DS1.pdf? Eichman, J., Kotz, A., Miller, E., and Kelly, K. (2020). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Summary of VTA electrification assessment. Presented at the AVTA & VTA:

Advanced Transit Bus Vehicle- Grid Integration Projects Webinar. Facilitated by CALSTART.

Eudy, Leslie and Post, Matt (2018). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: Current Status 2018. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72208.pdf
Eudy, Leslie, et al. (2019). Federal Transit Administration. Zero -Emission Bus Evaluation Results: Stark Area Regional Transit Authority Fuel Cell Electric Buses. Retrieved from:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/134491/zero-emission-bus-evaluation-results-sarta-fta-report-no- 0140_0.pdf
Eudy, Leslie and Jeffers, Matthew (2020). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Foothill Transit Agency Battery Electric Bus Progress Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75581.pdf
Eudy, Leslie and Post, Matt (2020a). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. SunLine Transit Agency American Fuel Cell Bus Progress Report, Data Period Focus: January 2017–July 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/71312.pdf FCTRA (2022). Electrical Grid Analysis Study. Retrieved from:
https://www.ruraltransit.org/wp-c ontent/uploads/2022/02/FCRTA_Grid-Analysis- Study_FINAL.pdf
FTA (2021). Fact Sheet: Buses and Bus Facilities Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact- sheet-buses-and-bus-facilities- program
GreenPower (n.d.). EV STAR Passenger Transportation. Retrieved from:
https://greenpowermotor.com/gp-products/ev-star/
H2B2 (n.d.). SoHyCal: Solar PV Hydrogen production plant in Central California. Retrieved from: https://www.h2b2.es/project/solar-pv- hydrogen-production-plant-in-central- california/
Johnson, C., et al. (2020). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74832.pdf
198
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 100 M
onterey Gardiner (2009). Department of Energy. Energy requirements for hydrogen gas compression and liquefaction as related to vehicle storage needs. Retrieved from:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen _gas_compression.pdf
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.17226/24974 O’Dea, Jimmy (2018). Electric vs. Diesel vs. Natural Gas: Which Bus is Best for the Climate? Retrieved at: https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy - odea/electric-vs-diesel-vs-natural-gas- which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate/
PG&E (2020). Electric Schedule BEV Business Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from:
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_BEV.pdf PG&E (2021). Electric Schedule B-20 Service to Customers with Maximum Demands of 1000 Kilowatts or More. Retrieved from: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbo ok/ELEC_SCHEDS_B-20.pdf
Saur, G., Gilleon, S. and Sprik, S. (2020). National Renewable Energy Laboratory: H2@Scale Working
Group. Fueling Station Component Validation. Retrieved from: https://www.nrel.g ov/docs/fy20osti/76846.pdf
SRECTrade (2022). Clean Fuels Market Update. Retrieved from:
https://srectradeblog.s3.amazonaws.com/SRECTrade%20-% 20Clean%20Fuels%20M arket%20Update%20-%20May%202022.pdf
Tiger Optics, LLC (2020). Purity Analysis of Fuel- Cell Hydrogen. Retrieved from:
https://www.tigeroptics.com/files/media/tigeroptics/technology/application-note s/AN_24_H2_Purity_Analysis.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Office (n.d.). Hydrogen Tube Trailers. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen- tube-trailers
Webber, Michael (2007). Environmental Research Letters. The water intensity of the transitional hydrogen economy. Retrieved from:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-
9326/2/3/034007/pdf#:~:text=In%20electrolytic%20hydrogen%20production%2C%2 0water,hydrogen%20gas%2C%20assuming%20no%20losses
199
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 101 Appendix A: ZEB Specifications
Note: these are best case scenarios for vehicle ranges. Actual mileage may vary.

Battery-Electric Transit Buses (BEBs)
Proterra – ZX5 features faster acceleration, industry -leading gradeability, and a range of more than 125 miles per charge. The ZX5 has a capacity of up to 29 passengers.

Proterra ZX5

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 29
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 225 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 95-125 miles
Length 35 Ft
Source https://www.proterra.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Proterra-ZX5-Spec-Sheet-35-
Foot-Bus-U.S..pdf
200
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 102 Proterra –
ZX5 MAX is approximately five feet longer than the standard Proterra ZX5 bus model, which can accommodate 40 passengers and run up to 329 miles on a single charge.

Prot
erra ZX5 MAX

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 40
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 675 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 221-329 miles Length 40 Ft
Source https://www.proterra.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Proterra-ZX5-Spec-Sheet-40-
Foot-Bus-U.S..pdf
Proterra – ZX5+ is a 35-foot bus that can run up to 240 miles on a single charge and has a capacity of up to 29 passengers.

Proterra ZX5+

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 29
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 450 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 172-240 miles Length 35 Ft
Source https://www.proterra.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Proterra-ZX5-Spec-Sheet-35-
Foot-Bus-U.S..pdf
201
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 103 New Flyer
– XCELSIOR XE is a 35- foot bus that can be configured to carry up to 35 passengers standing and 32 seating. The XCELSIOR has two battery options at 350 kWh and 440 kWh.

New Flyer XCELSIOR XE 35’ All-Electric Transit Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity Up to 32 seats, up to 35 standees
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 350 kWh, 440 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 179, 220 miles Length 35 Ft
Source https://www.newflyer.com/site-
content/uploads/2021/03/Xcelsior-CHARGE-NG-
Brochure-1.pdf
New Flyer
– XCELSIOR XE, a more extended version of its 35-foot counterpart, is capable of operating with three different battery sizes (350 kWh, 440 kWh, and 525 kWh). Each battery size varies in range, going up to 251 miles on a single charge.

New Flyer XCELSIOR XE 40’ All-Electric Transit Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity Up to 40 seats, up to 44 standees
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 350 kWh, 440 kWh, 525 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 174, 213, 251 miles Length 40 Ft
Source https://www.newflyer.com/site-
content/uploads/2021/03/Xcelsior-CHARGE-NG-
Brochure-1.pdf
202
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 104 BYD
– K9S is a 35.8-foot bus with a maximum load of 33 passengers, including the driver.

The K9S can travel up to 157 miles on a single charge.

BYD K9S 35’ All-Electric Transit Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 32 + 1
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 266 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 157 miles Length 35.8 ft
Source https://en.byd.com/bus/35-electric-transit-bus/
BYD – K9M is a 40-foot plus bus with two battery sizes, 313 kWh and 352 kWh. The passenger load varies on configuration and can comfortably sit between 38 and 43 passengers depending on the battery size. This Altoona -tested model can run up to 160 miles contingent on the battery size selected.

BYD K9M 40’ All-Electric Transit Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity Up to 37+1 / Up to 42+1 MD
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 313 kWh / 352 kWh MD
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 156 miles / Up to 160 miles MD Length 40.2 ft / 40.9 ft MD
Source https://en.byd.com/bus/40-foot-electric-transit- bus/#specs
203
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 105 Fuel Cell Electric Buses (FCEBs)
New Flyer – Xcelsior Charge H2 is a battery -electric vehicle that uses compressed hydrogen as an energy source. Fuel cell electric technology is an innovative way to obtain extended-range operation similar to existing transit vehicles with a fully zero -emission solution.

New Flyer Xcelsior Charge H2

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity Up to 40 seats / Up to 42 standees
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 37.5 kg
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 350 miles on a single charge Length 40’
Source https://www.newflyer.com/site-
content/uploads/2021/01/Xccelsior-CHARGE-H2-
Brochure_2021.pdf
EL Dorado – AXESS FC is the only hydrogen bus in the federally certified industry for 3-point seat belts. It features a heavy -duty low floor adapted for applica tions such as airport shuttles and college transit. The Axess-FC offers optional ADA- compliant wheelchair ramps, has completed Altoona testing, and passed numerous side-impact and roof crush tests to ensure passenger safety.

El Dorado AXESS FC

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 43 Max
Lift Capable Yes
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 260 miles Length 40’
Source https://en.byd.com/bus/40-foot-electric-transit- bus/#specs
204
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 106 Sh
uttle Buses/Vans
Lightning eMotors — Electric Zero-Emission Transit Passenger Van is equipped with an electric drivetrain that delivers efficiency. The Lightning Electric Transit passenger v an carries up to 15 passengers and can run up to 260 miles on a single charge.

Ford Transit Van (Mobility
Trans) with Lightning System

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 15 passengers (including driver)
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 80 kWh/120 kWh
Approximate nameplate
single-charge range
Up to 260 miles
Source https://lightningemotors.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/LeM_G4_Transit_passenger_van_sheet_May2020_v1.0_online.pdf Lightning eMotors – Ford E-Transit is currently unavailable in the market but is expected to be commercially available in 2022.

Ford E-Transit

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 126 miles estimated Availability 2022
Source https://lightningemotors.com/transit-vans-ford-vs- lightning/
205
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 107 Lightning eMotors
— Electric Zero Emission F-550 Bus has an estimated range of over 100 miles while producing zero emissions on the road. The F -550 Bus’s charging capabilities are flexible, with Level 2 AC charging as standard and DC Fast Charging also being available, providing up to 80 kW.

Electric ZE F-550 Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Battery Size 128 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 100 miles estimated Length About 18 ft
Source https://lightningemotors.com/lightningelectric-f550/ Phoenix Motorcars — Ford E-450 Cutaway Bus: The Starcraft Allstar is powered by Phoenix Motorcars, designed to offer sustainable transportation for shared mobility and commuter transporter. The bus features seating configurations accommodating 12 -20 (14 with two- seat ADA option available). Phoenix provides a five-year/60,000 drive system and provides an extended battery warranty of 8 years/300,000 miles.

Ford E-450 Cutaway Bus (Starcraft Allstar) with Phoenix Motorcars System

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 12-20 Passengers (14 with 2 seat ADA option) Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 86-129 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 80-110 miles
Source https://www.creativebussales.com/featured-product- -Phoenix-Motorcars
206
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 108 Phoenix Motorcars
– ZEUS 400 Shuttle Bus is fully customizable with a battery capacity of 140 kWh and a single- charge range of up to 150 miles. The ZEUS 400 is eligible for the Phoenix Motorcar’s PMC Battery Warranty of 5 Years/150,000 Miles, the PMC Drive System Warranty of 5 Years/60,000 Miles, the Bumper-to-Bumper Warranty of 3 Years/36,000 Miles, and the Body Structure Warranty of 5 Years / 100,000 Miles.

ZEUS 400 Shuttle Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity Up to 23 passengers forward seating, 12/2, 14/2, 16/2 ADA
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 140 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range 150 miles
Length 22 ft
Source https://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/products/#shuttles US Hybrid – H2 Ride offers the H2 Ride Fuel Cell Shuttle Bus, a 22-foot vehicle, and carries up to 12 passengers (two wheelchairs) plus a driver.

US Hybrid H2 Ride Fuel Cell Shuttle Bus

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 12
Lift Capable Yes
Length 22’
207
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 109 GreenPower
— EV Star is a multi -purpose, zero-emission, min-E Bus with a range of up to 150 miles and offers dual charging capabilities as a standard feature. The EV Star can be used for paratransit, employee shuttles, micro -transit, and vanpool service. T he EV Star is the only Buy America compliant and Altoona-tested vehicle in its class.

Green Power EV Star

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 19 FF / 21 Perimeter
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 118 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 150 miles Length 25’
Source https://greenpowermotor.com/gp-products/ev-star/ GreenPower – EV Star+ is a cutaway bus with a broader body to utilize the interior space.

It is designed for paratransit fleet operations —a larger seating capacity and wheelchair position options are available. The bus is ideal for hospitals, carpooling services, airport shuttles, and campus transportation.

Green Power EV Star+

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Passenger Capacity 24
Lift Capable Yes
Battery Size 118 kWh
Approximate nameplate single-charge range Up to 150 miles Length 25’
Availability Yes
Source https://greenpowermotor.com/gp-
products/ev-star-plus/
208
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 110 F
uture Models:

AQ
MD is funding the development of another fuel cell shuttle bus. This bus is being developed by a partnership between A- 1 Alternative Fuel Systems, Southern California Gas Company, Plug Power, SEA Electric LLC, Turtle Top, Hometown Manufacturing, and Luxfer Gas Cylinders. They are currently developing two models of a fu el cell shuttle bus.

One model will have a GVWR of 14,500 lb s. and the second model will have a GVWR of 22,500 lbs. The buses will be able to travel over 250 miles on a single fill. The buses will also have CARB certification and will go through Altoona Bu s Testing. The bus is expected to be available for public purchase in Q1 of 2023.
209
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 111 Appendix B: Charging Infrastructure Specifications
The following electrical cabinets and EVSE units were evaluated by CALSTART. A side- by- side comparison between these products, including prices, is included. The cost of the plug-in charging equipment varies depending on the manufacturer . M ost plug -in chargers cost approximately $40,000 to $60,000 per bus depending on the power level.

This amount includes only the cost of the charging equipment and does not include construction and installation costs, nor the cost of an overhead structure if overhead plug- in charging is deployed.

Proterra 60 kW Power Control
System
Proterra
60 kW Power Control System
Proterra is a U.S. based electric bus manufacturer that builds chargers to support its heavy-duty EV product line.

Proterra’s 60 kW Power Control System is one of the most straightforward charging station solutions specifically designed for electric buses. The cabinet module (shown left) provides up to 60 kW of power to a single EVSE unit to charge a single electric bus. The ground level EVSE can be swapped out for an overhead pantograph connector for a more compact bus yard design. Depending on the bus, the battery can be co mpletely recharged in approximately 6 hours. Manual labor is limited to plugging the EVSE into the bus in the evening after returning to the bus yard, then unplugging it in the morning prior to beginning daily revenue service. Existing examples can be seen at Greensboro Transit Authority.
210
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 112 Proterra 125 kW Power Control
System
Proterra
125 kW Power Control System
The 125 kW Power Control System is a simple solution with twice the power of the 60-kW version. The electrical cabinet (shown left) provides up to 125 kW of power to a single EVSE unit to charge a single electric bus. The bus’s battery can be recharged in approximately three hours, which gives the fleet manager the flexibility to park two electric buses next to each other and manually transfer the plug halfway through the night.

BTC Power 100 – 350 kW Modular
High Power DC Fast Chargers
BTC Power
100 – 350 kW Modular High Power DC Fast Chargers
Based in Santa Ana, California, BTC Power manufactures High-Performance DC Charging Systems. The electrical cabinet (which BTC calls the “Power Engine”) can provide power at 100, 150, or 200 kW. Two Power Engines can also be interconnected to deliver up to 350 kW of power to one EVSE. The EVSE itself offers two dispenser units that can power two electric buses sequentially on a first -come, first -served basis. When the first bus has completed charging, the second bus will begin charging without needing manual intervention. BTC Power also adds smart charging software to their EVSEs with the goal of making it very easy for a network provider to integrate a data management solution into the charging station. Existing examples include Los Angeles International Airport and Porterville Transit.
211
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 113 BTC Power 200 –
475 kW High
Performance DC
Charging System
BTC Power
200 – 475 kW High Performance DC Charging System
BTC Power was selected to be the sole North American provider of Porsche’s High Performance DC Charging System. Capable of delivering up to 475 kW, this design utilizes two cabinet modules: one to convert the energy from AC to DC (called a “Power Box”) and the other to provide liquid cooling to the EVSE units (called a “Cooling Box”). These cabinets connect to two EVSEs and can charge both simultaneously. Additional EVSE can be added with the inclusion of another Power Box. Generally, one cooling box can support up to three power boxes and charge six buses simultaneously at whatever power level is desired.

Like BTC’s other chargers, the High Performance DC Charging System is smart charging software capable, which makes it very easy to integrate a data management solution. At the time of this writing, there are no existing examples at a transit agency.

ABB
HVC 150 E-Bus
Charger (NAM) ABB
HVC 150 E-Bus Charger (NAM)
ABB is a leading EV charger manufacturer that has been building electric bus chargers in Europe for several years and is expanding operations to the United States. Manufactured in Portland, Oregon, the HVC 150 E -Bus Charger, which uses CCS1 or CCS2 connectors, can deliver 150 kW to the bus. The system utilizes one electrical cabinet to support up to three EVSE, and charges each one on a first -come, first serve basis. The chargers are smart enough to smoothly transfer power from one EVSE to the next when the bus is fully charged, and ABB offers additional services like remote diagnostic and management through their ABB Ability data management program. Several transit agencies, including TriMet in Portland, Oregon and Utah Transit Authority, are utilizing their chargers.

HVC150C:
• HVC150C charger with one remote depot box, 7m cables:
• HVC150C charger with two remote depot boxes, 7m cables:
• HVC150C charger with three remote depot boxes, 7m cables:
• OPTION: Pedestal for one depot box:
• OPTION: Cable management for one depot box:
212
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 114 • OPTION: Long distance support package:
○ Extends distance between power cabinet and remote depot box to 150M • OPTION: Robustness package:
○ Required for systems installed in harsh climates
HVC-C Depot Plug-In
HVC100C (100 kW)
• 1:1 Charger: Depot with 7M cable
• 1:2 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package • 1:3 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package HVC100C Buy America
• 1:1 Charger: Depot with 7M cable, BAA
• 1:2 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package, BAA • 1:3 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package, BAA HVC150C (150 kW)
• 1:1 Charger: Depot with 7M cable
• 1:2 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package • 1:3 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package HVC150C Buy America
• 1:1 Charger: Depot with 7M cable, BAA
• 1:2 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package, BAA • 1:3 Charger: Depot, 7M cables, sequential charging package, BAA Options Robustness Package
• For installation in very cold / hot climates
• Long Distance Package
• Extends distance between power cabinet and depot to 150 M • Standard without LD Package is 20 M
• Power Cabinet Metal Frame Foundation
• Depot Box Pedestal
213
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 115 • Cable Management
• Standard installation is mounted on Depot Box Pedestal • Commissioning Variable
dependent on site
HVC-PD Overhead Pantograph
HVC150PD (150 kW)
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure HVC150PD Buy America
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast, BAA
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure, BAA HVC300PD (300 kW)
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure HVC300PD Buy America
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast, BAA
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure, BAA HVC450PD (450 kW)
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure HVC450PD Buy America
• Charger with pantograph mounted on ABB mast, BAA
• Charger with pantograph mountable on existing structure, BAA Options
• Robustness Package
• For installation in very cold / hot climates
214
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 116 • Long Distance Package
• Extends distance between power cabinet and depot to 150 M • Standard without LD Package is 20 M
• Power Cabinet Metal Frame Foundation
• RFID Antenna Kit
• For installing pantographs in close proximity
• Commissioning Variable
dependent on site
Web Tools
ABB Connected Services
• Charger Connect
• Covers costs associated with cellular network connectivity, software upgrade support, data connection to ABB
• Operator Pro / EVE Platform
• Data management, reporting, charger status visibility Terra -
Terra HP and Terra
54HV:

Terra
Terra HP and Terra 54HV
Terra
Budgetary numbers on Terra HP and Terra 54HV:

Terra HP 175 kW unit w 1 power cabinet and dispenser:

Terra HP 350 kW unit w 2 power cabinets and dispenser:

Terra 54HV 50 kW unit:

OPTION: Terra 54HV Cable Management
Quick budgetary numbers for our HVC150C:
• HVC150C charger with one remote depot box, 7m cables:
215
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 117 • Same as above, BAA:
• HVC150C charger with two remote depot boxes, 7m cables:
• Same as above, BAA:
• HVC150C charger with three remote depot boxes, 7m cables:
• Same as above, BAA
• OPTION: Pedestal for one depot box:
• OPTION: Cable management for one depot box
• OPTION: Long distance support package:
○ Extends distance between power cabinet and remote depot box to 150M • OPTION: Robustness package:
○ Required for systems installed in harsh climates
Included in above:

Project management, Engineering, Transport and packaging in continental US, on-site commissioning and start up, Charger connection fees for 2 years. 2 year warranty.

Excluded in above:

Interconnection DC cables, installation and civil works, options as listed below Heliox – Fast DC 150 Charger
Heliox
Fast DC 150 Charger
Heliox is a Netherlands -based EV charging infrastructure company that develops charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. Manufactured in the Netherlands, this 150 kW charger charges one vehicle on a first-come, first serve basis. Heliox also has the world’s largest opportunity and depot charge network. This charger can charge any J1772 and/or J3105 compatible truck, bus, or heavy -duty vehicle. Most of Heliox’s customers are transit agencies in Europe, but the company is expanding into the U.S. market, having recently opened a headquarters in Portland, Oregon.
216
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 118 ChargePoint -
Express Plus Double Stacked Power
Block
ChargePoint
Express Plus Double Stacked Power Block
ChargePoint is a San Francisco Bay Area -based electrical vehicle charging company. Founded in 2007 , it operates over 57,000 charging stations worldwide. ChargePoint has multiple models of chargers and available for passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks. The Express Plus model is designed for ultra -fast DC charging. Thanks to its flexible modular archite cture, it can expand to high charging capacity without any stranded investment by adding power modules, stations, and power blocks, per demand. Speed and dynamic power sharing are some of the many benefits of the Express Plus model.

Siemens -
RAVE US 750V 150 kW CCS
Cascade DC
Siemens
RAVE US 750V 150 kW CCS Cascade DC
Siemens is a German-based industrial giant with a major footprint in the bus charging infrastructure industry, with multiple models of depot and on -route charging to choose from. The RAVE brand charger can provide an EV with fast and efficient charging for both depot and on-route charging whenever necessary. Examples of usage of Siemens chargers include Metro Transit in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and TriMet in Portland, Oregon.

Sicharge UC 200
• Sicharge UC 200 power control cabinet rated at 200A, 480V input with 150kW, 100- 1,000Vdc output.

Canada version will have 600Vac input. Supports up to four (4) sequential remote dispensers. Enclosure is NEMA 3R/IP54, with UL, CE, cUL certi fications. Communications is OCPP 1.6 and future to OCPP 2.0 over cellular. Emergency stop is on the cabinet and the dispenser. Cabinet size is: 43.3" width x 39.4" depth x 87.0" height. Requires a concrete pad. Warranty is two years.

Sicharge UC 400
• Sicharge UC 400 is two Sicharge UC 200 power control cabinets that provide 300kW of power rated at 100-1,00Vdc. Supports up to four (4) sequential remote dispensers. Incoming power can be two dedicated conduit runs, one to each cabinet, or an AC Combiner Box ca n be used for the incoming location. This means less conduit work under the cabinets. The outgoing DC power cabinet can also be used to simplify the installations. Enclosures are NEMA 3R/IP54, with UL, CE, cUL certifications.

Communications is OCPP 1.6 and future to OCPP 2.0 over cellular. Emergency stop is on the cabinet and the dispenser (if used). Two Power Cabinets are approx. 86.7" width x 39.4" depth x 87.0" height.

Height will increase if a combiner cabinet is provided. Requires a concrete pad. Warranty is two years. 200 Amp Dispenser
• Sicharge UC free-standing dispenser with one CCS1 cable and cable holder. Siemens touch screen 7" display and emergency stop button also included. NEMA 3R/IP54 rated enclosure. Unit will have 217
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 119 communications to the power control cabinets via fiber optic or CAT5/6 copper ethernet . Warranty is two years.

BYD -
EVA100KS/02 and EVA200KS/01
BYD
EVA100KS/02 and EVA200KS/01
BYD is a Chinese automotive company known for building EVs. Their market consists of buses (transit and coach), vans, cars, and trucks. BYD also has a variety of chargers that it markets with its vehicles. All BYD EVs come with standard AC-DC Quick Charge Inverters. This makes for simplified fleet integration. BYD chargers are available in configurations from 40kW to 100kW per charging connector. Due to the proprietary design of the BYD charging connector and architecture, BYD buses can only be paired with BYD chargers. Each BYD bus comes with its own charger. Examples of usage are Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) in Lancaster-Palmdale, California.

B
link -
DC Fast Charger
Blink
DC Fast Charger
Blink Charging is a Florida-based charging company that produces multiple lines of charging infrastructure. Blink has a variety of business models that can work for all different types of fleets. Blink’s DC Fast Charger has a simplified 2-piece design that connects with an advanced metering infrastructure interface and smart meter capability for demand response and energy management. This charger can provide an 80 % charge in 30 minutes (pending battery size).

Blink Charging Station Highlights:
• Blink Level 2 charging stations are currently the fastest Level 2 networked chargers on the market.
• Blink Level 2 charging stations can add up to 80 miles of charge to EV s in one hour.
• Blink charging stations are equipped with an easy -to-use payment 218
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 120 processing system that can be accessed via the Blink Mobile app. • The Blink Network offers real- time online access to revenue and usage reports.
• Every Blink unit comes with a 1-year manufacturer’s warranty. • The Blink Network offers remote maintenance, software upgrade, and support capability.

De
lta -
EVHU503 and EVHU104
Delta
EVHU503 and EVHU104
Delta is a Taiwan-based company that provides power and thermal solutions . Delta provides DC fast chargers and has 50 kW and 100 kW models. Their chargers are compatible with CHAdeMO and CCS-1 protocols. Delta chargers have two charging receptacles and can charge buses simultaneously . Delta also offers energy management software.

Efacec -
HV350
Efacec
HV350
Efacec is a Portugal-based charging company that has a variety of high-power chargers, which includes 160-, 175-, and 350-kW models. The high-power models can charge both in a standalone mode or integrated in any network with any central system. These chargers can charge both cars and buses and has a DC output of up to 920 V. Efacec chargers can be customized with graphics , logos, and colors to cater to each specific entity brand.
219
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 121 Tritium -
Veefil PK
Tritium
Veefil PK
Tritium is an Australian DC fast charger manufacturer with a large global market that is partially owned by fueling infrastructure giant Gilbarco Veeder-Root. Tritium’s sophisticated modular, scalable architecture consists of three main free-standing components: a user unit that holds one or two connectors, a power unit, and a control unit.

Depending on
the number of power units and user units, the system output can be scaled from 175 kW to 475 kW of power.

WAVE
– Inductive Charger
WAVE
Inductive Charger
WAVE delivers fast, safe, high -power charging within seconds of scheduled stops and natural dwell times.

Medium- and heavy-duty EVs gain substantial range and operation time without manual plug -in operations or mechanical contact. With power ranging from 125kW to 500kW and higher, WAVE’s high -power systems are ideal for powering EVs for mass transit, warehouse and distribution centers, shuttle services, seaports, and more.

What is commercially available today is a 250 -kW charger that can supply power in various configurations; where power is split down to two (2) 125 kW chargers and soon split to four (4) 62.5 kW plates with smart charging for the depot.

Clipper Creek – CS-100, 70/80 Amp
(Selectable) EVSE, 240V, with 25 ft
cable
220
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 122 Clipper Creek
CS-100, 70/80 Amp (Selectable) EVSE, 240V, with 25-foot cable The CS 100 is the world's first UL listed EV charging station manufactured in the United States. The CS -100 is a UL Listed Level 2 EVSE offering 19.2 kW for EV charging. The CS -100 works with all SAEJ1772 compliant vehicles. This charger is ideal for vehicles that can accept high power charging, and future proofing installations.

This is the recommended charger for charger for the GreenPower and Phoenix Motorcars buses. • 208V to 240V - 100 Amp Branch Circuit (70/80 Selectable Amps continuous) • 25-foot charging cable
• Rugged, fully sealed NEMA 4 for installation indoors or outdoors • Automatic circuit reclosure after minor power faults
• Cold Load Pickup: Time -delayed and randomized to allow seamless re - energizing of unit following power outages
• External Control Input: Allows external control from smart meter (AMI), billing or load management device
• UL Listed
• ETL LISTED
Compatible Accessories:
• The Wall Mount Retractor from ClipperCreek is the ideal solution for sites that need cable management, keeping charging cables off the ground and vehicle connectors protected.

Compatible Mounting Solutions:
• CS Pedestal (0300-00-015)
• EVSE Size Comparison Chart (click to view larger)
Charging Power
• 70/80 Amp Selectable (19.2kW max)
Product Dimensions
• 17” W x 22” H x 12” (mounting holes 16” on center)
Product Weight
• 36 lbs.

Installation
• Hardwired
Supply Circuit
• 208/240V, 100A
Warranty
• 1 year
Charge Cable Length
• 25 feet (22 feet usable)
Vehicle Connector Type
• SAE J1772
Accessories Included
• Connector Lock & Keys
Enclosure
• Fully Sealed NEMA 4
Environment Rating
221
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 123 • Indoor and Outdoor
Operating Temperature
• -22°F to 122°F (-30°C to +50°C)
Certifications
• UL, cULus, ETL, cETLus
222
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 124 Appendix C: Managed Storage Solutions
Networked or managed charging is helpful as it allows transit agencies to minimize their peak power demand. This helps to lower utility costs for transit agencies and helps utilities manage the grid. Networked and managed charging is typically a separate service from the physical hardware of the EVSE and electrical cabinets. Companies that specialize in this space call themselves “Electric Vehicle Service Providers” or simply “network providers.” Howe ver, unlike the EVSEs , there are a small, but growing, number of companies that focus on charging heavy -duty vehicles, like electric buses . This section provides an overview of networked charging companies.

I/O Control Corporations offers software to inf orm
smart systems, including remote monitoring,
analytics, and prioritizing charging on specific buses. Their Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) product offering is a cloud-based application that enables remote electric bus charging management across multiple depot locations.

It allows transit operators to set up their preferred parameters so that buses can be charged automatically according to specific schedules and vehicle limits. I/O Controls supplies a charging control gateway for each charging station. The pricing for the gateway includes a monthly fee for the first year with a 1 year warranty, and the transit entity is charged a yearly fee for the hardware for subsequent years of use. Currently, the ELMS and charging gateway combination is only o ffered for charging of BYD buses but I/O Controls can work with other vehicle manufacturers to make their hardware and software compatible with other bus technologies. I/O Controls also offers a Health Alert Management System (HAMS) which is currently being used by Antelope Valley Transit Authority in Lancaster, C alifornia. This operating system functions as a control for how much power a particular bus draws from the grid. The HAMS features AIMS (Alert, Inquire, Manage, Store) functionality. The Alert function sends a text or email message when there is an issue with the vehicle’s charge cycle or during regular route service. The Inquire feature monitors the health status of the vehicle such as SOC, mileage, battery voltage, and other parameters and is updated once per minute. The Manage feature uses cloud- based software to maintain and edit information provided by the HAMS module. The Store feature allows for unlimited data uploads to the cloud for future use and analytics. 223
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 125 ViriCiti
(now owned by ChargePoint) is a trusted solution for
over 350+ operators worldwide and offers a system that is integrated with over 50 OEMs. The company is known
for its telematic data logging system for buses on the
road, but also offers solutions for man aging electric bus chargers through their Charger Monitoring and Smart Charging packages . Both of these systems are OCPP compliant and OEM agnostic, meaning they support open standards and can communicate with a variety of charging station and vehicle types. No additional hardware is needed to monitor the chargers if they are OCPP1.6 compliant or higher. The first package offers a single dashboard view for easy visualization of vital Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (e.g., charger status and location, connected vehicle ID and SOC, energy consumption, etc.) which serves to quickly identify and troubleshoot bugs, increase EVSE uptime, and reduce maintenance time and costs. Their new Depot View product provides a visual overview of the vehicle and chargers in the fleet’s depot.

It shows which vehicles are connected to which chargers and their remaining SOC. Depot View also shows the status of the chargers (available, busy, faulted). ViriCiti’s data management solution can track EVSE performance and enable smart charging capabilities. ViriCiti’s smart charging systems allow for fleet -wide management of charging through scheduled load balancing and can provide benefits like peak shaving, demand response, and renewables integration. Their system can also be used to track fleet data like battery SOC , bus energy efficiency, and bus downtime. ViriCiti offers modular based license subscriptions which allows customers to customize and only pay for the features they need. Licensing is offered per charger socket on a yearly subscription basis. The average cost of charger monitoring is $18 per socket/month and the average cost for smart charging is $25 per socket/month (as of Summer 2021). The ViriCiti team offers 24/7 customer support . ViriCiti was purchased by ChargePoint, which is a charging infrastructure provider, in August 2021.

Greenlots (a member of the Shell Group) is
another network provider that specializes in smart
charging and fleet scheduling
services. Greenlots provides a turnkey solution for EV c harging, which includes a site evaluation, hardware procurement and validation, engineering and construction services, and operation and maintenance services. Greenlots works closely with Shell’s Solutions Development team to provide battery systems that integrate with charging stations to provide additional microgrid and energy management 224
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

126

solutions. Their Greenlots SKY EV Charging Network Software offers real -time network management and status of EV chargers, a variable pricing engine which can set pricing based on usage, time intervals, or sessions, and a billing and payment management system through the Greenlots mobile app or charging station. Additionally, the SKY EV system provides access to advanced analytics and customizable reporting with alerts to improve EVSE uptime and access to data such as revenue, energy delivered, and avoided CO2 emissions. The SKY EV system utilizes the OCPP standard and features a multi-layer security system to protect sensitive data. In addition to EVSE manufacturer hardware warranties, Greenlots offers a quality assurance program called “Greenlots Care” which provides trained technicians to make on site repairs within 24 -48 hours as well as a supplemental parts warranty to ensure a charger uptime guarantee of 95%. Other inc luded services are preventative and corrective maintenance, warranty management, reporting, and performance SLAs. Finally, Greenlots offers a Charging- as- a-Service package, which is based on a recurring annual fee which aims to reduce steep upfront costs f or the fleet customer. Greenlots is currently working with Foothill Transit on their electric buses.

Electriphi is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor
Company that offers end -to-end fleet electrification
solutions including charging management and
infrastructure deployment . Electriphi works alongside fleets to simplify EV management and ease the transition from conventional to electric fleets through planning,
deployment assistance, and ongoing operational
services. On the implementation side, Electriphi offers testing and integration services for vehicle telematics systems prior to service deployment at the customer site. Their monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) monitoring and management system tracks charging station status, networ k connectivity, and equipment fault detection, as well as offers sophisticated smart charging algorithms that ensures that vehicles are charged on time at the most optimal energy cost (while taking into account vehicle dispatch schedules, route information, TOU energy rates, demand charge windows, and more). Customers may purchase a baseline operational charging system for remote fleet control and data access and may add on managed/smart charging features which can be accessed from the same online dashboard . Electriphi also offers advanced energy services such as ESS system integration, active demand response, and V2G management. Electriphi’s software compatibility is constantly evaluated based on current market offerings and is suitable for use with most major EV charging equipment 225
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

127

manufacturers for both Level 2 and Level 3/DCFC stations. Pricing is available as an upfront, non-recurring cost or a yearly SaaS fee.

The Mobility House is a network provider that serves
over 350 fleets and offers charging
system management software called ChargePilot.

Their software helps transit agencies engage in peak shaving and schedule charging to reduce demand charges . While their system does not connect to onboard vehicle telematics, it is compliant with multiple EVSEs at once, yielding high interoperability. To keep the fleet charged when vehicles need to be deployed and to optimize costs, the system monitors the bus SOC while plugged into the charger and calculates charge times and duration based on site-specific electricity rates. The fleet only has to supply the desired departure time and desired SOC per vehicle, and the system coordinates the rest via a local controller that is installed onsite and is connected to all the chargers. Mobility House is able to assist f leets with the charger procurement process to ensure that they are OCPP compliant, and therefore ChargePilot compliant, before purchase and installation. ChargePilot can also take solar resources and distributed generation assets into account when managing charging by integrating the data from renewables on site into the system operations. Mobility House offers a hybrid business model with a one time setup cost per site which includes hardware installation and commissioning, and then operates its software s ervice on a monthly, yearly, or multi- year subscription basis according to the customer’s business needs and plans. The pricing is project and volume- dependent with flexibility to operate on a Charging-as-a-Service (per mile) system. As part of this package, Mobility House provides 24/7 monitoring on all sites with quick alerts and remote fixes in the case that there is a system failure. Mobility House offers a complimentary demonstration workshop for interested customers to help calculate an individual fleet’s cost savings with their managed charging solution.

Amply (owned by BP) offers smart charging services for transit fleets and beyond through power demand
services, telematics, scheduled maintenance, and
battery SOC monitoring. They work with the existing infrastructure to add charging capacity by analyzing the electrical capacity and redesigning the depot layout. Amply’s system integrates with onboard vehicle telematics to coordinate and manage the charging stations on schedules based on available electricity and bus SOC. They offer various payment mechanisms based on the customer’s need, such as a monthly licensing fees per charger or an energy-as-a-service per kWh model. Amply also offers charging infrastructure installation with the necessary el ectrical equipment to connect the systems and CAPEX can be bundled into their Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) solution. Their Pantograph In -Depot Equipment, or PIDE Canopy Mount, allows for 226
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study

128

overhead DC fast chargers to be installed to solar canopies, which ca n greatly optimize depot space and the use of solar energy. Pricing is customized to each fleet’s needs and varies based on numerous factors such as combined grants to offset costs, utility partnerships, and energy rates per utility. Amply works with EVSE OEMs to develop hardware agnostic warranties and the software includes a triage system to alert fleet operators of any potential issues before a contracted service technician is deployed to repair the system.

Proterra provides electric buses but also provides fleet planning and EV charging services.

Through a turnkey solution, Proterra can provide an “energy delivery system” that offers a comprehensive solution for establishing EV infrastructure. This includes smart energy management, and electrical utility make-ready.

AmpUp is a software company and network provider for smart charge scheduling, dynamic access control, and energy optimization built into one platform. Their mobile app software was originally founded to offer peer -to-peer shared charging to increase charger access in residential areas and decrease the cost to EV owners. They have since expanded their product to include a solution for commercial entities and various customer types. All the charge management is facilitated through OCPP which allows the software to communicate with the hardware and means that the AmpUp solution is brand agnostic. The software determines when a charging station is on or offline, when it will become available, and when the plugged-in vehicle will charge based on cu stomized pricing preferences. AmpUp’s service is offered on a monthly or yearly software subscription basis with an additional per vehicle cost for an added telematics bundle, which offers an integration with their partner’s (Smartcar) system. In California, AmpUp will also assist with fleet financing ROI by redeeming carbon credits on behalf of the customer and passing it along to them. The AmpUp system will pass on station data to the third-party carbon credit processor who will prepare and submit the required paperwork in order to receive the credit payment. These credits can be returned to the customer via check or can be directly put back into their AmpUp portal towards vehicle charge management expenses.
227
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 129 Appendix D: Energy Storage Solutions
Tesla – Megapack: A 1 Gigawatt hour (GWh) project provides record energy capacity — enough to power every home in San Francisco for six hours. Every Megapack arrives pre- assembled and pre- tested in one enclosure from our Gigafactory —including batter y modules, bi -directional inverters, a thermal management system, an AC main breaker and controls.

Tesla Megapack

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Max Energy Capacity 3 MWh
Technology Lithium-ion
Inverter Capacity 1.5 MW
Connection AC output interface
Dimensions (L x W) 23 ft 5 in x 5 ft 3 in (7.14 m x 1.60 m) Size 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant per 3 acre
Weight 51,000 lbs.

Source https://www.tesla.com/megapack
BYD – Utility ESS: BYD mainly provides two kinds of indoor/outdoor solutions for on-grid, off- grid, and hybrid use. BYD energy storage systems can be fit for various needs based on its flexible and modular design.

BYD Utility ESS

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Max Energy Capacity 250kW/1MWh
500kW/1MWh
1MW/1MWh

1.8MW/800kWh
Technology Lithium-ion Iron-Phosphate
Connection AC output & DC input interface
Size 40ft Container
Source https://en.byd.com/energy/utility-ess/
228
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 130 LG – ESS: LG Chem’s L&S (Lamination & Stacking) process minimizes dead space, enables higher energy density, and enhances the sustainability of cell structures. LG Chem’s SRS® (Safety Reinforced Separator) increases the mechanical and thermal stability of battery cells.

LG Energy Storage System
(ESS)

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Max Energy Capacity 6.8MWh
Technology Lithium-ion
Voltage Flexibility 14 Modules
(~800V)
17 Modules
(~1000V)
24 Modules
(~1500V)
Connection AC/DC Panel
Energy Flexibility 1) 25.8in
2) 37.4in
3) 47.2in
Size 40ft HC ISO Enclosure with HVAC
Grid Scale Energy
JH3, JH4
• Duration for ≥ 1 hour
• Continuous power supply
Power
JP3
• Duration for < 1 hour
• High power supply
Source https://www.lgessbattery.com/us/grid/intro.lg
NGK Insulators – NAS Battery Cell: The NAS battery system is designed to easily expand the capacity as much as needed in one site or several separate sites. The scalability of NAS installation to many tens or hundreds of MW for durations of six to seven hours is at a scale that can defer or eliminate some transmission, distribution and generation investments especially when used in association with variable renewables for a clean solution. 229
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 131 NGK NAS Battery
System

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Density 367 Wh/l
222 Wh/kg per battery cell
Power Density 36 W/kg per battery cell
Technology Sodium-sulfur
Voltage 2V per battery cell
Connection PCS (AC/DC power conversion system)
C-Rate 1/6 = 0.17 per battery cell
Dimensions (L x W) 9cm x 50 cm per battery cell
Weight 5 kg per battery cell
Size Up to 50MW, 300MWh
Source https://www.ngk-insulators.com/en/product/nas-
about.html
NGK Insulators – NAS Container Type Unit: The NAS battery system is a "Plug and Play" design built around standard 20 -foot ocean freight containers. The containerized design expedites transportation and installation and helps minimize installation costs.

NGK NAS Battery
Container Type Unit

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Rated Output 800 kW and 4,800 kWh
Configuration Four container subunits, series connected.

A subunit includes six NAS modules, each rated at
33 kW and 200 kWh
Dimension (W x D x H) 6.1 x 5.6 x 5.5 m
Weight 86 tonnes
Source https://www.ngk-insulators.com/en/product/nas-
configurations.html
230
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 132 NGK Insulators
– NAS Package Type Unit: The enclosure package and battery modules are installed on site. This design achieves more compact system comparing with containerized design.

NGK NAS Battery
Package Type Unit

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Rated Output 1,200kW and 8,640kWh
Configuration 40 NAS modules,
each rated at 30kW and 216kWh
Dimension (W x D x H) 10.2 x 4.4 x 4.8 m
Weight 132 tonnes
Source https://www.ngk-insulators.com/en/product/nas-
configurations.html
NEC - GBS-C53-LD40: Long-Duration (LD) Grid
Battery Systems
NEC - GBS-C53-LD40

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 4 MWh
Power Rating 4 MW
Technology Nanophosphate® lithium ion battery
DC Voltage 944V nominal (750V – 1050V DC operating range) Connection 50Hz or 60Hz connection frequency options
Optional step-up transformer to MV AC output
480VAC output (typical)
DC Efficiency 97% (C/2 rate)
Dimensions (LxWxH) 53’ x 8.5’ x 9.5’
(16.2m x 2.6m x 2.9m)
Mass 140,000 lbs.

Source http://www.cls-
energy.com/files/nec_grid_brochure.pdf
231
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 133 NEC - GBS-C40-LD28:

Long-Duration (LD) Grid Battery Systems
NEC - GBS-C40-LD28

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 2.8 MWh
Power Rating 2.8 MW
Technology Nanophosphate® lithium ion battery
DC Voltage 944V nominal (750V – 1050V DC operating range) Connection 50Hz or 60Hz connection frequency options
Optional step-up transformer to MV AC output
480VAC output (typical)
DC Efficiency 97% (C/2 rate)
Dimensions (LxWxH) 40’ x 8.5’ x 9.5’
(12.2m x 2.6m x 2.9m)
Mass 100,000 lbs.

Source http://www.cls-
energy.com/files/nec_grid_brochure.pdf
NEC - GBS-C20-LD12: Long-Duration (LD) Grid Battery Systems NEC - GBS-C20-LD12

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 1.2 MWh
Power Rating 1.2 MW
Technology Nanophosphate® lithium ion battery
DC Voltage 944V nominal (750V – 1050V DC operating range) Connection 50Hz or 60Hz connection frequency options
Optional step-up transformer to MV AC output
480VAC output (typical)
DC Efficiency 97% (C/2 rate)
Dimensions (LxWxH) 20’ x 8.5’ x 9.5’
(6.1m x 2.6m x 2.9m)
Mass 47,000 lbs.

Source http://www.cls-
energy.com/files/nec_grid_brochure.pdf
232
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 134 NEC - GBS-C53-HR20:

High-Rate (HR) Grid Battery System
NEC - GBS-C53-HR20

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 575kWh
Power Rating 2 MW
Technology Nanophosphate® lithium ion battery
DC Voltage 960V nominal (750V – 1050V DC operating range) Connection 50Hz or 60Hz connection frequency options
Optional step-up transformer to MV AC output
480VAC output (typical)
DC Efficiency 96% (1C rate)
Dimensions (LxWxH) 53’ x 8.5’ x 9.5’
(16.2m x 2.6m x 2.9m)
Mass 64,000 lbs.

Source http://www.cls-
energy.com/files/nec_grid_brochure.pdf
Saft – Intensium® Max 20 High Energy: Initially developed for grid installations, Intensium® Max brings rail energy -efficiency and smart -grid technologies to an aging transport infrastructure and has the potential to transform the relationship between the transport and energy industries.

Saft – Intensium® Max
20 High Energy

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 2.5 MWh
Storage Capacity 420 kWh
Voltage (V) 1000 V Class
811
1500 V Class
1216
Technology Lithium-ion
Peak Charge 1.5 MW
Battery System 1000 V Class
9 Energy Storage System Units (ESSU)
14 battery modules in series
One Battery Management Module (BMM)
233
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 135 1500 V Class
6 Energy Storage System Units (ESSU)
21 battery modules
One Battery Management Module (BMM)
Dimensions (LxWxH) w/o HVAC 6.1 x 2.4 x 2.9
Size 20 ft container
Weight <30 tons
Source https://www.saftbatteries.com/products-
solutions/products/intensium%C2%AE-max-efficient-
trackside-energy-storage
Samsung – E3-M123: To maximize economics and efficiency , the high efficiency battery solution minimizes power loss by enabling high power output and minimizes total footprint by reducing footprint of PCS and battery systems.

Samsung – E3-M123

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 6.0MWh
Cell Capacity 111 Ah
Technology
Energy 12.3 kWh
Operating Voltage 96-126 V
Dimension (W x D x H) 344 x 160 x 1,012 mm
Weight 90 kg
Size 40 ft container
Source http://www.samsungsdi.com/upload/ess_brochure/201803_SamsungSDI%20ESS_EN.p df
234
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 136 Samsung
– E3-R135: To maximize economics and efficiency , the high efficiency battery solution minimizes power loss by enabling high power output and minimized total footprint by reducing footprint of PCS and battery systems.

Samsung – E3-R135

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 6.0MWh
Cell Capacity 111 Ah
Energy 135 kWh
Technology
Operating Voltage 1,056~1,386 V
Dimension (W x D x H) 415 x 1,067 x 2,124 mm
Weight 1,170 kg
Size 40 ft container
Source http://www.samsungsdi.com/upload/ess_brochure/201803_SamsungSDI%20ESS_EN.p df
Kokam by SolarEdge – KCE (Kokam Containerized ESS) 20ft.: In addition to offering customers a wide range of standard battery solutions, Kokam also works with customers to create customized solutions to address their unique needs. Compared to general system, Kokam 's system saves 70 % of power consumption.

Kokam by SolarEdge – KCE
(Kokam Containerized ESS) 20ft

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 1MWh
System Configuration 1 Bank
Technology
Bank Configuration 10 Racks (2C5R)
Installed Energy Natural Air Cooling Forced Air Cooling Nominal Voltage 1,516kWh 1,516kWh
Operating Voltage Range 736Vdc 736Vdc
Max. Charge Power 670 ~ 826Vdc 670 ~ 826Vdc
Peak Discharge Power 1,516kW (1P) 1,516kW (1P)
Max. Discharge Power 3,032kW (2P) 4,548kW (3P)
235
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 137 Round Trip DC Efficiency 1,516kW (1P) 2,880kW (1.9P)
Size 20 ft container
Source https://kokam.com/ess-solution
Kokam by SolarEdge – KCE (Kokam Containerized ESS) 40ft.: KCE racks have an extremely compact design (Max.194.3kWh per Rack) with parallel connection up to 1MWh~10MWh.

They accommodate user -specific energy and voltage requirements and are equipped with multiple layers of safety mechanisms.

Kokam by SolarEdge - KCE
(Kokam Containerized ESS) 40ft

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 2MWh
System Configuration 2 Bank
Technology
Bank Configuration 13 Racks (2C5R)
Installed Energy Natural Air Cooling Forced Air Cooling Nominal Voltage 3,942kWh 3,942kWh
Operating Voltage Range 736Vdc 736Vdc
Max. Charge Power 670 ~ 826Vdc 670 ~ 826Vdc
Peak Discharge Power 3,942kW (1P) 3,942kW (1P)
Max. Discharge Power 7,884kW (2P) 11,826kW (3P)
Round Trip DC Efficiency 3,942kWh 5,518kW (1.4P)
Size 40 ft container
Source https://kokam.com/ess-solution
236
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 138 Hitachi ABB
– Battery Energy Storage System PQpluS™: PQpluS™ is available in a wide range of power and energy ratings, making it the right choice for end users, system integrators, and aggregators, as well as users with the right control system for utility scale applications. In addition to functions like peak shaving and power quality, PQpluS ™ can be managed by third party controller to perform site energy management, integration of renewables, and grid services.

Hitachi ABB – Battery Energy
Storage System PQpluS

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 68.5 kWh per rack
Electrical Grid Connection 380 VAC-415 VAC 50/60 Hz
Electrical Rated Output 30 kW / 68.5 kWh
Inverter Rated Power (at 400 V) 30 kW per module
Technology Lithium-ion based on NMC technology
Min 30 kW power & 68.5 kWh
energy to max 360 kW &411 kWh
rated system
• 2 x PQstorI (30kW each) inverter and 1 x battery
rack: 60 kW (max) and 68.5 kWh (max)
• 9 x PQstorI (30kW each) inverter and 4 x battery
racks: 270 kW (max) and 274 kWh (max)
Power/ energy requirement
above 360 kW/ 411 kWh
• Up to 32 x PQstorI inverters: max power 960 kW
• Up to 14 x battery racks: max energy 960 kWh
Multiple modules of inverters/ batteries can
o perate in parallel to build storage capacity up to

1.6 MW/ 2.2 MWh. For example, a 960 kW/ 1100
kWh rated PQpluS require the following modules:
• Inverter modules: 32 modules of 30 kWh PQstorI
• Battery modules: 2 off 8 x battery racks
Weight 562 kg
Source https://www.hitachiabb-powergrids.com/offering/product-and- system/energystorage/pqplus
237
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 139 Hitachi ABB – e-mesh™ PowerStore™: Hitachi ABB Power Grids e-meshTM PowerStoreTM is a scalable microgrids and energy storage solution that is designed to ensure reliable power availability, grid stability, highest possible penetration of renewable energy together with an intelligent control system for both grid -connected and off -grid systems. e- mesh™ PowerStore™ is available in two variants, Integrated and Modular, for installations across utilities, remote communities, independent power producers, commercial, and industrial establishments.

Hitachi ABB – e-mesh™
PowerStore™:

SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICTION VALUE(S)
Energy Storage 50kW, 250kW, up to MW scale
Variants Integrated and Modular
Source https://www.hitachiabb-powergrids.com/offering/solutions/grid-edge- solutions/our-offering/e-mesh/powerstore
238
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 140 Appendix E: Clovis Transit Route Modeling Results
Runs that complete their route with a SOC of 10% to 30% have been highlighted in yellow.

Table E-1. Route 10 Modeling Results
Route 10
Lap
OEM 1
(kWh/mi)
OEM 2
(kWh/mi)
OEM 3
(kWh/mi)
1 39.34 50.55 45.93
2 43.44 49.15 50.03
3 47.28 46.36 53.87
4 49.42 43.58 56.02
5 51.56 40.79 58.15
6 51.56 39.07 58.15
7 49.07 40.14 55.66
Total 331.67 309.65 377.81
Table E-2. Route 50 Modeling Results
Route 50
Lap
OEM 1
(kWh/mi)
OEM 2
(kWh/mi)
OEM 3
(kWh/mi)
1 46.29 48.40 54.63
2 50.70 52.81 59.62
3 53.69 55.80 63.05
4 55.82 57.93 65.63
5 56.69 58.80 66.72
6 56.07 58.18 66.10
7 52.01 54.12 61.70
Total 371.2868444 386.0579235 437.4412357
239
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 141 Table E-3. Route 70 Modeling Results
Route 70
Lap
OEM 1
(kWh/mi)
OEM 2
(kWh/mi)
OEM 3
(kWh/mi)
1 22.19 25.54 19.98
2 24.10 27.46 21.74
Total 46.29 53.00 41.72
Table E-4. Route 80 Modeling Results
Route 80
Lap
OEM 1
(kWh/mi)
OEM 2
(kWh/mi)
OEM 3
(kWh/mi)
1 14.57 15.51 12.67
2 15.37 14.47 11.87
Total 29.95 29.98 24.54
Table E-5. Paratransit Route Modeling Results
Average Paratransit
route
Lap
OEM 4
(kWh/mi)
1 44.56
240
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 142 Appendix F: Clovis Transit Conceptual Framework and
Supporting Documents
A copy of conceptual designs of electric bus charging infrastructure for Clovis Transit, completed on CALSTART’s behalf by FLUX Energy Systems, begins on the following page. 241
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 1 | P a g e

1. Objective
Flux Energy Systems, Inc. (Flux) was engaged by CALSTART, Inc to complete conceptual designs of electric bus charging infrastructure for Clovis Transit. Clovis Transit is planning a new Transit Center in Clovis, CA to serve thirty-five (35) shuttle buses as well as twenty-one (21) transit buses. This document evaluates the relevant design codes, physical space requirements, electrical infrastructure and charging requirements for the transit and shuttle buses. This document should be used with the Single Line Diagram and Load Schedule also completed by Flux for this project.

2. Relevant Design Codes
The project should be designed to consider, at a minimum, the following building and electrical codes:
• 2019 California Electrical Code
• 2017 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70)
• 2019 California Building Code
• 2019 California Fire Code

3. Site Design Assumptions
In developing the electric vehicle charging plan, Flux considered the following design requirements as specified by Clovis Transit:
• Transit Buses:
o Total quantity of chargers: 21 charges (4 spare chargers) o Charging duration: 11pm – 5am (6 hours)
• Shuttle Buses:
o Total quantity of chargers: 25
▪ 35 standard chargers (6 spare chargers)
▪ 3 DC fast chargers
o Charging duration: 9pm – 6am (9 hours)

4. Equipment Electrical and Physical Requirements
The electrical specifications for the charging equipment used to model the system are defined in Table

1. 242
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 2 | P a g e
Table 1. Charging equipment for electric transit and shuttle buses

Flux used the electric transit and shuttle buses in Table 2 to define maximum power and total energy needed for the site. While the exact load management strategy has not yet been defined, Flux assumed a charging profile that preserves Lithium-Ion battery health thus reducing the long-term effects of battery degradation. Upon final equipment selection, coordination with the load management software provider and bus battery manufacturer should be completed to finalize the electrical loading. Refer to the Load Schedule for the charging profile. DC fast chargers were not incorporated into the Load Schedule as it was assumed these chargers would only be utilized during the daytime for fast charging purposes instead of drawing power during the nighttime.

Table 2. Charging equipment for electric transit and shuttle buses

The footprint of the selected charging equipment was used to determine physical space requirements on site. Table 3 provides the total equipment footprint area. This value excludes equipment clearance requirements, but clearance requirements as indicated by the equipment specifications and relevant codes were incorporated in the overall equipment placement on the site.

Table 3. Total equipment footprint Area
Equipment Type Equipment
Width (ft)
Equipment Depth
(ft)
Total Equipment
Footprint Area (sq ft)
ABB HVC 150C Power Cabinet 3.8 2.5 9.7
ABB HVC 150C Depot Charger Box 2.3 0.7 1.6
ClipperCreek CS-100 Charger 1.4 1 1.4
ABB Terra 54 Charger 1.8 2.6 4.7

Parking stall dimensions for the transit buses and shuttle buses were assumed based on Table 4. These dimensions were used to determine the required physical footprint of the proposed transit center for the options that were evaluated. Both the transit and shuttle buses were designed for perpendicular stalls. Drive aisles between the parking rows were designed to be forty-five (45) feet.

Charger Type Max Output
Power (kW)
Voltage (V) Max Input Current
(A)
ABB HVC 150C
(Transit Bus)
150 480 VAC 180
ClipperCreek CS-100
(Dial-a-Ride Shuttle Bus)

16.64 208 VAC 80
ABB Terra 54
(Dial-a-Ride Shuttle Bus)
50 480 VAC 60
Bus Type Max Input Power
(kW)
Battery Size
(kWh)
Range (miles)
Transit Bus 150 450 163 - 232
Dial-a-Ride Shuttle Bus 16.64 118 150
243
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 3 | P a g e
Table 4. Parking stall dimensions for the transit buses and shuttle buses Parking Stall Type Dimensions (ft x ft) Total Area (sq ft) Transit Bus 47 x 10.5 494
Shuttle Bus 30 x 10 234

5. Proposed Design
Clovis Transit has provided preliminary quantities of transit and the shuttle buses at the future Transit Center. Flux evaluated the electrical infrastructure to power the electric buses.

Table 5. Quantity of parking stalls for two design options Quantity
Transit Bus 21
Dial-a-Ride Shuttle Bus 35
DC Fast Charger 3
Total 59

Based on the above-mentioned design criteria, a preliminary conceptual site plan was developed to incorporate seven (7) pull through bus lanes with five (5) buses per lane for Dial-a-Ride shuttle buses.

Three of the bus lanes had dedicated space for shuttle DC fast charging. There were also seven (7) pull through bus lanes with three (3) buses per lane for transit buses. A 2-1/2 feet concrete island was placed between alternating pull through lanes for charger infrastructure installation. Refer to Figure 1 for overall site layout. Additionally, one hundred (100) standard perpendicular parking stalls were provided for staff parking. The proposed Clovis Transit will also contain an office and maintenance building and a bus wash building. An approximate area of 163,000 square feet would be required to implement the parking lanes and stalls, charging infrastructure including relevant trenching, as well as drive aisles for vehicular mobility. Table 6 provides a breakdown of the parking stall and drive aisle area per the design assumptions.
244
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 4 | P a g e

Figure 1. Conceptual Site Plan. “S” denotes shuttle bus charging stalls and “T” transit bus.

Table 6. Parking stall and drive aisle area per the design assumptions Quantity Width
(feet)
Length
(feet)
Total Footprint
(square feet)
Transit Bus Parking Stall 7 13 215 19,565
Shuttle Bus Parking Stall 7 13 215 19,565
Staff Parking Stall 100 9 18 16,200
Center Drive Aisle 3 30 237 21,330
Perpendicular Drive Aisle 3 45 418 56,430
Office & Maintenance Building 1 - - 17,605
Bush Wash Building 1 - - 4,230
Concrete Island 8 2.5 215 4,300

245
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 5 | P a g e
The required electrical equipment for this option is outlined in Table 7. Refer to the Single Line Diagram for more detailed equipment specifications.

Table 7. Required electrical equipment for option 1
Equipment Quantity
Transit Bus Power Cabinet (ABB HVC 150C) 7
Transit Bus Depot Charger (ABB HVC 150C) 21
Shuttle Bus Charger (ClipperCreek CS-100) 35
DC Fast Charger (ABB Terra 54) 3
Electric Bus Switchboard (480 V) 1
Electrical Panelboard (120 / 208 V) 4
Transformer (Primary: 480 V, Secondary: 120/208 V) 1
Utility Transformer 1

246
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit Design Memo– Rev02
May 13, 2022

Fluxenergysystems.com 6 | P a g e
Revision Table
Revision Date Prepared By Description
00 04/26/2022 Flux Submission to Client
01 05/03/2022 Flux Updated conceptual design for pull through buses 02 5/13/2022 Flux Updated maintenance building orientation and removed curve.

247
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

UGEUGEUGE

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE
UGE

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18S19S22S23S24S25S26S27S28 D2D3
S29S21 S30S31S32S33S34S35
D1
S20

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE
T1.3T1.2T1.1T2.1T2.2T2.3T3.1T3.2T3.3T4.1T4.2T4.3T5.1T5.2T5.3T6.1T6.2T6.3T7.1T7.2T7.3

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGE

UGEUGEUGEUGEUGE UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE
UGE
(N) OFFICE & MAINTENANCE BUILDING
(N) BUS WASH
(N) PAD MOUNTEDABB TERRA 54CHARGER (TYP OF 3)(N) PEDESTAL MOUNTEDCLIPPERCREEK CS-100CHARGER (TYP OF 35) (N) PEDESTAL MOUNTEDABB HVC 150C CHARGER(TYP OF 21)
(N) CURB
(N) TRANSIT BUS PULL-THROUGHPARKING LANE(TYP OF 7, 3 BUSES PER LANE) (N) STAFF PARKING STALL(TYP OF 100)
587'
111'-3"
(N) SWITCHBOARD (EVSWB)(N) TRANSFORMER (XEV 1)
(N) EV PANEL (EVP 1)
(N) PAD-MOUNTED POWER CABINET FORABB HVC 150C CHARGER(TYP OF 7), 1 CABINET PER 3 CHARGERS

TO PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC UTILITY POLE
(N) EV PANEL(EVP 2)
(N) EV PANEL (EVP 4)
(N) CURB
398'-3"
(N) SHUTTLE BUS PULL-THROUGHPARKING LANE(TYP OF 7, 5 BUSES PER LANE) 215'
13'BUSLANE
2'-6"CONCRETEISLAND(TYP)
(N) EV PANEL(EVP 3)
45'
45'
107'-10"
55'-4"
30'
30'DRIVE AISLE
37'-3"
30'
45'

COVERING FOR SHADINGPOWER CABINETS
E-1.0ELECTRICAL SITE PLANCONCEPTUAL DESIGN
REVISIONDATEDRWN BYAPRVD.DESCRIPTION
SEAL:
1A H I J K LB C D E F G
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8A H I J K LB C D E F G
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTTHE DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION HEREIN ISTHE PROPERTY OF FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC. ANYREPRODUCTION MODIFICATION OR USE OF THISDRAWING FOR OTHER THAN THE INTENDEDPROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTENAUTHORIZATION FROM FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC.IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

NUMBER OF CHARGING UNITS:NUMBER OF CHARGING PORTS:

TBDCLOVIS, CA5656ELECTRIC BUSCHARGING SYSTEMA05/12/2022AMABCONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL SITE INFORMATIONTOTAL # OF EVSE56TOTAL # OF TRANSIT BUS STALLS21TOTAL # OF SHUTTLE BUS STALLS35UTILITYPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRICTRANSIT BUS CHARGER MODELABB HVC 150C DEPOTSHUTTLE BUS CHARGER MODELCLIPPERCREEK CS-100DC FAST CHARGER MODELABB TERRA 54 ABB HVC 150C CHARGER SPECIFICATIONSMAX OUTPUT POWER (KW)150VOLTAGE (V)277/480MAX CHARGING CURRENT (A)200UGEUGE(N) UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CABLEROAD / DRIVE AISLELEGEND CLIPPERCREEK CS-100 CHARGER SPECIFICATIONSMAX OUTPUT POWER (KW)16.64VOLTAGE (V)208MAX CHARGING CURRENT (A)80ABB TERRA 54 CHARGER SPECIFICATIONSMAX OUTPUT POWER (KW)50VOLTAGE (V)150 - 920 VDCMAX CHARGING CURRENT (A)125

ELECTRIC SHUTTLE BUS CHARGERDC FAST CHARGERELECTRIC TRANSIT BUS CHARGERBOLLARD N00 30'60'SCALE: 1" = 30'
NOTES:1.THIS IS AN ELECTRICAL PLAN ONLY. COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED FOR STAFF PARKING.2.MAXIMUM DC CABLE LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 492 FEET.3.CONDUITS TO EV PANELS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. THEY WILL LIKELY SHARE A TRENCH WITH OTHER ELECTRICAL CONDUITS. 248
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
600 A 3P100 A 2PEVSE S6100 A 2PEVSE S7100 A 2PEVSE S8100 A 2PEVSE S9 100 A 2PEVSE S1100 A 2PEVSE S2100 A 2PEVSE S3100 A 2PEVSE S4100 A 2PEVSE S10(N) EV PANEL (EVP 1)600 A, 120/208 V22 KAIC, 3ɸ-4W(10) 100 A 2P BREAKERS EVSE S5100 A 2P 10 A 1P10 A 1P10 A 1PEVSE T3.110 A 1PEVSE T4.1EVSE T5.1 (N) TRANSFORMER (XEV 1)500 KVA, X/R TBD, Z 5.75%PRIMARY: 480 V DELTASECONDARY: 120/208Y VG

UTILITYPULLSECTION

TO PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC
G
UTILITY TRANSFORMER2000 KVA, X/R TBD, Z 5.75%PRIMARY: TBDSECONDARY: 480/277Y V 120 V AUX POWER(TYP) 600 A 3P100 A 2PEVSE S16100 A 2PEVSE S17100 A 2PEVSE S18100 A 2PEVSE S19 100 A 2PEVSE S11100 A 2PEVSE S12100 A 2PEVSE S13100 A 2PEVSE S14100 A 2PEVSE S20(N) EV PANEL (EVP 2)600 A, 120/208 V22 KAIC, 3ɸ-4W(10) 100 A 2P BREAKERS 100 A 2PEVSE S15
EVSE T1.1EVSE T1.2EVSE T1.3
(N) POWERCABINET(PC 1)EVSE T2.1EVSE T2.2EVSE T2.3
(N) POWERCABINET(PC 2)TOEVP 3EVSE T3.1EVSE T3.2EVSE T3.3 (N) POWERCABINET(PC 3)TOEVP 3EVSE T4.1EVSE T4.2EVSE T4.3 (N) POWERCABINET(PC 4)TOEVP 3EVSE T5.1EVSE T5.2EVSE T5.3 (N) POWERCABINET(PC 5)TOEVP 3EVSE T6.1EVSE T6.2
(N) POWERCABINET(PC 6)TOEVP 3150 - 850 V DC(TYP)
3000 A 3P
(N) EV SWITCHBOARD (EVSWBD)3000 A, 480 V65 KAIC, 3ɸ-3W, NEMA 3R 800 A 3P80 A 3P80 A 3P
EVSE D2EVSE D1
80 A 3P
EVSE D3EVSE T7.1EVSE T7.2
(N) POWERCABINET(PC 7)TOEVP 3
EVSE T6.3EVSE T7.3
10 A 1P
600 A 3P100 A 2PEVSE S34100 A 2PEVSE S35100 A 2PEVSE S31100 A 2PEVSE S32100 A 2PEVSE S33 (N) EV PANEL (EVP 4)400 A, 120/208 V22 KAIC, 3ɸ-4W(5) 100 A 2P BREAKERS(7) 10 A 2P BREAKERS EVSE T1.1
M
(N) METER

METERSECTIONMAINDISCONNECT
400 A 3P100 A 2PEVSE S26100 A 2PEVSE S27100 A 2PEVSE S21100 A 2PEVSE S22100 A 2PEVSE S23 (N) EV PANEL (EVP 3)600 A, 120/208 V22 KAIC, 3ɸ-4W(10) 100 A 2P BREAKERS 100 A 2PEVSE S28100 A 2PEVSE S24100 A 2PEVSE S29100 A 2PEVSE S25100 A 2PEVSE S3010 A 1PEVSE T6.110 A 1PEVSE T7.1 EVSE T2.1
250 A3P 250 A 3P250 A 3P250 A 3P250 A 3P250 A 3P250 A 3P E-1.1SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMCONCEPTUAL DESIGN
REVISIONDATEDRWN BYAPRVD.DESCRIPTION
SEAL:
1A H I J K LB C D E F G
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8A H I J K LB C D E F G
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTTHE DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION HEREIN ISTHE PROPERTY OF FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC. ANYREPRODUCTION MODIFICATION OR USE OF THISDRAWING FOR OTHER THAN THE INTENDEDPROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTENAUTHORIZATION FROM FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC.IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

NUMBER OF CHARGING UNITS:NUMBER OF CHARGING PORTS:

TBDCLOVIS, CA5656ELECTRIC BUSCHARGING SYSTEMA05/12/2022AMABCONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUBMITTALM

JUNCTION / TERMINATIONTAPCIRCUIT BREAKERCIRCUIT BREAKER, DRAW OUTSWITCHFUSEFUSIBLE CUTOUTFUSED DISCONNECT SWITCHSURGE ARRESTORGROUNDING ELECTRODECURRENT TRANSFORMERPOTENTIAL TRANSFORMERPOWER TRANSFORMERINVERTERDELTA WINDINGGROUNDED WYE WINDINGMETER G
LEGENDNOTES:1.ALL WORK WILL CONFORM WITH THE FACILITY’S STANDARD PRACTICE FOR MATERIALS,EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION.2.LOAD MANAGEMENT VIA SMART CHARGING AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CHARGERS NOTINCLUDED.ABBREVIATIONSAAMPERESACALTERNATING CURRENTEAEACHELECELECTRICALEVSEELECTRICAL VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT(E)EXISTINGKVAKILOVOLT AMPEREKWKILOWATTKWHKILOWATT HOURMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUM(N)NEWPCPOWER CABINETPH, ɸPHASESLDSINGLE LINE DIAGRAMSWBDSWITCHBOARDTYPTYPICALVVOLTWWATTXTRANSFORMER 249
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

E-1.2PANEL SCHEDULECONCEPTUAL DESIGN
REVISIONDATEDRWN BYAPRVD.DESCRIPTION
SEAL:
1A H I J K LB C D E F G
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8A H I J K LB C D E F G
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTTHE DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION HEREIN ISTHE PROPERTY OF FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC. ANYREPRODUCTION MODIFICATION OR USE OF THISDRAWING FOR OTHER THAN THE INTENDEDPROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTENAUTHORIZATION FROM FLUX ENERGY SYSTEMS INC.IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

NUMBER OF CHARGING UNITS:NUMBER OF CHARGING PORTS:

TBDCLOVIS, CA5656ELECTRIC BUSCHARGING SYSTEMA05/12/2022AMABCONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL LOAD SCHEDULELOADQUANTITYPOWER (KW)VOLTAGE (V)CURRENT (A)TRANSIT BUS CHARGER(ABB HVC 150C)21150480 / 277180SHUTTLE BUS CHARGER(CLIPPERCREEK CS-100)3516.6420880DC FAST CHARGER(ABB TERRA 54)3 5048060LOAD1 3882.41.LOAD MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE WILL LIMIT BUS CHARGING LOAD TO A MAXIMUM OF 1632 KW PER NEC 625.42. 250
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

CALSTART | Clovis Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 152 Appendix G: Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle Refueling
Options Report
A copy of Jerald A. Cole’s study performed on CALSTART’s behalf to examine the possibility of a hydrogen refueling station for Clovis Transit begins on the following page. 251
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis Transit
Evaluation of Hydrogen Vehicle
Refueling Options

Prepared for: Clovis Transit
Prepared by: CALSTART, Inc.

May 2022
Jerald A. Cole, Hydrogen Ventures (Under contract with CALSTART) Katrina Sutton, CALSTART

252
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Acknowledgements
A great many people and organizations were contacted and contributed to this report. The CALSTART team would like to acknowledge and thank the following for their assistance, without which this report would not have been possible.

Brian Bonner, Air Products
Angela Das, PowerTech Labs, Inc
Stephen Ellis, FirstElement Energy
Dave Farese, Air Products
Paul Fukumoto, FuelCell Energy
Stephen Jones, BayoTech
Leanne Sharpe, PowerTech Labs, Inc.

Ghassan Sleiman, First Element Energy
DeLisa Leighton, BayoTech
Monica Valdez, FuelCell Energy
Jeremy Holland, Mortensen
Chris Wallington, GenH2
G. Scott Samuelsen, U.C. Irvine
Blake Lane, U.C. Irvine
John Chimenti, Air Products
Kevin Harris, Hexagon Purus
Kristen Cleven, Air Products
Jim Corboy, H2B2
253
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Introduction

In this study we attempt to provide a sense for what a hydrogen refueling station would look like for Clovis Transit. Using a framework of 11 fuel cell electric buses traveling an average of 135 miles per day, a daily demand of 275 kg hydrogen was estimated. Using this basis, the study then looks at different hydrogen supply modes and different station configurations.

For delivered hydrogen both liquid and gaseous hydrogen were considered, as well as different quantities per delivery. The DOE model Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM) was then used to estimate the cost of hydrogen at the Clovis Transit depot.

We also looked at on site hydrogen production via both electrolysis and steam methane reforming (SMR).

A vendor-supplied spreadsheet was updated using publicly available data on utility rates to estimate the cost of producing hydrogen with commercially available equipment.

Next, the impact of station costs on hydrogen cost was estimated with the Heavy-Duty Refueling Station Analysis Model (HRDSAM). Three gaseous and three liquid stations were investigated. The impacts of CAPEX, O&M, and utilities were estimated using the model.

Finally, using a combination of vendor information and an analysis of the 2020 NFPA 2 hydrogen technologies code was applied to estimate approximate footprint of a generic single dispenser hydrogen station.

Overview of hydrogen demand and delivery
This analysis is based on an expected fleet consisting of:
• Two fixed routes with three 40-foot buses per route all day o Route 10 - 135 mi/bus/day
o Route 50 - 135 mi/bus/day
• Two school bus routes in the morning and one in afternoon/evening (for school times) o Route 70 - 20 miles/day
o Route 80 - 16 miles/day
• Dial-a-Ride out every day - 21 miles/day
o Midweek - 10 buses/4 vans
o Wekend - approx 5 buses/2 vans
In addition, it is expected that the fixed route fleet will be expanded with five additional 40-foot buses and an additional 15 shuttles for the DAR fleet.

For current purposes we are assuming that even if the school buses and shuttles are converted to FCEVs, their low mileage and smaller size mean that they will have little impact on hydrogen demand. As such the analysis focuses on having 11 40-foot FCEBs, each driving 135 miles per day.

254
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

In terms of fuel economy, AC Transit reports that their legacy fuel cell bus fleet averages 5.0 miles/kg-H2, while their newer New Flyer buses achieve 8.15 mile/kg -H2 in the 2020 time frame 1. On the other hand Eudy and Post (2020) 2 report a fuel economy of 5.5 mile /kg-H2 for 40-foot FCEBs in the SunLine Transit fleet.

In comparing the climate in Fresno County with that of the bay area and the Palm Desert area, the Calstart team has elected to use the Sunline experience as a basis for estimating fuel requirements. This is mainly based on the need for air conditioning in the hot summer. In this regard, 135 miles per day translates into a 25 kg fill for each bus daily. For 11 buses this means 275 kg needs to be dispensed each day. This compares well with Sunline’s experience where they pump approximately 320 kg/day into 12 buses3.

This also has implications for the amount of on -site storage needed. In past discussions with owner/operators of older style stations, a constant refrain was that the stations were not designed with enough storage. That experience led operators to conclude that projects should be designed for double the planned daily capacity, and that there should be enough storage on site for three day s’ worth of operation. In our current scenario for Clovis Transit , the additional five buses account for future expansion. Three days’ consumption would be 825 kg, but due to equipment limitations the station should be designed with 1,000 kg fixed ground storage under most scenarios.

Frequency of delivery based on vehicle demand

Tube Trailer Hydrogen
Standard 44-foot hydrogen tube trailers contain 320 kg H2 at a pressure of 180 bar (2600 psig), although there are composite cylinder tube trailers available that can provide up to 1100 kg at 500 bar (7200 psig).

In addition, both Air Products and BayoTech advertise on their respective web sites 520 bar (7500 psig) trailer delivery at 500 kg in half size (approx. 20 ft) trailers.

However, with a typical bum p-stop delivery, the actual amount of hydrogen delivered is somewhat less than trailer capacity , and can be significantly less, depending on the pressure of gas remaining in the station storage vessels as well as the total volume of stationary storage. It also depends on whether a transfer pump is used. Many of the earlier stations in California simply let the tube trailer reach equilibrium with the on-site storage cylinders. As a result, sometimes the tube trailer could return to the production facility still half full. Newer stations should have transfer pumps so that this is not an issue.

With a drop and swap delivery option, the amount of hydrogen transferred per delivery can be noticeably higher. In this situation a nearly empty tube trailer is disconnected from the station and a new one put in its place. Staff at the UCI station report that their trailers are replaced when the pressure drops from an initial 7200 psig to about 1000 psig. As a result , the amount of hydrogen transferred is still less than the amount delivered. P art of this is because of limitations on the cylinders on the tube trailer (they don’t

1 Chen, J. et al. Zero Emission Transit Bus Technology Analysis. 23 June 2021. 2 Eudy, L. and Post, M. SunLine Transit Agency American Fuel Cell Bus Progress Report. NREL/PR -5400-71312, April 2020.
3 Loper, B. Sunline Transit Agency, Personal Communication, October 2019. 255
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
want to be completely evacuated) and part because there is a minimum suction pressure for the transfer pump (compressor), which might be as low as the 30 – 50 bar range for 4500 psig storage, or much higher for 12,500 psig storage.

Liquid Hydrogen Delivery
Air Products has proposed to develop a system for Clovis based on the hydrogen refueling system at the Orange County Transit Authority Santa Ana depot. This would consi st of a single 18,000 gallon (4800 kg) cryogenic tank with liquid pump and evaporation system. This would provide approximately 14 days’worth of hydrogen under the baseline scenario. Air Products has said that they would refill the tank every ten or eleven days.

Financial Analysis
Delivered Hydrogen
There are two options for delivered hydrogen: liquid or compressed gas. And then with compressed gas there are two approaches commonly used: passive transfer (bump drop) and drop and swap. Which approach is eventually selected is something likely to be negotiated with your gas supplier, but footprint is also certainly a consideration.

Liquid Hydrogen
A liquid hydrogen system like those used in West Sacramento and Emeryville evaporates the gas and then compresses it into medium and high-pressure storage. However, the systems at SARTA and OCTA use Air Products’ cryo compression (AC Transit has Messer cryo compressors), which pumps liquid hydrogen up to 98 MPa before evaporating it. This results in significant energy savings over gaseous compression and eliminates the need for a gaseous compressor.

In addition, with delivered liquid hydrogen there can be a significant savings on transportation costs. A large (e.g. 18,000 gallon) cryogenic tank would hold enough hydrogen for two weeks of station operation using our base case. Being monitored remotely by the gas provider a fresh shipment might be delivered every ten days, leaving a cushion of 2 – 3 days to protect against supply disruptions. This, in fact, is exactly what Air Products has suggested to the Calstart team. This would be essentially what is currently installed at Orange County Transportation Authority’s depot in Santa Ana where ten FCEBs are being fueled.

Gaseous Delivery
Gaseous delivery was once considered uneconomical for transport distances greater than 200 miles, but with the advent of composite high pressure tubes , the approach chosen needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. For large-volume consumers such as vehicle refueling stations gaseous hydrogen could be uneconomical for other reasons. At UCI for example the station needs to receive two shipments on most days, and staff report running out of gas at least once a week. (N.B.: virtually all new First Element stations will have liquid delivery regardless of distance to the production facility) For Clovis there is one possible exception. The H2B2 project in Kerman is only 25 miles from the Stageline depot. If the offtake price at Kerman is favorable, it is possible that the most economical option for fueling buses could be to shuttle a single trailer back and forth between the depot and Kerman every three days or so.
256
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Comparison of Gaseous vs Liquid Delivery
To get a relative sense of how delivery costs compare for different scenarios , we ran DOE’s Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM). In this case we considered a station with a capacity of 5 00 kg/day dispensing 275 kg/day in back -to-back 25 kg fills. For liquid , the model assumed that the station would have 2,000 kg of liquid storage and would receive shipments of 1,800 kg when storage was down to 10 % of capacity. The model also factors in the cost of liquefaction but does not include the cost of the hydrogen at the production plant gate. One of the features of HDSAM is that it automatically configures an optimal station configuration. We are ignoring that for now because it assum es a retail station with features that are different from large vehicle fleet refueling. The balance of plant costs up to and including the nozzle are addressed later in this section.

For gaseous fueling , the station capacity is the same as with liquid. H owever, the shipping distance is further. For liquid hydrogen we assumed a 277 km distance from Clovis to the Air Products Liquefaction plant in Sacramento, CA. For gas we assumed a 392 km distance from the Air Products hydrogen depot in Wilmington, CA. Different scenarios were run for tube trailer capacity. Current trailers have 250 and 350 kg capacity and are able to offload about 90 percent of the charge if the trailer is 500 bar. We also looked a newer technology with 500 and 1100 kg tube trailers, although we are not aware of any examples in actual commercial service at this time.

Results are summarized in the following table in 2016 dollars.

Type Trailer
Capacity
Compression Storage Buffer Transport Liquefaction Total Liquid 4,000 kg $- $1.14 $0.02 $0.41 $1.78 $3.35/kg
Gas 250 kg $1.21 $1.24 $0.05 $2.75 $- $5.25/kg Gas 350 kg $1.21 $1.18 $0.04 $1.97 $- $4.40/kg Gas 500 kg $1.21 $1.13 $0.04 $1.38 $- $3.76/kg Gas 1100 kg $1.21 $1.07 $0.03 $0.63 $- $2.94/kg

The absolute magnitude of these numbers is not what’s important, because the model makes a great number of assumptions that may not be applicable to the Clovis project. Rather, the comparative numbers should be of more interest because we’ve done our best to provide an apples-to-apples comparison. What is clear is how much the transportation cost is impacted by the capacity of the compressed gas trailer .

With all but the largest trailer, gaseous delivery is more expensive than delivered liquid, and this is almost entirely driven by transportation costs (fuel, truck, trailer, labor).

Next, we look at transportation distance. Here we compare the cost of transporting 250 kg of gaseous hydrogen from Wilmington versus moving it from Kerman. It’s clear that if the cost of the gas is essentially the same, then delivered gaseous hydrogen, even in small quantities , becomes competitive with liquid shipped from Sacramento.

Distance Trailer
Capacity
Compression Storage Buffer Transport Total
257
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
392 km 250 kg $1.21 $1.24 $0.05 $2.75 $5.25/kg
40 km 250 kg $1.21 $1.06 $0.05 $0.77 $3.09/kg

On-site Production (SMR & Electrolysis)
On-site production of hydrogen is generally more expensive, and at best, on par with the cost of delivered hydrogen. However, on -site production can provide security of supply, especially when it is backed up with the possibility of delivered hydrogen in the event of scheduled or unscheduled equipment shutdown.

Recent experiences in both S outhern and Northern California have shown that reliance on centralized hydrogen production – at least for the time being – can result in widespread shortages. Even though Air Products’ Santa Clara facility is back online, there are still frequent reports on social media platforms of stations having little to no hydrogen available. Likewise, a temporary shutdown of the Air Products Transfill facility4 in Wilmington, CA left Southern California FCEV drivers scrambling to find fuel from other suppliers such as Air Liquide. Stations with on-site production, including Riverside, Burbank, Ontario, and Newport Beach had limited capacity, but continued to produce hydrogen on site when central supply is unavailable.

For this study, we looked at the two most common approaches for on-site production of hydrogen. These are on-site electrolysis and on-site steam methane reforming (SMR). Other possible production methods were not considered practical or viable for at the scale of a refueling facility for a small transit district.

Examples of methods not considered for this report include solid waste pyrolysis, coal gasification, autothermal reforming (ATR), and exothermic gas generators (partial oxidation). However, m ethanol reforming and natural gas pyrolysis are discussed briefly at the end of this report.

The team asked BayoTech to provide a comparison of costs for SMR vs electrolysis for a production rate of 500 kg/day5. The results are shown in the following table , adjusted for estimated current industrial utility rates in Clovis.

Assumptions SMR Electrolysis
Capacity 500 kg/day
Delivery Pressure ~14 bar 30 bar
Project life 20 years
Electricity $0.0898/kWh
Water $0.00206/gallon
Nat Gas $14.28/MMBtu
CapEx $3,030,000 $2,110,000*
OpEx $9500/month $6,667/month
Levelized Cost of H2 $4.30/kg $6.01/kg
*Includes stack replacement at year 10

4 https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/air-products-to-build-second-liquid-hydrogen-production-facility-in-california-2019-01-07 5 Jones, S. Personal communication, March 2022.
258
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

This is a simplified cost analysis with straight line depreciation of the asset over the life of the project and does not consider WACC, IRR, NPV, or other factors that would require input from Clovis Transit. However, it is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Balance of Plant
Regardless the means of hydrogen supply , the gas needs to be compressed, stored, and delivered to a dispenser. Some suppliers, including APCI and Nel Hydrogen prefer to provide the entire system. Others provide only the front half. For OneH2 that means everything up to and including medium-pressure (450 bar) storage; for ITM Power, it means 30 bar hydrogen at the exit of the electrolyzer , for BayoTech it means 14 bar hydrogen at the back end of the pressure swing adsorption unit For this part of the system, the CALSTART team contacted Powertech Labs in Surrey, BC. Powertech is the premier test facility in the world for CNG and high -pressure compressed hydrogen vehicle and filling station components. The company offers independent equipm ent testing and certification services to national and international standards, materials performance assessment, failure analysis, and D/P FMEA for vehicle OEMs. Powertech’s quality management system is registered to ISO 9001 which covers all aspects of Powertech’s products and services. Powertech is also an accredited laboratory in the Standards Council of Canada Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories.

The system described by Powertech includes the following:
• IRDA communication fills, as per SAE J2601-1 and SAE J2601-2. • PLC control system, capable of remote access for monitoring, fault clearing, and data file downloads (internet connection required).
• Flow measurement, accurate to ±5% at 1 kg hydrogen dispensed. • Documentation, including manufacturers’ manuals where applicable, and drawing package and operations manuals in PDF format.
• Containerized package with compressor, pre-cooling and controls. • Two 350 bar, stand-alone, dual-hose dispensers, including user interface. • Hydrogen cooling system for 700 bar, T40 fills.
• Perform H35 ambient fills to 95% SOC or greater, with starting vehicle pressure of 50 bar, as defined by SAE J2601-2. Option pricing is available for pre-cooled H35 fills. • Four simultaneous 350 bar fills of 35-kg hydrogen tanks starting at 100 bar. • 700 kg of hydrogen storage at 450 bar to accommodate simultaneous bus fueling. • Two compressors capable of compressing hydrogen with the following specifications:
o Min suction pressure of 54 bar (800 psig)
o Max output pressure of 442 bar (6,500 psig)
o 10.1 kg/hr (per compressor) at 52 bar (800 psig) suction pressure 259
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Not all these items track exactly with the Clovis station configuration as currently envisioned because Powertech has provided a generic specification that is at least close to what Clovis would need . Still, this provides a good sense of how the station could be configured and provides some sense of scale and cost.

To the extent possible, equipment will be preassembled and tested prior to shipment from Powertech.

The Powertech proposal includes two medium-pressure compressors capable of compressing 485 kg/day H2 to 450 bar for H35 refueling. Part of that will be tapped for possible future higher-pressure storage at 875 bar if the decision is made to add 700 bar refueling in the future.

The medium-pressure storage and dispensers are designed to be able to provide four simultaneous 35 kg fills and will be able to dispense a minimum of 420 kg over a 24-hour period.

The approximate cost for the system as presented here is about $ 3 million. There are also two options being offered. One is a precooling system for 350 bar fills that would be about $150k, and addition of a third medium-pressure compressor for about $250k. All told, the capital cost of the station adds about $5.00/kg to the cost of delivered hydrogen over a 15-year project life.

Powertech estimates that equipment delivery would be 48 – 52 weeks after receipt of order.

For a more detailed analysis of station costs, we employed DOE’s Heavy Duty Refueling Station Analysis Model (HDRSAM). The current version of HDRSAM generates estimates in 2016 dollars (as does HDSAM), but it allows for more customized station configurations and also models liquid hydrogen-based stations.

This makes it possible to investigate a greater range of options an d perform sensitivity analyses. On top Figure 1: Powertech fuel processing module and high-pressure storage at the Riverside hydrogen refueling station. Image Credit: Hydrogen Ventures.
260
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
of all that HDRSAM estimates O&M and energy costs and factors both into the cost of dispensed hydrogen.

For this study three liquid hydrogen and three gaseous hydrogen stations configurations were evaluated.

These are discussed below.

The fixed inputs to the model were that there would be 11 buses to be filled per day, at a maximum of 3 per hour, with 25 kg per fill. After that there is a choice of gaseous or liquid delivery. Other choices to be made are the t ype of gas supply, the dispensing configuration, and whether to use optimistic or conservative estimates of station component costs (conservative used for all cases). The model then “optimizes” the station configuration and provides output such as cost est imates, vessel sizes, power consumption, and station footprint.

Gaseous station configuration 1 is shown above as a greatly simplified process flow diagram. This is similar to most dump and bump station configurations. A tube trailer is delivered to the station and gas is transferred to a cascade storage system. Initially the gas is transferred passively due to the pressure difference between the tube trailer and the depleted cascade storage system. At some point the compressor takes over and fills the cascade storage system to its maximum capacity. The cascade system selected by the model consists of one high -pressure cylinder and two each medium - and low-pressure cylinders. The transfer can take several hours, after which the tube trailer is disconnected and hauled off.

261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Gas configuration 2 imagines on site production with a delivery pressure of 20 bar. Due the the greater pressure differential across the compressor, pumping costs are higher, as will be discussed later. It is assumed that the on-site production unit will be sized for station capacity, plus a buffer. That necessitates a low-pressure storage tank to be used during the approximately 2-1/2 hours when all 11 buses are being filled.

Gas configuration 3 is a drop and swap configuration. In this instance the tube trailer itself is used as the cascade system. The compressor and accompanying buffer/accumulator tank are used only when the 262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
high-pressure tubes in the trailer falls below the minimum pressure of 430 bar. This appears to be similar to the approach used at the UCI station. This avoids much of the cost of a large cascade system but requires either multiple trailers or a single high-capacity trailer. In either case an enclosure for two trailers is required.

Liquid station configuration 1 is the baseline for this study. Hydrogen is delivered by truck and transferred to an on site dewar. A submerged cryo pump transfers the liquid through an evaporator to a cascade storage system. Note that unlike the gaseous configurations, there is no refrigeration system to chill the hydrogen for T40 fills. Instead, a heat exchanger is coupled with the evaporator to take advantage of enthalpy absorbed by the evaporating hydrogen. Also, the cascade storage system is much smaller. This can be achieved because liquid hydrogen is pumped much faster gas can be compressed. Also, since the compressibility of liquid hydrogen is much smaller than that of the gas, the power need ed to bring it to pressure is significantly reduced.

This configuration is like that currently being used at SARTA. 263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Liquid station configuration 2 is an earlier generation station design. In this case liquid under about 90 psig pressure leaves the storage vessel under its own pressure. It passes through a small evaporator before being delivered to a conventional gaseous compressor. The rate the hydrogen comes out is slow, so the model indicates a rather large cascade storage system. From that point on it looks like configuration 1.

Liquid station configuration 3 is the latest generation of liquid supplied hydrogen stations. This is similar to the OCTA station design, and is in fact the configuration recommended by Air Products when they were being interviewed for this study. In this case the cascade system is eliminated and replaced with a buffer tank, which serves as a capacitor to smooth out the effects of the submerged liquid pump. The liquid is pumped to the dispenser feed pressure of 450 bar in real time while the vehicle is being refueled. 264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

The economics of each of these six configurations are compared in the following two tables.

Configuration Capex O&M (annual) Energy (annual)
Gas 1 $ 2,007,143 $ 120,020 $ 9,801 Gas 2 $ 2,635,331 $ 127,449 $ 59,255 Gas 3 $ 1,532,012 $ 120,020 $ 9,801 Liq 1 $ 1,684,791 $ 182,653 $ 2,678 Liq 2 $ 2,246,445 $ 172,016 $ 28,473 Liq 3 $ 1,595,600 $ 182,653 $ 2,678

In this first table we see that Gas 3 and Liquid 3 are the least expensive up front. In the case of gas three this comes from replacing a $625k cascade system with a $150k buffer system. The difference between Liquid 1 and Liquid 3 is not as dramatic because the cascade system for the former was considerably smaller and less expensive.

The next table shows the contributions of Capex, O&M, and Energy to the cost of hydrogen in $/kg.

Configuration Capex O&M (annual) Energy (annual) Total
Gas 1 $ 3.37 $ 1.23 $ 0.10 $/kg 4.70 Gas 2 $ 4.36 $ 1.31 $ 0.59 $/kg 6.26 Gas 3 $ 2.57 $ 1.23 $ 0.10 $/kg 3.90 Liq 1 $ 3.00 $ 1.88 $ 0.03 $/kg 4.91 Liq 2 $ 3.69 $ 1.77 $ 0.29 $/kg 5.75 Liq 3 $ 2.84 $ 1.88 $ 0.03 $/kg 4.75

It is clear that configurations Gas 2 and Gas 3 represent the extremes in terms of cost, though liquid 2 is also on the high side.

Estimated Energy and Power Demand
Delivered Hydrogen
FirstElement have provided us with station energy demand for both liquid and gaseous delivery options.

This is based on the assumption that the station will dispense a maximum 100 kg/hr. O n this basis the installed power would be 300 kVA for liquid hydrogen and 1200 kVA for gaseous delivery. Both assume 480 V 3φ service

These numbers are essentially the peak power needed to run the station, with most of the power going to compression and chilling. Whe n the station is not refueling or re charging the high-pressure storage tanks, it will simply be consuming hotel power to run the lights, computer, communications, and keep the chiller in standby.

HDSAM calculates that the specific power to operate the station is 0.969 kWh/kg-H2 for gas and 0.3 kWh/kg-H2 for liquid.
265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

On-site Production (SMR & Electrolysis)

For on-site production,the energy consumption is significantly higher, and is on top of the power needed for station operation. This is especially true for electrolysis. With electrolysis the total energy consumption is typically 60 - 65 kWh per kg of hydrogen produced. This includes the production of hydrogen, plus compression to medium pressure storage. An additional compressor would be needed to handle 70 MPa refueling. Actual stack consumption is generally 48 – 50 kWh/kg, while the overall system power consumption is usually in the vicinity of 57.5 kWh/kg.

Electrolysis

The CALSTART team has contacted multiple suppliers of electrolysis systems for costs and specifications.

The specific power requirements were Nearly identical as shown in the following table.

Supplier Stack Power Output Ancillary Power** Specific Power Plug Power 0.88 MW 425 kg/day 135 kW 57.3 kWh/kg
ITM Power 1.7 MW 864 kg/day 370 kW 57.5 kWh/kg
Nel Hydrogen 1.1 MW 531 kg/day 150 kW 56.5 kWh/kg
Cummins 0.86 kW 431 kg/day 130 kW 55.1 kWh/kg
**Estimated based on product specifications

A good example installation of an electrolyzer is the Nel MC400 unit located at SunLine Transit in Palm Desert, California. Electricity is supplied to the building at 1200 VAC and is rectified and transformed to 2 MW of 12,000 VDC power for the stacks. A separate power system provides power to compressors, chillers, and other ancillary equipment.

On Site Reforming

The peak power demand for the BayoTech H2 -1000 SMR system is reported to be 200 kW and steady state is around 110 kW. A typical unit will draw 2,000 – 2,300 kWh/day of 480 V 3 ph power.

Space Requirements

The following figure shows two views of the UCI drop and swap refueling station. The fenced -in area measures roughly 50 x 60 feet. The walled area visible in the top left is a fire-proof block wall that shields the hydrogen package (compressor, chiller, cascade, valves and controls). The hydrogen package itself is only about the size of a standard 20-foot container. The enclosure actually has room for two side-by-side 35 to 40 foot tube trailers, but currently receives roughly 4 20-foot trailers every three days. Some of the area in the fenced off area is surplus, but a lot of it is a result of conservative standoff distances in place at the time the station was designed. With the newer 2020 NFPA 2 a considerably smaller enclosure could almost certainly have been designed.
266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Th
e next figure is Air Products’ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) refueling facility. The 18,000 kg LH2 tank sits along with the evaporators and auxiliaries inside an approximately 40’ x 80’ fenced enclosure. This does not, however, include the fueling island and canopy.

T
his figure was captured from Google Maps ™. The LH2 tank is visible in the lower right. Just above the tank are four banks of evaporators and above that two buffer storage tanks are visible. The two sedans in the upper left corner provide a sense of scale. The dispenser island is not shown in the photo but requires only a 2’ x 4’ footprint. Again, there appears to be a lot of unused space; well in excess of what would be required by current NFPA guidelines.
267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Both UCI and OCTA stations were designed prior to the 2020 release of the NFPA 2 guidelines, which allow for much closer placement of equipment with generally smaller standoff distances. In addition, both stations are plac ed in relatively unconfined spaces with no directly adjacent buildings or other major infrastructure.

FirstElement Fuel has provided us guidance that the footprint for a 100 kg/h LH2 system that would meet the needs for this project is 13’ x 35’ including pump, compressor, evaporators, and both liquid and gaseous storage. Ehrhart et al. (2020)6 have analyzed the footprint for 600 kg/day stations with delivered gas, delivered liquid, and on -site electrolysis. They have shown that the hydrogen package footpr int is only slightly affected by the technology employed. Therefore, we will use the 13’ x 35’ reference as a basis for evaluating the overall station footprint for clovis.

Certain assumptions need to be made to assess the station footprint. For this study we are assuming that the station is adjacent to the property line on two sides, and that there are no adjacent buildings, air intakes, sewer vents, or sources of ignition within 50 feet of the station. This will give us the minimum footprint of the enclosure.

As shown in the next figure, the hydrogen package is assumed to be enclosed on three sides by an 11-foot tall 2-hour rated fire wall. The package itself is set back 19 feet from the property line on two sides, and separated from the wall by the height of the wall on two sides, and by five feet on the third side. On the open end of the enclosure bollards are placed five feet in front of the hydrogen package, spaced every four feet. Note that the distance of the hydrogen package from the fire wall on two sides is equal to the height of the wall.
6 Ehrhart, B.D. et al. Hydrogen Refueling Reference Station Lot Size Analysis for Urban Sites. SAND2020 -2796, March 2020.
268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

The position of the dispenser is somewhat arbitrary if it is at least 5 feet from the hydrogen storage and 10 feet from the property line. For this exercise the dispenser has been placed 22 feet from the hydrogen package enclosure to provide an aisle one lane wide for bus refueling, and to allow access for hydrogen delivery. In addition, a 24-foot wide fenced enclosure could be added to accommodate two 40 foot trailers for a drop-and-swap installation. The entire project then measures 61’ x 84’ ((5125 square feet) with the trailer enclosure and 37’ x 84’ (3110 square feet) without the trailer enclosure.

If the station is located near other buildings the setback requirements can increase dramatically, especially for an LH2 station, so this should be considered an optimistic estimate of station size.

Closing Thoughts
S
everal equipment providers prefer to provide hydrogen as a service (HaaS). Air Products, One -H2, and Kaizen Clean Energy have all told the Calstart team that this is their preferred business model. In these cases, the hydrogen cost works out to $7 - $8/kg per earlier discussions. Air Products, in fact, usually wants to own and maintain everything up to the dispenser nozzle. They have said, however, that the realities of government grants and other funding often require compromise on their end.

BayoTech no longer produces their 200 and 500 kg/day SMR units and currently offers only one product – their 1000 kg/day model. However, BayoTech has told the Calstart team that if Clovis Transit were to purchase one of their units BayoTech would contract to acquire any unused hydrogen. Specific terms were not provided, but BayoTech assured us that the system would become a profit center for Clovis Transit.

There are two on-site hydrogen technologies that did not make it into the body of this report, but which deserve brief mention because they have been attracting a lot of attention in the trade literature as of late. These are steam methanol reforming (SMeR) and methane pyrolysis ( MeP). Neither of these technologies are new or novel, but they are generally deployed for purposes other than small on-site production of hydrogen.

SMeR is carried out at milder conditions than SMR, leading to lower equipment costs and reduced energy input. SMeR has a smaller equipment footprint than SMR as well. It is getting a lot of attention recently because of its potential in the maritime industry. Methanol is a dense storage medium for transporting hydrogen. Its properties are like water and so it can be transported inexpensively at normal temperatures and pressures. It also has low aquatic toxicity, so spills are less of a concern. However, the technical maturity of SMeR, and its process economics at small scale have not been adequately demonstrated. In addition, it requires the storage and handling of large quantities of methanol, with its attendant health and safety issues.

MeP is one pathway to production of carbon black, though in that application the process is often carried out oxidatively with extremely low oxygen concentrations. Broadly speaking, there are three versions of MeP: Thermal pyrolysis, catalytic pyrolysis, and non-thermal plasma pyrolysis. Thermal pyrolysis is carried out at temperatures of 1,000 – 1,200 °C, while catalytic pyrolysis is often done around 700 – 800 °C, 270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
depending on the catalyst. Non -thermal plasma pyrolysis can be carried out at room temperature and several sources have stated that changing the temperature has little effect on process efficiency.

One thing in common with all MeP processes is that they produce approximately 3 kg carbon black for each kg of hydrogen. In fact, at the recent ACT Expo in Long Beach, a GenH2 representative told the Calstart team that sales of the carbon black are central to the economics of their Hyrolysis® process. It should be pointed out that BASF7 stated in 2019 that “carbon value is a hurdle” as well as pointing out that the carbon quality is highly variable.

Collection of the carbon is another concern with MeP. The industry standard is to collect the carbon with a cyclone, followed by a baghouse, and then a wet scrubber. This is all followed by a PSA unit to remove residual methane and byproduct hydrocarbons.
7 Daloz, W. et al. The Quest for CO2-Free Hydrogen – Methane Pyrolysis at Scale. ARPA-E Methane Cohort Kickoff, Houston, December 10, 2019.
271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
173 CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Appendix H: ICE Bus Fleet Cost Calculation Report
Table H-1. TCO for ICE Bus Fleet
Description/
Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total New buses
added 0 3 - 3 5 - - - - - - -
Number of
buses retired - - - - - - - 3 - 3 5 -
Number of
buses in
operation
0 3 3 6 11 11 11 8 8 5 0 -
Capital cost 0 $540,000 - $540,000 $900,000 - - - - - - $1,980,000 Total miles
travelled by
all buses
0 24,000 24,000 48,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 64,000 64,000 40,000 - - Maintenance
cost 0 $14,400 $14,400 $28,800 $52,800 $52,800 $52,800 $38,400 $38,400 $24,000 - $ 316,800 Fuel
consumed
(gallon)
0 1,714.29 1,714.29 3,428.57 6,285.71 6,285.71 6,285.71 4,571.43 4,571.43 2,857.14 - - 272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
174
Description/
Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Fuel cost 0 $11,791 $11,791 $23,582 $43,233 $43,233 $43,233 $31,442 $31,442 $19,651 - $259,398.86 End of life
cost - - - - - - - $(30,000) - $(30,000) $(50,000) $(110,000) Total cost 0 $566,191 $26,191 $592,382 $996,033 $96,033 $96,033 $39,842 $69,842 $13,651 $(50,000) $2,446,198.86 Discounted
cost (14%) 0 $523,475 $23,284 $506,370 $818,667 $75,896 $72,977 $29,112 $49,070 $9,222 $(32,479) $2,075,595.55 Total
discounted
cost in
millions
$- $0.52 $0.02 $0.51 $0.82 $0.08 $0.07 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $(0.03) $ 2.08 Table H-2. Scheduled Replacement Planning of ICE to BEB Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total qualified
vehicle
purchase/year
0 0 3 0 6 11 2 2 0 4 8
ZEB
purchase/year
(total)
0 0 0 0 3 6 2 2 0 4 8
CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 273 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
175
Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 ZEB
purchase/year
(small)
(Shuttle)
3 2 0 8
ZEB
purchase/year
(large)
(Transit)
6 2 4*
ICE vehicle
purchase/year
(all small)
0 0 3 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 total Total qualified
vehicle
purchase/year
5 3 6 3 10 0 0 5 0 0 68
ZEB
purchase/year
(total)
5 3 6 3 10 0 0 5 0 0 57
ZEB
purchase/year
(small)
(Shuttle)
0 3 6*6 3 5 0 0 5 0 0 35
6 Cells with an asterisk mark represent spare buses. These buses will run only in case of maintenance and service needs.

CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 274 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
176
Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 ZEB
purchase/year
(large)
(Transit)
5 5 22
ICE vehicle
purchase/year
(all small)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
CALSTART | Clovis Area Transit System Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study 275 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – To Submit a Letter of Support for Senate Bill 14, Senator Shannon Grove, to include Human Trafficking in the lists of Crimes Defined as Serious and Violent Under California Law.

Staff: John Holt, City Manager
Recommendation: Approve

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Legislation – SB 14

2. Summary from Senator Grove’s office

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to authorize the submittal of a letter of support for Senate Bill 14, Senator Shannon Grove, to include human trafficking in the lists of crimes defined as serious and violent under California law.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate BIll 14 includes human trafficking in the lists of crimes that are defined as serious and violent under California law, making the crime a strike under the Three Strikes law. SB 14 will help strengthen protections for the millions of victims of sex a nd labor trafficking. Staff has reviewed the bill and is recommending City Council provide policy direction to support the legislation. If the recommendation is approved, staff will draft a letter from the Council to submit to the legislature for consideration.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 14 - Grove, Human Trafficking – Serious and Violent Felony is being considered by the California Legislature . Currently human trafficking is defined as a non -serious and non - violent crime. So, the act of human trafficking c annot be considered a strike under California’s 276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Three Strikes law. SB 14 amends the Penal Code to add human trafficking to the list of both serious and violent crimes under California law. SB 14 also classifies human trafficking as a strike offense and makes those convicted of this crime subject to the same penalties that apply to all serious and violent crimes. Staff has reviewed the bill and is recommending City Council provide policy direction to support the legislation.

The position of the League of Cities is stated as “Watch” as of February 15, 2023.

If the recommendation is approved, staff will draft a letter of support to submit to the legislature for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The position on this bill recommended is in the best interest of the City and encouraging consistent punishment for serious and violent crimes.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will draft a letter of support for the Mayor’s signature.

Prepared by: Rebecca Simonian, Executive Assistant

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

SENATE BILL No. 14
Introduced by Senators Grove, Caballero, and Rubio
(Coauthors: Senators Dahle, Glazer, Jones, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, and Wilk)
December 5, 2022
An act to amend Sections 667.1, 667.5, 1170.125, and 1192.7 of the Penal Code, relating to felonies.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 14, as introduced, Grove. Violent felonies: serious felonies: human trafficking.

Existing law defines the terms “serious felony” and “violent felony” for various purposes, including, among others, enhancing the punishment for felonies pursuant to existing sentencing provisions commonly known as the Three Strikes Law.

This bill would include human trafficking within the definition of a violent felony and the definition of a serious felony for all purposes, including for purposes of the Three Strikes Law. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

V ote: majority.

Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
99 ATTACHMENT 1
278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 667.1 of the Penal Code is amended to line 2 read:
line 3 667.1. (a)   Notwithstanding subdi vision (h) of Section 667, line 4 for all offenses committed on or after November 7, 2012, but before line 5 January 1, 2024, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions line 6 (c) to (g), inclusi ve, of Section 667, are to those statutes as the y line 7 existed read on November 7, 2012.
line 8 (b)  Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for all line 9 offenses committed on or after January 1, 2024, all references to line 10 existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive , of Section line 11 667, are to those statutes as they read on January 1, 2024. line 12 SEC. 2. Section 667.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 13 667.5. Enhancement of prison terms for new offenses because line 14 of prior prison terms shall be imposed as follows:
line 15 (a)  If one of the ne w offenses is one of the violent felonies line 16 specified in subdivision (c), in addition to and consecutive to any line 17 other prison terms therefor , the court shall impose a three-year line 18 term for each prior separate prison term serv ed by the defendant line 19 when the prior of fense was one of the violent felonies specified line 20 in subdi vision (c). Ho wever, an additional term shall not be line 21 imposed under this subdivision for any a prison term served prior line 22 to a period of 10 years in which the defendant remained free of line 23 both prison custody and the commission of an offense that results line 24 in a felony conviction.
line 25 (b)  Except when subdivision (a) applies, if the ne w offense is line 26 any a felon y for which a prison sentence or a sentence of line 27 imprisonment in a county jail under subdi vision (h) of Section line 28 1170 is imposed or is not suspended, in addition and consecutive line 29 to any other sentence therefor, the court shall impose a one-year line 30 term for each prior separate prison term for a se xually violent line 31 offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare line 32 and Institutions Code, pro vided that an additional term shall not line 33 be imposed under this subdi vision for any a prison term serv ed line 34 prior to a period of fiv e years in which the defendant remained line 35 free of both the commission of an offense that results in a felony line 36 conviction, and prison custody or the imposition of a term of jail line 37 custody imposed under subdi vision (h) of Section 1170 or an y line 38 felony sentence that is not suspended.
99 — 2 — SB 14

279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 (c)  The Le gislature finds and declares that the follo wing line 2 specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing a line 3 sentence to display society’s condemnation for these extraordinary line 4 crimes of violence ag ainst the person. F or the purpose of this line 5 section, “violent felony” means any of the following:
line 6 (1)  Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
line 7 (2)  Mayhem.
line 8 (3)  Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdi vision (a) line 9 of Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of former line 10 Section 262.
line 11 (4)  Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286. line 12 (5)  Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section line 13 287 or of former Section 288a.
line 14 (6)  Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdi vision (a) or (b) line 15 of Section 288.
line 16 (7)  Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state line 17 prison for life.
line 18 (8)  Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury line 19 on a person other than an accomplice, which has been charged and line 20 proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 line 21 on or after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in line 22 Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant line 23 uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided line 24 in subdi vision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or line 25 12022.55.
line 26 (9)  Any robbery.
line 27 (9)  Robbery.
line 28 (10)  Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451. line 29 (11)  Sexual penetration as defined in subdi vision (a) or (j) of line 30 Section 289.
line 31 (12)  Attempted murder.
line 32 (13)  A violation of Section 18745, 18750, or 18755. line 33 (14)  Kidnapping.
line 34 (15)  Assault with the intent to commit a specified felon y, in line 35 violation of Section 220.
line 36 (16)  Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section line 37 288.5.
line 38 (17)  Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215. line 39 (18)  Rape or se xual penetration, in concert, in violation of line 40 Section 264.1.
99 SB 14 — 3 —

280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 (19)  Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which that w ould line 2 constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22. line 3 (20)  Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1, line 4 which that would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22. line 5 (21)  Any burglary Burglary of the first de gree, as defined in line 6 subdivision (a) of Section 460, wherein it is char ged and proved line 7 that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the line 8 residence during the commission of the burglary. line 9 (22)  Any violation of Section 12022.53.
line 10 (23)  A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418. line 11 (24)  Human trafficking, in violation of Section 236.1. line 12 (d)  For the purposes of this section, the defendant shall be line 13 deemed to remain in prison custody for an offense until the official line 14 discharge from custody , including an y period of mandatory line 15 supervision, or until release on parole or postrelease community line 16 supervision, whiche ver first occurs, including an y time during line 17 which the defendant remains subject to reimprisonment or custody line 18 in county jail for escape from custody or is reimprisoned on line 19 revocation of parole or postrelease community supervision. The line 20 additional penalties pro vided for prior prison terms shall not be line 21 imposed unless they are charged and admitted or found true in the line 22 action for the new offense.
line 23 (e)  The additional penalties provided for prior prison terms shall line 24 not be imposed for an y felony for which the defendant did not line 25 serve a prior separate term in state prison or in county jail under line 26 subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
line 27 (f)  A prior conviction of a felony shall include a conviction in line 28 another jurisdiction for an of fense which, that, if committed in line 29 California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in line 30 county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 if the defendant line 31 served one year or more in prison for the of fense in the other line 32 jurisdiction. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include line 33 a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all line 34 of the elements of the particular felony as defined under California line 35 law if the defendant serv ed one year or more in prison for the line 36 offense in the other jurisdiction.
line 37 (g)  A prior separate prison term for the purposes of this section line 38 shall mean a continuous completed period of prison incarceration line 39 imposed for the particular of fense alone or in combination with line 40 concurrent or consecuti ve sentences for other crimes, including 99 — 4 — SB 14

281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 any reimprisonment on re vocation of parole that is not line 2 accompanied by a new commitment to prison, and including any line 3 reimprisonment after an escape from incarceration. line 4 (h)  Serving a prison term includes any a confinement time in line 5 any state prison or federal penal institution as punishment for line 6 commission of an offense, including confinement in a hospital or line 7 other institution or facility credited as service of prison time in the line 8 jurisdiction of the confinement.
line 9 (i)  For the purposes of this section, a commitment to the State line 10 Department of Mental Health, or its successor the State Department line 11 of State Hospitals, as a mentally disordered sex offender following line 12 a conviction of a felony, which commitment exceeds one year in line 13 duration, shall be deemed a prior prison term.
line 14 (j)  For the purposes of this section, when a person subject to line 15 the custody , control, and discipline of the Secretary of the line 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is incarcerated at a line 17 facility operated by the Di vision of Juv enile Justice, that line 18 incarceration shall be deemed to be a term served in state prison. line 19 (k)  (1)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (d) and (g) or an y other line 20 law, when one of the ne w of fenses is committed while the line 21 defendant is temporarily removed from prison pursuant to Section line 22 2690 or while the defendant is transferred to a community facility line 23 pursuant to Section 3416, 6253, or 6263, or while the defendant line 24 is on furlough pursuant to Section 6254, the defendant shall be line 25 subject to the full enhancements provided for in this section. line 26 (2)  This subdivision does not apply when a full, separate, and line 27 consecutive term is imposed pursuant to any other law. line 28 SEC. 3. Section 1170.125 of the Penal Code is amended to line 29 read:
line 30 1170.125. (a)   Notwithstanding Section 2 of Proposition 184, line 31 as adopted at the November 8, 1994, General Election, statewide line 32 general election, for all offenses committed on or after November line 33 7, 2012, but before January 1, 2024, all references to e xisting line 34 statutes in Sections 1170.12 and 1170.126 are to those sections as line 35 they existed read on November 7, 2012.
line 36 (b)  Notwithstanding Section 2 of Pr oposition 184, as adopted line 37 at the No vember 8, 1994, state wide g eneral election, for all line 38 offenses committed on or after January 1, 2024, all references to line 39 existing statutes in Sections 1170.12 and 1170.126 ar e to those line 40 sections as they read on January 1, 2024.
99 SB 14 — 5 —

282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 SEC. 4. Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 2 1192.7. (a)  (1)  It is the intent of the Le gislature that district line 3 attorneys prosecute violent sex crimes under statutes that provide line 4 sentencing under a “one strik e,” “three strik es” or habitual se x line 5 offender statute instead of engaging in plea bargaining over those line 6 offenses.
line 7 (2)  Plea bar gaining in an y case in which the indictment or line 8 information charges any serious felony, any felony in which it is line 9 alleged that a firearm w as personally used by the defendant, or line 10 any offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, line 11 narcotics, or any other intoxicating substance, or any combination line 12 thereof, is prohibited, unless there is insufficient evidence to prove line 13 the people’s case, or testimon y of a material witness cannot be line 14 obtained, or a reduction or dismissal w ould not result in a line 15 substantial change in sentence.
line 16 (3)  If the indictment or information charges the defendant with line 17 a violent sex crime, as listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.61, line 18 that could be prosecuted under Sections 269, 288.7, subdivisions line 19 (b) through (i) of Section 667, Section 667.61, or 667.71, plea line 20 bargaining is prohibited unless there is insufficient e vidence to line 21 prove the people’s case, or testimony of a material witness cannot line 22 be obtained, or a reduction or dismissal w ould not result in a line 23 substantial change in sentence. At the time of presenting the line 24 agreement to the court, the district attorney shall state on the record line 25 why a sentence under one of those sections was not sought. line 26 (b)  As used in this section “plea bar gaining” means an y line 27 bargaining, ne gotiation, or discussion between a criminal line 28 defendant, or his or her their counsel, and a prosecuting attorney line 29 or judge, whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo line 30 contendere, in e xchange for an y promises, commitments, line 31 concessions, assurances, or consideration by the prosecuting line 32 attorney or judge relating to an y charge against the defendant or line 33 to the sentencing of the defendant.
line 34 (c)  As used in this section, “serious felon y” means any of the line 35 following:
line 36 (1)  Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; line 37 (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great line 38 bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on line 39 the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, line 40 duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate 99 — 6 — SB 14

283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) line 2 lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) an y line 3 felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for line 4 life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great line 5 bodily injury on an y person, other than an accomplice, or an y line 6 felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) line 7 attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or line 8 robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a line 9 peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) line 10 assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) line 11 exploding a destructi ve de vice or an y e xplosive with intent to line 12 injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing line 13 bodily injury, great bodily injury , or mayhem; (17) e xploding a line 14 destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any line 15 burglary of the first de gree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) line 16 kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a line 17 state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death line 18 or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) an y felony in line 19 which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; line 20 (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, line 21 furnish, administer , or gi ve to a minor an y heroin, cocaine, line 22 phencyclidine (PCP), or an y methamphetamine-related drug, as line 23 described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of line 24 the Health and Safety Code, or an y of the precursors of line 25 methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph line 26 (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section line 27 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) an y violation of line 28 subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished line 29 against the victim’ s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or line 30 fear of immediate and unla wful bodily injury on the victim or line 31 another person; (26) grand theft in volving a firearm; (27) line 32 carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute line 33 a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent line 34 to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation line 35 of Section 220; (30) thro wing acid or flammable substances, in line 36 violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, line 37 firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm line 38 or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section line 39 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon ag ainst a public transit line 40 employee, custodial officer, or school emplo yee, in violation of 99 SB 14 — 7 —

284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 Section 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) dischar ge of a firearm at an line 2 inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; line 3 (34) commission of rape or se xual penetration in concert with line 4 another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous line 5 sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting line 6 from a v ehicle, in violation of subdi vision (c) or (d) of Section line 7 26100; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of line 8 Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; line 9 (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other line 10 than an assault; (40) an y violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a line 11 violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; (42) human line 12 trafficking, in violation of Section 236.1; and (42) (43) an y line 13 conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision. line 14 (d)  As used in this section, “bank robbery” means to tak e or line 15 attempt to take, by force or violence, or by intimidation from the line 16 person or presence of another any property or money or any other line 17 thing of v alue belonging to, or in the care, custody , control, line 18 management, or possession of, an y bank, credit union, or an y line 19 savings and loan association.
line 20 As used in this subdi vision, the follo wing terms ha ve the line 21 following meanings:
line 22 (1)  “Bank” means any member of the Federal Reserve System, line 23 and any bank, banking association, trust compan y, savings bank, line 24 or other banking institution organized or operating under the laws line 25 of the United States, and any bank the deposits of which are insured line 26 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
line 27 (2)  “Savings and loan association” means an y federal savings line 28 and loan association and an y “insured institution” as defined in line 29 Section 401 of the National Housing Act, as amended, and an y line 30 federal credit union as defined in Section 2 of the Federal Credit line 31 Union Act.
line 32 (3)  “Credit union” means an y federal credit union and an y line 33 state-chartered credit union the accounts of which are insured by line 34 the Administrator of the National Credit Union administration. line 35 (e)  The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the line 36 Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote line 37 entered in the journal, tw o-thirds of the membership concurring, line 38 or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the line 39 electors.
99 — 8 — SB 14

285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
line 1 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 2 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 3 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agenc y or school line 4 district will be incurred because this act creates a ne w crime or line 5 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 6 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 7 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 8 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 9 Constitution.

O
99 SB 14 — 9 —

286
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

SB 14
Human Trafficking – Serious and Violent Felony
Office of Senator Shannon Grove, Room 7150 Page 1

SUMMARY
SB 14 will include human trafficking in the lists of
crimes that are defined as serious and violent under
California law, making the crime a strike under the
Three Strikes law. SB 14 will help strengthen
protections for the millions of victims of sex and labor trafficking.

PROBLEM
Currently human trafficking is defined as a non-serious and non-violent crime. So, the act of human trafficking cannot be considered a strike under California’s Three
Strikes law.

California consistently ranks number one in the nation
in the number of human trafficking cases reported to
the National Human Trafficking Hotline. The
California Attorney General notes that California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States, recognizes the serious nature of this crime, and has defined it as “modern day slavery.” “Human
trafficking is among the world's fastest growing
criminal enterprises and is estimated to be a $150
billion-a-year global industry. It is a form of modern
day slavery that profits fr om the exploitation of our
most vulnerable populations.”
(https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking).

Children as young a s 11 to 12 years old are exploited
by traffickers who force them to sell their bodies for the trafficker’s financial gain . Trafficking victims are frequently forced to have sex with upwards of 15
strangers a day or face beatings at the hands of their traffickers. Trafficking victims must meet daily sex or labor quotas before they are permitted to sleep, eat, rest, or receive other basic life necessities. Traffickers use a combination of physical violence and psychological
manipulation to gain compliance over their victims.

These tactics include death threats to the victim, threats to harm the victim’s family, food deprivation, physical beatings, rape, and burning the victim, among other
acts of violence. Trafficking victims are treated as
property by their trafficker s and are subject to their physically exh austing and exploitive demands. In
many instances, traffickers will also brand their victims with facial or body tattoos to signify their ownership
over the victim and the victim’s status as mere
property.

Human trafficking victims often suffer long-term
physical and psychological trauma. The American
Academy of Pediatrics recognized the severe trauma
human trafficking victims suffer and stated the
following, “violence and psychological manipulation
are common, and victims are at increased risk of
injury, sexual assault, infectious diseases, substance
misuse, untreated chronic medical conditions,
malnutrition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
major depression and other mental health disorders,
homicide, and suicide.” The US Department of Health
and Human Services Administration on Children,
Youth, and Families further noted, “young people who
are sexually trafficked typically experience physical
violence, both at the hands of their traffickers and
those who purchase sex, and often acquire sexually
transmitted infections (STIs) through their
exploitation.”

EXISTING LAW
The Penal Code defines the crimes that are considered
serious and violent under California law. Penal Code
section 1192.7(c) lists the 42 crimes that are defined as serious crimes under California law. Penal Code
section 667.5(c) lists the 23 crimes that are defined as violent under California law. Both serious and violent
crimes are considered strikes under California law.

Existing California law defines human trafficking as a
non-serious and non-violent crime.

SOLUTION
SB 14 amends the Penal Code to add human trafficking
to the list of both serious and violent crimes under
California law. SB 14 also classifies human trafficking Attachment 2
287
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

SB 14
Human Trafficking – Serious and Violent Felony

Office of Senator Shannon Grove, Room 7150 Page 2

as a strike offense and makes those convicted of this
crime subject to the same penalties that apply to all
serious and violent crimes. It is about time that
California starts to prosecute these horrendous acts as serious and violent crimes.

CONTACT:

Elizabeth Watson
(916) 651-4012
[email protected]

288
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Clovis City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

Clovis City Council
February 21, 2023