Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, January 28, 2025

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

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

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.

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.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. 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

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

JANUARY 28, 2025

ROLL CALL
-
3:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, January 28, 2025 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on January 23, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1 TYPED 1/24/2025 7:48:39 AM
01 28 25
SP CC

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

3:00
PM
on
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re:

Annual Alex Theatre Report – Calendar Year 2024
a. Note and File Annual Alex Theatre Update

2. Community Development, re: Montrose Shopping Park Business Improvement District Annual Work Plan (Budget) for Calendar Year 2025 a. Motion to accept Montrose Shopping Park Association 2025 Budget and Work Plan

3. Public Works, re:

Single Source Procurement of an Electric Vehicle (EV) Patrol Unit for the Glendale Police Department
a. Resolution Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order for an upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol vehicle from Unplugged Performance Inc.
b. Resolution of appropriation to appropriate $27,758

4. Public Works, re:

Fleet Electrification Study Update
a. Motion to Note and File the Report on the Update to the Fleet Electrification Study and Provide Direction to Staff

ADJOURNMENT

2 TYPED 1/24/2025 7:48:39 AM
01 28 25
SP CC

1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Annual Alex Theatre Report – Calendar Year 2024

1. Note and File Annual Alex Theatre Update.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report Only
Approved for January 28, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Annual report of Alex Theatre activity and goal attainment. This past year has been focused on audio and visual equipment upgrades, major maintenance work on the neon marquee, design services for the refresh of the theatre, hosting 100 shows including a number of notable sold out performances, and a fresh brand and website launch – TheALEX.com.
3 of 191

21 5
6 1
6 RECOMMENDATION
Note and file annual report for the Alex Theatre.

ANALYSIS
The annual report provides updates regarding the three stated Council priorities for the Alex Theatre. These include financial stability for the Theatre, accessibility to community groups while serving as a cultural hub, and to attract top quality entertainment clients, events, and performances with great frequency which will be an economic catalyst for the downtown. Below is a summary of activity facilitated by Evnsong (formerly called SAS Entertainment) for the last year, including additional goals the Theatre is pursuing, and challenges faced:

1. Infrastructure - Deferred Maintenance and upgrades to aging and out-of-service equipment.
a. Marquee: After a challenging process of finding the right service provider for the neon marquee, maintenance and repairs have been underway or completed to restore the iconic downtown centerpiece. Planned out in 3 phases, phase 1 and 2 are now complete, leaving just the tall tower repairs to accomplish in the coming year.
b. Building Refurbishment: The design team for a general refurbishment of the building has been contracted and their conceptual designs completed.

This will address upgrades for paint, carpeting, restrooms, dressing rooms, seat fabric and cushions, forecourt, and exterior repairs. The Theatre has not received a general refresh since the major rebuild in the 1990s.
c. Aging Equipment: The essential equipment for producing shows has not been upgraded in many years, and does not meet industry standards.

Completing these upgrades have been a major focus of the Theatre. This past year, the stage audio system upgrades were completed, allowing shows to save additional thousands in rental equipment. Also completed this year was the upgrade of the lighting controller system, with additional lighting and video upgrades planned for the coming year.

2. Community
a. This past year has had a number of noteworthy community events, including recitals by several Glendale-based dance and music studios:

Lark Society, Glendale Youth Orchestra, City of Glendale’s Genocide Commemoration, Women’s Equality Day, Tanfis Palestine benefit, Diwali celebration, ALEX Film Society Stooges event, JPL collaboration Blended Worlds, and Hosharian Orchestra Concert.
b. The ALEX continues to offer community groups affordable access to the theatre through discounts, co-promotions, and the newly streamlined City Sponsorship days.

3. Visibility
a. By utilizing their long-standing industry reputation, Evnsong has developed new ongoing partnerships this year which will continue to support the Theatre’s activities moving forward.
4 of 191

31 5
6 1
6 i. A highlight is the co-production partnership with 88.9 KCSN “the SoCAL Sound.” This new partnership brought 2 shows in 2024 featuring multi-Grammy winning artists Benjamin Gibbard & Jackson Browne. These shows put the ALEX front and center to the 11.5 million listeners of the radio station. More shows are in the planning stages in 2025, along with a year-long promotion of the ALEX 100 1925-2025 celebrations and the Century Patron Project. ii. Bringing 2 shows to the ALEX stage in 2024, with several in the works for next year, is the prolific independent promoter Brian Martin. His well-sold shows included Puerto Rican legend Jose Feliciano, and the crowd favorite “Whose Live Anyway” featuring Drew Carey.
iii. Among other notable shows, several Armenian artists were featured including Reincarnation, LadaNiva, Tigran Hamasyan, Element Band, Armenian Kings of Comedy, Nemra, and the “sold- out to the rafters” Pallet.
iv. Lastly, The ALEX invited several new audiences into the Theatre this past year by programming the indie folk-rock darlings, Rodney Crowell, Marshall Crenshaw, Moffat Travel Love.
b. Additionally, a fresh brand and website was launched – The ALEX – bringing a new presence to the Theatre.

4. Stability
a. With the passing of CA SB478 the “Honest Pricing - or - Hidden Fees” statute the event ticketing industry has been in a difficult transition, and this is reflected in overall ticket sales. This new law requires the 10-20% service fees, 3% credit charges, and the City’s $4 facility fee be added directly to the total listed ticket price, instead of being added at the end of the transaction. This has led to confusion among patrons, and has negatively impacted overall sales. Evnsong is seeing patrons buying cheaper tickets first, instead of the higher priced front rows, due to this confusion and expectation of added fees at the end. It is an unprecedented period in the live performance industry, and Evnsong is in discussions with other industry leaders on how to best address this moving forward.
b. Despite this challenge, the ALEX continues to operate at a high usage rate and expects that bookings and revenue in 2025 will continue to increase, based upon the foundations already laid for success.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No outreach is associated with this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Below is a description of the revenue generated from Ticket Fees from January 2024 - December 2024. Ticket information per show is provided by the Theatre and submitted to the City through 5 of 191

41 5
6 1
6 quarterly reports:

Existing Revenue
Amount Account String Funding Source
$145,386 35911-1010-CDD-2511-P8027 General Fund
In 2024 year, the Theatre hosted 24 shows with audiences greater than 900 attendees, and an overall total of 100 events. The ticketed events generated $145,386 in Facility Fees. In comparison to 2023, the Theatre hosted 31 shows with audiences over 900 attendees, 102 total events, and generated $207,440 in Facility Fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves noting and filing of a staff report on the 12-month performance status of the Alex Theater. There is no possibility that the action to note and file this report may have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1. Note and file the report.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Tamar Sadd, Deputy Director of Community Development
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Show Sales January 2024-December 2024
6 of 191

9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby note and file the Annual Alex Theatre Report for Calendar Year 2024 presented to the City Council on January 28, 2025.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
7 of 191

2024 Alex Pro Forma Alex Theatre - Facility Fee Report Q1 1/6/2025 16:18:00 Q1 - 2024 1
January February March
Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees 1 ($ - ) 1 Growth Day Private 1 Growth Day Private 2 ($ - ) 2 Growth Day Private 2 ($ - )
3 ($ - ) 3 ($ - ) 3 Glendale Youth Orch 254 ($ 102) 4 ($ - ) 4 ($ - ) 4 ($ - )
5 ($ - ) 5 ($ - ) 5 ($ - )
6 ($ - ) 6 ($ - ) 6 ($ - )
7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - )
8 ($ - ) 8 ($ - ) 8 Jose Feliciano 998 ($ 3,552) 9 ($ - ) 9 Pablo Montero 631($ 1,028) 9 ($ - ) 10 ($ - ) 10 Marshall Crenshaw 374($ 1,252) 10 ($ - ) 11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - )
12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - )
13 ($ - ) 13 ($ - ) 13 ($ - )
14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - )
15 ($ - ) 15 ($ - ) 15 F*cks News 1110($ 3,264) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - )
17 ($ - ) 17 ($ - ) 17 ($ - )
18 ($ - ) 18 ($ - ) 18 ($ - )
19 ($ - ) 19 ($ - ) 19 ($ - )
20 ($ - ) 20 ($ - ) 20 ($ - )
21 ($ - ) 21 ($ - ) 21 ($ - )
22 ($ - ) 22 ($ - ) 22 ($ - )
23 ($ - ) 23 ($ - ) 23 Tigran Hamasyan 994 ($ 3,164) 24 ($ - ) 24 Los Ardilles 186($ 744) 24 ($ - ) 25 ($ - ) 25 IN-CONCERT Free Event 25 ($ - )
26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - )
27 Kings of Comedy 1244($ 4,976) 27 ($ - ) 27 ($ - ) 28 ($ - ) 28 ($ - ) 28 ($ - )
29 ($ - ) 29 Growth Day Private 29 Brincos Dieras 1314($ 5,224) 30 ($ - ) ($ - ) 30 LACO 216 ($ 852)
31 Growth Day Private ($ - ) 31 ($ - )
TOTALS 1,244($4,976) TOTALS 1,191($3,024) TOTALS 4,886($16,158) Q1 2024 Total ($24,158)
8 of 191

2024 Alex Pro Forma Q2
11/6/2025 16:18:31
April May June
Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees 1 ($ - ) 1 Growth Day Private 1 ($ - )
2 ($ - ) 2 Growth Day Private 2 ($ - )
3 ($ - ) 3 ($ - ) 3 ($ - )
4 ($ - ) 4 Brian Eno Film 783 ($ 3,132) 4 ($ - ) 5 Ladaniva 1105($ 4,420) 5 ($ - ) 5 ($ - )
6 ($ - ) 6 Location Filming NA 6 Oakwood Graduation Free event 7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - )
8 ($ - ) 8 Disney Private event Private 8 ($ - ) 9 ($ - ) 9 Woodbury Fashion Show 457 ($ 932) 9 ($ - ) 10 ($ - ) 10 ($ - ) 10 ($ - )
11 ($ - ) 11 Odette Quesada 1326($ 5,132) 11 ($ - ) 12 ($ - ) 12 Helen 589 ($ 2,356) 12 ($ - )
13 Julio Sabala 391 ($ 1,224) 13 ($ - ) 13 ($ - ) 14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - )
15 ($ - ) 15 GCC - Arts at the ALEX 177 ($ 480) 15 Socal Sound BENEFEST 967 ($ 3,324) 16 ($ - ) 16 Space - This Is Us 568 ($ 1,348) 16 ($ - ) 17 ($ - ) 17 Perros Criollos 1095($ 4,300) 17 ($ - ) 18 Film Shoot NA 18 Armenian Fairytales 1255 City Sponsored 18 ($ - ) 19 ($ - ) 19 Glendale Youth Orch 256 ($ 72) 19 ($ - ) 20 LACO 206 ($ 824) 20 ($ - ) 20 Kyle Cease Private 21 Memorial Event 1364 Free Event 21 ($ - ) 21 Kyle Cease Private 22 ($ - ) 22 ($ - ) 22 Kyle Cease Private
23 ($ - ) 23 ($ - ) 23 Kyle Cease Private
24 ($ - ) 24 KOHAI 259 ($ 1,036) 24 ($ - )
25 ($ - ) 25 LACO 248 ($ 868) 25 ($ - )
26 Lark Music Free event 26 Daniela Darcourt 506 ($ 1,880) 26 ($ - ) 27 Pallet 1358($ 5,132) 27 ($ - ) 27 ($ - )
28 ($ - ) 28 ($ - ) 28 ($ - )
29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - )
30 Growth Day Private 30 ($ - ) 30 ($ - )
($ - ) 31 ($ - ) 31 ($ - )
TOTALS 4,424($11,600) TOTALS 7,519($21,536) TOTALS 967($3,324) Q2 2024 Total 12,910($36,460)
9 of 191

2024 Alex Pro Forma Q3
11/6/2025 16:19:13
July August September
Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees 1 ($ - ) 1 ($ - ) 1 Growth Day Private
2 ($ - ) 2 ($ - ) 2 Growth Day Private
3 ($ - ) 3 ($ - ) 3 Growth Day Private
4 ($ - ) 4 ($ - ) 4 Growth Day Private
5 ($ - ) 5 ($ - ) 5 ($ - )
6 ($ - ) 6 ($ - ) 6 ($ - )
7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - ) 7 ($ - )
8 ($ - ) 8 ($ - ) 8 ($ - )
9 ($ - ) 9 ($ - ) 9 ($ - )
10 ($ - ) 10 ($ - ) 10 ($ - )
11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - )
12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - )
13 ($ - ) 13 ($ - ) 13 Nightmare on Elm Street 467 ($ 1,468) 14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - ) 14 Alvaro Torres 715 ($ 2,044) 15 ($ - ) 15 ($ - ) 15 Pacific Ballet 355 ($ 876) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - )
17 ($ - ) 17 ($ - ) 17 ($ - )
18 ($ - ) 18 ($ - ) 18 ($ - )
19 ($ - ) 19 ($ - ) 19 ($ - )
20 ($ - ) 20 ($ - ) 20 Angelina Jordan 598 ($ 1,500) 21 ($ - ) 21 ($ - ) 21 Swan Lake - 2 shows 1909($ 6,320) 22 ($ - ) 22 ($ - ) 22 INConcert Free event 23 ($ - ) 23 ($ - ) 23 ($ - )
24 ($ - ) 24 ($ - ) 24 ($ - )
25 ($ - ) 25 ($ - ) 25 Women's Day City Event Free event 26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - )
27 ($ - ) 27 ($ - ) 27 ($ - )
28 Miss Philippines USA 605 ($ 2,420) 28 ($ - ) 28 Nemra 854 ($ 3,416) 29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - )
30 ($ - ) 30 ($ - ) 30 Growth Day private
31 ($ - ) 31 Growth Day Private ($ - )
TOTALS 605($2,420) TOTALS 0 ($ - ) TOTALS 4,898($15,624) Q3 2024 Total 5,503($18,044)
10 of 191

2024 Alex Pro Forma Q4
11/6/2025 16:19:45
October November December
Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees Event Name Patrons Facility Fees 1 Growth Day Private 1 ($ - ) 1 ($ - )
2 Growth Day Private 2 LACO 341 ($ 132) 2 ($ - ) 3 ($ - ) 3 Beetlejuice 189 ($ 140) 3 ($ - ) 4 Diwali Free Event 4 ($ - ) 4 ($ - )
5 JPL - Blended Worlds Free Event 5 ($ - ) 5 Crystalline Resonance 208 ($ 784) 6 ($ - ) 6 ($ - ) 6 Whose Live Anyway 1254($ 5,016) 7 ($ - ) 7 Reconstruct Dance 318 ($ 1,240) 7 SOCAL Sound Ben Gibbard 1021($ 3,472) 8 Location Filming NA 8 Jimmy Sea 826 ($ 3,204) 8 Degas Dance Studio 748 ($ 2,992) 9 ($ - ) 9 Los Kjarkas 957 ($ 3,240) 9 ($ - )
10 ($ - ) 10 Hosharian Orchestra 902 ($ 2,264) 10 Ruben Matevosyan 994 ($ 3,976) 11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - ) 11 ($ - )
12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - ) 12 ($ - )
13 Tanfis II 306 ($ 1,224) 13 ($ - ) 13 ($ - )
14 ($ - ) 14 ($ - ) 14 Red Chair Nutcracker (2) 2632($10,140) 15 ($ - ) 15 ($ - ) 15 Red Chair Nutcracker 1324($ 5,124) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - ) 16 ($ - )
17 Pace Ballet 199 ($ 576) 17 Glendale Youth Orch 349 ($ 184) 17 ($ - ) 18 Pace Ballet 535 ($ 1,272) 18 Zac Effron A24 Filming NA 18 ($ - ) 19 LACO 234 ($ 62) 19 Zac Effron A24 Filming NA 19 ($ - ) 20 ($ - ) 20 Zac Effron A24 Filming NA 20 Angeles Chorale 697 ($ 2,144) 21 ($ - ) 21 Zac Effron A24 Filming NA 21 ($ - ) 22 ($ - ) 22 Patagonia Tango 372 ($ 1,488) 22 ($ - ) 23 ($ - ) 23 Merci, Charles 691 ($ 2,764) 23 WBS - Nutcracker 1170($ 4,524) 24 Lasso 366 ($ 1,000) 24 ($ - ) 24 WBS - Nutcracker 1035($ 2,928) 25 ($ - ) 25 ($ - ) 25 ($ - )
26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - ) 26 ($ - )
27 Dr. Laura 651 ($ 1,640) 27 ($ - ) 27 ($ - )
28 Dr. Laura 754 ($ 1,996) 28 ($ - ) 28 Armenian Fairytales 546 ($ 1,944) 29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - ) 29 ($ - )
30 ($ - ) 30 Three Stooges 704 ($ 1,254) 30 ($ - ) 31 ($ - ) ($ - ) 31 ($ - )
TOTALS 3,045($7,770) TOTALS 5,649($15,910) TOTALS 11,629($43,044) Q4 2024 Total 20,323($66,724)
11 of 191

2 24-87115

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Montrose Shopping Park Business Improvement District Annual Work Plan (Budget) for Calendar Year 2025

1. Motion to accept Montrose Shopping Park Association 2025 Budget and Work Plan.

Click or tap here to enter text.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for January 28, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Montrose Shopping Park Association submits its Proposed Budget for the upcoming year, outlining various marketing strategies and allocation of assessment funds. The current Management Agreement between the City and the Montrose Shopping Park Association (MSPA) expires on December 31, 2028.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion accepting the Annual Work Plan (“Budget”) as submitted by the Montrose Shopping Park Association (“MSPA”) for the calendar year covering January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025.

ANALYSIS
Budget
Annually, the MSPA, in the capacity of the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board, is required by local ordinance and the California Streets & Highway Code to submit an annual budget that estimates the expenditures necessary to implement its annual work plan. The City Council must review and approve the budget, which is funded solely by the merchants. The work plan includes various tools for marketing and promoting the district and details how assessment funds will be spent during the upcoming calendar year.

Many of the Montrose Shopping Park iconic events that provide a substantial income flow, such as the Montrose Wine Walks and Arts & Crafts Festival, are back and continue to attract locals and visitors to the Montrose Shopping Park. The Montrose Harvest Market has consistently remained open throughout the year and brought in an estimated revenue of $225,880.
12 of 191

22 24-87115
5 7
4 8
The Montrose Shopping Park Association has submitted a 2025 budget which shows a recap of 2024 revenues and expenses (Exhibit 1) and the 2024 detailed work plan/budget (Exhibit 2). The 2025 total estimated income is $560,000. This estimated income includes $180,000 in assessments and $380,000 from key revenue generating events and programs such as Harvest Market, Arts & Crafts Festival, Wine Walks, and Filming.

2025 is expected to be another successful year of popular events that will continue to bring the community together.

Management Agreement
The current Management Agreement between the City and the Advisory Board that allows the Board to administer the assessment funds for the marketing and promotion of the BID expires on December 31, 2028. The MSPA has consistently managed the BID in a professional manner and as a result improved the standing of the organization and its financial position. This agreement is in affect and will not expire until December 31, 2028.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The MSPA works with their board to create their budget / work plan. No additional outreach was required with this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Council may request that the Montrose Shopping Park Association make specific revisions and resubmit.

Alternative 2: Council may consider any other altrnative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Tony Chriss, Development Officer
13 of 191

23 24-87115
5 7
4 8
Jennifer De La Mora, Principal Economic Development Officer Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Montrose Shopping Park Association Budget for 2025 Exhibit 2: Montrose Shopping Park Budget and Work Plan 2025 14 of 191

spcc_01282025_motion_2a.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, that the Montrose Shopping Park Association annual work plan (budget) for calendar year 2025 (January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025), attached to the City Council Staff Report dated January 28, 2025, from the Director of Community Development is hereby accepted and ordered filed with the City Clerk.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
15 of 191

1 MO

NTROSE SHOPPING PARK ASSOCIATION
BUDGET AND WORK PLAN 2025
Prepared for Presentation to the Glendale City Council
The
Montrose Shopping Park Association continues its commitment to keep the Montrose Shopping Park the “jewel in the crown” of the City of Glendale.

MSPA’
s many iconic events are “key” to guaranteeing increased pedestrian traffic in the MSP. • On Sa
turday, February 9 th, our Valentines Flower Cart will be located at the southeast corner of Honolulu Ave. & Ocean View Blvd. where 500 long- stemmed roses will be provided free to MSP shoppers that day by our event staff along with a costumed celebrity impersonator.
• Mon
trose’s 7th Annual Spring Wine Walk will return March 15th, as will the Montrose’s 7th Annua
l Holiday Wine Walk on November 8th. This unique event is “in-store” driven and is very popular with our merchants and customers alike.
• Th
e 13th Annual Kids & Kritters Day returns alongside the Sunday Harvest Market on May 4th, featuring Wild Wonders Exotic Animal Shows, pony rides, a farm animals petting zoo, Kids Zone, local dance troupes performing, First Responders exhibits and more. • Th
e fir st weekend in June brings back the 41st Annual Montrose Arts & Crafts Festival .

The largest two -day outdoor street event in Glendale offering crafts and fine arts shopping, food and musical entertainment for the whole family.
• On J
uly 6th, the 23rd Annual Montrose Car Show returns to all three blocks of Honolulu Avenue displaying more than 350 classic cars, hot rods, trucks and motorcycles. • On Oc
tober 31st the Halloween Spooktacular will once again provide a fun, safe and family- oriented venue for the many thousands of trick-or-treaters that attend every year. • Ou
r weekly Harvest Market continues to operate every Sunday - rain or shine - except Easter Sunday. The Market functions as a service to the Foothill communities and surrounding areas. Offerings include organic farmers, agricultural producers, prepared food and packaged food producers.
• Mon
trose Old Town Christmas concludes the year’s events . It all s tarts with our Tree Lighting Ceremony the day after Thanksgiving on Plaid Friday (as we now call it) followed the next day by Small Business Saturday . There are free horse-drawn wagon rides, photos with Santa and live bands in every block each weekend from Thanksgiving to Christmas , including free hand-led pony rides on Saturdays.
• Budge
ting for the lighting of the trees throughout the Shopping Park and the seasonal street décor makes Montrose a destination for anyone looking for that “Old Town ” feeling. The Glendale City Council officially designated Montrose as Glendale's "Old Town" in 2008. 16 of 191

2 MSPA funds several beautification efforts to ensure the best physical appearance for our community.

MSPA’s budget this year provides for increasing the full-town power washings from twice a year to nine months out of twelve, an increased MSPA investment of more than $40,000 added to the monthly power washing of the Viet Nam War Memorial area.

MSPA continues to rely on City resources as well for supplemental power washing of City sidewalks and seating areas in 2025. The Board of Directors also requests the City of Glendale to look into replacing the city trash containers throughout the Shopping Park , as the ones currently in use are no longer adequate to meet the needs of today.

Another paramount concern is the safety of our pedestrians traversing the many crosswalks in the MSP. The Board asks that the cr osswalks be equipped with warning lights and the stucco walls adjacent to them be removed to increase visibility.

MSPA’s partnership with the City of Glendale in working together to address these ongoing needs for increased beautification and public safety is very much appreciated.

MSPA’s numerous print advertising campaigns continue to be a budget ed priority for all the individual public events a s well as for the November-December Holiday Season activities. Our social media advertising campaigns add an attractive call-to-action every week.

MSPA remains financially committed to supporting the Glendale Police Department’s Substation at 3600 Ocean View Blvd. #11, providing the Montrose Shopping Park merchants and surrounding communities with increased security via an ongoing police presence. Our annual contribution to the maintenance of the Vietnam War Memorial helps to provide an historically significant venue for the annual Memorial Day Observance and a place of reflection and remembrance for the community.

As always, MSPA is grateful to the Glendale City Council and City Sta ff for their continued partnership and support of the Montrose Shopping Park BID.

Respectfully submitted,

The Montrose Shopping Park Board of Directors

17 of 191

BUDGET 2025
EST. FINAL
2024

YEAR-TO-DATE
2024 FINAL 2023

ESTIMATED NET INCOME
HARVEST MARKET 225,000 225,880 211,960 199,161 ASSESSMENTS 180,000 179,176 179,176 152,650 ARTS & CRAFTS FESTIVAL 95,000 102,241 102,241 87,817 WINE WALKS 50,000 49,300 49,300 52,407 FILMING 10,000 17,133 17,133 1,425 TOTAL NET INCOME 560,000 573,730 559,811 493,460

TRADITIONALLY FIXED EXPENSES
SEASONAL LIGHTING 12,000 67,060 63,860 12,599 lights replace every other year SEASONAL DÉCOR 17,000 16,977 16,177 21,033 CHRISTMAS PARADE 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,220 MSPA-HQ & GPD SUBSTATION 27,808 25,035 25,035 21,952 INSURANCE 3,025 3,013 3,013 2,988 WEBSITE 3,195 3,196 3,196 5,390 MISCELLANEOUS 800 2,594 2,549 1,155 one time expenses non-repeating PRINTING 1,600 1,673 1,673 699 POSTAGE & PO BOX 290 290 290 345 OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSES 3,800 3,660 3,455 4,345 DIRECTORIES 1,600 800 - 1,600 TAX & ACCOUNTING SERVICES 5,200 5,190 5,190 5,165 VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL 1,010 1,010 1,010 800 MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVANCE 1,260 1,257 1,257 1,361 CRESCENTA VALLEY FIREWORKS ASSN. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 POWER WASHING & CLEANING 43,380 12,500 12,165 8,198 increase to 9Xs annually MSPA MEMBERS MEETINGS 5,400 5,747 5,723 2,284 MSPA STORAGE 2, 100 2,389 2,119 1,800 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES 44,400 44,400 40,700 42,400 TOTAL FIXED EXPENSES 181,118 204,041 194,661 141,334 MONTROSE SHOPPING PARK ASSOCIATION BUDGET 2025
18 of 191

BUDGET 2025
EST. FINAL
2024

YEAR-TO-DATE
2024 FINAL 2023
MONTROSE SHOPPING PARK ASSOCIATION BUDGET 2025

PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES
SEASONAL PROMOTIONS: 95,959 84,554 83,111 90,412 February 9th: Valentines Day Weekend 3,269 4,594 4,594 2,754 March 15th: Spring Wine Walk 24,600 18,546 18,546 19,507 addt'l supplies May 4th: Kids 'N' Kritters 9,441 7,527 7,527 7,620 July - Aug.: Summer Shopping DaysPromo 850 150 150 1,499 July 6th: Car Show 6,810 6,093 6,093 10,036 October 31st: Halloween Spooktacular 13,143 12,005 12,005 11,346 November 8th: Holiday Wine Walk 25,601 23,488 23,346 26,251 November 28th: White Friday & Tree Lighting 6,760 6,707 6,557 6,162 Nov. 29th: Small Business Saturday 2,235 2,194 2,194 2,327 Friday Shop & Dine 3,250 3,250 2,100 2,910 CHRISTMAS EVENTS & ACTIVITIES 22,505 22,622 10,272 21,233 ARTS & CRAFTS FESTIVAL 67,383 65,933 65,933 62,993 HARVEST MARKET 112,865 109,447 102,895 98,550 TOTAL PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES 298,712 282,556 262,211 273,188

ADVERTISING EXPENSE
CHRISTMAS ADVERTISING 17,780 17,779 9,799 20,504 PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS 1,000 760 760 2,016 NON-SEASONAL ADVERTISING 800 800 800 - SOCIAL MEDIA 17,000 16,940 15,640 16,938 TOTAL ADVERTISING EXPENSE 36,580 36,279 26,998 39,458 TOTAL EXPENSES 516,410 522,876 483,871 453,980 249,920 Projected Remaining Funds (2025 Reserve) 19 of 191

3 24-87101

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Single Source Procurement of an Electric Vehicle (EV) Patrol Unit for the Glendale Police Department (GPD)
1) Resolution Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order for an upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol vehicle from Unplugged Performance Inc.
2) Resolution of appropriation to appropriate $27,758

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for January 14, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the citywide fleet electrification plan, the approved FY 2024-25 budget included funds for the purchase or one EV patrol vehicle for use by GPD. The purpose of this procurement is for GPD to test the performance and efficacy of EV patrol vehicles prior to the eventual transition from hybrid engine patrol vehicles to EVs. Staff received a quote for a fully upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol vehicle for $116,144 from the vendor Unplugged Performance Inc. in Hawthorne California. This vendor is uniquely qualified to furnish this equipment because they have extensive experience performing this type of work, and are solely authorized by Tesla Motors to upfit their vehicles and; therefore, a single source procurement is justified. Additionally, staff proposes a 10% contingency for this procurement or $11,614 be added to this procurement for any unforeseen additional costs encountered during the build.
20 of 191

32 24-87101
5 7
4 4

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order for an upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol vehicle for a total not-to-exceed amount of $127,758 inclusive of sales tax and contingencies from Unplugged Performance Inc. In addition, that the City Council approve a resolution of appropriation of $27,758 to provide adequate funding for this procurement.

ANALYSIS
On September 20, 2022, the Glendale City Council approved a motion to note and file a staff report regarding the Fleet Electrification Study and directed staff to implement the plan to transition the city’s fleet to EVs by 2040. Additionally, on April 28, 2023, the Advanced Clean Fleets rule was approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandating state and local government fleets transition specific classes of vehicles to zero emission. Even though public safety vehicles were specifically exempted from this CARB rule which also doesn’t apply to light-duty SUVs such as the Tesla Model Y, it represents a statewide push for cleaner vehicles. The city of South Pasadena recently converted their entire police department patrol fleet to EVs.

As part of the FY 2024-25 Annual Budget, GPD was authorized to purchase one new EV patrol vehicle. This will allow GPD to test out this EV model before a larger fleet transition to EVs is implemented. Our consultant, Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) identified three OEM manufacturers of EV patrol vehicles: Chevrolet EV PPV, Ford Mustang Mach-E GT and Tesla models 3, S, X & Y. Of these options, only the Chevrolet EV PPV is a manufactured pursuit rated vehicle. Since the other options are not manufactured for use by public safety applications, they typically require extensive custom upfitting.

Transitioning to EVs for public safety presents unique challenges. For example, since GPD is a 24/7 operation, finding time to recharge vehicles can be difficult. Significant charging infrastructure to support this fleet of vehicles is essential. The EV patrol options are limited and considerably more expensive. The Ford Motor Company does not appear to be developing an EV version of the popular hybrid engine Police Interceptor Utility patrol vehicle favored by many public safety agencies including GPD. Patrol car use is rigorous and demanding. They are driven dynamically and are generally one of the more high-use and high-mileage classes of vehicle in the city’s fleet. Patrol vehicles are loaded with public safety equipment which adds significantly to the weight of the vehicles.

GPD checked the various EV options available and preferred the Tesla Model Y for this procurement. While real world testing for all option is limited, this model appears to be the most tested option. The City of South Pasadena transitioned their entire patrol fleet to this model providing an example of it working for a smaller city with manageable issues. The City of Menlo Park successfully integrated three Tesla Model Y vehicles to their patrol fleet. Additionally, tests of EV patrol vehicles performed by the Michigan State Police and to a lesser extent by the Los Angeles Police Department informed GPD to determine that the Tesla Model Y is the preferred model compared to the alternatives. 21 of 191

33 24-87101
5 7
4 4
The Tesla Model Y has optimal equipment storage compared to the alternatives. There were no concerns reported regarding the drivability of this model in pursuits from the agencies that have implemented them. Staff believes the reported issues for this model such a constrained driver space, roof glass, and autopilot interference are manageable.

GPD reached out to the upfit vendor Unplugged Performance Inc. regarding the purchase of a fully upfitted Tesla Model Y patrol vehicle. Typically, patrol vehicles are purchased from a local dealership following a competitive bidding process and then upfitted by a different vendor. Unplugged Performance Inc. is uniquely qualified to upfit Tesla models because of their extensive experience and working relationship with Tesla. They are a Tesla approved body shop and their upfit work will not lessen Tesla’s manufacturer’s warranties. Unplugged Performance Inc. upfit South Pasadena Police Department’s EV fleet of vehicles.

Staff received a quote of $116,144 from Unplugged Performance Inc. which includes the base vehicle and tax. To ensure any incidental and unforeseen costs are covered such as cost increases of upfit equipment, a 10% contingency of $11,614 for this procurement is also advised. Therefore, the maximum total cost of this procurement is $127,758.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The purchase of an EV patrol vehicle from Unplugged Performance Inc. will cost $127,758, a portion of which was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget.

Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $27,758 from the Fleet Management Fund balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$100,000 51000-6010-PWD-7509-P0000 Fleet Management Fund Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$27,758 27900-6010-PWD-
0000
51000-6010-PWD-
7509-P0000
Fleet Management
Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
22 of 191

34 24-87101
5 7
4 4

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not approve the resolution authorizing the single source procurement of an EV patrol vehicle for GPD and resolution of appropriation and direct staff to competitively bid for an EV patrol vehicle. Staff believes this will result in an inferior vehicle not supported by Tesla.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the resolution authorizing the single source procurement of an EV patrol vehicle for GPD and resolution of appropriation and direct staff to abandon this procurement. GPD will be unable to perform their own testing of an EV patrol vehicle.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Manuel Cid, Police Chief
Prepared by:

Sevada Hambarsumian, Fleet Superintendent
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Campaign Disclosure
23 of 191

3 RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE
BIDDING; AND AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

FINANCE/PURCHASING ADMINISTRATOR TO ISSUE A PURCHASE
ORDER TO UNPLUGGED PERFORMANCE, INC., FOR THE

PURCHASE OF A FULLY UPFITTED TESLA MODEL Y PATROL

VEHICLE
WHEREAS, as a part of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Budget, the Glendale Police Department was authorized to purchase one new electric patrol vehicle intended to allow the department to test out this vehicle model in patrol operations; and WHEREAS, electric vehicles produce no direct greenhouse gasses or other emissions and the Glendale Electrification Study provides the city with a plan to transition the municipal fleet to zero emission by 2040; and
WHEREAS, three OEM manufacturers of electric patrol vehicles were identified and analyzed by Glendale Police Department staff and they recommend moving forward with the purchase of a Tesla Model Y for this purpose, and WHEREAS, the Tesla Model Y appears to be the most tested model available and has been implemented in the cities of South Pasadena and Menlo Park, and WHEREAS, the Tesla Model Y has optimal equipment storage compared to the alternatives and there were no concerns reported regarding the drivability of this model in pursuits from the agencies that have implemented them, and WHEREAS, the upfit vendor Unplugged Performance Inc. is uniquely qualified to upfit Tesla models because of their extensive experience and working relationship with Tesla, their status as a Tesla approved body shop and that their upfit work will not lessen Tesla’s manufacturer’s warranties; and
WHEREAS, staff determined the quote of $116,144 for one upfitted Tesla Model Y from Unplugged Performance, Inc. is fair and commensurate with the cost of the equipment and labor associated with the proposed upfit work and that a 10% contract contingency of $11,614 is also recommended; and.

WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Sec. 9 provides an exemption to competitive bidding when the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, given the need to implement electric vehicle technology Glendale fleet, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the city’s best interest― to dispense with competitive bidding, and to authorize the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing, to issue a Purchase Order to Unplugged Performance Inc., for a fully upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol Vehicle.
24 of 191

23 1
3 2
8 6

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and approving a purchase order contract.

2. The Council hereby:

A. Dispenses with competitive bidding;
B. Authorizes the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order – subject to approval to form by the City Attorney – with Unplugged Performance, Inc. for $127,758 inclusive of sales tax and contingencies.

Adopted on this ______ day of ______________________, 2025.

ATTEST:
_____________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ___________was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of ______, _____________2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
25 of 191

26 of 191

City of Glendale Exhibit 1

DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), Economic Development Department (“EDD”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, EDD, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, EDD member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, EDD members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, EDD's, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, EDD, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, EDD, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
• • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
• A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more. • A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or
more. Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name
Unplugged Performance/Up.Fit
Title
Address
3523 Jack Northrop Ave, Hawthorne, CA 90250
CityFull Name Business Address State
CA
Zip
Chairperson
Ben Schaffer
Keith Pham
Avi Fischer
Chief Executive Officer / President 3523 Jack Northrop Ave 3523 Jack Northrop Ave
3523 Jack Northrop Ave
Hawthorne
Hawthorne
Hawthorne
90250
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
CA 90250
More than 10% interest owner CA 90250
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. 27 of 191

Subcontractor(s)**:

Full Name
Name Address
CityTitle Business Address State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:

I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form. 2In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

December 14th 24
, at:
12:52pm
Executed on:

Signature:
, 20 , California.

James HedlandPrint Full Name:
3523 Jack Northrop Ave, Hawthorne, CA 90250Address:
(213) 493-6323 [email protected]
E-mail Address:

Phone Number:

Rev. 6/7/12 J:\FILES\DOCFILES\ORD\CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION\DISCLOSURE FORM – CONTRACTOR – 6-7-12.doc 28 of 191

2 24-86634
Item Type: Action Item
Approved forJanuary 14, 2025 calendar

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Fleet Electrification Study Update

1. Motion to Note and File the Report on the Update to the Fleet Electrification Study and Provide Direction to Staff.

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Public Works Department (PWD) is charged with maintaining 820 motorized vehicles used to support all city operations. In September 2022, the not-for-profit consulting firm Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) prepared a Fleet Electrification Study for review by the City Council that provided a plan to electrify the fleet by 2035 or 2040. The Council directed staff to implement the plan to transition the city’s fleet to electric vehicles by 2040. Additionally, direction was given for annual updates on the study; to look at a true 100% zero-emission goal; to examine other zero-emission technologies, specifically hydrogen; and delaying the scheduled replacement of vehicles to wait for emerging electric technology. Additionally, it was suggested that the Fleet Electrification Study be updated every two years to account for changes in operations and vehicle technology.

The updated Fleet Electrification Study attached as Exhibit 1 provides a revised roadmap to transition the city’s fleet to zero-emission. Most notably, Electric Vehicle (EV) technology and availability has significantly changed over the past two years and reflected in the market analysis in the study. Additionally, the new study provides extra focus on the daily use patterns of individual vehicles to refine the infrastructure needs assessment to support these vehicles and reduce the projected costs of the transition. The new study also addresses new state regulations impacting the transition plan. 29 of 191

2 24-86634
2 RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion to note and file the Update to the Fleet Electrification Study, and to provide any additional direction to staff related to fleet electrification.

ANALYSIS
On January 30, 2024, the City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with CTE for $102,200 for the Update of the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study.

During the remainder of 2024, CTE prepared this update with fresh data and input from city staff.

While this update was being prepared, the city has continued with the implementation of the 2022 plan. The City Council was previously provided with a status update on this implementation when this PSA was authorized in January 2024.

Fleet Electrification Implementation Update
Staff continues to aggressively seek out EV replacement vehicles in compliance with the study. The table below illustrates the status of the EV procurement plan after 3 years:

Fiscal
Year
EVs
Planned
EVs
Budgeted
EVs
Ordered
2023 8 10 8
2024 20 31* 17
2025 35 21 19
2026 36
2027 24
2028 34
2029 54
2030 98
2031 133
*Originally 31 were budgeted for EV; however, only 20 were pursued due to a lack of OEM vehicles in the compact pickup vehicle class.

The Fleet Electrification Study also sets annual EV procurement targets designating the percentage of new vehicle purchases being EV each year. The targets for FY 2022-23, through FY 2024-25 have all been met. The EV procurement targets as percentages of annual fleet procurement are shown in the table below.

Fiscal
Year
2040 EV
Procurement
Target
EV
Procurement
Achieved
2023 10% 11%
2024 10% 15%
2025 25% 37%
30 of 191

2 24-86634
3 2026 50%
2027 50%
2028 75%
2029 75%
2030+ 100%
The planned quantities for EV replacement have not been met for the past two years because the city has replaced fewer total vehicles per year than recommended by the study. This is due to a lack of availability of some EV replacements and our belief that ideal replacements may be available in the next few years. For example, new EV minivan options are expected to be available later in 2025. Some replacements were delayed due to the current exorbitant cost of EV replacements such as for heavy-duty street sweepers.

Staff chose to not recommend other vehicles for replacement due to their better-than- expected current physical and mechanical condition and our belief that keeping theses older vehicles operating for the next few years in in the city’s best financial interests.

For many vehicle classes, EV availably has improved significantly over the past two years. For example, ½ ton pickup trucks were not available to municipalities two years ago but are now available from multiple manufacturers. The city has added Ford Lightnings to the fleet and ordered Chevrolet Silverado EVs. Unfortunately, there is still no EV compact pickup truck model available which is popular for government fleets.

Comparable ¾ ton or 1 ton EV work truck alternatives are still limited.

The city’s first EV compact sweeper was delivered in November 2024. This unit will be used predominately to clean the city’s protected bike lanes and alleys. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) grant-funded construction equipment has been ordered and will arrive soon. Staff expects the final unit of this work group to be delivered in May 2025.

Thirteen level 2 EV chargers were installed to supplement the numerous level one chargers throughout the city. There are 72 GWP public chargers also available for city use. A new project was established in FY 2024-25 for $250,000 for the installation of EV chargers for city use.

GWP established the Acacia/Tropico Substation Upgrade project to accommodate the growing demand for electricity in south Glendale including from the Public Works Corporation Yard, Integrated Waste Management Facility, and Beeline Maintenance Facility as well as the City Fleet/Bus Electrification project for electric infrastructure improvements to support the planed electrification of the city’s fleet. Additionally, GWP continues to invest $1,000,000 annually in their public EV charger program.

Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation
Since the 2022 Fleet Electrification Study, California adopted the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation that requires for specified classes of vehicles that 50% of annual purchases be zero emission starting January 1, 2024, and 100% of annual purchases be zero emission starting January 1, 2027. This regulation applies to on road vehicles over 31 of 191

2 24-86634
4 8,500 lbs. and exempts public safety vehicles. CTE analyzed this regulation in the study update and how compliance can be achieved. The 2024 study update identified several vehicle classes the city should be aware of that could potentially cause future compliance issues. In August 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified that Glendale is compliant with this new regulation. Due in large part to the 2022 study and efforts by staff, city is well-positioned to maintain ACF compliance going forward.

Fleet Assessment
CTE performed an updated market analysis of the city’s fleet and prepared a new suitability index of the city’s classes of vehicles. They researched the classes of vehicles used by the city and spoke with representatives of various vehicle manufacturers. CTE spoke with representatives from several city departments to learn about their fleet needs and impressions of EV alternatives available.

The EV replacement schedule was revised based on this updated data; however, the 2040 completion date was maintained. Over the past two years, advances in EV technology now shows EV alternatives to some vehicle classes such as street sweepers, refuse trucks and most light-duty classes to be imminent. Unfortunately, for a few classes such as ladder trucks, there appears to be no EV alternatives in development. For fire engines, a truck with a primary EV engine and diesel backup engine appears to be the only EV option that will be available between now and 2040.

Despite strategies used by staff to minimize costs, EV alternatives are still generally more expensive than Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). For EV procurements, the cumulative cost increase over the entire transition schedule is $87.8 million. This represents the difference between cumulative transition procurements (EV) of $264,568,000 and Cumulative Baseline Procurements (ICE) of $176,706,000. The incremental cost of only the initial first-time EV replacement vehicles is $42.6 million. Staff intends to use the study to calculate revised fleet charge-back rates to city departments to cover these costs.

Facilities Assessment
As part of the updated Fleet Electrification Study, need use patterns of the fleet were assessed with the goal of scaling down charging infrastructure and project costs. Instead of a 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio, the updated plan calls for the sharing of EV chargers by multiple vehicles as much as possible based on use patterns. This strategy has reduced the projected cost of charging equipment, including design and installation, by approximately $24.2 million compared to the previous study.

In the 2022 original study, GWP provided an analysis of the electric infrastructure upgrades needed to support fleet electrification. For the 2024 study update, PWD requested and GWP provided a revised analysis. In addition to upgrades to distribution and transmission infrastructure, an overhaul of the Acacia Substation will be needed. The Acacia Substation is over 50 years old and serves the load of the Ginger Bremberg Integrated Waste Facility, Public Works Corporation Yard and Beeline Maintenance Facility.
32 of 191

2 24-86634
5 The projected cost of the GWP infrastructure upgrades increased by $10.6 million to $32.5 million primarily due to an increase in the project scope recommended to improve the reliability of the system. The projected cost was also adjusted up due to increases to equipment and materials costs such as for power transformers and other components.

The implementation schedule for the EV chargers was adjusted to match the EV vehicle transition schedule. For the GWP infrastructure upgrades, the schedule was updated to match GWP’s project schedules for these improvements. The GWP upgrades are expected to be completed in 2030-31 which is soon enough to support the fleet electrification transition timeline.

Maintenance Assessment
The updated Fleet Electrification Study continues to project fewer costs associated with fleet maintenance for EV vehicles over ICE. EVs don’t experience maintenance costs related to internal combustion engines such as oil changes, air filer replacements and tune-ups. There are fewer automotive parts supporting an EV battery compared to ICE.

These savings over the entire transition schedule are $30.2 million. For these savings to be realized; however, organizational changes in the city’s fleet maintenance operation would likely have to be implemented near the end of the transition period. This may include staffing reductions and the closure of a fleet maintenance shop.

Fuel Assessment
In the 2022 Fleet Electrification Study, the fuel costs of EVs compared to ICE were generally comparable. In the update, due to a few factors, CTE now projects a $71.2 million increase in fuel costs over the course of the transition of EVs over ICE. The primary driver of this cost increase projection is the GWP Electric rate increases which weren’t in place in 2022. Secondly, these electric rates are compared to the cost of diesel, unleaded and CNG fuel which the city buys in bulk at wholesale prices. The updated fuel assessment is based on current prices the city pays for these commodities which is lower than the basis of the study two years ago.

To partially mitigate this cost increase, CTE recommends reducing vehicle charging during peak demand periods with a charge management system or battery storage system. Fleet Services staff will work the GWP on these and other strategies to minimize these fuel costs. Transit recently began discussions with GWP on electrification costs for the Beeline fleet which is further along in the process than for our other large municipal operation fleets. Based on their progress, staff expects these costs can be substantially mitigated by implementing measures to limit EV charging during the day. This may require the city to adjust some operations to better optimize these strategies.

Emissions Assessment
The primary driver of electrification the city’s fleet is the reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) and pollutants harmful to human health. EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions.

Even accounting for the use of fossil fuels in producing electricity, the transition plan projects a reduction of 53 million lbs. in GHG from 2025-2040. This is in addition to significant reductions in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. The 33 of 191

2 24-86634
6 transition plan projects a small increase sulfur emissions from electricity generated from coal combustion. However, and GWP shift its energy generation away from coal and towards renewable sources, the emission benefits of fleet electrification will steadily improve.

Implementation
Staff will immediately begin implementation of the revised Fleet Electrification Study for a zero-emission fleet by 2040. Additionally, the recommendations and strategies described in the revised study will also be considered.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As the Updated Fleet Electrification Study only applies to Glendale’s municipal fleet, no public outreach is planned. The study includes input from multiple city departments including GWP, Fire and Police. Staff intends to organize public demonstrations of EV equipment to show off this emerging technology and comply with grants.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting this report. However, the continued implementation of the Fleet Electrification Study is expected to result in costs projected at $154 million over the course of this transition as described in the study associated with the acquisition of vehicles, EV chargers, facility upgrades and improvements to GWP’s existing electrical infrastructure that are anticipated to impact both the city’s General Fund and Enterprise Funds. However, unlike in the previous plan, electrification for many of the city’s vehicle classes is now required due to new state regulations. This is approximately $60 million less than the estimate from the 2022 study.

As part of the annual calculation of the city’s internal service provider fleet rates, staff plans to have our consultant prepare a model for EV costs that may impact the existing rate structures.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
34 of 191

2 24-86634
7 Prepared by:

Shea Eccleston-Banwer, Public Works Administrator
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – 2024 Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study 35 of 191

4 M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the January 14, 2025, staff report Fleet Electrification Study 2024 Update and Exhibit 1 Update to Fleet Electrification Study to City Council regarding the plan to transition the city’s fleet to electric vehicles by 2040 is hereby noted and filed. Additionally, the City Council provides the following direction to staff regarding the Fleet Electrification Study 2024 Update:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
36 of 191

Exhibit 1

Municipal Electric Vehicle
Fleet Electrification Study

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Presented by Center for Transportation and the Environment December 2024

37 of 191

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21 City of Glendale, CA Municipal Fleet Service Overview .................................................................................... 21 City Fleet Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 City Facility Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 Public Works Yard ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 City Hall Complex ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Glendale Water and Power Utility Operations Center .................................................................................. 25 Integrated Waste Yard ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 Police Department Parking Lot .............................................................................................................................. 28 Fleet Electrification Study ............................................................................................................................................. 29 California Regulations ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Market Review ................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Analysis Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 36 Feasibility & Fleet Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Fleet Transition Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 37 Methodology Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Detailed Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 41 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 46 Fuel Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Methodology Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 58 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Detailed Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 59 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 68 38 of 191

Facilities Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 74 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Methodology Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 74 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Detailed Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 75 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 79 Benefits Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................. 81 Maintenance Cost Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 81 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 82 Methodology and Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 82 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 83 Emissions Reductions ..................................................................................................................................................... 84 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 84 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Methodology and Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 85 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 86 Cost Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Transition Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 89 Total Cost of Ownership................................................................................................................................................. 92 Funding Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................... 95 The Potential for Hydrogen in the City’s Fleet .......................................................................................................... 98 Market Analysis for FCEVs ............................................................................................................................................ 98 Light-Duty FCEVs ......................................................................................................................................................... 99 Medium- and Heavy-Duty FCEVs ....................................................................................................................... 100 Hydrogen Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 103 Local Station Availability ....................................................................................................................................... 105 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 107 Appendix A: City of Glendale Vehicle Market Analysis ....................................................................................... 109 Appendix B: Feasibility by Vehicle Type ................................................................................................................... 114 Appendix C: Analyses by Site ......................................................................................................................................... 119 Fleet Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 119 Public Works Yard .................................................................................................................................................... 119 City Hall Complex ...................................................................................................................................................... 120 Glendale Water & Power ........................................................................................................................................ 121 39 of 191

iii

Integrated Waste Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 122 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................ 123 Police Parking ............................................................................................................................................................. 123 Other Sites .................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Fuel Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................. 126 Public Works Yard .................................................................................................................................................... 127 Civic Center Complex............................................................................................................................................... 127 Glendale Water & Power ........................................................................................................................................ 128 Integrated Waste Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 129 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................ 129 Police Parking ............................................................................................................................................................. 130 Facilities Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 131 Public Works Yard .................................................................................................................................................... 131 Civic Center Complex............................................................................................................................................... 131 Glendale Water & Power ........................................................................................................................................ 131 Integrated Waste Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 132 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................ 132 Police Parking ............................................................................................................................................................. 132 Other Locations.......................................................................................................................................................... 133 Total Cost of Ownership.............................................................................................................................................. 133 Public Works Yard .................................................................................................................................................... 133 Civic Center Complex............................................................................................................................................... 133 Glendale Water & Power ........................................................................................................................................ 134 Integrated Waste Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 134 Fire Station 21 ............................................................................................................................................................ 134 Police Parking ............................................................................................................................................................. 135

40 of 191

List of Acronyms
ACC Advance Clean Cars
ACF Advanced Clean Fleet
AFLEET Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEC California Energy Commission
CO Carbon Monoxide
CMS Charge Management System
CTE Center for Transportation and the Environment
CVRP Clean Vehicle Rebate Project
DC Direct Current
DCFC Direct Current Fast Charger
DOE Department of Energy
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
FCEB Fuel Cell Electric Bus
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
GGE Gasoline Gallon Equivalents
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GH2 Green Hydrogen
GPD Glendale Police Department
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP Glendale Water and Power
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HVIP Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project ICE Internal Combustion Engine
JPL Jey Propulsion Laboratory
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt Hour
kWh/mi Kilowatt-hour/mile
LAX Los Angeles International Airport
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
LSV Low Speed Vehicle
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hours
NOx Nitrous Oxides
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
O&M Operations and Maintenance
SCIP Southern California Incentive Project
SOC State of Charge
41 of 191

SORE Small Off-Road Engines
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
TOU Time-of-Use
WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council
WTW Well-to-Wheel
ZE Zero-Emission
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle

42 of 191

List of Tables
Table E1. Fleet composition by Vehicle Category and Type ................................ ................................ . 2 Table E2. Electric Vehicle Suitability Scoring Assumptions ................................ ................................ . 5 Table E3: Purchases by ACF Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 Table E4: 2040 Annual Emissions, Baseline vs. Transition ................................ ............................... 15 Table 1. Fleet Profile at Primary Facilities ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 Table 2. Fleet Profile at the Public Works Yard ................................ ................................ ...................... 23 Table 3. Fleet Profile at City Hall Complex ................................ ................................ ............................... 24 Table 4. Fleet Profile at GWP Utility Operations Center ................................ ................................ ..... 25 Table 5. Fleet Profile at Integrated Waste Yard ................................ ................................ ..................... 26 Table 6. Fleet Profile at Fire Station 21 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 27 Table 7. Fleet Profile at Police Parking Lot ................................ ................................ .............................. 28 Table 8. List of Fleet Vehicles by Type ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Table 9. Sites included in transition plan and number of assets at each site ............................. 41 Table 10. Commercially Viability Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ 42 Table 11: Suitability Score Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 43 Table 12: Suitability Rankings by Year ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 46 Table 13: Feasibility of each Vehicle Type ................................ ................................ ............................... 49 Table 14: Purchases by ACF Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 55 Table 15: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Procurement Costs, 2025-2040 ........................ 57 Table 16: Charger types ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Table 17: Vehicle types that are only compatible with proprietary level 1 chargers ............. 61 Table 18: Vehicle types by assigned charger power ................................ ................................ ............ 61 Table 19: Vehicle to Dispenser Ratios................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 Table 20: Fossil fuel costs per unit in 2024 ................................ ................................ ............................. 66 Table 21: Utility rates applied ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 67 Table 22: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Fuel Costs, 2025-2040 ................................ .......... 72 Table 23. Summary of the Combined Peak Demand at the Primary Facilities ........................... 76 Table 24. GWP Upgrade Cost Estimates and Timeline ................................ ................................ ........ 76 Table 25. Number of Chargers installed by type and site ................................ ................................ .. 78 Table 26. Cost Assumption for Infrastructure Installation ................................ ................................ 79 43 of 191

vii

Table 27. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs by Facility ................................ ................. 80 Table 28: Annual Maintenance Cost Assumptions per Vehicle in 2024 ................................ ....... 83 Table 29: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Maintenance Costs, 2025-2040 ......................... 84 Table 30: Grid electricity source mix ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 85 Table 31: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Emissions, 2025-2040 ................................ .......... 88 Table 32: 2040 Annual Emissions, Baseline vs. Transition ................................ ............................... 88 Table 33. Summary of Transition Costs for 2040 Scenario ................................ ............................... 91 Table 34: Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ ...................... 94 Table 35. Hydrogen Stations near Glendale ................................ ................................ .......................... 106 Table A1. Market Analysis Vehicle Categories ................................ ................................ ...................... 109 Table A2. Light Duty Market Options ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 109 Table A3. Light Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ................. 109 Table A4. Light Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ................. 110 Table A5. Light Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ................. 110 Table A6. Light Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ................. 110 Table A7. Light Duty Options ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 110 Table A8. Medium Duty Market Options ................................ ................................ ................................ . 111 Table A9. Medium Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ........... 111 Table A10. Medium Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ........ 111 Table A11. Medium Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ........ 111 Table A12. Heavy Duty Market Options ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 112 Table A13. Heavy Duty Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ............ 112 Table A14. Non-Road Market Options ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 112 Table A15. Non-Road Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ............... 112 Table A16. Non-Road Market Options Continued ................................ ................................ ............... 113 Table B1. Operational requirements, fuel economies, and vehicle costs for the fleet sorted by vehicle type and fuel type. Numbers in red were estimated by CTE. ................................ .... 114 Table B2: Vehicles by ACF status ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 118 Table C1. Locations, Utility Rates, and 2040 Energy and Demand Estimates .......................... 126

44 of 191

viii

List of Figures
Figure E1. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Vehicle Category ................................ ................................ 1 Figure E2. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Facility ................................ ................................ .................... 2 Figure E3. Glendale Procurements by Year ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 Figure E4. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2040 Scenario ................................ ......................... 8 Figure E5. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2040 Scenario ................................ ........................ 8 Figure E6. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 Figure E7. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 Figure E8. Glendale Infrastructure Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Figure E9. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 ................. 13 Figure E10. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 ............................ 13 Figure E11. Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ................................ ................................ ..... 14 Figure E12. Cumulative Transition Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ . 15 Figure E13. First Time EV Procurements ................................ ................................ ................................ . 16 Figure E14. Annual Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Figure E15. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario ................................ ......................... 17 Figure 1. Glendale Fleet by Vehicle Type ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 22 Figure 2. Public Works Yard aerial view ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 24 Figure 3. City Hall Complex aerial view ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 25 Figure 4. GWP Utility Operations Center aerial view ................................ ................................ ........... 26 Figure 5. Integrated Waste Yard Aerial View ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Figure 6. Fire Station 21 Aerial View ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 Figure 7. Police Parking Lot Aerial View ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29 Figure 8. Fleet Transition Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 38 Figure 9. The Fleet Assessment major inputs, outputs, and processes................................. ........ 40 Figure 10: Annual procurements by Propulsion Type ................................ ................................ ........ 52 Figure 11: Fleet composition throughout the transition. ................................ ................................ ... 56 Figure 12: Total procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Figure 13: Cumulative procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario. ................................ ................................ ........................ 57 Figure 14: The Fuel Assessment builds on the results of the Fleet Assessment. ...................... 59 45 of 191

Figure 15: The estimated change in fuel prices until 2040 based on EIA projections and inflation. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 68 Figure 16: Demand over the transition period at the major sites ................................ ................... 69 Figure 17: Fuel Consumption in Gasoline Gallon Equivalents (GGE) in the transition vs. the baseline scenario. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 70 Figure 18: Estimated annual fuel cost at all sites. ................................ ................................ ................. 72 Figure 19: Cumulative fuel costs over the transition compared to baseline. ............................. 73 Figure 20. The Facilities Assessment builds on the results of the Fuel Assessment ............... 75 Figure 21. Annual Costs for Utility Upgrades across all sites ................................ ........................... 77 Figure 22. Annual Facility Costs through 2040 ................................ ................................ ...................... 80 Figure 23. Annual Facility Costs through 2040 including Utility Upgrades ................................ 81 Figure 24: Annual Maintenance Costs in the transition vs. baseline scenarios. ........................ 83 Figure 25: Cumulative Maintenance Costs in the transition vs. baseline scenarios. ............... 84 Figure 26: Greenhouse Gas emissions in the transition vs. baseline scenarios. ........................ 87 Figure 27: Criteria pollutant (NOx, SOx, PM10) emissions in the transition vs. baseline scenarios. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 87 Figure 28: Criteria pollutant emissions (CO) in the transition vs. baseline scenarios. ........... 88 Figure 29: First time EV purchases throughout the transition period. ................................ ......... 90 Figure 30: Incremental procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario. ................................ ................................ ........................ 91 Figure 31: Cumulative Transition Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 92 Figure 32. Annual Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ ............................. 93 Figure 33. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ .................... 94 Figure 34. 2023 Toyota Mirai FCEV ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 99 Figure 35. 2023 Hyundai Nexo FCEV ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 100 Figure 36. Screenshot of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership’s Hydrogen fueling station locator ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 106 Figure C1. Annual Procurements for the Public Works Yard................................ .......................... 119 Figure C2. Annual Fleet Composition for the Public Works Yard ................................ ................. 119 Figure C3. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Public Works Yard ................................ .............. 119 Figure C4. Annual Procurements for the City Hall Complex ................................ ........................... 120 Figure C5. Annual Fleet Composition for the City Hall Complex ................................ ................... 120 Figure C6. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the City Hall Complex ................................ ................ 120 46 of 191

Figure C7. Annual Procurements for Glendale Water & Power ................................ .................... 121 Figure C8. Annual Fleet Composition for Glendale Water & Power ................................ ............. 121 Figure C9. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Glendale Water & Power ................................ .......... 121 Figure C10. Annual Procurements for the Integrated Waste Facility ................................ ......... 122 Figure C11. Annual Fleet Composition for the Integrated Waste Facility ................................ . 122 Figure C12. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Integrated Waste Facility .............................. 122 Figure C13. Annual Procurements for Fire Station 21 ................................ ................................ ...... 123 Figure C14. Annual Fleet Composition for Fire Station 21 ................................ .............................. 123 Figure C15. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Fire Station 21 ................................ ........................... 123 Figure C16. Annual Procurements for the Glendale Police Parking ................................ ............. 123 Figure C17. Annual Fleet Composition for the Glendale Police Parking ................................ ..... 124 Figure C18. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Glendale Police Parking ................................ .. 124 Figure C19. Annual Procurements for Other Sites ................................ ................................ .............. 124 Figure C20. Annual Fleet Composition for Other Sites ................................ ................................ ...... 124 Figure C21. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Other Sites ................................ ................................ ... 125 Figure C22. Annual Fuel Consumption for Public Works Yard ................................ ...................... 127 Figure C23. Annual Fuel Cost for Public Works Yard ................................ ................................ ......... 127 Figure C24. Annual Fuel Consumption for Civic Center Complex ................................ ................. 127 Figure C25. Annual Fuel Cost for Civic Center Complex ................................ ................................ ... 128 Figure C26. Annual Fuel Consumption for Glendale Water and Power ................................ ...... 128 Figure C27. Annual Fuel Cost for Glendale Water and Power ................................ ........................ 128 Figure C28. Annual Fuel Consumption for the Integrated Waste Facility ................................ . 129 Figure C29. Annual Fuel Cost for Integrated Waste Facility ................................ ........................... 129 Figure C30. Annual Fuel Consumption for Fire Station 21 ................................ .............................. 129 Figure C31. Annual Fuel Cost for Fire Station 21 ................................ ................................ ................ 130 Figure C32. Annual Fuel Consumption for Police Parking ................................ ............................... 130 Figure C33. Annual Fuel Cost for Police Parking ................................ ................................ ................. 130 Figure C34. Annual Facility Costs for the Public Works Yard ................................ ......................... 131 Figure C35. Annual Facility Costs for the City Hall Complex ................................ ........................... 131 Figure C36. Annual Facility Costs for the Glendale Water & Power Utility Operations ....... 131 Figure C37. Annual Facility Costs for the Integrated Waste Yard ................................ ................. 132 Figure C38. Annual Facility Costs for Fire Station 21 ................................ ................................ ........ 132 47 of 191

Figure C39. Annual Facility Costs for the Police Parking Area ................................ ....................... 132 Figure C40. Annual Facility Costs for the Other Locations ................................ .............................. 133 Figure C41: Public Works Yard Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ . 133 Figure C42: Civic Center Complex Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ........................... 133 Figure C43: Glendale Water and Power Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................ 134 Figure C44: Integrated Waste Facility Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................... 134 Figure C45: Fire Station 21 Total Cost of Ownership................................ ................................ ......... 134 Figure C46: Police Parking Total Cost of Ownership ................................ ................................ ......... 135

48 of 191

1 Executive Summary
In 2021, the City of Glendale, California (the City) engaged the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) to perform a fleet electrification study to evaluate the requirements, operational considerations, and costs to transition all vehicles in the municipal fleet to 100% electric vehicles (EV) by either 2035 or 2040. The results of the study were intended to 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.

The City initiated a new contract with CTE in February 2024 to update the study including the market analysis, refine the duty-cycle analysis to optimize the number of chargers required, reassess the infrastructure needs based on the real-world duty-cycle analysis, address the requirements of the state of California’s vehicle regulations, and update the results in a final report.

The Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation applies to state and local fleets and covers vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 lbs. Beginning on January 1, 2024, fleets must ensure that 50 percent of their annual vehicle purchases are zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Beginning on January 1, 2027, 100 percent of annual vehicle purchases must be ZEV. This report includes the full study and all updated results.

Baseline
As of November 2024, The City owns and operates a fleet of 820 active vehicles, which is the basis for the analysis. As shown in Figure E1, the City vehicles are categorized as light-, medium-, and heavy-duty, pursuit, emergency, and non-road vehicles.

Figure E1. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Vehicle Category Each Vehicle Category consists of several types of vehicles, as shown in 49 of 191

2 Table E1.
50 of 191

3 Table E1. Fleet composition by Vehicle Category and Type Light Medium Heavy Emergency Pursuit Non-road
1 ton Pickup 57 Truck 16 Heavy Truck 10 Command
Vehicles 13 Motorcycle 27 Bunker Rake 6
1/2 ton Pickup 39 Dump Truck 12 Refuse Truck 38 Emergency Specialty 12 SUV 103 Mowers 10
3/4 ton Pickup 46 Flatbed Truck 11 Street Sweeper 6 Fire Engine 16 Forklifts 11 Compact Pickup 53 Manlift Truck 12 Crane Truck 7 Ladder Truck 4 Lifts 4 Minivan 41 Cargo Van 15 Dump Truck 11 Rescue 12 Construction Equipment 25
Motorcycle 2 Manlift Truck 6 Roller 2
Refuse Truck 6 Roll-off Truck 2 Misc
Equipment 7
Sedan 76 Utility
Sweeper 6
SUV 36 Utility Vehicle 33
Van, Cargo 24
Van, Passenger 3
383 66 80 57 130 104

The City operates 661 of these vehicles out of 6 primary facilities; Public Works Yard, City Hall Complex, Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Utility Operations Center, Integrated Waste Yard, Fire Station 21, and the Glendale Police Department. The remaining 159 vehicles are spread out among smaller facilities across the City. This distribution is shown in Figure E2. While the study considers all vehicles in the City fleet, the infrastructure and electricity demand assessments focused on the six primary parking facilities.

Figure E2. Glendale Fleet Distribution by Facility

51 of 191

4 In all cases, we provide a “Baseline Scenario” for comparison. The Baseline scenario represents the replacement of the City’s fleet with the same fuel type as the current vehicle, or no further electrification. This helps to demonstrate the incremental costs associated with the transition to EVs.

Market Analysis
Vehicle availability is one of the most important factors for transition feasibility. The market for electric vehicles varies greatly depending on the type of vehicle. The City’s fleet is made up of a diverse array of vehicles, all of which have varying degrees of electric models currently available. Below is a summary of the findings and challenges for each vehicle category:

Light-Duty Vehicles: The light-duty vehicle category, including sedans, SUVs, vans, pickups, and motorcycles, is well-suited for EV adoption, with most vehicles ready for transition upon reaching their service life. However, compact and heavier (three- quarter-ton, 1-ton, 1.5-ton) are not yet available as EVs, posing a challenge for the City. The City may need to delay replacement until appropriate EV models are introduced—with Ford planning heavier models by 2027 or 2028—or consider replacement with available half-ton EV pickups or van-style cab and chassis.

Medium-Duty Vehicles: Medium-duty electric vehicles are available but cost 2–4 times more than diesel equivalents. While the City could transition to EVs soon, high costs and long lead times are challenges. Rebates from California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) can help offset costs, but funds are limited and not guaranteed, so the City should prioritize applications when planning purchases.

Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Heavy-duty trucks are motor vehicles that refer to truck Class 7 - 8, which have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001+ lbs. As with medium-duty EVs, the primary challenge is the high capital cost. EV models exist for specific applications such as refuse and street sweepers as well as general cab and chassis, but high capital costs hinder immediate transition.

Emergency Vehicles: Emergency vehicles include light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles outfitted for emergency response duties including fire engines, rescue, and command support. The ZEV market for these vehicles are currently limited to fire engines and standard light-duty EVs that could be outfitted for command support.

Electric fire engines with traditional internal combustion engines (ICE) are available but face challenges such as limited true zero emission (ZE) range, higher costs, shorter service life, and operational constraints. Ladder trucks are unlikely to have EV options for decades.

Pursuit Vehicles: Glendale Police Department (GPD) faces challenges transitioning to EVs due to limited charging time, high-demand patrol cycles, unsuitable current EV models, and lack of data on performance and costs. The current market for pursuit rated SUVs is limited without aftermarket outfit, and no EV motorcycles meet pursuit requirements currently. Policies for vehicles taken home and long- 52 of 191

5 range needs for disaster response vehicles also complicate the transition. GPD prefers delaying EV adoption until the market matures and better solutions are available.

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. The City can begin transition for some of its non-road fleet in the near-term and already uses electric utility vehicles. EV options are available for smaller vehicles, allowing near-term transitions for most of this fleet while heavier equipment develops.

Operational Challenges: The City’s fleet is largely suitable for a transition to EVs, but Police and Fire Department vehicles pose challenges. Fire engines, while available in EV models, are costly, have shorter service lives, and don’t fit Glendale’s operational needs, especially for long-distance travel or mutual aid deployments. Similarly, ladder trucks won’t be EV-compatible for decades due to battery limitations without technology developments or alternative fuels like hydrogen. GPD faces issues with transitioning its patrol vehicles, which require continuous operation with minimal charging time, and current EVs don’t meet the size and durability needs of these vehicles. Additionally, there are concerns about the conspicuousness of EVs used for surveillance and potential battery degradation from frequent high-level charging.

The transition of pursuit motorcycles is also complicated by the lack of suitable models for police use. Other city vehicles, such as those used by GWP, face challenges for disaster response and staff vehicles taken home. Given these operational constraints, both departments recommend delaying a full EV transition until technology and infrastructure can better meet their needs.

Feasibility & Fleet Assessment
In the Feasibility and Fleet Assessment, CTE determined an appropriate transition to EVs by incorporating both the feasibility and the suitability of an EV replacement for each asset type. Feasibility measures whether an EV replacement can perform to Glendale’s operating requirements with its available battery capacity. Suitability measures whether the replacement EV model is available, commercially viable, and ready for purchase. When an asset is due for replacement, it should only be electrified if the available EV is both feasible and suitable.

CTE analyzed Glendale's fleet inventory data, including vehicle types, fuel economies, and usage metrics, to determine the operating requirements for each vehicle. Next, CTE assessed the EV market for suitability in replacing each fleet vehicle, evaluating factors like availability, commercial viability, and technology readiness. CTE assigned a “suitability score” to each vehicle type according to the criteria in
53 of 191

6 Table E2. Vehicles with a suitability score of 5 or higher were deemed ready for purchase, and CTE recommends that Glendale only buy vehicles with this score.

54 of 191

7 Table E2. Electric Vehicle Suitability Scoring Assumptions Score Definition
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. Costs estimated at 1.6x that of baseline vehicles.

Not
eligible
for
transition
4 High Suitability – (Limited Adopters) Meets all commercial availability criteria, can likely be a 1:1 replacement with proper charging infrastructure. Costs ~2x that of baseline.
3 Medium Suitability – (Early Adopter) Meets all commercial availability criteria except for “cost effective.” Costs between 2x to 3x that of baseline vehicle.

CTE used the operating requirements for each vehicle type and the available EV options, combined with the suitability scores, to determine whether each purchase was feasible for a switch to EV. Feasibility defines whether the purchased EV can perform under Glendale’s operating conditions. If the EV had the necessary energy capacity to meet Glendale’s operating requirement, the EV purchase was feasible.

CTE developed a purchase schedule for both ICE and EV vehicles, outlining fleet composition and procurement costs for the EV transition versus the baseline scenario. Costs are based on Glendale’s current pricing and 2024 EV costs. If no EV cost was available for an EV, CTE estimated costs at 1.6 times the baseline to account for upfits and customizations. Inflation was included (3%).

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?
• 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 and Compliance: What procurement strategy allows the City to reasonably achieve a 100% zero emission fleet over time and comply with regulations?
55 of 191

8 Figure E3 presents the annual procurements of both EVs and ICEs. CTE made some modifications to delay purchases of a few vehicles to procure a feasible EV. Based on the replacement schedule determined by service life and purchasing feasible and suitable EV replacements, Glendale will purchase 20% EVs in 2025. Due to the replacement of the pursuit SUVs with ICE or hybrid vehicles, in 2028 only 26% EVs are purchased. By 2031, 100% of purchases will be EV, except for 2039 where an ICE ladder truck is purchased due to the projected lack of suitable EV models.

Figure E3. Glendale Procurements by Year
The ACF regulation requires 50% ZE purchase in 2025 and 2026, and 100% ZE purchase starting in 2027. Currently, the exact list of exempt vehicles and configurations is unknown; CARB will release a final list by January 1, 2025. There are no heavier pickups available as an EV (Class 2b-3); however, heavier pickups are not exempt due to the options provided on CARB’s list which include the Ford Lightning or a van-style cab and chassis. Glendale has expressed that upfitting van- style chassis has not worked in the past; therefore, CTE did not include those as viable options for EV heavy pickups.

To evaluate the ACF compliance of the recommended purchase schedule, CTE divided Glendale’s vehicle categories into exempt and non-exempt categories. Based on this categorization, the purchase schedule is shown in

56 of 191

9 Table E2. The current purchase schedule does not meet ACF purchase requirements until 2030 without additional exemptions or purchase delays due to the lack of ZE heavy pickups until approximately 2028-2030. As shown in Table E3 below and highlighted in red, there are 45 ICE vehicles scheduled for purchase in 2025 that CARB does not consider exempt. Glendale may consider these options for compliance in the short term:

1. Delay purchase of vehicles to decrease the percentage of ICE vehicles purchased each year.

2. Replace some Class 2b-3 pickups with available EV models such as a ½ ton pickup, a van-type cab and chassis, or a heavier Class 4 trucks.

3. Explore other avenues for ACF exemptions.1
This may change as CARB releases its official exemption list.

Table E3: Purchases by ACF Status

Exempt, Emergency Electric 0 0 0 0 0 25 23
ACF, non-exempt Electric 21 11 22 14 10 21 3
ACF, configuration
exempt short term
Electric 0 0 19 16 10 7 16
Exempt, <8500 lb. Electric 8 54 17 8 19 12 25
Different regulation Electric 1 9 34 7 2 10 3

Total Percent EV Purchase 17% 45% 59% 49% 39% 99% 100%
ACF, excluding exempt vehicles 32% 37% 88% 100% 34% 100% 100% ACF, including exempt vehicles 21% 31% 93% 97% 51% 100% 100%

1 October 2024 ACF Exemption Guidance
57 of 191

10 Figure E4 shows the fleet composition over the transition period. Glendale does not achieve 100% electrification by 2040 due to the delayed transition of emergency vehicles and the lack of suitable EV models for the heaviest fire equipment. The 12 ICE vehicles that remain in 2040 are all fire engines and ladder trucks.

Figure E4. Glendale Fleet Composition by Year, 2040 Scenario The annual capital investment is shown below in Figure E5.

Figure E5. Glendale Annual Fleet Costs by Year, 2040 Scenario

58 of 191

11 CTE estimates that the cumulative fleet replacements will cost $264.6 million, an $87.8 million increase over the Baseline scenario.

Fuel Assessment
CTE estimated the annual fuel and energy consumption over the transition compared to the baseline scenario, the corresponding fuel costs, the number of chargers needed for the fleet, and the peak demand at each site.

First, CTE provided recommendations for the ratio of EVs to chargers and charger powers to Glendale to provide adequate charging while also minimizing additional electrical infrastructure. Glendale reviewed and modified the recommendations to their preferences. Using the final charging parameters, CTE projects 351 Level 2 and Level 3 chargers with 484 plugs across all sites in 2040 and 65 Level 1 proprietary chargers. Excluding Level 1 chargers, which have a low impact on space and demand, and the corresponding 65 vehicles, the vehicle to charger ratio is 2.11 (1.54 vehicles to plug).

For police patrol vehicles, some operational modifications will be needed with the planned charging infrastructure. Using a 150-kW fast charger, a patrol SUV could fully charge in approximately 30 minutes. Thus, CTE planned for 22 fast chargers for use on patrol vehicles, causing high demand at the Police Parking site, though less than the previous assessment. Glendale will need to investigate operational changes such as switching patrol vehicles on the shift change rather than driving the same vehicle if the time available is not enough to adequately charge.

CTE estimated the fuel and energy consumption for each year of the transition by type of fuel. The total amount of energy consumed decreases with electrification because EVs are much more efficient than ICEs. Glendale will decrease its total energy consumption by about 2/3 by 2040 and eliminate gasoline consumption by 2040. The only diesel consumption in 2040 is due to the remaining ladder trucks and fire engines.

Despite reducing the total energy consumption, the fuel costs increase significantly (Figure E6). CTE estimated costs based on current Glendale fuel costs and the appropriate GWP utility schedules. Electricity costs are much higher than the previous assessment due to rate increases at GWP while fossil fuel costs have declined. Additionally, the previous assessment planned for a charger for every vehicle; however, it estimated demand costs on the assumption that only 50% of chargers would be used at any one time. In this assessment, CTE has optimized the vehicle to charger ratio to approximately 2:1 across sites; however, CTE modeled that 100% of the chargers will be used at once2. Thus, the peak demand estimate across all sites is like the previous assessment, though some sites such as GPD are

2 Because demand is charged based on the maximum demand over the previous 12 months, a single instance of all chargers being used at once will cause the peak demand to be charged. 59 of 191

12 less. The cumulative fuel costs are $100.6 million in the transition scenario, $71.2 million more than the baseline scenario including inflation (Figure E7).

Figure E6. Annual Fuel Cost vs. Baseline

Figure E7. Cumulative Fuel Cost vs. Baseline

60 of 191

13 The estimated costs are a significant increase from current annual fuel costs and the previous analysis estimates. Additional steps to mitigate higher electricity costs include:

1. Discuss potential EV charging rates or demand time-of-use rates with GWP.

2. Manage peak demand manually or via a charge management system.

3. Consider other infrastructure to reduce the peak demand from the grid such as on-site battery storage or solar.

Infrastructure Transition Assessment
Scaling the City’s fleet to 100% EVs requires significant investment in charging infrastructure. In the previous study, CTE used a 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio. This would represent a worst-case scenario and provide an upper boundary to cost.

Glendale reports that many of its sites have space constraints that will limit the ability to install that number of chargers. CTE updated its estimate of the charging infrastructure costs based on updated assumptions for projected use of each vehicle, optimized charger numbers, and results from the fuel assessment. GWP provided the estimated utility upgrade costs to meet the required power and energy demand to all Glendale facilities, including distribution, transmission, and the Acacia substation. The overall cost to upgrade the utility infrastructure is $32.5 million.

This is higher than the estimated cost from the previous study which was estimated at $21.9 million. This increase was due to several factors including long lead times and price increases for power transformers and other power components. Several design changes to the Acacia substation also increased the cost estimate. The new design includes the option of a third transmission line entry (the original estimate had 2 transmission lines) and improved reliability of the power grid. GWP also added the cost of building a new transmission system from the Grayson Power Plant to the Acacia substation.

Figure E8 shows the annual capital cost over time of the charging infrastructure including the GWP utility upgrades. The first year of the transition is assumed to include costs for the initial design for all six primary sites. The higher costs in 2032 and 2033 align with the phase 2 construction at multiple sites. The total capital cost of charging infrastructure and utility upgrades is estimated at $57.5 million This cost is a significant savings over the 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio used in the previous study, which estimated a cost of $49.2 million for construction and infrastructure plus $21.875 million for utility upgrades totaling $71 million.

61 of 191

14 Figure E8. Glendale Infrastructure Cost
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.

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. CTE applied a percent reduction to the maintenance costs based on the vehicle type based on a study of EV total cost of ownership3: 40% reduction for Light, 30% for Medium, and 25% for Heavy vehicles. Because there is limited commercialization and thus limited data for other vehicle classes, CTE conservatively applied a 25% reduction to non-road vehicles and emergency vehicles. CTE applied a 40% reduction to the Pursuit vehicles to match the Light category. The estimated annual maintenance cost compared to baseline vehicles is provided below in Figure E9. Cumulative costs are shown in in Figure E10; the

3 Argonne National Labs, Vehicle TCO Analysis (2021)

62 of 191

15 cumulative cost of maintenance is approximately $30 million less in the transition scenario.

Figure E9. Estimated Annual EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040

Figure E10. Cumulative EV Maintenance Costs Compared to Baseline, 2040 Emissions Assessment
The primary goal of transitioning the fleet to EVs is to reduce tailpipe pollutant emissions to improve local air quality and reduce the effect that greenhouse gases (GHGs) have on the environment. CTE compared the upstream and tailpipe

63 of 191

16 emissions of the current fleet to emissions related to generation of the electricity required to charge the EVs. The estimated emissions reduction of the City’s EV transition is shown below in Figure E11. Glendale may avoid approximately 53 million pounds of GHGs cumulatively, resulting in 62% lower annual GHG emissions in 2040. If fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, Glendale will not be able to achieve a fully zero-emission operation when considering upstream and in-use emissions; however, when considering only tailpipe emissions, Glendale will nearly achieve zero emission operation in 2040. The exception to this is the continued operation of 12 diesel fire engines and ladder trucks. Table 32 shows the expected 2040 annual emissions including criteria pollutants, which are greatly reduced via electrification except for SOx. SOx emissions increase due to electricity partially generated from coal combustion, but they will decrease if electricity generation moves toward non-fossil fuel sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, or hydropower.

Figure E11. Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

64 of 191

17 Table E4: 2040 Annual Emissions, Baseline vs. Transition Pollutant
2040 Annual
Baseline Emissions
(lbs)
2040 Annual
Transition Emissions
(lbs)
Difference (lbs) Percent
Difference
GHGs 9,844,000 3,771,000 -6,073,000 -62%
CO 51,000 2,000 -49,000 -96%
NOx 7,000 3,000 -4,000 -57%
SOx 900 1,900 1,000 +111%
PM10 380 330 -50 -13%

Incremental Transition Costs
Incremental Transition Cost is the total incremental cost of first-time EV replacements (number of first-time purchases shown in Figure E13) plus total EV infrastructure costs. It represents the incremental capital funding required to transition to an all-electric fleet. Figure E12 provides the cumulative transition cost for the 2040 scenario which is estimated at $67.6 million.

Figure E12. Cumulative Transition Costs

65 of 191

18 Figure E13. First Time EV Procurements
Total Cost of Ownership
The Total Cost of Ownership Assessment (TCO) provides a comprehensive view of costs to Glendale for the transition and baseline scenarios over the transition period by compiling the results from the Fleet, Fuel, Facilities, and Maintenance Assessments. The TCO estimate allows Glendale to make informed decisions based on the best information currently available about costs of each technology and the magnitude of costs of each facet of the transition in relation to others. This study assumes no cost escalation or any cost reduction due to economies of scale for ZEV technology because there is no historical basis for these assumptions and future market pressures, technology capabilities, and regulations may change significantly over the next 15 years. The assessments provide the best estimates using the information currently available and the assumptions detailed throughout this report.

Figure E14 provides the TCO across the entire fleet color coded by the element:

Fleet Procurement, Facilities Projects, Annual Fuel, or Annual Maintenance costs, along with a reference line for the baseline total cost. Fleet and Maintenance costs are the largest costs, although maintenance is more consistent from year to year while fleet varies depending on the vehicles being replaced that year.

66 of 191

19 Figure E14. Annual Total Cost of Ownership
The total cost of the transition is approximately $154 million dollars (39%) more than the baseline scenario over the next 15 years as shown in Figure E15.

Figure E15. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership by Scenario

67 of 191

20 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)
• CEC Clean Transportation Program: Government Fleet Electric Vehicle Charger Station Grants
Potential for Hydrogen in the City’s Fleet
While many applications and use cases for municipal fleet vehicles are well suited to electric vehicles, some applications cannot easily be met with battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Use cases where vehicles have longer range and shorter downtimes may prove a challenge for current and future BEVs. These applications could be addressed by adopting fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). FCEVs have a longer range than most BEVs and can be fueled in minutes vs. hours required by BEVs.

Light-duty FCEVs are now being sold by several automakers in areas with access to hydrogen fueling stations. However, today there are not any readily available medium-duty or heavy-duty FCEVs in the market suitable for municipal fleets.

Development and demonstration projects are underway but won’t field market- ready vehicles for several years. In the near term, the City could transition its light- duty sedans and SUVs to FCEV models. However, the City’s duty cycle for most of their light-duty sedans and SUVs are better suited to BEVs. As a result, the City should elect to transition to BEVs because they are lower cost and can be charged on-site once charging stations are installed. Once FCEVs are available in all classes, several of the City’s applications could potentially be met with this technology.

Hydrogen fueling stations can be broken down into heavy-duty, and light-duty categories. Light-duty facilities use a fueling protocol that is internationally recognized and approved by all vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEM’s).

A typical light-duty station installation will include two independent fueling dispensers capable of simultaneous use. Fuel is delivered via gaseous delivery trailers and is stored at the facility in high-pressure gaseous storage vessels. Fuel is then compressed and cooled prior to dispensing into the vehicle. The cost to construct the station would be around 5.5 million.
68 of 191

21 Heavy-duty hydrogen fueling stations are predominantly used in the transit industry today. Aside from most facilities using liquid hydrogen, they differ from light-duty by dispensing H35 grade fuel (350 bar settled pressure onboard vehicle).

Typical process description for a heavy-duty HRS using LH2 as a feedstock is as follows: hydrogen stored as a liquid on-site in a cryogenic bulk storage vessel.

Liquid is drawn from the tank where it is pumped to high pressure prior to being vaporized through large ambient heat exchanger (vaporizer). Hydrogen is then stored at one or multiple pressures in gaseous form prior to being routed through a dispenser and into customer vehicles. The cost to construct a heavy-duty vehicle station would be around 7 million.

Interim solutions for hydrogen fueling during a transition include temporary mobile fuelers and using existing stations in the area. There are five existing stations that provide hydrogen within 14 miles of the main location for the city. The City could use these interim solutions until the fleet was of sufficient size to justify construction of a full-size station.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Since the last assessment, the EV market has progressed leading to a more feasible transition for Glendale’s fleet. CTE has also improved upon the previous analysis, providing higher confidence in the feasibility for EVs in Glendale’s duty cycles and optimizing the recommended charging infrastructure, leading to lower infrastructure capital costs. Developments such as the implementation of the ACF regulation and increasing demand costs have introduced aspects that need further attention from Glendale.

As discussed in the Fleet Assessment, there is a mismatch in the vehicles that the ACF regulation considers suitable for an EV replacement and those that Glendale considers suitable for heavy pickups (greater than ¾ ton, or class 2b-3). To meet ACF purchase percentage requirements while continuing to replace vehicles as needed, Glendale will need to consider the assets up for replacement and determine whether to delay purchase, replace with a different EV, or pursue an ACF exemption.

As discussed in the Fuel Assessment, CTE projects much higher electricity costs than the last assessment in large part due to rate increases at GWP. Most electricity costs are due to high demand rates. Therefore, CTE recommends that the City may be able to lower utility costs by limiting maximum demand, collaborating with GWP for an EV rate or time-of-use demand rate, or investing in infrastructure to reduce peak demand from the grid.

Finally, CTE recommends that Glendale continues its transition process with the following strategies:

1. Remain proactive with grant funding to reduce the capital costs of vehicles early in the transition.
69 of 191

22 2. Continue to revisit the transition plan every 2-3 years as ZE technologies and regulations evolve and the City becomes more experienced with EVs.

3. Begin resilience planning for the EV fleet as resilience practices and procedures will change for an EV fleet and the City will be able to depend less and less on ICE vehicles as they are phased out.

4. Remain engaged with the Police and Fire Departments to pilot ZEVs and find models that meet their needs. Support of the vehicle operators in every department will be critical for successful deployment.

The transition to EV technology represents a fundamental shift in vehicle procurement, operation, maintenance, and infrastructure. Achieving a sustainable, zero-emission transportation sector requires continuous deployment with clear advancement goals. Widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles has the potential to greatly reduce GHG emissions and improve public health and the environment.

70 of 191

23 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.4
City Fleet Overview
As of November 2024, The City owns and operates a fleet of 820 active vehicles, which is the basis for the analysis. This list eliminates trailers, non-vehicular equipment, and parade antiques from the full asset list provided by the City. City vehicles are categorized as light-, medium-, and heavy-duty (based on gross vehicle

4 City of Glendale overview taken from https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/about-us 71 of 191

24 weight rating [GVWR] classification), pursuit, emergency, and non-road vehicles.

Figure 1 shows a breakdown of Glendale’s fleet by category. Light-duty vehicles make up the largest portion of the fleet (47%) followed by pursuit vehicles at 16%, non-road vehicles at 12%, heavy duty vehicles at 10%, medium duty vehicles at 8%, and emergency vehicles at 7%.

Figure 1. 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 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.
72 of 191

25 Table 1 summarizes the number of vehicles at each of the facilities under consideration.

73 of 191

26 Table 1. Fleet Profile at Primary Facilities
Facility Name Total Vehicles
Public Works Yard 110
City Hall Complex5 114
GWP Utility Operations
Center6 148
Integrated Waste Yard 55
Fire Station 21 34
Police Parking Lot 200
Other Vehicles 159
Total Fleet 820
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 2. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 2, 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 2. Fleet Profile at the Public Works Yard
Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
45 27 20 18 - - 110

5 City Hall includes CCG, CVC, and Perkins sites.
6 Glendale Water and Power includes GWP, and Plant sites. 74 of 191

27 Figure 2. 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 3. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 3, 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 3. Fleet Profile at City Hall Complex
Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
107 4 - 3 - - 114

75 of 191

28 Figure 3. City Hall Complex aerial view
Glendale Water and Power Utility Operations Center
GWP Utility Operations Center houses GWP vehicles. The number of vehicles at the GWP Utility Operations Center are summarized by vehicle class in Table 4. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 4, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Table 4. Fleet Profile at GWP Utility Operations Center Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
75 28 19 26 - - 148

76 of 191

29 Figure 4. GWP Utility Operations Center aerial view
Integrated Waste Yard
The Integrated Waste Yard houses vehicles from multiple departments with the majority being heavy-duty vehicles. The number of vehicles at the Integrated Waste Yard are summarized by vehicle class in Table 5. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 5, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Table 5. Fleet Profile at Integrated Waste Yard

Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
13 1 41 - - - 55

77 of 191

30 Figure 5. 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 6. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 6, with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Table 6. Fleet Profile at Fire Station 21

Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
7 - - - 27 - 34

78 of 191

31 Figure 6. 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 7. An aerial view of the facility is shown in Figure 7 with the property boundaries outlined in red.

Table 7. Fleet Profile at Police Parking Lot

Light
Duty
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Non-
Road Emergency Pursuit Total
65 - - 2 3 130 200

79 of 191

32 Figure 7. Police Parking Lot Aerial View
Fleet Electrification Study
In 2021, the City of Glendale, California (the City) engaged the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) to perform a fleet electrification study to evaluate the requirements, operational considerations, and costs to transition all vehicles in the municipal fleet to 100% electric vehicles by either 2035 or 2040. The results of the study were intended to 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. CTE presented the results of the study to the City Council in September 2022. Based on the methodology and assumptions used, the city fleet would have been 97% EV in 2040. The remaining ICE vehicles were emergency equipment (primarily fire engines and ladder trucks) due to the estimated time to market and long-life of these assets. The Council requested additional analysis to review scenarios to reach 100% EV by 2040 and to explore the potential for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. CTE completed the additional analyses in August 2023.

33 duty-cycle analysis, address the requirements of the state of California’s Advanced Clean Fleet regulations, and update the results in a final report. This report includes the full study and all updated results.

California Regulations
CARB is responsible for establishing regulation in the state of California focused in addressing all major sources of smog-forming air pollution.7 Several regulations affect the City of Glendale’s fleet as follows:

Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF): This regulation covers fleets including those of state and local governments. Vehicles subject to the regulation have a GVWR greater than 8,500 lbs. Beginning on January 1, 2024, fleets must ensure that 50 percent of their annual vehicle purchases are ZEVs. Beginning on January 1, 2027, 100 percent of annual vehicle purchases must be ZEV. The ruling includes a list of vehicles currently exempt from the regulation.

Advance Clean Cars II (ACC): This regulation, which combined several previous regulations into one, requires an increased number of light-duty passenger cars, sport utility vehicles (SUV), and pickup trucks produced as ZEVs. This applies to manufacturers.

In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets: Passed in 2023, this regulation is focused on reducing emissions from off-road vehicles and applies to fleets. The regulation imposes limits on idling and requires fleets to retire, replace, or repower older engines or install emissions control devices. Fleets are also required to report their compliance through an online tool.

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE): This regulation covers spark-ignited engines rated at or below 19 kW— primarily lawn, garden, utility vehicles, and other off- road equipment. This regulation applies to manufacturers.

Market Review
Vehicle availability is one of the most important factors for transition feasibility. The market for electric vehicles varies greatly depending on the type of vehicle, and the City’s fleet is diverse. The EV market has expanded since the previous assessment, and CTE anticipates that electric vehicle offerings will continue to develop. CTE updated its ZEV market assessment to account for new EVs available for the City’s fleet by vehicle type. Table 8 provides the list of vehicle categories and types included in the City’s current asset list.

7 CARB web site: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about
81 of 191

34 Table 8. List of Fleet Vehicles by Type
Light Medium Heavy Emergency Pursuit Non-road
1 ton Pickup 57 Truck 16 Heavy Truck 10 Command
Vehicles 13 Motorcycle 27 Bunker Rake 6
1/2 ton
Pickup 39 Dump
Truck 12 Refuse Truck 38 Emergency
Specialty 12 SUV 103 Mowers 10
3/4 ton
Pickup 46 Flatbed
Truck 11 Street
Sweeper 6 Fire Engine 16 Forklifts 11
Compact
Pickup 53 Manlift
Truck 12 Crane Truck 7 Ladder
Truck 4 Lifts 4
Minivan 41 Cargo Van 15 Dump Truck 11 Rescue 12 Construction Equipment 25
Motorcycle 2 Manlift Truck 6 Roller 2
Refuse Truck 6 Roll-off
Truck 2 Misc
Equipment 7
Sedan 76 Utility
Sweeper 6
SUV 36 Utility
Vehicle 33
Van, Cargo 24
Van,
Passenger 3
383 66 80 57 130 104
The City’s vehicles have been categorized into light-duty, medium-duty, heavy-duty, emergency, pursuit, and non-road vehicles. Appendix A provides tables of current EV models by type that could be suitable for the City fleet. The specific vehicle and equipment types that make up each of these six categories are described below.

Light-Duty
The light-duty category—including sedans, SUVs, vans, pickups, and motorcycles— is well suited for EV adoption with many OEMs producing commercial models that are readily available for purchase. Most vehicles in this segment can be transitioned as soon as an asset reaches its planned service life. The exception to this is the pickup category. Although there are many models of half-ton pickups currently available on the market, compact and heavier models (three-quarter-ton, 1-ton, 1.5- ton) have yet to be introduced. Ford has announced it plans to offer the heavier models by 2027 or 2028, however no OEM has indicated it will produce the smaller size pickup. The lack of compact and heavier pickups is a challenge for the City. The City currently uses the compact pickups for specific duties that could not be handled by the larger half-ton pickup. Similarly, the City has uses for the heavier pickups that would not be well suited for the half-ton pickup. Depending on the specific use of these pickups, the City may need to delay replacement until a suitable model is available.

Sedans: The fleet consist of 76 sedans in total. There are various electric vehicle options available to replace the City’s current passenger vehicle fleet. There should be no limitation to transitioning the City’s passenger cars to electric vehicles in the near term.
82 of 191

35 Pickup Trucks: Light-duty pickups are classified according to their payloads; the current categories in North America include compact, half-ton, three-quarter-ton, 1- ton, and 1-and-a-half-ton. The City fleet consists of 195 pickup trucks, making it the largest category that makes up the light-duty vehicles. The City can transition its half-ton pickups to EV models in the short term but will have to delay replacement of heavier and compact models until the market matures. Depending on use, the City may elect to replace some of its compact or heavier pickups with a half-ton pickup.

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs): The City operates 36 SUVs in its fleet. There are multiple OEMs currently offering SUVs in both smaller and larger sizes. The City should be able to transition its SUVs with no limitations.

Vans: There are 68 light-duty vans in the fleet including minivans, cargo vans, and passenger vans. The current market for light-duty vans is healthy, with 20 models available on the market. These models are primarily outfitted for cargo, which fits well with how the City operates its vans. Chrysler has announced a minivan will be available in 2025. The City should be able to transition its van fleet in the near term.

Medium-Duty
There are multiple medium duty electric chassis available on the market, though their current price point is 2 - 4 times that of their diesel equivalents. The City uses its medium duty vehicles for applications such as pickup and delivery trucks, small utility bodies, service bodies, small dump trucks, vans, and lighter garbage truck applications (needing 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. The City could transition these vehicles in the near term; however, the capital costs are high, and lead times are long. Fleets can apply for rebates through CARB’s HVIP program. These funds are limited and available on a first-come-first-served basis. The City should prioritize HVIP requests when planning procurements to off-set the costs, but award of these funds is not guaranteed.

Medium-Duty Trucks: The City has 66 medium-duty trucks outfitted for various uses such as dump, flatbed, and manlift.

Medium-Duty Vans/Buses: Medium-duty vans are on-road vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 14,001 lbs. to 26,000 lbs. Medium-duty vans can be used in passenger and cargo applications. Glendale has 15 medium-duty cargo vans.

Heavy-Duty
Heavy-Duty Trucks: Heavy-duty trucks are motor vehicles that refer to truck Class 7 - 8, which have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001+ lbs. Applications include 18- wheelers, sleeper cabs, dump trucks, refuse trucks, and tractor trailers. There are 80 heavy-duty trucks in the Glendale fleet including 11 dump trucks, 6 manlift trucks, 7 crane trucks, 10 heavy trucks, 38 refuse trucks, 2 roll-off trucks, and 6 street sweepers. There are 10 OEMs offering heavy-duty ZE models for sale in the 83 of 191

36 United States that can be outfitted for specific applications. As with medium-duty EVs, the primary challenge is the high capital cost.

Emergency Vehicles
Emergency vehicles include light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles outfitted for emergency response duties including fire engines, rescue, and command support.

The Coty’s emergency fleet includes 13 command vehicles, 12 heavy-duty specialty vehicles, 4 ladder trucks, 16 fire engines, and 12 rescue vehicles. The ZEV market for these vehicles is currently limited to fire engines (some with ICE support engine) and standard light-duty EVs that could be used for command support.

Pursuit Vehicles
Standard vehicles of any type must be outfitted to handle high-speed pursuits for police interceptor applications. Current police pursuit-rated vehicles are sold by the OEM for that specific purpose. There are also companies that produce kits specific to a vehicle model that can be used to outfit a vehicle in the aftermarket. Most of the City’s pursuit rated vehicles are SUVs (103) and motorcycles (27). The current market for pursuit rated ZEVs is limited. Chevrolet provides its EV Blazer outfitted for police pursuit. Other EV models (Tesla, Ford Mach E) have been outfitted in the aftermarket for several police departments for pilots.

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.

The City’s non-road fleet is comprised of 6 bunker rakes, 10 mowers, 11 forklifts, 4 miscellaneous lifts, 25 construction vehicles (loaders, excavators, backhoes, pavers), 2 rollers, 6 utility sweepers, 33 utility vehicles, and 7 miscellaneous engines. Many of these vehicle types have been available in an EV version for years, such as utility vehicles and forklifts. OEMs are continually adding EV models of all types. While there are many EV models for construction applications, most are smaller compact sizes. The City can begin transition for most of its non-road fleet in the near-term.

Operational Challenges for Transition to EVs
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.

The biggest challenge for the City in transitioning to full ZEV is with the Police and Fire Department vehicles. CTE held meetings with both departments to discuss the current models available and the concerns about how the specific needs could be met with EVs.

Emergency Fire Equipment Vehicles: As support vehicles to an actual emergency, the City’s command vehicles could be transitioned to EV in the near term. The only type 84 of 191

37 of emergency response vehicle currently available in EV are fire engines. Three OEMs currently produce a model that can be considered zero-emission. Two of those include an optional ICE for situations where the distance traveled is further than normal or for a long-duration event. The City has standardized its fleet with Pierce for its emergency response vehicles. The Pierce Volterra EV fire engine has an ICE for emergency backup that is fully integrated into the propulsion system. The OEM designed the system and battery storage for the needs of a typical fire department that will have at most 20 calls a day within a smaller radius distance from the station. The vehicle is considered zero-emission because when it is used within those parameters, the ICE never engages. Glendale FD operates its service differently and typically travels longer distances during each call. The department requests a delay for implementation to wait for the market to more fully mature and the operations costs to be understood. The department concerns with a transition to ZEVs include the following:
• Capital costs: current models are two times the cost of conventional vehicles • Service life: The manufacturer lists the EV apparatus with a service life of 10 – 15 years—the City’s current fleet has a 20-year life
• Incompatible with current operations: to extend the life of its assets, the City typically moves vehicles as they age from busy stations to stations with lower call volume. For EVs, this will limit transfers to stations that have the charging infrastructure already installed. The oldest apparatus are kept as reserve and need to be flexible to operate out of any station or to be deployed in neighboring jurisdictions as situations arise. Also, EV apparatus could not be deployed as part of Glendale’s participation in California’s Master Mutual Aid Agreement because it would require extended time away from any charging equipment (up to 21 days).
• Limited range: The City’s Paramedic Engine EMS model covers more distance than that of a typical apparatus. This would result in greater battery consumption which reduces charging time and could result in greater reliance on the auxiliary ICE.
• Limited performance of auxiliary ICE: the current ICE used (6.7L) in the EV model is much smaller than a traditional engine. This could result in performance much lower than required when the batteries are depleted and extend emergency response times.
• Unknown long-tern maintenance costs and downtime: very little information is available on the maintenance costs for these apparatus.

Electric drive components that need to be serviced by the OEM may cause extended downtime that is out of the control of the FD maintenance staff.

Ladder trucks are not likely to be available in an EV model for many years without a large improvement in battery technology. The excess weight of the ladder equipment would require a battery with double the capacity within the same size.

CTE’s analysis assumes a 5% increase in battery capacity every two years. At this 85 of 191

38 rate, batteries will not be capable of handling the weight of a ladder truck for at least 28 years.

Police Pursuit Vehicles: The City typically has 32 vehicles assigned to patrol with 12 – 18 vehicles deployed each day. These vehicles are exchanged immediately between shifts, often referred to as a “hot swap”. The vehicle can be stopped for as little as 5 minutes during this switch. This can occur continuously over a 2 – 3-day period depending on the availability of vehicles. Occasionally, officers can be held over their 12-hour shift if they are on a call late in the shift. On any given day, 10 vehicles are out of service for maintenance. This operational use results in limited time for charging an EV. Also, the department rotates its vehicles assigned to patrol to even out the mileage, meaning the entire fleet needs to be pursuit capable. The City prefers to use a larger size SUV (Ford Explorer) for its patrol vehicles because that model is durable, has more room for equipment, and has the largest custody area.

The only current EV sold outfitted for pursuit is the Chevrolet Blazer. Glendale PD disfavors this vehicle because of its smaller size. Several other EV sedans have been outfitted to serve in a pursuit application; however, these have been upfit in the aftermarket. Glendale PD provided a list of concerns about the challenge of transitioning to EVs. These include the following:
• Rigorous use: the duty-cycle for a patrol car is demanding and dynamic and requires vehicles specifically built to handle this.
• Shift-Change: the 12-hour shift change with minimal time between does not allow for charging the vehicles. A transition to EVs would require operational changes or an increase in fleet size.
• Detective functions: vehicles used for surveillance need to blend into many environments. Current features of EVs—daytime running lights, large interior screens—are conspicuous and cannot be turned off or disabled. • High-level charging: PD is concerned that continual high-level DC charging will prematurely deteriorate the battery and result in a shorter lifespan. • Uncertain performance and cost for current models: actual data on the performance and maintenance costs are not readily available.

Pursuit Motorcycles: Glendale PD also has concerns over the transition of its motorcycle fleet. Like other pursuit rated vehicles, pursuit rated motorcycles are purpose built to handle dynamic operation. While there are many EV motorcycles on the market, none are currently built for police pursuit. Many models are lightweight, and the added weight after outfitted for police applications could greatly lower the range. Another challenge is that officers that are assigned motorcycles are allowed to take them home 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.
86 of 191

39 Because of these challenges, the Glendale PD prefers to delay the EV transition until the market matures and more information are available to understand performance and operational costs.

In addition to Police and Fire, 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 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.

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.

CTE evaluates which duty cycles of any vehicles cannot be replaced in a 1:1 ratio with an EV and identifies operational strategies that could be implemented to achieve a feasible duty cycle. The electrification of a specific vehicle may be delayed if operational changes are not sufficient to achieve a suitable duty cycle.

The Fleet Assessment develops a projected timeline for replacement of current vehicles with EVs consistent with the City’s plan to transition its fleet by 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. For the transition, the analysis prioritizes vehicles with a higher suitability score over vehicles with a lower suitability score. The Fleet Assessment also includes a projection of fleet capital costs over the entire transition timeline.

The Fuel Assessment estimates the amounts and costs of fuel consumed each year as well as the necessary charging equipment and resulting power and energy demands.

The Facilities Assessment determines the necessary infrastructure at each facility to support the EV fleet based on the results of the Fleet Assessment and Fuel 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 charging equipment, installation, and utility upgrades. 87 of 191

40 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 purchases.

The Benefits Assessment summarizes the total 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. It also covers the potential maintenance cost savings by transitioning to EVs.

Feasibility & Fleet Assessment
Purpose
For fleet transition planning, the goals of the fleet assessment component are:

1. Establish existing fleet inventory and operating requirements.

2. Determine the feasibility and suitability of an EV replacement for each asset type based on the operating requirements and available EV market options.

3. Create a procurement schedule over the transition period to determine fleet composition vs. a baseline (no transition) scenario.

Because Glendale’s transition needs to comply with the ACF regulation, one constraint of the transition plan is to meet the requirements of Option 18, which are:

1. Starting January 1, 2024, 50% of annual purchases are zero emission (ZE).

2. Starting January 1, 2027, 100% of annual vehicle purchases are ZE.

Fleet Transition Approach
Figure 8 summarizes the approach used to develop a plan to transition the City’s fleet by 2040. The EV procurement schedule and suitability scores are described in further detail later in the report.

8 CARB ACF Regulation for State and Local Government Agency Fleets 88 of 191

41 Methodology Overview
The fleet assessment methodology can be broken into three components: Service Assessment, Suitability Assessment, and Feasibility Assessment (Figure 9).

Service:

Inputs: CTE used Glendale’s fleet inventory data including asset numbers, vehicle types, vehicle fuel economies, and annual use data such as mileage or operating hours.

Outputs: CTE determined the “operating requirements” for each type of vehicle, including average fuel economy, nominal daily use, days in use per year, and strenuous daily use. Nominal daily use represents a typical day of use, and strenuous daily use represents a day of heavy use. Nominal daily use determines the typical fuel consumption, while strenuous daily use determines whether an equivalent EV can feasibly perform the same maximum daily work without operational modifications.

Develop EV
Procurement
Schedule
•Establish an EV Procurement Schedule that will allow the City to reach a 100% EV fleet by 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 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.

Figure 8. Fleet Transition Methodology
89 of 191

42 Suitability:

Inputs: CTE analyzed the available EV market for all vehicle types in Glendale’s fleet to determine how suitable the available options are for replacement and to manage the risk of new ZE technologies.

Outputs: CTE assigned a “suitability score” to each vehicle type to indicate whether a vehicle type is a) available and b) commercially viable and ready for purchase or is still a relatively unproven technology that should not be purchased.

Feasibility:

Inputs: CTE created a purchase schedule based on Glendale’s fleet asset ages, average service lives, and purchase costs. Then, CTE used the operating requirements for each vehicle type defined in the Service Assessment and the available EV options, combined with the suitability scores, to determine whether each purchase was feasible for a switch to EV. Feasibility defines whether the purchased EV can perform under Glendale’s operating conditions.

Outputs: CTE created a purchase schedule ICE vehicles and EVs, a fleet composition by year, and the procurement costs for the EV transition scenario vs. the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario assumes no additional ZE vehicles are purchased. 90 of 191

43 Figure 9. The Fleet Assessment major inputs, outputs, and processes.

Scope
The scope of the assessment included 820 vehicles across 6 primary sites (

91 of 191

44 Table 9), with the remaining vehicles combined into an ‘other sites’ category. Only self-propelled, city-owned assets were included. No expansions or retirements are planned, so the fleet size of 820 remains constant throughout the plan.

92 of 191

45 Table 9. Sites included in transition plan and number of assets at each site Facility Name Number of Assets
Public Works Yard 110
City Hall Complex 114
Glendale Water & Power 142
Integrated Works Yard 55
Fire Station 21 34
Police Parking 202
Other Sites 163
Total Fleet 820

Detailed Methodology and Assumptions
Operating Requirements Assumptions and Methodology:

1. Glendale provided CTE with two years of operating data (May 2022-May 2024). The annual mileage data were used to estimate daily operating requirements for each vehicle type.

2. To estimate the daily use, CTE assumed the number of “active days” per year for each vehicle type based on the total mileage, discussions with Glendale fleet managers, and the vehicle type.

3. Thus, the average daily use for the vehicle type was calculated using the Total Use in miles or hours for all vehicles in the type over two years divided by the number of vehicles in the type with data, the years of data, and the assumed active days per year:

Average Daily Use = Total Use (miles or hours) / (Years of Data * Assumed Active Days per Year per Vehicle * Number of Vehicles with Use Data)

4. The strenuous daily use was calculated as 50% more than the average daily use:

Strenuous Daily Use = Average Daily Use * 150%
93 of 191

46 5. The average fuel economy across all vehicles within the vehicle type was determined as:

Average Fuel Economy (mpg) = Total Use (miles) / Total Fuel Consumption (gallons)
For vehicles measured in hours, the calculation was:

Average Fuel Economy (gallons per hour) = Total Fuel Consumption (gallons) / Total Use (hours)
If a vehicle did not have both fuel consumption data and use data, it was excluded from the totals.

6. For vehicle types with incomplete data, CTE estimated missing values based on valid data from similar vehicles or published sources, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy ratings for EVs. These assumptions were provided to Glendale for approval prior to analysis.

All operating requirements and assumptions for each vehicle type are shown in Appendix B. CTE assumed the operating requirements remained constant throughout the transition.

Suitability Methodology and Assumptions:

Not all types of vehicles operated by Glendale are available in an EV model in 2024.

When vehicles do become initially available, early adopters face a higher level of risk in introducing new technologies that are not yet proven. To manage this risk, CTE assigned a “suitability score” based on 2024 market research to each vehicle type or chassis in the fleet each year. The suitability scores consider criteria that indicates whether a vehicle is “commercially viable” for purchase, and the number of deployments. Table 10 outlines the criteria used to determine the suitability scores.

Table 10. Commercially Viability Criteria
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.
94 of 191

47 The definitions of each suitability score are shown in Table 11. In the 2022 study, CTE considered a score of 4 or 5 as suitable for purchase. Newer data for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles indicate capital costs of 2 to 3 times higher than conventional models—much higher than the 1.5x assumption used in the previous study. Because of this, CTE changed the analysis to consider a vehicle suitable for purchase once the score is 5 to allow for stabilized costs that come with higher commercialization.

Table 11: Suitability Score Definitions
Score Definition
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. Costs estimated at 1.6x that of baseline vehicles.

Available for purchase, few commercial deployments, but past the prototyping stage. May not be a 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
Criteria Definition
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.
95 of 191

48 Feasibility Methodology and Assumptions

1. Based on market research, CTE established a “market standard” usable battery capacity for each vehicle type. If no models were available, CTE based the capacity on a similar vehicle type.

2. To account for technology improvements, CTE models a 5% improvement in the market standard EV capacity every two years9.

3. CTE estimated the equivalent EV fuel consumption (kWh per mile or kWh per hour) for each vehicle type based on Glendale’s operations.

4. To determine feasibility, CTE compared the energy consumption for the strenuous and nominal daily usage with the market standard battery capacity over each year of the transition (i.e., if the EV could complete the nominal and strenuous daily usage on a single battery charge with no operational modifications). If the energy consumption was less than the usable battery capacity in the projected year of purchase, the asset is feasible for transition.

Purchase Schedule Methodology and Assumptions

1. CTE used a standard service life for each vehicle type based on the average projected replacement age for assets in the class (Appendix B).

2. All overdue replacements are spread over the first four years of the transition plan.

3. Costs for the incumbent ICE vehicles were based on an average of Glendale’s reported replacement costs.

4. Costs for EV vehicles were estimated using a percent increase from Glendale’s baseline (ICE) cost based on the known costs of ZE replacements in each class. Percent increases were used instead of published base vehicle costs because most vehicles have special equipment and upfits that are not reflected in the base EV cost. CTE modeled most classes as 1.6 times the ICE cost, and light-duty vehicles were modeled as 1.2 times the ICE cost. These multipliers were based on several factors: comparison of known costs for ICE and EVs in certain vehicle types from Glendale and other municipal projects.

For vehicles that Glendale has already electrified, the baseline cost is the same as the EV cost.

5. Inflation was included at 3% for all capital costs.

ACF Exempt Vehicles

1. Not all vehicles in the fleet are subject to the ACF regulation10. Vehicles under 8,500 lbs. (light duty automobiles, pickups and vans, etc.) are subject to the

9 Bloomberg NEF, "Hitting the EV Inflection Point" (2021) 10 CARB, Final Regulation Order, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Appendix A -1 96 of 191

49 Advanced Clean Cars regulation which is only applicable to original OEMs.

Larger off-road assets such as excavators are subject to the Off Road Diesel Fleets regulation11. Small off-road assets are subject to Small Off Road Engines regulation which is only applicable to manufacturers12. Nevertheless, these vehicles are included in the transition plan.

2. Some vehicles categories are covered by ACF but are explicitly exempt such as emergency vehicles. Because Glendale’s goal is complete electrification, emergency and pursuit vehicles are included in the plan; however, the transition is delayed due to the suitability of EV models and concerns from the Glendale Fire Department and Police Department. Therefore, CTE modeled the transition start date for all emergency and pursuit vehicles as 2030, even if the vehicle was considered suitable before 2030. This date may need to be modified depending on technology development and regulations; exemption from ACF may affect technology development.

3. Vehicles subject to ACF may be exempt in the short term due to availability of ZE configurations. For the Fleet Assessment, the replacement schedule and feasibility of the base chassis determined the transition speed for all specialized configurations. The lack of available EV models in the heavier pickup sizes may pose a challenge for Glendale. The CARB web site for ACF provides a list of available and certified ZEV models. This list currently has 38 models in the Class 2b – Class 3 size. This includes half-ton pickups (Class 2a) which may not be suitable for the heavier applications. The remaining vehicles in the list are van-based chassis, which may not be suitable for replacement of pickup based vehicles. Until there is a suitable pickup-based model for the heavier applications, Glendale will have to either select a model off the list or adjust the schedule for replacing the heavier pickups (delay replacement).

4. ACF also has exemptions for vehicles where there is no new ZEV model capable of meeting the daily mileage or energy needs or there is no ZEV in the necessary configuration available to purchase. CARB will publish a short- term exemption list in January 2025, and Glendale can apply for additional exemptions. Because of concerns about the capacity of refuse trucks and the limited space at the Integrated Waste facility, CTE delayed the transition of all refuse vehicles until 2027, at which point all new purchases will be subject to the 100% ACF EV purchase rule.

11 CARB, Guide to Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Regulations 12 CARB, Small Off-Road Engines
97 of 191

50 Results and Discussion
Suitability
The vehicle types in the fleet were rated for suitability in

Table 12. Most vehicles are suitable for purchase in 2027. Glendale should note:
• The medium- and heavy-duty chassis can be outfit for any use, so CTE used it as the basis for specialty medium- and heavy-duty vehicle types. • Similarly, CTE used pickup trucks of the appropriate class as the basis for any specialty pickup configurations. Ford announced a medium sized pickup model for late in 2027 which is the basis for a score of 4 in 2028. • CTE assumed that the current EV fire engine designs would enable other emergency specialty vehicles by 2029.
• CTE assumed the available EV cargo vans could be outfitted for passenger use.
• Though there are no minivans currently available, there are two EV models slated for 2025.
• Based on conversations with OEMs, CTE does not expect any EV ladder truck models to be available during the term of the transition plan without significant technology improvement.
• The available EV models for fire engines are fully electric drive but have a backup diesel engine that engages during longer duration events. For two of the OEMs, the backup engine is optional. For Pierce (Glendale’s standardization OEM), the ICE engine is fully integrated into the system.

This engine is about half the size of the typical engine in a conventional model.

Because the market for EVs is developing quickly, the availability of each vehicle type is only an estimation and should be re-evaluated throughout the transition.

Table 12: Suitability Rankings by Year
Category Vehicle Type Commercially
Available? 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Construction Backhoe Loader** Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
Construction Excavator** Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
Construction Excavator, Compact Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Construction Wheel Loader** Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
Construction Wheel Loader, Compact Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
98 of 191

51 Category Vehicle Type Commercially
Available? 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Construction Loader, Skid-steer** Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
Construction Loader, Skid-steer,
Compact Yes 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Construction Loader, Track Steer** No 2 3 3 3 4 4 5
Construction Loader, Track Steer,
Compact Yes 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
Construction Roller Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Emergency Fire Engine* Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Emergency Ladder Truck No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Emergency Specialty Vehicle No 2 3 3 3 4 4 5
Emergency Rescue No 2 3 3 3 4 4 5
Heavy-Duty Chassis (Class 7) Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Heavy-Duty Refuse Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Heavy-Duty Street Sweeper Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Heavy-Duty Semi (Class 8) Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty 1 ton Pickup (Class 3) No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Light-Duty 1/2 ton Pickup (Class 2a) Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty 3/4 ton Pickup (Class 2b) No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Light-Duty Compact Pickup (Class 1) No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Light-Duty Minivan No 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty Motorcycle Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty Sedan/Wagon Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty SUV Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty Van, Cargo Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Light-Duty Van, Passenger Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Medium-Duty Chassis (Class 4-6) Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road ATV Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Boom lift Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Bunker Rake Yes 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Concrete Cutter No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Non-Road Digger Derrick No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Non-Road Forklift, Light Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Forklift, Medium Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Forklift, Heavy Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Hammer No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Non-Road Low Speed Vehicle Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Mower Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Order Picker Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Root Cutter No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
99 of 191

52 Category Vehicle Type Commercially
Available? 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Non-Road Scissor Lift Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Stump Grinder No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Non-Road Tractor, Compact Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Tractor, Medium Yes 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Tractor, Large Yes 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Non-Road Utility Sweeper Yes 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
Non-Road Utility Vehicle Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Road Utility Vehicle, Transport Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Pursuit Motorcycle No 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Pursuit Sedan Yes 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
Pursuit SUV Yes 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
* Existing fire truck models have a diesel backup engine. ** Multiple sizes are encompassed in these classes; however, not all sizes are immediately available in an EV version. Please refer to the Market Assessment for details on available models.

Feasibility
The vehicle types in the fleet were rated for feasibility, as shown in Table 13. The table shows which vehicle types currently have, or are projected to have, sufficient capacity to perform at either Glendale’s strenuous or nominal daily use. As technology progresses, a vehicle type may transition from infeasible to feasible, or from only nominal use feasible to strenuous use feasible. The feasibility table is blank for years where an EV model is not yet commercially available, or the transition is delayed due to the City's preferences (as in the case of some emergency vehicles). There may be two rows for the same vehicle type for different fuel types if the aggregate fuel economy was significantly different between the two.

Glendale should note that the feasibility projections are primarily based on estimated daily use and estimated EV vehicle energy consumption. Glendale provided detailed route information on its refuse service. CTE used these data to estimate energy use requirements for refuse trucks. CTE did not have detailed daily data for most of Glendale’s operations, and some assets lacked any data at all; therefore, the estimated nominal requirements hours may or may not reflect the true feasibility for an electric replacement. For EVs that are not deployed widely, or no model is available, the energy consumption estimations should be used with caution. Many factors—including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) use, driving style, idling behavior, and variations in daily operations—can affect actual energy consumption and therefore vehicle range and feasibility.

There are some vehicles that, as modeled, do not meet the nominal requirement throughout the transition: mowers, bunker rakes, boom lifts, and heavy manlift trucks. CTE modified the purchase schedule as discussed in the next section to plan for full electrification.
100 of 191

53 Table 13: Feasibility of each Vehicle Type
Key:

Not Yet Suitable
Purchase Delayed
Nominal Use Infeasible Without Modifications
Nominal Usage Feasible, Strenuous Usage Infeasible
Strenuous Usage Feasible

Vehicle Type
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Pursuit SUV
Pursuit Motorcycle
Non-Road Wheel Loader
Non-Road Utility Vehicle
Non-Road Utility Sweeper
Non-Road Tractor,
Compact
Non-Road Stump Grinder
Non-Road Scissor lift
Non-Road Root cutter
Non-Road Roller
Non-Road Order picker
Non-Road Mower
Non-Road Loader, Track
Steer, Compact
Non-Road Loader, Skid
Steer
Non-Road Loader, Skid
Steer, Compact
Non-Road Hammer
Non-Road Forklift, Light
Non-Road Forklift, Heavy
Non-Road Excavator,
Compact
Non-Road Digger Derrick
Non-Road Concrete Cutter
Non-Road Bunker Rake
Non-Road Boom lift
Non-Road Backhoe Loader
Non-Road Asphalt Paver
Medium Van, Cargo
101 of 191

54 Vehicle Type
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Medium Truck, Manlift
(Gasoline)
Medium Truck, Manlift
(Diesel)
Medium Truck, Flatbed
Medium Truck, Dump
Medium Truck
Light Van, Passenger
Light Van, Cargo
Light SUV
Light Sedan
Light Motorcycle
Light Minivan
Light Compact Pickup
Light 3/4 ton Pickup
Light 1 ton Pickup, Manlift
Light 1 ton Pickup, Flatbed
Light 1 ton Pickup, Dump
Light 1 ton Pickup
Light 1/2 ton Pickup,
Refuse Bin
Light 1/2 ton Pickup
Heavy Truck, Rolloff
Heavy Truck, Manlift
(Diesel)
Heavy Truck, Manlift
(CNG)
Heavy Truck, Dump
Heavy Truck, Crane
Heavy Street Sweeper
Heavy Refuse Truck
Heavy Truck (Diesel,
Gasoline)
Heavy Truck (CNG)
Emergency Rescue 1.5 ton
Pickup
Emergency Ladder Truck
Emergency Fire Engine
Emergency Specialty
Medium
Emergency Specialty Light
102 of 191

55 Vehicle Type
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Emergency Specialty
Heavy
Emergency Command SUV
Emergency Command
Sedan
Emergency Command
Pickup

Purchase Schedule
Because Glendale’s goal for the transition plan is full electrification by 2040 and to ensure compliance with ACF purchase requirements, CTE considered a vehicle feasible for EV purchase if the nominal operating requirement was feasible. There are several reasons why this is appropriate:

1. Because the fleet is transitioning as vehicles retire, ICE vehicles will be available in the fleet to perform the most strenuous operations for several years into the transition.

2. CTE does not have visibility into the details of vehicle operation. For example, a strenuous requirement of 200 miles per day may not be continuous driving; it may be 100 miles each way which may allow for charging at the destination. As another example, an 8-hour requirement does not account for potential charging over a lunch break, which would increase feasibility.

To provide Glendale with a complete electrification plan, CTE also planned for the purchase of the mowers, boom lifts, and bunker rakes despite not meeting the nominal feasibility requirement. These vehicles will still be able to operate on a job site but may require some operational modifications such as midday charging.

CTE made the following edits to the original purchase schedule that was based only on feasibility, suitability, and natural replacement timelines:
- CTE delayed the purchase of a concrete cutter and a digger derrick to 2030 so that there would be feasible EV replacements; otherwise, an on-time replacement with an ICE vehicle would delay electrification past 2040. - Heavy manlift trucks are estimated to become feasible in the later 2030s; in the purchase schedule, these assets are purchased in 2025 as ICE vehicles due to suitability but are replaced in 2037 as EV on the normal replacement schedule and are then feasible.
103 of 191

56 - The purchase schedules for diesel mowers and boom lifts were edited to transition to EVs starting in 2027 regardless of the modeled feasibility to achieve full electrification.
- CTE set the purchase schedule for gasoline mowers and bunker rakes to transition starting in 2025 due to the SORE regulation that prohibits the sale of new gasoline lawn equipment under 25 hp starting in 2024 in California13, though Glendale may choose to delay the transition.

Figure 10 shows the total projected annual procurements based on the purchase schedule and feasibility. Based on the replacement schedule determined by service life and purchasing feasible and suitable EV replacements, Glendale will purchase 20% EVs in 2025. Due to the replacement of the pursuit SUVs with ICE or hybrid vehicles, in 2028 only 26% EVs are purchased. By 2031, 100% of purchases will be EV, except for 2039 where an ICE ladder truck is purchased due to the projected lack of suitable EV models. The total purchase percentage by year is shown in

13 CARB Approves Updated Regulations Requiring Most New Small Off -Road Engines Be Zero Emission by 2024
104 of 191

57 Table 14.

Figure 10: Annual procurements by Propulsion Type
The ACF regulation requires 50% ZE purchase in 2025 and 2026, and 100% ZE purchase starting in 2027. Currently, the exact list of exempt vehicles and configurations is unknown; CARB will release a final list by January 1, 2025. The guidance released in October 2024 and in the regulation text states that some configurations will certainly be exempt such as dump trucks and refuse trucks, but some types of vehicles will not be exempt such as pickups. CARB has provided a list of medium and heavy duty ZE vehicle options.14 On this list in the class 2b-3 category are ½ ton pickup options such as the Ford Lightning and some cab and chassis models such as the Ford T350 that are van style. There are no heavier pickups; however, heavier pickups are not exempt due to the options provided on the list. Glendale has expressed that upfitting van-style chassis has not worked in the past; therefore, CTE did not include those as viable options for EV heavy pickups and did not change the suitability for heavy pickups from the rating of 5 in the year 2030.

To evaluate the ACF compliance of the recommended purchase schedule, CTE divided Glendale’s vehicle categories into exempt and non-exempt categories.

Emergency and light duty (less than 8,500 lbs.) are exempt, and off-road vehicles fall under other CARB regulations. For on-road vehicles heavier than 8,500 lbs., all pickups, semis, and basic chassis were considered included and non-exempt.

14 CARB List of Certified Medium and Heavy-Duty ZEVs

105 of 191

58 Configurations such as dumps, cranes, manlifts, and refuse trucks were considered exempt. 15 The full list of vehicles in each category is in the Appendix, Table B2.

Based on this categorization, the purchase schedule is shown in

15 “The (exemption) list will not include the following configurations: pickups, any buses, box trucks, vans, or any tractors… The (exemption) list will include the following vehicle configurations: Bucket truck, boom truck, dump truck, flatbed truck, stake bed truck, front -loader refuse compactor truck, side- loader refuse compactor truck, rear-loader refuse compactor truck, refuse roll-off truck, service body truck, street sweeper, tank truck, tow truck, water truck, car carrier truck, concrete mixer truck, concrete pump truck, crane, drill rig, vacuum truck.” CARB ACF Regulation 106 of 191

59 Table 14. The current purchase schedule does not meet ACF purchase requirements until 2030 without additional exemptions or purchase delays due to the lack of ZE ¾, 1, and 1.5 ton pickups until approximately 2028-2030.

As shown in the table below and highlighted in red, there are 45 ICE vehicles scheduled for purchase in 2025 that CARB does not consider exempt. These are all 1 Ton Pickups, Heavy Trucks, ¾ Ton Pickups, and Medium Trucks. To comply with the 50% EV purchase requirement, Glendale needs to find an alternative for at least 24 of those vehicles to match the planned 21 EVs planned for purchase in 2025.

Glendale may consider these options for compliance in the short term:

1. Delay purchase of vehicles to decrease the percentage of ICE vehicles purchased each year.

2. Replace some Class 2b-3 pickups with available EV models such as a ½ ton pickup, a van-type cab and chassis, or a heavier Class 4 trucks.

3. Explore other avenues for exemptions.16
This may change as CARB releases its official exemption list.

16 October 2024 ACF Exemption Guidance
107 of 191

60 Table 14: Purchases by ACF Status

2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Exempt, Emergency ICE 60 30 47 32 34 1 0
ACF, non-exempt ICE 45 19 3 0 19 0 0
ACF, configuration
exempt short term ICE 32 6 0 1 0 0 0
Exempt, <8500 lb. ICE 3 35 0 12 12 0 0
Different regulation ICE 5 0 15 1 0 0 0
Exempt, Emergency Electric 0 0 0 0 0 25 23
ACF, non-exempt Electric 21 11 22 14 10 21 3
ACF, configuration
exempt short term Electric 0 0 19 16 10 7 16
Exempt, <8500 lb. Electric 8 54 17 8 19 12 25
Different regulation Electric 1 9 34 7 2 10 3
Total Percent EV Purchase 17% 45% 59% 49% 39% 99% 100%
ACF, excluding exempt vehicles 32% 37% 88% 100% 34% 100% 100% ACF, including exempt vehicles 21% 31% 93% 97% 51% 100% 100% Figure 11 shows the fleet composition over the transition period. Glendale does not achieve 100% electrification by 2040 due to the delayed transition of emergency vehicles and the lack of suitable EV models for the heaviest fire equipment. The 12 ICE vehicles that remain in 2040 are all fire engines and ladder trucks. 108 of 191

61 Figure 11: Fleet composition throughout the transition.

Figure 12 shows the total projected procurement costs for vehicles over the transition period compared to the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario follows the same purchase schedule as the transition scenario, but each asset is replaced with the same fuel type as it is in 2024; existing EVs are replaced with EVs, but no further vehicles are electrified. Due to the lower service life for specific vehicles, some are replaced twice within the period.

Figure 12: Total procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario.

109 of 191

62 The cumulative cost of all vehicle procurements is approximately $87.8 million more for the transition scenario from 2025-2040 compared to the baseline scenario (Table 15, Figure 12).

Table 15: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Procurement Costs, 2025-2040 Cumulative
Transition
Procurements
Cumulative
Baseline
Procurements
Cumulative
Difference
$264,568,000 $176,706,000 $ 87,862,000

Figure 13: Cumulative procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario.

Fuel Assessment
Purpose
For fleet transition planning, the goals of the fuel assessment component are:

1. Establish the annual fuel and energy consumption over the transition compared to the baseline scenario.

2. Estimate the annual cost of fuel and energy in the transition and baseline scenario.

3. Estimate the number of chargers in the transition scenario and the peak demand at each location.

110 of 191

63 Methodology Overview
The fuel assessment methodology can be broken into two components, the Charging Analysis and Fuel Assessment, which build on the results of the Fleet Assessment (Figure 14).

Charging Analysis:

Inputs: CTE used the service requirements established in the Fleet Assessment and the average battery capacity of the electric model of each vehicle type to determine the amount of battery capacity, or state of charge (SOC), that each vehicle type is expected to use on a typical operational day. CTE also estimated the time to charge each vehicle fully from 0% to 100% SOC at various charging powers to ensure that vehicles could be fully charged overnight in case of a day of strenuous usage where the entire battery capacity is used.

Outputs: CTE provided recommendations for the ratio of EVs to chargers and charger powers to Glendale to provide adequate charging while also minimizing additional electrical infrastructure. Glendale reviewed and modified the recommendations to their preferences. The final charger powers and ratios were used to project the number of chargers needed at each site annually to meet the vehicle transition and the resulting annual maximum demand. CTE also estimated the annual maintenance costs for chargers.

Fuel Assessment:

Inputs: CTE used the fuel economies (ICE and EV), the typical daily usage, and the active days per year from the Fleet Assessment to estimate the fuel use for each vehicle. Energy use is based on a nominal day, and electrical demand assumes all chargers are active concurrently at least once per year. Glendale provided the unit costs for fuel and utility schedules at major sites.

Outputs: CTE calculated the annual fuel consumption and fuel costs for each fuel type for each site over the transition scenario and the baseline scenario. 111 of 191

64 Figure 14: The Fuel Assessment builds on the results of the Fleet Assessment.

Scope
The scope of the assessment included 820 vehicles across 33 sites. Because only a small number of the fleet are take-home vehicles and employees may not have charging infrastructure at home, this analysis assumes that all vehicles will be charged on-site.

Detailed Methodology and Assumptions
Charger Analysis Assumptions and Methodology:

1. CTE used the outputs of the Fleet Assessment as inputs to the Fuel Assessment, namely the estimated EV battery size and EV fuel consumptions.

2. To determine charger needs, CTE considered two key factors:
a. How quickly vehicles can fully charge (the charger power), and 112 of 191

65 b. How often vehicles need to charge (the EV to charger ratio).

3. CTE considered four types of chargers in the analysis Table 16:
a. Level 1 Proprietary Charger: In the current smaller offroad equipment market, EVs are sold with level 1 chargers specific to the OEM and vehicle model (Table 17). These chargers plug directly into a wall outlet (120V AC) and can only achieve approximately 1 kW of charging power. These vehicles are not yet compatible with standard Level 2 or Level 3 chargers. Charging speeds are thus limited for these vehicles and are dependent on the OEM.
b. Level 2 AC Charger (J1772) with One Dispenser: For EVs with smaller batteries that are compatible with standard chargers, a Level 2 charger is appropriate for overnight charging. Level 2 chargers can provide up to 19.2 kW of power to the vehicle depending on the utility service available on site and the hardware on the vehicle. CTE modeled all Level 2 chargers as 16.6 kW to reflect a 208 V three phase utility service at 80 A. Actual charging maximum power may also be limited by the onboard AC to DC converter rating for some light duty vehicles.
c. Level 3 DC Charger with Two Dispensers: For EVs with larger batteries, higher power is needed to fully charge overnight. CTE modeled a 60 kW charger with two dispensers such that each dispenser can provide 30 kW at once. For some vehicles, the full 60 kW of power is needed which is accounted for in the number of chargers and dispensers.
d. Level 3 DC Fast Charger with One Dispenser: For EVs with very large batteries or a need for fast charging, CTE modeled a 150 kW DC fast charger. Not all vehicles are compatible with this charging speed, but all vehicles compatible with DC charging can use this charger at the vehicle’s maximum power.

Table 16: Charger types
Type Modeled Maximum
Power Dispensers
Level 1 ~1 kW 1
Level 2 16.6 kW 1
Level 3 30 kW (2 dispensers)
60 kW (1 dispenser) 2
Level 3 Fast
Charger 150 kW 1

113 of 191

66 Table 17: Vehicle types that are only compatible with proprietary level 1 chargers Vehicles with Proprietary Level 1 Chargers (2024)
• Boom lift, Non-road
• Bunker Rake, Non-
road
• Mowers, Non-road

• Order picker, Non-
road
• Roller, Non-road
• Root cutter, Non-
road

• Scissor lift, Non-road
• Stump Grinder, Non-
road
• Utility Sweeper, Non-
road
• Utility Vehicle, Non-
road

4. To determine the charger power, CTE used the projected battery size for each vehicle type in 2024 and estimated the time to fully charge from 0%- 100% SOC. CTE used the minimum charging power that achieved full charging in 7 hours overnight with a one-hour buffer to account for slower charging due to temperature or battery preconditioning. For vehicles with large batteries, this is not feasible on a Level 2 charger. CTE evaluated the DC charging options and CTE chose the minimum charging power. CTE also considered the need to limit total demand, in which case approximately 8 hours to fully charge was considered acceptable for some vehicles.

Emergency and some pursuit vehicles were adjusted to fast charge. Table 18 shows the charger power modeled for each vehicle type.

Table 18: Vehicle types by assigned charger power
Level 2 (16.6
kW)
Level 3 (30 kW –
half of 60 kW) Level 3 (60 kW)
Level 3 Fast
Charge (150
kW)
• Backhoe
Loader, Non-
road
• Excavator,
Compact, Non-
road
• Concrete
Cutter, Non-
road
• Digger
Derrick, Non-
road
• Forklift, Light,
Non-road
• Hammer, Non-
road
• Asphalt Paver,
Non-road
• Forklift, Heavy,
Non-road
• Wheel Loader,
Non-road
• 1 Ton Pickup,
Light
• 1/2 Ton Pickup,
Light
• 3/4 Ton Pickup,
Light
• Command,
Pickup,
Emergency
• Emergency
Specialty,
Light,
Emergency
• Emergency
Specialty,
Medium,
Emergency
• Heavy Truck,
Heavy
• Refuse Truck,
Heavy
• Rescue, 1.5
ton Pickup,
Emergency
• Emergency
Specialty,
Heavy,
Emergency
• Fire Engine,
Emergency
• Ladder
Truck,
Emergency
• SUV, Patrol,
Pursuit*
114 of 191

67 • Tractor,
Compact, Non-
road
• Loader, Skid
Steer,
Compact, Non-
road
• Loader, Skid
Steer, Non-
road
• Loader, Track
Steer,
Compact, Non-
road
• Compact
Pickup, Light
• Minivan, Light
• Motorcycle,
Light
• Sedan, Light
• SUV, Light
• SUV, Police,
Pursuit
• SUV, Patrol,
Pursuit*
• Van, Cargo,
Light
• Van,
Passenger,
Light
• Command,
Sedan,
Emergency
• Command, SUV,
Emergency
• Motorcycle,
Pursuit
• Street Sweeper,
Heavy
• Truck, Crane,
Heavy
• Truck, Dump,
Heavy
• Truck, Dump,
Medium
• Truck, Flatbed,
Medium
• Truck, Manlift,
Medium
• Truck, Rolloff,
Heavy
• Truck, Medium
• Van, Cargo,
Medium
• 1 ton Pickup,
Dump, Light
• 1 ton Pickup,
Flatbed, Light
• 1 ton Pickup,
Manlift, Light
• 1/2 ton Pickup,
Refuse Bin,
Light
• Truck,
Manlift,
Heavy

* SUV Patrol vehicles appear in both the Level 2 and Level 3 Fast Charge categories because of the desired charging scheme. For the approximately 20 vehicles on a 24-hour patrol duty, fast chargers are needed. All other vehicles can charge more slowly overnight. See the Results for further discussion.

5. To determine the number of chargers needed, CTE estimated how frequently each vehicle needs charger access based on its typical daily usage. CTE estimated the percentage of the battery capacity that would be used on a typical day using the battery capacity (kWh) and EV fuel economy (kWh/mi or kWh/hour). CTE assumed 87% usable capacity for EV batteries. The daily SOC usage was calculated as:
115 of 191

68 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 [𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠] ∗ 𝐸𝑉 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 [𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑚𝑖 𝑜𝑟 𝑘𝑊ℎ
ℎ𝑟 ]
𝐸𝑉 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 [𝑘𝑊ℎ] ∗ 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 [%] = 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 [%]

6. Then, CTE assigned vehicle to charger ratios as follows:
a. More than 40% SOC per day = 1:1 vehicle to dispenser (plugged in every night)
b. 20-40% SOC per day = 2:1 vehicle to dispenser (plugged in every other night)
c. Less than 20% SOC per day = 3:1 vehicle to dispenser (plugged in every 3 nights)

7. CTE worked with Glendale to assign each vehicle type to the appropriate vehicle category. The analysis assumes no violations of these categories; additional hardware will be required for any vehicles that are charged more frequently. With fewer chargers, Glendale will need to carefully monitor the SOC and planned vehicle use to ensure vehicles are adequately charged on time. Table 19 shows the planned charger ratios (excluding vehicles in Table 17 with proprietary level 1 chargers).

Table 19: Vehicle to Dispenser Ratios
Charging Every Night
(1:1 Vehicle to
Dispenser)
Charging Every Other
Night (2:1 Vehicle to
Dispenser)
Charging Every 3
Nights (3:1 Vehicle to
Dispenser)
• Fire Engine,
Emergency
• Ladder Truck,
Emergency
• Motorcycle, Pursuit
• Refuse Truck, Heavy
• Rescue, 1.5 ton
Pickup, Emergency
• Street Sweeper,
Heavy
• SUV, Police, Pursuit
• SUV, Patrol, Pursuit

• Asphalt Paver, Non-
road
• Backhoe Loader, Non-
road
• Excavator, Compact,
Non-road
• Concrete Cutter, Non-
road
• Digger Derrick, Non-
road
• Forklift, Light, Non-
road
• Hammer, Non-road
• Loader, Skid Steer,
Compact, Non-road
• Loader, Skid Steer,
Non-road
• Loader, Track Steer,
Compact, Non-road
• Forklift, Heavy,
Non-road
• Tractor, Compact,
Non-road
• Wheel Loader, Non-
road
• 1 Ton Pickup, Light
• 1/2 Ton Pickup,
Light
• 3/4 Ton Pickup,
Light
• Compact Pickup,
Light
• Heavy Truck, Heavy
• Minivan, Light
• Sedan, Light
• SUV, Light
• Truck, Crane, Heavy
• Truck, Dump, Heavy
116 of 191

69 • Command, Pickup,
Emergency
• Command, Sedan,
Emergency
• Command, SUV,
Emergency
• Emergency Specialty,
Heavy, Emergency
• Emergency Specialty,
Light, Emergency
• Emergency Specialty,
Medium, Emergency
• Motorcycle, Light
• Truck, Flatbed,
Medium
• 1 ton Pickup, Flatbed,
Light
• Truck, Dump,
Medium
• Truck, Manlift,
Heavy
• Truck, Manlift,
Medium
• Truck, Rolloff,
Heavy
• Truck, Medium
• Van, Cargo, Light
• Van, Cargo, Medium
• Van, Passenger,
Light
• 1 ton Pickup, Dump,
Light
• 1 ton Pickup,
Manlift, Light
• 1/2 ton Pickup,
Refuse Bin, Light

Fuel Assessment Methodology and Assumptions:

1. To calculate the annual fuel consumption, CTE followed the Fleet Assessment results for each vehicle’s fuel type by year. CTE used the established average daily use (miles or hours) per vehicle, the average ICE and EV fuel economy, and the active days per year per vehicle type established in the Fleet Assessment:

𝑁𝑜. 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 ∗ 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 [𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 ]
∗ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑒 [𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠]
= 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [ 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠]

2. The annual fuel consumption was aggregated by fuel type and by location.

3. The charging process is not 100% efficient which results in some losses between the grid and the vehicle battery. This means that some additional energy and power are purchased that does not reach the vehicle battery. To account for this and estimate the true capacity needed, CTE assumes 85% charger efficiency (85% of energy drawn from the grid reaches the 117 of 191

70 battery).17 Thus, if a vehicle requires 100 kWh to fully charge, the estimated energy drawn from the grid is 100 kWh * (1/0.85) = 117.6 kWh. CTE applied this efficiency factor to the electric energy estimation.

4. To estimate the number of chargers needed each year at each location, CTE used the vehicle to dispenser ratios, types of chargers, and charger powers established in the Charging Analysis and the annual fleet composition defined in the Fleet Assessment. CTE estimated the number of chargers of each type needed at each location based on the number and type of EV at each location each year of the transition. CTE aggregated the chargers such that vehicles were sharing chargers to minimize the number of chargers needed (e.g., if a Flatbed Pickup and a Cargo Van at one location need a Level 2 charger at a 2:1 vehicle to dispenser ratio, then one Level 2 charger is added to the location). In the case of a non-whole number of chargers at a location, CTE rounded up to the nearest whole charger, which provides some spare capacity (e.g. three vehicles need a Level 2 charger at a 2:1 ratio, the number of chargers needed is technically 1.5 chargers, which would be rounded up to two chargers). The spare capacity is considered for future vehicle purchases and used first before adding chargers. No additional spare chargers were added for the purposes of the fuel assessment.

5. The number of chargers informs the maximum demand at each location. CTE calculated the maximum demand by multiplying the charger power by the number of chargers of each type and summing for each site. This method assumes no additional charge management system that would limit the maximum demand. CTE also applied the 85% charger efficiency assumption to all DC chargers (Level 3 and Level 3 Fast Charge) because the stated maximum charger power (e.g., 60 kW) is the maximum power reaching the vehicle. Due to inefficiencies in converting grid power to vehicle power, more power is drawn from the grid than reaches the vehicle. Thus, for a 60 kW charger, the demand on the grid is estimated as 60 kW * (1/0.85) = 70.5 kW.

Cost Assumptions
CTE estimated the annual fuel costs using the current costs of fuel provided by Glendale as shown in

17 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Estimating the Breakeven Cost of Delivered Electricity to Charge Class 8 Electric Tractors” (2022)
118 of 191

71 1. Table 20 and the annual consumption amounts calculated previously.

119 of 191

72 Table 20: Fossil fuel costs per unit in 2024
Fuel Cost per Unit in 2024
Diesel $ 3.80 / gallon
Gasoline $3.50 / gallon
CNG $2.14 / gasoline gallon
equivalent
Propane $3.00 / gallon*
*Assumed by CTE

2. For utility costs, GWP provides several options for utility rates depending on the maximum demand. These rates have changed since the previous assessment. The available rates are:
a. For sites with demand over 20 kW: Rate LD2A18
b. For sites with demand over 150 kW and less than 500 kW: Any PC1 rate (minimum demand charge is 150 kW)19
c. For sites with demand over 500 kW: Rate PC1B

3. CTE used LD2A for sites that remained under 150 kW throughout the transition. For any sites over 150 kW by the end of the transition period, CTE used PC1B to estimate costs throughout the transition because the overall demand charges are lower than PC1A (see Table 21 for the utility rates used in the analysis). Because no sites in the baseline scenario cross 150 kW, CTE modeled all baseline sites on LD2A for any existing EVs.

4. PC1B includes a time of use (TOU) component for energy rates but not demand rates. Because most charging will occur in the off-peak hours (from 9 pm to 12 pm most of the year) and the energy component of the total bill is much lower than the demand component, CTE approximated all energy costs as the off-peak rate.

5. CTE used the Phase 5 (2027) rates from the planned rate increases because most electrification will occur during and after 2027, though costs in 2025 and 2026 will be slightly overestimated.

18 GWP Rate LD2A
19 GWP PC1 Rates
120 of 191

73 6. CTE assumed one meter per location and that all EVs will be charged on a meter separate from other loads at the site.

7. CTE did not include reactive power (kVAR) charges because chargers typically have a power factor rating over 95% which causes little reactive power to be fed back to the grid and the charge is low compared to the other components of the bill.

Table 21: Utility rates applied
Rate Bill Component
High Season
Cost (July to
October)
Low Season
Cost
(November
to June)
Annual
Weighted
Average
including PBC
(2.85%)
LD2A
Energy $0.1707 per
kWh
$0.1632 per
kWh
$0.1704 per
kWh
Demand (Maximum over
previous 12 months)
$1.15 per kW
per day
$0.80 per kW
per day
$0.94 per kW
per day
Flat Rate $1.70 per meter per day
$1.76 per
meter per day
PC1B
Energy (Base) $0.14630 per
kWh
$0.14630 per
kWh
$0.1505 per
kWh
Demand (Maximum over
previous 12 months)
$0.96 per kW
per day
$0.68 per kW
per day
$0.80 per kW
per day
Flat Rate $10.50 per meter per day
$10.88 per
meter per day

8. CTE included charger maintenance costs in the cost of electric fuel to account for the fact that fossil fuel prices include the cost of maintaining the fueling stations. CTE assumes $2,800 per charger per year for annual maintenance. Inflation is included at 3% per year for charger maintenance costs.

9. Finally, to account for inflation and future changes in the cost of each fuel type, CTE used the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook (EIA)20 to provide an estimated change in price for each fuel type from 2025-2040. Using this analysis helps account for the fluctuating price of fossil fuels over time, as well as the potential electricity rate increases that

20 Energy Information Administration 2023 Energy Outlook data 121 of 191

74 GWP indicated may occur beyond 2027. Because the Energy Outlook does not include inflation, CTE also added 3% inflation to the changes. The resulting percent change in price from current 2024 prices is shown in Figure 15. These price changes were applied to each year of fuel costs in the transition.

Figure 15: The estimated change in fuel prices until 2040 based on EIA projections and inflation.

Results and Discussion
Charging Analysis
CTE projects 351 Level 2 and Level 3 chargers with 484 plugs across all sites in 2040 and 65 Level 1 proprietary chargers. The overall vehicle to charger ratio is

1.94 including all charger types (1.47 vehicles to plug) and the 808 electrified vehicles by 2040. Excluding Level 1 chargers, which have a low impact on space and demand, and the corresponding 65 vehicles, the vehicle to charger ratio is 2.11 (1.54 vehicles to plug). The charging infrastructure for the 12 remaining ICE vehicles (fire engines and ladder trucks) in 2040 is excluded from the analysis as installation and use will occur outside the transition timeline.

For police patrol vehicles, some operational modifications will be needed with the planned charging infrastructure. Currently, approximately 20 police vehicles are on patrol for days at a time and would only be able to charge during the 15 minute “hot swaps” after the 12-hour shifts. Using a 150-kW fast charger, a patrol SUV could fully charge in approximately 30 minutes. Thus, CTE planned for 22 fast chargers for use on patrol vehicles. For the remaining approximately 50 patrol vehicles, CTE 122 of 191

75 planned for a level 2 charger for each vehicle so they could be slow charged overnight. Glendale will need to investigate operational changes such as switching patrol vehicles on the shift change rather than driving the same vehicle if the time available is not enough to adequately charge.

The projected demand, energy, and applied utility rates at each location are shown in Appendix C. The projected demand at the 6 primary sites21 over the transition is shown in Figure 16. The high projected demand at GPD is due to the number of DC fast chargers.

Figure 16: Demand over the transition period at the major sites

Fleet Energy Consumption
CTE estimated the fuel and energy consumption for each year of the transition by type of fuel. For direct comparison, CTE converted each fuel type based on its energy content into gasoline gallon equivalents (GGE). The total amount of energy consumed decreases with electrification because EVs are much more efficient than ICEs. Glendale will decrease its total energy consumption by about 2/3 by 2040 and eliminate gasoline consumption by 2040 based on the current purchase schedule (Figure 17). The only diesel consumption in 2040 is due to the remaining ladder

21 Some distinct locations that are co-located are combined to encompass the major sites. City Hall includes CCG, CVC, and Perkins. Glendale Water and Power includes GWP and Plant.

123 of 191

76 trucks and fire engines that are not electrified as discussed in the purchase schedule. Appendix C provides figures showing the fuel consumption by site.

Figure 17: Fuel Consumption in Gasoline Gallon Equivalents (GGE) in the transition vs. the baseline scenario.

Fuel Costs
Based on the fuel consumption above, fuel costs, and charger maintenance costs, the estimated annual fuel cost is shown in Figure 18. (Appendix C provides figures showing the fuel cost by site.) The cost of electricity is much higher than other fuels and higher than the previous assessment. There are several factors influencing this:

1. The previous assessment planned for a charger for every vehicle; however, it estimated demand costs on the assumption that only 50% of chargers would be used at any one time. In this assessment, CTE has optimized the vehicle to charger ratio to approximately 2:1 across sites; however, CTE modeled that 100% of the chargers will be used at once22.

Thus, the peak demand estimate across all sites is like the previous assessment, though some sites such as GPD are significantly less.

2. GWP rates have increased.

22 Because demand is charged based on the maximum demand over the previous 12 months, a single instance of all chargers being used at once will cause the peak demand to be charged.

124 of 191

77 a. The previous analysis used an energy cost of $0.0714 per kWh based on rate LD2B for all sites. The current analysis rate at PC1B sites is 111% more per kWh ($0.1505), and 138% more at LD2A sites ($0.1704).
b. The previous analysis used a demand cost of $0.66 per kW per month. The current analysis rates are $0.94 per kW per day for LD2A sites and $0.80 per kW per day for PC1B sites. The rates per kW have increased by 42% and 20% respectively. Calculating demand per day rather than per month also increases the demand component of the bill significantly. The demand charges account for most of the utility costs in the current assessment.

3. The previous inflation applied a blanket 3% inflation to all fuel costs and did not include the EIA Energy Outlook predictions. Higher inflation costs were applied to the previous analysis, and different rates were applied to each fuel type.

4. Fossil fuel costs have decreased since the previous analysis. In 2022, the reported costs per unit were as follows:
a. $6.04 per diesel gallon (Current analysis is 37% less) b. $4.98 per gasoline gallon (Current analysis is 30% less) c. $2.42 per CNG GGE (Current analysis is 12% less)
Additionally, using the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Outlook incorporates different changes in price for different types of fuel, and fossil fuel costs do not increase as much as electricity costs over the transition scenario. Thus, the baseline scenario in the current analysis costs less than the baseline scenario in the previous analysis.

5. Including the charging maintenance costs in fueling costs assumes that the price paid for baseline fuels includes costs of maintaining baseline fueling infrastructure; however, Glendale’s fossil fuel infrastructure costs are captured in their vehicle maintenance chargeback system. Fossil fuel infrastructure—such as underground and aboveground tanks, fueling dispensers, and kiosks—are costly to maintain but must be maintained even if it is not in use. Removing the infrastructure, especially underground tanks, is costly; therefore, CTE has not modeled reductions in this cost. Glendale should consider the costs and benefits of maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure.

125 of 191

78 Figure 18: Estimated annual fuel cost at all sites.

Table 22 summarizes the cost differences between the baseline and transition scenario. The cumulative cost of fuel is approximately $71 million more for the transition scenario from 2025-2040 than the baseline scenario (Figure 19).

Table 22: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Fuel Costs, 2025-2040 Cumulative
Transition Fuel
Costs
Cumulative
Baseline Fuel
Costs
Cumulative
Difference
$100,609,000 $29,428,000 $71,181,000

126 of 191

79 Figure 19: Cumulative fuel costs over the transition compared to baseline.

The estimated costs are a significant increase from current annual fuel costs and the previous analysis estimates. Additional steps to mitigate higher electricity costs include:

4. Limit maximum demand: Demand charges at GWP are based on the highest point of power usage during the previous 12 months. This means that a single instance of high demand, such as using all chargers at maximum charging rate at the same time, will be the amount of demand charged for an entire year. Thus, limiting the maximum demand is key for minimizing demand cost which is generally the most expensive component of the utility bill. Limiting demand can be accomplished in a few ways:
a. Reduce the total number of chargers and/or the number of chargers used at once. Though this limits operational flexibility and potentially requires more logistics to share chargers between vehicles, it can result in savings. As Glendale adopts more EVs, the number of vehicles that can share a charger with minimal additional logistics may be able to be reduced from CTE’s projections.
b. Reduce charging speeds. Charging vehicles using slower, lower- powered chargers reduces the demand on the grid. If vehicles can be charged overnight rather than rapid charging, that will reduce demand.

127 of 191

80 c. Implement at charge management system (CMS). A CMS is software that can manage demand and energy use across all chargers at a site by automatically taking on the above tasks while still ensuring vehicles are charged by the start of shifts (e.g., slowing down charging to avoid maximum power or charging vehicles sequentially over night before the vehicles are required for use in the morning. While a CMS is not free, Glendale may investigate the utility savings and logistical needs versus the costs of the software.

5. Discuss potential EV charging rates with GWP. Many utilities such as Southern California Edison23 offer different rates for EV-only meters to mitigate demand charges. The current PC1B rate does not have a TOU component to the demand charge; because Glendale will charge most vehicles at night, a TOU rate for demand may reduce costs. Additionally, the City should work with GWP every few years to determine the optimal rate schedule for each terminal as the demand and energy needs increase.

6. Consider other infrastructure to reduce the peak demand from the grid. Infrastructure such as on-site battery storage can be charged when electricity is cheaper during off-peak hours or from on-site solar generation and then discharged during peak hours to reduce the maximum demand on-peak. Depending on the charging scheme that the City finds works best, peak-shaving infrastructure may reduce costs and improve resilience.

Facilities Assessment
Purpose
For fleet transition planning, the goals of the facilities assessment components are:

1. Estimate the annual capital cost of infrastructure required to charge EVs

2. Estimate the annual cost of construction for EV charging infrastructure Methodology Overview
The facilities assessment builds on the results of the Fuel Assessment (Figure 20) Inputs: CTE used the outputs of the fuel assessment: recommended charger ratios, number of chargers, and expected demand. CTE received estimates for utility upgrades and costs from GWP.

23 Southern California Edison Business EV Rates
128 of 191

81 Outputs: CTE calculated the annual capital costs for chargers and infrastructure construction based on industry average cost assumptions.

Figure 20. The Facilities Assessment builds on the results of the Fuel Assessment Scope
The scope of the infrastructure assessment is focused on 661 vehicles domiciled at 6 primary City of Glendale facilities. The chargers for the remaining 159 vehicles are included without construction costs as these vehicles are expected to be distributed in small numbers among non-primary sites where installation costs will be minimal.

Detailed Methodology and Assumptions
Based on the duty-cycle analysis, CTE determined the quantity and power levels of chargers for each site and vehicle type at each primary facility. The costs are split into two categories: 1) utility upgrades and 2) equipment and installation.

Utility Upgrades

1. CTE coordinated with GWP on the infrastructure upgrades needed to provide the required power and demand. CTE provided a summary of power and energy demand by primary facility. Table 23 summarizes the expected peak demand at each of the primary sites.
129 of 191

82 Table 23. Summary of the Combined Peak Demand at the Primary Facilities Facility Peak Demand
(kW)
Public Works Yard 1,318
City Hall Complex 925
GWP Utility Operations
Center 1,559
Integrated Waste Yard 2,911
Fire Station 21 1,287
Police Parking Lot 6,744

2. GWP provided the estimated costs to meet the required power and energy demand to all Glendale Facilities – outlined in Table 24. Figure 21 shows the annual costs for utility upgrades—including distribution, transmission, and the Acacia substation—across all main sites. CTE divided the costs evenly by the number of years over the timeline provided by GWP. The overall cost to upgrade the utility infrastructure is $32.5 million. This is higher than the estimated cost from the previous study which was estimated at $21.9 million.

This increase was due to several factors including long lead times and price increases for power transformers and other power components. Several design changes to the Acacia substation also increased the cost estimate. The new design includes the option of a third transmission line entry (the original estimate had 2 transmission lines) and improved reliability of the power grid. GWP also added the cost of building a new transmission system from the Grayson Power Plant to the Acacia substation.

Table 24. GWP Upgrade Cost Estimates and Timeline
Element Estimated Cost Timeline
Distribution 6,000,000 2025-2027
Transmission 2,500,000 2025-2028
Acacia Station 24,000,000 2028-2030
Total 32,500,000
130 of 191

83 Figure 21. Annual Costs for Utility Upgrades across all sites

3. As outlined in the previous table, GWP has a major upgrade planned for the Acacia Substation. This 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 will cost an estimated $24,000,000 (includes costs to upgrade Public Works Yard and Integrated Waste Yard). 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.

Equipment and Installation Costs

1. The equipment and installation estimates are focused on the City’s fleet using level 2 and level 3 chargers. Using the chargers outlined in the fuel assessment,

131 of 191

84 3. Table 25 outlines the number of chargers planned by charger type and site.

132 of 191

85 Table 25. Number of Chargers installed by type and site Facility
Level 2

16.6 kW
chargers
Level 3
DC 60 kW
chargers
Level 3
DC high
power 150
kW
chargers
Public Works
Yard 11 16 0
City Hall
Complex 30 6 0
GWP Utility
Operations
Center
20 16 0
Integrated
Waste Yard 1 41 0
Fire Station 21 1 8 4
Police Parking
Lot 100 17 22
Other Locations 47 20 8
TOTAL 183 133 35

4. CTE estimated the costs of chargers and installation based on market research and data from existing projects.
133 of 191

86 5. Table 26 summarizes the estimated costs for the three types of chargers and installation. CTE added a 10.25% tax on the capital cost of the chargers.

Construction and installation costs are assumed to include site preparation, conduit, transformers, switchgear, concrete pads, bollards, etc. These costs are highly variable depending on local conditions, number of chargers installed at any given time, distance from the transformer, local labor market, etc.

134 of 191

87 Table 26. Cost Assumption for Infrastructure Installation Charger
Type
Capital
Cost
W/Tax
(10.25%)
Construction/
Stub-outs, per
Charger
Installation,
per Charger
L2 16.6 kW $2,000 $2,205 $5,000 $2,500
L3 60 kW $60,000 $66,150 $20,000 $5,000
L3 150 kW $125,000 $137,813 $30,000 $10,000

6. CTE used a 3% inflation each year through the transition on all chargers and installation costs.

7. CTE assumes chargers will be installed at the primary facilities in two phases.

In the first phase, Glendale would install the conduit and stub-outs for approximately half the required chargers. The second phase would install conduit and stub-outs for the remaining chargers. The individual chargers would be purchased and installed on the stub-outs as the vehicles are delivered.

8. CTE assumes a cost of $200,000 for the initial Phase 1 construction design at each main facility. CTE estimates a $50,000 cost for any updates to the design for Phase 2 at each facility.

9. 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.) CTE assumes the construction and utility upgrades for these sites would be minimal, since the number of chargers at each of the other sites is small.

Results and Discussion
Scaling the City’s fleet to 100% EVs requires significant investment in charging infrastructure. In the previous study, CTE used a 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio. This would represent a worst-case scenario and provide an upper boundary to cost.

Glendale reports that many of its sites have space constraints that will limit the ability to install that number of chargers. One of the goals of this updated analysis was to develop a better understanding of the projected use of each vehicle and to optimize the number of chargers required to support the fleet. CTE updated its estimate of the charging infrastructure costs based on these updated assumptions and results from the fuel assessment.
135 of 191

88 Facility Infrastructure Costs
Table 27 summarizes costs by facility. CTE estimates the total cost of design, charging equipment, and construction and installation is approximately $25 million, excluding utility upgrades.

Table 27. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs by Facility Facility Design Charging
Equipment Installation Total Costs by
Facility
Public Works Yard $250,000 $1,334,000 $544,000 $2,128,000 City Hall Complex $250,000 $576,000 $398,000 $1,224,000 GWP Utility
Operations Center
$250,000 $1,362,000 $597,000 $2,209,000
Integrated Waste
Yard
$250,000 $3,197,000 $1,122,000 $4,569,000
Fire Station 21 $250,000 $1,450,000 $455,000 $2,155,000 PD3 Parking Lot $250,000 $5,475,000 $2,431,000 $8,156,000 Other Locations NA $4,205,000 $367,000 $4,572,000
Total $1,500,000 $17,599,000 $5,914,000 $25,013,000
The first year of the transition is assumed to include costs for the initial design for all six primary sites. Figure 22 provides the annual capital cost over time throughout the transition. The higher costs in 2032 and 2033 align with the phase 2 construction at multiple sites. The appendix includes the annual capital cost analysis for each of the six main sites.

Figure 22. Annual Facility Costs through 2040

136 of 191

89 Total Charging Infrastructure and Utility Upgrade Costs The total capital cost of charging infrastructure and utility upgrades is estimated at $57.5 million. This cost is a significant savings over the 1:1 charger to vehicle ratio used in the previous study, which estimated a cost of $49.2 million for construction and infrastructure plus $21.875 million for utility upgrades totaling $71 million.

Figure 23 shows the total annualized capital costs including utility upgrades.

Figure 23. Annual Facility Costs through 2040 including Utility Upgrades

Benefits Assessment
Maintenance Cost Assessment
Industry sources and academic studies 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 in all vehicle categories but expects savings in the long term once the industry matures. 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.

137 of 191

90 Purpose and Scope
For fleet transition planning, the goals of the maintenance assessment component are to estimate the annual costs of maintenance for the fleet in the transition and the baseline scenario. EVs have different maintenance needs that CTE expects will lead to savings as the fleet electrifies. Both ICE and EVs require maintenance on non- powertrain components such as cabin HVAC, tires, and lifting and hydraulic systems on construction equipment; however, EV vehicles do not require maintenance such as engine oil, drive belts, or alternators. Additionally, EVs require less frequent brake maintenance because of regenerative braking, but EVs may require more frequent tire replacements due to the additional weight of the battery. The maintenance assessment includes the costs of labor and materials for both preventive maintenance and repair.

Methodology and Assumptions
Electric vehicles have different maintenance needs than combustion engine vehicles.

The Maintenance Assessment is based on Glendale’s current costs for maintaining its ICE fleet and the expected reductions in EV maintenance for different vehicle classes.

1. CTE used Glendale’s fleet maintenance costs in 2024 to establish the ICE maintenance cost per vehicle class as follows:
a. CTE established the percentage of total maintenance costs for each vehicle class (Light, Medium, Heavy, Non-Road, Emergency, and Pursuit) based on the reported annual maintenance and repair costs from 2023-24 from Glendale’s fleet tracking system.
b. The annual fleet chargeback rates, which includes data from the fleet tracking system, captures the city’s full cost of maintenance. These rates provided CTE with the basis for Glendale’s expected maintenance costs in 2024.
c. CTE scaled the costs for each vehicle class based on the proportions recorded in the fleet tracking system.

2. CTE applied a percent reduction to the maintenance costs based on the vehicle type based on a study of EV total cost of ownership24: 40% reduction for Light, 30% for Medium, and 25% for Heavy vehicles.

3. Because there is limited commercialization and thus limited data for other vehicle classes, CTE conservatively applied a 25% reduction to non-road vehicles and emergency vehicles. CTE applied a 40% reduction to the Pursuit vehicles to match the Light category.

24 Argonne National Labs, Vehicle TCO Analysis (2021)
138 of 191

91 4. Table 28 summarizes the resulting annual maintenance costs for each vehicle class.

5. CTE applied these costs to the vehicle composition for each year of the transition determined in the Fleet Assessment.

Table 28: Annual Maintenance Cost Assumptions per Vehicle in 2024 Vehicle Class
ICE Annual
Maintenance
Costs Per
Vehicle
EV Reduction
Modeled EV
Annual
Maintenance
Costs Per
Vehicle
Emergency $34,166 25% $25,624
Heavy $41,174 25% $30,881
Light $3,454 40% $2,072
Medium $10,613 30% $7,429
Non-road $5,712 25% $4,284
Pursuit $8,699 40% $5,219

Results and Discussion
The annual maintenance costs are shown in Figure 24. As the fleet electrifies, the projected maintenance costs are lower than baseline.

Figure 24: Annual Maintenance Costs in the transition vs. baseline scenarios.

139 of 191

92 The cumulative cost of maintenance is approximately $30 million less for the transition scenario from 2025-2040 than the baseline scenario (Figure 25, Table 29).

Table 29: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Maintenance Costs, 2025-2040 Cumulative
Transition Fuel
Costs
Cumulative
Baseline Fuel
Costs
Cumulative
Difference
$155,013,000 $185,179,000 -$30,166,000

Figure 25: Cumulative Maintenance Costs in the transition vs. baseline scenarios.

Emissions Reductions
Purpose
Reduction of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions are one of the benefits of operating EVs. EVs have zero tailpipe emissions while in use, while fossil-fueled ICE vehicles produce emissions that are harmful to public health and the environment.

Both EVs and ICE vehicles have emissions associated with the upstream production of fuel because electricity is produced from a mix of sources including fossil fuels.

140 of 191

93 The emissions assessment is well-to-wheel (WTW), including both upstream emissions from fuel production and in-use emissions. CTE uses the Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool 25 published by Argonne National Laboratory. Estimates are based on the annual fleet composition determined by the Fleet Assessment purchase schedule, as well as the annual fuel consumption calculated in the Fuel Assessment, and the annual use of each vehicle based on Glendale’s data.

Scope
The pollutants considered are total GHGs and criteria pollutants Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and particulate matter under 10 micrometers (PM10).

Future improvements to the grid and alternative fuel production methods were considered out-of-scope for this assessment; all years are based on 2023 emissions intensities. Future purchases of ICE vehicles with newer engines may result in decreased emissions intensity as compared to the values used in this study.

Likewise, if the grid becomes cleaner, emissions associated with EV operation will decrease further.

Methodology and Assumptions
Utility Assumptions:

CTE used the electricity mix defined in AFLEET 2023 applicable to southern California as shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Grid electricity source mix
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
Grid Mix
Residual oil 0.1%
Natural gas 32.3%
Coal 16.7%
Nuclear power 8.1%
Biomass 0.5%
Others (Wind, Solar, Hydropower, etc.) 42.2%

25 AFLEET 2023
141 of 191

94 Greenhouse Gas Well to Wheel Calculations:

1. To calculate annual GHG emissions, CTE used the annual fuel consumption for each vehicle and multiplied it by the GHG emissions intensity associated with each fuel type from AFLEET.

2. The emissions intensity includes emissions associated with the production and consumption of the fuel.

Upstream Criteria Pollutant Calculations:

1. To calculate annual upstream criteria pollutant emissions, CTE used the annual fuel consumption for each vehicle and multiplied it by the criteria pollutant emissions intensity associated with each fuel type from AFLEET.

2. The emissions include those associated only with production of the specific fuel.

In-Use (Tailpipe) Criteria Pollutant Calculations:

1. To calculate annual in-use pollutant emissions, CTE used the vehicle class, fuel type, average model year, and approximate horsepower to determine the appropriate emissions intensity for in-use criteria pollutants from AFLEET.

2. CTE then multiplied the total annual mileage or operating hours from the Fleet Assessment by the emissions intensity for in-use criteria pollutants.

3. Electric vehicles do not have any in-use emissions.

4. CTE used emissions intensities associated with the current age distribution of the ICE fleet.

Total emissions are the sum of both in-use and upstream emissions.

Results and Discussion
Figure 24 - Figure 28 shows the annual emissions estimates for the baseline and transition scenarios.

142 of 191

95 Figure 26: Greenhouse Gas emissions in the transition vs. baseline scenarios.

Figure 27: Criteria pollutant (NOx, SOx, PM10) emissions in the transition vs. baseline scenarios.

143 of 191

96 Figure 28: Criteria pollutant emissions (CO) in the transition vs. baseline scenarios.

Through the transition from 2025 – 2040, Glendale is estimated to avoid approximately 53 million pounds GHG emissions compared to the baseline (Table 31). Cumulative criteria pollutant emissions are also reduced in every category except for SOx. SOx emissions increase due to electricity partially generated from coal combustion. Sulfur emissions will decrease if electricity generation moves toward non-fossil fuel sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, or hydropower.

Table 31: Baseline vs. Transition Cumulative Emissions, 2025-2040 Pollutant
Cumulative
Baseline Emissions
(lbs)
Cumulative
Transition
Emissions (lbs)
Cumulative
Difference (lbs)
Cumulative
Percent
Difference
GHGs 157,499,000 104,441,000 -53,058,000 -34%
CO 817,000 295,000 -522,000 -64%
NOx 106,000 70,000 -36,000 -34%
SOx 14,300 22,800 8,500 59%
PM10 6,100 5,500 -600 -10%
Table 32 shows the estimated annual emissions in 2040. If fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, Glendale will not be able to achieve a fully zero-emission operation when considering upstream and in-use emissions; however, when considering only tailpipe emissions, Glendale will nearly achieve zero emission operation in 2040. The exception to this is the continued operation of 12 diesel fire engines and ladder trucks.

Table 32: 2040 Annual Emissions, Baseline vs. Transition

144 of 191

97 Pollutant
2040 Annual
Baseline Emissions
(lbs)
2040 Annual
Transition
Emissions (lbs)
Difference (lbs) Percent
Difference
GHGs 9,844,000 3,771,000 -6,073,000 -62%
CO 51,000 2,000 -49,000 -96%
NOx 7,000 3,000 -4,000 -57%
SOx 900 1,900 1,000 +111%
PM10 380 330 -50 -13%
The major differences from the 2022 assessment are:

1. The mix of grid electricity generation has shifted slightly toward natural gas from coal which reduces SOx, PM, NOx, and GHG intensities.

2. Upstream emissions are included for all pollutants which increases the total quantities projected.

3. The delay in fleet electrification in the new transition plan increases the cumulative emissions projected.

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, Figure 29 outlines the annual number of EVs purchased that represent first-time replacement of ICE with EVs for a given vehicle. Tracking the first-time cost of replacing conventional vehicles with EVs is important to understand the cost to transition. Note that these totals will change depending on the City’s ACF compliance strategy and vehicle exemptions in the near term.
145 of 191

98 Figure 29: First time EV purchases throughout the transition period.

The incremental EV purchase cost is defined as the difference in cost between the EV and the baseline vehicle for the purchase where the vehicle transitions from ICE to EV (costs of replacing EVs with EVs are excluded, e.g., for second replacements within the timeline or vehicles that are already EV before 2025). Inflation is included. The cumulative incremental cost of the fleet transition is just under $42.6 million (Figure 30).

146 of 191

99 Figure 30: Incremental procurement costs throughout the transition compared to the baseline (no further electrification) scenario.

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. Table 33 provides the total cumulative transition cost CTE estimates at $67.6 million (Figure 31).

Table 33. Summary of Transition Costs for 2040 Scenario Glendale Site Incremental
Fleet Costs
Infrastructure
Costs Total Cost
Public Works Yard $6,770,000 $2,127,000 $8,898,000
City Hall $2,376,000 $1,225,000 $3,601,000
GWP $7,179,000 $2,209,000 $9,388,000
Integrated Waste Yard $8,104,000 $4,569,000 $12,673,000 Fire Station 21 $2,877,000 $2,155,000 $5,032,000
Police Parking Lot $6,520,000 $8,156,000 $14,676,000
Other (infrastructure: chargers only) $8,720,000 $4,572,000 $13,291,000 Total $42,546,000 $25,013,000 $67,559,000

147 of 191

100

Figure 31: Cumulative Transition Costs
Total Cost of Ownership
The Total Cost of Ownership Assessment (TCO) provides a comprehensive view of costs to Glendale for the transition and baseline scenarios over the transition period by compiling the results from the Fleet, Fuel, Facilities, and Maintenance Assessments. The TCO estimate allows Glendale to make informed decisions based on the best information currently available about costs of each technology and the magnitude of costs of each facet of the transition in relation to others.

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. Other costs may be incurred (e.g., incremental operator and maintenance training) during a fleet transition; however, these four assessment categories are the key drivers in ZEV transition decision-making. TCO includes inflation. Please see cost assumptions for the Fleet, Fuel, Maintenance and Facilities Assessments for details of each element.

This study assumes no cost escalation or any cost reduction due to economies of scale for ZEV technology because there is no historical basis for these assumptions

148 of 191

101

and future market pressures, technology capabilities, and regulations may change significantly over the next 15 years. The assessments provide the best estimates using the information currently available and the assumptions detailed throughout this report.

Figure 32 provides the TCO across the entire fleet color coded by the element: Fleet Procurement, Facilities Projects, Annual Fuel, or Annual Maintenance costs, along with a reference line for the baseline total cost. Fleet and Maintenance costs are the largest costs, although maintenance is more consistent from year to year while fleet varies depending on the vehicles being replaced that year.

Figure 32. Annual Total Cost of Ownership

The cumulative totals are summarized in Table 34 and graphed in Figure 33. The total cost of the transition is approximately $154 million dollars (39%) more than the baseline scenario over the next 15 years.

Glendale may be able to further offset costs by applying for grants from federal or state agencies, especially for initial investments in ZEVs and infrastructure. The Funding Strategies outlines some funding opportunities.

Glendale may also be able to lower some fuel and infrastructure costs as the first deployments of vehicles reveal what charging strategies work best with Glendale’s operations. CTE modeled a more aggressive vehicle to charger ratio to increase

149 of 191

102

charger utilization and decrease space needs; however, Glendale may find that more (or fewer) chargers are needed.

Additionally, as discussed in the Fuel Assessment above, the rates charged by GWP for demand have increased and may continue to increase. Sites with high maximum demand estimates like GPD therefore have much higher fuel costs with electrification. Glendale should work closely with GWP to determine the optimal utility rate each year, as well as if any time-of-use demand rates could be put in place for overnight EV charging. Additionally, steps to limit maximum demand such as staggering charging or using a charge management software to cap demand will reduce the peak demand and therefore the utility bill.

Table 34: Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership
Cumulative
Transition Costs
Cumulative Baseline
Costs Cumulative Difference
$545,203,000 $391,414,000 $153,889,000 +39%

Figure 33. Cumulative Total Cost of Ownership

150 of 191

103

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 help offset higher costs of zero-emission vehicles. Voucher requests are currently open. Eligible vehicles include shuttle buses, vans, step vans, utility vehicles, box trucks, flatbed trucks, tractors, and more. Before applying, purchasers should review the HVIP vehicle catalog to view the zero-emission vehicles approved for the program. Once a vehicle is chosen, the purchaser will contact the approved dealer(s) to proceed. Dealers will apply for the program on the purchaser’s behalf.26
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 settlement provides more than $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 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 the settlement 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.27 Air Quality Management Districts were tasked with managing the funding allocated to five equipment categories. The funding is available statewide.
https://www.californiavwtrust.org/

26 “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%20millio n,to%20fleets%20of%20any%20size., “Purchasers - 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 19, 2022. https://californiahvip.org/purchasers/. 27 “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.
151 of 191

104

Low Carbon Fuel Standard ZEV Infrastructure Crediting: A zero-emission vehicle infrastructure crediting provision was added to the 2018 LCFS amendments 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.28 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-zev- infrastructure-crediting,
https://www.srectrade.com/markets/lcfs/california

National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program: The Federal Highway Administration’s 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, with the state’s share being approximately $384 million over five years.29 Caltrans and the California Energy Commission are responsible for implementing the funding in California. The program is funded through FY2026 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/national- electric-vehicle-infrastructure-nevi-formula-program

Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program: This competitive grant program administered by the Federal Highway Administration 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. The program is funded through FY2026 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.30 https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure- funding-and-financing/federal-funding-programs

28 “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.
29 “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.
30 “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.
152 of 191

105

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program: Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, 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 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.31 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.32 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.33 https://calevip.org/incentive-project/southern- california

31 “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.
32 “Public Fleets.” Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/en/fleet/public-agencies. 33 “Southern California Incentive Project (SCIP).” CALeVIP. Accessed August 23, 2022. https://calevip.org/incentive-project/southern-california.

153 of 191

106

CEC Clean Transportation Program: Government Fleet Electric Vehicle Charger Station Grants: The California Energy Commission (CEC) Clean Transportation Program provides grants to light-duty local government and tribal government fleets for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of Level 2 and direct current (DC) fast chargers. Applicants may receive up to $12,500 per Level 2 port and up to $100,000 per DC fast charging port.

Eligible projects must install a minimum of 100 charging ports. Applicants must be in California and provide a cost share of at least 30%.34 https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/13405
The Potential for Hydrogen in the City’s Fleet
While many applications and use cases for municipal fleet vehicles are well suited to electric vehicles, some applications cannot easily be met with BEVs. Use cases where vehicles have longer range and shorter downtimes may prove a challenge for current and future BEVs. These applications could be addressed by adopting FCEVs.

FCEVs have a longer range than most BEVs and can be fueled in minutes vs. hours required by BEVs.

Market Analysis for FCEVs
FCEVs are electric drive vehicles powered by a battery system. The battery is recharged while the vehicle is in operation by a fuel cell that converts hydrogen to electricity. They produce no tailpipe emissions, are more energy-efficient than vehicles with conventional internal combustion engines, and only emit warm air and water vapor. The deployment of FCEVs and the hydrogen infrastructure needed to fuel them is still in its early phases.

FCEVs have had limited deployments due to the limited number of commercially available vehicles. Lack of hydrogen fueling stations and the cost of hydrogen fuel are the primary challenges for OEMs introducing FCEVs. Most OEMs have developed prototypes, although only a few moved forward with models that are available to customers. This section outlines the status of FCEVs and potential for future development.

34 “Government Fleet Electric Vehicle Charger Station Grants.” U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/13405

154 of 191

107

Light-Duty FCEVs
Light-duty FCEVs are now being sold by several automakers in areas with access to hydrogen fueling stations, such as southern and northern California and some regions in New England. Certain quantities of test vehicles are also accessible to groups that have access to hydrogen fueling facilities.

Today, light-duty vehicles are available from several manufacturers including Toyota and Hyundai. The Toyota Mirai (Figure 34), a sedan, and the Hyundai Nexo (Figure 35), an SUV, are two of the most popular light duty FCEVs in the market currently. Depending on the version, the Toyota Mirai has a range between 357-402 miles with a MSRP of $49,500. The Hyundai Nexo has a range between 354-380 miles with a MSRP of $60,135. In 2020, Honda released the Clarity, a light duty FCEV sedan. However, this vehicle was discontinued in 2021 due to slow sales. Currently, OEMs are mostly leasing the FCEVs to customers. To encourage adoption of FCEVs, some OEMs are paying for the hydrogen fuel through fuel cards provided to each customer.

Figure 34. 2023 Toyota Mirai FCEV35

35 https://pressroom.toyota.com/my-vehicles/mirai/
155 of 191

108

Figure 35. 2023 Hyundai Nexo FCEV36
The vehicles have largely received positive reviews, despite industry-wide issues with infrastructure and fuel supply. It should be noted FCEV’s exhibit some limitations on how load is applied, with extended high-load applications experiencing fuel-cell overheating. Although vehicles are protected from damage or premature wear, customer experience may be affected when consistent high-load applications are considered. This consideration should be researched at an appropriate time prior to vehicle purchase as technology is rapidly advancing, and new models are being introduced on a near-annual basis.

Availability and Suitability – in the near-term, the City could transition its light-duty sedans and SUVs to FCEV models. However, the City’s duty cycle for most of their light-duty sedans and SUVs are better suited to BEVs. As a result, the City should elect to transition to BEVs because they are lower cost and can be charged on-site once charging stations are installed. The current light-duty applications that are challenging to meet with BEVs are pursuit vehicles and motorcycles. No manufacturer is currently working on a hydrogen powered motorcycle. While currently light-duty FCEVs could be used by police for multiple purposes, pursuit vehicles could prove a challenge for FCEVs. No OEM is outfitting a FCEV for police use and speeds are governed. The City would have to work with an OEM to address the speed and fuel cell overheating issues before a FCEV model could be used for pursuit.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty FCEVs
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a study in which they predict that by 2030, nearly half of medium- and heavy-duty trucks will be cheaper to buy, operate, and maintain as zero emissions vehicles than traditional diesel-powered

36 https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/gallery/photos
156 of 191

109

combustion engine vehicles37. However, today there are not any readily available medium-duty or heavy-duty FCEVs in the market suitable for municipal fleets.

Transit buses are available from two manufacturers and are in the early stages of deployment. Heavy-duty trucks have hydrogen options available on a demonstration basis. Current research is focused on Class 8 trucks because this market application is likely a better fit for fuel cell electric propulsion systems because of the fast fueling and longer range. Also, added weight for battery electric models limits the amount of cargo that can be carried which lessens profitability for carriers. Class 6 FCEV truck models, such as those used for package delivery service, have all been demonstrations. Currently, few manufacturers have publicly committed to a commercial product. CARBs Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation is expected to push the industry forward by requiring OEMs to develop ZEV products and setting purchase requirements for fleets. Various federal and state programs are underway to develop medium and heavy-duty ZEVs. Individual OEMs have also announced the development of hydrogen powered commercial trucks. FCET development programs and demonstrations include:
• CARB Advanced Technology Demonstration and Pilot Projects: The agency is funding development and demonstration of zero-emission vehicles for a variety of medium- and heavy-duty applications.38
• Zero and Near Zero Emission Freight Facilities: ZANZEFF is another CARB program providing funding to accelerate the adoption of clean technologies for freight applications.39
• Million Mile Fuel Cell Truck (M2FCT): DOE funded consortium focused on commercialization of fuel-cell trucks for long-haul applications.40 • DOE SuperTruck: As part of DOE’s SuperTruck program, Daimler is developing and testing a Class 8 hydrogen fuel cell truck. 41 • DOE H2 Program: Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Delivery Van, CTE is leading a project to develop and demonstrate a class 6 delivery truck operated in the UPS fleet.42

37 Decarbonizing Medium-& Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, NREL 2022, web link: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf 38 CARB listing of projects: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-advanced-technology-demonstration-and- pilot-projects
39 CARB ZANZEFF Program web site: https://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/zero-near-zero- emission-freight-facilities
40 DOE M2FCT Consortium web site: https://millionmilefuelcelltruck.org/ 41 DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review22/ta056_rotz_2022_p.pdf 42 DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review22/ta016_hanlin_2022_p.pdf 157 of 191

110

• DOE H2 Program: Ford, High Efficiency Fuel Cell Application for Medium Duty Truck Vocations, Ford is leading a project to develop and demonstrate a Class 3-6 FCET.43
• Nicola Corporation: Nicola plans to offer a fuel cell powered class 8 tractor in 2023.44
• General Motors: GM has announced plans to offer a medium-duty truck platform powered by its HydroTec fuel cell.45
• Hyzon Motors: Hyzon develops hydrogen powered commercial vehicles including class 8 tractors and a refuse truck.46
• Cummins: the company announced its new brand, Accelera, launched in March 2023 to provide a portfolio of zero-emission powertrains including fuel cell and battery electric 47
This market is expected to grow as additional policies and incentives are established that promote the production of fuel cell technology and the installation of hydrogen fueling stations expand. Current demonstrations can show that fuel cell technologies for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are feasible, however models specific to the City’s applications might not be suitable in the near term. At the current state of development, medium- and heavy-duty FCEVs are not likely to be available before 2030.

Once FCEVs are available, several of the City’s applications could potentially be met with this technology.
• Trash Trucks – fast fueling, longer range, and the ability to carry more load make this application a good fit for FCEVs.
• Medium-Duty Utility Trucks – fast fueling, longer range, and the ability to power on-site equipment without depleting the battery make this application a good fit for FCEVs.
• Fire Engines/Ladder Trucks – fast fueling is optimal for vehicles that need to be ready always. Emergency vehicles are also used at a site to power ladders, water pumps, and other loads. OEMs, however, have expressed concerns with hydrogen powered vehicles at an event involving a fire.

43 DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review22/ta057_bower_2022_p.pdf 44 Nicola FCET web site: https://nikolamotor.com/tre-fcev/ 45 GM Authority web site: https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/08/future-medium-duty-chevy- truck-to-use-hydrotec-fuel-cells/
46 Hyzon Motors web site: https://www.hyzonmotors.com/ 47 Cummins web site: https://www.cummins.com/meet-accelera 158 of 191

111

• Police Pursuit Vehicles – fast fueling is also optimal for vehicles that need to ‘hot swap’, where one shift switches with the next without shutting the vehicle down.

Hydrogen Infrastructure
Hydrogen fueling stations can be broken down into heavy-duty, and light-duty categories. Light-duty facilities use a fueling protocol that is internationally recognized and approved by all vehicle OEM’s. This protocol ensures minimum standards for process safety at the vehicle/dispenser interface, a complete fill of vehicles, and other considerations affecting customer experience. These facilities are typically designed for passenger vehicles and can accommodate fueling speeds up to ~2.5kg/min. Passenger vehicles do not carry more than 6kg of fuel on board at this time.

Heavy-duty facilities do not have a single, approved fueling protocol at this time, but efforts are underway to establish such standards. Heavy-duty facilities are much more open-ended, and typically achieve fueling rates of more than 2.5kg/min.

Typical hydrogen bus fueling facilities are capable of dispensing 30kg of fuel in less than 12 minutes.

Hydrogen fueling stations can be further defined based on how hydrogen is delivered. Most light-duty facilities today use gaseous delivered hydrogen (GH2).

Available transport trailers can accommodate up to ~400kg per delivery, with typical installations receiving no more than one delivery per day. As hydrogen consumption increases, the cost and logistical constraints of multiple daily deliveries can be onerous.

Hence, most heavy-duty facilities today use liquified hydrogen gas (LH2) as the delivered feedstock, instead of hydrogen in gaseous form. LH2 transport trailers can accommodate up to ~4000kg per delivery, requiring much less frequent trips. The HRS further benefits from the increased density by maintaining the fuel as a liquid, reducing the cost and space required when compared to gaseous storage systems.

Many additional benefits and drawbacks can be explored between GH2 and LH2 delivered facilities which affect everything from cost to performance.

Passenger vehicles can be fueled at a light-duty hydrogen fueling facility. Southern California is host to a few dozen public-access facilities, with private stations being exceedingly rare. Below is a breakdown of typical capital cost. This assumes the installation has sufficient space to accommodate a standard, pre-engineered equipment layout within an existing paved facility. The typical installation will include two independent fueling dispensers capable of simultaneous use. Fuel is delivered via gaseous delivery trailers and is stored at the facility in high-pressure gaseous storage vessels. Fuel is then compressed and cooled prior to dispensing into the vehicle.
159 of 191

112

Typical characteristics of a Light-duty hydrogen fueling facility for passenger vehicles:

1. No. of dispensers: 2

2. Typical fuel delivery: up to ~400kg GH2

3. H70 grade fuel (700 bar settled pressure onboard vehicle)

4. Pre-cooling of hydrogen prior to dispensing is required by J2601 fueling protocol.

5. Cost: ~$5.5MM
a. Equipment: $3MM
b. Construction and installation: $1MM
c. Engineering, project management, and permitting: $0.5MM d. Electrical power utility service and associated cost: $0.5MM e. Miscellaneous costs: $0.5MM
Heavy-duty hydrogen fueling stations are predominantly used in the transit industry today. Aside from most facilities using LH2, they differ from light-duty by dispensing H35 grade fuel (350 bar settled pressure onboard vehicle). Since buses have more excess room onboard to store fuel when compared to passenger vehicles, a lower pressure threshold leads to lower cost and complexity. A concerted effort is underway to develop both vehicles and infrastructure to support class-8 trucks, however vehicles are unlikely to be deployed commercially for a few years to come.

Due to space constraints on most commercial vehicles, simultaneous efforts are underway to increase storage pressure to 700 bar (H70). Typical process description for a heavy-duty HRS using LH2 as a feedstock is as follows: hydrogen stored as a liquid on-site in a cryogenic bulk storage vessel. Liquid is drawn from the tank where it is pumped to high pressure prior to being vaporized through large ambient heat exchanger (vaporizer). Hydrogen is then stored at one or multiple pressures in gaseous form prior to being routed through a dispenser and into customer vehicles. Below is a breakdown of typical specifications and cost for a heavy-duty fueling facility designed for hydrogen powered buses (FCEB’s) which could be applicable to other heavy-duty applications such as trash trucks.

Typical characteristics of a Heavy-duty hydrogen fueling facility for buses and heavy-duty vehicles:

1. No. of dispensers: 2

2. Typical fuel delivery: up to ~4000kg LH2

3. H35 grade fuel (350 bar settled pressure onboard vehicle)

4. Pre-cooling of hydrogen prior to dispensing is not required but will improve speed of fueling and how full the vehicle is filled.

5. Cost: ~$7MM
a. Equipment: $4MM
b. Construction and installation: $1.5MM
c. Engineering, project management, and permitting: $0.5MM 160 of 191

113

d. Electrical power utility service and associated cost: $0.5MM e. Miscellaneous costs: $0.5MM
The City could adopt a similar strategy as used for its CNG vehicles, where fuel is supplied through a third-party agreement. The City would become an anchor fleet for a hydrogen fuel provider that could help justify building and operating a new station. As a guaranteed station load, the City could work with the station provider on a long-term fuel contract that would help budget for fueling costs. Current costs for transit agencies that are operating FCEBs average between $9 and $12 per kg.

Considering how few FCEVs are on the road, calculating the amount of hydrogen needed to power the City’s fleet can be a challenge. CTE estimated the fuel economy of each type of vehicle based on the data available for light-duty FCEVs and demonstrations of medium- and heavy-duty FCETs. If the City’s vehicles accumulate similar miles as that provided for the 2018-2019 fiscal years, the fleet would require around 283,000 kg of hydrogen if all were converted to FCEVs. This amounts to 5,400 kg per week. At the current cost of $10 per kg, that would amount to a fuel cost of more than $2.8 million per year.

During the early stage of transition, the City could benefit from using a mobile fueler to provide hydrogen. The use of this type of solution would allow the City to cost- effectively increase its number of FCEVs until a full size station is warranted. The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority recently approved a contract for a 5-year lease and maintenance of a mobile fueler at the cost of approximately $2 million.48 This does not include the cost of fuel, which can be higher than typical costs for permanent stations (~$15 per kg). The mobile fueler has a capacity of around 1,600 kg, which could provide 1,500 kg of hydrogen per day. The unit can be outfitted to fuel at 350 or 700 bar.

Local Station Availability
The state of California has helped fund hydrogen stations in both Southern and Northern California. Using these existing stations could be an interim or permanent solution for fueling the City’s light-duty FCEV fleet. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership tracks the location and status of hydrogen stations in California.49 Figure 36 provides a snapshot of the hydrogen stations located around Glendale.

The station locator provides addresses and status of fueling at stations in the state.

48 RGRTS December 2022 Regular Board Meeting Minutes:
https://www.myrts.com/Portals/0/Documents/Board/Board%20Meeting%20Minutes/December %202022%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf?ver=2023 -02-01-113005-470 See pages 50, 52.
49 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership Station Locator web site: https://h2fcp.org/stationmap 161 of 191

114

Figure 36. Screenshot of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership’s Hydrogen fueling station locator
Table 35 lists the stations nearest the City that could be used for light-duty fueling.

Current costs for hydrogen are quite high and began to rise beginning in late 2022.

The average price at California retail stations in October 2024 was $34.55/kg.50 FCEVs are more efficient compared to conventional vehicles, with current light-duty models capable of achieving 72 miles per kg. With the high capital costs for installing a station, this might be a cost-effective solution until the City has enough FCEVs to make a case for constructing on-site fueling.

Table 35. Hydrogen Stations near Glendale
Station Location Pressure
offered Renewable
Approximate
Distance from
Glendale
(City Hall)
Burbank 800 N Hollywood Way,
Burbank, CA 91505 H70 100% 7
Studio City
3780 Cahuenga Blvd,
Studio City CA 91604
H35, H70 100% 9
Pasadena
475 North Allen Ave,
Pasadena, CA 91106
H70 100% 9

50 Hydrogen Central Article: https://hydrogen-central.com/california-hydrogen-pump-prices-for- light-duty-vehicles-reach-new-highs/
162 of 191

115

Station Location Pressure
offered Renewable
Approximate
Distance from
Glendale
(City Hall)
Fairfax – LA
7751 Beverly Blvd,
Los Angeles, CA 90036
H70 33% 10
Sherman
Oaks
14478 Ventura Blvd
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
H35, H70 100% 14
Conclusions and Recommendations
Since the last assessment, the EV market has progressed leading to a more feasible transition for Glendale’s fleet. CTE has also improved upon the previous analysis, providing higher confidence in the feasibility for EVs in Glendale’s duty cycles and optimizing the recommended charging infrastructure, leading to lower infrastructure capital costs. Developments such as the implementation of the ACF regulation and increasing demand costs have introduced aspects that need further attention from Glendale.

1. Delay purchase of vehicles to decrease the percentage of ICE vehicles purchased each year.

2. Replace some Class 2b-3 pickups with available EV models such as a ½ ton pickup, a van-type cab and chassis, or a heavier Class 4 trucks.

3. Explore other avenues for ACF exemptions.51
As discussed in the Fuel Assessment, CTE projects much higher electricity costs than the last assessment in large part due to rate increases at GWP. Most electricity costs are due to high demand rates. Therefore, CTE recommends that the City may be able to lower utility costs with the following strategies:
• Limit maximum demand by reducing the number of chargers in use at once, reducing charging speeds when possible, by charging overnight, or investing

51 October 2024 ACF Exemption Guidance
163 of 191

116

in a charge management system to automatically limit demand according to the City’s parameters.
• Discuss potential EV charging rates with GWP. Many utilities such as Southern California Edison52 offer different rates for EV-only meters to mitigate demand charges. Additionally, the City could advocate for a time-of- use component for demand rates to take advantage of overnight charging.

Furthermore, the City should collaborate with GWP every few years to determine the optimal rate schedule for each terminal as the demand and energy needs increase.
• Consider other infrastructure to reduce the peak demand from the grid.

Infrastructure such as on-site battery storage can be charged when electricity is cheaper during off-peak hours or from on-site solar generation and then discharged during peak hours to reduce the maximum demand on- peak which may reduce costs and improve resilience.

Finally, CTE recommends the following as Glendale continues its transition process:
• Remain proactive with grant funding to reduce the capital costs of vehicles early in the transition.
• Continue to revisit the transition plan every 2-3 years as ZE technologies and regulations evolve and the City becomes more experienced with EVs. • Begin resilience planning for the EV fleet as resilience practices and procedures will change for an EV fleet and the City will be able to depend less and less on ICE vehicles as they are phased out.
• Remain engaged with the Police and Fire Departments to pilot ZEVs and find models that meet their needs. Support of the vehicle operators in every department will be critical for successful deployment.

52 Southern California Edison Business EV Rates
164 of 191

117

Appendix A: City of Glendale Vehicle Market Analysis
The tables in this appendix contain the available ZEVs that are most likely a good fit for Glendale’s fleet. CTE eliminated luxury models from the list. Prices are either a price range or a base price.

The vehicles are separated into five primary categories:

Table A1. Market Analysis Vehicle Categories
Light Duty Medium Duty Heavy Duty Emergency
Response Non-road
• Sedan
• SUV
• Small SUV
• Pickup
• Sweeper
Truck
• Motorcycles
• Van, Cargo
• Van,
Passenger
• Dump
Truck
• Garbage
Truck
• Medium
Duty
Vans
• Medium
Duty
Trucks
• Refuse
Trucks
• Dump
Trucks
• Roll-off
Trucks
• Heavy
Trucks
• Flatbed
Trucks
• Manlift
Trucks
• Crane
Trucks
• Fire
Engines
• Pursuit
Vehicles
• Forklift
• Backhoe
• Loader
• Excavator
• Golf Cart
• Lawn
Mower
• Low Speed
Vehicle
(LSV)
• Utility
Vehicle

Table A2. Light Duty Market Options
Arrival Audi BMW Boulder Electric
Vehicles Cadillac
Vehicle
Type Van, Cargo SUV Sedan/
Wagon SUV Truck, Flatbed SUV
Price* >$100,000 $49,000 –
110,000
$55,000 –
105,000 $87,100 Contact OEM >$61,000
Battery
Size
67-139
kWh
82-114
kWh
54-111
kWh
111
kWh
72 kWh
119
kWh
Range
(miles) 112 - 211 242 - 300 245 - 310 217-307 90 314-400 Run Time
(hours)
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A3. Light Duty Market Options Continued
Chevrolet Dodge Ford General
Motors
Vehicle
Type SUV Sedan/
Wagon
½ ton
truck
Van,
Cargo
Van,
Cargo
½ Ton
truck Sedan/Wagon Van, Cargo
Price* $51,800 $26,500
– 51,800 $74,800 $77,995
– 86,995
$51,000
– 58,000
$49,995
– 91,995 $42,435 $74,900
Battery
Size
99 kWh
60 – 66
kWh
168-208
kWh
47 – 79
kWh
68 – 90
kWh
98 – 131
kWh
70 kWh
165
kWh
Range
(miles) 279 259 393-450 Up to
162 126 -159 240 -320 230 250 - 272
Run Time
(hours)
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM Contact OEM Contact
OEM

165 of 191

118

Table A4. Light Duty Market Options Continued
General Motors Genesis GMC Hyundai
Vehicle
Type Van, Cargo Sedan/
Wagon SUV ½ Ton
truck SUV Sedan/
Wagon SUV
Price* $74,900 $66,450 –
79,825 $59,290 $98,845 $96,550 $37,500 –
51,100 $33,550
Battery
Size
165
kWh
77 – 87
kWh
77 – 87
kWh 199 199 53 – 77
kWh 48 - 135
Range
(miles) 250 - 272 236 –282 248 – 294 305 305 240 -330 220 - 380 Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM

Table A5. Light Duty Market Options Continued
Kia Nissan Polestar Rivian Toyota
Vehicle
Type SUV Sedan/
Wagon
Sedan/
Wagon Truck Van SUV Sedan/Wagon
Price* $48,500 –
54,900
$28,140 –
60,190
$49,900 –
74,800
$71,700 –
92,000 $86,325 $43,650 –
78,000
$43,070 -
$47,180
Battery
Size
77 – 99
kWh
40 – 87
kWh
78 – 111
kWh
105 – 180
kWh
153 – 161
kWh
106 – 163
kWh
71 kWh
Range
(miles) 218 - 304 150 - 304 247 - 320 270 - 410 153 - 161 274 - 321 236 - 252 Run Time
(hours)
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM Contact OEM

Table A6. Light Duty Market Options Continued
Volvo Volkswagen
Vehicle
Type SUV SUV Van, Mini**
Price* $36,350 – 55,300 $43,995 – 47,795 $59,995 – 67,995 Battery Size 77 kWh 81 kWh 91 kWh
Range
(miles) 255 - 295 263 - 291 Contact OEM
Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A7. Light Duty Options
Light Duty 4WD/AWD SUV Options
OEM Specification Ranges
Audi
BMW
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Genesis
GMC
Hyundai
Kia
Mercedes-Benz
Rivian
Subaru
Volkswagen
Volvo
Class: AWD SUV
Price: $36,350 – 109,300
Battery Size: 72 – 199 kWh
Range: 271 – 410 miles

166 of 191

119

Table A8. Medium Duty Market Options
Battle
Motors Blue Arc BYD Freightliner GreenPower Kenworth
Vehicle
Type Chassis Cab Van, Cargo Refuse
Truck
Vocational/Cab
Chassis
Van,
Passenger
Vocational/Cab
Chassis
Price* Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact
OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM
Battery
Size
240 – 400
kWh 158 kWh 211 kWh 194 kWh 118 kWh 141 – 282 kWh
Range
(miles) 130 – 150 200 80 190 150 190 - 218
Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact
OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A9. Medium Duty Market Options Continued
Lion Electric Mack Peterbuilt
Vehicle
Type Vocational/Cab Chassis Refuse Truck Vocational/Cab Chassis Vocational/Cab Chassis
Price* Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM
Battery Size 210 – 282 kWh Contact OEM Contact OEM 141 – 282 kWh Range
(miles) 190 – 218 100 230 100 - 200
Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A10. Medium Duty Market Options Continued
Phoenix Motorcars
Vehicle
Type Shuttle Bus Truck, Box
Truck Truck, Dump Truck, Flatbed Truck, Utility
Price* Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Battery Size 90 – 131 kWh 90 – 131 kWh 90 – 131 kWh 90 – 131 kWh 90 – 131 kWh Range
(miles) 135 - 165 135 - 165 135 - 165 135 - 165 135 - 165 Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A11. Medium Duty Market Options Continued
Volvo Workhorse
Vehicle
Type Vocational/Cab Chassis Vocational/Cab
Chassis Van, Cargo Chassis
Price* Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM
Battery Size 377 kWh 118 kWh 118 kWh 210 kWh
Range
(miles) 190 - 230 150 150 150
Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

167 of 191

120

Table A12. Heavy Duty Market Options
Battle
Motors BYD Elgin
Sweeper Freightliner Fulongma Kenworth
Class Refuse
Truck
Refuse
Truck
Street
Sweeper Semi Truck Street
Sweeper Semi Truck Vocational/
Cab Chassis
Price* Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact
OEM
Battery
Size
240 – 400
kWh
221 – 281
kWh 400 kWh 396 kWh 218 – 314
kWh 396 kWh 141 – 282
kWh
Range
(miles) 150 - 200 125 242 150 230 - 242 150 100 - 200
Run
Time
(hours)
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM 8 Contact OEM 6-8 Contact OEM Contact
OEM

Table A13. Heavy Duty Market Options Continued
Lion Electric Mack McNeilus /
Oshkosh Peterbuilt Volvo
Class Semi Truck Refuse Truck Vocational/Cab
Chassis Refuse Truck Cab Chassis Semi Truck
Price* Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Battery
Size 630 kWh 376 kWh 150 – 240
kWh 499 kWh 141 – 282
kWh
377 – 565
kWh
Range
(miles) 275 100 100 - 200 Contact OEM 100 - 200 175 - 275 Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM

Table A14. Non-Road Market Options
Bomag Club
Car Columbia Cushman EZ-GO Genie Global
Electric
Class Roller Utility
Vehicle
Low
Speed
Vehicle
Low
Speed
Vehicle
Utility
Transport
Utility
Vehicle
Utility
Transport
Boom
Lift
Low
Speed
Vehicle
Price* Contact
OEM
$8,000 -
27,000
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
$10,299 –
16,044
Contact
OEM
$15,240
– 21,240
Battery
Size 48 V 48 V 48 V 39.2 V 56 V 56 V 56 V 48 V Contact
OEM
Range
(miles)
Contact
OEM 50 - 60 40 Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM 78 - 113
Run Time
(hours)
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM

Table A15. Non-Road Market Options Continued
Greenworks Haulotte
HDK
Electric
Vehicles
JLG John Deere MeanGreen
Class Tractor,
Compact Boom Lift Utility
Transport
Boom
Lift
Scissor
Lift
Utility
Vehicle
Lawn
Mower Lawn Mower
Price* $4,599 –
4,799
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM $169,535 $32,383 $15,500 $6,400 $16,000 –
71,500
Battery
Size Contact OEM 48 – 72 V 48 V 16 kWh 24 V 12 kWh 3 kWh 7 – 35 kWh Range
(miles) 2 Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM Contact OEM
Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM
Contact
OEM 2.25 - 8

168 of 191

121

Table A16. Non-Road Market Options Continued
Polaris Skyjack Solectrac Wirtgen Yamaha
Class Utility Vehicle Scissor Lift Utility
Transport Roller Utility
Transport
Price* $11,000 –14,000 $14,495 $29,249 Contact OEM $9,000 Battery
Size 48 V 24 V 48 V 48 V 48 V – 54.4 kWh
Range
(miles) 45- 68 Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Run Time
(hours) Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM Contact OEM 169 of 191

122

Appendix B: Feasibility by Vehicle Type

Table B1. Operational requirements, fuel economies, and vehicle costs for the fleet sorted by vehicle type and fuel type. Numbers in red were estimated by CTE.

Vehicle Type Class Fuel Type Average
Fuel
Economy
Fuel
Economy
unit
Number
of Assets
Active
Days
per
Year
Average
Daily
Usage
Strenuous
Daily
Usage
Usage
Unit
Planned
Service
Life
(years)
EV
Capital
Cost ($)
Baseline
Capital
Cost ($)
Asphalt Paver Non-road Diesel 2.00 gal/hr 1 50 7.8 11.7 Hours 10 $80,939 $50,587 Backhoe Loader Non-road Diesel 1.13 gal/hr 13 50 3.9 5.9 Hours 13 $237,936 $148,710 Boom lift Non-road Diesel 2.00 gal/hr 1 10 1.8 2.7 Hours 10 $172,225 $52,565 Bunker Rake Non-road Gasoline 1.00 gal/hr 6 50 1.8 2.7 Hours 10 $21,445 $13,403 Excavator, Compact Non-road Diesel 0.55 gal/hr 3 50 3.0 4.5 Hours 10 $90,000 $33,846 Concrete Cutter Non-road Diesel 2.01 gal/hr 1 10 3.7 5.6 Hours 15 $325,643 $203,527 Digger Derrick Non-road Diesel 1.00 gal/hr 1 10 1.5 2.3 Hours 15 $215,590 $134,744 Forklift, Light Non-road EV 9.00 kWh/hr 5 50 4.8 7.2 Hours 12 $37,092 $37,092 Forklift, Light Non-road Diesel 1.00 gal/hr 1 10 2.3 3.5 Hours 12 $37,092 $25,736 Forklift, Light Non-road Propane 1.53 gal/hr 2 10 2.3 3.5 Hours 12 $37,092 $25,736 Hammer Non-road Diesel 2.00 gal/hr 1 5 2.0 3.0 Hours 12 $143,888 $89,930 Forklift, Heavy Non-road Diesel 1.16 gal/hr 2 50 1.9 2.8 Hours 12 $299,667 $109,246 Forklift, Heavy Non-road EV 11.00 kWh/hr 1 50 1.9 2.9 Hours 12 $299,667 $299,667 Tractor, Compact Non-road Diesel 0.45 gal/hr 2 5 2.4 3.6 Hours 11 $68,264 $42,665 Loader, Skid Steer, Compact Non-road Diesel 1.87 gal/hr 1 5 3.9 5.9 Hours 11 $240,000 $107,802 Loader, Skid Steer Non-road Diesel 0.79 gal/hr 1 50 3.2 4.8 Hours 11 $86,650 $54,156 Loader, Track Steer, Compact Non-road Diesel 1.73 gal/hr 1 50 1.5 2.3 Hours 15 $325,000 $83,209 Mower Non-road Diesel 1.06 gal/hr 8 30 4.7 7.1 Hours 8 $71,500 $25,265 170 of 191

123

Vehicle Type Class Fuel Type Average
Fuel
Economy
Fuel
Economy
unit
Number
of Assets
Active
Days
per
Year
Average
Daily
Usage
Strenuous
Daily
Usage
Usage
Unit
Planned
Service
Life
(years)
EV
Capital
Cost ($)
Baseline
Capital
Cost ($)
Mower Non-road Gasoline 1.19 gal/hr 2 30 5.0 7.5 Hours 8 $71,500 $25,265 Order picker Non-road EV 0.50 kWh/hr 1 5 2.0 3.0 Hours 10 $38,078 $38,078 Roller Non-road Diesel 0.61 gal/hr 2 10 1.9 2.9 Hours 13 $63,037 $39,398 Root cutter Non-road Gasoline 1.10 gal/hr 1 5 2.0 3.0 Hours 15 $27,242 $17,026 Scissor lift Non-road EV 0.81 kWh/hr 2 5 2.0 3.0 Hours 13 $19,036 $19,036 Stump Grinder Non-road Diesel 1.25 gal/hr 2 10 1.6 2.4 Hours 13 $112,563 $70,352 Stump Grinder Non-road Gasoline 1.10 gal/hr 1 10 2.0 3.0 Hours 13 $112,563 $70,352 Utility Sweeper Non-road Diesel 0.24 gal/hr 2 5 1.0 1.4 Hours 7 $57,613 $36,008 Utility Sweeper Non-road Gasoline 0.26 gal/hr 4 5 0.8 1.2 Hours 7 $57,613 $36,008 Utility Vehicle Non-road EV 1.00 kWh/hr 14 20 4.2 6.3 Hours 8 $21,426 $21,426 Utility Vehicle Non-road Diesel 0.12 gal/hr 3 5 1.2 1.9 Hours 8 $21,426 $13,391 Utility Vehicle Non-road Gasoline 0.11 gal/hr 16 25 5.2 7.8 Hours 8 $21,426 $13,391 Wheel Loader Non-road Diesel 1.13 gal/hr 3 100 2.0 3.0 Hours 10 $286,037 $178,773 1 Ton Pickup Light Diesel 13.69 mpg 2 20 33 50 Miles 10 $71,109 $44,443 1 Ton Pickup Light Gasoline 6.15 mpg 48 150 21 32 Miles 10 $71,109 $44,443 1/2 Ton Pickup Light Gasoline 13.47 mpg 38 150 33 49 Miles 9 $61,300 $36,007 1/2 Ton Pickup Light EV 0.54 kWh/mi 1 150 33 50 Miles 9 $61,300 $61,300 3/4 Ton Pickup Light Gasoline 7.63 mpg 46 200 20 29 Miles 10 $59,200 $37,000 Command, Pickup Emergency Gasoline 16.51 mpg 4 200 65 97 Miles 8 $81,584 $50,990 Command, Sedan Emergency Gasoline 36.37 mpg 1 150 12 19 Miles 10 $77,363 $48,352 Command, SUV Emergency Gasoline 17.66 mpg 8 260 33 49 Miles 10 $111,678 $69,799 Compact Pickup Light Gasoline 13.33 mpg 53 200 25 37 Miles 9 $44,640 $27,900 Emergency Specialty, Heavy Emergency Diesel 7.22 mpg 6 50 23 35 Miles 13 $465,824 $291,140 171 of 191

124

Vehicle Type Class Fuel Type Average
Fuel
Economy
Fuel
Economy
unit
Number
of Assets
Active
Days
per
Year
Average
Daily
Usage
Strenuous
Daily
Usage
Usage
Unit
Planned
Service
Life
(years)
EV
Capital
Cost ($)
Baseline
Capital
Cost ($)
Emergency Specialty, Light Emergency Diesel 4.92 mpg 1 50 19 28 Miles 13 $81,458 $50,911 Emergency Specialty, Light Emergency Gasoline 5.79 mpg 1 50 27 40 Miles 13 $81,458 $50,911 Emergency Specialty, Medium Emergency Diesel 9.95 mpg 3 50 12 18 Miles 13 $408,776 $255,485 Emergency Specialty, Medium Emergency Gasoline 6.70 mpg 1 50 10 14 Miles 13 $408,776 $255,485 Fire Engine Emergency Diesel 3.49 mpg 16 200 31 46 Miles 20 $1,279,983 $673,675 Heavy Truck Heavy Gasoline 1.83 mpg 2 20 17 26 Miles 12 $477,747 $298,592 Heavy Truck Heavy Diesel 4.00 mpg 1 20 53 80 Miles 12 $477,747 $298,592 Heavy Truck Heavy CNG 3.20 mpg 7 20 125 188 Miles 12 $477,747 $298,592 Ladder Truck Emergency Diesel 2.13 mpg 4 200 23 35 Miles 20 $1,924,026 $1,012,645 Minivan Light Gasoline 15.64 mpg 41 200 20 30 Miles 9 $55,790 $34,869 Motorcycle Pursuit Gasoline 35.20 mpg 27 200 31 47 Miles 5 $50,398 $31,499 Motorcycle Light EV 0.24 kWh/mi 2 200 31 47 Miles 5 $20,085 $20,085 Refuse Truck Heavy CNG 5.24 mpg 38 200 46 69 Miles 9 $516,269 $322,668 Rescue, 1.5 ton Pickup Emergency Diesel 8.22 mpg 12 200 52 78 Miles 10 $278,170 $173,856 Sedan Light Gasoline 24.55 mpg 56 200 26 40 Miles 8 $44,629 $27,327 Sedan Light EV 0.33 kWh/mi 20 25 10 15 Miles 8 $44,629 $44,629 Street Sweeper Heavy CNG 5.24 mpg 6 200 28 43 Miles 7 $627,166 $391,979 SUV Light Gasoline 17.86 mpg 35 200 21 31 Miles 9 $56,326 $35,204 SUV Light EV 0.38 kWh/mi 1 200 16 24 Miles 9 $56,326 $56,326 SUV, Police Pursuit Gasoline 17.90 mpg 32 200 52 77 Miles 4 $99,306 $55,170 SUV, Patrol Pursuit Gasoline 10.46 mpg 71 200 52 77 Miles 4 $99,306 $55,170 Truck, Crane Heavy CNG 2.29 mpg 4 50 13 20 Miles 12 $389,917 $243,698 Truck, Crane Heavy Diesel 2.87 mpg 2 50 37 56 Miles 12 $389,917 $243,698 172 of 191

125

Vehicle Type Class Fuel Type Average
Fuel
Economy
Fuel
Economy
unit
Number
of Assets
Active
Days
per
Year
Average
Daily
Usage
Strenuous
Daily
Usage
Usage
Unit
Planned
Service
Life
(years)
EV
Capital
Cost ($)
Baseline
Capital
Cost ($)
Truck, Crane Heavy Gasoline 2.56 mpg 1 50 9 14 Miles 12 $389,917 $243,698 Truck, Dump Heavy CNG 5.24 mpg 4 50 45 67 Miles 12 $221,258 $138,286 Truck, Dump Heavy Diesel 4.00 mpg 7 50 55 82 Miles 12 $221,258 $138,286 Truck, Dump Medium Gasoline 4.61 mpg 12 50 61 92 Miles 12 $110,152 $68,845 Truck, Flatbed Medium Gasoline 4.38 mpg 11 50 24 36 Miles 11 $126,254 $78,909 Truck, Manlift Heavy Diesel 2.87 mpg 3 50 78 116 Miles 12 $354,605 $221,628 Truck, Manlift Heavy CNG 2.29 mpg 3 50 52 79 Miles 12 $354,605 $221,628 Truck, Manlift Medium Diesel 4.77 mpg 4 50 35 52 Miles 12 $199,554 $124,721 Truck, Manlift Medium Gasoline 4.26 mpg 8 50 84 126 Miles 12 $199,554 $124,721 Truck, Rolloff Heavy CNG 6.40 mpg 2 50 11 17 Miles 11 $199,555 $124,722 Truck Medium Diesel 5.97 mpg 2 5 6 9 Miles 11 $185,088 $115,680 Truck Medium Gasoline 5.33 mpg 14 50 57 86 Miles 11 $185,088 $115,680 Van, Cargo Light Gasoline 10.43 mpg 21 50 41 62 Miles 10 $60,843 $36,461 Van, Cargo Light EV 0.48 kWh/mi 3 50 19 28 Miles 10 $60,843 $60,843 Van, Cargo Medium Diesel 7.58 mpg 3 50 12 18 Miles 10 $177,261 $110,788 Van, Cargo Medium Gasoline 5.04 mpg 12 50 48 72 Miles 10 $177,261 $110,788 Van, Passenger Light Gasoline 12.77 mpg 3 50 17 26 Miles 10 $90,347 $34,869 1 ton Pickup, Dump Light Gasoline 7.00 mpg 2 50 30 46 Miles 11 $65,602 $41,001 1 ton Pickup, Flatbed Light Gasoline 6.85 mpg 4 50 139 209 Miles 11 $98,171 $61,357 1 ton Pickup, Manlift Light Gasoline 4.68 mpg 1 50 23 34 Miles 10 $111,915 $69,947 1/2 ton Pickup, Refuse Bin Light Gasoline 9.91 mpg 6 150 48 72 Miles 9 $53,675 $33,547

173 of 191

126

Table B2: Vehicles by ACF status
Regulated by ACF
Not exempt in short
term
Regulated by ACF
Exempt in short
term
Regulated by ACF
Exempt Indefinitely
Not Regulated by
ACF

1 Ton Pickup
Van, Cargo
¾ Ton Pickup

1.5 Ton Pickup
Truck, Manlift
1 Ton Pickup, Dump
½ Ton Pickup Refuse
Bin
Truck, Rolloff
Truck, Dump
Truck, Crane
Truck, Street Sweeper
Truck, Refuse

Emergency Vehicles Light Duty Vehicles
Non-Road Vehicles

174 of 191

127

Appendix C: Analyses by Site
CTE conducted each analysis for Glendale overall and by site. This appendix provides the results and charts by individual site.

Fleet Assessment
Public Works Yard

Figure C1. Annual Procurements for the Public Works Yard

Figure C2. Annual Fleet Composition for the Public Works Yard

Figure C3. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Public Works Yard 175 of 191

128

City Hall Complex

Figure C4. Annual Procurements for the City Hall Complex

Figure C5. Annual Fleet Composition for the City Hall Complex

Figure C6. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the City Hall Complex

176 of 191

129

Glendale Water & Power

Figure C7. Annual Procurements for Glendale Water & Power

Figure C8. Annual Fleet Composition for Glendale Water & Power

Figure C9. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Glendale Water & Power

177 of 191

130

Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C10. Annual Procurements for the Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C11. Annual Fleet Composition for the Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C12. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Integrated Waste Facility

178 of 191

131

Fire Station 21

Figure C13. Annual Procurements for Fire Station 21

Figure C14. Annual Fleet Composition for Fire Station 21

Figure C15. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Fire Station 21

Police Parking

Figure C16. Annual Procurements for the Glendale Police Parking

179 of 191

132

Figure C17. Annual Fleet Composition for the Glendale Police Parking

Figure C18. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for the Glendale Police Parking

Other Sites

Figure C19. Annual Procurements for Other Sites

Figure C20. Annual Fleet Composition for Other Sites

180 of 191

133

Figure C21. Annual Vehicle Capital Cost for Other Sites

181 of 191

134

Fuel Assessment
Table C1. Locations, Utility Rates, and 2040 Energy and Demand Estimates Location Utility Rate
Modeled
2040 Annual
Energy
(kWh)
2040 Peak
Demand (kW)
ARC LD2A 1,698 17
BLN LD2A 4,106 17
CCG PC1B 88,101 307
CVC LD2A 15,937 87
EMC PC1B 26,079 191
EMS LD2A 483 71
FMF LD2A 2,315 87
FTC LD2A 16,588 87
GPD PC1B 1,050,150 6744
GWP PC1B 536,156 1468
IW PC1B 818,377 2911
Library LD2A 1,169 17
Lnd LD2A 1,841 19
Parks PC1B 154,770 486
PD2 LD2A 3,202 72
Perkins PC1B 1,169 530
PJS LD2A 61,892 17
Plant LD2A 187,887 90
PMY PC1B 497,735 194
PW PC1B 10,261 1318
S21 PC1B 179,718 1287
S22 PC1B 33,215 248
S23 LD2A - 0
S24 PC1B 27,312 424
S25 PC1B 50,174 388
S26 PC1B 50,174 388
S27 PC1B 33,207 247
S28 PC1B 4,865 247
S29 PC1B 38,718 494
SPC LD2A 3,384 73
SR LD2A 1,746 1
Verdugo LD2A 18,116 72
VJC LD2A 4,578 71
Total 3,925,124 18,668

182 of 191

135

Public Works Yard

Figure C22. Annual Fuel Consumption for Public Works Yard

Figure C23. Annual Fuel Cost for Public Works Yard

Civic Center Complex

Figure C24. Annual Fuel Consumption for Civic Center Complex

183 of 191

136

Figure C25. Annual Fuel Cost for Civic Center Complex

Glendale Water & Power

Figure C26. Annual Fuel Consumption for Glendale Water and Power

Figure C27. Annual Fuel Cost for Glendale Water and Power

.
.

184 of 191

137

Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C28. Annual Fuel Consumption for the Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C29. Annual Fuel Cost for Integrated Waste Facility

Fire Station 21

Figure C30. Annual Fuel Consumption for Fire Station 21

.
.
.
.
.
.

185 of 191

138

Figure C31. Annual Fuel Cost for Fire Station 21

Police Parking

Figure C32. Annual Fuel Consumption for Police Parking

Figure C33. Annual Fuel Cost for Police Parking

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

186 of 191

139

Facilities Assessment
Public Works Yard

Figure C34. Annual Facility Costs for the Public Works Yard Civic Center Complex

Figure C35. Annual Facility Costs for the City Hall Complex Glendale Water & Power

Figure C36. Annual Facility Costs for the Glendale Water & Power Utility Operations

187 of 191

140

Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C37. Annual Facility Costs for the Integrated Waste Yard Fire Station 21

Figure C38. Annual Facility Costs for Fire Station 21
Police Parking

Figure C39. Annual Facility Costs for the Police Parking Area

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

188 of 191

141

Other Locations

Figure C40. Annual Facility Costs for the Other Locations

Total Cost of Ownership
Public Works Yard

Figure C41: Public Works Yard Total Cost of Ownership

Civic Center Complex

Figure C42: Civic Center Complex Total Cost of Ownership

.
.
.
.
.
.

189 of 191

142

Glendale Water & Power

Figure C43: Glendale Water and Power Total Cost of Ownership

Integrated Waste Facility

Figure C44: Integrated Waste Facility Total Cost of Ownership

Fire Station 21

Figure C45: Fire Station 21 Total Cost of Ownership

190 of 191

143

Police Parking

Figure C46: Police Parking Total Cost of Ownership

191 of 191

Glendale City CouncilJanuary 28, 2025

Glendale City Council
January 28, 2025