Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, September 20, 2022

A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

DVDs

the

proceedings

are

available

for

purchase

the

City
Clerk's

Office.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public
comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

discussed.

you

have
any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for

assistance,

please

contact

the

City

Clerk
at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

ROLL CALL
-
2:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on September 15, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1 TYPED 9/15/2022 5:36:56 PM
09 20 22
SP CC

SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at

2:00
PM
on
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Public Works, re: Fleet Electrification Study
a. Motion to Note and File the Report and direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan

2. Community Development, re:

Consideration of a Moratorium on New and
Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes
a. Introduction of Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide b. Motion Directing Staff to Study and Review Drive-through Waiting Lane Impacts c. Motion to Note and File report

3. Community Development, re: Al Fresco Dining in Private Parking Lots a. Motion directing staff to conduct study on the conversion of private parking lots to outdoor dining
b. Motion suspending enforcement on existing Al Fresco locations in private parking lots while City conducts study on conversions

ADJOURNMENT

2 TYPED 9/15/2022 5:36:56 PM
09 20 22
SP CC

1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Fleet Electrification Study

1.Motion to Note and File the Report and direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 20, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the City’s fleet of approximately 862 vehicles that are used by various City operations. This responsibility includes preparing specifications for replacement vehicles when portions of the fleet have reached the end of their usable life. While a significant portion of the fleet is already alternative fuel or electric, there is increasing interest in transitioning the entire diverse fleet of vehicles to all electric zero emission standard to minimize their adverse impact on the environment. A consulting firm, Center for Transport and the Environment (CTE), was hired by the City to prepare a Fleet Electrification Study. The draft study has been completed and attached to this report as Exhibit 1 and provides the city with a roadmap for transitioning the entire fleet. The plan also describes the expected benefits from electrifying the fleet as well as the additional costs, needed infrastructure enhancements, and other drawbacks associated with implementation of this plan. Any City Council feedback and direction on the draft study will be integrated to the final plan. 3 of 258

21 3
5 1
9 COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: As shown in the draft Fleet Electrification Study, operating with a full electric vehicle (EV) fleet will result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions derived from municipal operations.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Glendale City Council approve the attached motion to note and file the draft Fleet Electrification Study, direct staff to implement the fleet electrification plan with the goal of a transition by 2040, and to provide any additional direction to staff related to fleet electrification.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department, Fleet Services Division is responsible for the maintenance of the entire City’s non-bus fleet. This includes trash trucks, police vehicles, fire engines, and work trucks. Currently about 12% of this non-bus fleet is comprised of compressed natural gas vehicles, 4% are all-electric, and 10% are hybrids.

Fleet Services prepares specifications for the replacement of older vehicles that have reached the end of their usable life. Currently, staff seeks out new EV options for replacement vehicles whenever possible. As part of the FY 2022-23 budget, 65 total vehicles were approved for replacement which includes 10 authorized for EV replacement.

Historically, options for EV replacements for municipalities have been scarce. Other than sedans, EV alternatives for municipalities have either not been widely available for the vehicle classes that makes up the majority of the City’s fleet or were overly expensive and/or impractical. While this technology has been in development for nearly every vehicle class used by the City, these vehicles have not been commonly available for municipalities.

In early 2021, Public Works staff began researching the possibility of conducting a Fleet Electrification Study. At the time, staff found no examples of another city performing a comprehensive electrification study for the wide
range of vehicles used by a full service City deployed from numerous facilities. Most studies were solely for a single class of vehicle such as transit buses. The City of Fremont, for example, prepared an Electric Patrol Vehicle Pilot Program in November 2020 that determined transitioning to all electric law enforcement vehicles for them is feasible.

In April 2022, the City of Los Angeles announced that their City Council approved an Electric Vehicle Master Plan with the goal of transitioning their fleet of 10,000 vehicles to EV. However, the plan was predominately just direction to staff in various departments to develop plans to electrify the fleet plus authorizing three new employee positions assigned to this project. However, comprehensive plans that cover all vehicles for all vehicle classes and major facilities for a full service city are still rare. 4 of 258

31 3
5 1
9 Following this research, staff initiated a Professional Services Agreement with CTE for Glendale’s Fleet Electrification Study in September 2021. Of the firms that had performed electrification studies for transit agencies, CTE appeared best suited to develop a plan to transition Glendale’s diverse fleet. They had recently prepared a plan for the Alexandria, Virginia Transit Company that closely mirrored Glendale’s expectations. The Alexandria, Virginia Plan features a feasibility plan and implementation scope that provided a clear picture of the costs and achievability of transitioning to zero emission that allowed them to make informed decisions and provided a straightforward pathway for implementation.

This consultant has also performed similar work for Los Angeles County Metro, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, and Orange County Transportation Authority.

Glendale staff provided CTE with data on the current fleet makeup, information on various City facilities where most vehicles are stored and financial data. CTE also worked with Glendale Water and Power (GWP) to determine the impact of the transition on the electrical grid and any projects that might be needed to foster this change. They met with staff from the major City departments who are assigned vehicles such as Police, Fire, GWP and Public Works to better understand how operations might be impacted by this transition.

The purpose of this plan is to inform future planning and decision making related to fleet so that the transition to EVs will be as smooth as possible. This will enable the City to better understand the costs and benefits of electrification before continuing with electrification of the fleet.

The plan does not include transit vehicles which were already studied in the Transit Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study for the Arroyo Verdugo Region Transit Operators that was completed in February 2022. The electrification of Glendale’s transit vehicles is already in the implementation stage.

ANALYSIS
Based on direction from Glendale staff, CTE analyzed a fleet electrification transition by 2035 as well as by 2040. The City Council may direct staff to move forward with the implementation of either electrification model or a different approach.

Feasibility Assessment
The plan includes a suitability index that provides a score to various vehicle classes of 1-5 based on their suitability to transition to electric. Only vehicle classes rated 4 or 5 would be eligible for an EV replacement. In order to score 4 or higher, there must be more than one comparable original equipment manufacturer (OEM) options available. This will allow the city to continue to competitively bid vehicle procurements and is consistent with the Citywide Purchasing Policy. The city would still be able to procure vehicles scoring less than 4 with City Council approval under special circumstances such as in conjunction with a grant.
5 of 258

41 3
5 1
9 City vehicles are depreciated after they are purchased so that when they reach the end of their usable life, adequate funds are available to purchase a like-for-like replacement vehicle. Under this procurement model, additional funds would not be available to purchase more expensive EVs which can be 50%-100% more expensive than standard models according to the Fleet Electrification Study. Additionally, to reduce capital outlay costs, the city routinely keeps vehicles past their replacement date. Due to a serious backlog, a total of 150 vehicles were approved for replacement in FY 2018-19 and 100 in FY 2019-20. Since then annual vehicle replacements have ranged between 50-75. Both the 2035 transition model and 2040 transition model require annual replacements between 100-170 for the first four years and greater than usual annual replacements after that. As the plans focus solely on EV replacements in the outer years, mostly for heavy duty vehicle classes, annual fleet replacement costs are expected to exceed $25 million under both models. Therefore, to implement this Fleet Electrification Plan, vehicle replacements will need to be accelerated and additional funding will need to be either transferred to the Fleet Fund or appropriated from other sources.

Both the 2035 scenario and 2040 scenario achieve significant electrification by these goal years (87% and 97% respectively); however, since many vehicle classes are not widely commercially available from local dealers and still have low ratings for availability and suitability, 100% electrification will depend on increased availability and suitability. Many of these vehicles classes with low availability and suitability ratings are for heavy duty vehicles classes with long usable lives. For example, dump trucks and crane trucks last for a minimum of 12 years and construction equipment such as backhoe loaders and excavators are kept for 15 years. Most notably, Fire Department vehicles which currently feature diesel engines have 20-year lifespans. So even if the City only purchased EV fire engines going forward, this class of vehicle wouldn’t be fully electrified until 2042 unless the City decided to retire these assets early. Due to the high cost of new fire engines and ladder trucks ($800,000 - $1,600,000), as well as other heavy duty vehicles and equipment, and the fact that these retired assets are commonly refurbished and resold to other cities after they are retired by the City, staff recommends not retiring assets early.

CTE recommends the City update the Fleet Electrification Plan every two years; in part, to determine if the market for EV vehicles and chargers has matured so that a more aggressive schedule can be pursued.

Costs and Challenges
CTE worked with GWP to determine the infrastructure needed and associated costs to support an EV fleet at the five largest facilities where vehicles are stored. This includes chargers and electric infrastructure improvements to provide power to the Civic Center Complex, Police Facility, Public Works Corporation Yard, Ginger Bremberg Integrated Waste Management Facility and GWP Utility Operations Center. The total projected cost of this infrastructure to support full fleet electrification is approximately $70,500,000. This includes $22,000,000 for GWP infrastructure improvements, $1,500,000 for EV charger design work, $26,500,000 for charger equipment and $20,500,000 for charger installations. These five facilities have varying ages, unique layouts and are generally complex so fitting them with chargers for overnight charging will be challenging. There will likely be an opportunity at most facilities to reduce costs by assigning multiple vehicles 6 of 258

51 3
5 1
9 to a single charger. GWP staff will fully determine the extent of the infrastructure improvements needed in the budgeting, planning and design phases for these proposed projects.

CTE projected the variation the City should expect for fuel costs due to the transition to EVs. Based on fluctuating energy costs, the City spends between $1.7 and $2.3 million annually in diesel, unleaded gas and compressed natural gas (CNG) combined. In their analysis, CTE determined that the City could expect to pay nearly $2 million annually in energy costs following a transition to EVs. Therefore, overall fuel costs are not expected to change substantially from fleet electrification.

The City should expect 30% savings on vehicle maintenance costs by converting to EVs.

EVs have fewer moving parts, reduced need for engine oil, and regenerative braking which means less routine maintenance and repairs compared to standard fuel vehicles.

Total cumulative transition costs for both scenarios exceed $100 million. Based on the projected costs of fleet electrification, additional funding will be required. The chargeback model that is used to provide adequate funding for Fleet Services operations will not be able to fully cover the additional costs associated with electrification. Grants and vouchers are available through vehicle dealers and will offset some of the costs. However, additional funding will be needed from potentially Measure S or the General Fund to cover the additional costs described in the analysis. Additionally, as EV vehicles and charging technology improve, the cost of these enhancements could diminish.

Electrifying the Glendale Police Department (GPD) fleet poses unique challenges relative to other City departments. Because GPD provides law enforcement services 24/7, patrol vehicles run nearly continuously in Glendale. Patrol vehicles are not parked overnight which is necessary for overnight charging. As a result, costlier 150kW DC fast chargers are recommended to charge these vehicles during the 15 to 30-minute gap between shifts. Additionally, Glendale Police may need to adjust their operations such as staggering shifts or eliminating take home vehicles to accommodate EVs. Nearly half of the citywide electrification infrastructure costs projected are for the Glendale Police Department Parking Structure due to the need for more expensive DC fast chargers.

Benefits
Some vehicle assets for departments such as GWP and the Fire Department provide mutual aid support for incidents in California and even outside the state. This includes responses to wild fires and damaged electric power lines. Currently, the EV charger infrastructure needed to support electric heavy duty vehicles on these deployments is inadequate. Significant improvements to this infrastructure is necessary to fully electrify these emergency response assets that are still exempt locally from existing emission rules for heavy duty vehicles.

The CTE study projects the environmental benefits associated with fleet electrification to be significant. Modern heavy duty CNG engines emit only negligible amounts of particulate matter and NOx (oxides of nitrogen). Implementation of CNG technology over 7 of 258

61 3
5 1
9 20 years has resulted in significantly cleaner air in the Southern California region.

Unfortunately, this technology still emits significant quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) which includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide which all contribute to adverse climate change. CTE estimates fleet electrification can reduce overall NOx, SOx (sulfer oxides), and PM10 (particulate with a diameter of 10 microns or less) from over 300 lb. annually to near zero, and GHGs from nearly 7 million lb. annually to near zero.

Fleet Regulations
In 2000, the South Coast Air Quality Management District proposed rules 1192, 1193 and 1196 that eventually enacted new emission standards for public agencies operating transit buses, refuse collection vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles. Staff is tracking the progress of similar Advanced Clean Fleet regulation being developed by the California Air Resources Board. For certain classes of vehicles, local governments would be required to make sure 50% of all procurements are zero-emission beginning in 2024 and increasing to 100% in 2027. As was the case 20 years ago when the City first adopted CNG technology, Glendale’s fleet will need to become greener due to these imminent regulations.

City Council direction to implement this plan will result in the Public Works Department bringing annual Capital Outlay requests that mirrors the vehicle replacement schedule in this plan. Additionally, GWP will need to budget and plan for the needed infrastructure upgrades to support vehicle electrification. Staff will also move forward with projects to install EV chargers. The 2040 implementation goal is recommended over 2035 because staff believes it’s more realistic based on vehicle feasibility, suitability, availability and cost. For example, public safety vehicles make up a significant portion of the fleet and suitable EV alternatives for these vehicle classes are not yet available. Even suitable vehicles that have been released such as EV light-duty pickups are not yet widely available or currently have long waiting lists. Additionally, while the 2035 plan only achieves 87% by the goal date, the 2040 plan reaches 97% which is closer to a full transition. However, this plan is designed to be dynamic and as technology advances, it can be updated to accommodate a faster implementation schedule.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
CTE met with staff representatives from all five primary City facilities, as well as departments, covered by this study. Fleet electrification will require significant changes to many municipal operations. Public outreach will be performed as needed for any plan implementation component that impacts the public such as potentially refuse collection route adjustments, rate increases and capital improvement projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting this report. However, the development and implementation of the proposed Fleet Electrification Plan is expected to result in the significant costs in excess of $100 million over the course of this transition as described in the study associated with the acquisition of vehicles, chargers, facility upgrades, and improvements in GWP’s existing electrical infrastructure. Such 8 of 258

71 3
5 1
9 costs are anticipated to impact both the City’s General Fund as well as it’s Enterprise Funds, which would result in significant impacts to existing rate structures. While funding sources for these additional costs have not yet been identified or secured, actual costs would be identified in future Cost of Service Analyses and presented to the City Council in future years’ budget appropriation processes in order to ensure adequate and defensible charge backs to departments and ratepayers alike.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve a Motion to note and file the staff report and exhibit, and direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan with the goal of transition by 2040 and provide any additional direction to staff.

Alternative 2: Approve a Motion to note and file the staff report and exhibit, direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan with the goal of transition by 2035 and provide any additional direction to staff.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Shea Eccleston-Banwer, Sr. Public Works Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Glendale Fleet Electrification Plan
9 of 258

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the September 20, 2022 staff report and Exhibit 1 Draft Fleet Electrification Study to City Council regarding the Fleet Electrification Study is hereby noted and filed. The City Council directs staff to implement the plan to transition the City’s fleet to electric vehicles by (2035 / 2040). Additionally, the City Council provides the following direction to staff regarding the Draft Fleet Electrification Study:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
10 of 258

1 Municipal Electric Vehicle
Fleet Electrification Study

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Presented by Center for Transportation and the Environment September 2022
Exhibit 1
11 of 258

2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ ............. 40 City of Glendale, CA Municipal Fleet Service Overview .................................................................................... 40 City Fleet Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 41 City Facility Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Public Works Yard ....................................................................................................................................................... 42 City Hall Complex ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Glendale Water and Power Utility Operations Center .................................................................................. 44 Integrated Waste Yard ............................................................................................................................................... 45 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................... 46 Police Department Parking Lot .............................................................................................................................. 47 Analysis Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 Feasibility Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................ 50 Operational Challenges Considering Current EV Capabilities ....................................................................... 51 GWP Utility Operations Center Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 51 First Responder Vehicles .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Police Department Vehicles ..................................................................................................................................... 52 Fire Department Vehicles ......................................................................................................................................... 52 Fleet Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Fleet Transition Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 52 EV Procurement Schedule ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Suitability Scores .......................................................................................................................................................... 55 Vehicle Transition Timeline ......................................................................................................................................... 58 100% EV Fleet by 2040 .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Transition Timelines by Facility ............................................................................................................................ 60 100% EV Fleet by 2035 .......................................................................................................................................... 76 12 of 258

3 Transition Timelines by Facility ............................................................................................................................ 78 Facilities Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 93 Energy and Demand Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 93 Utility upgrade costs ................................................................................................................................................... 93 Infrastructure Assessment Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 95 Infrastructure Costs ......................................................................................................................................................... 95 Equipment and Installation Costs ......................................................................................................................... 95 100% EV Fleet by 2040 .......................................................................................................................................... 96 100% EV Fleet by 2035 ....................................................................................................................................... 102 Fuel Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ .. 107 Charging Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 114 2040 Transition Scenario .................................................................................................................................. 114 2035 Fuel Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 124 Benefits Assessment .......................................................................................................................................................... 133 Maintenance Cost Potential Savings ...................................................................................................................... 133 Emissions Reductions .................................................................................................................................................. 135 2040 Scenario........................................................................................................................................................... 138 Cost Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ .. 141 Transition Costs ............................................................................................................................................................. 141 Total Cost of Ownership.............................................................................................................................................. 145 Funding Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................ 146 Appendix A: City of Glendale Vehicle Market Analysis ....................................................................................... 150 Fleet Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 150 Vehicle Types ................................................................................................................................................................... 150 Fleet Type Breakdown ................................................................................................................................................. 152 Types of Electric Vehicles ........................................................................................................................................... 157 Vehicle Type Availability ............................................................................................................................................ 158 Attachment I: Market Research ............................................................................................................................... 160 EV Research ................................................................................................................................................................. 160 Light-Duty Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 166 13 of 258

4 Light Duty: Sedans/SUV’s .................................................................................................................................... 166 Medium-Duty Vehicles ........................................................................................................................................... 179 Cutaways and Small Buses ...................................................................................................................................... 179 Pursuit Vehicles ......................................................................................................................................................... 192 Pursuit Motorcycles ................................................................................................................................................... 192 Non-Road Vehicles/Equipment .......................................................................................................................... 193 Appendix B: Charging Infrastructure Market Analysis ....................................................................................... 203 Charging Types and Rates .......................................................................................................................................... 203 Level 1 Charging ........................................................................................................................................................ 204 Level 2 Charging ........................................................................................................................................................ 204 DC Fast/High Powered Charging ........................................................................................................................ 205 Power Load Management ...................................................................................................................................... 206 Charging Strategy Options ......................................................................................................................................... 208 Resiliency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 209 Dedicated Chargers .................................................................................................................................................. 209 Dedicated Chargers with Load Management................................................................................................. 210 Shared Chargers ........................................................................................................................................................ 211 Shared Chargers with Load Management ....................................................................................................... 212 Mobile Charging ......................................................................................................................................................... 212 Resiliency Technologies ......................................................................................................................................... 215

14 of 258

5 List of Acronyms
A&E Architecture and Engineering
BEB Battery Electric Bus
CTE Center for Transportation and the Environment
CI Carbon Intensity
DOE Department of Energy
DGE Diesel Gallons Equivalent
dHEB Diesel Hybrid
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
ESS Energy Storage System
FCEB Fuel Cell Electric Bus
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ICT Innovative Clean Transit
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt Hour
kWh/mi Kilowatt-hour/mile
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hours
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
ROW Right-of-Way
TOU Time-of-Use
ZEB Zero-Emission Bus

15 of 258

6 List of Figures
Figure 1. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Vehicle Category ................................................................ 13 Figure 2. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Facility ................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. First Time EV Procurement Quantities ................................................................................... 22 Figure 4. First Time Procurement EV Amounts ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 5. Glendale Procurements by Year, 2040 Scenario ................................................................. 23 Figure 6. Glendale Procurements by Year, 2035 Scenario ................................................................. 23 Figure 7. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2040 Scenario ......................................................... 24 Figure 8. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2035 Scenario ......................................................... 24 Figure 9. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2040 Scenario ........................................................ 25 Figure 10. Glendale Cumulative Fleet Cost, 2040 Scenario ............................................................... 26 Figure 11. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2035 Scenario ..................................................... 26 Figure 12. Glendale Cumulative Fleet Costs by Year, 2035 Scenario ............................................. 27 Figure 13. Glendale Infrastructure Cost, 2040 Scenario ..................................................................... 29 Figure 14. Glendale Infrastructure Cost, 2035 Scenario ..................................................................... 29 Figure 15. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario ................................................................... 30 Figure 16. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario ........................................................... 31 Figure 17. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario ................................................................... 31 Figure 18. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario ........................................................... 32 Figure 19. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 ................. 33 Figure 20. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 ................. 33 Figure 21. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 .............................. 34 Figure 22. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 .............................. 34 Figure 23. Estimated Emissions of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2040 Scenario ............................................ 35 Figure 24. Estimated Emissions of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2035 Scenario ............................................ 35 Figure 25. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2040 Scenario ..................................................................... 36 Figure 26. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2035 Scenario ..................................................................... 36 Figure 27. Annual Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario .................................................................... 37 16 of 258

7 Figure 28. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario............................................................ 38 Figure 29. Glendale Fleet by Vehicle Type ............................................................................................... 41 Figure 30. Public Works Yard aerial view ................................................................................................ 43 Figure 31. City Hall Complex aerial view .................................................................................................. 44 Figure 32. GWP Utility Operations Center aerial view ........................................................................ 45 Figure 33. Integrated Waste Yard Aerial View ....................................................................................... 46 Figure 34. Fire Station 21 Aerial View ....................................................................................................... 47 Figure 35. Police Parking Lot Aerial View ................................................................................................ 48 Figure 36. Fleet Transition Methodology ................................................................................................. 53 Figure 37. Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario ............................................. 59 Figure 38. Annual Vehicle Procurements by Vehicle Type, 2040 Transition Scenario .......... 60 Figure 39. Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ............................ 60 Figure 40. Public Works Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario ...... 62 Figure 41. Public Works Yard Fleet Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario .................. 62 Figure 42. Public Works Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 43. City Hall Complex Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario........ 64 Figure 44. City Hall Complex Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario .............................. 64 Figure 45. City Hall Complex Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 46. GWP Utility Ops Center Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 66

Figure 47. GWP Utility Ops Center Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario ................... 66 Figure 48. GWP Utility Ops Center Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 67

Figure 49. Integrated Waste Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 50. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario ..................... 69 Figure 51. Integrated Waste Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 69 17 of 258

8 Figure 52. Fire Station 21 Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario .............. 70 Figure 53. Fire Station 21 Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario ..................................... 71 Figure 54. Fire Station 21 Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 55. Police Parking Lot Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario ....... 73 Figure 56. Police Parking Lot Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario .............................. 73 Figure 57. Police Parking Lot Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 58. Other Vehicles Composition Over Time, 2040 Scenario ............................................... 75 Figure 59. Other Vehicles Annual Purchases, 2040 Scenario ........................................................... 75 Figure 60. Other Vehicles Purchase Costs 2040 Scenario .................................................................. 76 Figure 61. Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario ............................................. 77 Figure 62. Annual Vehicle Procurements by Vehicle Type, 2035 Transition Scenario .......... 78 Figure 63. Annual Procurement Cost per Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................. 78 Figure 64. Public Works Yard Fleet Composition Over Time for 2035 Transition Scenario 79 Figure 65. Public Works Yard Fleet Annual Fleet Procurements 2035 Transition Scenario 80 Figure 66. Public Works Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Figure 67. City Hall Complex Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario........ 81 Figure 68. City Hall Complex Number of Procurements by Type, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 69. City Hall Complex Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 70. GWP Ops Center Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario .......... 83 Figure 71. GWP Ops Center Number of Procurements by Type ...................................................... 84 Figure 72. GWP Ops Center Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 73. Integrated Waste Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 74. Integrated Waste Yard Number of Procurements by Type .......................................... 86 18 of 258

9 Figure 75. Integrated Waste Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 86 Figure 76. Fire Station 21 Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario .............. 87 Figure 77. Fire Station 21 Number of Procurements by Type.......................................................... 88 Figure 78. Fire Station 21 Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 79. Police Parking Lot Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario ....... 89 Figure 80. Police Parking Lot Number of Procurements by Type ................................................... 90 Figure 81. Police Parking Lot Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 82. Other Vehicles Composition over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario .......................... 91 Figure 83. Other Vehicles Number of Procurements ........................................................................... 92 Figure 84. Other Vehicles Cost of Procurement, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................ 92 Figure 85. Total Infrastructure Costs for the 2040 Transition Scenario ...................................... 98 Figure 86. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Public Works Yard, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 87. Annual Infrastructure cost for the City Hall Complex, 2040 Transition Scenario99 Figure 88. Annual Infrastructure cost for the GWP Utility Operations Canter, 2040 Transition Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 89. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Integrated Waste Yard, 2040 Transition Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 90. Annual Infrastructure cost for Fire Station 21, 2040 Transition Scenario .......... 101 Figure 91. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Police Parking Lot, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 92. Total Infrastructure Costs for the 2035 Transition Scenario .................................... 103 Figure 93. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Public Works Yard, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 94. Annual Infrastructure cost for the City Hall Complex, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 95. Annual Infrastructure cost for the GWP Utility Operations Canter, 2035 Transition Scenario ......................................................................................................................................... 105

19 of 258

10 Figure 96. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Integrated Waste Yard, 2035 Transition Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 97. Annual Infrastructure cost for Fire Station 21, 2035 Transition Scenario .......... 106 Figure 98. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Police Parking Lot, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 107

Figure 99. Vehicle to Charger Ratio Cost Impact, 2040 Transition Scenario ............................ 109 Figure 100. Vehicle to Charger Ratio Cost Impact, 2035 Transition Scenario ......................... 110 Figure 101. Glendale Annual Fuel Costs, 2040 Scenario .................................................................. 111 Figure 102. Glendale Annual Fuel Costs, 2035 Scenario .................................................................. 111 Figure 103. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario ............................................................... 112 Figure 104. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario ...................................................... 112 Figure 105. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario ............................................................... 113 Figure 106. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario ...................................................... 113 Figure 107. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 115

Figure 108. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario ...... 116 Figure 109. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario .............. 116 Figure 110. City Hall Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario ................ 117 Figure 111. City Hall Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario........................... 117 Figure 112. City Hall Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................... 117 Figure 113. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario 118 Figure 114. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario .......... 119 Figure 115. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario................... 119 Figure 116. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................... 120

Figure 117. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 120 Figure 118. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario ...... 120 Figure 119. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario .... 121 Figure 120. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario .............. 121 20 of 258

11 Figure 121. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario ...................... 122 Figure 122. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Figure 123. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario ....... 123 Figure 124. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario ............... 123 Figure 125. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 124

Figure 126. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario ...... 125 Figure 127. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario .............. 125 Figure 128. City Hall Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario ................ 126 Figure 129. City Hall Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario........................... 126 Figure 130. City Hall Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................... 127 Figure 131. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario 127 Figure 132. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario .......... 128 Figure 133. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario................... 128 Figure 134. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................... 129

Figure 135. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 129

Figure 136. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario ...... 130 Figure 137. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario .... 130 Figure 138. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario .............. 131 Figure 139. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario ...................... 131 Figure 140. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................................. 132

Figure 141. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario ....... 132 Figure 142. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario ............... 133 Figure 143. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 ............. 134 Figure 144. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 ............. 134 Figure 145. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 .......................... 135 21 of 258

12 Figure 146. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 .......................... 135 Figure 147. Estimated Emission Reduction of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2040 Scenario .................... 138 Figure 148. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Over Time, 2040 Scenario ............................................. 139 Figure 149. CO Emissions Over Time, 2040 Scenario ........................................................................ 139 Figure 150. Estimated Emission Reduction of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2035 Scenario .................... 140 Figure 151. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Over Time, 2035 Scenario ............................................. 140 Figure 152. CO Emissions Over Time, 2035 Scenario ........................................................................ 141 Figure 153. First Time EV Procurement Quantities ........................................................................... 143 Figure 154. First Time Procurement EV Amounts .............................................................................. 143 Figure 155. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2040 Scenario ................................................................ 144 Figure 156. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2035 Scenario ................................................................ 144 Figure 157. Annual Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario ................................................................ 145 Figure 158. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario ....................................................... 146 Figure A1. Glendale Fleet by Vehicle and Equipment Type ............................................................. 153 Figure A2. Glendale Fleet’s Light-Duty Vehicle Makeup ................................................................... 153 Figure A3. Glendale Fleet’s Medium-Duty Vehicle Makeup ............................................................. 154 Figure A4. Glendale Fleet's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Makeup ................................................................. 155 Figure A5. Glendale Fleet’s Pursuit Vehicle Makeup .......................................................................... 155 Figure A6. Glendale Fleet’s Non-Road Vehicle Makeup .................................................................... 156 Figure B1: EV Charger Speed Comparison ............................................................................................. 204 Figure B2. Hardware-based load management (Cyber Switching) .............................................. 207 Figure B3. Peak shaving benefits from load management (The Mobility House) .................. 208 Figure B4: Dannar MPS. Source Dannar .................................................................................................. 212 Figure B5. Trailer-Mounted 625-680 KVA mobile generator ......................................................... 215 Figure B6: EV ARC solar-powered EV charger with built-in backup energy storage ............ 216

22 of 258

13 Executive Summary
The City of Glendale, California (the City) engaged the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) to perform an electric vehicle (EV) fleet electrification study to evaluate the requirements, operational considerations, and costs to transition all vehicles in the municipal fleet to 100% EV by either 2035 or 2040. The results of the study will inform the City of the estimated costs, benefits, constraints, and risks of the transition to an EV fleet and will guide future planning and decision-making.

Baseline
As of October 2021, The City owns and operates a fleet of 1,018 vehicles. Eliminating trailers, non-vehicular equipment, and parade antiques from the analysis, the City’s fleet consists of 863 vehicles, which is the basis for the analysis. As shown in Figure 1, City vehicles are categorized as Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty (based on GVWR classification), Pursuit, and Non-Road vehicles.

Figure 1. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Vehicle Category Each Vehicle Category consists of several types of vehicles, as shown in Table 1:

50%
9%
14%
16%
11%
Glendale Fleet By Vehicle Category
Light Medium Heavy Pursuit Non-Road
23 of 258

14 Table 1. Fleet composition by Vehicle Category and Type Light Medium Heavy Pursuit Non-road
1 ton Pickup 46 1 ton Pickup 1 Crane Truck 7 Sedan 11 Backhoe/Loaders 19 1/2 ton Pickup 37 Dump Truck 12 Dump Truck 15 SUV 127 Bunker Rake 6 3/4 ton Pickup 47 Flatbed 10 Emergency 6 Compact Excavator 2 Cargo Van 25 Heavy Truck 12 Fire Engine 16 Electric Cart 13 Compact Pickup 60 Manlift Truck 8 Flatbed 1 Forklift 12 Dump Truck 2 Rescue 14 Heavy Truck 14 Mowers 11
Flatbed 5 Specialty 5 Ladder Truck 4 Non-road 1
Heavy Truck 1 Walk-in Van 12 Manlift Truck 10 Track Loader 1 Manlift Truck 1 Refuse 44 Utility Sweeper 7
Mini Van 26 Roll-off Truck 2 Utility Trucksters 21 Motorcycle 28 Street Sweeper 5 Wheel Loader 3
Passenger Mini Van 7 Walk-in Van 1
Refuse-bin truck 14
Sedan 76
Std Passenger Van 2
SUV 46
423 74 125 138 96

The City operates 716 of these vehicles out of 6 primary facilities; Public Works Yard, City Hall Complex, Glendale Water & Power Utility Operations Center, Integrated Waste Yard, Fire Station 21, and the Glendale Police Department. The remaining 146 vehicles are spread out among smaller facilities across the City. This distribution is shown in Figure 2.

While the study considers all vehicles in the City fleet, the infrastructure and electricity demand assessments focused on the six primary parking facilities.

Figure 2. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Facility
0 50
100
150
200
250
City Hall Fire Station 21 Glendale
Water &
Power
Integrated
Waste Facility
Glendale
Police Parking
Public Works
Yard
Other
Glendale Fleet by Facility
24 of 258

15 Market Analysis
To start the EV Transition Analysis, CTE conducted an EV market analysis to determine the EVs currently available that could be a suitable replacement for the City’s fleet. The assessment also looked at new developments in the EV market that may benefit future vehicle replacements. The scope of the analysis is limited to battery electric vehicles.

While the City operates many kinds of vehicles, commercially available EVs are currently limited to sedans, SUVs, medium-duty trucks and vans, and motorcycles. Table 2 shows the EV availability across vehicle types. EVs in other fleet categories have limited application or are in development. However, we expect continuous development and that new vehicles will enter the market in the future.

Table 2. Electric Vehicle Market Availability by Vehicle Type Vehicle Type Electric Version Availability
Sedans Available
Light-Duty Pickup Trucks In development
SUVs Available
Light-Duty Vans PHEV minivan available; no fully electric minivan currently available
Medium-Duty Trucks Available
Medium-Duty Vans Electric cargo and passenger vans are available Heavy-Duty Trucks In development
Pursuit Vehicles Pursuit-rated vehicles are not currently available Motorcycles Available
Non-road/off-road In development
A summary of available comparable EVs by type and corresponding charging infrastructure are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.

Feasibility Assessment
An essential element in developing an EV Transition Plan is feasibility, which, in this context, is the measure of the likely range of an EV under strenuous conditions as compared to the required daily duty cycle. In other words, does the EV have enough battery energy to operate a full day, with air conditioning or heating, before returning to its designated parking area for an overnight charge.
25 of 258

16 Key assumptions in this assessment include:
• Fleets typically charge overnight during off-peak hours when the cost of energy is lowest, thus each EV needs enough energy to complete a full daily duty cycle. • EV efficiency and range is impacted by topography, traffic speed and conditions, and climate. Thus, it is important to determine the efficiency and range that accounts for these factors when determining feasibility.

Table 3 below summarizes the expected feasible range by vehicle type based on the expected operating conditions (topography, speed, and climate) in Glendale. The “Achievable” range is the daily mileage that is feasible under most conditions. The “Uncertain” range is the daily mileage that may be feasible under some conditions (light traffic, minimal A/C or heater use). The “Unachievable” range is considered not feasible under any normal conditions. We recommend using the Achievable range for planning purposes.

Table 3. Expected Range Feasibility by Vehicle Type

* Vehicle shown is the basis for the “Achievable” range calculation.

Based on the City’s duty cycle for every vehicle in the fleet, EV adoption is highly feasible, except for Pursuit Motorcycles, as indicated in Table 4. Medium-Duty Dump Trucks and Heavy-Duty Refuse Trucks are moderately feasible. We expect feasibility to improve over time with advances in EV technologies and improvements in battery energy density.

26 of 258

17 Table 4. Expected Transition Achievability by Vehicle Type Vehicle Type Achievable Uncertain Unachievable
Light Duty
SUV 91% 7% 2%
Sedans 90% 4% 6%
Pickups 90% 4% 6%
Vans 90% 4% 6%
Medium-
Duty
Vans 95% 1% 4%
Dump Trucks 60% 35% 5%
Heavy
Duty
Trucks 87% 10% 3%
Refuse Trucks 50% 39% 11%
Pursuit
Sedans 95% 3% 2%
Motorcycles 30% 23% 47%

Fleet Transition Assessment
The timing of replacing ICE vehicles with EVs is based on four primary factors:
• Asset Replacement Schedule: is the vehicle ready for replacement based on age, mileage, or hours?
• Duty Cycle Feasibility: can the replacement EV feasibly meet the daily duty cycle? • Vehicle Availability and Suitability: is the EV commercially available and is it a suitable replacement
• Glendale Transition goals: What procurement strategy allows the City to reasonably achieve a 100% zero emission fleet over time?
The fleet transition assessment assumes that vehicles in the City’s fleet will be replaced at the end of their planned useful life. Table 5 shows the number of vehicles currently approved for replacement each fiscal year.

Table 5. Glendale Replacement Schedule Overview
Fiscal Year
# Of Vehicles
Approved for
Replacement
Original Budget
18-19 150 $13,694,500
19-20 100 $8,159,500
20-21 50 $4,793,000
21-22 65 $10,715,621
22-23 75 $8,731,300

27 of 258

18 However, the City currently has 328 vehicles in their fleet that are overdue for replacement. It may be burdensome to replace these vehicles all at once. Thus, the transition plan assumes that all vehicles will be replaced at the end of their useful life, AND the City will replace 25% of the backlog of vehicles overdue for replacement over the next four years.

We have determined that EV technology can feasibly meet the same vehicle duty cycle in the City’s current fleet. However, that does not mean that there are EVs currently available to perform the same operation and meet the same requirements as the City’s current fleet.

Thus, in addition to feasibility, we also consider suitability. Suitability considers commercial availability through multiple OEMs, track record for deployment, and can replace ICE vehicles on a 1:1 basis.

Table 6 is used to assess EV suitability each year of the transition. Once an EV achieves a score of 4 or 5, they are considered eligible to replace an ICE vehicle.

Table 6. Electric Vehicle Suitability Scoring Assumptions

Using this method, each Vehicle Category by GVWR class is assigned a suitability score for each year of the transition period. Table 7 is a sample of the Suitability Score used for the Glendale analysis.
28 of 258

19 Table 7. Suitability Score by Year and Vehicle Type

Glendale’s stated goal is to transition to a 100% zero emission fleet strategically and responsibly. This report will look at two scenarios, using both 2035 and 2040 as transition goals. Based on current market availability and the extended asset life of some types of vehicles in the City’s fleet, this goal may not be achievable. With each scenario, we set a target procurement percentage for each year of the transition period, as shown in Table 8.

For example, in both scenarios, the target is 10% of all new vehicle purchases to be EVs in 2023. The escalating target allows time for the market to develop the types of vehicles required by the City. It also allows the City to avoid early retirement of vehicles in the 2040 scenario and to start building out the required infrastructure to support those vehicles. The California Air Resources Board is in the process of finalizing a ruling that will apply to State and Local fleets such as Glendale. The Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation will set zero emission vehicle purchase requirements as a percent of purchases by year. The City will need to monitor the progress of the ruling and potentially adjust purchase requirements to meet the new regulation.

29 of 258

20 Table 8. EV Procurement Targets by 2035 and 2040 Scenarios Year
2035 EV
Procurement
Target
2040 EV
Procurement
Target
2023 10% 10%
2024 10% 10%
2025 25% 25%
2026 50% 25%
2027 50% 50%
2028 75% 50%
2029 75% 75%
2030 100% 75%
2031 100% 100%
2032 100% 100%
2033 100% 100%
2034 100% 100%
2035 100% 100%
2036 100%
2037 100%
2038 100%
2039 100%
2040 100%

As a result of the City’s asset replacement schedule, duty cycle feasibility, vehicle type suitability, and the City’s transition goals, Table 8 outlines the annual number of EVs purchased that represent first-time replacement of ICE with EVs for a given vehicle for each scenario. Tracking the cost of first-time replacements of conventional vehicles with EVs is important to understand the cost to transition. Figure 3 shows the first-time EV procurement quantities each year for the two scenarios, and Figure 4 shows the annual cost associated with the first-time EV procurements each year by scenario.

30 of 258

21 Table 9. First Time EV Procurements for each Scenario Year 2035 EV
Procurements
2040 EV
Procurements
2023 8 8
2024 20 20
2025 35 35
2026 56 36
2027 24 24
2028 44 34
2029 54 54
2030 126 98
2031 125 133
2032 50 62
2033 49 56
2034 81 86
2035 62 71
2036 38 51
2037 24 25
2038 10 12
2039 6 6
2040 9 10

31 of 258

22 Figure 3. First Time EV Procurement Quantities

Figure 4. First Time Procurement EV Amounts
Figure 5 and Figure 6 presents the annual procurements of both EVs and ICEs for each scenario. Note that, even though the annual procurement goal is 100% after 2031 and 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
First time EV Procurement Quantities
2035 Scenario 2040 Scenario
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
First Time Procurements EV Amounts $
2035 Scenario 2040 Scenario
32 of 258

23 2030 respectively, the City may need to purchase a small number of ICE vehicles if no suitable EV replacements exist. This will likely be the case with fire engines.

Figure 5. Glendale Procurements by Year, 2040 Scenario

Figure 6. Glendale Procurements by Year, 2035 Scenario

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Glendale Procurements by Year
2040 Scenario
ICE EV
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Glendale Procurements by Year
2035 Scenario
ICE EV
33 of 258

24 Following these procurement schedules allows the City to transition to 100% EVs in the desired timeline, provided the required vehicles have suitable and feasible EV alternatives by the time of purchase. The annual fleet composition for each scenario is shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. As a result of the suitability assumptions and procurement schedules, the City’s fleet may still include some ICE vehicles at the end of the planned transition period.

Figure 7. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2040 Scenario

Figure 8. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2035 Scenario 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Glendale Fleet Composition By Year
2040 Scenario
ICE EV
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Glendale Fleet Composition By Year
2035 Scenario
ICE EV
34 of 258

25 The 2040 scenario achieves 85% EVs in 2035 and 97% EVs in 2040. The 2035 scenario achieves 87% by 2035. The reason for this is based on the fleet replacement schedule, which assumes that vehicles are replaced at the end of their useful life, as well as our assumptions regarding vehicle availability and suitability. For example, we assume that fire engines will not have a suitable replacement until after 2035. However, even if there were commercially suitable products on the market, several fire engines are not scheduled for replacement until after 2035 or 2040 due to its 20-year service life.

The cost of EVs can be 50% - 100% higher than the cost of a comparable ICE vehicle. Since the 2035 scenario accelerates EV procurement, the City will bear a higher cost of capital earlier in the transition life cycle. The annual capital investment for each scenario is shown below in Figure 9 and Figure 11. The cumulative capital investment for each scenario is shown below in Figure 10 and Figure 12.

In all cases, we provide a “Baseline Scenario” for comparison. The Baseline scenario represents the replacement of the City’s fleet with the same ICE vehicles as currently exists.

This helps to demonstrate the incremental costs associated with the transition to EVs.

Figure 9. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2040 Scenario $-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Glendale Annual Fleet Costs By Year - 2040 Scenario
ICE EV Baseline
35 of 258

26 Figure 10. Glendale Cumulative Fleet Cost, 2040 Scenario The cumulative fleet replacement costs in the 2040 EV Transition scenario is estimated at $274.3 million, an $85.3 million increase over the Baseline scenario.

Figure 11. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2035 Scenario

$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
Glendale Culmuative Fleet Replacement Cost
2040 Scenario
ICE EV Baseline
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Glendale Annual Fleet Procurement Costs By Year
2035 Scenario
ICE EV Baseline
36 of 258

27 Figure 12. Glendale Cumulative Fleet Costs by Year, 2035 Scenario The cumulative fleet replacement costs in the 2035 EV Transition scenario is estimated at $276.8 million, an $87.8 million increase over the Baseline scenario.

Infrastructure Transition Assessment
In addition to purchasing EVs, it will be necessary to upgrade electrical infrastructure at each facility where the City parks their vehicles overnight to accommodate the required charging equipment. At this point, we assume that each vehicle will have a dedicated charger (1:1 vehicle-to-charger ratio). However, with improvements in charging technology, it will be possible to increase the ratio to 2:1 or 4:1 and reduce the infrastructure requirements and related costs.

Based on the assumption of a 1:1 vehicle-to-charger ratio, GWP estimated that each yard will require electrical service upgrades, as shown in Table 10. The table provides the GWP estimate for each facility as well as the installed power, in megawatts, required for a 100% EV fleet.

$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
$180,000,000
$200,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Glendale Cumulative Fleet Replacement Cost 2035 Scenario Cumulative ICE Cumulative EV Cumulative Baseline
37 of 258

28 Table 10. Estimated Upgrade Costs by Facility
Facility Installed Power for
100% EV Fleet (MW)
Estimated Cost (Including engineering
hours and construction labor)
Public Works Yard 1.26 $300,000
City Hall Complex 1.12 $300,000
GWP Utility Operations
Center 1.58 $250,000
Integrated Waste Yard 0.72 $250,000
Fire Station 21 0.35 $225,000
Police Parking Lot 21.5 $4,100,000
Subtotal 26.53 $5,425,000
Acacia Station Upgrade $17,000,000
Total $21,875,000

GWP also recommends upgrading the capacity and operating voltages of the Acacia Substation to continue providing reliable service. The cost of this upgrade is estimated at $17 million (includes upgrades to the Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Facility) Adding this upgrade brings the total to more than $21.8 million.

In addition to adding more service to each yard, the City will need to build out the infrastructure within the yard to deliver power from the transformers to the chargers. This effort will require design and construction of duct banks, conduit, mounting pads/islands, stub-outs, bollards, etc. This can be built in phases as the number of EVs increase at each yard. We currently assume two design/build phases for each yard. Because the 2035 scenario does not fully transition the fleet to 100% EVs, additional infrastructure costs will be incurred as the remaining vehicles are delivered.

As each new EV is delivered, new chargers will be installed, assuming the 1:1 ratio. Note that we’ve increased the number of Level 2 chargers by 10% to allow for spare capacity. As a result, annualized investment in charging infrastructure for each scenario is shown below in Figure 13 and Figure 14. The Acacia Station upgrade cost is split between the two facilities that it supplies: the Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Facility. This upgrade is likely to take several years – the graphs show the upgrade taking place in 2006 - 2007. 38 of 258

29 Figure 13. Glendale Infrastructure Cost, 2040 Scenario

Figure 14. Glendale Infrastructure Cost, 2035 Scenario
Note: these cost estimates are considered a “rough order of magnitude” estimate and not an engineering cost estimate. Also, we’ve excluded infrastructure upgrade and infrastructure design/build cost at “Other” facilities under the assumption that these costs would be minimal as compared to the six primary facilities because comparatively few vehicles park at these locations. Charger and installation costs for “Other” facilities are included in the estimates.

$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
39 of 258

30 Fuel Assessment
EVs are generally at least four times as efficient as ICEs. However, while generally favorable, the cost of electricity can sometimes be higher than fossil fuels. Utility rates vary significantly across the county based on generation mix and local demand. With proper planning, fleets can take advantage of low utility rates by charging overnight during off- peak hours. We’ve estimated the effect of each scenario using electricity as a fuel instead of fossil fuel, as shown below in Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18.

Figure 15. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario

$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$4,500,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline - 2040
ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
40 of 258

31 Figure 16. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario Note that is a marginal difference between the Baseline scenario and the EV transition scenario with respect to estimated fuel cost.

Figure 17. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario $-
$10,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$50,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$70,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline - 2040
ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline - 2035
ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
41 of 258

32 Figure 18. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario

Maintenance Assessment
EVs have an advantage over ICE with respect to maintenance due to fewer moving parts, no fluids to replace, and less frequent brake changes due to regenerative braking. Although there is very little data, we estimate that fleets can save approximately 30% on maintenance over the life of the vehicle. The estimated annual maintenance cost compared to baseline vehicles for the 2040 and 2035 Scenarios is provided below in Figure 19 and Figure 20 respectively. Cumulative costs for each scenario are provided in Figure 21 and Figure 22.
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline - 2035
ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
42 of 258

33 Figure 19. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040

Figure 20. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 $-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
Annual Maintenance Cost vs. Baseline - 2040
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Annual Maintenance Costs vs. Baseline - 2035
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
43 of 258

34 Figure 21. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 Cumulative maintenance costs in the 2040 EV scenario is estimated at $213.8 million, a cumulative savings of $37.4 million over the Baseline scenario.

Figure 22. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 Cumulative maintenance costs in the 2035 EV scenario is estimated at $212.7 million, a cumulative savings of $38.5 million over the Baseline scenario.

$-
$50,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$150,000,000.00
$200,000,000.00
$250,000,000.00
$300,000,000.00
Cumulative Maintenance Cost vs Baseline - 2040
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
$-
$20,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$80,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$120,000,000.00
$140,000,000.00
$160,000,000.00
$180,000,000.00
Cumulative Maintenance Cost vs Baseline - 2035
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
44 of 258

35 Emissions Assessment
There are substantial financial costs and operational impacts to consider when transitioning to EVs. However, the primary goal is to reduce tailpipe emissions to improve local air quality and reduce the affect that GHGs have on the environment. Net emission reduction is the comparison of current ICE emission compared to emissions related to generation of the electricity required to charge the EVs. While we expect the emissions associated with Glendale’s current generation mix to improve over time with the introduction of more renewables on the grid, the estimated emissions reduction of the City’s EV transition is shown below in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Figure 23. Estimated Emissions of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2040 Scenario

Figure 24. Estimated Emissions of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2035 Scenario 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
2040 Scenario: NOx, SOx, and PM10 Emissions per year
NOx PM10 SOx
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
2035 Scenario: NOx, SOx, and PM10 Emissions per year
NOx PM10 SOx
45 of 258

36 Total Transition Costs
Total Transition Cost is the total incremental cost of first-time EV replacements plus total EV infrastructure costs. It represents the incremental capital funding required to transition to an all-electric fleet. Figure 25 provides the total cumulative transition cost for the 2040 scenario which is estimated at $123.5 million.

Figure 25. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2040 Scenario
Figure 26 provides the total cumulative transition cost for the 2035 scenario which is estimated at $106.8 million.

Figure 26. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2035 Scenario
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Cumulative Transition Costs -2040
Cumulative Incremental Fleet Costs Cumulative EV Infrastructure Costs $-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Cumulative Transition Costs -2035
Cumulative Incremental Fleet Costs Cumulative EV Infrastructure Costs 46 of 258

37 Total Cost of Ownership
The City’s TCO for EV Transition considers the total capital investment for the replacement vehicles over the transition period, including both ICEs and EVs, the upgrade of utility service to each facility, the design and construction of charging infrastructure, and the purchase and installation of chargers. The TCO also includes the total fuel and maintenance operating costs over the transition period. Fuel costs include all fuel types over the transition period including electricity, diesel, gasoline, and CNG. Maintenance cost includes maintenance of both ICE and EVs. The goal of the TCO analysis is to assess the impact that EV transition will have on both operating and capital costs for the entire fleet.

While fuel and maintenance costs are likely to be lower, it usually does not offset the incremental capital costs. The TCO for each scenario is shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 respectively.

Figure 27. Annual Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Glendale TCO
2040 2035 Baseline
47 of 258

38 Figure 28. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario

Funding Opportunities
The City of Glendale has several zero-emission vehicle and infrastructure funding opportunities they can pursue to help fund the transition, including:
• HVIP
• VW Environmental Mitigation Trust Funding
• LCFS ZEV Infrastructure Crediting
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Rebate Program:
• National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program • Discretionary Grant Program for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure ($2.5 billion):
• The EPA’s DERA Program funds grants and rebates
• Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)
• Southern California Incentive Project (SCIP)

$-
$100,000,000.00
$200,000,000.00
$300,000,000.00
$400,000,000.00
$500,000,000.00
$600,000,000.00
$700,000,000.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Glendale TCO Cumulative
2040 2035 Baseline
48 of 258

39 Recommendations & Considerations

1. Engage an engineering firm to develop a phased infrastructure design and plan for each facility. The plan should consider staging to minimize disruption to operations and should consider the impact that charging technology improvements may have on the future design.

2. Develop an impact and risk assessment for power outages. This information can be used to develop risk mitigation strategies and a resilience plan and may also shape the EV procurement plan.

3. Focus on currently available light-duty vehicles first. Allow time for the market to develop medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

4. Emergency response vehicles should be deferred until late in the transition cycle.

The operational impacts of EVs on EMS services are not well understood at this time and require more research before considering an investment.

5. Update the EV transition plan every two years to consider changes in vehicle operations and requirements, changes in costs, as well as improvements in technology.

The transition to EV technologies represents a paradigm shift in vehicle procurement, operation, maintenance, and infrastructure. It is only through a continual process of deployment with specific goals for advancement that the industry can achieve the goal of economically sustainable, zero-emission transportation sector. Widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicle technology has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

49 of 258

40 Introduction
City of Glendale, CA Municipal Fleet Service Overview
According to the city’s website, the City of Glendale was incorporated on February 16, 1906 and spans approximately 30.6 square miles with a current population of approximately 203,054 people (US Census 2017 Population Estimates). Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County and is surrounded by Southern California's leading commercial districts.

As one of its core functions, Glendale provides well-maintained streets and a variety of transportation services. The City's historic success at attracting employers is partially attributed to the result of its location at the center of four major freeways including • the I-5 Golden State Freeway
• SR-2 Glendale Freeway
• ST-134 Ventura Freeway
• and the 210 Foothill Freeway
All these provide easy access for residents, workers, and customers from around the region. Glendale also offers its own bus services, the Beeline, with 13 routes connecting customers to Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the City of Burbank, and the Metrolink Stations in both Burbank and Glendale.

The Bob Hope Airport in Burbank serves the Los Angeles area including Glendale, Pasadena and the San Fernando Valley. It is the only airport in the greater Los Angeles area with a direct rail connection to downtown Los Angeles. The City of Glendale is located about 30 minutes from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). LAX is a commerce leader and designated as a world-class airport for its convenient location, modern facilities, and superior sea/air/land connections.

Glendale prides itself on the quality of services it provides to the community. It is a full- service City which includes a water and electric utility. The City operates its own power plant, although the majority of power is currently imported from other areas. Water comes primarily from the Metropolitan Water District, along with a small portion from local wells.
1 1 City of Glendale overview taken from https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/about -us 50 of 258

41 City Fleet Overview
As of October 2021, The City owns and operates a fleet of 1,018 vehicles. Eliminating trailers, non-vehicular equipment, and parade antiques from the analysis, the City’s fleet consists of 863 vehicles, which is the basis for the analysis. City vehicles are categorized as Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty (based on GVWR classification), Pursuit, and Non-Road vehicles. Figure 29 shows a breakdown of Glendale’s fleet by category. Light-duty vehicles make up the largest portion of the fleet (50%) followed by pursuit vehicles at 16%, heavy duty vehicles at 14%, non-road vehicles at 11%, and medium duty vehicles at 9%.

Figure 29. Glendale Fleet by Vehicle Type

City Facility Overview
This analysis focused on the vehicles parked at select primary facilities. The remainder of vehicles not captured at these facilities are generally parked at libraries or other City Light, 50%
Medium, 9%
Heavy, 14%
Pursuit, 16%
Non-road, 11%
51 of 258

42 facilities, where typically only one or two vehicles are parked. For the purposes of this analysis, CTE assumed that the installation of charging infrastructure for those facilities will not require utility upgrades and can be done with little or no disruption to current operations. Table 11 summarizes the number of vehicles at each of the facilities under consideration.

Table 11. Fleet Profile at Primary Facilities
Facility Name Total Vehicles
Public Works Yard 123
City Hall Complex 109
GWP Utility Operations
Center 161
Integrated Waste Yard 68
Fire Station 21 29
Police Parking Lot 227
Other Vehicles 146
Total Fleet 863
Public Works Yard
The Public Works Yard houses vehicles from multiple departments and includes vehicles from all types except pursuit. The number of vehicles at the Public Works Yard are summarized by vehicle class in Table 12. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 30, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Note that most departments that park vehicles at the Public Works Yard do not have assigned parking spots. When planning for fleet electrification, some vehicle assignments may need to be made to ensure that the vehicles are parked at the appropriate charger (i.e., Level 2 AC charger, DC fast charger).

Table 12. Fleet Profile at the Public Works Yard
Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
61 23 26 13 - 123

52 of 258

43 Figure 30. Public Works Yard aerial view
City Hall Complex
The City Hall Complex houses vehicles from multiple departments that are primarily light- duty. The number of vehicles at the City Hall Complex are summarized by vehicle class in Table 13. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 30, with the property boundaries outlined in red. The City Hall Complex encompasses multiple parking areas, including a garage that has both public parking and parking for City vehicles Table 13. Fleet Profile at City Hall Complex
Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
104 2 - 3 - 109

53 of 258

44 Figure 31. City Hall Complex aerial view
Glendale Water and Power Utility Operations Center
The Glendale Water and Power (GWP) Utility Operations Center houses GWP vehicles. The number of vehicles at the GWP Utility Operations Center are summarized by vehicle class in Table 14. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 32, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Note the GWP Utility Operations Center is undergoing a repowering initiative that will entail a large amount of construction throughout the facility beginning in 2023.

Construction activities may include the demolition of multiple structures. Any facility work to install chargers supporting the electrification of GWP’s vehicles will need to coordinate ongoing construction activities to avoid facility conflicts. The City estimates that the work will take about 3-4 years.

54 of 258

45 Table 14. Fleet Profile at GWP Utility Operations Center Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
90 24 24 23 - 161

Figure 32. GWP Utility Operations Center aerial view
Integrated Waste Yard
The Integrated Waste Yard houses vehicles from multiple departments with the majority being light and heavy-duty vehicles. The number of vehicles at the Integrated Waste Yard are summarized by vehicle class in Table 15. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 33, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Table 15. Fleet Profile at Integrated Waste Yard
Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
20 0 48 - - 68

55 of 258

46 Figure 33. Integrated Waste Yard Aerial View

Fire Station 21
Fire Station 21 houses emergency response vehicles from the fire department, including the City’s fire engines. The number of vehicles at Fire Station 21 are summarized by vehicle class in Table 16. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 34, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

56 of 258

47 Table 16. Fleet Profile at Fire Station 21

Figure 34. Fire Station 21 Aerial View
Police Department Parking Lot
Police Department Parking Lot houses pursuit and emergency response vehicles from the police department. The number of vehicles at the Police Parking by vehicle class are summarized in Table 17. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 35 with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
18 6 5 - - 29

57 of 258

48 Table 17. Fleet Profile at Police Parking Lot

Figure 35. Police Parking Lot Aerial View

Light Duty Medium
Duty Heavy Duty Non-Road Pursuit Total
83 4 - 4 136 227

58 of 258

49 Analysis Overview
CTE conducted multiple assessments to evaluate the optimal approach for transitioning the City of Glendale’s fleet to 100% EV.

The Feasibility Assessment evaluates the feasibility of replacing each vehicle in the City’s fleet with an EV model in a 1:1 ratio, considering the current capabilities of EVs on the market. The Feasibility Assessment estimated an average duty cycle based on average daily miles and an estimated energy efficiency by vehicle type. Duty cycles of any vehicles that could not be replaced in a 1:1 ratio with an EV are evaluated and operational strategies that could be implemented to achieve a feasible duty cycle are identified. If operational changes are not sufficient to achieve a suitable duty cycle, electrification of that vehicle type may be delayed.

The Fleet Assessment develops a projected timeline for replacement of current vehicles with EVs consistent with the City’s plan to transition their fleet by 2035 or 2040. This assessment considers a “Suitability Score” for each vehicle type that indicates the commercial viability of currently available EVs of that vehicle type each year. Vehicles with a higher Suitability Score are prioritized for transition over vehicles with a lower Suitability Score. The Fleet Assessment also includes a projection of fleet capital costs over the entire transition timeline.

The Facilities Assessment determines the necessary infrastructure at each facility to support the EV fleet based on the results of the Feasibility Assessment and Fleet Assessment. The Facilities Assessment shows the estimated power and energy loads throughout the fleet transition, which will inform any required utility upgrades to meet the infrastructure needs. The Facilities Assessment also includes a projection of the costs of the charging equipment, installation, and utility upgrades.

The Funding Assessment compiles results from the previous assessments to provide a comprehensive view of the vehicle and infrastructure costs for the transition over the transition period. The assessment includes guidance on operations and maintenance (O&M) cost planning and a summary of available funding opportunities that can be used to fund vehicle or infrastructure purchase.

The Benefits Assessment summarizes the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and pollution reductions realized from transitioning the fleet to 100% EVs throughout the transition timeline to quantify the environmental, public health, and local air quality benefits from the fleet transition.
59 of 258

50 Feasibility Assessment
An essential element in developing an EV Transition Plan is feasibility, which, in this context, is the measure of the likely range of an EV under strenuous conditions as compared to the required daily duty cycle. In other words, does the EV have enough battery energy to operate a full day, with air conditioning or heating, before returning to its designated parking area for an overnight charge.

Key assumptions in this assessment include:
• Fleets typically charge overnight during off-peak hours when the cost of energy is lowest, thus each EV needs enough energy to complete a full daily duty cycle. • EV efficiency and range is impacted by topography, traffic speed and conditions, and climate. Thus, it is important to determine the efficiency and range that account for these factors when determining feasibility.

Table 18 summarizes the expected feasible range vehicle type based on the expected operating conditions (topography, speed, and climate) in Glendale. The “Achievable” range is the daily mileage that is feasible under most conditions. The “Uncertain” range is the daily mileage that may be feasible under some conditions (light traffic, minimal A/C or heater use). The “Unachievable” range is considered not feasible under any normal conditions. We recommend using the Achievable range for planning purposes.

Table 18. Expected Feasibility Range by Vehicle Type

* Vehicle shown is the basis for the “Achievable” range calculation.

60 of 258

51 Based the City’s duty cycle for every vehicle in the fleet, EV adoption is highly feasible, except for Pursuit Motorcycles, as indicated in Table 19 below. Medium-Duty Dump Trucks and Heavy-Duty Refuse Trucks are moderately feasible. We expect feasibility to improve over time with advances in EV technologies and improvements in battery energy density.

Table 19. EV Feasibility for Glendale Fleet

Operational Challenges Considering Current EV Capabilities Most vehicles in the City’s fleet stay within the city limits, have duty cycles that are feasible for a 1:1 EV transition, are only used during business hours, and can charge overnight.

However, some use cases will require additional planning and consideration before transitioning to an EV to ensure that the required duty cycles can be met without affecting operations or public safety.

GWP Utility Operations Center Vehicles
Some GWP vehicles may be called upon to provide interstate mutual aid and may be staged at a site for multiple days to support a disaster response. The City will need to ensure that there are methods for charging these vehicles to travel long distances, and to maintain a charge on vehicles that are staged at disaster or job sites for prolonged periods of time.

On-call GWP staff and GWP supervisors will also take vehicles home with them. The City will have to evaluate either a possible change in the policy to not permit staff to take the vehicles home, or to install chargers at GWP staff members’ homes to ensure the vehicles can charge overnight.

First Responder Vehicles
Additional consideration must be given to the transition of first responder vehicles, including pursuit and fire department vehicles. These vehicles must be always ready to 61 of 258

52 complete a full duty cycle, therefore accounting for charging time and limited vehicle range can cause planning concerns for transition these types of vehicles to EVs.

Resilience during power-outages must also be considered for any facilities with first responder vehicles. Backup power generation will be required to ensure that EV charging can occur even during a power outage.

Police Department Vehicles
The City’s pursuit vehicles “hot swap” during shift changes, where vehicles change hands in about a 15-minute period at the police station. It is common for most of the pursuit vehicles to never turn off. To maintain these operations, the vehicles would need the ability to completely charge in a 15–20-minute window, with a DC fast charger in each parking stall.

This charging approach will create high demand charges, as a large power demand will only be required during each 15–20-minute shift change.

Officers that are assigned motorcycles also take their motorcycles home with them at the end of their shift, with many officers driving long distances to get home. The City will have to evaluate either a possible change in the policy to not permit officers to take the motorcycles home, or to install chargers at officer’s homes to ensure the vehicles can charge overnight. Officers may also need to charge again before starting their shift, if driving long distances from their homes.

Fire Department Vehicles
Major fire apparatus components such as pumps and aerial ladders are powered by the vehicle engine while the unit is stationary. Glendale noted that their Fire Department vehicles are often called upon to provide interstate mutual aid and have deployed vehicles to Oregon. Before transitioning all of the Fire Department vehicles, the City would need to ensure that there was a fast charging corridor to allow these vehicles to continue to provide mutual aid. The City’s Fire Department also exclusively procures vehicles from Pierce; who currently does not offer EVs.

Fleet Assessment
Fleet Transition Approach
Figure 36 summarizes the approach used to develop a plan to transition the City’s fleet by 2035 or 2040. Details on the EV Procurement Schedule and Suitability Scores are described in further detail below.
62 of 258

53 EV Procurement Schedule
The timing of replacing ICE vehicles with EVs is based on four primary factors:
• Asset Replacement Schedule: is the vehicle ready for replacement based on age, mileage, or hours?
• Duty Cycle Feasibility: can the replacement EV feasibly meet the daily duty cycle? • Vehicle Availability and Suitability: is the EV commercially available and is it a suitable replacement
• Glendale Transition goals: What procurement strategy allows the City to reasonably achieve a 100% zero emission fleet over time?
The fleet transition assessment assumes that vehicles in the City’s fleet will be replaced at the end of their planned useful life. Table 20 shows the number of vehicles currently approved for replacement each fiscal year.

Develop EV
Procurement
Schedule
•Establish an EV Procurement Schedule for each transition scenario that will allow the City to reach a 100% EV fleet by either 2035 or 2040
•Vehicles are only eligible for replacement once they reach the end of their Service Life; no vehicles are retired early.

Plan for Replacing
Vehicles Past
Service Life
•The replacement of vehicles in the City's fleet that are currently past their service life are split over four years to reduce the number of vehicles replaced each year Incorporate
Suitability Scores
•Vehicles with a Suitability Score of 4 or 5 are eligible for replacement with an EV •Following the EV Procurement Schedule, vehicle types with a Suitability Score of 5 are prioritized for transition, followed by vehicles with a Suitability Score of 4 Figure 36. Fleet Transition Methodology
63 of 258

54 Table 20. Glendale Replacement Schedule Overview
Fiscal Year
# Of Vehicles
Approved for
Replacement
Original Budget
18-19 150 $13,694,500
19-20 100 $8,159,500
20-21 50 $4,793,000
21-22 65 $10,715,621
22-23 75 $8,731,300

CTE developed an EV Procurement Schedule that will allow the City to achieve a 100% EV fleet by either 2035 or 2040. Table 20 summarizes the procurement schedule for the 2035 and 2040 transition scenarios.

Vehicles are eligible for replacement once they have reached the end of their useful service life. The transition planning approach does not require any vehicles to be retired early to meet the 100% EV Fleet goals by either the 2035 or 2040 transition scenario. In both scenarios, the City will only be procuring EVs from 2030 on. The EV procurement schedules also split the replacement of vehicles that are currently past their useful service life over four years, to limit the number of vehicle procurements the City would have to initiate in a single year.

The annual percentage of procured vehicles that will be EVs is gradually increased over time, to allow the City to grow their internal capabilities and comfort with EV technology, and to allow EV and charging technology to evolve and improve. Some vehicle types currently do not have an EV option but are expected to be available to procure in the future. The vehicles that are replaced with EVs each year are driven by the Suitability Score of each vehicle type, described in more detail below.

The City should re-evaluate this procurement schedule at least every two years to incorporate learnings from earlier deployments, reflect available funding, and address the latest information on EVs in the market and charging technology.

64 of 258

55 Table 21. EV Procurement Schedule for Transitioning Fleet to 100% EVs

Suitability Scores
The City of Glendale operates a wide variety of vehicle types, some of which are not currently available in an EV model, and others that are still in the prototyping or development stages. Early adopters of EV technology face higher levels of risk during vehicle deployments, as the vehicles may encounter unforeseen maintenance or performance issues if they have not been thoroughly road tested in a variety of conditions.

To manage risks associated with deploying new vehicle technology, CTE assigned a “Suitability Score” to each vehicle type in the City’s fleet each year. The Suitability Scores consider criteria that indicates whether or not a vehicle is “Commercially Viable” for purchase, and the number of deployments.

Year
2035 Scenario
% of Procured
Vehicles that will be
EVs
2040 Scenario
% of Procured
Vehicles that will be
EVs
% of Vehicles Past
their Useful Service
Life that will be
Replaced
2023 10% 10%
2024 10% 10% 25%
2025 25% 25% 25%
2026 50% 25% 25%
2027 50% 50% 25%
2028 75% 50%
2029 75% 75%
2030 100% 75%
2031 100% 100%
2032 100% 100%
2033 100% 100%
2034 100% 100%
2035 100% 100%
2036 100%
2037 100%
2038 100%
2039 100%
2040 100%

65 of 258

56 The Commercial Viability criteria used for this analysis is summarized in Table 22. Based on results of a market analysis (Appendix A), CTE evaluated each vehicle type against these criteria to determine which vehicles are currently Commercially Viable.

Table 22. Commercially Viability Criteria

Suitability Scores range from 1 “Not yet available for purchase” to 5 “Very High Suitability (Widespread Adopters).” Only vehicles with a Suitability Score of a 4 or 5 are eligible for transition in a given year. Definitions for each level of Suitability Score are shown in Table

23. Table 23. Suitability Score Definitions
Criteria Definition
> 1 Make Available Vehicle options from more than one OEM available Readily Available
Light Duty Vehicles: Ready for purchase, can drive off the lot.

Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles: Can immediately go into production schedule when purchase order is awarded.

Available for CA
Municipality purchase Available to be procured by CA Municipality.

No additional
customizations
Delivered to Glendale meeting technical specifications, does not require additional non-standard upfitting by Glendale to be put into service.

Cost Effective Less than twice the cost of current vehicle type in conventional fuel equivalent.

Score Definition
Vehicles
Eligible for
Transition
5 Very High Suitability – (Widespread Adopters) Meets all commercial availability criteria, can likely be a 1:1 replacement with proper charging infrastructure, vehicle options from more than 5 OEMs available
4 High Suitability (Limited Adopters) - Meets all commercial availability criteria, can likely be a 1:1 replacement with proper charging infrastructure, vehicle options from more than 1 OEM available
3 Medium Suitability (Early Adopter) - Meets all commercial availability criteria except for "Cost Effective." Available for 66 of 258

57 Based on the market analysis, commercially available criteria, and projections about how EV technology is expected to advance over the transition timeline, each vehicle type was assigned a Suitability Score for each year through 2030. By 2030, CTE assumes that all vehicle types that the City operates will achieve a Suitability Score of 5, with the exception of fire engines. Due to the uncertainty in the EV market, CTE does not have enough evidence to indicate that an electric fire engine will be suitable for transition within the transition timeline.

Using this method, each Vehicle Category by GVWR class is assigned a suitability score for each year of the transition period. Table 20 is a sample of the Suitability Score used for the Glendale analysis.

Table 24. Suitability Score by Year and Vehicle Type

Score Definition
Vehicles Not
Eligible for
Transition
purchase, few commercial deployments, but past the
prototyping stage. May not be 1:1 replacement
2 Low Suitability (First Customer) - Can be ordered but may not be able to be immediately entered into production. In
pilot/prototyping stage of development
1 Not yet available for purchase

67 of 258

58 The Suitability Scores are based on criteria guided by market research and industry trends, and do not directly consider the financial strength or prospects of any given vehicle manufacturer. Historically, new OEMs have come to market with EVs only to go out of business a few years later. Vehicle maintenance could be an issue if the OEM goes out of business before the end of the service life of the purchased vehicle. The City should thoroughly vet the financial strength of an OEM, as well as ensure that there is an established maintenance network prior to procuring vehicles.

Vehicle Transition Timeline
100% EV Fleet by 2040
Fleet Composition over Transition Period
Table 25 provides the actual number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 37 presents the data graphically. The City is expected to still have 22 ICE vehicles in the fleet in 2040 due to the suitability of specific vehicles and the long procurement schedule.

Table 25. Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario Year ICE EV
2022 843 20
2023 835 28
2024 815 48
2025 780 83
2026 744 119
2027 720 143
2028 686 177
2029 632 231
2030 534 329
2031 401 462
2032 339 524
2033 283 580
2034 197 666
2035 126 737
2036 75 788
2037 50 813
2038 38 825
2039 32 831
2040 22 841

68 of 258

59 Figure 37. Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario Annual Vehicle Procurements
Table 26 outlines the number of ICE vehicles and EVs procured in the fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 38 shows the data graphically.

Table 26. Number of ICE vehicles and EV procurements per year, 2040 Transition Scenario Year ICE EV
2023 93 8
2024 150 22
2025 113 40
2026 108 38
2027 32 28
2028 24 34
2029 18 55
2030 33 98
2031 0 142
2032 1 92
2033 2 87
2034 0 139
2035 0 134
2036 0 161
2037 0 88
2038 0 89
2039 0 50
2040 0 81

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
69 of 258

60 Figure 38. Annual Vehicle Procurements by Vehicle Type, 2040 Transition Scenario Figure 39 shows the vehicle costs per year throughout the transition timeline in the 2040 scenario. The costs of procuring both ICE vehicles and EVs are included.

Figure 39. Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario Transition Timelines by Facility
The fleet composition over time for the primary facilities are shown in the sections below. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
70 of 258

61 Public Works Yard
Table 27 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Public Works Yard fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 40 shows the data graphically. Figure 41 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 27. Public Works Yard Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 122 1
2023 122 1
2024 120 3
2025 114 9
2026 107 16
2027 104 19
2028 103 20
2029 102 21
2030 95 28
2031 83 40
2032 74 49
2033 67 56
2034 51 72
2035 24 99
2036 19 104
2037 11 112
2038 9 114
2039 8 115
2040 5 118

71 of 258

62 Figure 40. Public Works Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 41. Public Works Yard Fleet Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario Figure 42 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Public Works Yard under the 2040 Transition Scenario.

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
72 of 258

63 Figure 42. Public Works Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario City Hall Complex
Table 28 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the City Hall Complex fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 43 shows the fleet composition data graphically. Figure 44 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 28. City Hall Complex Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 103 6
2023 99 10
2024 95 14
2025 89 20
2026 86 23
2027 82 27
2028 80 29
2029 78 31
2030 59 50
2031 38 71
2032 38 71
2033 28 81
2034 14 95
2035 8 101
2036 2 107
2037 1 108
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
73 of 258

64 Year ICE EV
2038 0 109
2039 0 109
2040 0 109

Figure 43. City Hall Complex Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 44. City Hall Complex Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario Figure 45 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the City Hall Complex under the 2040 Transition Scenario.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
74 of 258

65 Figure 45. City Hall Complex Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario GWP Utility Operations Center
Table 29 lists the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the GWP Utility Operations Center fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 46 shows the fleet composition over time graphically. Figure 47 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 29. GWP Utility Ops Center Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 153 8
2023 152 9
2024 148 13
2025 147 14
2026 138 23
2027 135 26
2028 132 29
2029 128 33
2030 119 42
2031 87 74
2032 82 79
2033 70 91
2034 53 108
2035 45 116
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
75 of 258

66 Year ICE EV
2036 24 137
2037 13 148
2038 8 153
2039 5 156
2040 1 160

Figure 46. GWP Utility Ops Center Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 47. GWP Utility Ops Center Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
76 of 258

67 Figure 48 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the GWP Utility Operations Center under the 2040 Transition Scenario.

Figure 48. GWP Utility Ops Center Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Integrated Waste Yard
Table 30 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Integrated Waste Yard fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 49 shows the fleet composition graphically. Figure 50 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 30. Integrated Waste Yard Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 68 0
2023 68 0
2024 68 0
2025 63 5
2026 61 7
2027 61 7
2028 59 9
2029 55 13
2030 44 24
2031 31 37
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
77 of 258

68 Year ICE EV
2032 26 42
2033 21 47
2034 13 55
2035 6 62
2036 2 66
2037 1 67
2038 0 68
2039 0 68
2040 0 68

Figure 49. Integrated Waste Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
78 of 258

69 Figure 50. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 51 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Integrated Waste Yard under the 2040 Transition Scenario.

Figure 51. Integrated Waste Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Fire Station 21
Table 31 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Fire Station 21 fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 52 shows the fleet 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
79 of 258

70 composition over time graphically. Figure 53 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 31. Fire Station 21 Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 29 0
2023 29 0
2024 28 1
2025 26 3
2026 23 6
2027 23 6
2028 21 8
2029 20 9
2030 17 12
2031 14 15
2032 12 17
2033 10 19
2034 7 22
2035 5 24
2036 4 25
2037 3 26
2038 3 26
2039 3 26
2040 3 26

Figure 52. Fire Station 21 Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
80 of 258

71 Figure 53. Fire Station 21 Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario Figure 54 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for Fire Station 21 under the 2040 Transition Scenario.

Figure 54. Fire Station 21 Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 1
2 3
4 5
6 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
81 of 258

72 Police Parking Lot
Table 32 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Police Parking Lot fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2040 scenario. Figure 55 presents the data graphically. Figure 56 shows the annual purchases for the 2040 Scenario.

Table 32. Police Parking Lot Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 222 5
2023 220 7
2024 213 14
2025 204 23
2026 197 30
2027 185 42
2028 164 63
2029 126 101
2030 91 136
2031 52 175
2032 16 211
2033 9 218
2034 7 220
2035 3 224
2036 1 226
2037 0 227
2038 0 227
2039 0 227
2040 0 227

82 of 258

73 Figure 55. Police Parking Lot Fleet Composition Over Time, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 56. Police Parking Lot Annual Purchases, 2040 Transition Scenario Figure 57 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Police Parking Lot under the 2040 Transition Scenario.

0 50
100
150
200
250
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
83 of 258

74 Figure 57. Police Parking Lot Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2040 Transition Scenario Other Vehicles
For the City’s fleet vehicles housed in locations other than the selected site, Table 33 lists the EV and ICE fleet composition over time for the 2040 Scenario and Figure 58 presents the data graphically. Figure 59 shows the annual purchases by type and Figure 49 shows the costs.

Table 33. Other Vehicles Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2040 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 146 0
2023 145 1
2024 143 3
2025 137 9
2026 132 14
2027 130 16
2028 127 19
2029 123 23
2030 109 37
2031 96 50
2032 91 55
2033 78 68
2034 52 94
2035 35 111
2036 23 123
2037 21 125
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
84 of 258

75 Year ICE EV
2038 18 128
2039 16 130
2040 13 133

Figure 58. Other Vehicles Composition Over Time, 2040 Scenario

Figure 59. Other Vehicles Annual Purchases, 2040 Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE EV
85 of 258

76 Figure 60. Other Vehicles Purchase Costs 2040 Scenario 100% EV Fleet by 2035
Fleet Composition over Transition Period
Following the procurement goals for the 2040 transition scenario outlined in the previous section, Table 35 provides annual ICE and EV vehicle purchases over the transition period.

Figure 61 shows these numbers graphically. The City is expected to still have 109 ICE vehicles in the fleet in 2035 due to the suitability of specific vehicles and the long procurement schedule. Figure 62 shows the annual purchases for the 2035 Scenario.

Table 34. Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the fleet each year, 2035 Transition Scenario Year ICE EV
2022 843 20
2023 835 28
2024 815 48
2025 780 83
2026 724 139
2027 700 163
2028 656 207
2029 602 261
2030 476 387
2031 351 512
2032 301 562
2033 252 611
2034 171 692
2035 109 754
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 ICE EV
86 of 258

77 Figure 61. Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario

Table 35. Number of ICE vehicles and EVs purchased per year, 2035 Transition Scenario Year ICE EV
2023 93 8
2024 150 22
2025 113 40
2026 88 58
2027 32 28
2028 14 44
2029 18 55
2030 3 128
2031 0 142
2032 1 92
2033 2 87
2034 0 139
2035 0 134

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
87 of 258

78 Figure 62. Annual Vehicle Procurements by Vehicle Type, 2035 Transition Scenario Figure 63 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 63. Annual Procurement Cost per Year, 2035 Transition Scenario

Transition Timelines by Facility
The fleet composition over time for the primary facilities are shown in the sections below. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
88 of 258

79 Public Works Yard
Table 36 provides the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Public Works Yard fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 64 presents the data graphically. Figure 65 shows the Public Works Yard annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 36. Public Works Yard Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 122 1
2023 122 1
2024 120 3
2025 114 9
2026 105 18
2027 102 21
2028 101 22
2029 100 23
2030 92 31
2031 80 43
2032 71 52
2033 64 59
2034 48 75
2035 24 99

Figure 64. Public Works Yard Fleet Composition Over Time for 2035 Transition Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
89 of 258

80 Figure 65. Public Works Yard Fleet Annual Fleet Procurements 2035 Transition Scenario Figure 66 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Public Works Yard under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 66. Public Works Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
90 of 258

81 City Hall Complex
Table 37 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the City Hall Complex fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 67 presents the data graphically. Figure 68 shows the City Hall Complex annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 37. City Hall Complex Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 103 6
2023 99 10
2024 95 14
2025 89 20
2026 84 25
2027 80 29
2028 78 31
2029 76 33
2030 50 59
2031 29 80
2032 29 80
2033 19 90
2034 9 100
2035 5 104

Figure 67. City Hall Complex Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
91 of 258

82 Figure 68. City Hall Complex Number of Procurements by Type, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 69 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the City Hall Complex under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 69. City Hall Complex Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
92 of 258

83 GWP Utility Operations Center
Table 38 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the GWP Utility Operations Center fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 70 presents the data graphically. Figure 71 shows the GWP Utility Operations Center annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 38. GWP Ops Center Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 153 8
2023 152 9
2024 148 13
2025 147 14
2026 133 28
2027 130 31
2028 127 34
2029 123 38
2030 112 49
2031 80 81
2032 75 86
2033 63 98
2034 47 114
2035 39 122

Figure 70. GWP Ops Center Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
93 of 258

84 Figure 71. GWP Ops Center Number of Procurements by Type Figure 72 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the GWP Utility Operations Center under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 72. GWP Ops Center Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
94 of 258

85 Integrated Waste Yard
Table 39 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Integrated Waste Yard fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 73 presents the data graphically. Figure 74 shows the Integrated Waste Yard annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 39. Integrated Waste Yard Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 68 0
2023 68 0
2024 68 0
2025 63 5
2026 61 7
2027 61 7
2028 59 9
2029 55 13
2030 41 27
2031 29 39
2032 24 44
2033 19 49
2034 11 57
2035 4 64

Figure 73. Integrated Waste Yard Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
95 of 258

86 Figure 74. Integrated Waste Yard Number of Procurements by Type Figure 75 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Integrated Waste Yard under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 75. Integrated Waste Yard Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
96 of 258

87 Fire Station 21
Table 40 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Fire Station 21 fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 76 presents the data graphically.

Figure 77 shows the Fire Station 21 annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 40. Fire Station 21 Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 29 0
2023 29 0
2024 28 1
2025 26 3
2026 22 7
2027 22 7
2028 20 9
2029 19 10
2030 16 13
2031 13 16
2032 11 18
2033 9 20
2034 6 23
2035 5 24

Figure 76. Fire Station 21 Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
97 of 258

88 Figure 77. Fire Station 21 Number of Procurements by Type Figure 78 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for Fire Station 21 under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 78. Fire Station 21 Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
98 of 258

89 Police Parking Lot
Table 41 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs in the Police Parking Lot fleet throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 79 presents the data graphically. Figure 80 shows the Police Parking Lot annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 41. Police Parking Lot Number of ICE vehicles and EVs in fleet per year, 2035 Transition Scenario
Year ICE EV
2022 222 5
2023 220 7
2024 213 14
2025 204 23
2026 190 37
2027 178 49
2028 147 80
2029 109 118
2030 65 162
2031 33 194
2032 9 218
2033 9 218
2034 7 220
2035 3 224

Figure 79. Police Parking Lot Fleet Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 50
100
150
200
250
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
99 of 258

90 Figure 80. Police Parking Lot Number of Procurements by Type Figure 81 Provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Police Parking Lot under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 81. Police Parking Lot Cost of Vehicle Procurements by Year, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
100 of 258

91 Other Vehicles
Table 42 shows the number of ICE vehicles and EVs for other vehicles not located at the selected facilities throughout the transition timeline for the 2035 scenario. Figure 82 presents the data graphically. Figure 83 shows the other vehicles annual fleet procurements for the 2035 scenario.

Table 42. Other Vehicles Composition Over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario Year ICE EV
2022 146 0
2023 145 1
2024 143 3
2025 137 9
2026 129 17
2027 127 19
2028 124 22
2029 120 26
2030 100 46
2031 87 59
2032 82 64
2033 69 77
2034 43 103
2035 29 117

Figure 82. Other Vehicles Composition over Time, 2035 Transition Scenario

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
101 of 258

92 Figure 83. Other Vehicles Number of Procurements
Figure 84 provides the yearly cost for purchasing both ICE and EVs for the Police Parking Lot under the 2035 Transition Scenario.

Figure 84. Other Vehicles Cost of Procurement, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE EV
102 of 258

93 Facilities Assessment
Scaling the City’s fleet to 100% EVs requires significant investment in charging infrastructure. Based on the feasibility and fleet assessments and following the fleet procurement schedule, CTE analyzed the energy requirements for each facility throughout the transition periods. Because the City’s fleet is so diverse, the analysis uses higher level categories to determine an average vehicle mileage and efficiency. Not all vehicles will be used every day, therefore the energy estimates are considered a worst-case scenario – with all vehicles operating a full days work before returning to each facility for charging.

Energy and Demand Requirements
CTE evaluated the energy needed by facility based on the results of feasibility assessment and average duty cycle energy consumption by vehicle type. The duty cycles for most vehicle types indicate that individual vehicles do not travel every day and may not require daily charging. The installed power will not likely correspond to the actual utility demand on a normal day. Not all vehicles will be used every day, and they won’t all return and be plugged in at the same time. The number of vehicles charging simultaneously may have a large effect on the demand and therefore on operational costs.

The energy needs analysis includes vehicle to charger ratios of 1:1, 2:1, and 4:1. A 1:1 ratio is more efficient for fully charging all vehicles in a minimum timeframe, but 2:1 and 4:1 ratio will be less expensive to install and maintain. Depending on the charger model, the power will be split to charge each vehicle simultaneously or can charge two vehicles sequentially. Both Level 2 and DC fast chargers are available in a 2:1 orientation. Some DC chargers can handle a 4:1 orientation, however that is not currently available for level 2 chargers. Installing 1 level 2 charger for every 4 vehicles might require operational procedures to move vehicles around the yard to ensure every vehicle gets a full charge.

Utility upgrade costs
The City coordinated with GWP to evaluate the required equipment upgrades and costs at each of the priority sites. Table 43 summarizes the upgrades required at each facility to support a 100% electric fleet, including materials needed and estimated cost.

103 of 258

94 Table 43. Summary of Required GWP Utility Upgrades at Priority Facilities Facility
Installed Power
for 100% EV
Fleet (MW)
Materials Needed
Estimated Cost
(Including engineering
hours and construction
labor)
Public Works
Yard 1.26
- 500’ underground
conduits
- 1 pull box
- wiring
- 1 vault room
$300,000
City Hall
Complex 1.12
- 400’ substructures and
underground conduits
- 1 pull box
- wiring
- 1 vault room
$300,000
GWP Utility
Operations
Center

1.58 - 300’ underground
conduits
- 1 pull box
- wiring
- 1 vault room
$250,000
Integrated
Waste Yard 0.72
- Upgrade 4 overhead
conductors from 2 Copper
to 4/0 Copper
- 360’ underground
conduits
- 1 pull box
- wiring
- 1 vault room
$250,000
Fire Station 21 0.35
- 300’ underground
conduits
- 1 pull box
- wiring
- 1 vault room
$225,000
Police Parking
Lot 21.5
- Power transformer at
Columbus Substation
- 12kV Switchgear
- Upgrade the substation
Switchyard and Bus work
- 69Kv Circuit Breaker
- 5000’ substructures and
conduits from Columbus
substation
- Ten Vaults
- Wiring
- Vault rooms
$4,100,000
TOTAL 26.53 $5,425,000
104 of 258

95 The Acacia substation serves the load of the Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Yard, in addition to other City facilities, most notably the Beeline Maintenance Facility. GWP indicated that this is an old substation with 8 transformers that were manufactured in 1963 for a total capacity of 22.54 MW. Considering the additional load from the fleet transition project, the increased use of this substation would reach 98% of the total capacity. To provide reliable service, GWP will need to replace the older equipment and increase the capacity of the Acacia substation. Upgrading the Acacia substation from 22.54 MW at 34.5/4 kV to 50 MW at 69/12.47 kV will cost an estimated $17,000,000 (includes costs to upgrade Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Yard). Adding in the cost to upgrade the Acacia Substation would bring the total cost to $21,875,000. The City will need to coordinate with GWP throughout the implementation of the transition plan to understand the available power at the site over time, and when utility upgrades will be required.

Infrastructure Assessment Assumptions
CTE used a 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio to calculate the number of chargers needed at each facility. Level 2 chargers with a power level less than 20 kW were planned for all light and medium duty vehicles. Non-emergency heavy-duty vehicles were assigned level 3 DC chargers with a power level of 50 kW and heavy-duty emergency vehicles were assigned high power level 3 DC chargers with a power level of 150 kW. While the police department vehicles are light duty, the use profile for the pursuit vehicles requires faster charging than level 2 chargers can provide. Because of this, the analysis uses level 3 DC (150kW) chargers for the pursuit vehicles at the Police Parking Lot.

CTE added a spare ratio of 10% additional level 2 chargers than vehicles to account for charger downtime and maintenance. At least 2 level 3 (50 kW) chargers are planned at each site to account for challenging duty cycle days that might require a faster charge. CTE includes inflation over time for both the charger and installation costs. The analysis does not include managed charging.

Infrastructure Costs
Equipment and Installation Costs
The equipment and installation estimates are focused on the City’s on-road fleet. Table 44 outlines the number of chargers planned by charger type and site for the 2040 scenario. At a 1:1 ratio of vehicles to chargers, 619 L2 chargers, 103 DC 50kW chargers, and 146 DC high power chargers are estimated to be installed. The number of chargers for the 2035 Scenario is slightly less because the chargers are timed to be installed when EVs of each 105 of 258

96 type are first purchased. Because of suitability, several heavy-duty emergency vehicles are not scheduled for purchase until after 2035. The chargers planned for sites other than the six selected facilities include several fire stations, therefore eight high powered chargers will be required to support the heavy-duty emergency vehicles.

Table 44. Number of Chargers installed by type and site Facility L2 <20 kW
chargers
DC 50 kW
chargers
DC high power
150 kW chargers
Public Works Yard 100 26 0
City Hall Complex 113 2 0
GWP Utility
Operations Center 141 24 0
Integrated Waste
Yard 22 48 0
Fire Station 21 26 0 2
Police Parking Lot 95 0 136
Other Locations 122 3 8
TOTAL 619 103 146

100% EV Fleet by 2040
Table 45 provides the summary of costs at each facility for the 2040 Scenario, including the Acacia Station upgrade. The cost for the Acacia Station upgrade is split between the two facilities that it supplies, the Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Yard. The analysis for the other locations includes the cost of chargers and installation needed for vehicles not located at one of the six selected facilities, however it does not include the initial cost of preparing the sites for adding chargers (design, stub outs, conduit, etc.). Total charging infrastructure costs are estimated to be nearly $71 million at a 1:1 ratio. The higher cost compared to the 2035 Scenario is due to inflation. Spreading out the installations through 2040 increases the cost for chargers and installation. This estimate represents a maximum cost scenario. Using a 2:1 ratio of chargers would lower the cost of installation and chargers significantly, saving an estimated $26.6 million. 106 of 258

97 Table 45. Summary of Charger and Installation Costs at Priority Sites, 2040 Facility GWP
Upgrades Design Charging
Equipment Installation Total Costs
by Facility
Public
Works Yard 8,500,000 250,000 1,857,210 2,353,572 12,960,782 City Hall
Complex 300,000 250,000 853,291 1,720,495 3,123,786
GWP Utility
Operations
Center
250,000 250,000 2,088,415 2,905,297 5,493,712
Integrated
Waste Yard 8,500,000 250,000 2,211,462 1,783,230 12,744,692 Fire Station
21 225,000 250,000 439,995 538,020 1,453,015
Police
Parking Lot 4,100,000 250,000 17,538,585 10,587,179 32,475,764 Other
Locations 2,097,591 601,999 2,699,591
TOTAL 21,875,000 1,500,000 27,086,549 20,489,792 70,951,341 Total Cost, 2040 Scenario
Figure 85 provides the annual cost over time throughout the 2040 transition scenario, including the Acacia Station upgrade. For the analysis, CTE assumed the Acacia Station upgrade would occur over two years beginning in 2026. The actual construction timeline will be determined in collaboration with GWP. The first year of the scenario has the highest cost because as all selected facilities incur a full design and installation to prepare for approximately half the planned chargers. The second design build out for the individual facilities is spread over the years from 2031 through 2033. The remainder of this section outlines the cost for the 2040 Scenario by facility.

107 of 258

98 Figure 85. Total Infrastructure Costs for the 2040 Transition Scenario Public Works Yard
Figure 86 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Public Works Yard.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2031. The Acacia Station upgrade in 2026-2027 results in significantly higher costs in those years compared to the rest of the transition timeline.

Figure 86. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Public Works Yard, 2040 Transition Scenario $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
108 of 258

99 City Hall Complex
Figure 87 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the City Hall Complex.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2032.

Figure 87. Annual Infrastructure cost for the City Hall Complex, 2040 Transition Scenario GWP Utility Operations Center
Figure 88 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the GWP Utility Operations Center. Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2031.

Figure 88. Annual Infrastructure cost for the GWP Utility Operations Center, 2040 Transition Scenario
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
109 of 258

100

Integrated Waste Yard
Figure 89 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Integrated Waste Yard.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2029. Half the cost of the Acacia Station upgrade is included in 2026 and 2027, resulting in significantly higher costs during those years.

Figure 89. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Integrated Waste Yard, 2040 Transition Scenario
Fire Station 21
Figure 90 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Fire Station 21. Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2030. $0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
110 of 258

101

Figure 90. Annual Infrastructure cost for Fire Station 21, 2040 Transition Scenario Police Parking Lot
Figure 91 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Police Parking Lot.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2030.

Figure 91. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Police Parking Lot, 2040 Transition Scenario $0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
111 of 258

102

100% EV Fleet by 2035
Table 46 provides the summary of costs at each facility for the 2035 Scenario, including the Acacia Station upgrade. As with the 2040 Scenario, the cost for the Acacia Station upgrade is split between the two facilities that it supplies, the Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Yard. The highest cost site is the Police Parking Lot, where chargers installed for the pursuit vehicles are DC 150 kW to meet the challenge of fast charging.

Total charging infrastructure costs are estimated to be more than $66.8 million at a 1:1 ratio. This estimate represents a maximum cost scenario. Using a 2:1 ratio of chargers would lower the cost of installation and chargers significantly, saving an estimated $22.4 million.

Table 46. Summary of Charger and Installation Costs at Priority Sites, 2035 Facility GWP
Upgrades Design Charging
Equipment Installation Total Costs
by Facility
Public
Works Yard 8,500,000 250,000 1,547,179 1,946,867 12,244,046 City Hall
Complex 300,000 250,000 808,183 1,654,028 3,012,211
GWP Utility
Operations
Center
250,000 250,000 935,592 1,941,297 3,376,889
Integrated
Waste Yard 8,500,000 250,000 2,064,200 1,703,968 12,518,168 Fire Station
21 225,000 250,000 423,723 501,590 1,400,313
Police
Parking Lot 4,100,000 250,000 17,418,093 10,702,235 32,470,328 Other
Locations 1,297,683 480,821 1,778,504
TOTAL 21,875,000 1,500,000 24,494,653 18,930,806 66,800,459 112 of 258

103

Total Costs, 2035 Scenario
Figure 92 provides the annual cost over time throughout the 2035 transition scenario, including the Acacia Station upgrade. As with the 2040 Scenario, CTE assumed the Acacia Station upgrade would occur over two years beginning in 2026. The first year of the scenario has the highest cost because all selected facilities incur a full design and installation of trenching, conduits, and stubbing out of approximately half the planned chargers. The second design build out for the individual facilities is spread over the years from 2028 through 2031. The remainder of this section outlines the cost by facility.

Figure 92. Total Infrastructure Costs for the 2035 Transition Scenario Public Works Yard
Figure 93 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Public Works Yard.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2031. The individual chargers are spread out over the period to coincide with the delivery of the EVs. $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
113 of 258

104

Figure 93. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Public Works Yard, 2035 Transition Scenario

City Hall Complex
Figure 94 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the City Hall Complex.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2030.

Figure 94. Annual Infrastructure cost for the City Hall Complex, 2035 Transition Scenario $0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
114 of 258

105

GWP Utility Operations Center
Figure 95 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the GWP Utility Operation Center. Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2030.

Figure 95. Annual Infrastructure cost for the GWP Utility Operations Canter, 2035 Transition Scenario
Integrated Waste Yard
Figure 96 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Integrated Waste Yard.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2029. $0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
115 of 258

106

Figure 96. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Integrated Waste Yard, 2035 Transition Scenario
Fire Station 21
Figure 97 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Fire Station 21. Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2030.

Figure 97. Annual Infrastructure cost for Fire Station 21, 2035 Transition Scenario $0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
116 of 258

107

Police Parking Lot
Figure 98 shows the estimated annual infrastructure costs for the Police Parking Lot.

Design Phase 1 happens during the first year and Phase 2 is scheduled for 2029.

Figure 98. Annual Infrastructure cost for the Police Parking Lot, 2035 Transition Scenario

Fuel Assessment
The Fuel Assessment estimates fuel consumption and costs for electricity. This assessment calculates fuel costs using estimated annual energy requirements per vehicle and demand based on the number of chargers at each location for each year of the transition which are used as the basis for estimating cost under Glendale Water and Power’s PC-1-B Time-of- Use Service Rate. CTE completed this analysis for the two zero-emission fleet transition scenarios: the 2035 target and 2040 target. The analysis produced estimates of the fuel costs for each projected fleet composition through the transition period. Operation and maintenance costs for charging infrastructure are also included. Fuel cost estimates are based on the assumptions shown in Table 47.

$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Installation Chargers Design GWP Upgrades
117 of 258

108

Table 47 - Fuel Cost Assumptions
Glendale Water and Power PC-1-B Time-of-Use Service Rate Cost Customer Charge - per meter per day $5.8200
Energy Charges - per kWh
July through October (High Season)
Base Period *
Peak Period **
KVAR - Per kVar per day
Demand - Per kW (maximum kW reading for last 12 months) per day

$0.0714
$0.2008
$0.0040
$0.8200
November through June (Low Season)
Base Period *
Peak Period ***
KVAR - Per kVar per day
Demand - Per kW (maximum kW reading for last 12 months) per day

$0.0714
$0.1163
$0.0040
$0.5800
* Base Period: All other times, including all weekend hours and all Holidays ** High Season Peak Period: 2:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m., Monday - Friday (excluding Holidays) *** Low Season Peak Period: 12:00 p.m. - 8:59 p.m., Monday - Friday (excluding Holidays) The primary source of energy for an EV is often the local electrical grid. Glendale Power and Water is the electricity provider, or utility, for the city. Glendale Power and Water charges customers for energy consumption, measured in kWh, using a time-of-use (TOU) rate. Under a TOU rate, the cost per kWh of electricity varies by time of day with overnight rates being the lowest in the daily cycle.

Demand charges are the costs incurred by an agency’s peak power demand. Peak demand is defined as the maximum amount of energy that a customer pulls from the grid for any 15-minute window within a month. Demand charges are then applied on a per-kW basis to that maximum demand. Demand charges are applied to the maximum estimated demand at each location. Demand is driven by the power and number of chargers since a higher power charger will pull more power from the grid and more chargers operating simultaneously will also pull more power than a single charger. For example, a 150kW charger will create 118 of 258

109

more demand than a 50kW charger and three 50kW chargers operating simultaneously would create more demand than a single 50kW charger.

As Glendale adds more vehicles and chargers, the energy consumption and the peak power demand both increase. Electricity rates also vary throughout the year and throughout the day, making costs highly variable if charging is not managed. Charge management strategies aim to minimize charging costs by taking advantage of this variability. Charge management strategies include charging vehicles during times of day at which rates are lower and avoiding demand charges by spreading out the number of vehicles charging at once to minimize increases in peak power demand. For this reason, CTE assumes that Glendale will charge vehicles only overnight to avoid higher charges during the day. The one exception to this is the Police vehicle charging, which is expected to occur evenly throughout all hours of the day due to the vehicle demands. CTE’s analysis also assumes that no more than 50% of Glendale’s fleet will ever be charging at a given time to help reduce demand costs. The effect of increasing or decreasing the number of vehicles allowed to charge simultaneously can be seen in Figure 99(2040 Scenario) and Figure 100 (2035 Scenario).

Figure 99. Vehicle to Charger Ratio Cost Impact, 2040 Transition Scenario

$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$7,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$9,000,000.00
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Annual Fuel Cost
Year
100% of vehicles operating simultaneously (1:1 charger ratio) 50% of vehicles operating simultaneously (2:1 charger ratio) 25% of vehicles charging simultaneously (4:1 charger ratio) 119 of 258

110

Figure 100. Vehicle to Charger Ratio Cost Impact, 2035 Transition Scenario

Total Fuel Cost
Figure 101 shows the total annual expense to charge the municipal EV fleet over time across all charging locations. By these estimates, annual expenses will increase from the present annual cost of around $20 thousand to $2.7 million per year in 2040. Figure 102 shows the total annual expense to charge the fleet for the 2035 Scenario. By these estimates, annual expenses will increase from the present annual cost of around $26 thousand to $2.6 million per year in 2035.

$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$7,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Annual Fuel Cost
Year
100% of vehicles operating simultaneously (1:1 charger ratio) 50% of vehicles operating simultaneously (2:1 charger ratio) 25% of vehicles charging simultaneously (4:1 charger ratio) 120 of 258

111

Figure 101. Glendale Annual Fuel Costs, 2040 Scenario

Figure 102. Glendale Annual Fuel Costs, 2035 Scenario
EVs are generally at least four times as efficient as ICEs. However, while generally favorable, the cost of electricity can sometimes be higher than fossil fuels. Utility rates vary $-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$4,500,000.00
2022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Fuel Expense
Year
PWY City Hall GWP IWY FS21 Police
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
20222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 Fuel Expense
Year
PWY City Hall GWP IWY FS21 Police
121 of 258

112

significantly across the county based on generation mix and local demand. With proper planning, fleets can take advantage of low utility rates by charging overnight during off- peak hours. We’ve estimated the impact of each scenario using electricity as a fuel instead of fossil fuel, as shown below in Figure 103, Figure 104, Figure 105, and Figure 106.

Figure 103. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario

Figure 104. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2040 Scenario $-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$4,500,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
$-
$10,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$50,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$70,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
122 of 258

113

Figure 105. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario

Figure 106. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline, 2035 Scenario $-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$4,500,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE Fuel EV Fuel Baseline Fuel
123 of 258

114

Charging Analysis
To accurately estimate energy consumption, peak power demand, and resultant costs, CTE conducted simulations of charging at each location for each year of the transition. Electrical energy consumption and peak power demand were estimated based on current annual energy requirements by vehicle and projections of EV purchases. CTE then used Glendale Power and Water’s tariff schedules to calculate the annual cost of charging. This annual cost is evaluated for each year of the study (2022–2040) to obtain a total charging cost of vehicles for the transition period. This estimate of total charging cost is used as the total fuel cost for the growing number of battery-electric vehicles in the municipal fleet over time.

The results of CTE’s analysis are presented as a series of graphs, the first of which is the Facility Consumption graph, which demonstrates how the annual energy consumption increases over time as more vehicles are electrified. This energy consumption represents the amount of energy consumed by the vehicles as fuel.

Next, the Facility Demand graph for each location illustrates the demand at each location increasing over time as more chargers are added to support the increasing number of EVs.

As previously mentioned, demand is dependent on the quantity and power of chargers at the location. For this reason, the demand is broken out by charger power to illustrate the proportion of the demand that can be attributed to each charger type. Under Glendale Water and Power’s PC-1-B Time-of-Use Service Rate, demand is a large component of the costs associated with the rate and managing demand is very important for managing electricity costs. These graphs present the demand under a 2:1 charger ratio, meaning that two vehicles are assumed to use the same charger or that half of the vehicles ever charge at one time. In this way, the demand is cut in half to help manage costs. The facilities assessment assumes a 1:1 charger ratio, so the assumption is that charge management will be used to manage demand by limiting the number of chargers that can operate simultaneously.

Finally, the third graph presents the combined costs of the energy consumed and demand, as well as the meter costs and charger maintenance, which is estimated at $2,800 per charger per year. The costs are broken out by the costs associated with demand from the various charger types and the costs incurred through consumption. 2040 Transition Scenario
In the 2040 scenario, EVs are purchased and deployed according to the schedules outlined in the fleet assessment with the goal of transitioning the municipal fleet to zero-emission vehicles by 2040 as the required vehicle types become commercially available. The estimated energy consumption, demand and cost associated with each location are 124 of 258

115

summarized in the figures below. This information is broken out into three separate graphs for each location.

Public Works Yard

Figure 107. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 125 of 258

116

Figure 108. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 109. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario

City Hall

$0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
126 of 258

117

Figure 110. City Hall Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 111. City Hall Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 112. City Hall Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
127 of 258

118

GWP Ops Center

Figure 113. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 128 of 258

119

Figure 114. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 115. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario Integrated Waste Yard

$0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
$1,000.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
129 of 258

120

Figure 116. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 117. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 118. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
130 of 258

121

Fire Station 21

Figure 119. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 120. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 131 of 258

122

Figure 121. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario Police Parking Lot

Figure 122. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Consumption, 2040 Transition Scenario

$0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
132 of 258

123

Figure 123. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Demand, 2040 Transition Scenario

Figure 124. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Cost, 2040 Transition Scenario

0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
133 of 258

124

2035 Fuel Assessment
In the 2035 scenario, EVs are purchased and deployed according to the schedules outlined in the fleet assessment with the goal of transitioning the municipal fleet to zero-emission vehicles by 2035 as the required vehicle types become commercially available. The estimated energy consumption, demand and cost associated with each location are summarized in the figures below. This information is broken out into three separate graphs for each location.

Public Works Yard

Figure 125. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
134 of 258

125

Figure 126. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 127. Public Works Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
135 of 258

126

City Hall

Figure 128. City Hall Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 129. City Hall Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 136 of 258

127

Figure 130. City Hall Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario GWP Ops Center

Figure 131. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
137 of 258

128

Figure 132. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 133. GWP Ops Center Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
138 of 258

129

Integrated Waste Yard

Figure 134. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 135. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario

0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 139 of 258

130

Figure 136. Integrated Waste Yard Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario

Fire Station 21

Figure 137. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
140 of 258

131

Figure 138. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 139. Fire Station 21 Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario

0 50
100
150
200
250
300Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers $0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
141 of 258

132

Police Parking Lot

Figure 140. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Consumption, 2035 Transition Scenario

Figure 141. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Demand, 2035 Transition Scenario

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Energy Use (MWh)
Facility Consumption
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000Demand (kW)
Demand <20kW chargers Demand 50kW chargers Demand 150kW chargers 142 of 258

133

Figure 142. Police Parking Lot Annual Electricity Cost, 2035 Transition Scenario Benefits Assessment
Maintenance Cost Potential Savings
Manufacturers and industry sources report that EVs should realize maintenance savings over that of their conventional baseline counterparts. In the early stages of deployment, CTE has not documented this savings, but expects savings in the long term once the industry matures. EVs have an advantage over ICE with respect to maintenance due to fewer moving parts, no fluids to replace, and less frequent brake changes due to regenerative braking. Although there is very little data, we estimate that fleets can save approximately 30% on maintenance over the life of the vehicle. Switching from conventionally fueled vehicles to EVs has other benefits that are less easy to quantify. Over time, the City should expect savings from the reduced need for engine oil and costs associated with used oil storage and disposal.

The estimated annual maintenance cost compared to baseline vehicles for the 2040 and 2035 Scenarios is provided below in Figure 143 and Figure 144 respectively. Cumulative costs for each scenario are provided in Figure 145. and Figure 146. Cumulative maintenance costs in the 2040 EV scenario are estimated at $213.8 million, a cumulative savings of $37.4 million over the Baseline scenario. Cumulative maintenance costs in the 2035 EV scenario are estimated at $212.7 million, a cumulative savings of $38.5 million over the Baseline scenario.
$0.0
$200.0
$400.0
$600.0
$800.0
$1,000.0
$1,200.0
Annual Fuel Cost
Thousands
Year
Energy Consumption <20kW Charger Demand
50kW Charger Demand 150kW Charger Demand
143 of 258

134

Figure 143. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040

Figure 144. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035

$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
144 of 258

135

Figure 145. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040

Figure 146. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2035 Emissions Reductions
Reduction of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions are one of the benefits of operating EVs.

EVs produce zero tail-pipe emissions, however well-to-wheel emissions depend on how the $-
$50,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$150,000,000.00
$200,000,000.00
$250,000,000.00
$300,000,000.00
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
$-
$20,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$80,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$120,000,000.00
$140,000,000.00
$160,000,000.00
$180,000,000.00
ICE Maintenance EV Maintenance Baseline Maintenance
145 of 258

136

electricity is produced. CTE uses the AFLEET2 tool to estimate emissions based on the current use of the City’s baseline vehicles. the Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool was developed by the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory to aid stakeholders in estimating petroleum use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air pollutant emissions, and cost of ownership of light- duty and heavy-duty vehicles. The tool calculates well-to-wheel emissions for both EV and conventional fueled vehicles.

CTE analyzed the baseline fleet data to determine the estimated miles per year for each type of vehicle. New EVs will be purchased to replace current conventional fueled vehicles, therefore the service, and resulting mileage would be roughly the same. CTE reviewed the vehicle class assigned by the City and matched those with the classes used in the AFLEET tool. Table 49 shows the matchup for the City’s fleet along with the recommended fuel economy by class.

Table 48. Fuel economy assumptions used for emission savings calculations Glendale Vehicle Class AFLEET Vehicle Class FE Recommended kWh/100 miles
Compact Passenger Car 44
Midsize Passenger Car 36
Truck Passenger Truck 49
SUV Passenger Car 31
Vans Passenger Car 49
Motorcycles Passenger Car 20
Other Light Commercial Truck 50

To estimate emissions for charging the EVs, CTE used the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Grid Mix (Table 50). More than 42% of the power generated by this mix comes

2 AFLEET web site: https://afleet.es.anl.gov/home/
146 of 258

137

from renewable sources such as solar and wind. Natural gas makes up 31% of the power, with coal rounding out the mix at 17%.

Table 49. Western electricity coordinating council grid mix Energy Source Percent
Residual Oil 0.1%
Natural Gas 31.2%
Coal 17.4%
Nuclear Power 8.4%
Biomass 0.5%
Other (Wind, Solar,
Hydro, etc.) 42.4%

Outputs from the AFLEET tool include emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter. The emissions over time for the 2040 Scenario are seen in Figure 147, Figure 148, and Figure 149. The emission over time for the 2035 Scenario are shown in Figure 150, Figure 151, and Figure 152.
147 of 258

138

2040 Scenario

Figure 147. Estimated Emission Reduction of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2040 Scenario 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
NOx PM10 SOx
148 of 258

139

Figure 149. CO Emissions Over Time, 2040 Scenario
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
CO
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
GHGs
Figure 148. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Over Time, 2040 Scenario 149 of 258

140

2035 Scenario

Figure 150. Estimated Emission Reduction of NOx, SOx, PM 10, 2035 Scenario

Figure 151. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Over Time, 2035 Scenario 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
NOx PM10 SOx
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
GHGs
150 of 258

141

Figure 152. CO Emissions Over Time, 2035 Scenario

Cost Assessment
Transition Costs
As a result of the City’s asset replacement schedule, duty cycle feasibility, vehicle type suitability, and the City’s transition goals, Table 50 outlines the annual number of EVs purchased that represent first-time replacement of ICE with EVs for a given vehicle for each scenario. Tracking the first-time cost of replacing conventional vehicles with EVs is important to understand the cost to transition.

0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Emissions (lbs.)
Year
CO
151 of 258

142

Table 50. First Time EV Procurements for each Scenario
Year 2035 EV
Procurements
2040 EV
Procurements
2023 8 8
2024 20 20
2025 35 35
2026 56 36
2027 24 24
2028 44 34
2029 54 54
2030 126 98
2031 125 133
2032 50 62
2033 49 56
2034 81 86
2035 62 71
2036 38 51
2037 24 25
2038 10 12
2039 6 6
2040 9 10

Figure 153 shows the first-time EV procurement quantities each year for the two scenarios, and Figure 154 shows the annual cost associated with the first-time EV procurements each year by scenario.
152 of 258

143

Figure 153. First Time EV Procurement Quantities

Figure 154. First Time Procurement EV Amounts
Total Transition Cost is the total incremental cost of first-time EV replacements plus total EV infrastructure costs. It represents the incremental capital funding required to transition to an all-electric fleet. Figure 155 provides the total cumulative transition cost for the 2040 scenario which is estimated at $124.3 million.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2035 Scenario 2040 Scenario
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
2035 Scenario 2040 Scenario
153 of 258

144

Figure 155. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2040 Scenario

Figure 156 provides the total cumulative transition cost for the 2035 scenario which is estimated at $107.1 million. Because this scenario does not complete the transition to 100% EVs, additional costs will be incurred for installing the remainder of the charging infrastructure.

Figure 156. Cumulative Transition Costs, 2035 Scenario

$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
Cumulative Incremental Fleet Costs Cumulative EV Infrastructure Costs $-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Cumulative Incremental Fleet Costs Cumulative EV Infrastructure Costs 154 of 258

145

Total Cost of Ownership
The City’s TCO for EV Transition considers the total capital investment for the replacement vehicles over the transition period, including both ICEs and EVs, the upgrade of utility service to each facility, the design and construction of charging infrastructure, and the purchase and installation of chargers. The TCO also includes the total fuel and maintenance operating costs over the transition period. Fuel costs include all fuel types over the transition period including electricity, diesel, gasoline, and CNG. Maintenance cost includes maintenance of both ICE and EVs. The goal of the TCO analysis is to assess the impact that EV transition will have on both operating and capital costs for the entire fleet.

While fuel and maintenance costs are likely to be lower, it usually does not offset the incremental capital costs. Taking into count the previous analyses of cost, Figure 157 and Figure 158 provide the total cost of ownership for the 2035 and 2040 Transition Scenarios. As the number of EVs in the fleet increase, the costs per year increase.

Figure 157. Annual Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2040 2035 Baseline
155 of 258

146

Figure 158. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario

Funding Strategies
Below are potential zero-emission vehicle and infrastructure funding opportunities available to the city of Glendale, CA. Use the links provided to find more information about the funding programs as well as information on how to apply.

HVIP: HVIP provides point-of-sale vouchers to buyers to allow zero emission vehicles to be more affordable. Voucher requests are currently open. While funding specifically allocated to drayage trucks and school buses have been fully subscribed, they can still be accepted and funded using the Standard HVIP funds. Eligible vehicles include: shuttle buses, vans, step vans, utility vehicles, box trucks, flatbed trucks, tractors, and more. Before applying, applicants will need to look through the vehicle catalog to view the electric vehicles that are approved for the program. Once $-
$100,000,000.00
$200,000,000.00
$300,000,000.00
$400,000,000.00
$500,000,000.00
$600,000,000.00
$700,000,000.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2040 2035 Baseline
156 of 258

147

a vehicle is chosen, the applicant will contact the approved dealer(s) to set up a purchase. Dealers will apply for the program on the purchaser’s behalf.3 https://californiahvip.org/funding/#:~:text=HVIP%20will%20reserve%20%2425 %20million,to%20fleets%20of%20any%20size,
https://californiahvip.org/purchasers/

VW Environmental Mitigation Trust Funding: The VW Environmental Trusts p
rovides over $400 million in funds to California for the state to mitigate excess nitrogen oxide emissions within the atmosphere that are caused by VW’s illegal use of emissions testing defeat devices in some of the VW diesel vehicles. This funding is allocated mostly on “scrap and replace” projects for heavy duty vehicles such as school buses, shuttle buses, forklifts, and more. Funding from this project requires the existing vehicles/engines, except for ocean-going vessel shore power and light- duty zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, to be scrapped and replaced with zero emission vehicles.4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/volkswagen- environmental-mitigation-trust-california/how-apply-vw-environmental

LCFS ZEV Infrastructure Crediting: A zero-emission vehicle infrastructure crediting provision was added to the 2018 LCFS amendments in order to support zero-emission vehicle deployments. This new provision allows users to generate LCFS credit for all fuel dispensed along with infrastructure credits, which is calculated by subtracting the amount of dispensed fuel from the capacity of the station or charger. This provision applies to hydrogen refueling infrastructure and direct current fast charging infrastructure.5

3 “Funding Updates - Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project: California HVIP.” Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project | California HVIP, August 23, 2022. https://californiahvip.org/funding/#:~:text=HVIP%20will%20reserve%20%2425%20million,to%20f leets%20of%20any%20size., “Purchasers - Hy brid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project: California HVIP.” Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project | California HVIP, August 19, 2022. https://californiahvip.org/purchasers/. 4 “How to Apply for VW Environmental Mitigation Trust Funding.” How to Apply for VW Environmental Mitigation Trust Funding. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our - work/programs/volkswagen-environmental-mitigation-trust-california/how-apply-vw- environmental.
5 “California Air Resources Board.” LCFS ZEV Infrastructure Crediting | California Air Resources Board.

Accessed August 23, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs- zev-infrastructure- crediting.
157 of 258

148

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-zev-infrastructure-crediting, https://www.srectrade.com/markets/lcfs/california

Electric Vehicle (EV) Rebate Program: Through the Clean Fuel Reward Program, CARB offers point-of-sale rebates of up to $750 for the purchase or lease of a battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. To be eligible for this rebate, the electric vehicle will need to have a battery capacity of at least 5 kWh and be purchased from participating retailers. Also, the buyer/leaser must reside in California and have the electric vehicle registered in California.
6 https://www.cleanfuelreward.com/

National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program: This program provides funding to states to strategically deploy electric vehicle charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability. There is $5 billion available in funding.7 https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and- financing/federal-funding-programs

Discretionary Grant Program for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure ($2.5 billion): This competitive grant program provides funding to strategically deploy publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure and other alternative fueling infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors. At least 50 percent of this funding must be used for a community grant program where priority is given to projects that expand access to EV charging and alternative fueling infrastructure within rural areas, low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, and communities with a low ratio of private parking
spaces.8 https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure- funding-and-financing/federal-funding-programs

The EPA’s DERA Program funds grants and rebates: This program protects human health and improve air quality by reducing harmful emissions from diesel engines. The program can be used to replace heavy-duty diesel vehicles and

6 “Make Your Best Deal. Then Save up to $750 More.” California Clean Fuel Reward | EV Rebates and Incentives. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://www.cleanfuelreward.com/. 7 “Federal Funding Programs.” U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and-financing/federal- funding-programs.
8 “Federal Funding Programs.” U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and-financing/federal- funding-programs.
158 of 258

149

equipment with electric vehicles and chargers. DERA has multiple grant programs for different types of applicants and projects including National Grants, Tribal and Insular Area Grants, State Grants, and School Bus Rebates.9 https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and- financing/federal-funding-programs

Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP): The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project for Fleets offers rebates to public agencies, including local or state government entities in California for the purchase or lease of new, eligible zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicles. This program is sponsored by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy. At the time of lease or purchase, the vehicles must be new and operated and registered in the state of California for at least 30 months. Leased vehicles must be on a 30-month minimum agreement. Additionally, vehicles must be on the CVRP list of eligible vehicles.

Facilities in disadvantaged communities in CA are eligible for increased rebates.10 https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/en/fleet/public-agencies

Southern California Incentive Project (SCIP): The Southern Incentive Project (SCIP) offers rebates to entities in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties for the purchase and installation of eligible public electric vehicle chargers. There is currently $29 million available in funds. Rebates include up to $70,000 per DC fast charger (DCFC) and up to $40,000 per DC fast charger.

Some disadvantaged communities are eligible for rebates up to $80,000 per DC fast charger installation or 80% of total project cost, depending on the prices. Eligible applicants include public or government entities.
11 https://calevip.org/incentive-
project/southern-california

9 “Federal Funding Programs.” U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and-financing/federal- funding-programs.
10 “Public Fleets.” Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/en/fleet/public-agencies. 11 “Southern California Incentive Project (SCIP).” CALeVIP. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://calevip.org/incentive-project/southern-california.

159 of 258

150

Appendix A: City of Glendale Vehicle Market
Analysis
Fleet Summary
The City of Glendale’s (“Glendale”) fleet is comprised of 868 passenger-vehicles with an additional 155 trailers, parade vehicles, and equipment. The non-bus fleet is critical in the operations of the city’s services and revenue producing fleets.

This section describes the vehicles used in the Glendale fleet, including physical characteristics and operating profiles of the vehicles relevant to assessing suitable electric alternatives. Analyzing the following variables is important for understanding whether a zero-emission alternative is available to replace Glendale’s existing fleet:
 Passenger capacity
 ADA compliance
 Typical distance and time traveled per pullout
 Typical energy use per pullout
CTE analyzed the operational and deployment characteristics to assess the feasibility of zero-emission vehicles to meet requirements of Glendale’s fleet and to develop a timeline for the transition.

Vehicle Types
Glendale’s vehicles have been categorized into light-duty, medium-duty, heavy-duty, pursuit, and non-road vehicles. The specific vehicle and equipment types that make up each of these six categories are described below.

Light-Duty
Motorcycles. Motorcycles serve a variety of purposes including long-range travel, sport, and commuting. It is classified as a two or three wheeled motor vehicle. The City of Glendale operates 30 motorcycles in its fleet.

Sedans: Sedans are a broad group of vehicles built on standard car chassis, often with a sedan body. Sedans typically seat four to five passengers maximum. Because of their small size, passenger cars do not typically have space for wheelchairs or a wheelchair lift.

The fleet consist of 108 sedans in total.

Pickup Trucks: Pickup trucks are motor vehicles with towing capacity that have an open cargo area in the rear. The chassis is typically constructed of channel or tubular rails and has the cab separated from the cargo section, which allows the chassis to flex under stress. Pickups are classified according to their payloads; the current categories in North 160 of 258

151

America include half-ton, three-quarter-ton, 1-ton, and 1-and-a-half-ton.12 The Glendale fleet consists of 138 pickup trucks, making it the largest category that makes up the light duty vehicles.

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs): SUVs are often built on a light-duty truck chassis with a larger-volume body. These vehicles typically accommodate five to seven ambulatory passengers and can be equipped with a wheelchair lift. Glendale operates 39 SUVs in its fleet.

Vans: Vans are road vehicles used for transporting people and goods. There are 26 cargo mini-vans and 6 passenger mini-vans in the Glendale fleet to equal a total of 32 vans in the fleet.

Refuse Bin Trucks: Refuse trucks are light duty, utility vehicles that serve the sole purpose of removing waste. Glendale operates 8 refuse bin trucks in its fleet.

Medium-Duty
Medium-Duty Trucks: Medium-duty trucks are motor vehicles that refer to truck Classes 6-7, which have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) range of 19,501- 33,000 lbs. Medium-duty trucks are used for lighter duty applications such as pickup and delivery trucks, small utility bodies, service bodies, small dump trucks, and lighter garbage truck applications due to a tight turning radius. Medium-duty trucks are ideal for almost any industry due to customizable features such as cab configurations, bodies, and chassis-mounted equipment.
13 Glendale has 96 medium-duty trucks including 67 pick-up trucks, 24 dump trucks, 3 mini-pumper fire trucks, and 2 other emergency vehicles.

Medium-Duty Vans/Buses: Medium-duty vans are on-road vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 10,001 lbs. to 26,000 lbs. Medium-duty vans can be used in passenger and cargo applications. Glendale has 41medium-duty vans.

Heavy-Duty
Heavy-Duty Trucks: Heavy-duty trucks are motor vehicles that refer to truck Class 8, which have a gross vehicle weight rating of 33,001+ lbs. Applications include 18- wheelers, sleeper cabs, dump trucks, and tractor trailers. 14 There are 122 heavy-duty
trucks in the Glendale fleet including 5 dump trucks, 16 flatbed trucks, 10 manlift trucks,

12 https://www.kbb.com/what-is/pickup-truck/
13 https://freightliner.com/blog-and-newsletters/what-is-a-medium-duty-truck/ 14 https://www.inlandtruck.com/blog/trucking-industry/heavy-duty-truck-classifications- explained/
5https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/hybrid-utility/
161 of 258

152

7 crane trucks, 8 heavy trucks, 44 refuse trucks, 2 roll-off trucks, 25 emergency/firetrucks, and 5 street sweepers.

Pursuit Vehicles
Sedan – Pursuit: Sedan-pursuit vehicles are similar to general sedans, but are pursuit- rated (program designed by Ford) for police interceptor applications. The vehicle can sit 5 passengers. Pursuit vehicles may also include flashing lights. 15 There are 107 sedan-
pursuit vehicles in the Glendale fleet.

SUV – Pursuit: SUV-pursuit vehicles are similar to general SUVs, but are pursuit-rated (program designed by Ford) for police interceptor applications. The vehicle can sit 5 passengers. Pursuit vehicles may also include flashing lights. 16 The Glendale fleet has 31
SUV-pursuit vehicles.

Non-Road Vehicles
Non-road vehicles are used for a variety of reasons including park maintenance, construction, public works projects, electric and water services, traffic safety, etc.

Glendale’s non-road fleet is comprised of 4 compressors, 102 trailers, 7 utility sweepers, 1 undefined police vehicle, 13 electric carts, 21 utility trucksters, 11 mowers, 8 bunker rakes, 23 loaders, 12 mobile construction equipment vehicles, 2 compact excavators, 12 forklifts, 3 parade antiques, and 32 miscellaneous engines.

Fleet Type Breakdown
Figure 1 shows a breakdown of Glendale’s fleet by category. Light-duty vehicles make up the largest portion of the fleet (50%) followed by pursuit vehicles at 16%, heavy duty vehicles at 14%, non-road vehicles at 11%, and medium duty vehicles at 9%.

15 https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/hybrid-police-responder/

162 of 258

153

Figure A1. Glendale Fleet by Vehicle and Equipment Type Figure 2 separates the light-duty fleet by subcategory, with the largest 9% (81) of which are sedans and 7% (60) compact pickups. The remaining subcategories (1 ton pickup, ½ ton pickup, ¾ ton pickup, cargo van, dump truck, flatbed, heavy truck, manlift truck, mini van, motorcycle, passenger minivan, refuse bin truck, SUV, and standard passenger vehicle) each make up 5% or less of Glendale’s fleet.

Figure A2. Glendale Fleet’s Light-Duty Vehicle Makeup

Light, 50%
Medium,
9%
Heavy, 14%
Pursuit, 16%
Non-road,
11%
Medium
9%
Heavy
14%
Pursuit
16%
Non-road
11%
1 ton Pickup
5%
1/2 ton Pickup
4%
3/4 ton Pickup
5%
Cargo Van
3%
Compact Pickup
7%
Dump Truck
<1%
Flatbed
1%
Heavy
Truck
<1%
Manlift
Truck
<1% Mini
Van
3%
Motorcycle
3%
Passenger
Mini Van
1%
Refuse-
bin
truck
2%Sedan
9%
Standard
Passenger
Van
<1%
SUV
5%
Light 50%
163 of 258

154

Medium-duty vehicles make up 9% (74) of the City of Glendale fleet. These include 14 rescue vehicles, 12 walk-in vans, 12 heavy trucks, 12 dump trucks, 10 flatbeds, 8 manlift trucks, 5 specialty- medium duty vehicles, and one 1-ton pickup. Figure 3 shows this breakdown.

Figure A3. Glendale Fleet’s Medium-Duty Vehicle Makeup
As seen in Figure 4, the Glendale fleet is 14% (125) heavy duty vehicles. These include 44 refuse trucks, 16 fire engines, 15 dump trucks, 14 heavy trucks, 10 manlift trucks, 7 crane trucks, 6 emergency specialty vehicles, 5 street sweepers, 4 ladder trucks, 2 roll-off trucks, 1 flatbed, and 1 walk-in van.

Light
50%
Heavy
14%
Pursuit
16%
Non-road
11%
1 ton
Pickup
<1%
Dump Truck
1%Flatbed
1%
Heavy Truck
1%
Manlift Truck
1%
Rescue
2% Specialty - Medium
1%
Walk-in
Van
1%Medium
9%
164 of 258

155

Figure A4. Glendale Fleet's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Makeup
The Glendale also has police pursuit vehicles that make up 16% (138) of the fleet – 15% (127) of which are SUVs and the remaining 1% (11) Sedans (Figure 5).

Figure A5. Glendale Fleet’s Pursuit Vehicle Makeup
There are a variety of non-road vehicles within the Glendale fleet. See Figure 6 for a breakdown of the different types.

Light
50%
Medium
9%
Pursuit
16%
Non-road
11%
Crane Truck
1%
Dump Truck
2%Emergency Specialty
1%
Fire
Engine
2%
Flatbed
<1%
Heavy Truck
2%
Ladder Truck
<1%
Manlift Truck
1% Refuse
5%
Roll-off
Truck
<1%
Street
Sweeper
1%
Walk-in Van
<1%
Heavy
14%
Light
50%
Medium
9%
Heavy
14%
Non-road
11%
Sedan
1%
SUV
15%
Pursuit
16%
165 of 258

156

Figure A6. Glendale Fleet’s Non-Road Vehicle Makeup
Light
50%
Medium
9%
Heavy
14% Pursuit
16%
Backhoe/Loaders
2%Bunker Rake
1%
Compact Excavator
<1%
Electric
Cart
2%
Forklift
1%
Mowers
1%
Non-road
<1%
Track Loader
<1%
Utility Sweeper
1%
Utility
Tucksters
2%
Wheel
Loader
<1%
Non-road
10%
166 of 258

157

Types of Electric Vehicles
Battery Electric Vehicles
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are pro pelled by an electric motor using energy from a battery pack. The batteries are recharged by plugging into an electric power source, typically the local electric grid. BEVs emit no tailpipe emissions, however the well to wheel emissions depends on the source of energy to power the energy grid. All electric vehicles typically have a shorter range than conventional vehicle counterparts and can take several hours to fully charge once the battery is depleted. The technology continues to improve for longer range and high-power charging equipment is speeding up charging time.

Fuel Cell-Electric Vehicles
Fuel Cell-Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) like battery electric vehicles—are propelled by an electric motor. The difference between an FCEV and a BEV is that FCEVs gener ate power on board the vehicle using hydrogen and a fuel cell. The only tailpipe emission produced by this process is water vapor, making FCEVs a tank-to-wheel zero-emission vehicle. If the hydrogen consumed by an FCEV is produced using renewable energy, then the upstream emissions are close to zero.

In addition to environmental benefits such as zero tailpipe emissions and quieter operations, FCEVs possess other operational advantages. Because FCEVs generate power on board, they have an operational range similar to diesel buses with the same passenger capacity and performance in all weather and topographies. This similarity translates to a one- to-one FCEV-to-diesel replacement ratio, eliminating the need for an agency to change routes or schedules.

As a new technology, FCEVs come with two significant challenges —high capital costs and hydrogen availability. Commercial hydrogen production is relatively uncommon, operators often need to invest in their own fueling infrastructure. These high capital and operating costs are the primary reasons that more FCEVs have not been deployed by transit agencies in North America. In future years, there may be opportunity for the City of Glendale to pilot FCEVs as procurement and fuel logistics are addressed. For the time being, battery-powered electric vehicles have eclipsed FCEVs in terms of production and availability, especially for light-duty passenger vehicles.

Plug-In Hybrid-Electric Vehicles
Plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) have generally been considered an impo rtant part of the light-duty passenger electric vehicle future. PHEVs typically allow vehicle owners to make short -range trips with the vehicle’s electric motors, while also providing the range 167 of 258

158

security of a fossil fuel engine for longer trips. These capab ilities mean drivers can reduce their fossil fuel consumption without making major travel behavior changes.

The PHEV’s place in the future of light- duty passenger electric vehicles may be fading, however. Ongoing reductions in the per-kWh cost of vehicle batteries, significant consumer demand for long -range electric vehicles, and increases in the number of extended -range electric vehicle models are likely contributing to the current decline in PHEV sales and increasing plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) sales.

Plug-In Electric Vehicles
Plug-in electric vehicles are any vehicles that are recharged from an external source of electricity. Automakers appear to be projecting consumer demand for electric vehicles as favoring PEVs in the future and responding by shifting toward manufacturing extended - range PEVs. Electric automaker Tesla offers only PEVs, and the Chevrolet Volt, which was one of the top-selling North American light-duty passenger EVs, has been discontinued.

As of
the end of 2019, the Tesla Model 3, a PEV , was the top -selling light-duty passenger electric vehicle in the United States. Because PHEVs use the same plug-in charging infrastructure as PEVs, infrastructure development for an eventual 100% PEV fleet could be executed during a PHEV bridge period.

As of mid -2020, very few high -capacity, light- duty passenger PHEV models are on the market. The limited number of high -capacity, light- duty passenger PHEV models and automakers’ growing preference for manufacturing extended -range PHEVs suggests that if City of Glendale were to use PHEVs as a bridge light-duty vehicles, their tenure would likely be short, and vehicle options would be limited.

Vehicle Type Availability
One of the most important factors for transition feasibility is electric vehicle availability.

The market for electric vehicles varies greatly depending on the type of vehicle. A number of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty all-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are available from numerous automakers.

However, there are some vehicle types that are still being piloted or tested.

Table A1 discusses vehicle availability for numerous vehicle types in the Glendale fleet.

168 of 258

159

Table A1. Key Findings for Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability Findings
Glendale’s fleet is made up of a diverse array of vehicles, all of which have varying degrees of electric models currently available. We anticipate that electric vehicles will become more available over the coming years.

Light-Duty Vans: Currently, the only fully electric light-duty van commercially available is the 2022 Ford-E Transit Van. Other models like the Arrival Van, Brightdrop EV600 van, and ELMS Urban Delivery Van are set to launch in late 2022, however, they likely will not be commercially available until 2023 or 2024. Chrysler also announced that it will have a fully electric minivan on the market by 2024 as part of their move to transition to 100% electric. One alternative option to achieve lower emissions is to purchase plug-in hybrid (PHEV) minivans for the current life-cycle replacement. Using the PHEV minivans will not only allow drivers to learn more about electric vehicles without sacrificing range, but it will also encourage Glendale to start the infrastructure investments as well as reduce carbon emissions.

Passenger Cars: There are various electric vehicle options available to replace Glendale’s current passenger vehicle fleet. There should be no limitation to transitioning Glendale’s passenger cars to electric vehicles in the near term.

Pickup Trucks: Electric pickup trucks are on the brink of entering the market. It is expected that more models will be developed and become commercially available over the next few years. Currently the Rivian R1T and Lordstown Endurance are available for preorder, Tesla offers a cybertruck that will be available in 2023, GMC is releasing a pricier Hummer pick-up in late 2022, and Ram announced in early 2022 that they expect to launch a fully electric pick-up truck in 2024. Ford released the 2022 Lightning pickup that has an estimated 230 mile range and is currently available for preorder.

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs): The Hyundai Kona Electric SEL and Kia Niro EV are the largest electric passenger vehicles currently available. As the market develops, we fully anticipate to see more electric SUVs and electric 4-wheel drive vehicles become available.

Based on the available technology, it is feasible to transition Glendale’s SUVs to electric technology.

Medium-Duty Trucks: There are multiple medium duty electric chassis available on the market, though their price point is about 4 times that of their diesel equivalents.

Medium-Duty Vans: Few battery-electric alternatives are currently available for 12- or 15-passenger vans and minivans, and all are likely to cost over $200,000. However, electric cargo and passenger vans are available.
169 of 258

160

Heavy-Duty Trucks: Currently, the BYD 8TT, Lion 8, and Volvo VNR are fully electric Class 8 truck options. However, the electrification of this segment has been slower as a result of the higher energy needs. There are various pilot projects and early announcements from established manufacturers for electric Class 8 trucks happening now.

Pursuit Vehicles: There are no currently available pursuit rated vehicles, however, there are high performing vehicles (Tesla models and the Ford Mach-E) that can be upfitted to perform as needed. Cities around the country have started experimenting with different EV’s as pursuit vehicle options. While the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are amongst some of the more popular vehicles for administrative purposes, the Tesla Model S and Model Y have become common pursuit vehicle replacements. Many of these electric pursuit vehicles are still being put through pilot programs. For example, NYPD is piloting a Tesla Model S, Menlo Park PD is piloting a Tesla Model Y, Westport Connecticut PD purchased a Tesla Model 3, Boulder PD purchased a Tesla Model Y Long Range, and Bargersville, Indiana PD purchased a Tesla Model S in 2018 and three more since then. The electric alternatives have shown to save money long-term, and cities have reported approval of the vehicles. However, outfitting and modifying the Tesla’s for police use has presented a challenge across these different pilot programs and clear results from the pilot programs are still underway.

Attachment I: Market Research
EV Research
An industry review of battery -electric vehicles considered 35 road vehicles that could potentially support City of Glendale non-fleet services, as well as 42 battery electric non-road vehicles and equipment. The assessment considered 14 light-duty vehicles, 21 medium-duty vehicles, 7 heavy-duty vehicles, 7 pursuit vehicles, and 58 non-road vehicles and equipment.

Vehicles identified in this report do not represent a complete inventory of available makes and models but represent promising battery -electric alternatives for existing City of Glendale fleets. Battery -electric vehicle options for service in Glendale’s non- Bus fleets are described on the following pages and separated into five primary categories:
• Light-duty vehicles are small, light -duty, factory- direct passenger vehicl es that accommodate up to seven passengers. Vehicles categorized as light -duty include light-duty vans, sedans, pickup trucks, and SUVs. Light-duty vans can be outfitted with wheelchair lifts but sedans typically cannot. These vehicle types are currently used in City of Glendale fleet programs.
170 of 258

161

• Medium-duty vehicles include medium -duty trucks, vans, and cutaways. Medium - duty trucks are motor vehicles that refer to truck Classes 6 -7, which have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) range of 19,501 to 33,000 lbs. Medium-duty trucks are used for lighter duty applications such as pickup and delivery trucks, small utility bodies, service bodies, small dump trucks, and lighter garbage truck applications requiring a tight turning radius. Medium -duty vans are on- road vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 10,001 lbs. to 26,000 lbs. Medium -duty vans can be used in passenger and cargo applications in transit vans. Cutaways are built on light truck chassis with specialized passenger cabs that accommodate ambulatory passengers, wheelchair passengers, or a mix of the two. These vehicles typically have wheelchair lifts and are commonly used for paratransit service.
• Heavy-duty vehicles include heavy-duty trucks—motor vehicles that refer to truck Class 8, which have a gross vehicle weight rating of 33,001+ lbs. Applications include 18-wheelers, sleeper cabs, dump trucks, and tractor trailers. 17 • Pursuit vehicles refer to both SUVs and sedans that are pursuit- rated (program designed by Ford) for police interceptor applications. These vehicles can sit five passengers. Pursuit vehicles may also include flashing lights. 18 • Non-road vehicles include a variety of vehicles that contain engines, but are designed for use on the roads. These vehicles include stockchasers, forklifts, golf carts, lawnmowers, manlifts, pallet jacks, pressure washers, push tractors, tractors, skid steers, and utility vehicles.

As part of this evaluation, CTE looked at high -level vehicle range per charge and cost ranges for the road vehicles which are provided in Table A2 The information gathered came from a combination of manufacturer and seller marketing materials, press releases, and direct correspondence and conversations. Range figures in particular are often best- case scenarios and not always achieved on a consistent basis.

Table A2. Electric Vehicle Availability Summary Table

17 https://www.inlandtruck.com/blog/trucking-industry/heavy-duty-truck-classifications-explained/ 5https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/hybrid-utility/
18 https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/hybrid-police-responder/ 171 of 258

162

Vehicle Type
Number of Models
Assessed in This
Document
Vehicle Range
(miles) Cost Range
Light-duty Vehicles 14 74-402* $31,600-$69,900
Medium-duty Vehicles 21 66-190 $145,000-$300,000
Heavy-duty Vehicles 7 80-180 $250,000-$525,000
Pursuit Vehicles 7 46-391 $9,495-$105,000

Additional key findings include the following:
• Electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are emerging markets in the U.S. that are in the early stages of development and use. Battery-electric vehicles of these classes are just beginning to be used in the U.S., primarily by municipalities and transit agencies in California.
• Many of the electric vehicles currently available in the medium - and heavy - duty vehicle classes are ‘repowered,’ meaning they are built on an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or factory truck chassis, such as those manufactured by Ford or Chevrolet. These vehicles are rebuilt with third -party electric drivetrains and have specialized passenger bodies installed. The process of rebuilding or ‘repowering’ an OEM chassis with an electric drivetrain involves removing the internal combustion engine and related parts and replacing them with an electric motor and drivetrain.
• Not much experience exists to date with large -scale deployment. There has not been widespread use of these vehicles in the transit industry to date and data is limited on cost and performance.
• Vehicles have limited range and higher costs. The vehicles currently available in the cutaway and van classes have limited driving range between charges and are comparably higher cost than the fossil-fuel alternative. • Few vehicles have been through federal testing. The FTA conducts bus testing, often referred to as Altoona testing. To be eligible for federal funding, vehicles must successfully pass the FTA testing and must also satisfy Buy America guidelines. At the time of this report, one large van (the GreenPower EV Star) had successfully completed Altoona testing. To date, none of the repowered battery-electric ADA paratransit vehicles have yet been Altoona- tested or certified to meet the Buy America requirements.
• Repowered vehicles offer a familiar configuration for customers. Repowered vehicles often maintain the popular passenger body and ramp designs used by conventional ADA paratransit vehicles, and many of the non- drivetrain parts and systems are industry standard.
• Third-party electrification repowers are generally performed by smaller companies that may not be able to offer the warranty, maintenance, and parts 172 of 258

163

support that larger OEMs can provide for factory -direct battery -electric vehicles.

Purchasing and maintaining vehicles from third -party repower manufacturers may be logistically challenging at the scale required to support Glendale’s fleet. 173 of 258

164

Table A3. Light Duty Vehicle Data
Criteria Capacity Wheelchair
Accessible Range Use/Availability Cost
Light-Duty Vehicles
2022 Chevy Bolt
A four-door hatchback that is widely available
in the U.S.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 259 miles Available $31,995 2022 Hyundai Ioniq SE Standard Range
Four-door sedan.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 220 miles Available in CA $39,700 2022 Hyundai Kona Electric
A crossover SUV.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 258 miles Available in CA $34,000 2022 Kia Niro EV
A subcompact crossover vehicle.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 239 miles Available $39,990 2022 Nissan Leaf S, SV, S Plus, and SV Plus
A four-door hatchback in widespread use
throughout the U.S; available in four models
with varying cost, range, and features.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 149-226 miles Available $27,400-$43,970 2021 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell
A four-door fuel cell electric vehicle

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 357-402 Available $49,500-$66,000 2022 Hyundai Nexo Fuel Cell
A four-door fuel cell electric vehicle with the
highest estimated range of any fuel cell vehicle
on the market
Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 380 Available in CA $59,435 174 of 258

165

Ford Mustang Mach-e Select
An electric compact crossover SUV produced
by Ford. The car won the 2021 North
American SUV of the Year Award

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including drivers No 247-300 Available $43,895 2021 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
A seven-passenger plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle. Although not a fully electric vehicle,
its nameplate range without engaging the
internal combustion engine is 32 miles.

Up to seven ambulatory
passengers, including driver No

32 miles using
battery-only Available $36,240-$45,400
2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid
Minivan is built with a standard hybrid-
electric powertrain

Up to seven ambulatory
passengers, including driver
Yes, but must
be installed in
lieu of
ambulatory
seating
Not yet released Available $35,000
Lordstown Endurance
A light-duty pick-up truck.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 250 miles
Limited
availability-
preorder only
$55,000
Tesla Cybertruc
A light-duty pick-up truck.

Up to six ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 250-500 miles
Unavailable until
2023-
Reservations are
now open
$69,900
Rivian R1T Truck
A light-duty pick-up truck.

Up to five ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 314 miles
Limited
availability-
preorder only
$67,500
Ford-E Transit Van
A cargo van that can seat up to seven
Up to seven ambulatory
passengers, including driver
Yes, but must
be installed in
lieu of
ambulatory
seating
74-126 miles Available $47,185

175 of 258

166

Light-Duty Vehicles
Light Duty: Sedans/SUV’s

Chevy Bolt

The 2022 Chevy Bolt is a four-door hatchback that is widely available in the U.S. and has a range of up to 259 miles. The Chevy Bolt EV is smaller compared to the Chevy Bolt EUV which offers a smaller range of 247 miles.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 65kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 259 miles
Length ~14’
Approx. cost $31,995
Availability Available
Source: https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev
Image source: https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/english/index/vehicles/2020/cars/bolt- ev/colorizer/01-images/2020-bolt-2lz-gpj-colorizer.jpg?imwidth=600

Hyundai Ioniq SE Standard Range

The Hyundai Ioniq is four-door, battery-electric sedan
manufactured in South Korea. The 2022 Hyundai Ioniq is four- door, battery-electric sedan manufactured in South Korea. The 2021 edition offers a smaller range of 170 miles but is more affordable with a starting MSRP of $33,245.

176 of 258

167

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 58kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 220 miles
Length 15’
Approx. cost $37,700
Availability Available
Source: <https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-electric>, <https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-electric/compare-specs> Image source: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/build/summary/#/379H1N3O1M0

Hyundai Kona Electric SEL

The Hyundai Kona is a crossover SUV manufactured in South Korea.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 64kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 258 miles
Length ~14’
Approx. cost $34,000
Availability Available
Source: <https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/kona-electric>, <https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/kona-electric/compare-specs> Image source: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/build/summary/#/368A1N1F1Q0

177 of 258

168

Kia Niro EV

The Kia Niro is a subcompact crossover vehicle
manufactured in South Korea.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 64kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 293 miles
Length ~14’
Approx. cost $39,900
Availability Available
Source: <https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro-ev>, <https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro-ev/specs> Image source: https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro-ev/build

Nissan Leaf S, SV, S Plus, SV Plus, and SL Plus

The Nissan Leaf is a four-door hatchback in widespread use throughout the U.S. This vehicle is available in five (5) models with varying cost, range, and features, and is manufactured in Tennessee.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 40kWh-62kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 149-226 miles
Length ~15’
Approx. cost $27,400-$43,970
Availability Available
178 of 258

169

Source: <https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html>, <https://apps.des.wa.gov/CARS/ContractVehicleMenu.aspx> Image source: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf/specs/compare- specs.html#modelName=S|40%20kWh,SL%20PLUS|62%20kWh

2021 Toyota Mirai

The 2021 Toyota Mirai is a zero-emission vehicle
that has a range of up to 402 miles after roughly
five minutes of refueling.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Five, including driver
Lift-capable? No
Battery size n/a
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 402
Length ~16’
Approx. cost $49,500- $66,000
Availability Available
Sources: https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
Image source: https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

2022 Hyundai Nexo Fuel Cell

The 2021 Hyundai Nexo is the world’s first dedicated hydrogen- powered SUV with an estimated range of 380 miles. It is available at select California dealers.

179 of 258

170

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Five, including driver
Lift-capable? No
Battery size 135 kW (95 kW stack + 40 kW battery)
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 380
Length ~15’
Approx. cost $58,935
Availability Available
Sources: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/nexo/blue Image source: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/nexo/blue

Ford Mustang Mach-E

The Ford Mustang Mach-e is a sport utility vehicle with a range between 211- 305 miles battery only. It was
first released in 2021, but currently has a newer 2022
model.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to five ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 70 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 247-300 miles
Length ~15’
Approx. cost $43,895
Availability Available
Source: https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/
Image source: https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/

180 of 258

171

Light Duty: Mini- Vans

Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) manufactured in Windsor, Canada. Although not a fully EV, its range without engaging the internal combustion engine is 32 miles and has a 2021 and 2022 model.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to seven ambulatory passengers, including driver Lift-capable? No
Battery size 16kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
32 miles using battery-only
Length ~17’
Approx. cost $36,240-$45,400
Availability Available
Sources: https://www.chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html
Image source: https://www.chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html

2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid
The 2021 Toyota Sienna minivan is built with a standard hybrid- electric powertrain, has an EPA-estimated 36 combined mpg rating, and 3500 lbs. of towing capacity

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Seven, including driver
Lift-capable? Yes, but with reduction in ambulatory passenger capacity Battery size N/A
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
Up to 36 miles
Length ~17’
Approx. cost $34,460
181 of 258

172

Availability Available
Sources: https://www.toyota.com/sienna/
Image source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/toyota-cms-media/wp content/uploads/2020/05/2021_Toyota_Sienna_Limited_01.jpg

Light Duty: Pick-up Trucks

Lordstown Endurance
The Lordstown Endurance truck is a fully electric, light- duty pick-up truck that is available for preorder.

Source:<https://insideevs.com/news/389264/lordstown-endurance-at-least-200-miles-epa/> https://lordstownmotors.com/pages/endurance

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger Capacity Up to 5
Battery Size X
Approx. Nameplate Single-Charge Range 250+ miles
Length X
Approx. Cost $55,000
Availability Limited availability- preorder only
182 of 258

173

Tesla Cybertruck
The Tesla Cybertruck is a fully electric, light-duty pick-up truck that is available for preorder.

Source : <https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck>
https://www.cars.com/articles/tesla-cybertruck-impressive-specs-killer-price-polarizing-looks-413819/

Rivian R1T Truck
The Rivian R1T truck is a fully electric, light-duty pick- up truck that is available for preorder.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger Capacity Up to 6
Battery Size Est. 200 kWh
Approx. Nameplate Single-Charge Range 250 – 500+ miles (EPA Est.) Length 231.7”
Approx. Cost $69,900
Availability
Preorder is available today, with the single motor rear- wheel drive production planned to begin in late 2022,
and the dual and tri motor production in late 2021.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger Capacity Up to 5
Battery Size 105 – 180 kWh
Approx. Nameplate Single-Charge Range 314 miles
Length 217.1”
Approx. Cost $67,500
Availability Limited availability- preorder only
183 of 258

174

Source : https://rivian.com/r1t/ https://www.caranddriver.com/rivian/r1t

Light Duty: Vans
Ford E-Transit

The 2022 E-Transit is a work-ready cargo van that
comes with three roof heights, three (3) lengths,
and chassis cab and cutaway models. It offers the
same interior cargo dimensions and standard
mounting points for continued integration with
hundreds of upfitters and vehicle modifiers
worldwide who provide compatible racks, bins and
accessories on gas -powered Transit. E-Transit
features both AC and DC fast charging, coming
standard with a Ford Mobile Charger that can plug into a normal 120-volt outlet for slow and steady charging or into a 240-volt outlet for faster charging.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Seven, including driver
Lift-capable? Likely but with reduction in ambulatory passenger capacity Battery size N/A
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range 74-126 miles
Length ~17’
Approx. cost $47,185
Availability Available
Sources: https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-transit/2022/?fmccmp=lp-commercial-mid-hp-etransit Image source: https://www.foxnews.com/auto/ford-e-transit-electric-van _________________________________________________________________________

184 of 258

175

Medium Duty Vehicles (Cutaways, Shuttles, Chassis, Trucks)

Criteria Capacity Wheelchair
Accessible Range Use/Availability Cost
Medium Duty Vehicles (Cutaways, Shuttles, Chassis, Trucks)

Phoenix Motorcars Zeus 400 Shuttle Bus
Electric cutaway that incorporates a Ford E-series
chassis and Starcraft passenger body.

Up to two wheelchair and
12 ambulatory
passengers.

Yes Up to 160 miles Available ~$300,000
Lightning Electric Ford E-450 Shuttle Bus
An electric cutaway built on a Ford E-450 chassis.

Two wheelchairs and 12
ambulatory passengers Yes
80 or 120 miles,
depending on
battery option.

Available $230,000
Lightning Electric Ford F-550 Shuttle Bus
Built on a Ford F-550 chassis, allowing for more
passenger capacity than an E-450.

Two wheelchairs and 20-
30 ambulatory
passengers.

Yes 100 miles Available $270,000
Micro Bird DS-Series Paratransit
The Micro Bird DS-Series electric shuttle bus is a lift- equipped cutaway built on a Ford or GM chassis.

Two wheelchairs and 12
ambulatory passengers Yes n/a n/a n/a
Motiv Power EPIC E-450 Shuttle Bus
A Ford E-450 platform with a Champion passenger
body.

More info needed from
manufacturer
Yes.

Wheelchair
lift
typically in
the rear.
85 miles Available ~$250,000
SEA E450 Shuttle Bus
Built on a Ford E-450 chassis with the SEA-Drive 100
electric drivetrain.

Two wheelchairs and 12
ambulatory passengers Yes 130-170 miles Available $200,000 BYD 5F Chassis
Class 5 truck.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 155 miles Available $165,400
BYD 6F Chassis
Class 6 truck.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 124 miles Available $165,400
185 of 258

176

Lightning Chevrolet 6500XD Low Cab Forward
Class 6 truck built on Chevrolet 6500XD Low Cab
Forward platform
Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 66-130 miles Available $180,000-
$280,000
Lightning Ford E-450 Cutaway, Stripped Chassis
A stripped, Ford E-450 chassis.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 80-120 miles Available $180,000
Motiv EPIC E-450 Box Truck
Box truck built on Ford’s E-450 platform.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 100 miles Available N/A
Motiv EPIC E-450 Work Truck
Work truck built on Ford’s E-450 platform and is
available in several configurations.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including
driver
No 100 miles Available N/A
Motiv EPIC F-53 Specialty Vehicle
A specialty vehicle built on an EPIC F-53 chassis and
is available in several configurations.

N/A Yes 105 miles Available N/A

186 of 258

177

Medium Duty Vehicles (Large Vans)
Criteria Capacity Wheelchair
Accessible Range Use/Availability Cost
Medium Duty Vehicles (Large Vans)
Greenpower EV Star ADA
Large passenger van built entirely by
Greenpower. Altoona testing completed in
the winter of 2020.

Two wheelchairs and 12 ambulatory
passengers
Yes – side
or rear 77-150 miles Available $200,000
SEA Electric Ford Transit
The SEA Electric Ford Transit is built on a
Ford Transit chassis and incorporates a
SEA-Drive 70 electric drivetrain.

Two wheelchair and 9 ambulatory
passengers. Ambulatory positions can be
eliminated to add wheelchair
Yes 190 miles Available $160,000
Lightning Electric Ford Transit
The Lightning Electric Ford Transit is a
large passenger van built on the Ford
Transit platform. Also available as a cargo
van.

One wheelchair and 4 ambulatory
passengers, or up to 15 ambulatory
passengers
Yes 60-120 miles Available $145,000-
$173,000
Lightning Electric Ford F-59 Step Van
Step Van bult on Ford’s F-59 platform.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 110 miles Available $200,000
Motiv EPIC F-59 Step Van
Step Van bult on Ford’s F-59 platform.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 90 miles Available N/A
Motiv EPIC Ford E-450 Step Van
Step Van bult on Ford’s E-450 platform.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 100 miles Available N/A
Workhorse C1000
Step Van built entirely by Workhorse.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 150 miles Available N/A
187 of 258

178

Workhorse C650
Step Van built entirely by Workhorse.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 150 miles Available N/A
Xos SV01 Step Van
Step Van built entirely by Workhorse.

Up to two ambulatory passengers,
including driver No 200 miles Available N/A
188 of 258

179

Medium-Duty Vehicles
Cutaways and Small Buses
Note: Because re-powered vehicles are not in widespread use and there have been few —if any—formal evaluations of their performance, specifications such as range and cost are not consistently available for these vehicles. Throughout this document, the lette rs N/A are substituted when information is not available or not considered reliable.

Phoenix Motorcars Zeus 400 Shuttle Bus
The Phoenix Motorcars Zeus 400 is an electric cutaway that incorporates a Ford E -series chassis and Starcraft passenger body. Pho enix Motorcars is a California- based company that electrifies vehicles in Ontario, CA.

These vehicles are available with both rear or side lifts.

Phoenix offers the Zeus 400 with four battery pack sizes, from 63kWh to 156kWh. The weight of the largest battery pack reduces the number of passengers that can be accommodated in the vehicle due to maximum load restrictions of the chassis. More passengers can be included in a vehicle with a small battery pack.

This vehicle is currently being used in California and Texas airports, City of Redlands, and City of Santa Cruz.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Up to two wheelchair and 12 ambulatory passengers with a 156kWh battery. The number of wheelchair positions can be increased if ambulatory positions are eliminated.

Lift-capable? Yes, with rear or side configurations
Battery size 63kWh, 94kWh, 125kWh, and 156kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
70 miles, 100 miles, 130 miles, 160 miles
Length 23’ to 25’
Approx. cost $300,00019

19 The cost of the Phoenix Motorcars electric drivetrain conversion is reported to be approximately $150,000, and the highest cost for a medium-duty 24-passegenger cutaway bus in Washington State’s current Department of Enterprise Services contract #04115 is approximately $150,000 (the lower end of the range is approximately $80,000). Using these figures, a conservative estimate for the cost of this vehicle is $300,000. 189 of 258

180

Availability In use at California and Texas airports, City of Redlands, and City of Santa Cruz
Sources: <http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/products/>
<https://www.latest.facebook.com/PhoenixMotorcarsZEUS/LightningElectric Ford E-450 Shuttle Bus> <http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/city-of-redlands-receives-1st-electric-shuttle-bus/> Correspondence with Phoenix Motorcars and Creative Bus Sales, Image source:
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/vehicle-01.jpg

Lightning Electric Ford E-450
Shuttle Bus
The Lightning Electric Ford E-450 shuttle bus is an electric cutaway built on a Ford E-450 chassis. Lightning Electric is headquartered in Loveland, CO.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Typically, two wheelchair and 12 ambulatory passengers, with a 129kWh battery pack. Ambulatory positions can
be removed to add wheelchair positions.

Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 125kWh or 157kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
80 or 120 miles, depending on battery size.

Length 25’
Approx. cost $230,000
Availability Available
Sources: <https://lightningsystems.com//lightningelectric-e450-shuttle/>, <https://petaluma.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=31&clip_id=2728&meta_id=424736>, Correspondence with Lightning Systems
Image source: https://lightningsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/E450_shuttle_600px.png

Lightning Electric Ford F-550 Shuttle Bus
The Lightning Electric Ford F-550 shuttle bus is a larger version of the Lightning Electric E-450 high-floor
electric cutaway. The vehicle is built on a Ford F-550
chassis, allowing for more passenger capacity than an E- 190 of 258

181

450, in a similar vehicle. Lightning Electric is headquartered in Loveland, CO.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Commonly, two wheelchair and 20-30 ambulatory passengers Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 160kWh or 192kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
100 miles
Length 32’
Approx. cost $270,000
Availability Available
Sources: <https://lightningsystems.com/lightningelectric-f-550-bus/>, Correspondence with Lightning Systems Image source: https://lightningsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F550_bus2.png Micro Bird DS-Series Paratransit
The Micro Bird DS-Series electric shuttle bus is a lift-equipped cutaway built on a Ford or GM chassis. The wheelchair lift on this vehicle is typically installed behind the rear axle. Micro Bird Bus is a joint venture between U.S. school bus manufacturer Blue Bird and Canadian bus maker Girardin. These vehicles are primarily manufactured in Canada. Further information on this vehicle is needed from the manufacturer.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 12 passengers + 2 w/c
Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 88kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
N/A
Length 24’-29’
Approx. cost N/A
Availability N/A
Sources: <https://mbcbus.com/product/d-series/>
Image source: https://mbcbus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Microbird-G5-with-Lift-Door-streamer_with-stripes-1140x676.jpg

191 of 258

182

Motiv Power EPIC E-450 Shuttle Bus
The Motiv Power Electric Powered Intelligent Chassis (EPIC) E-450 shuttle bus is built on the Ford E -450 platform with a Champion passenger body. The wheelchair lift on this vehicle is typically installed behind the rear axle. Motiv Power is based in Foster City, CA. Further information on this vehicle is needed from the manufacturer.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity N/A
Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 127kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
85 miles
Length N/A
Approx. cost $250,00020
Availability In use in Mountain View, CA and other California locations.

Sources: <https://www.motivps.com/motivps/portfolio-items/epice450-allelectric-shuttlebus/>, <https://www.trucks.com/2018/05/30/motiv-profits-demand-electric-trucks-buses/>, Correspondence with Creative Bus Sales
Image source: <http://www.motivps.com/motivps/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/E450-Champion-shuttle-right-edited-NEW-1000x700.png>

SEA E450 Shuttle Bus
The SEA Electric E450 shuttle bus is built on a Ford E-450 chassis with the SEA-Drive 100 electric drivetrain. Although SEA Electric is an Australian company, this vehicle is
primarily manufactured in the U.S.

Specification Specification Value(s)

20 The cost of the Motiv Power electric drivetrain conversion is reported to be approximately $150,000, and the highest cost for a light-duty 12-passegenger cutaway bus in Washington State’s current Department of Enterprise Services contract #04115 is approximately $100,000 (the lower end of the range is approximately $60,000). Using these figures, a conservative estimate for the cost of this vehicle is $250,000. 192 of 258

183

Passenger capacity Typically, two wheelchair and 12 ambulatory passengers.

Ambulatory positions can be eliminated to add wheelchair positions.

Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 100kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
130-170 miles
Length N/A
Approx. cost $200,000
Availability Available
Source: <https://www.sea-electric.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/E4B-Commuter-Bus-ebrochure-AU.pdf>, <https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/aussie-ev-maker-plans-new-production-facility-in- latrobe-valley-115381/>
Image source: <https://www.sea-electric.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SEA-E4B-FRONTFWY.jpg>

Xos SV01 Battery-Electric Step Van
The Xos SVO Battery- Electric Truck is a class 6, 100% zero emissions delivery van. It is built on an X-Platform 1 chassis which is specifically designed to accommodate a variety of medium duty bodies such as last mile parcel, textile & linen and food & beverage.

Source: https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MY20-Xos-SV01-ZE-200702.pdf Image source: https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/xos-sv01-battery-electric-truck/

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Lift-capable? n/a
Battery size 90 kWh, 120 kWh, 150 kWh, 180 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
200 miles
Length N/A
Approx. cost $XX
Availability Available
193 of 258

184

Large Vans
GreenPower EV Star ADA
The EV Star ADA vehicle is a large passenger van built entirely by GreenPower. This vehicle recently passed Altoona testing, which provides some demonstrated range figures.21 During the testing process, this vehicle was tested under Manhattan, Orange County, and EPA Heavy-Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (HD-UDDS) testing conditions, achieving ranges of 96, 120, and 153 miles, respectively. The Manhattan test cycle simulates a low average speed urban driving context, while the Orange County test cycle simulates a combination of highway and urban driving conditions. The EPA HD-UDDS test simulates longer periods of higher-speed driving.

EV Star vehicles undergo final assembly in California and are Buy America-compliant. At the time of this report, GreenPower estimates
manufacturing capacity to be 30 vehicles per month
with a 180-day lead time. The lithium-ion battery is
warrantied to 80% of its nameplate capacity for five
years or 100,000 miles and is rated for 4,000 use
cycles. The wheelchair lift can be installed as side-
or rear-operating.
22 Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Two wheelchair and 14 ambulatory passengers but can be reconfigured with more wheelchairs and fewer ambulatory passengers
Lift-capable? Available with side or rear lift
Battery size 118kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
96-150 miles
Length 25’
Approx. cost $200,000
Availability In use at the Port of Oakland, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and Antelope Valley Transit Authority
Sources: <https://www.greenpowerbus.com/product-line/>, Correspondence with GreenPower Image source: <https://www.greenpowerbus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/shuttle-buses.jpg>

21 Federal Transit Administration. April 2020. Federal Transit Bus Test Report Number LTI -BT-R19113. <http://apps.altoonabustest.psu.edu/buses/reports/515.pdf?1586273484 > 22 Phone correspondence with GreenPower representative. June 23, 2020. 194 of 258

185

SEA Electric Ford Transit
The SEA Electric Ford Transit is built on a Ford Transit chassis and incorporates a SEA-Drive 70 electric drivetrain. This vehicle has double rear wheel assemblies to accommodate battery weight. This vehicle is currently being tested by the United States Postal Service.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity Two wheelchair and nine ambulatory passengers. Ambulatory positions can be eliminated to add wheelchair positions.

Lift-capable? Yes
Battery size 88kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
190 miles
Length 18’-22’
Approx. cost $160,000
Availability Available.

Sources: < https://www.sea-electric.com/products-old/transit-ev/>, Correspondence with SEA Electric

Vans and Trucks
BYD
The BYD 5F chassis and 6F chassis are
class 5 and class 6 battery electric chassis,
respectively. Both can be outfitted for
specific purposes.

Source: <https://en.byd.com/truck/>
Specification 5F Chassis 6F Chassis
Passenger capacity 2 2
Battery size 145 kWh 148.5 kWh – 221 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
155 miles at half load 124 miles
Length ~19.6’ XX
Approx. Cost $165,429.00 $165,429.00
Availability Available on WA State Contract Available on WA State Contract 195 of 258

186

Lightning
Lightning Motors has a variety of battery electric, medium-duty vehicle options available now. The ones listed in the table below are built on Ford or Chevrolet chassis.

Specification
Ford Transit Ford F-59 Van Class 6 Chevrolet
Low-Cab
Forward
Electric Ford E-
450 Stripped
Chassis
Passenger
capacity
14-15 passengers 2 passengers 2 passengers 2 passengers Battery size 43 - 86 kWh 128 kWh 96 - 192 kWh 86 – 129 kWh Approx.
nameplate
single-charge
range
60 – 120 miles 110 miles 66 – 130 miles 80 – 120 miles
Length 266.1” 351.2” XX 27’
Approx. Cost $173,000 $200,000 $180,000-
$280,000
$180,000
Availability Available Available Available Available
Source: <https://lightningsystems.com/electric-commercial-vehicles/> <Correspondence with Charlie at Lightning Systems><https://lightningsystems.com//lightningelectric-e450-cutaway/>

Motiv
Motiv has a variety of battery electric, medium-duty vehicle options available now. All of the vehicles listed in the table below are built on Ford chassis.

EPIC F-59
Step Van
EPIC Ford E-
450
EPIC E-450
Box Truck
EPIC E-450
Work Truck
EPIC F-53
Specialty
Vehicle
Platform Ford F-59 Ford E-450 Ford E-450 Ford E-450 Ford F-53 Battery size 127 kWh 106 kWh or
127 kWh
106 kWh or
127 kWh
106 kWh or
127 kWh
127 kWh
196 of 258

187

Approx.
nameplate
single-charge
range
90 miles 100 miles 100 miles 100 miles 125 miles
Length XX XX XX XX XX
Approx. Cost $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
Availability Available Available Available Available Available Source: <https://www.motivps.com/motivps/#EPIC>

Workhorse
Workhorse offers two battery electric step
vans with the C1000 having 1000 cubic feet
of space and the C650 having 650 cubic feet
of space.

Specification C1000 C650
Passenger capacity 2 2
Battery size 105 kWh 70 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-charge
range
150 miles 150 miles
Length ~27’ ~20’
Approx. Cost $XX $XX
Availability Available Available
Source : https://workhorse.com/cseries.html

197 of 258

188

Heavy Duty Vehicles (Cutaways, Shuttles, Chassis, Trucks)

Criteria Capacity Wheelchair Accessible
Range Use/Availability Cost
Cutaways, Shuttles, Chassis, Trucks
BYD 8TT
A class 8 semi-truck.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 124 miles Available Not released Global M4
Class 7 street sweeper.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 11 hours battery
operational range Available $525,000
Lion 8
Class 8 truck.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 180 miles Available for preorder $250,000-$450,000
Volvo VNR
Class 8 semi-truck.

Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 150 miles Available Not released BYD 6R/8R
A class 6 and class 8
refuse truck
Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No N/A Available Not released Peterbilt 520 EV
Battery Electric Truck
A refuse straight truck
Up to two ambulatory
passengers, including driver No 80 miles Available Not released 198 of 258

189

BYD 8TT
The BYD 8TT is a battery electric class 8 chassis that can be outfitted for specific purposes.

Source: <https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/byd-8tt-tandem-axle-tractor/>

Global M4
The M4 is a class 7, heavy-duty, battery-electric street sweeper.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Battery size Proprietary Information
Approx. nameplate single-
charge operational
9-12 hours
Charge Time 9-12 hours
Charge Power 240V
Length ~15’
Approx. Cost $525,000
Availability Currently available for order
and delivery (3 months)

Source: <https://globalsweeper.com/news/latest-news/item/120-global-introduces-1st- 100-electric-heavy-duty-street-sweeper-in-the-world><Correspondence with Scott Smits> Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Battery size 435 kWh
Approx. nameplate
single-charge range
124 miles
Charge Time DCFC: 3 hours
Length XX
Approx. Cost $XXX
Availability Available
199 of 258

190

Lion 8
The Lion 8 is a class 8, battery electric commercial truck that is available for preorder.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Battery size Up to 336 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
180 miles
Charge Time DCFC: 1.5 hours
Charging Power 19.2 kW AC
Length XX
Approx. Cost $250,000-$450,000
Availability Available for preorder
Source : < https://thelionelectric.com/documents/en/Lion8_all_applications.pdf>

Volvo VNR
The Volvo VNR is a class 8, battery electric commercial truck. It comes in the following sizes:
4x2 Straight, 6x4 Straight, 4x2 Tractor, 6x2 Tractor, and 6x4 Tractor.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Battery size 264 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
150 miles
Charge Time 70 min (80% charging at
150kW)

Charging Up to 150kW DC charge rate
with CCS1 or CCS2

Approx. Cost Not released
Availability Available
Source : https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MY21-Volvo-VNR-Straight-Truck-ZE.pdf>

200 of 258

191

BYD 8R/6R
The BYD 8R and BYD 6R are class 8 and class 6 heavy-duty refuse trucks.

Specification
8R 6R
Passenger capacity 2 2
Battery size 281 kWh, 403 kWh 221 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
XX XX
Charging Time 2.5 hrs (ER 3.5 hrs)

2.5 hours
Charging CCS1

DC 120 kW CCS1
Approx. Cost Not released Not released
Availability Available in CA Available in CA
Source : < https://en.byd.com/truck/>

Peterbilt 520EV Battery Electric Truck
The Peterbilt 520EV Battery Electric Truck is ideal for commercial and residential refuse applications. Up to 1,100 residential trash bins can be picked up by the 520EV on a single charge.

Specification Specification Value(s)
Passenger capacity 2
Battery size 396 kWh
Approx. nameplate single-
charge range
80 miles
Charging Time Up to 3.5 hours

Approx. Cost Not released
Availability Available
Source : < https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MY20-Peterbilt-520EV-201030.pdf/> 201 of 258

192

Pursuit Vehicles
There are currently no pursuit rated electric vehicles on the market, however Tesla’s models have the specifications that are closest to pursuit rated vehicles.

Source : https://www.tesla.com/compare/redirect=no?redirect=no Pursuit Motorcycles
Zero motorcycles lead electric motorcycles in North America. Zero produces a line of police- specific e-motos based on both the DS and DSR (dual sport) platform and the FX (supermoto) platform. These bikes are known as the DSP, DSRP, and FXP. The Janesville Police Department in Janesville, Wisconsin currently operates two Zero motorcycles outfitted for police needs and Los Angeles Police Department currently operates six Zero motorcycles.

Source : https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/model/
Specification
Model S Model 3 Model X Model Y
Passenger
Capacity
5 5 7 7
Battery Size 100 kWh 100 kWh 100 kWh 100 kwh
Approx.

Nameplate
Single-Charge
Range
348 – 391 miles 250 - 322 miles 305 – 351 miles 315 – 316 miles Approx. Cost $94,940 $36,743 $84,990 -
$104,990
$52,990 - $60,990
Availability Available on WA
State Contract
Available on WA
State Contract
Available Available
Specification
Model FX Model DS

Model DSRP
Battery Size 3.6 kWh 7.2 kWh 14.4 kWh
Approx. Nameplate
Single-Charge Range
46 miles 82 miles 163 miles
Approx. Cost $9,495 $11,195 $15,695
Availability Available Available Available
202 of 258

193

Non-Road Vehicles/Equipment
Golfcarts
There is a wide variety of electric golf carts on the market. The table below provides a summary of the specifications for many of the electric golf cart models available. The list may not be comprehensive of the entire market, but it provides information on various available options.

OEM Passenger
Capacity
Battery
Size
Approx.

Nameplate
Single-
Charge
Range
Length Approx.

Cost
Availability
Club Car 6 48 – 85 V n/a 92”-
144”
$7,789-
$13,528
Available
Yamaha 6 48 V n/a 93” –
161”
$6,692 -
$9,000
Available
E-Z-GO 6 48V-168V n/a 91”-
137.5”
$6,399 –
$12,999
Available
Cushman 8 48V-96V n/a 110”-
167.5”
X Available
HDK Electric
Vehicles
6 n/a 49.7 miles 88.6”-
148”
X Available
Global
Electric
Motors
6 48 V 10-95
miles
103”-
167”
$9,400 -
$14,786
Available
through WA
State Contract
(some models)
Columbia 6 48 V Up to 40
miles

94.5”-
140”
X Available
Star Electric
Vehicles
8 36/48 V Up to 60
miles
94”-
146”
X Available
Source: <https://www.clubcar.com/us/en/home.html> <https://www.yamahagolfcar.com/golf-car/golf/the-drive-2/> <https://ezgo.txtsv.com/><https://cushman.txtsv.com/golf- proturf><http://www.hdkexpress.com/><https://gem.polaris.com/en-us/vehicles/#passenger- hero><https://www.columbiavehicles.com/our-vehicles/journeyman><https://golfcartresource.com/golf-cart-review/star- electric-vehicle-classic-48v-review/><https://gem.polaris.com/en-us/em1400-lsv/#packages>

203 of 258

194

Utility Vehicles
Polaris
Specification

GEM eL XD

GEM eM 1400 LSV

Payload Capacity 1,400 lbs. 1,400 lbs.

Tow Capacity Up to 1,100 lbs. Up to 1,250 lbs.

Battery Capacity 48 V 48 V
Range 12-68 miles Up to 45 miles
Max. Speed 25 mph 25 mph
Approx. Cost $14,049 $11,543
Availability Available through local
dealerships
Available through WA
State Contract
Passenger Capacity 2 2
Source: <https://gem.polaris.com/en-us/em1400-lsv/#packages 204 of 258

195

Hisun Motors

Source : https://www.hisunmotors.com/products/vehicle/29/electric/sector-e1

Club Car
Specification
Transporter Villager Carryall Tempo Club Car
Payload
Capacity
1,000 lbs. 550 – 1,500
lbs.
800 – 1,500
lbs.
800 lbs. 1,100 lbs.

Tow
Capacity
1,500 lbs. 1,105-1,205
lbs.
1,500 lbs. N/A N/A
Battery
Capacity
48 V 48 V 48 V 48 V 72 V
Range 30-50 miles 30-50 miles 30-50 miles 30-50 miles 50 miles Max. Speed 15 – 17 mph 5 – 23 mph 15 – 25 mph 5 – 15 mph 25 mph Approx.

Cost
$12,952 $9,856 -
$12,339
$7,099 -
$15,579
$10,455 $19,999
Availability Available Available Available Available Available Passenger
Capacity
2 - 8 2 - 8 2 - 4 4 2
Specification

Sector E1
Payload Capacity 500 lbs.

Tow Capacity Up to 1,500 lbs.

Battery Capacity 48 V
Range 42 miles
Max. Speed 25 mph
Approx. Cost $11,299
Availability Available
Passenger Capacity 2
205 of 258

196

Forklifts
Komatsu America Corporation

Source: <https://www.komatsuamerica.com/equipment/forklift/electric- riders#page=0&sortby=sortorder&sortdir=Asc>

Linde Material Handling
Specifications
AE50 Series
AM50 Series BBX50 Series
Capacity 3,000 – 4,000 lbs. 3,000 – 4,000 lbs. 4,000 – 6,500 lbs.

Battery
Voltage/Capacity
48 V 48 V 36/48 V
Maximum Travel
Speed (loaded)
9 - 10 mph 9 – 10 mph 7.5 – 10.9 mph
Maximum Fork Height 129.9” 129.9” 128”
Approx. Cost X X X
Availability Available Available Available
Specifications
E12 – E20
EVO
E16 – E20
EVO
E20 – E35 E20 – E35 R E35 – E50 E60 – E80
Capacity 2400 –
4,000 lbs.
3,200 –
4,000 lbs.
4,000 –
7,000 lbs.
4,000 –
7,000 lbs.
6,400 –
9,980 lbs.
12,000 –
16,000 lbs.

Voltage 24/48 V 48 V 80 V 80 V 80 V 80 V
Maximum
Travel Speed
(loaded)

7.7 – 9.9
mph

12.4 mph 12.4 mph 12.4 mph 11.1 mph 9.9 mph
Maximum
Fork Height
110” –
124”
110” –
124”
123” –
161.2”
123” - 137” 114” – 166” 120” – 151”
Approx. Cost X X X X X X
Availability Available Available Available Available Available Available 206 of 258

197

Source: <https://www.linde-mh.com/en/Product-
Finder/?offerType=new&sorting[field]=productType&sorting[direction]=ASC&productTypes[]=2377>

Mitsubishi Forklift Trucks
Source: <https://www.mcfa.com/en/mit/all-forklifts#>

Raymond Corporation
*Specification document only listed unloaded travel speed.

Source: <https://www.raymondcorp.com/lift-trucks/reach-fork-trucks> Specifications
FB16PNT-
FB20PNT
FBC15N-FBC18LN FBC23N-
FBC30LN
FBCS14N-
FBCS18N
Capacity 3,000 – 4,000
lbs.
3,000 – 4,000
lbs.
4,500 – 6,500
lbs.
3,000 – 4,000
lbs.

Battery
Voltage/Capacity
36/48 V 36/48 V 36/48 V 36 V
Maximum Travel
Speed (loaded)
10 mph 9.3 – 11.3 mph 9.3 – 11.3 mph 8 mph
Maximum Fork
Height
258.5” 217” 131.5” 188”
Approx. Cost X X X X
Availability Available Available Available Available
Specifications 4000 Series Counter-
Balanced Trucks Stand-Up
4000
Series
Counter-
Balanced Trucks Sit-Down
Capacity 3,000 – 5,000 lbs. 3,000 – 6,500 lbs.

Battery
Voltage/Capacity
36 V 36 V and 48 V
Maximum Travel
Speed (loaded)

7.2 – 8.0 mph 9.6 – 12 mph*
Maximum Fork
Height
227” – 270” 227” – 278”
Approx. Cost X X
Availability Available Availalbe
207 of 258

198

Toyota
Source : <https://www.toyotaforklift.com/lifts/electric-motor-rider-forklifts>

Manlifts
There is a wide variety of electric manlifts on the market. The table below provides a summary of the specifications for many of the electric manlift models available. The list may not be comprehensive of the entire market, but it does include a sample of available options.

Source : https://www.genielift.com/en/aerial-lift/electric-bi-energy https://www.jlg.com/en/equipment/electric-hybrid- boom-lifts
Specifications
3-Wheel
Electric
Core
Electric
Large
Electric
Stand-Up
Rider
Electric
Pneumatic
High-
Capacity
Electric
Cushion
Capacity 3,000 –
4,000 lbs.
3,000 –
6,500 lbs.
8,000 –
12,000
lbs.
3,000 –
4,000 lbs.
4,000 –
7,000 lbs.
15,000 –
40,000 lbs.

Voltage 36/48 V 36/48 V 36/48 V 36 V 80 V 72/80 V
Maximum
Travel Speed
(loaded)

9.5 – 9.9
mph

11.3 –

11.5 mph

7.5 – 10.5
mph

7.5 mph 11.8 mph 4.6 – 5.2
mph
Maximum Fork
Height
100” –
277.5”
80” – 278” 120” –
239”
128” -
277”
118” –
258”
69” – 327”
Approx. Cost $20,690 –
$22,107
$22,879 -
$26,728
X $30,059 -
$30,781
$30,638 -
$36,426
X
Availability Available
on WA
State
Contract
Available
on WA
State
Contract
Available Available
on WA
State
Contract
Available
on WA
State
Contract
Available
OEM Max. Working
Height
Platform
Capacity
Max.

Horizontal
Reach
Approx. Cost Availability
Genie 35’ – 46’5” 440 - 500 lbs. 18’3” - 22’8” XX Available JLG 20’4” – 60’3” 500 lbs. 6’5” – 43’3” XX Available
208 of 258

199

Pallet Jacks
There is a wide variety of electric pallet jacks on the market. The table below provides a summary of the specifications for many of the electric pallet jack models available. The list may not be comprehensive of the entire market, but it does include a sample of available options.

OEM Capacity Fork Length Fork Width Approx. Cost Availability Vestil 3,300 – 4,500
lbs.
47” – 48” 20” – 27” XX Available
Toyota 4,500 lbs. 29.5” – 57.5” 26.6” $3,992 -
$9,794
Available on
WA State
Contract (some
models)
Raymond 4,500 - 8,000
lbs.
“Available in
multiple
lengths”
“Available in
multiple
widths”
XX Available
Crown 4,500 lbs. 36-48” 25.8” $3,762 –
13,931
Available on
WA State
Contract
Big Joe 2,600 -4,400
lbs.
48” 27” XX Available
Hyster 4,500 –
10,000 lbs.
34” – 94.9” 26.4” – 28” $3,371 –
10,857
Available on
WA State
Contract (some
models)
Source: <https://www.vestil.com/product.php?FID=342> <https://s3.amazonaws.com/toyotaforklifts/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/19192034/ElectricWalkie_SpecSheet.pdf><https://www.raymondcorp.com/lift-trucks/pallet- trucks>
<https://www.crown.com/en-us/forklifts/pallet-trucks/wp-pallet-truck.html><https://bigjoeforklifts.com/pages/products> <https://www.hyster.com/north-america/en-us/products/pallet-trucks/>

209 of 258

200

Pressure Washers
Annovi Reverberi (AR)
Source: <https://www.arnorthamerica.com/pages/ar-blue-clean-power- washers/#section3>

Ryobi

Source:<https://www.ryobitools.com/outdoor/products/pressure-washers> Karcher

Source:<https://www.kaercher.com/us/online-shop-en/general-result-page/~20035386-electric- pressure-washers.html>
Specifications
AR2N1 S-Line Industrial Line B-Line
Max PSI 2,050 1,500 – 2,000 1,350 – 1,900 1,600 – 1,900 Motor Amperage 13 Amps 12 – 14 Amps 15 – 19 Amps 11 – 14 Amps Max GPM 1.4 1.4 1.9 – 2.2 1.51 - 1.58
Approx. Cost $259-309 $119-249 $549-779 $179
Availability Available Available Available Available
Specifications Electric Series
Max Pressure 1,600 – 2,300 PSI
Motor Amperage 13 amps
Max Flow Rate 1.2 GPM
Approx. Cost $99 - $299
Availability Available
Specifications Electric Series
Max Pressure 1,600 - 2,000 PSI
Motor Amperage 13 amp
Max Flow Rate 1.25 - 1.4 GPM
Approx. Cost $129 - $459
Availability Available
210 of 258

201

Greenworks

Source:<https://www.greenworkstools.com/shop-by-tool/pressure- washers>

Briggs and Stratton

Source:<https://www.briggsandstratton.com/na/en_us/products/pressure-washers.html>

Yard Force

Source:<https://www.yardforceusa.com/pressure-washers>

Specifications Electric Series
Max Pressure 1,500 - 2,700 PSI
Motor Amperage 13 – 15 amp
Max Flow Rate 1.1 – 2.3 GPM
Approx. Cost $90 - $350
Availability Available
Specifications Electric Series
Max Pressure 1,700 – 2,200 PSI
Motor Amperage X
Max Flow Rate 1.2 – 3.5 GPM
Approx. Cost X
Availability Available
Specifications Electric Series
Max Pressure 1,600 – 2,200 PSI
Motor Amperage 13 amp
Max Flow Rate 1.2 – 1.25 GPM
Approx. Cost X
Availability Available
211 of 258

202

Tractors
Solectrac
Source : <https://www.solectrac.com/>

Specifications
Compact Electric Tractor
(CET)
eUtility Electric Tractor eFarmer Electric Tractor
Horsepower 30 HP 40 HP Continuous, 50 HP
Peak
30 HP
Battery Size 22 kWh 28 kWh 28 kWh
Traveling Speeds 4 Wheel Drive 2 Wheel Drive
Battery Runtime 3-6 hrs. depending on
load.
4-8 hrs. depending on
loads
4-8 hrs. depending on
loads
Approx. Cost $25,800 - $33,000 $45,000 - $75,000 $45,000 - $56,175 Availability Initial sales will be
limited to California and
Canada, and expanded as
interest in other states
grows.

Available now on a first to
deposit basis.

Will be available in late
2020
212 of 258

203

Appendix B: Charging Infrastructure Market Analysis
This market analysis discusses the different types of electric vehicle charging infrastructure available for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as different strategies to consider when charging vehicles. The information was collected from various websites and charger OEM specification sheets.

Charging Types and Rates
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) – essentially an electric vehicle charger - is the equipment used to deliver electrical energy from an electricity source to an electric vehicle (EV). The charging equipment communicates with the EV to ensure that an appropriate and safe flow of electricity is supplied. EV chargers are classified into several categories based on the rate at which the batteries are charged. Level 1 and Level 2 chargers provide alternating current (AC) electricity to the vehicle, with the vehicles onboard equipment converting AC to the direct current (DC) needed to charge the batteries. The other type of chargers, often referred to as DC fast chargers, provide DC electricity directly to the vehicle.

Charging times range from 20 hours or more to less than 30 minutes depending on the type of EVSE, the battery’s capacity, state of charge, and the vehicle’s acceptance rate or charging speed. Level 1 and 2 chargers recharge batteries at a slower rate, while DC Fast Chargers charge vehicles more quickly. Different EVs have different power needs – with heavier duty vehicles requiring higher levels of electricity to charge. Plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), which are hybrid has-electric vehicles, are also recharged with vehicle chargers. Electric vehicles generally have more capacity than PHEVs, meaning they can travel farther on a single charge, but they take longer to fully charge.

EV chargers are identified by their input voltage and are designed and sold by many manufacturers with different prices, applications, and functionality. Figure B1 illustrates the difference in charging speeds (miles of range added per hour) from the three charging levels.
213 of 258

204

Figure B1: EV Charger Speed Comparison
Level 1 Charging
Level 1 EVSE provides charging through a 120-volt (V) AC plug and requires a dedicated branch circuit. Most, if not all, EVs come with a Level 1 EVSE cord set, so no additional charging equipment is required. On one end of the cord is a standard 3-prong house plug (NEMA 5-15 Connector). The other end of the cord is a J1772 standard connector that plugs into the vehicle. Level 1 is typically used for charging when there is only a 120V outlet available – it provides a lower cost charging option by avoiding the cost of installing higher speed Level 2 EVSE. The main advantages of Level 1 EVSE are that they require little to no infrastructure investment and they are simple to use. The main disadvantage is slower charging and inability to collect data on electrical consumption. However, Level 1 EVSE transmits electricity at the consistent rate of 1.4 kW per hour which can be used to calculate energy usage and cost. While some of the City’s equipment is expected to use low level charging, CTE does not recommend Level 1 charging for the City’s vehicle fleet due to the time required to reach a full charge.

Level 2 Charging
Level 2 EVSE offers charging through a 240V (typical in residential application) or a 208V (typical in commercial application) AC plug and requires installation of charging equipment and a dedicated electrical circuit. Level 2 equipment uses the same J1772 connector on the vehicle as Level 1 equipment. Depending on the battery type, charger configuration, and circuit capacity, Level 2 charging adds about 10-25 miles of range per hour of charge time. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Level 1
(per hour)
Level 2
(per hour)
DC
(in 20 mins)
Miles added
Charger Type
Miles Added Over Time
214 of 258

205

CTE recommends Level 2 charging for the City’s light- and medium-duty vehicles. Table B1 below lists a range of charging times for common electric vehicles Level 2 chargers.

Table B1. AC charging times by light-duty vehicle battery size EV Model Battery
Capacity
(kWh)
Hours (h) Required for Optimal (80%) Battery
State of Charge Depending on Speed

3.6 kW 7.2 kW 12 kW 19.2 kW
Nissan Leaf 40 8.9 4.5 2.7 1.7
Nissan Leaf 62 13.8 6.9 4.1 2.6
Chevrolet Bolt 66 14.7 7.4 4.4 2.8
Lordstown Endurance 70 15.6 7.8 4.7 3.0
Ford Mustang Mach-E 98.8 22.3 11.2 6.7 4.2
Tesla Model X/S 100 22.0 11.0 6.6 4.2
Ford E-Transit 67 14.9 7.5 4.5 2.8

Level 2 EVSE is available at a range of price points. Prices starting with low cost, portable relatively low speed (3.8-7.7 kW) non-networked chargers such as Clipper Creek’s entry level AmazingE charging cordsets to relatively fast (19.2 kW) full feature hard-wired smart chargers that use WiFi or cellular connection to transmit and track charging and financial data. This portable charger is small enough to be transported around in a small grocery bag. The installed cost is typically 2 to 5 times the cost of the hardware itself as explained below. The advantages of non-networked chargers are their low cost and simplicity. The benefits of higher cost chargers include faster charging speeds, ability to manage and share power loads, ability to schedule charging to take advantage of time of use charging rates and the ability to monitor charging data using on-line dashboards, smart phone apps.

Higher cost chargers often include a mechanism for users to pay for their charging, which is essential for public-facing chargers.

DC Fast/High Powered Charging
DC fast charging EVSE (480V input to the EVSE) enables rapid charging. A 50kW DC Fast Charger, the most common public fast charger (other than Tesla’s superchargers) adds 60- 80 miles of range to a light duty vehicle in as little 20 minutes. High-powered chargers are 215 of 258

206

high amperage DC fast chargers (150-350 kW) that are the fastest and most expensive type of EVSE. Tesla, EVgo, and Electrify America all deploy these in their public charging networks. These can provide 75 miles of charge in about 10 minutes. However, actual charging speeds are limited by each vehicle’s acceptance rate. Lower-cost EVs such as the older Nissan LEAF and Kia Soul models, Chevy Bolts, VW e-Golfs, and Honda Clarity can charge no faster than at 50kW. Newer and higher end Nissan LEAF models and Jaguar’s I- Pace can charge up to 100kW and only luxury EVs by Tesla, Audi, and Porsche can charge at faster rates of 250 and 350kW respectively. Acceptance rates will likely increase in the future as more high-power chargers are deployed and more EVs enter the market. 23 High-power chargers require more space for installation – they typically require the space equivalent to at least six parking stalls plus an equivalent area for support infrastructure such as a dedicated transformer that can handle a 1-megawatt load at peak draw. They are also more expensive to purchase and install and require relatively large investments for electrical service upgrades. Glendale’s fleet of heavy-duty vehicles will require this type of charger to effectively charge for the following day’s service. The City’s pursuit vehicles typically are operated non-stop and will also need fast charging.

Power Load Management
Power load management can help use electricity more efficiently and disperse power across multiple chargers. Charging networks like ChargePoint and Greenlots have dedicated software with customizable algorithms to intelligently share power among network (“smart”) chargers so every EV charges as fast as possible without exceeding the site’s rated electrical capacity. Networked smart chargers also provide data connectivity for tracking electrical consumption and customer payment collection but are usually higher cost and require monthly data fees.

There are lower cost load management alternatives that could be appropriate for fleet facilities and worksites. Some examples include hardware such as Cyber Switching (see Figure B2) and PowerFlex and software apps such AmpUp and Mobility House.

23 https://insideevs.com/news/348233/electric-car-dc-fast-charging-comparison/) 216 of 258

207

Figure B2. Hardware-based load management (Cyber Switching)

The hardware and software can be combined to provide load management benefits. For example, Cyber Switching uses electrical hardware including a control unit called the EVMC that switches power to multiple chargers in a “round-robin” scenario to alternate electrical current between chargers, allowing up to four chargers to share a single circuit. The EVMC first polls an individual EV to check its battery status, and if charged, moves on to the next EV in line. A single electrical line can feed up to four chargers and incrementally rotate the current to each charger on a programmable timed basis. Cyber Switching provides a relatively low-cost way to potentially quadruple the charging capacity of relatively small charging installations such as worksites with limited electrical service charging eight or fewer vehicles. One or two of these units could be installed supplying 4 to 8 chargers without typically needing to upgrade or replace the electrical service or panel. Cyber Switching hardware is typically paired with a software program such as AmpUp to perform such functions as controlling the charging session, managing the electrical load, metering the electrical consumption, and facilitating customer payment.

Load Management: The simplest and most cost-effective way to provide power for EV charging is to tap existing electrical capacity. Load management such as Cyber Switching can limit and balance power loads to avoid exceeding circuit capacity and avoid demand charges. Software like AmpUp can also reduce power across all chargers. Augmented by AmpUp, a charger’s control unit serves as a virtual electric meter, avoiding the need for separate circuits or sub-meters for EV charging and lighting. The precision software can break down electric loads to each output. Depending on the granularity of the utility’s electric meter, it may even measure electrical consumption more accurately, collecting data every few second rather than at intervals of 15 minutes used by many utility meters.

Another sophisticated load management software is ChargePilot, the Charging and Energy Management (CEM) system developed by The Mobility House. ChargePilot helps fleet 217 of 258

208

managers manage loads and track the fleet’s energy consumption while charging. This modular and scalable platform optimizes the use of available power and charging infrastructure by processing different parameters such as total available power, building load, electricity rates, vehicle battery state-of-charge (SoC), and electric vehicle schedules to optimize when and how much to charge each vehicle. The goal is to smooth out expensive peak loads (“peak shaving”) and take advantage of low-cost charging windows.

In areas with high demand charges, this can significantly reduce the cost of electricity. All chargers controlled by ChargePilot are physically connected to a local onsite controller via Ethernet allowing it to communicate using open-source communication protocols such as OCPP (Open Charge Point Protocol) and ensures charging processes can be controlled even if there are network or internet connectivity issues. This provides close to real-time response for smart charging and reliability in case of loss of connectivity or increased latency in cloud communication.

Figure B3. Peak shaving benefits from load management (The Mobility House)

Charging Strategy Options
Most of Glendale’s fleet vehicles are driven during the day and parked overnight which provides ample dwell time for battery charging. The most notable exception is the Police pursuit vehicles. Currently available light-duty EVs typically used by fleets like the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf Plus have 65 and 62 kWh batteries respectively, providing well over 200 miles of range and newer EVs are expected to have even greater range. Due to these relatively minimal power requirements, coupled with long overnight dwell times for most 218 of 258

209

of Glendale’s non-bus fleet vehicles, light-duty EVs could share chargers, or at least share power loads, through a power load management strategy. As a result, a range of currently available and emerging charging options that could be deployed in the near term at fleet facilities are discussed below. The options described are:
• Dedicated chargers, with and without load management
• Shared chargers with and without load management
• Mobile charging

Resiliency
Glendale should consider distributed energy resources (DER) and battery storage to provide resiliency for fleet fueling during power outages.

Currently available charging technologies appropriate to Glendale’s vehicle fleet needs include the strategies discussed below and summarized in Table B2.

Dedicated Chargers
The basic way to charge a fleet is with individual chargers dedicated to each vehicle in the fleet. This approach to charging typically requires each fleet vehicle be assigned a parking stall and that each parking stall be equipped with its own charger. Fleets typically use Level 2 chargers to provide adequate range and deploy smart chargers to track electrical use by vehicle or department, similar to tracking diesel or gasoline consumption.

Vehicle operators pick up the vehicle at the assigned stall, manually disconnect the charger before using the vehicle, and later return the vehicle to the assigned stall and reconnect the charging cord. For fleet facilities with on-site staff or an automated parking management system, vehicles could be rotated between stalls because all stalls would be comparably equipped with EVSE.

Benefits: The primary benefit of this approach is its simplicity and predictability for fleet operators and drivers. It also provides flexibility due to the relative abundance of chargers, allowing for future expansion via implementation of load management systems or other options.

Disadvantages: A ratio of one charger per parking stall or per EV requires numerous charger installations, which is generally inefficient and can potentially be a more costly approach due to the expense of procuring and installing each charger. In addition to the 219 of 258

210

cost, the parking facility is more heavily affected during the charging infrastructure construction period. 24
With a one EV to one charger ratio, the capacity to charge other vehicles is wasted for two reasons: 1) the charger sits idle while the dedicated vehicle is in use, and 2) a fully charged EV in the assigned parking space blocks other vehicles from using the charger.

Operational costs of dedicated chargers can be higher as well. Simultaneously charging multiple EVs at fleet facilities, without managed charging or energy storage incorporated into the system, could result in costly demand charges if local utilities changed their rate structure in the future.

Network and data costs can also add up over time when smart chargers or third-party load management systems are deployed, and ongoing charger maintenance costs are usually proportionate to the quantity of chargers installed.

General Recommendations: Dedicated chargers generally make the most sense in the following circumstances:
• Locations that are currently equipped with significant quantities of chargers that could be dedicated to a unique parking space/fleet EV. These chargers, however, would not be available to the public when in use by Glendale’s fleets. • Facilities at which a limited number of EVs are domiciled and ample electrical capacity is available.
• When funds are not constrained
Dedicated Chargers with Load Management
One way to reduce the maximum power load to avoid or reduce needed electrical service upgrades or utility demand charges would be by splitting or balancing the power between chargers (load splitting or balancing), or load management systems. These systems allow fleet operators to control when and how each fleet EV is charged by distributing power between chargers.

With the extra capacity available in buildings, and by using a load management system, most fleet facilities would not need electrical service upgrades. Additionally, building upgrades that conserve electricity, such as replacing windows, installing air barriers or upgrading lighting, can significantly increase capacity for vehicle charging at fleet parking garages that share their electrical systems with buildings.

24 Installation costs typically include design, permitting, and electrical service upgrades. 220 of 258

211

Benefits: The primary benefit of load management is reduction of peak electrical load to reduce or avoid costly electrical service upgrades and utility demand charges.

Disadvantages: Load management requires networked smart chargers, which may have higher capital and/or operating costs and depends on the individual system and quantity of chargers. Third-party load splitting or management systems can operate with non- networked dumb chargers, but the equipment and service require additional capital and data costs.

General Recommendations: Adding load management to dedicated chargers generally makes the most sense in parking facilities with limited power supply where large numbers of heavily used EVs with long dwell times are domiciled. This does not apply to most of Glendale’s parking locations; however, as Glendale adds more EVs to the fleet, the circumstance is expected to change.

Shared Chargers
While Glendale’s analysis is based on a 1:1 vehicle to charger ratio, shared chargers could reduce the cost for transitioning to a 100% EV fleet. At facilities with shared chargers, a minimum number of Level 2 chargers are installed to serve all the fleet EVs domiciled by rotating charger use. This should be generally feasible for Glendale because most fleet vehicles travel relatively few miles per day and are parked and available for charging for at least 14 hours. Not needing to charge their batteries every night means fleet EVs could share chargers by taking turns based on a schedule or depending on a vehicle’s state of charge. Additionally, a shared DCFC could supplement shared Level 2 chargers at large fleet facilities with multiple light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles. In cases where dwell times are limited to only four hours, the anticipated duration of charging would still be sufficient to charge the relatively small number of EVs that have shorter dwell times.

Benefits: The primary benefits are reducing peak demand charges, mitigating potential electric service upgrade costs, and reducing initial investment costs associated with the procurement and installation of chargers generally (e.g., reduced number of individual units required). This approach is also useful to leverage the constrained electrical capacity of certain sites to install more chargers that would share available electrical load.

Disadvantages: Sharing chargers requires careful management of fleet EVs to ensure that all vehicles maintain a sufficient state of charge for their intended daily use.

General Recommendations: Sharing chargers makes the most sense under the following circumstances:
• Facilities that serve fleet EVs that typically drive less than 40 miles a day and have dwell times longer than eight hours.
221 of 258

212

• Facilities with limited available electrical capacity to avoid the expense of electrical service upgrades.

Shared Chargers with Load Management
This is a variation on shared chargers that incorporates load management to provides flexibility. This could be achieved by networked smart chargers with integral load management or by a third-party add-on system.

Benefits: The primary benefits are reducing peak demand charges, mitigating potential electric service upgrades costs, and reducing initial investment costs associated with the procurement and installation of chargers generally (e.g., reduced number of individual units required). This approach is also useful to leverage the constrained electrical capacity of certain sites to install more chargers that would share available electrical load.

Disadvantages: It requires active parking/charging management by staff and poses a potential risk that fleet EVs may not be sufficiently charged if not managed properly.

General Recommendations: Adding load management to shared chargers makes the most sense at locations at which a load management system can serve multiple chargers needed in the future allowing the charging capacity of the fleet facility to expand over time.

Mobile Charging
An alternative or possible complement to
fixed EV chargers is mobile or semi-
mobile charging. These consist of energy
storage systems that draw power from
the grid then dispense the electricity to
EVs when needed. Two examples are
Freewire Technologies, which has two
mobile charging units, Mobi and Boost;
and Danner, which has the Mobile Power
Station (MPS). The MPS and Mobi units
are literally mobile, equipped with
wheels and operator controls, while the
Boost is stationary and hard-wired but can be easily disconnected for re-location to another facility.

Each Mobi can charge up to eight light-duty EVs per shift and can be equipped with an optional Hydra unit that simultaneously charges seven vehicles (charging is at Level 1 speed). Boost is a larger unit that has 160 kWh of battery capacity and 120 kW output capable of charging 25 light-duty EVs per shift at 100kW.

Figure B4: Dannar MPS. Source Dannar
222 of 258

213

Dannar’s MPS can charge multiple types of batteries and replicate the function of a mobile generator. The DANNAR 4.00 base configuration comes standard with three 42 kWh Li-Ion battery packs (126 kWh total) and can be easily upgraded with up to nine additional packs for a total of 504 kWh of on-board electricity.

Another example of mobile charging includes portable battery-powered rescue chargers like SparkCharge. SparkCharge, is an innovative startup that produces a highly portable, modular DCFC. Its battery-powered chargers snap together like Lego blocks and yesprovide up to 20 miles of range per battery module. Fleets could also use this to augment short-range EVs or rescue EVs that run out of charge, which avoids the need to be towed to a charger or facilitating occasional longer distance trips.

Benefits: By being able to accept power from the grid at low voltage and/or during times when electrical demand is low or during the day when grid renewables and/or onsite solar (depending on the fleet’s vehicle charging facility) generation is high, mobile energy storage platforms can help to avoid demand charges. Other benefits include the ability to:
• Charge additional fleet EVs than the facility’s existing power capacity may support. • Provide backup energy to fleet vehicles during power outages. • Charge multiple EVs at the same site by moving the charger, rather than moving the vehicles.
• Relocating the charger from one facility to another to address changing needs or to provide flexible charging capacity at non-County owned facilities where fleet EVs may be domiciled such as for vanpools.

The Danner Mobile Power Stations can also be outfitted with auxiliary equipment such as lifts or loaders, allowing these units to function as fully electric off-road equipment. Both the Danner and Mobi can also perform the function of a generator by powering electrical equipment where no power outlets are available.

Disadvantages: The main disadvantage of this option is the large upfront costs. Using mobile charging units also requires active parking and charging management by City staff who will need to move the charger to individual fleet EVs and manually connect them.

Mobile chargers take up space in the parking lot and staff may not be able to get the unit close enough to the EV in a crowded parking facility.

General Recommendations: Using mobile charging units is recommended in the following situations:
• Where large numbers of fleet EVs could otherwise result in significant costs associated with electric service power upgrades that may be needed for Level 2 chargers. Additionally, this facility has space constraints that may make installation of multiple individual chargers difficult.
223 of 258

214

• Facilities where fixed charging infrastructure near term is needed but may not be fiscally responsible because of site redevelopment plans in the future or that will be redeveloped.
• Fleet facilities that are not owned by Glendale, such as for contracted service providers, allowing Glendale to invest in charging infrastructure independent of the facility that can be cost-effectively relocated.

CTE’s transition analysis does not include any mobile chargers for the City’s primary locations, however the City should be aware of the potential for mobile chargers at other locations where smaller numbers of vehicles are housed.

Table B2. Charging Strategy Summary
Dedicated
chargers
Dedicated
chargers with
load
management
Shared
chargers
Shared
chargers with
load
management
Mobile
charging
Strengths:

Convenience and
simplicity Yes Yes No No Yes
Capacity for future
fleet expansion Yes Yes No No Yes
Reduces peak
demand and
resulting service
upgrades
No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reduces CAPEX
from fewer
chargers
purchased and
installed.

No No Yes Yes
Depends
on facility
scale
Challenges:

Costs for hardware
purchase,
installation and
load upgrades.

Yes Yes No No
More cost
effective
for larger
facilities
Initial cost of
system plus data
charges
No Yes No Depends on
provider Yes
224 of 258

215

Requires active
parking/charging
management by
City staff
No No Yes Yes Yes
Risk of vehicles not
being charged No No Yes Yes Yes

Resiliency Technologies
Local power congestion or disruption may occur when local power demand exceeds the power system’s capacity. The local power supply is also vulnerable to interruption from severe weather events or other events causing grid failure. EV charging operations can be protected from power supply interruptions by conventional back-up generators or on-site renewable generation, like photovoltaic solar panels coupled with on-site energy storage batteries.

Back-up generators: The conventional approach to energy resiliency is the use of conventional fuel back-up generators, which are available in sizes up to 2,000 kW. These generators can be permanently installed at facilities for dependability and ease of operations or can be mounted on trailers to provide greater flexibility for fleet operators.

They can be powered by diesel fuel or other liquid fuel sources like natural gas or propane.

To help achieve Glendale’s carbon reduction goals, renewable diesel—a hydrocarbon diesel fuel produced by hydro-processing of fats, vegetable oils, and waste cooking oils—could be substituted for standard petroleum
diesel. According to industry
sources like Neste, such a
substitution reduces lifecycle
emissions by up to 80% compared
to petroleum diesel.

Solar: Solar power is becoming an
increasingly viable source of power
for EV charging because of
improvements in energy collection
and storage technology. Solar
technologies provide
environmental benefits due to a
lack of carbon emissions and
resiliency benefits from an ability
to operate with independence from the electrical grid during disruptions or emergencies.

Figure B5. Trailer-Mounted 625-680 KVA mobile
generator
(Source: https://criticalpower.com/inventory/generators/hipower/) 225 of 258

216

One example of this is a transportable turnkey vehicle charging station called EV ARC powered by a tracking solar canopy and lithium-ion battery storage developed by Beam, formerly Envision Solar International, that may be very appropriate for multiple non-bus fleet applications. This modular solar charging platform is designed to be operated independently from the grid or it can be grid-buffered. They require no construction nor ground-disturbance and therefore can be installed and set-up and quickly at the charging site without permitting and essentially no operating cost. The company has recently developed an upgraded version of the company’s existing standard EV ARC shown in Figure 20, the High-Powered EV ARC, which can be equipped with 38-51 kWh of battery storage, 40 Amp power supply, and 8.4 kwh level-2 charge or a 12.5 kW three-phase 208 for DC fast charging. The charger can split or dynamically among one or by as many as six J1772 charging plugs. The High-Powered EV ARC is able to be daisy chained or stacked with surface cabling to support 50kwh DC Fast Charge, which is able to produce 1,000 miles per day on average, depending on site location and amount of sunlight.

Figure B6: EV ARC solar-powered EV charger with built-in backup energy storage Source: Beam
The EV ARC can fit inside a standard legal sized parking space, takes up no additional parking, and can be installed as a single unit or can be scaled to provide charging for multiple EVs, e-bikes, e-scooters, or any electrical equipment which has mission critical functionality.

In addition to facilitating e-mobility, this technology enhances resiliency because it is grid independent and can generate its energy without the need for fossil fuel. It provides access to wireless communications or emergency power access to first responders including backup power for hospitals, police departments and other mission critical infrastructure.

These stations can be moved quickly to avoid being damaged by flooding or to provide power where needed to support the community.
226 of 258

217

This kind of solar charger is considered by many municipalities as a resiliency hub of last or first resort. For example, the New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services has deployed almost 90 of them as part of the city’s resiliency planning.

Stored energy: Along with distributed energy produced by engine-powered generators or photovoltaic panels, energy storage batteries are needed for resilience. The stored electricity could be used when the grid’s power supply is interrupted. As previously described in the bi-directional charging section, energy can also be stored in PEVs, which collectively can act as a large battery. A smart charger would control the flow of energy and can send energy from the grid to vehicle batteries or draw energy from the car batteries back onto the grid. Along with cost, one challenge caused by energy storage is physical space as the area required for enough batteries to store the electricity produced may be prohibitive at many sites.

As discussed, there are a variety of options available for charging electric vehicles. Table B3 outlines all the currently available charging stations with differentiating details. 227 of 258

218

Table B3: Electric Vehicle Charger Summary
Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost Level 2 Chargers
ChargePoint
CT 400
https://www.chargepoint.com/

30A 7.2 kW (240V AC @
30A) x 2

3.8 kW (240V AC @
16A) x 2 (Power
share)
 LCD video screen
 Cable Management/retractors that automatically keep cable off of ground
 Mixed use capable – set up and manage access groups for public charging and specific fleet charging.
 Integrates with AssetWorks and vehicle telematics systems.  Fuel management and tracking capabilities per vehicle.  Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$3,604-$6,568
Sourcewell Contract
SemmaConnect
Series 6 public charging
https://semaconnect.com/

7.2kW 240VAC@ 30A  Interactive LED lights
 Easy payment with smart card authentication
 Load Management Ready
 Wireless data communication
 Optional cable management
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

SemmaConnect
Series 7 for Fleets
https://semaconnect.com/

7.2kW 240VAC@ 30A  Interactive LED lights
 Fleet Vehicle Management
 Fleet Access Control
 Fleet Manager Portal
 Late Plug-in/Plug-out Alerts
 Schedule Charge Start Time
 Session Data and Analytics
 State of Health Monitoring
 Load Management Ready
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$4,590 (1 year
service)
$5,920 (w/3-year
service)
$7,110 (w 5-year
service)
Low-cost dumb chargers paired with AmpUp
and Cyber Switching
https://ampup.io/

7.2kW
(Varies by car)
208/240VAC@ 40A

 Aggregated 4 to 1 network connection (lower cost)
 Networked smart solution
 Interactive app-based charging
 Per user reporting
 Manager reporting

 Utility
vehicles/carts

$2,999 - $4,099
EVMC Stand Alone
228 of 258

219

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost http://www.cyberswitching.com/power/home/
https://www.clippercreek.com/
 Reservation charging
 Group assignment
 Priority Charging

 Publicly available
charging

Feature EVMC w/ 2
YR Warranty

$1,050 - $1,487
Clipper Creek
Additional Pricing
may Apply.

EVSE LLC and AmpUp
https://ampup.io/
http://evsellc.com/

7.2kW and 9.6
kW
240VAC@ 30A and
240VAC@ 40A
 Modular hardware that provides many charging options
 Unique overhead and light pole mounted chargers
 Scheduling and dedicated access to multiple user groups  Manage multiple locations with hierarchical administration capabilities
 Achieve net-zero operating costs by opening chargers to the public during off-hours
 AmpUp proactive monitoring minimizes ongoing site
administration
 Schedule charging sessions and dedicate access to fleets during specific hours or day
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

Grizzle-e
Modular charging systems
https://grizzl-e.com/business-products/

9.6 kW 208-240 V, 40A
Can also be
configured to 16A,
24A, or 32A
maximum current
output
 Dynamically managed Power Sharing to limit maximum
amperage
 Adjustable maximum current output to allow the use of a 50A, 40A, 30A, or 20A dedicated circuits
 Demand/Response capable
 one PCPH and 10-42 Nodes
 Collects telemetry of the charging sessions including date/time, user, session duration, KWH consumed, payments, usage, and profitability.
 Expandable by adding additional nodes
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$1,700-2,000 + $500
per node
229 of 258

220

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost Grizzle-e Classic
Low-cost residential chargers
https://grizzl-e.com/home-products/

9.6 kW 208-240 V, 40A
Can also be
configured to 16A,
24A, or 32A
maximum current
output
 Installs to a 14-50R (RV Plug) outlet
 Easily transportable mounting bracket allows transport between different locations.
 Indoor and Outdoor NEMA rated.
 18-24’ cables available
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$399-$439
Power Electronics
NB Wall & NB City
https://power-electronics.com/electric-
mobility/
2 x 7.7 kW 240 V  Bluetooth-based authentication activated by device proximity  Multiple payment systems including RFID cards, credit/debit cards and smartphones.
 Smart power balancing for fleet management for at least 25 vehicles
 Dual Power Sharing functionality
Awaiting info
Wallbox Quasar
DC Bi-directional chargers
https://wallbox.com/en_us/

7.4 kW 32A (adjustable
amps with dynamic
power sharing),
240V input
 V2G/V2H
 Available in mid 2021
 Only available in ChadeMo but will be available in CCS in early 22022.
 UL certification in the US anticipated in mid-2021
 Grid-tied only (island due late 2021 for residential)  Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$4-5K depending on
features
Wallbox Pulsar Plus
Affordable smart chargers
https://wallbox.com/en_us/

9.6 kW 40A output  Smart charger with Bluetooth and Wifi, Alexa, Apple Watch, etc. for remote operations
 Demand Response for utility rates
 Dynamic Power sharing capable to modulate
 Hardwired or NNEMA 1450
 NEMA 4 outdoor rating
 Wall-mounted Dual pedestals available
 Digital profiles: car or user identified
 Available in Q2 2021
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$649
230 of 258

221

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost Xeal
Evocharge
32A/7.7kW at 240V, 40A output  Load Management- Add more chargers with less capacity  Wifi Networked System (nfc coming in Q1 2021)
 Cloud based dashboard portal (remote reports, monitoring, management, etc.)
 Get live updates on battery charge percentage
 Smart Phone App
 Reserve charging sessions function
 Mixed use application (private, public or both)
 Wall, Pedestal or dual mounted
 NEMA 4 Rated and UL Certified
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

$1,500
Powerflex
Webasto Turbo DX
32A/7.7kW at 240V, 40A output  Adaptive Load Management- Monitors entire buildings’ electrical capacity and diverts EXTRA, UNUSED available electricity to car charging. Updates in real time.
 No need for additional power/gear at most buildings.
 Wireless “mesh network” (ZigBee) or Wifi
 Save on Demand Charges with Proprietary Algorithms-
Drivers input miles requested to be charged and time of departure
 Smart Phone App
 1 LMC (load management controller) can manage up to100 + charging stations
 Cloud based dashboard for reports, monitoring and remote management
 Can work with Level 2, DC-Fast chargers or a combination  NEMA 4 Rated and UL Certified
 Wall, pedestal or dual mounted
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

LMC (load
management
controller) for entire
system = $10,000

Charger= $1,500
Enel X
https://www.enelx.com/n-a/en
32 amp
(7.7KW,
208/240V)
JuiceBox Pro 32 =
208/240 (40-amp
circuit).
 Cable Management/retractors that automatically keep cable off of ground
 Load Balancing/Load Management
 JuiceNet Enterprise Dashboard & Capabilities (Admin Log In)  JuiceNet App. (QR Code/Account Tracking)
 Utility
vehicles/carts
 Publicly available
charging

ALL MSRP
(discounting via
quantity ordered):
231 of 258

222

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost JuiceBox 2.01 Pro 32/40/48
JuicePedestal (Add 2 JuiceBoxes with Cord
Management System)
JuiceStand (Add 1 or 2 JuiceBoxes)
JuiceNet Enterprise (Software)

40 amp
(9.6KW,
208/240V)

48 amp
(11.5KW,
208/240V)

JuiceBox Pro 40 =
208/240 (50-amp
circuit).

JuiceBox Pro 48 =
208/240 (60-amp
circuit).

 NEMA-4 Rated
 Warranty already included in cost of stations (Base 3-year warranty)
 Turnkey, fast-to- deploy charging infrastructure
 OCCP 1.6J Compliant
 Connectivity (WIFI, Ethernet & Cellular)
 UPT (Unattended Payment Terminal for Public/High Volume needs)
 Different flavors (32/40/48) to accommodate any electrical capacity needs.
 Mobile app & dashboards include notifications, load
balancing, optimized charging schedules. Smart Level 2
chargers eligible for significant rebates via Incentive programs
 Versatile use cases
including resident
charging, customer
parking, and
employee charging.

Flexible mounting
solutions, and plug-
in and hardwire
versions for 32A,
40A, 48A versions
offer install
versatility.

Single Unit, Wall
Mounted: 32 ($1,369)
40 ($1,419)
48 ($1,449)
JuiceStand ($499)
JuicePedestal
($1,299)

Dual-Port Units, Free
Standing:
32 (Juicestand:
$3,237/JuicePedestal:
$4,037)
40 (Juicestand:
$3,337/
JuicePedestal:
$4,137)
48 (Juicestand
$3,397/
JuicePedestal:
$4,197)

232 of 258

223

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost JuiceNet Enterprise
Software:
+$120 per year/per
JuiceBox (1–10-year
packages available)
Level 3 DC Chargers
ChargePoint
ChargePoint Express
CPE250
https://www.chargepoint.com/

200-1000A 62.5kW  LCD Screen
 Modular architecture
 Simplified serviceability
 Built in redundancy
 Small charging footprint
 Light, medium,
heavy-duty vehicles

$61k (WA State
contract)
ChargePoint
ChargePoint Express Plus

100A Power
Module
200, 250, 300,
350, 500A
Power Block
200-350kW  Modular, scalable
 Simplified serviceability
 Built in redundancy
 Multiple configurations for charge ports
 Cable management
 Light, medium,
heavy-duty vehicles
 Emergency vehicles

Heliox
Flex 180
https://www.heliox-energy.com/us/home
250A (single);
83A (each
triple)
180kW
 Charge up to 3 vehicles: sequential, parallel, or dynamic  UL certified  Light, medium,
heavy-duty vehicles
 Emergency vehicles
$197k 1:3 charger to
dispenser (FL state
contract)
ABB
Tera 184
230A 180kW  Flexible architecture
 Compact footprint
 Fully compatible with current and future EVs
 Redundant power for maximum uptime
 Light, medium,
heavy-duty vehicles

233 of 258

224

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost  Emergency vehicles
Mobile and Portable Chargers
Freewire Technologies
Mobi Dual L2
https://freewiretech.com/
11 kW, split
between 2
J1772
Rechargers from
110v/ 220v outlet
or directly from a
J1772
 Battery integrated charger
 Intra site mobility
 Inter site mobility via trailer
 No infrastructure required
 ~320 miles of range per full charge
 Can discharge and recharge simultaneously
 Shifts load, reduces demand charges
 Cloud connected for status and reporting
 Light and medium-
duty fleet

Rechargers from
110v/ 220v outlet or
directly from a J1772
Freewire Technologies
Boost Charger DCFC
https://freewiretech.com/
120kW or 2
cars at 60kW
simultaneously
Input power:
240v @ 80–150-
amp service, or 208v
3 phase, @ 60–100-
amp service. Uses
low voltage input
and provides high
power output at up
to 500 volts through
standard
connectors.
 Semi-permanent battery integrated fast charger
 Dual port parallel charging
 Configurable connectors (e.g., 2 CCs, or @ CHAdeMO or 1 of each)
 Easy to relocate
 RFID card, payment processor
 OCPP 1.6
 160kWH battery
 Shifts load, reduces demand charges
 Light and medium-
duty fleet

$155k, Price includes
3-year warranty
SparkCharge
sparkcharge.io

20 kW 40 ADC, 150 - 500
VDC
 Total Energy: 3.5 kWh
 Usable Energy: 3.2 kWh
 Power (max continuous) 20 kW
 Dimensions: 220 mm x 320 mm x 600 mm
(8.7 in x 12.6 in x 23.6 in)
 Weight: 22 kg (48.4 lbs.)
 Rescue or backup
charging for all
electric vehicle
types
$4,000 per unit or
flexible lease to own:
$1,000-3000 down +
$450/month for 24
months
234 of 258

225

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost Solar Chargers
Beam (formerly Envision Solar)
EV Arc

Up to 43kW  Solar-powered with battery storage
 No design, permitting, utility/infrastructure upgrades or construction required
 Rapidly Scalable
 Can be moved
 Provides emergency backup power
 Due to the high
purchase price, The
EV Arc is a
specialized
application where
electrical power is
not available or to
avoid large initial
investments at non-
City owned sites.

Paired Power
SEVO SunStation
Up to 16.8 kW 16.8 kW, 40 amp,
300-500 VDC
 100% renewable energy (on-site)
 Off-grid or grid-connected options (net-meter solar)
 Zero utility bills (no demand or energy charges)
 Up to 6 configurable DC connectors (e.g., CCS or CHAdeMO)  Fully resilient (still online after power outage or utility shutoff)
 Dynamically managed power sharing
 Cloud connection (cellular modem) to enable fleet vehicle management and session data and analytics
 Payment processor, credit/debit cards
 OCPP 1.6+
 NEMA 4 outdoor rating
 Integral energy storage to be operational in 2021
 V2G compatible for CHAdeMO connectors
 Light and medium-
duty fleet
 Utility
vehicles/carts

$20k per port
(includes solar +
installation)
or
$120K for 6 ports
235 of 258

226

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost Skyhook Solar
D2
D4
D6
17kW D2: 1kW
D4: 2kW
D6: 3kW
 Islanded but is developing grid-connected for resiliency  Weighted base but movable with pallet jack
 Monitored remotely
 Can be equipped with sensors like air quality
 Can host advertising to cover cost
 No infrastructure upgrades nor permitting other than street use if in ROW
 D2: 3’x3’ 2 panels 1kW for e-bike and e-scooter
 D4: 2kW 3’x6’ L1 or L2 for up to 30ebikes or scooters or EVs (see website photo)
 D6: Larger 6 modules with 2 3kW L2 plugs for $40 = 60 miles  Light-duty fleet
 Utility
vehicles/carts

D2: $15k
D4: $25K
D6: $40K
Can be leased for
$300-$400/month
Mobile and Portable (Rescue) Chargers
Freewire Technologies
Mobi Dual L2
https://freewiretech.com/
11 kW, split
between 2
J1772
Rechargers from
110v/ 220v outlet
or directly from a
J1772
 Battery integrated charger
 Intra site mobility
 Inter site mobility via trailer
 No infrastructure required
 ~320 miles of range per full charge
 Can discharge and recharge simultaneously
 Shifts load, reduces demand charges
 Cloud connected for status and reporting
 Light and medium-
duty fleet
 Utility
vehicles/carts

Uses low voltage
input and provides
high power output
 Semi-permanent battery integrated fast charger
 Dual port parallel charging
 Configurable connectors (e.g., 2 CCs, or @ CHAdeMO or 1 of each)
 Easy to relocate
 RFID card, payment processor
 OCPP 1.6
 160kWH battery
 Shifts load, reduces demand charges
 Light and medium-
duty fleet
 Utility
vehicles/carts

$155k, Price includes
3-year warranty
236 of 258

227

Criteria Charging
Speed
Power Rating Unique Features/Benefits Applicability Cost at up to 500 volts
through standard
connectors.

SparkCharge
sparkcharge.io

20 kW 40 ADC, 150 - 500
VDC
 Total Energy: 3.5 kWh
 Usable Energy: 3.2 kWh
 Power (max continuous) 20 kW
 Dimensions: 220 mm x 320 mm x 600 mm
(8.7 in x 12.6 in x 23.6 in)
 Weight: 22 kg (48.4 lbs.)
 Fleet as rescue or
backup charging for
all electric vehicle
types
$4,000 per unit or
flexible lease to own:
$1,000-3000 down +
$450/month for 24
months

237 of 258

2 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes

1. Introduction of Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide;

2. Motion Directing Staff to Study and Review Drive-through Waiting Lane Impacts;

3. Motion to Note and File report.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 20, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has requested the consideration of a moratorium on the development of new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes citywide. This is based on the need to conduct a study of the impacts created by new drive-through lanes throughout Glendale’s commercial areas and to study the manner of which they are permitted, and determine if the current code should be amended to better reflect current development trends involving new and conversion of existing drive-through lanes throughout the City.

Council has requested this report to consider a moratorium on potential developments proposing new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes, to include all proposals that have not received approval at this time (pipeline). 238 of 258

22 3
6 1
1 COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: The moratorium is consistent with the Council’s desire to ensure that the growth and economic vibrancy of Glendale is befitting of the Council and community’s vision of a vibrant city, and to better understand the need and demand for drive-through waiting lanes.

Infrastructure and Mobility: The moratorium is consistent Council’s desire to have a well-planned and comprehensive transportation system that is a safe, efficient and well- coordinated multi-modal circulation system that focuses on enhancing roadway safety through effective engineering, enforcement and education to the public.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report regarding a moratorium and study of developments (new or existing) with drive-through waiting lanes. If the City Council is inclined to adopt an interim urgency ordinance temporarily prohibiting developments with or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes, a draft ordinance is provided for introduction and adoption.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a report regarding developments with drive-through waiting lanes and to consider introducing a moratorium on developments proposing new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes while studying the demand for such developments, and considerations for requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) or other regulations regarding drive-through development.

The Planning Division has received a growing number of applications for drive-through establishments (modifications to existing and new) even as concerns regarding the safety, aesthetics, and environmental impacts of this activity continue to become more evident. The effects of drive-through lanes on the City's major streets are difficult to align with adopted policies to support creating more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments.

Over the last five years, five (5) drive-through applications associated with restaurants have been submitted for review. Of these, four (4) were modifications of existing fast food style restaurants with new operators, and one (1) new fast food style restaurant is pending with a return for redesign from the Design Review Board. Also within this time period, staff has been contacted by various restaurant operators to preliminarily discuss potential locations for new drive-through waiting lane locations throughout the City. Other drive- through waiting lanes have been developed during this time and were generally associated with banks and pharmacies.

ANALYSIS
Section 30.32.090 of the Glendale Municipal Code contains standards for the approval of any drive-up or drive-through associated with a business (i.e. restaurants, drug stores). Those standards currently require enough space for the stacking of approximately three (3) cars or minimum of 60 feet between the beginning of the waiting 239 of 258

32 3
6 1
1 lane to the order board, with a total range of queuing length between 100 and 200 feet [an additional two (2) to seven (7) cars] for fast food and full-service restaurants. With approximately 20 feet per car, recent installations of fast food style drive-through waiting lanes in the City have experienced significantly longer lines than the maximum required length of 200 feet. When drive-through lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts in the shopping centers where they are located. The line of vehicles can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in traffic hazards, including unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of vehicles.

The Council has already introduced amendments to the DSP to prohibit developments containing drive-through waiting lanes (and will concurrently with this Report be considering for adoption) because, among other reasons, such developments in the DSP are not consistent with a walkable and pedestrian-friendly environment. A similar such prohibition that applies Citywide can be studied and considered for the same reasons.

In response to Council’s expressed concern regarding the impacts of existing and new drive-through waiting lanes in the City, staff intends to review the existing standards to ensure that future drive-through waiting lane installations minimize any conflicts and impacts, and are consistent with the City’s long-term policies. Staff will also study an option to prohibit drive-through waiting lanes Citywide for some or all uses (i.e., fast food restaurants, banks, pharmacies, etc.).

Moratorium Discussion
Under California Government Code section 65858, a city may adopt an interim ordinance to temporarily prohibit certain land uses and/or development standards that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council is considering or intends to study within a reasonable time. The purpose of such an interim ordinance is to give the City time to maintain the status quo and prohibit the issuance of entitlements or permits that would be in conflict with new contemplated standards. The rationale for an urgency ordinance that takes immediate effect is to prevent a “rush to the counter” of applications to establish new uses or development under old standards before new standards can be put in place. The delay in issuing permits allows the city to subject all new uses to the new standards.

Urgency interim ordinances under Government Code Section 65858 require adoption by 4/5 vote of the Council and expire within 45 days, unless extended in the manner described below. An urgency ordinance may only be adopted if the Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements, permits, and other approvals would result in a threat to that public health, safety, or welfare. In this case, the findings in the attached ordinance identify the consideration of proposed changes to drive-through waiting lane standards, or modifying how drive-through waiting lanes are permitted within the city.

These findings would be legislative in nature, and would be entitled to a presumption of 240 of 258

42 3
6 1
1 conclusiveness if adopted by Council.

After notice and public hearing, an interim ordinance may thereafter be extended for a period not to exceed ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, and then it may be extended once more for one year. An extension of an interim ordinance also required 4/5 vote of the Council.

Though the Council may utilize the moratorium mechanism while the City reviews potential changes to standards for drive-through waiting lanes, consideration should be given to “pipeline” status for projects that have some level of approval. While the recent number of drive-through waiting lane proposals has recently increased, it should be noted that the concerns have generally been at existing locations that were a result of turnover from perhaps less frequented fast food restaurants with drive-through waiting lanes to more popular establishments, many of which do not comply with current zoning standards.

Urgency Ordinance Procedures
The Council can adopt an urgency ordinance without following the typical procedures to amend the zoning code, which typically requires notice, public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council, introduction and adoption by the City Council, and a 30-day delay between the adoption and the effective date of the new law. An urgency ordinance can be passed consistent with the Charter and state law by introduction at one Council meeting and adoption at a subsequent regular meeting and can become immediately effective. At least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the urgency ordinance, the Council must receive and approve a report outlining the actions the City has taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the ordinance. In other words, the City must provide a status report on the action it has undertaken with respect to any potential changes to the use/development standards for drive-through waiting lanes in this report.

Urgency Options
If Council desires to introduce and adopt an urgency interim ordinance, staff has prepared a draft ordinance for consideration. Council would need to provide direction on what pipeline projects, if any, would be exempt from the proposed interim ordinance.

Non-Urgency Options
Council could wait to impose a moratorium until a policy analysis can be executed. This study would seek to understand potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive- through waiting lane development in the City.
241 of 258

52 3
6 1
1 STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholder and public outreach would be conducted during any policy studies regarding the demand and effect of new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane standards and/or processes. This includes any businesses that would be impacted by this change, as well as residents and adjacent neighborhoods to understand impacts to quality of life.

FISCAL IMPACT
The action of placing a moratorium on future drive-through waiting lanes has no direct costs or financial benefits associated with it. Indirectly, the City would not gain the sales tax and associated permit fees that would flow from future drive-through waiting lane developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Community Development Department staff have evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the proposed Interim Ordinance temporarily barring new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and have concluded that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and thereby qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308; the action is therefore exempt from further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Introduce an interim urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on all development projects containing a new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane with exemption for development projects with a certain level of approval (“pipeline status”) as of the date of adoption, and also direct staff to engage in a policy analysis/study to be executed in 2023 to study drive-through waiting lane impacts and demand and potential modifications to the development standards applicable to drive-through waiting lane proposals.

2. Note and file this report, decline to introduce an interim ordinance, and instead direct staff to engage in a policy analysis/study to be executed in 2023 to study drive-through waiting lane impacts and demand and potential modifications to the development standards applicable to drive-through waiting lane proposals.

3. Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
242 of 258

62 3
6 1
1 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

John Takhtalian, Interim Director of Community Development Prepared by:

Kristen Asp, AICP, Principal Planner
Reviewed by:

Jason Bradford, Director of Finance/Information Services Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
243 of 258

1 6
8 0
8 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS

AND/OR PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH NEW OR CONVERTED DRIVE-

THROUGH WAITING LANES IN THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY

THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, concerns have been raised over the number of developments with uses and/or standards that include new and converted drive-through waiting lanes in all parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, residents, Councilmembers, and other stakeholders and individuals have expressed concerns that current zoning regulations may not fully address the impacts that drive-through waiting lanes may have in the community, and the effects of drive-through waiting lanes on the City's major streets; and WHEREAS, when drive-through waiting lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts within the shopping centers where they are located and those lines can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in significant traffic hazards, including, but not limited to, unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of cars; and WHEREAS, the goal of any new drive-through waiting lane zoning standards, allowable uses and regulations is to develop comprehensive regulations which recognize and balance the various interests related to drive-through waiting lanes in a manner tailored to the City's unique needs and community vision, and which are supportive of more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments, and which reflect the land use and zoning policy choices of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Municipal Code contains the standards for the approval of drive-through waiting lanes and establishes the desired physical development requirements; and
WHEREAS, the development standards established for drive-through waiting lines are meant to allow development with drive-through waiting lanes in a logical and safe manner by accommodating patrons of drive-through waiting lanes on-site, thereby minimizing conflicts with multi-modal forms of transportation (walking, cycling, vehicular) in the use of City streets, alleys, bike lanes and sidewalks; and 244 of 258

2 6
8 0
8 WHEREAS, the drive-through waiting lane development standards contained in Section 30.32.090 and accompanying Chart IX (Section 30.32.180) of the Glendale Municipal Code (“Parking and Loading – Parking Area Design and Layout Standards”) allows development projects that propose a drive-through waiting lane with the minimum dimensions and layout standards for an onsite vehicular waiting lane, including start of lane distances from service windows for restaurant uses and other uses, and from ordering devices, as well as a requirement for a separation lane from the onsite circulation to off-street parking spaces. These standards are intended to eliminate encounters of vehicles using the waiting lane versus vehicular access to off-street parking as well as, eliminate the spillover of waiting vehicles onto adjacent public-r-o-w’s or neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, there are several current and future uses that are eligible and may propose new or converted drive-through waiting lanes Citywide, and there is one current development proposing a drive-through waiting lane using the drive-through waiting lane development standards that has received some level of discretionary review, Starbucks – 216-222 S Glendale and 611 Orange Grove (Return for Redesign); if developed, this would allow a 1,414 square-foot counter service restaurant with a drive-through waiting lane; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has introduced an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to prohibit developments with drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment and encouraging residents to walk and bike in the DSP, and the City wishes to comprehensively study the benefits of such a prohibition Citywide; and
WHEREAS, drive-through waiting lane developments utilizing current development standards are a permitted use in most all Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial Zones (soon to be considered for prohibition by City Council in the DSP and currently prohibited in IMU-R and SFMU Zones for fast food restaurants only) and do not require any special conditional or other use permit; and WHEREAS, the City is considering revising or eliminating the drive-through waiting lane development standards or amending the Glendale Municipal Code to require uses proposing drive-through waiting lanes to obtain a conditional use permit, or prohibit such use entirely; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo with respect to drive-through waiting lanes in the City by assuring that no applications for developments that contain uses or standards with new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are accepted, processed or approved, and no building permits for new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are issued while the City conducts a study on drive-through waiting lanes, is consistent with good planning; and
245 of 258

3 6
8 0
8 WHEREAS, until the drive-through waiting lane policy study is complete, and any new regulations are adopted, there is a significant risk that some individuals or entities may make investments in and/or obtain approval to develop new drive-through lanes that would soon thereafter be illegal, nonconforming, or subject to an amortization program; and
WHEREAS, during this process, the City will be thoroughly studying and examining the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the potential exists that proposed or converted drive-through waiting lane development project applications are inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane development policies, zoning, or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane development standards and/or uses; and WHEREAS, any approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City has the potential to contravene future revised drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements, while such revisions are being studied, which will result in a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements in the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses or development standards that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium on new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project will prevent changes to the existing physical environment within the city, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)).
246 of 258

4 6
8 0
8 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City’s Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Interim Ordinance temporarily barring development projects with drive-through waiting lanes and conversion of exiting drive-through waiting lanes from changing establishments within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certifies that this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating development projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City’s interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City’s neighborhoods.

4. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, to ensure a well-planned and safe community.

6. The City Council has introduced amendments to the DSP to prohibit developments that contain drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of encouraging pedestrian activity and alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle riding and public transportation, and wishes to comprehensively study whether such a prohibition should also be enacted Citywide.

7. The City finds that the potential exists that drive-through waiting lane project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane and development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane, development standards, and conditional use permit requirements, and that any approval of development uses that include new or converted drive-through waiting lanes have the potential to contravene future revised or eliminated drive-through waiting lanes and development standards 247 of 258

5 6
8 0
8 while such standards are being studied, which will result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any land use entitlement(s) and/or permits under the Glendale Municipal Code for development projects which contain new, or conversion of existing, drive-through waiting lanes, defined as any project that proposes the development of a “drive-through waiting lane”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.32.090 (“Drive-through Waiting Lane Project”) within the City of Glendale. [OPTION 1]: Said moratorium shall not apply to any Drive- through Waiting Lane Project that has received a return for redesign determination from the Design Review Board prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. [OPTION 2]: Said moratorium shall not apply to any Drive-through Waiting Lane Project that has received all discretionary land use entitlements and at least one building permit for a building, or remodel of existing building prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and shall not apply to any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City.]

2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a Drive-through Waiting Lane Project within the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such development except as specifically exempted in Subsection 1 above.

3. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, zoning or development standards, with respect to drive-through waiting lane developments in the City for consideration by the City Council.

4. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

5. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Interim Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council’s making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an 248 of 258

6 6
8 0
8 urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council.

SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff report dated September 20, 2022, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless timely extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
249 of 258

7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
250 of 258

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member __________, that the City Council has reviewed the September 20, 2022, staff report from the Interim Director of Community Development regarding Consideration of a Moratorium on Developments with New or Converted Drive-through Waiting Lanes in the City (“Report”), and hereby directs staff to undertake and complete a study and review of the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City, as further described in the Report and pursuant to City Council direction at the meeting.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
251 of 258

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
252 of 258

3 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Al Fresco Dining in Private Parking Lots

1. Motion directing staff to conduct study on the conversion of private parking lots to outdoor dining

2. Motion suspending enforcement on existing Al Fresco locations in private parking lots while City conducts study on conversions

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 20, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has requested that staff consider opportunities to create a by-right path for restaurants that wish to transition existing, private parking lots into outdoor dining locations. After an initial review, staff is proposing that a greater study be conducted to understand any of the potential impacts to removing parking, impacts to surrounding uses, and other potential paths for restaurants to maintain their existing outdoor dining installations. During this time, staff recommends that Council extend the allowance of these installations and suspend any enforcement, provided that the establishment is following all rules and regulations, until staff has the opportunity to conduct a full study and provide a report to Council.
253 of 258

23 3
6 1
8 COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: These actions are consistent with Council’s priority for Economic Vibrancy as it expands the liveliness of two major shopping and dining destinations within the City.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council suspend enforcement on any existing outdoor Al Fresco dining locations within private parking lots, and direct staff to study the potential impacts of allowing the conversion of parking for restaurant establishments into outdoor dining areas.

BACKGROUND
Since the City declared a state of emergency on March 16, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has undertaken a number of regulatory actions, economic development efforts, and tenant protections to assist businesses during ongoing closures and operational reductions. Part of this strategy included the City’s Al Fresco Program that created outdoor dining areas in public parking spaces, and allowing for the conversion of private parking lots into outdoor dining as a means to allow restaurants to continue business operations. The Al Fresco program has had farther reaching benefits in that it has also provided a direct benefit to patrons and the business district as a whole.

The program has infused new energy and activity through the use of parklets in Downtown and Montrose, and has provided expanded options for restaurants in private parking lots.

In October of 2021, Council directed staff to expand the parklet program into a permanent program, including designs for new installations. These installations have been completed in Montrose and the contracting of new parklets for Downtown is currently underway. As part of the program, Council also directed the extension of all Al Fresco locations through February of 2022. Since then, inquiries have been made regarding the possibility of private parking lot installations to be allowed by-right. This was largely catalyzed by significant investments made by private businesses to create attractive and vibrant outdoor dining installations as well as limited impacts regarding parking or spillover impacts of parking from these establishments. While these limited impacts are observational, they could be studied at greater length to better understand how patrons choose to park, and if there have been any negative or unintended consequences to surrounding uses such as non-restaurant uses and residential neighborhoods.

ANALYSIS
Those that have established Al Fresco locations within private parking lots have created new business and revenue opportunities for existing restaurants. While Community Development staff have received limited complaints regarding the impacts of outdoor dining, such as parking and disruption, additional study needs to be conducted to understand whether the conversion or limited provision of parking for restaurants is feasible and what impacts could be a result of that change. This would likely require a larger study regarding parking, specifically with non-residential uses as a whole and how parking standards are discerned between different non-residential uses. 254 of 258

33 3
6 1
8 Some of the elements that would need to be studied include:
•Understanding if current minimum parking requirements are greater than demand; •Impacts to any surrounding uses, such as restaurants that are near residential neighborhoods, due to any spillover parking effects;
•Understanding the relationship of allowing restaurants to have limited or reduced parking in comparison to other non-residential uses;
•Whether there are existing tools such as Parking Reduction or Variance permits that could allow for the continued operation of outdoor dining in private parking lots for specific locations; and
•Developing design and engineering standards that would ensure that any locations that include any form of built structure (ex. Platform, shading, etc.) are safe and accessible.

This study will allow staff to develop a full suite of recommendations that may allow the program to remain, or even potentially expand. Extending the allowance of operations and suspending enforcement, will allow existing businesses to maintain their installations.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As part of any further analysis, staff would propose conducting meetings with restaurants and businesses that have created Al Fresco locations, or have considered them, to understand the needs, use and demands. Additionally staff would propose to meet with surrounding businesses and neighborhoods to understand current conditions as it relates to parking, noise disturbances, and any other potential impacts or concerns that could be a consequence of additional Al Fresco locations.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Environmental review may need to be considered as part of additional analysis and any changes to the Zoning Code as a result of the study.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Suspend enforcement on existing Al Fresco dining locations on private parking lots until staff can conduct a larger study on the opportunities to allow the conversion of private parking to outdoor dining. This would allow existing businesses to maintain their operations until the full impacts are better evaluated.

Alternative 2: Do not extend the allowance of existing Al Fresco locations, thus requiring the removal of existing installations until staff can study the full impacts. 255 of 258

43 3
6 1
8 Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
256 of 258

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby directs staff to conduct a study on the conversion of private parking lots to outdoor dining as discussed in the Report to Council dated September 20, 2022.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
257 of 258

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby directs staff to suspend enforcement on existing Al Fresco dining locations in private parking lots while the City conducts a study on conversions.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
258 of 258

Glendale City CouncilSeptember 20, 2022

Glendale City Council
September 20, 2022