10e
25-89137
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Direction to Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure.
1. Motion directing the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power, or his designee, to prepare and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for third-party vendors to design, install, operate, and maintain curbside EV chargers in predefined locations in the public right-of-way, based on staff’s evaluation of deployment models, ensuring that the RFP includes utility oversight of load management, data access, pricing principles, and compliance with right-of- way requirements and standards to ensure affordability, transparency, equity, and consistency with City and utility operational standards.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for March 10, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale is experiencing growing interest from both the community and vendors in deploying curbside EV charging infrastructure. To expand access efficiently, equitably, and cost-effectively, staff evaluated four models for deploying curbside and public right- of-way (ROW) chargers:
1. Third-Party Private Ownership (Model 1)
2. Third-Party Partnership with Property Owners (Model 2)
3. City Ownership and Operation (Model 3)
4. Hybrid Model (Model 4)
Each model has different implications for costs, operational oversight, equity, customer pricing, maintenance responsibility, and integration with the City’s utility infrastructure.
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends City Council’s approval to issue an RFP to competitively solicit qualified vendors for the deployment of curbside EV charging infrastructure aligned with Model 1. The RFP will be informed by the policy considerations outlined in this report and pricing principles intended to promote affordability, transparency, and equitable access, while allowing the City to evaluate market-based proposals prior to approving a program and customer pricing structure. 10e2
25-89137
6 6
3 2
Staff intend to implement an overall EV charging program that is generally structured around a Hybrid Model, incorporating both City-owned public sites as well as third-party vendor-managed curbside chargers allowing the City to leverage private investment while maintaining some oversight of pricing and operations, and ensuring broader access to public EV charging. Council action will authorize staff to solicit proposals that will allow the City to evaluate market responses and return to Council with a recommended selection of proposer or proposers.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare and issue an RFP for third-party vendors to design, install, operate, and maintain curbside EV charging infrastructure in the public ROW in Glendale, which will include pricing principles and consumer protection requirements, including affordability, pricing transparency, equity considerations, compliance with public right-of-way requirements and standards, and utility oversight of proposed rates and fee structures.
ANALYSIS
GWP is experiencing rapid EV adoption across its service territory. Expanding access to public EV charging among residents, particularly renters and residents in multi-unit dwellings who cannot install private chargers, is essential for equitable electrification.
Cities across the United States are deploying curbside and ROW-based charging solutions to expand accessibility, promote equity, and support climate and mobility goals. Currently, there are multiple approaches for public EV charging:
Vendor-funded behind-the-meter and grid-connected curbside installations that reduce public sector costs and accelerate deployment. City-owned infrastructure that ensures equitable siting, affordable charging pricing, and alignment with grid planning.
Hybrid approaches that balance public oversight with private funding, helping balance coverage, cost, and flexibility.
Staff evaluated the following four curbside EV charging models:
Model 1: Third-Party Private Ownership
Vendors fund, install, and operate chargers on licensed ROW. City retains oversight of siting and the vendor retains oversight of charging fees. Advantages include low City cost, professional maintenance, and scalable deployment. Challenges are potential inequity, pricing transparency, and slower deployment in low-density areas.
The best application for this model is in areas with sufficient EV demand, when the City desires some oversight but limited operational involvement.
Model 2: Third-Party Partnership with Property Owners
Vendors fund, install, and operate curbside chargers. The revenue is shared with adjacent property owners. This model utilizes the bring-your-own-cable (BYOC) approach at curbside locations within public ROW. The advantages of this model 10e3
25-89137
6 6
3 2
include low City cost, faster deployment, and revenue generation for property owners.
The challenges include potential inequities in coverage, permitting complexity, variable pricing, ROW and ADA compliance impacts. This model is best implemented in dense, rental-heavy areas where the City prefers minimal upfront investment.
Model 3: City Ownership and Operation
City-funded and City-operated infrastructure located at public sites, including public parking, City buildings, and fleet locations. The City retains Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) credits, and GWP sets customer charging rates. Advantages include equitable access, managed customer charging costs, pricing transparency, integration with grid planning, reliable operation, and full control. The challenges include higher non-rate driven upfront cost and ongoing resource requirements, slower deployment, risk of underutilization in low-demand areas, and long-term maintenance responsibility. The best use for this is if the City wants to guarantee access, ensure affordability, and obtain full control for integrating charging infrastructure with long-term planning.
Model 4: Hybrid Model (combinations of any of the first three models) This model combines City-owned public sites with third-party managed curbside installations. For this model, City retains LCFS credits only from public sites.
Advantages include balanced cost, coverage, public benefit, scalability, and shared funding. Challenges include complex governance, potential inequities if private siting dominates, mixed user experience, and implementation and budgeting complexity.
The best use for this model is when the City seeks broad geographic coverage, equitable access, and cost-efficiency while leveraging private investment.
The table below summarizes the key factors for the four primary charging models, along with estimated customer charging costs based on approximately 1,000 hours.
These estimates reflect the selected operational and ownership model, current electric rates, and comparable deployments in other cities. The table is intended for high-level comparison only and actual costs may vary depending on deployment scale, actual charging hours of users, vendor expectation for return on their investment, and other variables.
Factor
Model 1:
Third Party
Private
Ownership
Model 2:
Third Party
Partnership
with Private
Owners
Model 3:
Utility
Ownership
Model 4:
Hybrid
Ownership and
Management
Private vendor
funded and
managed; third
party retains
revenue
Private vendor
funded and
managed;
revenue share
with private
property owner
Non-rate utility
LCFS funded;
City retains full
operational
control
Combination of
non-rate utility
LCFS funded;
mix of city and
private
ownership
Pricing Control Some Some Full Control Some
Estimated Customer High (~$600) High (~$500) Low (~$330) Medium (~$475) 10e4
25-89137
6 6
3 2
Factor
Model 1:
Third Party
Private
Ownership
Model 2:
Third Party
Partnership
with Private
Owners
Model 3:
Utility
Ownership
Model 4:
Hybrid
Charging Price for
~1,000 hours
Siting Control Medium Medium Full Medium
Operations and
Maintenance
Interconnected
to utility grid
Private electric
meter
Utility
infrastructure
Combination of
both
Location Examples Public right-of-
way
Private
property or
curbside via
owner
partnership
City buildings,
fleet, public
parking, public
right-of-way
Mix of city and
private sites
LCFS Credit
Ownership and
Revenue
Private vendor
retains
revenue
Vendor shares
charging
revenue with
property owner
Utility retains
all revenue
and LCFS
credits
Shared revenue
or credits per
agreement
Deployment Speed Medium/High Medium/High Low/Medium High Potential Revenue
for Advertisements Low Low High Medium
Public Benefit and
Equity Medium Medium High Medium
Public ROW Engineering and Infrastructure Protection
Because curbside EV charging infrastructure will be installed within the public right-of- way, Public Works will retain authority over all ROW-related engineering, permitting, construction standards, accessibility compliance, and asset protection. This includes review and approval of encroachment permits, trenching and pavement restoration methods, sidewalk and parkway impacts, ADA clearance requirements, traffic control, and coordination with existing utilities.
Vendors will be required to design and construct all improvements in accordance with City of Glendale Public Works Standard Plans and Specifications, restore all disturbed ROW elements to City standards, and assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance of vendor-owned equipment located within the ROW. Civil improvements within the public ROW, including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway, shall remain City-owned assets regardless of charger ownership.
The RFP will also require proposers to demonstrate construction feasibility, maintenance access, lifecycle management, and equipment removal procedures to ensure long-term protection of City infrastructure and minimize future unfunded liabilities.
10e5
25-89137
6 6
3 2
The RFP will require proposers to submit a detailed pricing framework consistent with the following principles:
Affordability: Charging rates should be reasonably aligned with regional market rates and designed to minimize cost barriers for residents who rely on public and curbside charging, particularly renters and residents of multi-unit dwellings.
Transparency: All pricing components, including per-kWh charges, time-based fees, idle fees, subscription costs, and any escalation mechanisms, must be clearly disclosed to customers.
Equity Considerations: Proposers may be encouraged to offer discounted rates, off-peak pricing, or other mechanisms to improve access for underserved populations, where feasible.
Utility Oversight: Proposed pricing structures will be subject to review by the City and GWP to ensure consistency with utility policies, grid management objectives, and consumer protection standards.
Flexibility and Market Responsiveness: Pricing should allow for reasonable adjustments over time to reflect changes in utilization, operating costs, or market conditions, subject to City approval.
Staff recommend that the City Council direct the issuance of an RFP to solicit proposals for the installation of privately owned third-party EV charging stations at predefined locations citywide (Model 1). The RFP will require proposers to propose actual customer pricing through the competitive RFP process. The proposed pricing will be evaluated by the City to ensure consistency with utility policies, grid management objectives, and consumer protection standards.
GWP staff will engage with relevant City departments, including Public Works and Community Development, to support data collection and RFP development.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
No appropriation is requested at this time. Council authorization will allow staff to solicit proposals and return to Council with a recommended proposer or proposers, along with information on fiscal impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, 10e6
25-89137
6 6
3 2
as the action requested is to direct and authorize the issuance of an RFP to solicit proposals for consideration and thus is not a project as defined by, and for the purposes of, CEQA.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Not to direct the issuance of the RFP as recommended herein.
Alternative 2: Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 10e6
25-89137
6 6
3 2
10e7
25-89137
6 6
3 2
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Scott K. Mellon, P.E., General Manager - Glendale Water and Power Prepared by:
Ruzan Soloyan, Clean Energy Officer
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.