DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Fresno Area Express Q Handy Ride
SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
FOR
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 12502230
MANAGEMENT OF LCFS/RIN CREDIT PROGRAMS AND SUPPLY OF
RNG
February 2026
Prepared by:
Stefanee Ramirez, Management Analyst II
Department of Transportation / Fresno Area Express
2223 G Street
Fresno, CA 93706
City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Transportation / Fresno Area Express (FAX) owns, operates, and maintains a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facility. Delivery of uncompressed natural gas is currently being provided on-demand through Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E's) service lines to FAX's CNG station. The CNG station serves to fuel FAX’s bus fleet of over 138 buses, most of which are CNG -powered. It also provides CNG fuel to other City departments and external customers.
On April 16, 2025, FAX published a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a qualified consultant to manage the generation, sale, and reporting of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits derived from the agency’s CNG fueling operations. Additionally, the consultant will be res ponsible for coordinating the resupply of renewable natural gas (RNG).
The Selection Committee evaluated the proposals based upon five categories:
Share of Revenue: [30%]
Credit Monetization: [30%]
Qualifications, Related Experience, and References: [20%] Completeness of Response: [15%]
Fees: [5%]
On May 22, 2025, FAX received six (6) proposals which were reviewed and deliberated by the Selection Committee. The results of the Selection Committee’s evaluation are as follows:
OVERALL SCORING
Anew RNG Clean Energy Maas Energy STX Love's U.S. Energy
75.72 81.83 87.62 94.55 71.23 83.68
The Selection Committee unanimously recommends STX Commodities for award of a contract for LCFS/RIN Management and Supply because they received the highest average score.
City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
II. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Sharlee Flores Committee Chair (Non-Voting)
Analicia Jesse Committee Member (Voting)
Eudelia Rios Committee Member (Voting)
Richard Baldon Committee Member (Voting)
Stefanee Ramirez Advisor (Non-Voting)
Orie Rubalcava Advisor (Non-Voting)
Joana Garcia Advisor (Non-Voting)
III. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
April 16, 2025 – Solicitation Posted
April 28, 2025 – Pre-proposal Conference
May 22, 2025 – Proposals Due
June 11, 2025 – Selection Committee Meeting
June 17, 2025 – Selection Committee Meeting
IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Selection Committee evaluated the proposals based on five (5) categories:
Share of Revenue: [30%]
The reasonableness and competitiveness of the revenue sharing in connection with services rendered to FAX, the adequacy of source data and information provided to support cost quotes and figures. This includes assessment of the percentage split for LCFS and RIN credit revenue and the use of industry recognized measurement when compiling the revenue. The proposed revenue sharing structure will be evaluated to ensure that FAX receives the maximum financial benefit from monetization of credits generated from our fueling.
Credit Monetization: [30%]
The Proposer’s ability to demonstrate the last three (3) years of credit transaction history and future projections, as requested in in the Proposers Qualifications Questionnaire (page 16, question 13), which efficiently monetizes LCFS and RIN credits that results in superior market returns at competitive fee rates, delivering maximum revenue return to FAX.
City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
Qualifications, Related Experience, and References: [20%] Technical experience in performing work of a closely similar nature; experience working with public agencies; experience in providing specifically this type of service, strength and stability of the firm; stability, experience, and technical competence of sub-consultants; assessment by client references; references with demonstrated success in providing similar services.
Completeness of Response: [15%]
Completeness of response in accordance with RFP instructions; exceptions to or deviations from the RFP requirements that the Agency cannot or will not accommodate; and any other relevant factors not considered elsewhere.
Fees: [5%]
The reasonableness and competitiveness of the fees charged by the proposer for managing and administering the hydrogen electric fuel and electric vehicle charging credit generation and monetization.
The criteria scoring is as follows:
SHARE OF REVENUE
Proposer Comments Criteria Score
Anew RNG Proposed the highest revenue share of LCFS
and RIN credits and a sufficient CI rating.
Has an LCFS fee that varied depending on
the market sale for electric and hydrogen
credits.
28.50 Clean Energy Clean Energy proposed the highest Electric and Hydrogen Electric Fuel fees per credit
with a 0% LCFS revenue sharing for the
CNG fuel. Evaluators noted it as one of the
least financially beneficial options. The lack
of LCFS revenue sharing and high service
fees made it less favorable overall.
24.10 Maas Energy Proposed a competitive revenue share for incremental LCFS credits and RIN credits
and offered the lowest CI.
27.70 STX
Commodities
STX presented the highest revenue-sharing
percentages and does not charge for
monetizing EV or hydrogen credits. All
Committee Members scored this vendor the
highest, citing its cost sharing and value to
FAX.
29.30 City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
Love’s
Alternative
Energy
Proposal was one of the lower of share of
revenue received for the LCFS/RIN CNG
management as well as one of the highest
fees per credit to manage the Electric and
Hydrogen Electric fuel credits.
24.30 U.S Energy Offered a strong LCFS credit share and RIN credit values. The proposal had strengths,
but was scored average by the Committee
Members in this evaluation criteria.
26.70 CREDIT MONETIZATION
Proposer Comments Criteria Score
Anew RNG Anew RNG provided five-year projections
totaling a significant amount, but did not
provide the required three-year historical
data. This impacted the proposal’s scoring.
18.50 Clean Energy Clean Energy submitted most of the required information and had a solid five-year
projection.
26.20 Maas Energy Maas Energy submitted a complete three- year history and competitive annual
projections over five years. While well-
documented, the projected return was
slightly below the top vendors.
26.90 STX
Commodities
STX provided a complete three-year history
of credit monetization and a positive 5-year
future projection, which was the highest of all
proposals.
27.60 Love’s
Alternative
Energy
Love’s provided some of the required
documents, but did not demonstrate the last
three years of credit transaction history.
Provided the highest CI and the lowest
projection of all proposals.
16.80 U.S Energy The three-year credit sales data submitted specified inaccurate market reflections. While
the five-year projection is favorable, it
represents a median estimate among the
proposals received.
21.70 City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
QUALIFICATIONS, RELATED EXPERIENCE, AND REFERENCES
Proposer Comments Criteria Score
Anew RNG Presented relevant experience and provided
references; however, they could not be
reached for verification.
16.33 Clean Energy Provided adequate technical experience supported by multiple references, two of
which responded positively. Their ranking
reflected solid qualifications.
17.73 Maas Energy Recognized for strong qualifications, they submitted references from three California
cities, with positive feedback from one. Their
technical depth contributed to higher scoring
for this criterion.
18.47 STX
Commodities
Demonstrated valid technical experience and
past performance such as two credible city
agencies used as references with positive
responses, which strengthened their
proposal.
18.20 Love’s
Alternative
Energy
Provided references; however, they could not
be reached for verification.
15.73 U.S Energy Received the highest scoring due to their strong technical experience and relevant
work with transit agencies, supported by
positive reference responses.
18.87 COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSE
Proposer Comments Criteria Score
Anew RNG Question 2 of the Qualification Questionnaire
is incomplete; the proposer did not provide
the extent of staff involvement in the
performance of this contract.
12.40 Clean Energy Received high scoring for overall
completeness, with only minor omissions
noted.
13.80 Maas Energy Submitted a mostly complete proposal, though some minor details were not
submitted.
14.55 City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
STX
Commodities
Minor gaps were noted, but did not detract
significantly from the overall strength of their
submission.
14.45 Love’s
Alternative
Energy
Omitted essential data and staff
responsibilities were unclear, which
influenced their scoring.
12.40 U.S Energy Key personnel were submitted, however, the requested project involvement details
regarding key personnel are not listed.
12.10 FEES
The scoring for fees was based on the lowest price in relation to the offered price.
The formula is as follows:
Fee Score = lowest fee x 5
offered fee
The results are as follows:
Anew RNG – 0
Clean Energy – 0
Maas Energy – 0
STX Commodities – 5
Love’s Alternative Energy – 0
U.S Energy – 0
Due to one proposer offering a fee of $0, the ratio of all submissions in comparison to the lowest offer calculates points only to the lowest offer.
The overall scores for the proposals are as follows:
OVERALL SCORING
Anew RNG Clean Energy Maas Energy STX Love's U.S. Energy
75.72 81.83 87.62 94.55 71.23 83.68
City of Fresno RFP 12502230
Department of Transportation LCFS/RIN Management and Supply
V. NEGOTIATIONS
FAX conducted contract negotiations with multiple vendors. The negotiations with STX, the selected vendor, resulted in revisions to contract language, effective dates, terms and conditions, and registration fees.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
After independent evaluation of the proposals and group deliberation, the Selection Committee determined that STX Commodities meets the interest of the City and the objectives of the project. The C ommittee recommends awarding a two-year service contract, with options for three one-year extensions to STX Commodities.