Santa Maria City Council
May 16, 2023

Innovative Clean Transit
(ICT)
Rollout Plan
Santa Maria, California
May
2022

Glossary of Terms
AC – Alternating Current
BEB – Battery Electric Bus
BESS – Battery Energy Storage System
CEV – Commercial Electric Vehicle
DC – Direct Current
FCEB – Fuel Cell Electric Bus
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HFC – Hydrogen Fuel Cell
ICT – Innovative Clean Transit
ITC – Investment Tax Credit
kW – Kilowatt
kWh – Kilowatt-hour
MW – Megawatt
MWh – Megawatt-hour
NCF – Net Capacity Factor
NOx– Nitrogen Oxides
O&M – Operations & Maintenance
PBI – Production-Based Incentive
PV – Photovoltaic
ROI – Return on Investment
SOC – State of Charge
sf – Square Feet
W – Watt
Wdc – Watt-Direct Current
ZEB – Zero Emissions Buses
ZEM – Zero Emissions Mobility
Contents
A Transit Agency Information 01
B Rollout Plan General Information 02
C Technology Portfolio 03
D Current Fleet and Future Purchases 04
E Facilities and Infrastructure Modifications 06
F Service in Disadvantaged Communities 08
G Workforce Development 09
H Potential Funding Sources 11
I Start-up and Scale-up Challenges 12
A: Transit Agency
Information

01 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT), a division of the City of Santa Maria, provides public transit services to the greater Santa Maria area in California’s Central Coast region. In addition to eight local routes, SMRT also operates paratransit service as well as the Breeze Bus, which provides services between Santa Maria and regional destinations including Vandenburg, Lompoc, Los Alamos, Buellton, and Solvang.

SMRT’s service area spans 24 square miles and includes the city of Santa Maria and its immediate environs. The facts and figures cited below reference 2019, as 2020 was a substantially different year in terms of ridership and service delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Future years are expected to be more reminiscent of 2019 than 2020.

SMRT has one operational facility, located at 1303 Fairway Drive in Santa Maria, which includes administrative functions, maintenance, and vehicle storage. Total SMRT fleet includes 24 full-size buses and 10 cutaways (including spares). SMRT currently has its first zero-emissions vehicles on order, consisting of two 40-foot Proterra Catalyst E2 with ProDrive Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) and two New Flyer Excelsior BEBs.

SMRT is not part of a Joint Group (13 CCR § 2023.1(d)(3) at this time Contact Information:

Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Services Manager
805.925.0951 ext. 2480
[email protected]
Our Mission: To provide the highest quality service in the most efficient, cost-effective, and courteous manner possible.

Fixed Route Fast Facts
(2019, preCOVID)
Population served: 120,097
Service area: 24 square miles
Fleet size: 24
Operating expenses FY 2019: $5,152,499
Capital expenses FY 2019: $2,635,675
Annual boardings: 663,526
Revenue miles traveled: 829,987
Routes: 8
Paratransit Fast Facts (2019)
Fleet size: 10
Operating expenses FY 2019: $689,518
Capital expenses FY 2019: $23,181
Annual boardings: 23,857
Revenue miles traveled: 125,186
hdrinc.com
02 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is charged with protecting the public from harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. In December 2018, CARB adopted the ICT Regulation that requires all public transit agencies in the state to gradually transition to 100 percent zero-emission bus fleets by 2040.

Through the deployment of zero-emission technologies, the ICT regulation will provide significant benefits across the state, including:
• Reduce NOx and GHG emissions for all Californians, especially in transit-dependent and disadvantaged communities.

The majority of these benefits will be in the state’s most populated and impacted areas where transit buses are most prevalent
• Increase penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technologies into applications that are well-suited to achieving emission-reduction benefits
• Save energy and reduce dependency on petroleum and other non-renewable fossil fuels • Expand the zero-emission vehicle industry to bring high-quality green jobs to local communities and a trained workforce to California
• Provide other societal benefits by encouraging improved mobility and connectivity with zero-emission transportation modes and reduced growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled SMRT ICT Rollout
This document outlines a plan to guide SMRT’s transition from diesel-powered vehicles to zero emission by 2040, without early retirement of current diesel vehicles, which will reach their useful life prior to 2040. SMRT has already begun transitioning to zero-emissions technology with four BEBs currently on order and does not plan to purchase any new diesel vehicles for fixed-route service.

The ICT Rollout Plan is a coordinating document to assist the planning, design, construction, acquisition, and implementation of zero-emission technology. SMRT’s adoption program will ultimately meet ICT regulation requirements. The ICT plan was approved by Santa Maria’s City Council on _____________.

The Rollout Plan is divided into the following sections per ICT requirements:

A Transit Agency Information
B Rollout Plan General Information
C Technology Portfolio
D Current Bus Fleet and Future Purchases
E Facilities and Infrastructure Modifications
F Providing Service in Disadvantaged Communities
G Workforce Training
H Potential Funding Sources
I Start-up and Scale-up Challenges
The ICT Rollout Plan was created by SMRT with assistance from HDR, Engineering Inc., a planning/ engineering consultant.

B: Rollout Plan
General Information
hdrinc.com
03 There are currently two commercially available zero emission bus technologies for transit agencies: BEBs and hydrogen fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs). SMRT has identified BEBs as the preferred technology due to cost, physical space, and performance factors.

A BEB fleet allows SMRT to maintain consistency across vehicles, maximize efficiency of fuel and infrastructure facilities, and minimize impacts to operations and training. SMRT also intends to procure chargers from a single manufacturer.

While FCEBs provide extended range capabilities, SMRT’s relatively compact service area and small fleet size do not lend themselves to a mixed-energy solution. BEBs can accommodate existing and planned route structure and schedule requirements with minimal changes to vehicle blocking.

To further understand how this technology will impact current operations, SMRT recently completed a BEB feasibility analysis to determine the infrastructure needs, operational considerations, and costs associated with this technology.

The effort included a route power analysis to determine the power usage of the fleet that accounts for weather (temperature), elevation change, and other power consumption elements.

This analysis began with existing schedules and routes to develop a realistic understanding of the power needs and potential range for each scheduled block, and which blocks may be too long for the current battery capacity with projected end of life battery capacity. This assesses the ability to sustainably operate existing schedules with a BEB both on day one and after years of battery degradation. SMRT’s transition plan accommodates fleet needs in these “worst case” conditions.

To account for potential power availability concerns, such as rolling blackouts or unplanned power outages, SMRT will retire a portion of its existing diesel fleet to a contingency fleet once it has reached the end of its useful life. It also plans to keep one industrial-size diesel generator available for emergency power needs. These actions will allow the city to have confidence that there are options available during unexpected or emergency situations.

SMRT has identified
BEBs as the preferred
technology due to cost,
physical space, and
performance factors.

C: Technology Portfolio

hdrinc.com
04 Fixed-Route Bus Fleet
SMRT conducted a route power analysis that models the energy usage on a block-by-block basis of each route. The ability for the BEB vehicles to serve each route is determined based on several different variables, including ambient temperature, route grade changes, passenger load, traffic, and stops.

As shown in Table D.1, SMRT currently has 24 fixed-route vehicles in its fleet, the majority of which are 40-foot diesel buses along with a few 30- and 35-foot diesel buses. Simulations have shown that most routes will work when the BEBs are brand new, but as the vehicles age and a larger percentage of the fleet is transitioned, the fleet size would need to grow by about 17 percent based on a strategy with optimized block interlining and bus swaps. This would grow the overall fleet from 24 to 28 buses, including spares , once fully transitioned. Initially, diesel buses can be replaced at a one-to-one ratio, but service adjustments requiring additional vehicles will be required after 2024.

Table D. 2 shows the schedule for replacement and acquisition of BEBs to align with the retirement of diesel buses. This schedule achieves a full transition to BEB without early retirement of conventional buses by 2033, seven years prior to the 2040 goal set by CARB. The transition would be accomplished through acquisition of new buses, not conversion of conventional buses.

SMRT’s previous diesel replacement schedule included a large number of buses which would reach their estimated 12- year lifespan in 2027. To mitigate the need to purchase and deploy a significant number of new BEBs within a short period of time, the distribution of BEB purchases can be spread out by allowing several of the diesel buses to remain in operation for one to two additional years. The proposed replacement schedule will rely on new buses having increased range for the first couple of years, since the additional vehicles to support swapping will not yet have been purchased. The resulting transition road map, shown in Table D. 2, requires no more than four buses to be deployed within a single year.

D: Current Fleet and
Future Purchases

MODEL YEAR FUEL TYPE BUS LENGTH BUS QUANTITY
2007 Diesel 40' 2
2009 Diesel 40' 2
2010 Diesel 40' 1
2011 Diesel 40' 2
2014 Diesel 40' 10
2017 Diesel 40' 2
2018 Diesel 35' 3
2018 Diesel 30' 1
2020 Diesel 30' 1
TOTAL FIXED ROUTE FLEET 24
Table D.1 SMRT Existing Fixed-Route Fleet
hdrinc.com
05 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Rollout Plan ICT

REQUIREMENT YEAR

BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS

Q UA N T I T Y

PURCHASED
% O F

PURCHASES
B U S
LENGTH

FUEL TYPE
25% 2022 4 100% 35’ Battery - Depot
25% 2023 1 100% 35’ Battery - Depot
25% 2024 2 100% 35’ Battery - Depot
50% 2027 4 100% 35’ Battery - Depot
50% 2028 4 100% 35’ Battery - Depot
100% 2029 4 100% 40’ Battery - Depot
100% 2030 4 100% 40’ Battery - Depot
100% 2031 4 100% 40’ Battery - Depot
100% 2033 1 100% 40’ Battery - Depot
TOTAL 28
Table D.2 Schedule for Replacement and Acquisition of BEBs Paratransit Fleet
As shown in Table D. 3, SMRT currently has 10 cutaway buses in its paratransit fleet. The CARB ZEB purchase requirements for cutaway buses do not start until 2026 or later, contingent on bus models passing federal Altoona testing. Transitioning SMRT’s paratransit fleet to zero-emission vehicles will depend on the status of zero-emission technology development and financial viability. SMRT will monitor technology progress and assess available vehicle options that meet operational range requirements and federal testing standards, then develop a plan transition the paratransit fleet to zero-emission vehicles. Lessons learned in the process of deploying BEBs for the heavy-duty fleet will help inform the paratransit transition process.

In future, SMRT intends to procure paratransit vehicles with a seating capacity of less than 10. With an ongoing shortage of available CDL-licensed drivers, operating smaller vehicles will allow SMRT greater flexibility in hiring drivers.

NUMBER OF VEHICLES MODEL YEAR FUEL TYPE VEHICLE TYPE
1 2013 Gasoline E-450 Cutaway
1 2015 Gasoline E-450 Cutaway
8 2017 Gasoline E-450 Cutaway
Table D.3 SMRT Existing Paratransit Fleet
hdrinc.com
06 E: Facilities and
Infrastructure
Modifications

Infrastructure upgrades to accommodate BEBs are required at SMRT’s sole facility, located at 1303 Fairway Drive. These improvements are planned in phases to incrementally expand as new zero emissions buses are introduced to SMRT’s fleet. SMRT will complete a full base infrastructure build out in phase 1; this will include electrical system upgrades, installation of a new transformer, parking lot repaving and restriping, and the installation of conduit and wiring for managed bus charging. As more funding becomes available, SMRT will purchase additional chargers to accommodate the growing zero emissions fleet. All chargers, transformers, and switchgears will be located within the parking area of the bus yard. SMRT shop and repair areas will also require modification of fall protection systems to accommodate high- voltage work, but these upgrades will not impact space planning within the existing facility spaces.

SMRT intends to implement zero emissions vehicles and infrastructure in phases, as shown in Figure E.1 below.

Depending on funding availability, SMRT may combine phases to advance the facility’s full transition to zero emissions.

M AI N

FACI L I T Y

ADDRESS
M AI N

FUNCTION(S)

T Y P E(S) O F

INFRASTRUCTURE

SERVICE

CAPACITY
NEEDS
U P G R A D E ?
(YES/NO)

E S T I M AT ED

CONSTRUCTION

TIMELINE
1303 Fairway
Drive, Santa
Maria, CA
Bus
maintenance
and storage
Charging
infrastructure
38 vehicles:
28 buses,
10 cutaways
Yes Completed by 2028
Table E.1 Facilities Information and Construction Timeline Figure E.1: SMRT Bus Yard Installation Phases (not to scale): 1303 Fairway Drive, Santa Maria, CA hdrinc.com
07 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Rollout Plan Figure E.2: SMRT Bus Yard Charger Layout Example (not to scale) hdrinc.com
08 F: Service in
Disadvantaged
Communities

No SB 535 Disadvantaged communities, currently defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) based CalEnviroScreen 3.0, are located within the SMRT service area. Census Tract 25.02, a Low-Income Community Opportunity Zone located adjacent to Black Road, the western boundary of SMRT’s service area, has an overall score in the 81st percentile in CalEnviroScreen 4.0, placing it in the top 25% most environmentally impacted census tracts; SMRT’s Route 8 travels along a segment of Black Road bordering this tract but does not directly serve this area.

While no SB 535 Disadvantaged communities are currently within the SMRT service area, SMRT is committed to the equitable distribution of BEB service and will incorporate demographic and environmental conditions into account when scheduling and deploying BEBs.

Figure F.1: CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Results, Santa Maria area hdrinc.com
09 G: Workforce
Development
Making the transition to zero emission bus technology involves more than simply buying new buses. Training is required to ensure staff can operate and maintain these vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. Training must also meet any applicable regulatory requirements, such as the Driver Proficiency requirements of California 13 CCR § 1229. SMRT will implement specialized training for both behind-the-wheel training and bus maintenance practices for both BEB operators and maintenance staff; these training programs will be extended to any contracted employees that may interact with the BEBs. Since BEB technology is still very new, training programs are both dynamic and flexible; as the technology advances, training programs will evolve.

SMRT will work to develop highly skilled technicians who can maintain battery electric technology through diagnosis, troubleshooting, repair, and routine maintenance of the vehicles. Training programs will include high voltage systems safety training, including lock-out/tag-out procedures and proper use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for internal staff. SMRT will also work with first responders to facilitate safety and vehicle familiarization training.

Anticipated maintenance training unique to battery electric bus technologies will include, at a minimum, high voltage safety (onboard systems and charging procedures), BEB high voltage systems troubleshooting and repair, BEB low voltage systems troubleshooting and repair, and BEB propulsion systems (drive motor and gearbox). BEB operators will also train on how to maximize vehicle regenerative braking and power as well as best driving practices to maximize vehicle range.

Other training topics will be added to training programs as SMRT continues to work with vehicle and charger OEMs.

Making the transition
to zero emission bus
technology involves
more than simply buying
new buses. Training
is required to ensure
that staff can operate
and maintain these
vehicles in a safe and
efficient manner.
hdrinc.com
10 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Rollout Plan Training Strategy
The primary source of training initially will be the vehicle and charger original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), along with their subcomponent suppliers. These equipment providers have already developed training programs to assist with the deployment of these new types of vehicles. The learning curve for BEB technology is steep, but it flattens as an agency gains experience. Training from the OEM and subcomponent suppliers should be leveraged early through “train the trainer” programs with the goal of building internal training programs in the long run. OEM training is helpful for understanding the theory and technical specifications for BEBs, but training based on actual experience in maintenance and operations will be more applicable to a specific deployment.

Both classroom and hands-on training are needed, but hands-on training is best for most topics and will be used whenever feasible. This allows for an apprenticeship model, where mechanics can learn from an expert. The details of the training that are required from the OEM will be included as a part of the vehicle procurement process and made a part of the RFP and contract, and will cover training hours, aids, materials, special tools, and diagnostic equipment.

Along with leveraging both internal and external training, it will also be important to have a strategy for tracking training progress. This system will be a valuable resource for documenting which employees have completed what training, tracking the overall training progress at the individual and group level, and identifying gaps in the skillset across the organization. Training should also be repeated as often as needed, such as quarterly, to maintain proficiency for existing staff and on-boarding new staff.

Both classroom and
hands-on training
are needed, but
hands-on training is
best for most topics
and will be used
whenever feasible.
hdrinc.com
11 H: Potential Funding
Sources
This section provides identification of all potential funding sources SMRT expects to use to acquire zero-emission technologies (both vehicles and infrastructure).

SMRT is intending to use a variety of funding sources to acquire zero-emissions vehicles and necessary infrastructure, including regional, state, and federal sources. Examples of potential funding sources are as follows:
• Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
• Low Carbon Transit Operation Program (LCTOP)
• FTA Funding:
° Section 5307 Funds: Urbanized Area Formula Grants
° Section 5339(a) Funds: Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program ° Section 5339(b) Funds: Bus and Bus Facilities Grant Program ° Section 5339(c) Funds: Low-No Emission Vehicle Grant Program • State Transit Programs (STIP) - SB1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) • Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) • Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) • Caltrans State of Good Repair (STA SOGR)
• Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust
• Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program • Active Transportation Program (ATP)
hdrinc.com
12 I: Start-up and
Scale-up Challenges
A key challenge in the BEB transition is balancing the operational needs of SMRT with the capabilities of emerging technologies. SMRT anticipates the transition to zero-emissions vehicles will require ongoing coordination with internal and external stakeholders, as well as monitoring and adjusting to changes in vehicle and charging technology. • Address Driver Shortages . Like other transit agencies across the country, SMRT is experiencing a driver shortage.

SMRT also recently restructured its bus network as part of its Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update, and the changes will allow the service to be fully delivered within current staffing levels. The adjustments proposed in the SRTP will help to accommodate the transition to BEBs by creating shorter routes structures which are more aligned with BEB range capabilities, and reducing the additional driver needs to more manageable levels. • Coordinate Closely with Electric Utility . With a BEB fleet, coordination with the electric utility will be crucial to understand infrastructure needs, changes in rate structures, and incentives/rebates. SMRT will continue to coordinate with PG&E to make sure the infrastructure installation is appropriately planned, scheduled and delivered to keep pace with the fleet transition plan.
• Monitor Development of Vehicle Technology. By monitoring the development of zero emissions technologies, SMRT can deploy the best technology options available in terms of price, maturity, availability, reliability, and infrastructure needs. SMRT will evaluate options to transition paratransit service to zero-emissions vehicles starting in 2026.

SMRT’s ZEB Rollout Plan is a living document meant to guide the implementation of zero-emission bus fleets and help the agency work through many of the potential challenges to explore solutions. The plan provides estimated timelines based on best available information for bus purchases, infrastructure upgrades, and workforce training. SMRT may update the plan as needed with the most current information and industry best practices.

The adjustments
proposed in the
SRTP will help to
accommodate the
transition to BEBs by
creating shorter routes
structures which are
more aligned with BEB
range capabilities, and
reducing the additional
driver needs to more
manageable levels.
hdrinc.com

Zero Emissions Bus
Feasibility Study
Santa Maria, California
May
2022

Glossary of Terms
AC – Alternating Current
BEB – Battery Electric Bus
BESS – Battery Energy Storage System
CEV – Commercial Electric Vehicle
DC – Direct Current
FCEB – Fuel Cell Electric Bus
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HFC – Hydrogen Fuel Cell
ICT – Innovative Clean Transit
ITC – Investment Tax Credit
kW – Kilowatt
kWh – Kilowatt-hour
MW – Megawatt
MWh – Megawatt-hour
NCF – Net Capacity Factor
NOx– Nitrogen Oxides
O&M – Operations & Maintenance
PBI – Production-Based Incentive
PV – Photovoltaic
ROI – Return on Investment
SOC – State of Charge
sf – Square Feet
W – Watt
Wdc – Watt-Direct Current
ZEB – Zero Emissions Buses
ZEM – Zero Emissions Mobility
Contents
Zero Emission Feasibility Analysis
01 Introduction 01
02 - Battery Electric Bus Analysis 02

2.1 Scenario Definition and Methodology 02

2.2 Scenario 1: New Buses at 50°F 04

2.3 Scenario 2: End-of-Life Buses at 40°F 05

2.4 Scenario 3: End-of-Life Buses at 40°F With Swaps 07

2.5 BEB Capable Block Requirements 10

2.6 Energy Consumption 13

2.7 Infrastructure Requirements 16

2.8 Fleet Transition Road Map 16

2.9 Compatibility with Other SMRT Initiatives 19
03 - Financial Analysis 20

3.1 Lifecycle Cost Analysis 20

3.2 Capital Costs Comparison 20

3.3 Diesel Fuel and Electricity Costs Comparison 23

3.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs Comparison 23

3.5 Summary Cost Comparison 24

3.6 Net Present Value and Payback Period Comparison 25

3.7 Post-Analysis Period Replacement Schedule 26
04 Facility and O&M Considerations 27

4.1 O&M Considerations Introduction 27

4.1 Shop and Repair Areas 27

4.2 Exterior Areas and Parking Areas 27

4.3 Training Considerations 28
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Contents (Continued)
05 Depot Renewable Energy and Battery Energy Storage 31

5.1 Solar and Battery Energy Storage Introduction 31

5.2 Depot Electrical Consumption 31

5.3 Solar Energy Feasibility Study 33

5.4 Solar Generation and Facility Consumption 34

5.5 Battery Energy Storage Analysis 35

5.6 Solar and BESS Comparative Economic Analysis 36
06 Conclusions 38
Appendix A: Allan Hancock College Automated Shuttle Concept Appendix B: Solar and BESS Model Input Assumptions
hdrinc.com
ZEB Feasibility Analysis
01 - Introduction

Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) provides public transit service to the City of Santa Maria. SMRT currently has 24 standard-size (30-foot to 40-foot) diesel buses in its fleet, with two 40-foot Proterra Catalyst E2 with ProDrive electric buses currently on order and two pending orders of New Flyers Excelsior battery electric buses. The purpose of this feasibility study is to understand the operational, financial, and logistical impacts of transitioning to a complete battery-electric bus (BEB) fleet for all services provided by SMRT by year 2040 or earlier.

The California Air Quality Board is requiring all transit systems to develop an Innovative Clean Transportation plan to detail their process to achieve a 100% zero-emissions fleet by 2040. The transition to zero-emissions buses is not as simple as purchasing the buses and replacing the existing diesel fleet; the operational capabilities of BEB technology are not the same as diesel buses, and these differences need to be fully analyzed to understand the impact to operations. This feasibility study presents the planning, modeling, and cost estimation process leading to a comprehensive fleet transition plan. 02 2.1 Scenario Definition and Methodology
SMRT’s current service has eighteen weekday blocks and nine weekend blocks. A block is the work/trips assigned to a single vehicle each day. Some vehicle blocks return to the garage during the day, spending several hours parked at the depot between trips. BEBs can use this time for midday charging. For the purposes of this analysis, blocks that return to the depot mid-shift are broken into multiple smaller blocks to allow the simulator to use this time for BEB charging. The scheduler will re-use buses when possible, so the increased number of blocks caused breaking them into smaller pieces does not automatically require an increase in the number of buses, labor or non-revenue hours or miles. After breaking apart the blocks that fall into this category there are twenty-six weekday blocks and twelve weekend blocks that are used for scheduling BEBs.

The feasibility of BEB operation is dependent on many factors, including elevation changes, distance and time, as well as external factors such as temperature. BEB performance is significantly impacted by temperature variations, as additional energy is required to operate heating and cooling equipment. Additionally, BEB performance degrades over time due to battery pack aging, which means that vehicles can cover fewer miles over time as they age.

Three scenarios were analyzed to understand the impact of operating all BEBs on the existing routes. The first scenario analyzes operations on “day one” to understand how well these vehicles can be expected to perform if they are deployed utilizing SMRT’s current schedule. A second scenario considers the performance of the BEBs at the end of their lifetime, when battery performance has declined. This shows how naively deploying BEBs with the existing schedule will not be a feasible long-term solution. The third scenario modifies schedules so that BEBs are feasible at the vehicle end-of-life. This provides insight into what operational changes will be required to complete a transition to an all-electric fleet that will work not only on day one, but far into the future.

A few common assumptions were made for all the scenarios analyzed, based on direction provided by SMRT. These representing the more stringent of circumstances for BEB’s and financial constraints with a thought that if SMRT could make these circumstances work, more favorable circumstances would certainly work also.

These circumstances include the idea of all charging being completed midday and overnight at the depot only. No consideration is made for in-route charging at stops or transit centers throughout the day. Although the SMRT operates a mix of 30 to 40- foot vehicles, all vehicles moving forward are assumed to be 40-foot buses. Finally, all scenarios are analyzed with electric vehicles and not any other zero or low emission fuel, such as hydrogen.

The climate in Santa Maria is mild and generally well-suited for BEB operation. However, a feasibility analysis must show that the vehicles can operate in the worst conditions, not just the average case. The minimum temperature that can be reasonably expected in Santa Maria is just above 40°F, and the maximum temperature is just under 90°F . Heating the vehicle poses a greater strain on battery range than air conditioning. As a result, the cold condition represents a worst case for BEBs, so the worst-case feasibility study is conducted at 40°F. Again, these representing the more stringent of circumstances for BEBs.

A BEB will have a battery pack with the full nameplate capacity available when brand new. However, over the course of the 12-year useful lifetime of the vehicle the capacity of the battery pack will degrade. The amount of degradation is dependent on many things including the level of discharge each day, the battery recharge rate, the number of discharge and recharge cycles, temperature, and many other factors. The complexity of these factors makes it impossible to predict the level of degradation over the life of the vehicle. However, BEBs typically carry a full 12-year warranty of the battery pack that guarantees the capacity will remain above 80% of the nameplate rating. This gives a lower limit to the end-of-life (EOL) battery capacity of 80%. This level of degradation is then the maximum level that should be expected, and 80% capacity is used for the feasibility study.
02 - Battery Electric
Bus Analysis

hdrinc.com
03 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Finally, it is not recommended to discharge lithium batteries deeply. This increases the speed at which the batteries degrade. Additionally, running schedules where the battery pack reaches a very low level can lead to range anxiety for the BEB operators. To avoid these issues, a minimum state of charge (SOC) of 20% is recommended for operations to be feasible. This level of reserve not only decreases battery degradation and reduces range anxiety, but also provides an energy buffer in case of unforeseen problems and helps guarantee buses have the energy they need to return to the garage at any point in time.

Taken together, the battery degradation and energy reserve result in a usable energy amount that is much lower than the nameplate rating of the battery. With 80% end-of-life capacity and a 20% reserve the available energy is only 64% of the nameplate, as shown in Figure 2.1. Using the full 64% restricts the charging speed available. Only 48% of the nameplate rating is available for use when operated with high-speed charging, such as pantograph opportunity charging.

Even when using a high-power charger, the last 20% of battery capacity will be charged at a slow rate to protect the battery.

Day 1 Capacity – 100% Day 1 Usable – 60%
Top 20% Charges at
Low Speeds
20% Reserved to
Improve Battery Life
60-80%
Usable
End-of-Life Capacity – 80% End-of-Life Usable – 48%
16% (20% of 80%)
16% (20% of 80%)
48-64%
Usable
20% Lost Capacity
Over Life Time
Figure 2.1: Battery Capacity Over Lifetime
The vehicle model used for the analysis of BEB feasibility is the 40-foot Proterra Catalyst E2 with ProDrive. This is the model SMRT has on order for its first two of four electric buses. These vehicles have a nameplate battery capacity of 440 kWh. The charging infrastructure is based on the ChargePoint CPE250. The number in the name is not related in any way to the power capabilities of the charger. The charger has a maximum output power of 62.5 kW. When these chargers are installed in pairs with two dispensers per charger, they can charge a vehicle between 31.25 kW and 125 kW, depending on the number of concurrently charging BEBs. This is modeled as a single 125 kW charger multiplexed 4-to-1 with BEBs for analysis in the simulations.
hdrinc.com
04 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

2.2 Scenario 1: New Buses at 50 Degrees F
A baseline energy consumption simulation of SMRT service was completed using new buses at a typical low temperature of 50°F before the worst-case analysis was completed. This provides information about the performance that can be expected with the existing schedule from the first batch of BEBs that are already on order. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the vehicle battery SOC plot for each block during weekdays and weekends. Each block is represented by a line on the chart with the color of the line corresponding to the SOC of the vehicle. The color changes from green to yellow to red as the SOC drops from 100% to 0%. A vehicle at or below 0% is shown with a black line, and this represents a vehicle that would have become stranded with a dead battery during operation.

Figure 2.2: SOC Chart for New Buses at 50°F (Weekday)
Figure 2.3: SOC Chart for New Buses at 50°F (Weekend)
hdrinc.com
05 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study The analysis shows that no vehicles would be stranded, however this is still not a long-term feasible solution for BEB operation. During the weekday the lowest SOC reached is 9.3%, which is below the recommended feasibility reserve capacity of 20%. Additionally, this is run with a heater load based on a typical low of 50°F which has less impact than the heater at a worst-case low of 40°F. The end of life (EOL) degradation of the battery is also not taken into consideration.

This simulation shows that the existing service swapping diesel buses 1-to-1 with BEBs might work on day one in average conditions, but will not last for the life of the vehicle.

2.3 Scenario 2: End of Life (EOL) Buses at 40 Degrees F The second simulation also attempts to replace diesel buses with BEBs at a 1-to-1 ratio. However, now the EOL battery reduction to 80% and the worst-case low temperature of 40°F are both included. This gives a maximum battery capacity of only 352 kW instead of 440 kW and a higher heater power load. The resulting block/vehicle SOC charts are shown in Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 . There are now several vehicles that would be stranded on weekdays, making this scenario infeasible. Additionally, the weekend service which was easily within the capabilities of the BEBs in the previous simulation with new buses now has blocks that go as low as a 1% SOC. Neither weekday nor weekend service is feasible under the worst-case scenario.

Figure 2.4: SOC Chart for EOL Buses at 40°F (Weekday)
hdrinc.com
06 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study One approach for dealing with insufficient range is to increase the size of the battery in the vehicle. However, that is not a practical solution for this service. To maintain a 20% battery reserve and operate with 80% capacity at the vehicle EOL would require at least a 732-kWh battery. A much larger battery also increases the vehicle weight and decreases vehicle efficiency, meaning that the battery would need to be nearly twice as large as the simulated 440-kWh battery to be feasible. There are currently no options available on the market for a 40-foot BEB with an 800+ kWh battery.

Since swapping out diesel vehicles for BEBs at a 1-to-1 ratio with depot charging in this scenario is not feasible, finding a BEB solution for this service will most likely require some form of modification to service operations. This may be accomplished by swapping vehicles when their SOC gets low, which breaks existing blocks into multiple pieces. Another possible option is to add in-route charging to extend the range of the vehicles without increasing their battery capacity.

Finally, the block schedule could be modified so that each scheduled block is within the capabilities of a BEB.

Based on input from SMRT, the analysis proceeded with finding a feasible solution based on increasing the fleet size and swapping buses as needed. Operating without in-route charging is the more constrained situation, and this analysis is intended to provide solutions that work in the worst-case scenario. The decision to operate without in-route charging could be revisited in the future if desired. An overview of the options available to achieve a feasible BEB transition is shown in Table 2 .1.

Figure 2.5: SOC Chart for EOL Buses at 40°F (Weekend)
hdrinc.com
07 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

STRATEGY DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS FEASIBILITY
Larger Batteries Increase battery size so that
one-to-one replacements of
diesel buses are possible
Increase to
800-kWh Battery
No -Vehicles are
not available
In-Route Charging Install high-power in-route
chargers at transit centers
Modify schedules for
sufficient layover times
at chargers
Needs further analysis
Split Blocks* Break infeasible blocks into
multiple pieces and swap
vehicles as needed
Increase in fleet size and
deadhead hours and miles
Yes -See following sections
* At the direction of SMRT, this was the only strategy further analyzed

2.4 Scenario 3: EOL Buses at 40 Degrees F with Swaps
The next simulation repeated the same conditions as the previous simulation while inserting bus swaps as required throughout the day. Swaps are introduced only between trips to minimize the impact to service. The swaps are also inserted in locations that guarantee the minimum SOC does not dip below the required 20% reserve capacity, including the energy needed to return the vehicle to the depot when a swap is needed. Whenever a vehicle is swapped out it is replaced with a BEB that has a fully charged battery. The resulting SOC charts with swaps identified with blue marks are shown in Figure 2.6 and Figure 2 .7.

Table 2.1: BEB Feasibility Options
Figure 2.6: SOC Chart for EOL Bus at 40°F with Swaps (Weekday) hdrinc.com
08 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figure 2.7: SOC Chart for EOL Bus at 40°F with Swaps (Weekend) Twelve out of the eighteen original weekday diesel blocks require a bus swap to be feasible. Only two of the weekend blocks require a swap. No block requires more than a single swap to be feasible with a BEB. Despite the need to swap twelve buses, the fleet size is only increased by seven buses in this scenario. This is possible due to midday charging and vehicle re-use. The act of swapping vehicles also impacts the number of non-revenue hours and miles each day. Each bus swap introduces a pair of dead-head trips, one for the original bus and another for the replacement. The overall impact to operations from these bus swaps is shown in Figure 2.8 . The charts in Figure 2.8 show the increases in operational statistics compared to the current diesel fleet.

Figure 2.8: Operation Impacts of EOL Buses at 40°F
hdrinc.com
09 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study The impacts on operations are manageable. Non-revenue hours and miles are both increased by 44% to supply the same amount of revenue service. The peak vehicle requirement is also greatly increased by 39% from eighteen buses to twenty-five buses. The increase to the total number of hours and miles, including revenue and non-revenue service, is only 2.0% and 2.7% respectively. Overall, the total increase to hours and miles is quite manageable. Due to the current grant funding available for BEB purchases, the increased fleet size may be feasible, but the following section analyzes some strategies to reduce the fleet size while maintaining feasible BEB operation.

2.4.1 Maximized Vehicle Re-Use
This third feasibility scenario presents a more efficient transition strategy, by allowing vehicle re-use even when vehicles are only partially charged. The vehicle could be partially recharged after a short period of midday charging, or the vehicle could have additional capacity left after finishing a block. In either case, if the remaining charge in the vehicle is high enough to finish off a block that requires a swap, then using a partially charged vehicle can reduce the fleet size requirement. An example SOC chart allowing partially charged vehicle reuse is shown in Figure 2.9 .

Figure 2.9: SOC Chart with Partially Charged Vehicle Reuse Figure 2.9 demonstrates how several blocks still have reduced SOC even after a swap. Some blocks require more energy than is available on any reusable vehicle, so those still require a fresh, fully charged BEB. However, there are several instances where a partially charged BEB can be re-used, and this allows SMRT to reduce the peak bus requirement from twenty-five to twenty-one. Additional deadhead time and miles are not reduced since all swaps are performed at the depot. The impacts to operations are shown in Figure 2.10 .

The result from reusing partially charged vehicles is interlining of the routes across vehicles. While the results shown are representative of the improvements that can be expected, this is not an optimized modification of the schedule, and increased efficiencies may be possible. A schedule design that includes intentional interlining could reduce deadheads by performing swaps at the transit center while still reducing the peak vehicle requirement. This also reduces the required infrastructure since fewer vehicles require fewer chargers. The energy costs would not be significantly changed from what they are when vehicles are only reused when charged to 100%. Overall, however, the fleet size increase is much more manageable, with only three additional peak vehicles needed to complete a BEB transition. hdrinc.com
10 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study This relatively small increase in peak vehicle needs suggests that implementing in-route charging options may not be a cost-effective solution at this time. In-route charging could potentially become a valuable option if SMRT service is modified in a way that leads to a significant increase in fleet size that would increase the discrepancy between overall diesel and electric vehicle ranges.

2.5 BEB Capable Block Requirements
Blocks in the existing schedule can be segregated by the difficulty of converting them to BEB operation. The easy group includes blocks where BEBs can replace diesel buses 1-to-1 today based on the technology available. The medium difficulty group includes blocks that will require some schedule modification to be operated, although no block will require more than a single vehicle swap or minor operational adjustments. There are no blocks with a higher difficulty level in SMRT’s service. On weekdays there are six blocks that fall into the easy category and twelve blocks that fall into the medium category. On weekends there are seven easy blocks and two medium blocks. This breakdown is shown in Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.10: Operation Impacts of Partially Charged Vehicle Reuse Figure 2.11: Number of Splits Required per Block
hdrinc.com
11 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study In total there are six vehicles that can easily be replaced with BEBs and operate all week long. One of the feasible weekday blocks is a “tripper” that only operates for only about an hour each morning. All other blocks operate over a full day. Each block with its difficulty level is shown in Table 2 . 2.

Table 2.2: Block BEB Difficulty
* Utilizes mid-day charging

SCHEDULE BLOCK ROUTE DIFFICULTY SPLITS HOURS MILES
Weekday 115933 1 Medium 1 16.2 183.7
Weekday 115948 1 Easy 0 0.9 15.1
Weekday 115935 2 Medium 1 13.4 166.5
Weekday 115936 2 Medium 1 15.6 190.7
Weekday 115938 3 Medium 1 16.1 160.6
Weekday 115939 3 Easy* 0 13.2 133.4
Weekday 115941 4 Medium 1 16.1 213.3
Weekday 115942 4 Medium 1 15.5 205.8
Weekday 115960 4 Medium 1 14.7 192.2
Weekday 115945 5 Medium 1 18.6 256.9
Weekday 115947 6 Medium 1 16.8 232.7
Weekday 115950 7 Medium 1 12.7 165.7
Weekday 115951 7 Medium 1 15.4 199.7
Weekday 115953 8 Easy* 0 6.3 85.4
Weekday 115955 100 Easy* 0 5.9 131.0
Weekday 115956 100 Easy* 0 5.7 131.1
Weekday 115957 100 Medium 1 13.5 268.4
Weekday 115958 200 Easy* 0 8.9 242.7
Weekend 115934 2 Easy 0 11.7 132.1
Weekend 115937 2 Easy 0 10.9 131.7
Weekend 115940 3 Easy 0 9.3 91.8
Weekend 115943 4 Easy 0 11.5 150.5
Weekend 115959 4 Easy 0 9.6 126.7
Weekend 115946 5 Medium 1 13.8 194.7
Weekend 115949 6 Medium 1 13.9 195.1
Weekend 115952 7 Easy 0 10.4 134.5
Weekend 115954 8 Easy* 0 7.1 95.7
Operational changes or adaption strategies will be needed for the medium difficulty blocks to be converted to BEB, assuming no schedule changes or in-route charging. One option could be re-cutting blocks to adjust their length and/or time to be feasible. Additionally, the blocks could be broken up to allow multiple vehicles to perform mid-day charging which would limit the increase in fleet size. The simulations that have been completed provide insight into what changes would need to be made for blocks on each route. Figure 2.12 shows the energy efficiency of each route, which varies based on the average speed, number of stops, topography, and many other factors. hdrinc.com
12 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study The efficiency values are strongly influenced by the specific details of each route. Vehicles that travel at higher speeds and make fewer stops have more efficient HVAC energy consumption because efficiency is estimated on a per-mile basis. The HVAC uses a constant power, while total energy is dependent on time, not distance. At higher speeds and with fewer stops a vehicle will travel a mile in less time, meaning that the HVAC system uses less energy over that mile.

Table 2 . 3 provides additional details including estimates for the targeted maximum miles and hours for blocks on each route.

Figure 2.12: Average Energy Efficiency by Route

ROUTE AVG SPEED
(MPH)
TOTAL

EFFICIENCY
(KWH/MI)
MOTIVE

EFFICIENCY
(KWH/MI)
HVAC

EFFICIENCY
(KWH/MI)
TARGET
MILES
TARGET
HOURS
1 16.9 2.08 1.43 0.65 135 8 hr 0 min
2 16.4 1.91 1.29 0.62 147 9 hr 0 min
3 16.7 2.15 1.41 0.75 131 7 hr 45 min
4 16.9 1.80 1.23 0.57 156 9 hr 15 min
5 18.2 1.86 1.32 0.54 151 8 hr 20 min
6 18.0 1.85 1.31 0.54 152 8 hr 30 min
7 17. 3 1.84 1.26 0.58 153 8 hr 50 min
8 17. 5 1.61 1.06 0.55 175 10 hr 0 min
100 26.1 1.71 1.35 0.36 165 6 hr 20 min
200 29.0 1.53 1.26 0.27 184 6 hr 20 min
Table 2.3: BEB Capabilities by Route
This analysis is based on using a 440-kWh battery pack BEB. When the block schedule is re-designed to accommodate BEBs on the medium difficulty blocks, the given target miles and target hours can be used to help design a feasible block schedule. These miles and hours include all deadhead miles and layover times. Once a modified block schedule is designed, it is recommended to complete a simulation of the new schedule to verify BEB feasibility. hdrinc.com
13 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

2.6 Energy Consumption
The energy needs of a fully electrified fleet are shown in Figure 2.13 . These are the daily energy requirements in the worst case, meaning that this is the maximum energy that would be required for each day of the week. This places an upper limit on the energy requirements for beginning the conversation with the electrical utility or planning for back- up power. The cost of energy depends not only on the amount of energy but also on the time of day when the energy is consumed. However, energy is only one piece of the puzzle for determining the electric load and costs. In addition to energy costs, there is also a charge for the peak demand, or maximum power level seen over a billing period. The simulation results provide a power profile that can be used to understand the peak load and the time-of-use (TOU) for the required energy.

Simulations were run for two different charging scenarios, one using an “unmanaged charging” approach and one using a “managed charging” approach. In an unmanaged scenario each vehicle is charged up immediately as it returns to the depot. With managed charging the load is spread out over the day to the greatest extent possible while still fully recharging each vehicle before it is needed the next day. In both cases the same amount of energy is used, but the peak load can be greatly reduced for the managed scenario. The load profiles for these two cases are shown in Figures 2.14 and 2.15.

The peak load to charge SMRT’s fleet can be significantly reduced by using managed charging. In the managed charging scenario, the peak load is reduced to only 500 kW. This is a 67% reduction from the peak load of 1,500 kW in the unmanaged scenario. This represents the opportunity for significant cost savings by implementing a smart charging solution.

Figure 2.13: Maximum Daily Energy Required
hdrinc.com
14 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figure 2.14: Managed vs. Unmanaged Load Profile (Weekday) Figure 2.15: Managed vs. Unmanaged Load Profile (Weekend) hdrinc.com
15 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figures 2.16 and 2.17 show the managed load profile along with the deployment of vehicles throughout the day. The number of vehicles in the garage includes only the vehicles that are active on the given day, not spares or inactive vehicles. On weekdays, the number of vehicles in the garage rarely drops below five because vehicles must be swapped and some of the active vehicles for the day have returned for a midday charge when other vehicles go out to replace them. Even with the swaps, there is a relatively consistent number of vehicles on the road at any given time.

Figure 2.16: Power Profile and Vehicle Deployment (Weekday) Figure2. 17: Power Profile and Vehicle Deployment (Weekend) hdrinc.com
16 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

2.7 Infrastructure Requirements
Infrastructure will be required to support the operation of a BEB fleet. The electrical infrastructure has space requirements for transformers and switchgear to support the high power levels needed. There are additional space requirements for the chargers themselves as well as the dispensers in the parking area.

The electrical transmission infrastructure should be able to support all installed chargers simultaneously. While managed charging will be used to reduce the peak load to the greatest extent possible, there may be situations where chargers need to be used simultaneously, such as in the period immediately after a power outage. While the peak load will ideally be limited to 500 kW, the worst-case load may be as high as 1 MW for the charging load alone. This is in addition to the load required to operate the facility. The infrastructure requirements for this additional load are shown in Table 2 .4.

INFRASTRUCTURE TOTAL SPACE NOTES
Transformers 413 sf In electrical enclosure
Switchgear 1,140 sf In electrical enclosure
Chargers (CPE250) 635 sf In parking area
Table 2.4: Infrastructure Space Requirements
Based on using the ChargePoint CPE250, a total of 14 chargers will be required. To support the maximum possible charging power, chargers must always be installed in pairs. These pairs should be located next to each other and deployed at the same time. Even if a particular charger is not being directly connected to any vehicles, the paired charger will still use the power capacity of the installed charger to charge vehicles that are connected to the paired charger.

The CPE250 chargers provide a good fit for SMRT’s fleet based on the overall power that can be multiplexed with up to four BEBs; however, there are some limitations for this charger that are different from a typical BEB depot charger. One limitation is that the charger and dispensers are a single unit, not separate. This requires the chargers to be installed in the parking area. Since the charge cables are not very long, the chargers must be positioned between rows of vehicles and evenly distributed around the parking area. Other chargers of a similar power level with vehicle multiplexing can install the charging cabinet separate from the dispensers, requiring less space in the parking area and allowing for alternative connection options such as cables that drop from an overhead gantry.

Another complexity that arises from using the CPE250 chargers is how interconnections must be made between the power source and the chargers. For a typical depot charger, the charging cabinets can be co-located with the transformers and switch gear allowing for very short cable runs between these items. Connections from the charge cabinets to the multiplexed dispensers can be daisy chained. With the CPE250, the chargers must all have their own power feeds from the switchgear area into the parking area. Additionally, each charger needs to have a dedicated conduit run to a paired charger to achieve the maximum possible 125 kW power level. This pairing doubles the number of chargers needed to achieve the same power level multiplexing capabilities. Where a typical depot charger would only require 7 chargers with 28 dispensers, the CPE250 requires 14 chargers, with each charger having 2 dispensers built in.

These requirements make the installation options for the CPE250 less flexible than with other charger types.

2.8 Fleet Transition Road Map
SMRT currently has 24 vehicles in its fleet, the majority of which are 40-foot diesel buses along with a few 30- and 35-foot diesel buses. The existing fleet replacement schedule is based on a 12-year lifetime for each vehicle. Given the current age of the vehicles in the fleet, the diesel replacement schedule over the next 12 years is shown Figure 2.18 . hdrinc.com
17 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study SMRT has no plan to replace any of the existing vehicles with diesel buses going forward in an effort to meet mandated climate goals. BEBs have already been ordered for the two vehicles entering service in 2022 and two more shortly after.

The simulations have shown that most routes will work when the vehicles are brand new, but as the vehicles age and a larger percentage of the fleet is transitioned, the fleet size would need to grow by about 17% based on the strategy with block interlining. BEBs purchased in 2022-2024 can be deployed on blocks where they can replace diesel vehicles at a 1-to-1 ratio. After 2024, service adjustments or additional vehicles will be required. Along with schedule efficiency, equity should be considered when determining which routes and geographic areas will be served by new vs. older equipment.

A sample BEB transition schedule allowing for no early vehicle retirements based on purchasing extra vehicles as needed is shown in Figure 2.19. This also includes the required charger deployments.

Figure 2.18: Current Diesel Fleet Replacement Schedule
Figure 2.19: BEB Fleet Replacement Schedule
hdrinc.com
18 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study The large number of buses that reach the end of their 12-year life present a significant capital expense in the year 2027.

To mitigate this, the distribution of vehicle purchases can be spread out by allowing several of these buses to remain in operation for one to two additional years. The additional vehicle purchases are also pushed back. This replacement schedule will rely on new buses having increased range for the first couple of years, since the additional vehicles to support swapping will not yet have been purchased. The resulting transition road map, shown in Figure 2.20 , requires no more than 4 buses to be deployed within a single year. Additional charging equipment is assumed to be ChargePoint CPE250 chargers for the purposes of this study, but SMRT could deploy other types of charging options in the future if desired.

Figure 2.20: Shifted and Spread BEB Fleet Replacement Schedule This road map takes the current BEB purchases and shows how they need to grow to achieve a 100% transition. The capital costs for both vehicles and chargers are spread out to the greatest extent possible. Chargers are always installed in pairs, which allows for the maximum possible charging power using ChargePoint CPE250 chargers.

Overall, the fleet size grows from the current 24 buses to a total of 28 buses, including spares. This allows for the required increase in active vehicles each day as indicated from the simulation results and maintains the overall spares ratio at the same level as today. The initial seven buses are replaced 1-to-1, and the following buses are replaced 1.25-to-1.

This is equivalent to buying one extra BEB for every four diesel buses that are replaced.

Figure 2.21 shows the full fleet transition road map including additional items that must be considered, such as driver and maintenance personnel training, utility communication, and infrastructure design. This road map also identifies the point in time where routes will need to be modified to be operational with BEBs. The four electric vehicles currently on order are identified as the pilot deployment which will occur next year. Only three additional BEBs are required over the next two years, and then there are no vehicle replacements until 2027. This should provide ample time to gain experience with BEB operation, design modified routes as required, and line up funding sources for the increased fleet size that will be required going forward.

One additional benefit of this transition plan is that it pushes out route changes for as long as possible. The initial BEB purchases can be used on the routes that are easily feasible today. This allows for two potential scenarios to play out before any extra infrastructure is purchased. The first scenario is that SMRT’s experience with BEBs may be more favorable than the analysis shows. Since the analysis is worst-case, it is possible that real-world experience gives SMRT confidence that BEBs can operate on some or all of the more difficult routes without increasing the fleet size. hdrinc.com
19 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figure 2.21: Fleet Transition Road Map
Electrical and Charger
Infrastructure Layout
Maintenance Personnel
Training
2022 20242023 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Dr iv er
Training
Software
Selection
Utility Rate Setting Discussions
Initial
Load Increases
Utility Power Delivery
Delivery
Online
Load
Incr ease
Load
Incr ease
BEB Purchases and Deployment
Pilot
+4
+2
+4
+4
+4
+1
Charger Installations and Deployment
+2
Pilot
+2
2032 2033 2034
Load
Incr ease
Load
Incr ease
Load
Incr ease
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+1
+4
+4
Route Changes Required
Load
Incr ease
Load
Incr ease
The second scenario allows for improvements in BEB technology. It may be possible to buy BEBs in the future that can be deployed as 1-to-1 replacements for diesel vehicles. This may be possible due to larger batteries or improved energy efficiencies. By pushing off the route changes for as long as possible, there is the possibility that no changes will be needed if the technology matures to an adequate level in the interim.

2.9 Compatibility with other SMRT Initiatives
SMRT Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP). SMRT recently completed an update to its SRTP, which includes route- and stop-level restructuring recommendations. The SRTP seeks to improve connectivity, offer a consistent service frequency, enable timed transfer connections at the Santa Maria Transit Center, and deliver service more efficiently. Like other transit agencies across the country, SMRT is experiencing a driver shortage, and the service restructuring will allow the service to be fully delivered within current staffing levels. The changes proposed in the SRTP will help to accommodate the transition to BEBs by creating shorter routes structures which are more aligned with BEB range capabilities, and reducing the additional driver needs to more manageable levels.

First/Last Mile Connection to Allan Hancock College. SMRT’s service restructuring focuses transfer activity around the Santa Maria Transit Center at the intersection of Boone and Miller Streets. Allan Hancock College, a key local and regional destination, is less than 1 mile from the transit center. SMRT is considering innovative ways to connect the two points, including an automatic shuttle that would operate along an existing multi-purpose trail. More information about this proposed option is included in Appendix A.
hdrinc.com
20 3.1 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Building off the technical analyses in the prior sections, the following summarizes the results of the lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) based on the transition schedule presented in Section 2.9 . More specifically, this section provides a comparison of a future zero emission bus fleet to SMRT’s existing diesel fleet for a variety of capital costs (vehicles and charging equipment) and operating costs (fuel, operations, and maintenance) over the transition period. The analysis covers the period from 2021 through 2032, when the last diesel bus is scheduled to be transitioned to a BEB. Additionally, a payback period and net present value analysis is provided to support the comparison of BEBs to diesel buses.

Table 3.1 summarizes the operating statistics and infrastructure needs for SMRT’s current service plan for a diesel fleet and a BEB fleet based on outputs from Zero+. Additionally, the electricity usage shown in the table reflects an adjustment from the original Zero+ results presented in prior sections. More specifically, the BEB Feasibility Analysis results reflect a worst-case weather scenario, however the fuel/energy usage shown in Table 3.1 reflects an adjustment (reduction) to reflect impact of Santa Maria’s average local climate on heating and air conditioning needs. Finally, the annual diesel estimate reflects the total miles estimate and SMRT’s current average fleet-wide fuel efficiency of 5.3 miles per gallon. 03 - Financial Analysis

BEB DIESEL
Total Miles 955,760 930,228
Revenue Miles 871,988 871,988
Non-Revenue Miles 83,772 58,240
Total Hours 68,848 67,496
Revenue Hours 64,376 64,376
Non-Revenue Hours 4,472 3,120
Peak Vehicles 21 18
Total Vehicles 28 24
Chargers 14 -
Fuel/Energy Usage
Usage 1,454,281 175,515
Unit of Measurement Kilowatt-hours gallons
Table 3.1: Annual Operating Statistics

3.2 Capital Costs Comparison
Based on the BEB transition schedule, there are two distinct procurement phases. The first phase is from 2021 through 2023, when seven BEBs and four chargers are scheduled to be purchased. In 2024 and 2025, there are no purchases made to advance the transition. Starting in 2026, phase two includes the remainder of the transition with the acquisition of 21 BEBs and 10 chargers. The costs presented in this section reflect actual contracts discussions between SMRT and Proterra.
hdrinc.com
21 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Specifically, in phase one, SMRT will pay approximately:
• $940,000 per electric bus
• $148,796 for paired 62.5 kW chargers, or $74,398 each • Approximately $380,000 for charging infrastructure, including charger installation, switchgear, conduits, and transformer pads
• $0 for the transformer under an assumption that PG&E installs the initial transformer in-kind In phase two, the following assumptions were made:
• PG&E will not pay for a second or upgraded transformer; SMRT will be responsible for the full cost • Consistent with recent trends, it was conservatively assumed that BEB prices will decrease by 5 percent every year as batteries become less expensive to produce. This assumption reflects a recent study by the University of Texas and McMaster University published in May 2020¹.
• Charger unit costs remain the same from phase one
• Charger installation costs follow an industry-standard assumption of $1,000 per kW, or $62,500 per charger • Supporting infrastructure costs from phase one were scaled up by the number of chargers purchased in phase two relative to phase one, and charger installation costs described above were removed from the supporting infrastructure costs
These capital infrastructure unit costs are summarized by phase in Table 3. 2.

Table 3.2: Capital Infrastructure Unit Costs by BEB Transition Phase (2021 $) PHASE I PHASE 2
Battery Electric Bus* $940,000 $940,000
Charger $74,398 $74,398
Charger Installation included in Supporting
Infrastructure contract
$62,500
Supporting Infrastructure (lump sum) $380,000 $325,000
Transformer $0 $50,000
*BEB unit cost reflects the price if purchased in 2021, but BEB prices are assumed to decrease 5% per year. In the LCCA model, this unit cost is adjusted to reflect this decrease based on the purchase year.

Table 3. 3 provides the key assumptions used to develop the start-up infrastructure costs for a BEB fleet. The number of total buses and charger needs are direct outputs from the Zero+ model. A BEB fleet would require additional buses beyond the diesel fleet to account for range restrictions, limited charging time, and travel to and from the SMRT depot for charging. As described above, the supporting infrastructure and transformer are lump sums incurred in each phase. 1 https:/ /www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/3977 /pdf
Table 3.3: Capital Infrastructure Unit Costs by BEB Transition Phase (2021 $) PHASE I PHASE 2
Total Buses 7 21
Chargers 4 10
Supporting Infrastructure 1 1
Transformer 1 1
hdrinc.com
22 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study For a continued diesel fleet scenario, there are no start-up infrastructure needs or costs. The only capital costs are for buses when the existing diesel buses reach the end of their useful life. Per a recent SMRT contract, it was assumed that diesel buses cost $0.5 million each, and the fleet would remain at 24 buses over the analysis period.

Using the capital infrastructure unit cost assumptions in Table 3. 2, the infrastructure needs assumptions in Table 3. 3, and other assumptions described above, the total capital costs for the diesel scenario and transition scenario over the 2021 through 2032 transition period are summarized in Table 3.4. The diesel scenario will have $12.5 million in capital costs, consisting entirely of diesel bus replacements, and the transition scenario will have $19.6 million in capital costs across buses, chargers, and other start-up infrastructure needs.

Table 3.4: Capital Infrastructure Cost Estimates – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands)

DIESEL SCENARIO TRANSITION SCENARIO
Buses $12,446.2 $17,152.3
Chargers $0.0 $1,041.6
Charger Installation $0.0 $625.0
Supporting Infrastructure $0.0 $705.0
Transformer $0.0 $50.0
Total Capital $12,446.2 $19,573.8

3.3 Diesel Fuel and Electricity Costs Comparison
Diesel costs were calculated using the total miles estimate from Zero+, SMRT’s current fleet-wide fuel efficiency of 5.3 miles per gallon, and SMRT’s historical fuel prices ranging from $2.30 per gallon to $2.98 per gallon.

Using these assumptions, the fuel cost for a fully diesel fleet would be approximately $0.4 million per year under the $2.30 per gallon rate and approximately $0.5 million per year under the $2.98 per gallon rate. In the transition scenario, these costs are scaled down over time by total miles (revenue and non-revenue) driven by diesel buses as more BEBs are phased into operation.

Table 3. 5 shows electricity needs by weekday and weekend for a fully BEB fleet with charging stations provided at the SMRT garage on Fairway Drive. In total, a BEB fleet’s energy needs would cost nearly $360,000 per year, which is a function of both daily consumption charges and peak demand charges that are incurred on a monthly basis. In the transition scenario, these electricity costs are phased in as more BEBs come into service.

Table 3.5: Energy Demand Cost Assumptions and Annual Cost Estimate

WEEKDAY WEEKEND ANNUAL TOTAL
Daily Energy
Consumption (kWH) 6,121 2,475
BEB Charge ($/kWH)* $0.1844 $0.2075
Daily Cost $1,129 $513
Total Weekly Cost Subtotal $5,645 $1,027 $346,935
Monthly
Demand
Peak (kW) 500
Number of 50 kW Blocks +1 11
BEB ($/50 kW Block) $95.56
Monthly BEB Demand
Cost Subtotal
$1,051.16 $12,614
Total Annual Cost $359,549
*BEB Energy $/kWH are based on an average cost based on the time of use. The daily costs are calculated based on actual rates and consumption times.
hdrinc.com
23 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figure 3.1 summarizes the annual fuel and energy cost forecasts over the 2021 to 2032 transition period. The fuel cost reflects the low-end estimate of $2.30 per gallon. Based on the operating statistics and assumptions described in the prior section, in current year dollars, the electricity cost for a fully BEB fleet in 2032 will be less than the fuel cost for a fully diesel fleet.

Figure 3.1: Propulsion Cost, Transition Scenario (2021 to 2032) Tables 3.6 and 3.7 provide a comparison of total propulsion costs over the 2021 to 2032 transition period under the diesel scenario and the transition scenario. Table 3.6 reflects the low fuel cost estimate of $2.30 per gallon, while Table

3.7 reflects the high fuel cost estimate of $2.98 per gallon. As shown in the tables, the transition scenario has lower propulsion costs than the diesel scenario under both fuel cost estimates.

ELECTRICITY COSTS DIESEL COSTS TOTAL PROPULSION
COSTS
Diesel Scenario $0.0 $4,844.2 $4,844.2
Transition Scenario $2, 597.6 $1,997.6 $4,595.2
Table 3.6: Total Propulsion Costs – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands), Low Fuel Cost Estimate

ELECTRICITY COSTS DIESEL COSTS TOTAL PROPULSION
COSTS
Diesel Scenario $0.0 $6,276.4 $6,276.4
Transition Scenario $2, 597.6 $2,588.2 $5,185.8
Table 3.7: Total Propulsion Costs – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands), High Fuel Cost Estimate

3.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs Comparison
Operating and maintenance unit cost assumptions summarized in Table 3.8 and the operating statistics provided in Table

3.1 were used to derive annual cost estimates. The operating cost per total hour (revenue hour plus non-revenue hour) reflects agency-reported data from the National Transit Database (NTD) over the 2015 to 2019 period, inflated to 2021 dollars. Additionally, the operating cost per hour excludes fuel and lubricant costs since those are accounted for in the propulsion analysis. Finally, it was assumed that operating costs do not change with vehicle type; in other words, SMRT’s existing operators would provide the scheduled service at the same rate for diesel buses and BEBs. hdrinc.com
24 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Similarly, maintenance costs per total mile (revenue mile plus non-revenue mile) for diesel are from NTD over the same five-year period, escalated to 2021 dollars. The BEB maintenance cost per total mile includes a 3-cent decrease assumption compared to SMRT’s existing diesel bus cost per mile. This reduction reflects conversations with transit agencies (Los Angeles Metro and IndyGo) that have operated BEB vehicles and have analyzed the difference in BEB and diesel maintenance costs per mile. Finally, annual charger maintenance cost per unit reflects feedback from manufactures.

D I E S EL BEB
Operating Cost/Total Hour (excluding fuel and lubricants) $30.53 $30.53 Maintenance Cost/Total Mile $0.71 $0.68
Annual Charger Maintenance/Unit $1,550
Table 3.8: O&M Unit Costs
Using the unit cost assumptions and service statistic outputs from Zero+, single-year O&M cost estimates are provided in Table 3.9 for a fully diesel and fully BEB fleet. Due to the increase in non-revenue hours and miles in a BEB fleet, reflecting the need to swap buses due to charging capacity and the annual charger maintenance costs, the overall O&M cost for a BEB fleet is slightly higher than for a diesel fleet when propulsion costs are excluded.

OPERATING V EH I CL E

MAINTENANCE

CHARGER

MAINTENANCE

TOTAL O&M
(E XCLU D I N G

PROPULSION)
Fully Diesel Fleet $2,060.8 $660.8 $0.0 $2,721.6
Fully BEB Fleet $2,102.0 $650.3 $21.7 $2,774.0
Table 3.9: Operating Costs – Single Year Estimates (2021 $ in thousands) Using the transition plan, total O&M costs are presented in Table 3.10 over the 2021 to 2032 transition period. Excluding propulsion costs, the diesel scenario would have O&M costs over this period of $32.7 million, compared to $33.0 million for the transition scenario.

OPERATING V EH I CL E

MAINTENANCE

CHARGER

MAINTENANCE

TOTAL O&M
(E XCLU D I N G

PROPULSION)
Diesel Scenario $24,729.1 $7,929.7 $0.0 $32,658.8
Transition Scenario $24,968.7 $7,836. 5 $148.8 $32,954.0 Table 3.10: Operating Costs – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands))

3.5 Summary Cost Comparison
Combining the costs for propulsion, O&M, and capital, Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show the total costs for the diesel scenario and the transition scenario over the 2021 through 2032 transition period. Table 11 uses the low fuel cost estimate of $2.30 per gallon, and Table 3.12 uses the high fuel cost estimate of $2.98 per gallon. As shown in the tables, the transition scenario has an incremental cost of $7.2 million, or a 14 percent increase, over the diesel scenario when using the low fuel estimate, and an incremental cost of $6.3 million, or a 12 percent increase, over the diesel scenario when using the high fuel cost estimate.
hdrinc.com
25 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

3.6 Net Present Value and Payback Period Analysis
HDR conducted a net present value (NPV) and payback period analysis to compare the transition scenario to the diesel scenario under the two fuel cost estimates. This analysis included capital costs (vehicles and startup infrastructure) and O&M costs (operations, maintenance, and fuel) for the transition scenario relative to the existing diesel scenario. In other words, only the incremental cost savings and increases on an annual basis were included. All cost savings and increases over the 2021 to 2032 period are presented in 2021 dollars and discounted at five percent.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the upfront capital costs and slightly higher O&M costs of the BEB fleet can be overcome by annual propulsion savings. This analysis does not attempt to quantify external benefits, such as emissions reduction, and assumes no changes to ridership or service levels. The only benefit, or in this case a disbenefit, is the change in cost to the agency.

Additionally, the analysis assumes that some portion of the capital costs will be offset by grant funding and PG&E incentives, and therefore removes that same portion of costs from the NPV calculation. In other words, the analysis only looks at direct cost impacts to SMRT and does not attempt to quantify costs and benefits on a global scale. The PG&E incentives reflect the current contract between PG&E and SMRT, which shows rebates for BEBs of $5,085 per vehicle, for up to 25 vehicles, and rebates for chargers of 50 percent of the unit cost, or up to $25,000 per charger, for up to 4 chargers. These rebates are applied after external grant funding has been applied. In other words, the rebate for the chargers is 50 percent of the portion for which SMRT is directly responsible.

In a scenario where SMRT receives grant funding for 80 percent of all capital costs, the systemwide discounted NPV is -$1.1 million under the low fuel estimate and -$0.5 million under the high fuel estimate. The negative NPV reflects that the transition scenario cannot offset higher capital and O&M costs with lower propulsion costs within the analysis period, regardless of which fuel cost estimate is used. Therefore, there is no payback period in either case. Table 3.12 illustrates these findings.

DIESEL SCENARIO TRANSITION SCENARIO
Propulsion $4,844.2 $4,595.2
O&M $32,658.8 $32,954.0
Capital $12,446.2 $19,573.8
Total $49,949.2 $57,123.0
Table 3.11: Summary Cost Comparison – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands), Low Fuel Cost Estimate

DIESEL SCENARIO TRANSITION SCENARIO
Propulsion $6,276.4 $5,185.8
O&M $32,658.8 $32,954.0
Capital $12,446.2 $19,573.8
Total $51,381.4 $57,713.6
Table 3.12: Summary Cost Comparison – 2021 to 2032 (2021 $ in thousands), High Fuel Cost Estimate N P V
(DISCOUNTED AT 5%)

PAYBACK PERIOD
Transition Scenario (Low Fuel Estimate) -$1,122,937 N/A Transition Scenario (High Fuel Estimate) -$530,685 N/A
Table 3.12: Net Present Value and Payback Period, 2021 to 2032 (2021 $) hdrinc.com
26 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Sensitivity tests were conducted with discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent to test the lifecycle cost analysis’s sensitivity to this parameter. The results of these sensitivity tests can be found in the LCCA model (Section 3.1).

3.7 Post-Analysis Period Replacement Schedule
As discussed previously, this analysis covers the initial transition period from 2021 through 2032, when the last diesel bus is scheduled to be transitioned to BEB. Beyond this period, additional costs would be incurred for the replacement of assets, under both BEB and diesel fleet scenarios. Table 3.13 presents assumed lifespans for each asset.

Table 3.13: Capital Infrastructure Lifespan Assumptions

DIESEL BEB
Buses 12 years 12 years
Chargers* N/A 20 years
Supporting Infrastructure N/A 30+ years
Transformer N/A 30+ years
*Costs for both the charger and charger installation would be incurred again with each replacement cycle.

As noted in Table 3.13, buses have an expected lifespan of 12 years regardless of vehicle type. Chargers have an expected lifespan of 20 years, but SMRT may want to consider upgrading the chargers under the same replacement schedule as vehicles. Transformers and supporting infrastructure have longer lifespans of at least 30 years.

Using these assumptions, over the 2033 through 2040 period, SMRT would incur additional costs related to the replacement of either 16 diesel buses or 19 BEBs, plus other potential costs related to upgrading chargers if desired. hdrinc.com
27 4.1 O&M Considerations Introduction
The recommendations included in this section assume charging at the depot only; no consideration is made for in-route charging at stops or transit centers throughout the day. Although SMRT operates a mix of 30- to 40-foot vehicles, all vehicles moving forward are assumed to be 40-foot buses. Finally, all scenarios are analyzed with electric vehicles.

Some general design considerations are provided here. These considerations must be validated during detailed design to ensure proper inter-disciplinary coordination.

4.2 Shop and Repair Areas
Electrification of fleet buses results in some significant changes during facility planning. As BEBs currently in use with various agencies have similar maintenance schedules, repair bay ratios to number of fleet buses remain relatively unchanged. BEBs require very minimal service fluids, which affect the sizing of the Lube/Compressor Room. PM bays should also include Lower Level Work Area (LLWA) and Upper Level Work Platform (ULWP) to service and maintain both the underside and the rooftop components attached to the buses.

All shop and repair areas must be configured to have a minimum of 20 feet, 0 inches clear height, to ensure ample space for proper service and maintenance functionalities. Due to the need for servicing roof mounted equipment using ULWPs, lock-out/tag-out type of safety procedures and mechanisms are recommended for day-to-day activities. This must also be supplemented by overhead fall protection systems.

Other specialty shop requirements (e.g., Common Work Area, Tire Shop, Body Shop, electric repair, etc.) with stationary tools and equipment are similar to that of diesel/gasoline buses. A Battery Room may be required based on the size and quantity of battery necessary to be stored on site.

For any services related to the batteries, a dedicated repair bay must be allocated. During the actual repair, an arc flash hazard zone must be identified with either portable bollards or safety cones. Full-body personal protective equipment, including face shields, shall also be required while handling any such related activities.

Although it is not crucial to delineate repair bays for BEBs during general service/repair, it is recommended to locate the bays adjacent to each other. This allows for the potential installation of a limited amount of charging equipment, which can charge the buses during services, prior to being returned to exterior charging areas to finish the charge cycle. This also minimizes the possibility of a complete possible loss of battery power.

4.2 Exterior Areas and Parking Areas
Area must be designated onsite for charging infrastructure while maintaining proper clearances. Virtually all charging infrastructure components require forklift access while needing to be located near the service entrance for the site. This equipment must also be located within close proximity of the bus parking area, as the parking area is where the overnight charging will take place. All such requirements are defined by the charging equipment manufacturer and local codes and regulations (as applicable).

While the size for individual bus parking spaces remains the same as for diesel buses, it is recommended to provide additional space between a pair of lanes to allow for the installation of the surface mounted charging station (or construction of overhead structure for overhead charge dispensers, if implemented at a future date). A rule of thumb for 04 - Facility and
O&M Considerations

hdrinc.com
28 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study this additional space is roughly six to eight feet. Charge dispensers must be located on either side of parking spaces, and dispenser cables must be long enough to provide maximum flexibility. It is also possible for two charging positions to share the same dispensers.

Vehicle parking layout should match charger configuration; for example, when using equipment that can charge two vehicles per dispenser, each row of vehicles should have an even number of parking spaces. When parallel parking buses along fence lines, vehicles should ideally have charging ports on multiple corners (front and back) so chargers can be shared.

Protection of charging equipment is imperative and can be achieved by installing dedicated protective equipment such as bollards and providing ample signage and striping to warn bus operators visually and audibly. Bollards must be sized accordingly and placed around both the charging equipment itself and any columns or similar structures supporting overhead dispensers. In order to ensure personnel safety, cable management is also important.

Additionally, space must be allocated on site for an emergency generator. Estimating the exact capacity of an emergency generator can be challenging, as it is primarily affected by the repair services necessary in the event of an emergency and the duration for which the generator must provide power. However, the need for backup power can be mitigated by various measures, most notably PV solar panels and means of on site energy storage.

4.3 Training Considerations
Making the transition to zero emission bus technology involves more than simply buying new buses. Training is required to see that staff can operate and maintain these vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. Training must also meet any applicable regulatory requirements, such as the Driver Proficiency requirements of California 13 CCR § 1229. SMRT has chosen BEBs as the preferred ZEB technology. These vehicles have unique components and support equipment that are significantly different than diesel or CNG buses. Training will be needed for both SMRT internal staff, as well as external parties who may interact with SMRT’s operations. Proper training is crucial for implementing a smooth, safe transition to these vehicle technologies.

4.3.1 Training Strategy
Trained and skilled BEB mechanics are not readily available on the job market due to the newness of the technology. It is difficult to hire maintenance staff that already have the required skills for making a transition, and instead each agency will need to develop a strategy for training their existing maintenance staff and any new staff that they hire. Additional training is also required for most other staff, including drivers, dispatchers, supervisors, and many other roles within the organization. The strategy outlined here is based on the lessons learned from agencies that have already begun this transition.

Making the transition
to zero emission bus
technology involves
more than simply buying
new buses. Training is
required to see that staff
can operate and maintain
these vehicles in a safe
and efficient manner.
hdrinc.com
29 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study The primary source of training initially will be the vehicle and charger original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), along with their subcomponent suppliers. These equipment providers have already developed training programs to assist with the deployment of these new types of vehicles. The learning curve for BEB technology is steep, but it flattens as an agency gains experience and practice. Training from the OEM and subcomponent suppliers should be leveraged early on with the goal of building internal training programs in the long run. OEM training is great for understanding the theory and technical specifications for these buses, but training based on actual experience in maintenance and operations will be more applicable to a specific deployment.

Both academic and hands-on training are needed, but hands-on training is best for most topics and should be used whenever possible. This allows for an apprenticeship model, where mechanics can learn from an expert. The details of the training that are required from the OEM should be included as a part of the vehicle procurement process and made a part of the RFP and contract, and should cover training hours, aids, materials, special tools, and diagnostic equipment.

Along with leveraging both internal and external training, it will also be important to have a strategy for tracking training progress. This system will be a valuable resource for documenting which employees have completed what training, tracking the overall training progress at the individual and group level, and identifying gaps in the skillset across the organization. Training should also be repeated as often as needed, such as quarterly, to maintain proficiency for existing staff and on-boarding new staff.

4.3.2 Training Groups
Among the groups of people who require training are drivers, mechanics, and operations staff, as well as external parties.

Each group has a unique set of training needs that must be addressed. Some topics, such as high-voltage safety, will be required by all groups, but other topics will be specific to only a subset of staff. The transition to BEBs is more difficult for mechanics than it is for other staff, and more training will be required for this group than for any other.

One external group that will require special training for BEBs are first responders. BEBs present a unique set of hazards and require a response from emergency personnel that is different than for diesel buses. The vehicle OEM should be responsible for training first responders as a part of the vehicle procurement contract.

Another external group that must be considered is the towing operator. The process of towing a BEB is not the same as towing a diesel vehicle. There are certain steps that must be taken for both the safety of the tow truck driver as well as the safety of the vehicle. As soon as BEBs are delivered, training should be scheduled with the vehicle OEM and the towing operator so that a test tow can be performed.

4.3.3 Training Topics
Basic training courses for familiarization with the vehicles and high voltage safety will be required for all groups identified above. This will cover topics such as recognizing high voltage systems, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), lockout/tagout procedures, emergency cut-off switches, and emergency response plans. This training will only take a few hours, and it can be completed as just-in-time training as required.

Some of the components used in BEBs are the same as components used in diesel buses and will require the same type of training that already exists. These include the air system, mechanical brakes, power steering, axles, suspension, cooling system, low-voltage systems, controller area network (CAN), doors, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) equipment. Other components are new and will require a new set of training, including high voltage cables, high voltage junction boxes, high voltage battery energy storage systems (BESS), battery management systems (BMS), high voltage contactors, inverters, electric motors, and DC-DC converters. These new systems will require advanced training courses that will need to be completed by mechanics and supervisors. Maintenance staff will also need to be supplied with the proper diagnostic tools and equipment and trained in the use of these tools.

Drivers require training on how to efficiently operate the buses. They need to understand the difference between traditional mechanical brakes and regenerative braking, and how the brakes can feel different depending on the circumstances.
hdrinc.com
30 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Efficiency is also maximized when the optimal amount of acceleration and deceleration is used, and this must be balanced against keeping buses on schedule. Drivers must also be trained on the risks that come from operating a silent vehicle, including pedestrians and bicyclists that do not hear the vehicle coming or drivers not having the
familiar audible clue that the vehicle is running. SMRT may consider providing incentives to encourage safe and
efficient driving behaviors, in addition to the
provided training.

Operations staff and planners will need to understand
range limitations, seasonal impacts, and refueling/
recharging times. Staff needs to know the proper response to different indicator lights, and know which notifications require immediate attention and which are informational or for diagnostics. The concept of state-of-charge (SOC) in place of fuel level must also be understood so operators, dispatchers, and schedulers can make the right decisions based on the SOC level.

Chargers have their own set of training requirements in addition to the vehicles. This includes service, diagnostic, and repair training for maintenance personnel. Anyone responsible for vehicle charging (e.g., drivers, attendants) will also need training on the proper operation of the charger and the steps to connect and disconnect the charger and the vehicle.

Different types of charging equipment which may be deployed in future (e.g., pantographs vs. plug-in, depot vs. in-route charging) will require additional training.

The training required for external parties will be less intensive but is still very important. Emergency response training should be coordinated with SMRT; this will provide the responders an opportunity to see the facility and understand the entrances, exits and door clearances, and the maintenance staff can learn from the responders on the proper course of action in case of an injury or other emergency.

4.3.4 Training Timing
Training needs to be completed before the new vehicles are deployed. Some training items may be scheduled just in time when vehicles are delivered. Introductory safety training, for example, will typically be less than an hour long and can be easily scheduled and performed on an as needed basis. However, other training that has a longer time period will need to be planned in advance of vehicle arrivals. For mechanics, it can be useful to train on the high-voltage and drivetrain systems of diesel hybrid buses if possible. These share several components with BEBs and can provide a training platform before BEBs are available. Anything that allows for the initial training to be completed before the delivery of vehicles will accelerate your deployment timeline.

BEB training will need to be a continuous and on-going part of your normal operations. In addition to the initial orientation and safety training, special training may be needed for maintenance that occurs at different time periods including monthly, quarterly, annually, and even less frequent preventative maintenance. It is best for personnel to have recently completed the training they will need when they undertake these less frequent operations for the first time. You should consider procuring an OEM service representative on-site for the first 30 days of vehicle deployment and as needed after that.

The size of your training program should also be scaled to match the size of your BEB deployment. A small deployment may need fewer trained staff initially. The number of trained staff can be increased as the additional BEBs are purchased.

This provides the opportunity for those involved in the first round of training to become internal experts and develop customized training programs that are specific to your agency that can be used for training the rest of the staff. The timing and ramp-up of training should correlate with the timing and ramp-up of your BEB deployment. hdrinc.com
31 5.1 Solar and Battery Energy Storage Introduction
The purpose of this section is to analyze the potential benefits and technological/economic feasibility of installing a solar PV array and/or a BESS at the SMRT bus depot, in conjunction with the battery electric bus fleet under consideration.

All of the battery electric bus charging will occur at this depot; thus, it is the only option for solar and BESS at this time.

The information presented in this section is informational in nature; SMRT has no current plans to install solar or BESS systems, but may consider future upgrades depending on cost, timing, and facility space considerations.

5.2 Depot Electrical Consumption
Estimated electrical consumption from bus charging will vary between weekdays and weekends with the typical consumption being approximately 6,100 kWh per day on weekdays and 2,500 kWh per day on weekends. The electrical consumption by time of the week is shown in Figure 5.1. 05 - Depot Renewable
Energy and Battery Energy
Storage Analysis

Figure 5.1: Weekday/Weekend Consumption Bar Chart (source: Zero+) hdrinc.com
32 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Due to the nature of bus operations, the bus routes vary in time and distance resulting in a varying charging schedule.

Based on the assumed quantity and size of bus chargers, the projected weekday charging load profile is shown in Figure

5.2, and projected weekend charging load profile is shown in Figure 5.3 .

Figure 5.2: Weekday Projected Charging Load Profile
Figure 5.3: Weekend Projected Charging Load Profile
hdrinc.com
33 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study At the time of this analysis, facility building load data was not provided and thus is not included in this feasibility study. It should be noted that typically the bus charging load is significantly larger than the facility load and therefore may require upgrades to the utility distribution system to account for the load increase. Accounting for the facility load on top of the charging load may also alter the results of the solar and BESS analysis.

5.3 Solar Energy Feasibility Study
A high-level solar feasibility study was performed utilizing Helioscope, a commercially-available solar PV modeling software tool, to estimate potential solar array sizes that could be utilized to offset electrical loads at the depot. A canopy solar array over the bus parking areas was the main consideration due to limited facility roof space. Figures 5.4 and 5.5 illustrate the use of this tool. Due to the limited scope of this evaluation and available information, broad assumptions were made for this study to model the technical and cost characteristics of a “typical” solar PV canopy. Further investigation would be required to evaluate the solar generation possibilities at the SMRT depot in detail.

Traditionally, rooftop solar installations have been a popular choice for electricity end-users, but solar canopy structures over bus parking/charging areas are viable options to maximize the space. The steel structures required to support the canopies drive up the cost of this installation; however, if an overhead bus charger system is used, then one structure can support both charging infrastructure and a solar array. If structural costs are allocated to charging, the cost of adding solar is more akin to a rooftop system. A solar canopy could also benefit from the use of bi-facial solar modules to improve energy production. These modules absorb energy from light that is reflected up from underneath (in addition to direct sunlight on the top), which increases the energy produced per a given area. For this analysis a solar canopy for phase one of the project was analyzed in addition to an array for all phases.

Estimates of potentially viable solar canopy layouts are shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. The estimated solar capacity of the phase 1 canopy is approximately 100 kW AC, with 145,000 kWh of annual energy production. The full phase solar array shows a solar capacity of 217 kW AC and annual energy production of approximately 411,000 kWh. Solar capacity and annual energy production are expected to increase with the use of higher power modules in addition to a favorable load ratio.

Figure 5.4: Phase 1 Helioscope Image Figure5. 5: Full Phase Helioscope Image hdrinc.com
34 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

5.4 Solar Generation and Facility Consumption
Based on the assumptions and estimates outlined in section 5.3, total solar generation capacity was evaluated in comparison to the estimated building and projected charging loads. Helioscope was utilized to simulate the solar array performance on an hourly basis. This simulated solar power profile was then modeled alongside the estimated charging loads of each site over a 25-year period to project total energy usage, capital and operating costs, utility bill savings, renewable fraction, and many other statistics.

In order to estimate the energy supply cost to the facilities and bus chargers, several PG&E tariff structures were evaluated in the model:
• B-19-TOU-NEM1 – This rate structure is a time-of-use (TOU) rate that has different charges depending on when the electricity is consumed during the day. PG&E utilizes a higher rate during the middle of the day, when the grid is most heavily used, a slightly lower rate during non-peak times, and an even lower rate during the night, when grid demand is minimal. This rate is for a medium-sized peak demand (over 499 kW), as this matches the projected loading for these depots, including the projected bus charging.
• B-19-TOU-R-NEM1 – This rate structure is similar to the previous rate, but it also includes an option for solar generation, which should be included in the event that solar generation is installed at the facility. The solar option is only available if the PV system provides 15 percent or more of the facility’s annual electricity. • BEV-2 – This rate structure is for Business Electric Vehicles for commercial EV charging usage. The BEV rate would only be applied to the vehicle charging through use of a separate utility meter.

There are also federal and state incentive programs that encourage the adoption of solar and battery energy storage by effectively discounting the capital cost of these technologies through tax credits or other means. Two incentives were assumed to be included in this analysis: the federal solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).

The ITC is a 26 percent federal tax credit applied to residential and commercial solar installations and is a proportion of the installed cost of the system. It is a “step-down” credit which will reduce to 22 percent beginning in 2023. The ITC can also be applied to an energy storage system, as long as the storage system is charged by an accompanying solar array (minimum 70 percent, pro-rated to 100 percent).

The SGIP is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and is a discount applied to the installed cost of a battery system on a dollar-per-Wh basis. The incentive amount varies depending on eligibility criteria and the size of the storage system. Currently, “Large-Scale Storage” systems installed in PG&E territory can receive $0.22/Wh if they are also receiving ITC credit. Both of these incentives were included in this analysis.

A techno-economic model was generated for each solar and utility tariff scenario using assumptions for cost and performance of typical commercial-scale solar and battery energy storage systems detailed in Appendix B. The results of each model are detailed in this section.

Figure 5.6 provides projections for three typical summer days of solar energy generated by panels installed over phase one bus parking at the SMRT depot. The figure shows that total generation will vary due to weather conditions.

Incorporating this solar generation profile into the charging load projections shows the potential charging load offset from solar installation. These profiles can be seen in Figure 5.7. Analysis of Figure 5.7 shows the projected solar generation (yellow) coinciding with some of the daytime charging load, resulting in reduced grid purchases (orange) during peak solar hours. There are some hours where very little load exists, and thus excess energy is exported back to PG&E and is net-metered to reduce the overall monthly energy usage. Although grid purchases are reduced during the day, the majority of charging load occurs during off-peak solar hours and thus most of the power for charging must by supplied by the utility.
hdrinc.com
35 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Figure 5.6: Three-Day Solar Projection
Figure 5.7: Solar and Charging Load Overlay

5.5 Battery Energy Storage Analysis
In addition to the solar generation analysis, the potential use-cases for a stationary battery energy storage system installed at the depot were also evaluated. BESSs are often considered in conjunction with battery electric buses as a means of managing demand to reduce charging costs, alleviate grid capacity constraints, shift solar energy to charging periods, and improve resiliency against power outages. This evaluation considered storage coupled with the solar array option described above. A wide range of BESS sizes was modeled, and the optimal size was chosen based on the minimal net present cost outcome over a 25-year period for the given modeling assumptions.

5.5.1 500 kW/2 MWh BESS, Canopy Solar
Under this scenario, a BESS with a power rating of 500 kW and an energy capacity of 2 MWh would be installed and connected to the canopy solar system and bus chargers described above. The original site power profile and solar generation remain the same as in the previous models. Figure 8 shows the BESS profile (in green) and the resultant grid purchases (orange) based on the B-19-TOU-NEM1 tariff. Since this tariff includes TOU rates, the evening energy charges are far greater than those during the off-peak, overnight hours, and super-off-peak morning hours. To counteract this, the BESS charges each day from a combination of excess solar energy and grid power during the super-off-peak pricing hdrinc.com
36 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study window (9:00 AM to 2:00 PM), and then discharges during the more expensive peak pricing window (4:00 PM to 9:00 PM). This effectively reduces the energy charges incurred in each month’s electric bill, gradually making up for the cost of the BESS. This effect is seen during both weekday and weekend operation, as shown in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 .

Figure 5.8: Weekday BESS Load Profile (Three days)
Figure 9: Weekend BESS Load Profile (Two days)

5.6 Solar and BESS Comparative Economic Analysis
Based on the modeled scenarios described in this section and the assumptions detailed in Appendix B , Table 5.1 summarizes the resulting economic outcomes, including capital expenditures (CapEx), operating cost, Net Present Cost (NPC), Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Note these cost metrics only include the solar PV and/or BESS equipment. Bus charging equipment costs are not included, nor are any costs associated with potential utility infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the bus charging load.

The baseline scenario represents no solar PV or BESS installation, whereby all bus charging load is supplied directly from the grid. Results for a canopy solar array only, a BESS only, and a combination of solar and BESS are also show in Table 5.1.
hdrinc.com
37 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study

BASELINE CANPOY
SOLAR

BESS C A N O PY
S O L A R +

B E S S
Solar PV Size (kWAC) 0 103 0 103
BESS Size (kW/kWh) 0 0 500/2,000 500/2,000
CapEx ($, 2021) $-- $278,208.00 $419,999.00 $698, 207.00 Operating Cost ($/yr) $370,901.54 $354,234.80 $289, 207.00 $272,905.30 Annual Utility Bill ($) $370,901.54 $353,204.43 240,943.36 $222,837.04 Utility Bill Savings ($/yr) $-- $17,697.12 $129,958.18 $148,064.51 NPC ($) $4,794,836.00 $4,857, 584.00 $4,158,726.00 $4,226,196.00 LCOE ($) $0.193 $0.189 $0.154 $0.156
IRR (%) N/A 3.40 22.60 14.70
Payback Period* (yrs) N/A N/A 3.76 8.32
Table 5.1: Solar and BESS Comparative Economic Analysis * Discounted
Based on these results, a stand-alone 500kW/2000kWh BESS provides the most favorable return on investment, followed by the combination of solar + BESS, then the baseline scenario, and lastly the solar-only scenario. Note that this analysis factors in California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) applied to the BESS along with the Federal solar ITC applied to the solar PV array. These incentive programs significantly reduce the capital expenditure of both systems. hdrinc.com
38 6.1 Conclusion Summary
This feasibility analysis lays out key considerations and establishes a path towards full fleet transition. The BEB Analysis shows that with current scheduling patterns, a one-to-one diesel to BEB transition may work on Day 1 of operation, but is not a feasible long-term solution due to battery degradation over time and other factors. With appropriate modifications, however, SMRT can transition from diesel to BEBs with minimal impact on fleet size.

The analysis shows that only three additional BEBs beyond the four already on order are required over the next two years, and then there are no additional vehicle replacements needed until 2027. This should provide ample time to implement facility upgrades, gain experience with BEB operation, design modified routes as required, and line up funding sources for the increased fleet size that will be required in future. A modified fleet replacement schedule allows for more evenly- distributed purchases over several years, avoiding major spikes in equipment needs. 06 - Conclusions

With appropriate
modifications, SMRT can
transition from diesel
to BEBs with minimal
impact on fleet size.
hdrinc.com
Appendix A
A-01
The purpose of this memo is to present a high-level concept for automated shuttle service between the Santa Maria Transit Center and Allan Hancock College (See map below). Currently, a dedicated multipurpose trail approximately two thirds of a mile in length connects these two destinations. The business case for automated shuttle service is supported by several factors:
• The distance between the destinations is beyond the typical walking distance to transit (usually considered to be a quarter to half a mile)
• The trail is closed to vehicular traffic, presenting an ideal operating environment for an automated shuttle • The anticipated demand and route length are likely too low to support the operating costs of traditional transit service • Automated shuttles travel at low speeds, creating a safe environment for cyclists and pedestrians to continue using the trail
Allan Hancock College
Automated Shuttle
Connector

Automated shuttles have been demonstrated throughout the world, with projects ranging from exclusive right of way to mixed traffic operations. Within the United States there are dozens of such deployments, with planned or completed projects in California including Contra Costa County and Treasure Island (San Francisco). Advances in fleet management software also enable dynamic headways on a fixed route, with fully demand responsive operations beyond a fixed route envisioned in the future.

A walkthrough of potential capital and operating costs are presented below along with sketch-level cost estimates for each, followed by a brief discussion of the pricing models offered by automated shuttle manufacturers and transit fleet management companies.
hdrinc.com
A-02
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Capital Costs
Right of Way and Intersection Improvements
Automated shuttles are capable of operating in mixed traffic but tend to operate slowly as they are programmed to react conservatively to potential conflicts. The use of exclusive right of way will improve service speed and quality.

The multipurpose trail currently extends from the transit center to College Drive. This project will likely require the extension of paved, dedicated pathway of approximately 1,100 feet from S. College Street to the end of the route on the Allan Hancock College campus. A range of $700K to $1.1M per mile has been used as an estimate for this construction.

Additionally, new curb cuts on College Drive will be required to provide shuttles access to the multipurpose path. An estimated cost range of $25K to $50K has been assumed.

College Road Intersection Control
The College Road crossing will pose a challenge to automated shuttles due to the number of lanes, the presence of a median, and lack of consistent breaks in traffic to allow the vehicle to cross. Further analysis will be required to determine the ideal intersection design. At a minimum, a new four-way stop will be required (estimated at $5K for new signs, stop bars, and installation). Should the intersection require a traffic signal, a cost estimate of $250K has been assumed.

Station and Wayfinding Improvements
The Santa Maria Transit Center can serve as the stop on one end; however a second stop will need to be constructed at Allan Hancock College. Infrastructure for this stop could range from signage to a high-quality covered station (assumed to cost $100K). To operate in a demand-responsive mode, riders will require some mechanism for summoning vehicles.

This could be done through an app provided by the vehicle vendor (free) or a kiosk at the Allan Hancock College stop (assumed to cost $10K).

Vehicle Storage and Charging Facility
Vehicles will require a charger near the route where they can be charged intermittently during the day and stored and charged overnight when not in use. This memo assumes that the Santa Maria Transit Center can serve this purpose either with a plug-in charger ($10K) or wireless charging ($125K). The advantage of wireless charging would be the ability for vehicles to position themselves to charge while waiting for passengers at the Santa Maria Transit Center, extending the daily range of the vehicle(s). Additional analysis will need to be conducted to determine the exact power demand for the route.
hdrinc.com
A-03
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Vehicles
The current generation of AV shuttles contain space for 8-15 passengers. Based on an assumed 20-minute round trip, a single vehicle could serve approximately 24-45 passengers per hour in each direction. Rightsizing the fleet based on demand is a key consideration. This memo assumes that one or two vehicles will be required, at an approximate cost of $400K each. Vendors sometimes lease vehicles at a cost of approximately $15K to $20K per month. Length of deployment alters the cost/benefit of purchasing vs. leasing vehicles.

Communications
As an additional form of situational awareness, AV shuttles require highly accurate position data to place themselves within their pre-programmed maps. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) base stations will be required along the route to help vehicles overcome minor signal deficiencies resulting from tall buildings and nearby topography. Given the length of the route, one base station is assumed at a cost of $20 to $30K.

Vehicle Commissioning
AV shuttles require the collection of high-definition mapping of the route as well as other one-time costs from the vendor associated with initiating service. This cost is estimated at $30K for the first vehicle and an additional $10K per vehicle after that. In addition to the commissioning performed by the vendor, both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) have approval processes for the operation of AV shuttles. NHTSA must grant new shuttle operations a low-speed exemption from certain federal regulations pertaining to vehicles, while the California DMV has established an application process for companies seeking to test or deploy AV technology with or without a driver on board.

Professional Services
Professional services to deploy an AV shuttle system may include such items as project management, public outreach and communications, engineering and detailed design, permitting and environmental approvals, vendor evaluation and selection, and construction oversight. These costs are estimated at 20% to 30% of all capital costs (less the cost of vehicles).

Summary of Capital Costs

COMPONENT CAPITAL COST (LOW) CAPITAL COST (HIGH)
Multi-Use Path $150,000 $230,000
Intersection Improvements $25,000 $50,000
College Road Intersection Control $5,000 $250,000
Station and Wayfinding $10,000 $110,000
Installation of EV Charger $10,000 $120,000
Vehicle Purchase Cost $400,000 $800,000
GNSS Base Station $20,000 $30,000
Vehicle Commissioning $30,000 $40,000
Professional Services $50,000 $250,000
Total Capital Costs $700,000 $1,880,000
hdrinc.com
A-04
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Operating Costs
There are two primary service models for AV shuttle companies:
• The sale of AVs directly to customers to operate themselves • The provision of a fully turn-key service in which the vendor partners with a transit operations company to take on responsibility for all aspects of their operation
This section assumes the former in presenting each line item, followed by a brief discussion of the potential cost for turn-key service.

Vehicle Operation and Insurance
At a minimum, staff time will be required to perform light cleaning and conduct a visual inspection of the shuttle to ensure that there are not any objects (leaves, cobwebs, etc.) that may affect the shuttle from operating optimally. Some AV shuttle deployments have also assumed an operator on board the shuttle to act as a liaison with passengers of the new service. The estimated cost range for staff time is $40K to $240K per year per vehicle based on the extent of operator involvement. Additionally, the insurance cost is assumed at $15K per year per vehicle.

Maintenance
Manufacturers of microshuttle vehicles typically offer a maintenance plan to buyers or lessees at a monthly cost.

This includes the repair or replacement of all hardware components and systems on the vehicle including the battery, cameras, LIDARs, motors, tires, etc. The assumed cost for this is $30K per year per vehicle.

Software Licensing
In many cases, manufactures of AV microshuttles require that the purchaser of the shuttles pay for a software license.

This license covers the current software that is initially deployed with the shuttle and any future enhancements or upgrades to the software on the shuttle. The estimated cost for this is $20K per year per vehicle.

Remote Monitoring
AV shuttle vendors typically remotely monitor the diagnostics and location of the shuttle at all times. The monitoring of the diagnostics of the shuttle would include the temperature inside of the vehicle, state of life of the battery, signal strength of the Wi-Fi and GPS antennae and the overall health of other components & systems. Additionally, AV shuttles include a safety button that allows for a passenger to hit in case of an emergency. This allows for the monitoring team to have voice and visual access to the vehicle to determine the nature of the emergency. The estimated cost for remote monitoring is assumed to be $20K per year per vehicle.

Vehicle Charging
The microshuttles are charged using either a traditional SAE Level 1 or Level 2 AC charger. Using a Level 1 AC charger, the microshuttle can be charge from a 10% state of charge (almost depleted) to a 90% state of charge (almost full) within 8 to 10 hours. Using a level 2 AC charger, the microshuttle can charge from a 10% state of charge to a 90% state of charge within 4 hours. An annual charging cost of $5K per year per vehicle is assumed. hdrinc.com
A-05
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Turn-Key Operation
As noted, AV shuttle vendors often partner with transit operators to offer turn-key service. The estimated cost for this is approximately $450K per year per vehicle. While this is more expensive than purchasing shuttles and self-operating them, it offers the benefits of quick deployment, lower risk for the agency, and the ability to overcome institutional and workforce technology barriers. Given the scale and duration of this project, leasing a vehicle is likely the most cost- effective option for the John Hancock College shuttle service.

Summary of Operating Costs

COMPONENT ANNUAL COST (LOW) ANNUAL COST (HIGH)
Vehicle Operation and Insurance $55,000 $510,000
Maintenance $30,000 $60,000
Software Licensing $20,000 $40,000
Remote Monitoring $20,000 $40,000
Vehicle Charging $5,000 $10,000
Total Annual Operating Costs $130,000 per year $660,000 per year hdrinc.com
Appendix B
B-01
Solar and BESS Model
Input Assumptions

Load Profile
• Bus charging load based on output of ZERO+ model
“Full Build-out” of 25 buses
• Anticipated bus charging load considered only, no
building loads or other site loads are modeled
• Bus charging load for weekdays and weekends is
consistent over project lifetime, with no diurnal or
seasonal variability, and no annual load escalation
Utility
• PG&E’s Business Electric Vehicles 2 (NEM 2) was
modeled (Tariff Code BEV-2-NEM2)
• 550 kW Subscription Block Size
• 0 kWh NEM Consumption prior to true up
• Secondary connection
• No Energy Surcharge Exemption
• 500 kW grid export limit
• No annual escalation was modeled
Solar PV
• Only the Phase 1 canopy was modeled
• Solar PV capacity and hourly energy production
generated by Helioscope based on site coordinates
• No annual degradation was modeled
• Installed cost: $3/WAC
• O&M cost: $10/kWAC per yr
• 10% ITC
BESS
• Generic” 4-hour Li-ion BESS cost and performance
assumptions were modeled
• 90% Round-trip Efficiency (DC)
• 95% Conversion Efficiency (each way)
• 10 year DC System Calendar Life
• 15 year Conversion System Calendar Life
• 2,000 Cycle through-put life until replacement of DC
system required
• Usable capacity is equivalent to nameplate capacity
until replacement (oversizing assumed)
• DC System Installed cost: $408/kWh
• DC System Replacement cost: $159/kWh
• Conversion System Installed cost: $156/kW
• Conversion System Replacement cost: $73/kW
• O&M cost: $4.4/kW per yr
• SGIP for Large Storage, Step 3, No ITC ($300/kWh,
max $5,000,000, Credit is taxable, marginal tax rate
21%)
Project Economics
• Nominal Discount Rate: 8%
• Expected Inflation Rate: 2%
• Project Lifetime: 25 years
hdrinc.com

City of Santa Maria
State of The Industry Analysis
For Zero Emission Bus Rollout Plan

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 17, 2018 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) fleet regulation. The ICT requires that all public transit agencies convert to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040. This regulation is aimed at tackling the issues associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change.

The City of Santa Maria (City) has long been an early adopter of environmentally conscious policies , often pursuing technologies that support and are in line with these adopted goals. ZE B technology is at the forefront of advancements in transportation and are assumed to have the greatest outcome in reducing GHG related emissions.

Current approved options for ZEBs under the ICT reg ulation include battery electric buses (BEB) or (hydrogen) fuel cell buses (FCEB); each type with their respective strengths and challenges.

A one -for-one replacement of existing diesel buses with ZEBs would seem the most obvious transition plan.

However, given Federal Transit Administration (FTA) asset disposition rules, uncertainties with the burgeoning ZEB industry, the limited range capabilities of today’s ZEBs and other operational challenges; it is recommended for the City to meet the ICT regulation by commencing fleet expansion using ZEB technology and then retire the existing diesel fleet into a contingency fleet. Early adoption of ZEBs, in advance of ICT regulation deadlines, will also help the City throughout the process by virtue of qualifying for ICT offered “bonus credits.” Conventional wisdom is that transit facility infrastructure will need to be figured out in advance of any ZEB purchase and delivery. Given construction costs, the time to secure related funding, the potential for construction delays, transit agencies will need to start much earlier than January 1, 2026 in order to meet an initial ICT deadline. The City is currently working with an on -call Architect & Engineering firm to develop transit facility upgrade plans that consider ZEB vehicles, c harging infrastructure requirements, and fleet expansion needs. Further, the City is in communication with energy ( utility) suppliers to take advantage of their no -cost electric infrastructure upgrade programs.

While brand continuity is important in any product or service delivery, highlighting the latest innovations can also create a larger market appeal. A branding scheme will highlight ZEB technology ( e.g., “Zero-Emission Bus” in large font), which could help further motivate and entice choice riders and those on the fringe of such decisions, potentially growing transit ridership.

Reflectively, because ZEB propulsion technology is still widely considered to be in development and not at full maturity, this plan remains a living document and will evolve and mature alongside developing ZEB technology and the various supplement plans necessary to carry out the transition . Rather than prescribing a narrow path, this report represents a concerted effort to create the broadest opportunity for success to meet the ICT regulation.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 3

2 CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Background - California Air Resource Board ICT Regulation ................................................................. 6

4.1 Other Vehicle Types ...................................................................................................................... 7 5 Required Rollout Plan ........................................................................................................................... 7 6 Joint Zero-Emission Bus Groups ............................................................................................................ 8 7 Early Credits Toward Achieving ICT Fleet Regulations .......................................................................... 9 8 Implementation Goals, Process and Further Strategies ..................................................................... 10

8.1 Diesel vs. ZEB............................................................................................................................... 10

8.2 Transition Plan- Existing Fleet ..................................................................................................... 10

8.3 Fleet Expansion ........................................................................................................................... 12

8.3.1 FTA - Spare Ratio ................................................................................................................. 12

8.4 Mitigating Risk – “An Insurance Policy” ...................................................................................... 13

8.4.1 FTA - Contingency Fleet ...................................................................................................... 14

8.5 Mid-Life Bus Rehabilitation of Existing Diesel Fleet .................................................................... 14 9 Battery and Fuel Cell Electric buses .................................................................................................... 15

9.1 (Hydrogen) Fuel Cell Electric Bus (FCEB) ..................................................................................... 15

9.2 Battery Electric Bus (BEB) ........................................................................................................... 15

9.3 Electric vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell .................................................................................................... 16 10 Marketing, Branding and Livery Opportunity ................................................................................. 16 11 Deployment of ZEBs in Disadvantaged Communities ..................................................................... 17 12 Facility Upgrade and ZEB Readiness ............................................................................................... 18

12.1 Transit Operations & Maintenance ............................................................................................ 18

12.2 Downtown Transit Center - Opportunity Charging ..................................................................... 19

12.2.1 Overhead, Inductive and Plug-In Charging ......................................................................... 19

12.3 Charging Levels and Capabilities ................................................................................................. 20 13 S
takeholders ................................................................................................................................... 21

13.1 Operations & Maintenance Contractor ...................................................................................... 21

13.2 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) ...................................................................................................... 21

13.3 Monterey Bay Community Power ............................................................................................... 22

13.4 State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) .................................................. 22 State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 4

13.5 Electric Chargers Vendors ........................................................................................................... 23

13.6 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) .......................................................................................... 23

13.7 3rd Party Off-site Fuel Vendors .................................................................................................... 24

13.8 Santa Barbara Council of Governments (SBCAG) ....................................................................... 24

13.9 other area Transit Agencies ........................................................................................................ 24 14 Deployment and Training ............................................................................................................... 25 15 Costs and Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 25 The transition to ZEB’s will likely not be an inexpensive one, initially. Although the City is seeking to take advantage of no-cost and affordable programs, like any other transformative project, there are initial and potentially ongoing costs. Even beyond any potential infrastructure costs, ZEB’s are more expensive than traditional diesel buses. ................................................................................................. 25

15.1 Operational and Life-time Costs ................................................................................................. 25

15.2 Incentive and Financial Assistance Programs ............................................................................. 27

15.3 Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) .............................. 27

15.4 Volkswagen Settlement (VW) ..................................................................................................... 27

15.5 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) ........ 28

15.6 Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) .......................................................................................................... 28

15.7 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) ...................................................................... 29

15.8 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)...................................................................... 29

15.9 Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) .............................................................................................. 30

15.10 Air Pollution Control District (APCD) ........................................................................................... 30

15.11 CA Assembly Bill (AB) 617 ........................................................................................................... 30

15.12 USDOT Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................... 30

15.13 FY19 BUILD (formally known as TIGER) ....................................................................................... 30

15.14 Fund Balance ................................................................................................................................ 31 16 Procurement ................................................................................................................................... 31

16.1 Purchase vs. Lease ...................................................................................................................... 31 17 Alternative Zero Emission Mobility Program Credits ...................................................................... 32

17.1.1 City’s Active Transportation Plan ........................................................................................ 33 18 Impacts, Considerations and Conclusion ........................................................................................ 33

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 5

3 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Maria (City) is located in the Central Coast region of California, halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. As the largest city in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria is home to governmental, medical, economic, and educational hub for other cities in the in norther Santa Barbara County. The City has a population of roughly 109,217 (Source: 20120 Census) with an estimated additional population of 20,000 residents in its public transit service area.

Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) is the local fixed-route public transit system for the City, operating directly out of the City’s Public Works Department. As of J anuary 2021, SMRT operates 12 fixed routes, in a hub- and-spoke model, within the 34 square miles of the City limits and adjoining unincorporated communities of Tanglewood and Orcutt. SMRT operates Monday through Friday approximately from 6 am to 8:30 pm and Saturday and Sunday from 8 am to 6 pm.

SMRT ridership demographics reflect a broad cross section of the public. These including Seniors, Persons with Disabilities , Socially or Economic Transit Dependent, K -12 Students, College Students, Working Professionals, Visitors and other Choice Riders . Trips are often taken for employment, medical, educational, commercial and social engagements, making the City’s publi c transit system a vital lifeline service for many in the community.

SMRT is subject to several organizational authorities and their respective policies. The City Council is the legislative authority which sets the policies under which the City’s programs operate. The City Council has the power to adopt ordinances , resolutions, plans, establish policies, approve programs, establish fees, appropriate funds, adopt budgets and approve contracts.

Further, like other public transit systems, SMRT is state and federally subsidized. The US Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the State of California’s Transit Development Act (TDA) contribute funding to the City’s transit program. SMRT is therefore subject to the rules , regulations and policies of these stakeholders as well. The transit program must therefore reconcile local, regional, state and federal rules when implementing its program.

Another major stakeholder of the City’s t ransit system are the people it serves. The public has direct access to participating in the improvements and management of SMRT services. By direction of the City Council, the Mass Transit Committee (MTC) provides t hem input on matters related to transit. The committee is an advisory body comprised of citizen volunteers. Their purpose is to gather input and represent the general public on matters of setting priorities and to provide feedback during the planning processes. MTC advisory body includes representation from: Senior, Disabled, Technical, University, Student and At-Large community members.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 6

4 BACKGROUND - CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCE BOARD ICT REGULATION On December 17, 2018 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) fleet rule. The ICT regulation requires that all public transit agencies operating in the State of California convert to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040, with intermittent deadlines in between. This regulation is aimed at tackling the issues associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its contribution to climate change; transportation being a significant contributor to GHG emissions. “Conversion to a Zero-Emission Bus” means converting from a conventional internal combustion engine bus to a zero -emission bus as defined in section 2023(b)( 54) of the regulation. "Zero -Emission Bus” or “ZEB” means a bus with zero tailpipe emissions. Accordingly, diesel, clean diesel, compress natural gas, propane or any other fossil fuel and nonrenewable fuel type, including hybrids, do not qualify as a zero- emission bus because of their tail pipe emissions and therefore do not meet the ICT regulation.

The requirements for the transition from fossil fueled buses to ZEB’s differ for large and small transit agencies. Larger transit agencies have more imminent deadlines for complying with ICT regulations. Per the rule, commencing on or before January 1, 2024, no less than 25% of large transit agencies vehicle procurements will need to be ZEB technology , with similar and more aggressive percentage purchase requirements thereafter (see table below).

The ZEB purchase requirements for small transit agencies – such as in the case for San Luis Obispo – go into effect soon after. In the case of small transit agencies, on or before January 1, 2026 no less than 25% of the San Luis Obispo transit fleet procurements will need to be ZEB technology. Similarly, incremental conversion of the transit fleet will also need to continue thereafter (see table below).

By 2029, both small and large transit agency procurements will need to be 100% ZEB technology to meet the 2040 ICT deadline. More information about the ICT regulation can be found under: Innovative Clean Transit regulations, Title 13, Article 4.3, California Code of Regulations.

Given the definition for zero -emission vehicles , current approved options for ZEBs under the ICT regulation include battery electric bus or (hydrogen ) fuel cell electric buses. Therefore, the only approved path in vehicle procurement types, towards meeting the ICT regulation, include procuring one of these two options. A greater explanation about the each of these two types of vehicles is provided under Section 10: Battery And Fuel Cell Buses section of this report.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 7

4.1 OTHER VEHICLE TYPES
At this time, the ICT regulation is specifically focus on the transition of traditional heavy-duty transit buses, ranging in 30 to 45 feet in length. However, p urchases of “ other vehicles types” such as cutaways, over-the-road coaches, double-deckers, or articulated buses are still subject to the zero - emission bus purchase requirements as specified in section 2023.1(a) but at a later date. However, if on or after January 1, 2026, if one of these other type vehicles has also passed the bus testing procedure and obtained a Bus Testing Report (referred to as Altoona testing)) for a given weight class, vehicles in the City’s transit fleet of those types will also have to transition to ZEB technology.

Given that technologies for these other vehicle types is still pending, this report will focus on transitioning conventional heavy-duty vehicles to approved ZEB solutions and in time to meet the most pertinent ICT regulation deadline. Nevertheless, the crux of this plan can still be used for the eventual transition of these other vehicle types once that technology has matured. 5 REQUIRED ROLLOUT PLAN
As part of the ICT regulation, a Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan is required of every transit agency. A small transit agency must submit a Zero -Emission Bus Rollout Plan (Rollout Plan) , which meets specific requirements, to their Executive Officer for approval/adoption by July 1, 2023.

Rollout Plans must include all the following components per the ICT regulation:

1. A goal of full transition to zero-emission buses by 2040 with careful planning that avoids early retirement of conventional internal combustion engine buses;

2. Identification of the types of zero -emission bus technologies a transit agency is planning to deploy, such as battery electric or fuel cell electric bus;

3. A schedule for construction of facilities and infrastructure modifications or upgrades, including charging, fueling, and maintenance facilities, to deploy and maintain zero-emission buses. This schedule must specify the general location of each facility, type of infrastructure, service capacity of infrastructure, and a timeline for construction;

4. A schedule for zero-emission and conventional internal combustion engine bus purchases and lease options. This schedule for bus purchases must identify the bus types, fuel types, and number of buses;

5. A description on how a transit agency plans to deploy zero -emission buses in disadvantaged communities as listed in the latest version of CalEnviroScreen (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen)

6. A training plan and schedule for zero -emission bus operators and maintenance and repair staff; and

7. Identification of potential funding sources.

Transit agencies that are collectively complying by forming a Joint Zero-Emission Bus Group, as set forth in section 2023.2, may submit one joint Rollout Plan in lieu of an individual transit agency. This approach will be elaborated upon further in Section 6: Joint Zero Emission Bus Groups, section of this plan.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 8

6 JOINT ZERO-EMISSION BUS GROUPS
An additional option for Transit agencies complying with the Roll Out Plan part of the ICT group includes creating a Joint ZEB Group. Two or more transit agencies may choose to form a Joint Zero -Emission Bus Group (Joint Group) to comply with the requirements of section 2023.1 collectively. All participating transit agencies must be located within either:
• The same service area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization or Regional Transportation Planning Organization;
• Same Air Basin;
• The same Air Quality Management District,
• Air Pollution Control District,
• Air Resources District; or,
• All participating transit agencies plan to share infrastructure.

6.1 Procedure to form a Joint Group
A group of transit agencies forming a Joint Group must provide the Executive Officer a notice at least one year before the Joint Group takes effect. The notice must include all of the following information:

1. A list of all participating transit agencies;

2. A statement of intent to form th e Joint Group from a responsible official for each participating transit agency;

3. The proposed start year and if known the end date of the Joint Group;

4. A description on which criteria specified in section 2023.2(a) are met to form a Joint Group.

The Executive Officer can approve the joint agreement if,

1. At least one of the criteria set forth in section 2023.2(a) has been met, and

2. The notice required by section 2023.2(b)(1) has been provided.

3. The Executive Officer will assign a Joint Group Number to the group to be used by each participating transit agency for the purpose of annual reporting as specified in section 2023.8. (c) Joint Group Compliance Requirements.

Once formed, members of a Joint Group may collectively submit one joint Rollout Plan in lieu of individual transit agency Rollout Plans, along with the approval from each transit agency’s governing body as set forth in section 2023.1(d)(3). Subject to section 2023.3(c), members of a Joint Group must collectively purchase and operate at l east the same total number of zero -emission buses annually as each transit agency would be required to purchase and operate individually as set forth in section 2023.1(a).

A Joint Group that is requesting a deferral from zero-emission bus purchase requirements as described in section 2023.4 must explain why the compliance requirements cannot be met by each member of the Joint Group. If a Joint Group fails to comply with the zero-emission bus requirements set forth in section 2023.1 in a given year, each transit agency will be evaluated for compliance individually. If the largest transit agency in a Joint Group is a large transit agency, this transit agency must have the required State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 9

minimum number of zero-emission buses as a percentage of its total new bus purchases in that calendar year as set forth in section 2023.1(a).

In case of a change in membership, all participating transit agencies, including the new or departing transit agency, must collectively submit a request to change membership to the Executive Officer explaining the change and its expected effective date. The member change request must be signed by the responsible official of each participating transit agency, including the new or departing transit agency, and must be submitted to the Executive Officer along with the governing body approval of each participating transit agency, for such a change. All transit agencies participating in a Joint Group must individually meet the reporting and record-keeping requirements of sections 2023.8 and 2023.9.

This option of participating in a Joint Zero Emission Bus Group could offer the City strategic benefits.

Notably, if one transit agency in such a group is more ready to deploy ZEB vehicles than the other(s), the entire group benefits regardless of which agency makes the advancement. This could also help transit agencies when regional funds are limited, and it becomes difficult to fund more than one agency that wants to deploy the more expensive ZEB solutions. This way, funding support does not create winning or losing agencies. Given the criteria and requirements for determining qualifying participating agencies for forming such a group, it could be beneficial for SMRT to develop and exercise a Joint ZEB Group with other area transit agencies such as: SLO RTA, Santa Maria Transit, Monterey Salinas Transit and perhaps others associated with the City, as set forth by the approved criteria for a joint group. 7 EARLY CREDITS TOWARD ACHIEVING ICT FLEET REGULATIONS
Another strategy towards meeting ICT fleet regulation is by starting the transition to ZEBs early. Transit agencies with purchases made in advance of the requirement dates will be credited towards their percentage requirements for ZEBs. A transit agency will also earn Zero-Emission Bus Bonus Credits (Bonus Credits) for each early acquisition of a zero-emission bus as determined based on the following criteria:

1. Each fuel cell electric bus that was in the fleet as of January 1, 2018 receives two Bonus Credits;

2. Each fuel cell electric bus placed in service between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022 receives one Bonus Credit;

3. Each battery electric bus that was in the fleet as of January 1, 2018 receives one Bonus Credit;

4. Each electric trolleybus placed in service between January 1, 2018, and D ecember 31, 2019, receives one-tenth of a Bonus Credit that will expire by December 31, 2024.

Unless as specified in section 2023.3(a)(4), transit agencies that have Bonus Credits can use them in any subsequent year until December 31, 2028 to meet the required minimum number of zero-emission buses as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4). Each Bonus Credit may only be used once to meet the zero-emission bus purchase requirements set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4). All Bonus Credits will expire on December 31, 2028, which is when the one hundred percent zero -emission bus purchase requirement begins. A Bonus Credit cannot be transferred to another transit agency but may be used by transit agencies participating in a Joint Group to comply with zero-emission bus purchase requirements collectively as set forth in section 2023.2(c)(2).

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 10

8 IMPLEMENTATION GOALS, PROCESS AND FURTHER STRATEGIES
The City has long been an early adopter of environmentally conscious policies. Often, pursuing technologies that are in line with these adopted goals. ZEB technology is considered to be at the forefront in advancements in transportation technology and are assumed to have the greatest outcome in reducing GHG related emissions.

Transitioning the City’s public transit fleet to zero emission technology is in line with the City’s adopted 2019 Major City Goals, particularly with regard to Climate Action and Sustainable Transportation. Further, the City’s adopted 2017 -22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) also calls for advancements in transit technology that support sustainable transportation goals.

Outside the City, these efforts are also supported by various emission reduction strategies such as those outlined in the SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan and the SLO County APCD’s Clean Air Plan. The City’s plan for a ZEB transition supplements and is harmonious with these other plans.

Given that both state and local government support the transition of the City’s fleet to ZEB technology, this report is self-evident of a genuine and mutual desire to, at a minimum, meet – if not exceed - ICT fleet regulations. Recognizably however, because ZEB propulsion technology is still widely considered to be in development and not at full maturity, this plan remains a living document and should be allowed to evolve and mature alongside burgeoning ZEB technology.

The process and strategies presented in this report for transitioning of the City’s Transit fleet to ZEB’s provides a look at both State and Federal requirements, as well as the provisions made by each of these legislative group to which could support a path towards meetings the ICT regulation. Rather than prescribing a narrow course, this plan represents an effort to create the broadest opportunity for success.

The timeline for implementing these strategies are subject to many factors. Financial constraints being the largest of these. Deliverable timelines will often be tied to when funding can be secured. Regardless, some ideas presented in this report also aim to take advantage and leverage reduced and cost -free opportunities that will help the agency advance towards meeting the ICT regulation deadline.

8.1 DIESEL VS. ZEB
While there have been a number of documents produced in support of both the ecological and financial benefits of converting from a fossil fueled transit fleet to ZEB technology (i.e. See page 15 of the October 2000 CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf), the fact remains that the ICT regulation remains in effect despite any polemic views. Therefore, although germane to some, the absolute necessity for a transit system operating in the state of California to comply with ICT regulation remains intact, rendering such discussion irrelevant . Therefore, for purposes of this report, such differencing views on the ecological and financial benefits of pursuing ZEB technolog y will remain omitted. Rather, the report will focus on methods for complying with the State ICT regulations.

8.2 TRANSITION PLAN- EXISTING FLEET
The City Transit fleet is categorized as a “small transit agency” by both State and Federal definitions.

Within its roster, the City has a fleet of 17 revenue vehicles and two nonrevenue support vehicles (i.e.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 11

maintenance truck and a Road Supervisor van). Of the 17 revenue vehicles, 14 of them are traditional heavy-duty low floor diesel bus, ranging 30 to 40 feet in length. The remaining three (3) revenue vehicles are classified as “other types” of transit vehicles by the ICT regulation ; one being a double-decker bus (diesel), a cut-away (gasoline) and trolley replica (gasoline) vehicle. See Section 4.1: Other Vehicle Types for more about how the ICT regulation applies to these “other types” of vehicles. Many of these vehicles were purchased with the assistance of Federal funds making them subject to federal disposition rules. See Fleet Roster table below.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides a minimum “useful life” policy for capital rolling stock (transit vehicles). Useful life of transit vehicles is defined in the FTA Circular 5010.1E and provisions that a transit vehicle purchased with Federal financial support should remain in service for no less than 12 years or 500,000 miles before being retired. If the asset is prematurely withdrawn from service, FTA must be immediately notified (See Section 4. O.3 “Disposition or Inappropriate Use Before the End of the Asset’s Useful Life”). Such early dispositions are usually accompanied by proportionate reimbursement of FTA funds. Therefore, any transition to ZEB technology should be done in compliance with FTA approved vehicle disposition timelines.

Fleet Roster:

Looking at the SMRT fleet roster, no less than twenty-two (22) heavy-duty vehicles qualify to be retired, now and in the next ten (10) years, under FTA’s disposition polices. Transition of at least some of these vehicles could commence in advance of January 1st, 2026 to meet the ICT regulation while simultaneously avoiding the concern of non -approved “early retirement of conventional internal combustion engine buses.”
Vehicle # Year VIN Number License Plate Length Make Model Fuel Type Engine Seating Accessible Date In Service Age Remaining YEARS Current Odometer Remaining MILES 4010-195 2010 15GGD2711A1176931 1237592 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 7/1/2010 12 -1 388,694.0 40,727 4011-160 2011 15GGD2174B1176472 1237599 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 11/1/2011 11 0 381,230.0 120,367 4011-168 2011 15GGD2716B1176473 1237598 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/15/2014 11 0 356,388.0 121,372 4014-174 2014 15GGD2715D1182526 1329052 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/15/2014 8 3 459,273.0 111,306 4014-165 2014 15GGD2711D1182524 1329050 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/16/2014 8 3 365,825.0 134,175 4014-167 2014 15GGD2713D1182525 1329056 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/17/2014 8 3 379,633.0 132,754 4014-180 2014 15GGD2710D1182529 1329058 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/18/2014 8 3 367,246.0 134,906 4014-176 2014 15GGD2717D1182527 1329054 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/19/2014 8 3 365,094.0 150,485 4014-168 2014 15GGD2717D1182530 1329056 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/20/2014 8 3 378,628.0 146,219 4014-160 2014 15GGD2719D1182528 1329055 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/21/2014 8 3 349,515.0 68,178 4014-194 2014 15GGD2719D1182531 1329057 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/22/2014 8 3 353,781.0 96,276 4014-161 2014 15GGD2718D1182522 1329049 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/23/2014 8 3 431,822.0 118,770 4014-162 2014 15GGD271XD1182523 1329048 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/24/2014 8 3 403,724.0 143,612 4017-198 2017 15GGD2717H1187281 1381063 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 3/15/2017 5 6 223,102.0 276,898 4017-199 2017 15GGD2719H1187282 1381062 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 3/15/2017 5 6 212,901.0 287,099 3518-179 2018 15GGB271953190540 1381080 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/15/2018 4 7 160,121.0 339,879 3518-178 2018 15GGB271233190539 1381079 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/15/2018 4 7 163,279.0 336,721 3018-186 2018 15GGE2716J3093254 1381077 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 28 Yes 4/16/2018 4 7 137,153.0 362,847 3518-184 2018 15GGB271033190541 1381078 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/17/2018 4 7 147,961.0 352,039 3020-177 2020 15GGE2714L3093921 1381101 30' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 28 Yes 8/1/2020 2 9 38,214.0 461,786 3521-203 2021 15GGB2711M3193551 1381106 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 12/25/2021 1 10 19,443.0 480,557 3521-202 2021 15GGB271XM3193550 1381105 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 12/25/2021 1 10 16,891.0 461,786 35-22-200e 2022 7JZTG13J0NL000574 TBD 35' Proterra LOW FLOOR Electric N/A 28 Yes TBD 0 11 459.0 499,541 35-22-201e 2022 7JZTG13J2NL000575 TBD 35' Porterra LOW FLOOR Electric N/A 28 Yes TBD 0 11 522.0 499,478

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 12

Even though, a one-for-one replacement of the diesel buses with ZEB’s would seem the apparently most logical transition plan, given a few uncertainties with the burgeoning ZEB industry and other existing operational challenges, a different approach is being recommended in the next section of this plan.

8.3 FLEET EXPANSION
At peak service level, SMRT operates twelve (12) routes using 1 4 of its 17 fixed-route vehicles. This appears to leave three (3) vehicles as spares (16% spare ratio). This however assumes that none of the three (3) are “down” for maintenance or repairs. But, given that the remaining three (3) vehicles are the nontraditional (other) vehicle types, these vehicles are not necessarily interchangeable (e.g. double - decker, cutaway and replica trolley) with the trad itional heavy -duty low floor buses being used on traditional routes. This, therefore, renders the SMRT fleet with essentially a 0% spare ratio. This is a major challenge for the transit agency in providing consistency and reliability of service wh en there are unexpected issues in the field and more than one vehicle needs to be replaced.

Compounding, SMRT ridership averages half a million rides annually and is expected to continue to grow steadily over the next few years. Peak trips are already at or exceeding vehicle capacity. The City’s adopted 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommends expansion of the transit program to half hour bus service, versus the currently hourly bus service, to support the growing demand and alleviate peak ridership loads. To accomplish this more vehicles will be needed in service and as spares.

8.3.1 FTA - Spare Ratio
As a best practice, the Federal Transit Administration supports a 20% spare vehicle ratio (FTA Circular 9030.1C) to support ongoing/rotating maintenance programs and continuity of service when unexpected service delays or maintenance issues occur in the field. Spare ratio is defined as the total number of spare *Does not include Double Decker, Cutaway or Trolley

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 13

vehicles available for fixed-route service divided by the total number of fixed-route vehicles required for annual maximum service. Spare ratio is usually expressed as a percentage, e.g., 100 vehicles required for maximum fixed-route service and 20 spare vehicles is a 20 percent spare ratio.

The basis for determining a reasonable spare bus ratio takes local circumstances into account. FTA does not set a specific spare ratio for smaller transit operators but expects the number of spare buses to be reasonable, taking into account the number of vehicles and variety of vehic le types and sizes. Buses delivered for future expansion and buses that have been replaced, but are in the process of being disposed of, are not included in the calculation of spare ratio.

Recipients of buses recently procured may temporarily exceed their spare ratio thresholds. In those cases, recipients may seek a short -term deviation from the spare ratio requirements for small deviations.

Recipients should prepare a brief justification explaining the reason for the deviation, a date by which the fleet spare ratio will come into compliance with the general requirements, and the recipient’s plans to come into compliance. The deviation will generally be granted for no more than two (2) years and must be approved by the regional administrator either in writing or by approval of the Award (Page IV-30 FTA C 5010.1E). Recipients must promptly inform the Regional Office of any significant changes related to spare ratios, including plans for disposition or acquisition of vehicles and changes in vehicle needs.

Based on the 2017 -22 SRTP recommended service levels, in the next five (5) years SMRT could use in service no less than six (6) additional transit vehicles at peak service, bringing the total traditional heavy- duty transit vehicles in service to 20, plus three (3) other vehicle types. A 20% spare ratio (of 23 vehicles) would therefore justify an additional five (5) vehicles on stand -by to serve as spares and support ongoing/rotating maintenance programs and continuity of service when unexpected service delays or maintenance issues occur in the field. This brings the total fleet size to no less than 28, with 25 traditional heavy-duty buses and three other vehicle types, generalizing no expansion in these.

Expansion of the SMRT fleet with ZEBs would not only support SMRT’s service requirements but w ould help the City meet ICT r egulations. Therefore, the recommended path for SMRT to meet the ICT regulation is to commence fleet expansion using ZEB technology and then replace the existing diesel fleet on a one -for-one basis as financial support materializes. Granted, another alternative to retiring and disposition of diesel transit buses remains and could be advantageous, as described in the next section of this report.

8.4 MITIGATING RISK – “AN INSURANCE POLICY”
Though ZEB propulsion technology is already being deployed in various parts around the globe, it is also still widely considered to be in development. Particularly, vehicle battery technology is still evolving and has not yet reached maturity. The limited deployment of hydrogen fuel cell buses has also yield ed insufficient feedback on the technology’s maturity. A recognizable amount of challenges, questions and unknowns in deploying a ZEB fleet are still unaccounted for. For example; do ZEBs provide the same range as conventional diesel buses or will more ZEBs be needed to provide the same level of service because of range issues? What if your infrastructure (battery or hydrogen) goes out? Given the limited number of ZEB ready locations; where will ZEB fleets find alternative fueling opportunities , such as in the case of emergencies or unexpected outages ? One method for addressing these questions, and essentially “creating an insurance policy ” against such unknowns , is accomplished by “retiring” the existing diesel fleet to a contingency fleet as they reach the end of their FTA defined “useful-life.” State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 14

8.4.1 FTA - Contingency Fleet
FTA recognizes two types of vehicles —active and contingency. An active fleet i ncludes vehicles that are maintained and rotated on a regular schedule into service. A contingency fleet means an inactive vehicle reserved or retained for emergencies or other unforeseen and justified activities. A lthough still maintained, a contingency fleet, is not scheduled for revenue service outside of unique circumstances or activities. These activities could include the evacu ation of people during an emergency, use as crowd control or traffic barriers, loaners to other transit agencies during a justified need, temporary replacements for buses in the active fleet during major active fleet overhauls or bus maintenance activities and other activities that take a portion of the active fleet temporarily out of service.

Vehicles stockpiled in a contingency fleet in preparation for emergencies must have met their minimum useful life requirements and must be properly stored, maintained, and documented in a contingency plan.

FTA will also permit agencies to include vehicles that have met their minimum useful life in their contingency fleet if an agency is introducing zero emission vehicles into its fleet. These vehicles are not included in the calculation of spare ratio. Contingency plans are subject to review during triennial reviews and other FTA oversight reviews. Any vehicles not supported by a contingency plan will be considered part of the active fleet.

A transit agency should keep a record of information that demonstrates the need for the contingency fleet activation, the justification for activation and the period of activation. The contingency fleet plan should demonstrate that the bus has met its useful life by identifying the year the bus was placed in service, the year and mileage when removed from service and the useful life of the bus in years and miles. The plan should identify where the buses will be stored, how they will be protected and list the maintenance activities performed on the bus to ensure they maintain their contingency bus fleet status. A contingency fleet is separate from the spare fleet and is not included in the spare ratio.

Although the City remains committed to the pursuit of the latest clean transportation technology, and the contingent retired diesel fleet will see no use outside of justifiable applications as herein identified, the creation of a contingency fleet with the soon to be retired diesel buses - vehicle conditions permitting - remains advantageous to maintain until ZEB technology is further time tested and proven over a longer period. This would allow the City to employ ZEBs in the field with at least some confidence that there are substitute vehicles still available should expectations for the ZEBs deployment fall short.

8.5 MID-LIFE BUS REHABILITATION OF EXISTING DIESEL FLEET There are still significant challenges in implementing a plan where the existing diesel fleet with an impending end of useful -life and retirement date cont inues to operate as part of the transit agencies multi-year ZEB transition process. Namely, vehicles near or at their “end of useful -life” will experience less reliability issues in the field.

One solution to mitigate this would be to conduct a mid -life rehabilitation of those vehicles ready to be retired. A mid-life rehabilitation, or overhaul, of a transit vehicle generally repairs and/or replaces major components that are necessary to maintain a “road worthy” vehicle. Costs for a transit vehicle mid- life rehabilitation/overhaul tend to run at less than 1/3 of the purchase price of a completely new bus , depending on the condition of the vehicle.

If the rehabilitation/overhaul is done using F TA funds, as likely to be the case , FTA will require that the end of useful-life date of that vehicle be extended by an additional five years , before the vehicle can be State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 15

retired and disposed of. Since compliance with the ICT regulation is based on the proc urement of new ZEBs and allows for a ZEB transition process to take place over the course of the next ten (10) years (2029), extending the life of the existing fleet would not be in violation of any ICT regulation. 9 BATTERY AND FUEL CELL ELECTRIC BUSES
Given the definition for zero-emission vehicles current approved options for ZEBs, under the ICT regulation, include battery electric bus or hydrogen fuel cell electric buses. Therefore, the only approved path in vehicle procurement types, towards meeting the ICT regulation, include one of these two options.

9.1 (Hydrogen) Fuel Cell Electric Bus (FCEB)
Fuel Cell Electric Bus or “FCEB” means an electric bus that uses both a hydrogen fuel cell stack and a battery for propulsion. The fuel cell stack generates electricity on board to charge the battery that powers the on-board motor. It has no internal combustion engine in the powertrain. A fuel cell electric bus relies on its hydrogen tank and fuel cell stack onboard for its energy supply.

One advant age of FCEB’s is that FCEB s are typically regarded as having a mileage range equivalent to a diesel bus. Except for the difficulty in finding a hydrogen fueling station, operationally there tends to be no difference in how a transit system manages FCEB’s from diesel buses in route or in fueling processes. FCEB’s also tend to be less subjective to the impacts in temperature change; albeit typically not a concern in San Luis Obispo.

Some of the most noted drawbacks of FCEB’s is the relatively high vehicle and infrastructure capital costs, especially if the City should undertake construction of its own hydrogen fueling station. Despite any prior and ongoing efforts, hydrogen fueling opportunities are still very limited in availability and there are none at the time of this report in the County. The SLO County APCD has a current request for proposals (RFP) to install a hydrogen station for light -duty vehicles. OEM Cut sheets each type of ZEB can be found in Appendix B to this plan.

9.2 BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS (BEB)
Battery Electric Bus” means a bus that has an all-electric propulsion system and relies only on batteries to store electricity received from an external power source of the vehicle. It has no internal combustion engine in the powertrain for the vehicle.

BEB’s have quickly become the most widely produced ZEB solution by bus manufacturers. Almost all major transit vehicle manufacturers, along with new BEV specific manufactures, offer a BEB products in their line of vehicle options.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 16

Some of the most noted drawbacks of BEB’s is there underperforming mileage range abilities. Transit agencies that have been early adopters of BEB’s have reported that their BEB’s are not achieving the travel range promoted by the BEB manufacturers. Regardless of the brand. The range deficiencies are being attributed to differe nces in manufacturer’s unladed weight tests in a controlled environment, differing from real world applications of BEB’s loaded with ancillary transit equipment, passengers, temperature variations, driver’s vehicle management capabilities and varying grade changes along routes. This is generally created and been referred to as “range anxiety.” In other words, the concern if a BEB could provide, at minimum, the same level of revenue service as a diesel bus would. OEM Cut sheets are provided as an Appendix B to this plan.

9.3 ELECTRIC VS. HYDROGEN FUEL CELL
Though BEB propulsion technology is still developing, it is widely considered to be more mature and viable of the two alternatives. Accordingly, BEBs are being considered by most transit agencies that do not have Hydrogen fueling infrastructure in place . Therefore, given the compatibility of BEB with the City’s current transit operations model , existing incentive programs specifically for BEB’s and the infrastructure cost of hydrogen versus electric, an electric powered transit fleet appears to be the most promising and economically feasible. Regardless, the City should maintain a healthy skepticism about the actual performance capabilities of BEB’s considering the existing reports from early adopters and known batter degradation issues, to be elaborated upon later.

However, if the City were not required to build and manage the fueling infrastructure for a hydrogen fueling station because it was to become available via a third-party vendor, a hydrogen fuel cell bus should still be considered as a possible alternative. See Section 12.9: THIRD PARTY OFF-SITE FUEL VENDORS for more information.
10 MARKETING, BRANDING AND LIVERY OPPORTUNITY
Transitioning to ZEB technology can also be
leveraged to create new opportunities to
capture market share and grow transit ridership.

The conventional wisdom about transit often
divides riders into two categories: “choice”
riders —people with automobile alternatives —
and “captive” riders — people who must use
transit because they don’t have alternatives
(Streets BLOG USA). Given that “choice riders”
riders are making conscious decisions whether
to use a personal automobile or not, it is important to und erstand and foster those decisions that drive them to public transit.

One reason often cited for choosing not do drive are the ecological benefits of riding public transit. A reason cited just as high as the financial benefits of riding public transit, according to some studies. Given that ZEB technology further enhances the ecological benefits of using public transit; the transition to ZEB Example of an All-Electric Branding Scheme
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 17

technology could be touted in the marketing, branding and livery of the vehicles to further emphasize this benefit.

While brand continuity is important in any product or
service delivery, highlighting the latest innovations can also create new and larger market appeal, potentially
growing transit ridership. A new system wide branding
scheme, complete “one-off’s,” a few vehicles, or even just one vehicle with slight modifications to existing transit branding schemes with call outs (e.g. “Zero Emissions” in large font ) highlighting the ZEB technology could help further motivate and entice ch oice riders and those on the fringe of such decisions.

11 DEPLOYMENT OF ZEBS IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program. CalEPA designated the top 25 percent of census tracts in CalEnviroSceen

3.0 as disadvantaged communities for the purpose of investing cap-and-trade proceeds in April 2017. “CalEnviroScreen” is the mapping tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) at the request of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to identify California’s most pollution-burdened and vulnerable communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria. Similarly, the ICT Rule requires a concerted effort and plan to deploy ZEB’s in disadvantaged communities.

However, according to Calenviroscreen, there are no disadvantaged communities in Santa Maria. There are however five pockets of low -income co mmunities which can be seen (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm). The low- income da ta is based on Assembly Bill 1550. The low -income areas are considered “priority populations.” Though these populations should be prioritized, deployment of ZEBs need not exclusively service only these areas.

Routes that service intermittingly both prio rity and non- priority areas should still be considered. This Example of a ZEB Call Out
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 18

would work well for the City as all transit routes pulse in and out of some of the CalEnviroscreen identified AB 1550 communities.
12 FACILITY UPGRADE AND ZEB READINESS
Conventional wisdom is that the transit facility infrastructure part will need to be figured out in advance of any ZEB purchase and delivery. Given construction costs, the time to secure construction funding, the potential for delays, transit agencies will need to start much earlier than January 1, 2026 in order to meet the ICT deadline. Expenses and work incurred in upgrading a transit facility’s infrastructure do not satisfy the ICT regulation deadlines. Compliance with ICT is solely determined by the transition of the actual vehicles and not based on expenses incurred for facility readiness.

12.1 TRANSIT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SMRT operates out of the City’s Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility located at 1303 Fairway Dr.

The 3-acre site is land locked and as such, any modernizations of the facility will largely be constrained to the existing area.

This City owned facility was originally constructed in the 1980’s. The site has largely gone unimproved since original construction. Th e current design includes employee parking lot for employee and visitors at the front of the facility, an approximately 5,900 sq. feet of administrative building and a 22,00 sq. feet two-bay maintenance garage in the middle of the grounds, and 34 bus parking stalls on the west and north of building facilities . A bus wash system was added few years later and stands adjacent on the northeast end of the property.

Two efforts are already underway to update the existing Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility and ready it for ZEBs. The City has committed funds to work with an on -call Architect & Engineering firm to develop facility upgrade plans that take into account ZEB technology, an expanded fleet and charging infrastructure requirements. This study is anticipated to be completed in early 2020. The final A&E design plan will become Appendix C to this report.

Further, the City is in talks with PG&E to take advantage of their “Electric Vehicle Readiness Program” which is a no cost electric infrastructure upgrade program for qualifying applicants. As part of the program, PG&E will develop a conceptual plan for upgrading transformers and running conduit and power to preidentified vehicle charging stations locations. More about the work with PG&E can be found in the Section 12.3: STAKEHOLDERS – PG&E section of this report. Implementation of this plan is anticipated to take place early or mid-2020. The produced PG&E conceptual plan will become Appendix D of this report.

Another resource for readying the City’s Tran sit Yard is to incorporate the help and services of ZEB Manufacturers. Some ZEB manufacturers , such as Proterra and BYD for example, are offering “free” assessment of a transit agencies yard with the proposal of helping the agency ready their yard for ZEB solutions. If a yard assessment and conceptualization by a ZEB OEMs is produced, it will also become an Appendix to this plan.

While the underway plans for facility infrastructure upgrades are specific to the main maintenance facility, depending if the City employs BEB’s ; plans for “opportunity charging” infrastructure (in route charging State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 19

stations) should also be considered. The types of opportunity charging systems will also be evaluated in the next section of this plan . If developed, opportunity charging plans will become an A ppendix to this plan.

12.2 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER - OPPORTUNITY CHARGING
Although necessary charging time has been reduced as battery technology advances, buses may still need to charge more periodically than prior fueling schedules and even while in service. Removing a vehicle from service and replacing it with another is particularly difficult when there aren’t already any replacement spare vehicles available. Because the electric bus battery range is still in development and not quite the same as in a diesel bus, buses will need to be charged while in route. “Opportunity charging” is a way to supplement vehicle energy needs as it creates occasions for short additional charges (“top- off’s”) at a convenient place(s) along the route. Preferably these are installed already existing a layover locations to avoid inconveniencing passengers.

The City’s Downtown Transit Center is prime location for opportunity charging options . Making use of already existing route layovers, primarily created for passengers transfers at the Transit Center, buses could get as much as a ten- minute charge after every loop. Even on the rare occasions when a bus is running behind and the layover period is reduced, supplement charges throughout the day may help the limited BEB technology meet service needs without having to be swapped out any sooner than a diesel bus would have . Notably, opportunity charging makes use of high kilowatt chargers to create “fast charging” levels of reenergizing vehicle batteries.

12.2.1 Overhead, Inductive and Plug-In Charging
In order to provide for the broadest opportunity for success, proprietary charging systems should be avoided when possible. Rather, standardized universally adopted equipment should be preferred.

For plug- in options, SAE J1772 ( IEC Type 1), also known as a "J plug", is a North American standard for electrical connectors for electric vehicles maintained by the SAE International. "SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J1772, SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler" covers the general physical, electrical, communication protocol, and performance requirements for the electric vehicle conductive charge system and coupler. The intent is to define a common electric vehicle conductive charging system architecture including operational requirements and the functional and dimensional requirements for the vehicle inlet and mating connector. Most, if not all electric bus OEM’s have switched to this model plug- in connector. This type of charging options is suitable most depot (transit yard) charging solutions. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it is the widest deployed and common solution.

For overhead pantograph charging solutions, SAE J1771CCS is currently the widest employed mode.

However, this model has not yet been universally recognized by all or even a majority of electric bus OEMs.

Depending on the electr ic bus OEM, this type of charging solution is be st used for in-route opportunity charging scenarios, such as at a transfer/transit center. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it the infrastructure is largely out of the way and does not necessarily create any travel barriers for passengers.

A final option for BEB charging solutions included inductive inground charging. This limited deployed solution charges a bus contactless using an inground inductive charger and is most suitable for State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 20

transfer/transit center opportunity charging. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it requires no additional actions form the driver other than parking the vehicle over the charger and initiating (pushing a button) to start the charging process.

12.3 CHARGING LEVELS AND CAPABILITIES
There is a plethora of electric vehicle charger unit manufacturers available in today’s market. Narrowing the field will namely come down to compatibility with the other organizations that City is working with for BEV’s solutions. See Section 12.7: Electric Chargers Vendors section of this report for more info on the recommended vendors.

EV Charging units will need to be installed at the bus Transit Operations & Maintenance Yard. This will require some careful planning to integrate the “refrigerator size” units in a way that does not negatively impact vehicle ingress, egress and parking availability at the facility. Such plans are necessary and in development by the on-call Architect & Engineering firm . See section 8.4.1 Operations & Maintenance Yard and section 9.2 PG&E for more information about the development of Yard upgrades.

EV Charging units come in both “slow” and “fast” charge options. The speed of the charge is dependent on their kilowatt (kW)capabilities. Slow charge units range from 30 to 60kWs. While Fast charge units range from 150kW to 600kW.

As a general rule, the lower the kW’s, the longer it takes to charge th e vehicle, but also inherently; less energy consumption is needed to do so. While the higher the kW’s, the faster the charging capabilities are, but inherently a much higher energy consumption is demanded. OEM manufactures suggest that with Slow charging units, it could take approximately six (6) hours to fully charge a BEV. While a fast charging unit is suggested to do it in about two (2) hours for most vehicles available in today’s market.

While the immediate re action maybe to only procure “fast” EV charging units, the higher energy consumption demands are problematic for almost all transit agencies , unless they have their own sub power station necessary to provide such high kilowatts of energy. Even with slow charge units, attempting to charge all the vehicles at the same time is problematic for the same reason. To address this , most EV charger OEMS offer software solutions for what they call “load balancing.” Load balancing software uses telemetric algorithms to prioritize vehicle charging so that not all vehicle are charged at the same levels simultaneously which would create an over demand on the grid.

Given that vehicles could take up to as much as six (6) hours to charge, this period will need be reflected in transit agencies service levels . At a minimum six hours of non -service time will need to exist. For example, a transit service that begins at 6am every morning will need bus service to end no later than 11 or 12pm in order to create the six (6) hours needed for vehicle charge times.

Therefore, the transit system will need to carefully work with their EV charging vendors for a mix of solutions to strike a balance between fast and slow charge capabilities.

Strategies to be include are:
• Not depleting vehicle batteries to 0% charge while in service so that the charging time does not require the OEM’s maximum charge time
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 21

• Continuously evaluating and adjusting the minimum out-in-field percentage charge with the manufacturers artificial 0% charge level
• Integrating mid-route opportunity charging for short “top-offs” • Staggered vehicle bus yard return times for staggered charging times and offsetting energy demands
• Ensuring that there are at least six (6) hours of no service every night • Have vehicles initially use a fast charge unit for a quick (high energy) charge before going over to the slow (low energy) charge units, potentially cutting charging time down 13 STAKEHOLDERS
Stake holders will play a significant part in the success of this transition plan. Even non-traditional stakeholders will play a vital role in the success of this transition plan.

13.1 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR
The City of Santa Maria contracts out the operations & maintenance of City’s public transit system to a third-party vendor. The current co ntract is with RATPDev (contractor). The contractor provides their services directly out of the City’s Transit Operations & Maintenance Yard under a lease program and which is included as part of the larger service contract.

The c ontractor employs administrative and maintenance staff along with dispatchers and drivers to deliver the transit services as prescribed by the City. The contractor is responsible for the proper maintenance and fueling of the City owned vehicles under a similar lease program. The contractor is also responsible for developing and implementing, with City participation, these resources in the most efficient manner possible. The contractor does however hold much of the operational knowledge for an efficient workflow process for intaking and dispatching vehicles throughout the day. Their participation in a redesign of the Transit Yard and employing ZEBs in the field would be advantageous.

What is more , the contractor’s d rivers can have a considerable impact on ZEB vehicle performance .

Achieving suggested OEM ZEB ranges will depend on how a driver manages the vehicle and their driving style. Some suggest that the variance can be by as much as 20%. The Contractor will have to retrain and work closely with their drivers to help achieve ranges closer to OEM proposed mileage ranges.

13.2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has developed and adopted a new, five-year programs aimed at accelerating widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The new program will increase fast charging options for consumers as well as electric charging infrastructure for non -light-duty fleet vehicles. Under the Electric Vehicle Charge Network program, PG&E will pay for and build the infrastructure from the electric grid to the charging equipment, complementing state and privately funded initiatives.

Additionally, PG&E will offer a significant rebate towards the purchase of fast chargers for customers based in those areas.

The city is already in discussions with PG&E to learn more about this infrastructure upgrade and readiness program. PG&E is evaluating the City’s request to ascertain if it is viable project. Entering into a contract State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 22

with PG&E would be required if the City desired to moved forward with their program. A determination for PG&E to enter into a contract with the City will be made in part based on advancements towards vehicle electrification readiness. Adding urgency to the Transit Yard Upgrade study. Regardless, any transit yard modernizations should also be done in conjunction with PG&E’s as the area’s utility provider.

If and when produced, the PG&E conceptual plan will become an Appendix to this report.

13.3 MONTEREY BAY COMMUNITY POWER
Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) is a Community Choice Energy agency established by local communities to source carbon-free electricity for Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and now Santa Barbara counties while retaining PG&E’s traditional role delivering power and maintaining electric infrastructure. As a locally controlled not -for-profit, MBCP is not taxpayer funded and supports Tri-County economic vitality by providing cleaner energy at a lower cost, supporting low -income rate payers, and funding local renewable energy projects.

On December 5, 20 20 the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) Policy Board unanimously approved the inclusion of the cities of Santa Maria as new members to the list of municipalities served by MBCP, one of California’s most innovative and fastest growing Community Choice Energy (CCE) agencies.

Community Choice Energy has long been a key strategy for Santa Maria to meet their climate goals. The plan is for the City to purchase renewable and mitigated cost electricity from MBCP. This could help in the deployment of BEB’s.

13.4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES (DGS) The State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) has just completed an extensive Request for Proposals for ZEBs. All public transit agencies will be able to participate from this RFP. Given that this streamlines the acquisition process, helps ensure a vetted product and secures competitive pricing, this will be the likeliest source from which ZEBs are selected for purchase.

The CA DGS contract is likely to provide multiple vehicle options for purchase from today’s leading ZEB manufacturers. While the City remains agnostic to brands and allows for an open, fair and competitive purchasing processes, early indications show that qualifying participating ZEB manufacturers possibly include: BYD, Gillig, New Flyer and Proterra vehicles.

Pricing for these vehicles will be dependent on the State of California’s Department of Goods and Service contract. However, costs are assumed to vary from $7 00,000 to $800,000 per vehicle. Most vehicle procurements are expected to take anywhere from 14 to 18 months from the Notice to Proceed to until delivery of the vehicle. Granted, compliance with the ICT regulation is not based on having ZEBs in

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 23

operations before the agency’s deadline but rather that procurements after the deadline will need to conform to the ICT regulation schedule. See Section 14: Procurement for more information.

Given that these four (4) manufacturers are also largely shaping the industry and standardization of electric infrastructure, modernization of the Transit Yard would clearly benefit from being designed to accommodate any of these companies, or the similar, to achieving the broadest possibility of “future proofing” as possible. OEM Cut sheets for their various ZEB solutions is found in Appendix of this report.

13.5 ELECTRIC CHARGERS VENDORS
The industry has recently seen an explosion in electric vehicle charging solutions. Staff has evaluated 20 different potential vendors who offer electric vehicle solutions. However, PG&E has narrowed the field to vendors who are compatible with their electric vehicle infrastructure upgrade and readiness program.

While, again, the City remains agnostic to brands and allows for an open, fair and competitive purchasing processes, early indications show that qualifying participating electric vehicle charging solution manufacturers that are the most universally compatible with the with the aforementioned BEB OEMS include ABB, BTC , ChargePoint, and Siemens. Therefore, inclusion of electric vehicle chargers would benefit from being designed to accommodate any o f these companies’ products and solutions, or the similar, for the broadest possibility of “future proofing” the transit agency.

Cost per “typical” charging unit vary depending on the vendor. Early analyses of informal quotes suggest that prices could be anywhere from $45,000 per 60 -kilowatt charger to over $ 75,000 per 125-kilowatt charger. Actual costs will very. A list of other potential electric charger vendors is found in Appendix E of this report.

13.6 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is a major The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Funding is made available to designated recipients that are public bodies with the legal authority to receive and dispense federal funds. Governors, responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of transit services shall designate a recipient to apply for, receive, and dispense funds for urbanized areas pursuant to 49USCA5307(a)(2). The governor or governor's designee acts as the designated recipient for urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000.

The federal share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project cost for capital expenditures. The federal share may be 90 percent for the cost of vehicle- related equipment attributable to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act. The federal share may not exceed 50 percent of the net project cost of operating assistance.

The Federal Government, particularly the Depart of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides a minimum useful life policy for capital rolling stock, trolleys, ferries, and facilities as previously covered in Section 6.4 Transition Plan of Existing Fleet.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 24

Further, the Federal Government also approves which vehicles are approved to be purchased with federal funds. Approved OEM’s must comply with a number safety and policy regulations. These include but are not limited to Altoona testing, Buy America and DBE requirements.

Even if any new vehicles are procured without the help of federal funding assistance, transit agencies will typically maintain these at federally funded facilities . Therefore, as a best practice, transit agencies typically adhered to all applicable federal policies, as the most stringent, to avoid any future findings and issues with FTA.

13.7 3RD PARTY OFF-SITE FUEL VENDORS
One largely absent fundamental amenity in pursuing FCEB’s is ability to purchase hydrogen fuel from 3 rd Party Off-Site Fuel Vendors. While there are a number of existing initiatives to expand Hydrogen fueling station options throughout the region, none have yet materialized. Therefore, unless the City’s Transit Maintenance Facility can take on the monumental task of cr eating an onsite fuel system, which is very unlikely because of facility size constraints, FCEB’s are not an immediate option. However, should a 3 rd Party Fuel Vendor provide the option for off-site fueling, like with diesel, FCEB’s become more desirable to BEB’s because of their better comparatively to diesel buses in range. See Section 10.1 Fuel Cell Bus for more information.

13.8 SANTA BARBARA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SBCAG)
SBCAG holds several designations that give it the authority to allocat e funding and plan for a variety of projects that affect the seven incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO, the agency is responsible for all transportation planning and programming ac tivities required under federal law. This includes the development of long- range transportation plans and funding programs, and the selection and approval of transportation projects using federal funds. Further, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) SBCAG is responsible for conducting a comprehensive, coordinated transportation program; developing a long range inter- modal transportation plan, a 20-year planning document updated every four years; programming of state funds for transportation projects; and the administration and allocation of transportation development act funds required by state statutes.

Any advancements and deployment of ZEB’s should be cognoscente of SBCAG adopted goals and policies as to reduce potential for conflicts resulting in less than enthusiastic funding support…

13.9 OTHER AREA TRANSIT AGENCIES
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides intercommunity public transportation.

RTA’s service area includes all of San Luis Obispo County and extends into Santa Barbara County to the south. RTA provides regional fixed -route service (RTA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service (Runabout).

RTA is a JPA (Joint Powers Authority) in San Luis Obispo County that operates bus service connecting cities throughout San Luis Obispo County (and beyond), including Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo and more. RTA also oversees the administration of State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 25

South County Area Transit (SCAT) which operates in the Five Cities area of Shell Beach, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano and Arroyo Grande.

RTA is also the likeliest of partners for forming a Joint Zero Emission Bus Group. Careful coordination with RTA could be advantageous for creating redundancy, interoperability, buying power and other strategic benefits, if and when possible. However, it should be noted that because of the geographical distances and great grade variations of RTA routes, uniformity of equipment might not be achievable with today’s ZEB solutions. Similarly , other area transit agencies would could offer the same or similar benefits for mutual support in ZEB transition process.
14 DEPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
While deploying a ZEB fleet is not entirely different from deploying a diesel fleet, there are some nuances that SMRT will need to overcome. For example, the management and maintenance of the fleet… • Maintenance training provided by the OEM
• New PPE equipment
• Staff to participate in webinars, conferences, local and national training courses , conduct many site visits, etc.
15 COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The transition to ZEB’s will likely not be an inexpensive one, initially. Although the City is seeking to take advantage of no-cost and affordable programs, like any other transformative project, there are initial and potentially ongoing costs. Even beyond any potential infrastructure costs, ZEB’s are more expensive than traditional diesel buses.

15.1 OPERATIONAL AND LIFE-TIME COSTS
All-electric buses can save transit agencies money in annual operating costs from reduced fuel and maintenance costs, while also providing more predictability in costs each year since electricity prices are relatively stable compared to fuel prices

One analysis found that an e lectric bus saves
nearly $2,000 a year in fuel and $4,400 a year in
reduced maintenance costs. These year to year
savings means that, in the long-run, electric buses
are often cheaper than their diesel counterparts.

While electric transit buses costs around
$300,000 more than diesel buses, lifetime fuel
and maint enance costs of diesel transit buses
savings of electric buses are around $ 300,000.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 26

Figures 2 and 3, this means that the total lifecycle costs of electric buses are lower than those of diesel buses.

Based solely on sticker price, electric buses are more expensive than diesel buses. An electric transit bus costs around $700,000, while a diesel transit bus costs around $500,000. 25 An electric school bus costs around $230,000, while a diesel school bus costs around $110,000. 26 Although lower fuel and maintenance costs mean that electric buses save money over their lifetimes, the higher upfront cost still acts as a barrier to transit agencies and school districts that want to make the switch. Below are s everal options these agencies and districts may have that can help overcome the hurdle of the purchase price and begin to make the transition to electric buses. Many of the options presented below can be used in conjunction with one another to lower overal l costs. When this is possible, the financials will work out even better in favor of the electric bus operator.

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 27

15.2 INCENTIVE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

15.3 HYBRID AND ZERO-EMISSION TRUCK AND BUS VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROJECT (HVIP) The California Air Resources Board (CARB), in partnership with CALSTART, launched the Hybrid and Zero- Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) and Low NOx Engine Incentives in 2009, to accelerate the purchase of cleaner, more-efficient trucks and buses in California. Any commercial vehicle user in California, including municipal fleets, smalls businesses, school districts and more. If you would like to participate, the vehicle you purchase must be domiciled and operate for at least 3 years in California after the voucher redemption date. Fleets must also submit activity reports for 3 years.

As of July 23, 2019, all funds available for HVIP for Fiscal Year 18 -19 have been requested, and a waitlist is in effect. Vouchers can still be requested, however they will not be reviewed or approved until more funds are available. Additional funds are anticipated to be available in January 2020. Updates will be posted here when available.
• First come first served
• Currently oversubscribed and has a wait list
• Applied for the by bus OEM vendor to offer discount on the purchase of the vehicle (https://www.californiahvip.org/
)

15.4 VOLKSWAGEN SETTLEMENT (VW)
The Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust (Trust) provides about $ 130 million for California to mitigate th e excess nitrogen oxide (NO X) emissions caused by VW's use of illegal emissions testing defeat devices in certain VW diesel vehicles. The Trust is a component of partial settlements with VW • $130 Million statewide in Trust to invest in technologies that reduce harmful emissions • First come first served
• $180,000 for electric buses and $400,000 for Hydrogen buses • Does require the retirement of an older vehicle which is not compatible with the contingency and fleet expansion plan

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 28

• Funds could use as local match (cannot be stacked) with HVIP or other CARB funds

(https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/volkswagen-environmental-mitigation-trust- california/about)

15.5 CARL MOYER MEMORIAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PROGRAM (CARL MOYER

PROGRAM)
The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-than-required engines, equipment, and other sources of air pollution. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a partnership between CARB and California’s 35 local air districts. CARB works collaboratively with the air districts and other stakeholders to set Guidelines and ensure the Program reduces pollution and provides cleaner air for Californians. Local air districts administer Moyer Program grants and select projects to fund. Find out how you can apply and receive funding. • 94 million for compliant `fleets
• 80,000 depending on usage and emission of
• 15% of the cost share
• Can help with charging infrastructure
o 50% of any project but up to 60% if open to the public and 65% if there is solar or wind component or 75% if open to the public and solar or wind component (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carl-moyer-memorial-air-quality-standards-attainment- program)

15.6 ASSEMBLY BILL 617 (AB 617)
In response to Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP or Program). The Program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. CARB staff has already begun working closely with local air districts, community groups, community members, environmental organizations, and regulated industries to develo p a new community -focused action framework for community air protection.

This first -of-its-kind statewide effort, established by AB 617, includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction programs. In addition, the Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also include s new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout t he State. This new authority provides an opportunity to continue to enhance our air quality planning efforts and better integrate community, regional, and State level programs to provide clean air for all Californians.

Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017)

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 29

15.7 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)
The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862. The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the tota l moneys received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Senate Bill 862 continuously appropriates five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Fund) for LCTOP, beginning in 2015-16.

This program will be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in coordination with Air Resource Board (ARB) and the State Controller's Office (SCO). Caltrans is responsible to ensure that the statutory requirements of the prog ram are met in terms of project eligibility, greenhouse reduction, disadvantaged community benefit, and other requirements of the law. (
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/low-carbon-transit-operations-program- lctop)

15.8 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM (TIRCP) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) was created by Senate Bill (SB) 862 (Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) and modified by 9 (Chapter 710, Statutes of 2015), to provide grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit systems to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. The legislation of these bills is established in Sections 75220 through 75225 of the Public Reso urces Codes (PRC). Assembly Bill 398 (Chapter 135) extended the Cap and Trade Program that supports the TIRCP from 2020 through 2030. SB 1 (Chapter 5) continues to provide a historic funding increase for transportation with funds directed to the TIRCP fr om the Public Transportation Account for new programming to achieve the following objectives:
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;
• Expand and improve rail service to increase ridership; • Integrate the rail service of the state’s various rail operations, including integration with the high- speed rail system; and
• Improve safety

The California Department of Transportation, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), will be responsible for administering this program
(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/transit-and-intercity-rail-capital-program) State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 30

15.9 LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS (LCFS)
In 2009 the Board approved the LCFS regulation to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of transportation fuel used in California by at least 10 percent by 2020 from a 2010 baseline. In 2011, the Board approved amendments to clarify, streamline, and enhance certain provisions of the regulation. In 2015, the Board re-a
dopted the LCFS to address procedural issues, which began implementation on January 1, 2016. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which includes strengthening and smoothing the CI benchmarks through 2030 in-lin
e with California’s 2030 GHG target enacted through SB32. The LCFS is one of the key AB 32 measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California but also has other significant benefits. It transforms and diversifies the fuel pool in California to reduce petroleum dependency and achieves air quality benefits, which are State priorities that preceded AB 32.

• N
eed to establish an account, register electric fuel consumption and report quarterly for credits

15.10 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (APCD)
The APCD's grant program provides funding for eligible projects located in San Luis Obispo County that provide fuel or power to a covered source (for example: on -road, off-road, and agricultural equipment emission sources). Eligible project categories include:
• Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: New and expansion to existing non -residential EV charging stations.
• Alternative Fueling Station: New and expansion to existing hydrogen and na tural gas fueling stations.
• Transit bus modernization.
• Additional projects may be considered on a case-by-case basis

https://www.slocleanair.org/community/grants.php

15.11 CA ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 617
The Grant staff is seeking application approval for is provided by California AB 617 which established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP). AB 617 provides a community -focused action framework to improve air quality and reduce exposure to air pollutants and toxic air contaminants in California communities most impacted by air pollution. This bill provides funding which the APCD allocates via competitive grants. Eligible project categories include infrastructure related projects such as design and engineering facilities for transit services.

15.12 USDOT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
• FY19 Bus and Bus Facilities
• Over $427 million for FY19
• 12 electric bus projects selected in FY18 program (approximately 10% of projects) • Notice of Funding likely released in Spring/Summer 2019

15.13 FY19 BUILD (FORMALLY KNOWN AS TIGER)
• 900 million available for FY19
• 50% Urban/50% Rural Split
• Notice of Funding Opportunity likely to be released Spring/Summer 2019 State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 31

15.14 FUND BALANCE
The Transit Fund holds approximately $35 Million in Working Capital. These funds are necessary as part of a fiscally prudent operating reserve to help weather any volatility in revenues. Amounts in excess of the 20% reserve will be used as local “matching” funds - if not fund in whole - transit capital projects that are yet to have an identified federal or state assistance grant. 16 PROCUREMENT
There are over 200 public transit agencies in California operating more than 14,000 transit buses.

California local public transit agencies are currently utilizing various methods to procure public transit buses. During market research it was discovered that some transit agencies are issuing their own solicitations and others may not have the resources, so they rely on other sources such as Sta te Cooperative Purchasing contracts through entities including California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) and Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. Local public transit agencies do not have the authority to establish a sta tewide contract. FTA Rules allow states to establish contracts for the use of political subdivisions (including transit agencies). A statewide contract will support the efforts of greening California, leverage pricing, streamline the procurement process and reduce costs for local public transit agencies.

Due to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rules, bus contracts are extremely complex to develop, and various agencies have already proposed that the State of California’s Department of Goods & Services (DGS) provide expertise to assist in the procurement process. Although the State of California does not operate transit buses within its own fleet, DGS agreed to create a statewide contract for transit agency use. In accordance with the federal FAST Act, co ntracts will be available to transit agencies outside of California as well. With the assistance of subject matter experts from several transit agencies, DGS created an FTA compliant Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking proposals to establish contracts for sixteen (16) sizes and types of battery-electric and fuel cell powered buses.

The State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) has just completed an extensive Request for Proposals for ZEB vehicles which all public agencies can participate from. This streamlines the acquisition process, helps ensure a vetted product and secures competitive pricing. Given the City’s procurement policies and costs for ZEBs, action will need to be approved by City Council.

Final selection will be made by Group to the responsive and responsible Bidder with the highest score and meeting all administrative and technical requirements. Additional awards may be made if the Bidder’s proposal is within twenty percent (20%) of the proposal with the highest points total within a Group and the Bidder represents a different OEM than the highest scoring Bidder.

Given the highly technical requirements needed to meet the stringent FTA procurement policies, it is recommended that the City pursue its ZEB purchases from this contact. Section 3.24.060(E) of the City’s purchasing ordinance allows for direct purchasing when the purchase will be made cooperatively with one, or more, other uni ts of government. The awarded RFP is compliant with State and Federal purchasing requirements and piggyback purchases.

16.1 PURCHASE VS. LEASE
To further help transit agencies purchase electric buses, some suppliers are now offering financing State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 32

programs that en able them to lease the batteries. The cost of an electric bus is about $250,000 more than a diesel bus, with the majority of the cost difference being attributed to the cost of the batteries .

Removing the purchase of the batteries largely brings the initial capital cost of the BEB comparable to a Diesel bus at around $500,000. The batteries are then leased by the transit agency and captured as a operational cost.

This approach of leasing the batteries has both its strengths and weaknesses. For example, should capital funding for electric buses be limited, this option brings the price of the vehicle comparable to historic vehicle norms ($500k). Further, since battery technology is still in development, there is a great

Through this option the OEM manages the risk for the transit agency of making sure those batteries work optimally for the life of the lease, including mid-life replacement of the batteries 17 ALTERNATIVE ZERO EMISSION MOBILITY PROGRAM CREDITS
A transit agency may opt to use a Zero -Emission Mobility Program in lieu or in conjunction of making a zero-emission bus purchase to meet the required minimum number of zero -emission buses as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4) if such program meets the following requirements:

1. The program provides zero-emission mobility services by using bicycles, scooters, or other zero - emission vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less, or any combination of these;

2. The program must be either directly operated by the transit agency or operated by a con tractor to the transit agency;

3. The transit agency must be able to track and record zero-emission passenger miles for each zero- emission vehicle.

A transit agency must achieve the following zero -emission passenger miles per year to be eligible to receive each mobility credit:

1. A large transit agency must achieve at least 320,000 zero-emission passenger miles per year;

2. A small transit agency must achieve at least 180,000 zero-emission passenger miles per year.

3. (b) Procedure to opt-in and opt-out of a Zero-Emission Mobility Option.

To opt into a Zero -Emission Mobility Option, a transit agency must submit a request to opt -in to the Executive Officer with the following information to prove it is meeting the requirements set forth in section 2023.5(a):

1. A description of the types of vehicles, including their GVWR and types of propulsion systems;

2. Documentation to show who will operate these services; and

3. A description of the method of collecting accurate zero-emission passenger miles per vehicle.

4. (2) A transit agency may choose to opt out from the Zero -Emission Mobility Option at any time with the submittal of a request to opt-out to the Executive Officer with expected date of program termination.

5. (c) Calculation and issuance of mobility credits.

Provided the criteria set forth in section 2023.5(a) has been met and the information required by section 2023.5(b) has been submitted to the Executive Officer, a transit agency that opts into a Zero-Emission Bus State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 33

Mobility Option may receive one credit that is equivalent to operation of one zero -emission bus in the fleet based on the following calculations:

When a bicycle is used in a Zero -Emission Mobility Option, a multiplier of three (3) shall apply when quantifying zero - emission passenger miles from a bicycle.

The zero-emission mobility credit is calculated by dividing the total zero -emission passenger miles in each calendar year achieved by the Zero -Emission Mobility program by 320,000 passenger miles per year for a large transit agency or by 180,000 passenger miles per year for a small transit agency; For each calendar year, if a transit agency maintains at least the same zero -emission passenger miles as required in section 2023.5(a)(4) then the mobility credits will continue to count as zero-emission buses in the fleet. If the calculated number of mobility credits as set forth in section 2023.5(c)(1)(B) does not result to a whole number, the number must be rounded to the nearest integer to determine the number of credits.

Each calculated credit as set fo rth in section 2023.5(c)(1)(B) will be treated the same as operating one zero-emission bus in the fleet in a given calendar year. Each mobility credit earned annually by a transit agency may be counted the same as having a zero -emission bus by the transit agency in its fleet when calculating the required minimum number of zero -emission buses in the following year of achieving passenger miles as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4).

Any transit agency that opts into the Zero -Emission Mobility Option must report annually to show the total zero-emission passenger miles achieved in the previous calendar year. A transit agency using the Zero-Emission Mobility Option must meet the reporting and record keeping requirements set forth in section 2023.9(c) for zero-emission passenger miles.

17.1.1 City’s Active Transportation Plan
City is currently undergoing the study process for an Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP will closely consider public input on if and nature of any City sponsored alternative mobility programs. A study session will be held with City Council on October 1st. That will provide clarity on where council wants to go with bikeshare. The study session will tell us if and to what intensity we will be taking on bikeshare. 18 IMPACTS, CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Expanded Executive Officer approved exemptions -to ensure no service cuts or fare increases associated with regulation implementation. Significant upfront capital costs for bus purchases and infrastructure; operational savings. Healthy skepticism of ZEBs. We want to plan our service to serve our community. We don’t want to plan our service to serve our equipment
Direct quote from the ICT Regulation: “California transit agencies will be faced with higher operating costs during the early years of implementation of the proposed ICT regulation but will ultimately see reduced operational spending in later years as fuel savings and LCFS credit generation grow.”

State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria

Page | 34

1. Develop A&E plan to support PG&E, Forefront Solar arrays and an expanded fleet model

2. Create a Joint ZEB Group but with individual plans

3. Use CA DGS contract to procure ZEB buses

4. Go with BEB’s until hydrogen fuel stations becomes available

5. Expand Transit fleet with ZEB’s in advance of ITC rule deadlines for additional credits

6. Retire diesel buses to a Contingency Fleet as an insurance policy or rehab as necessary

7. Buy one bus of each manufacturer to get a sense of which work best to start

8. Choose a universal plugin charging system

9. Develop in route opportunity charging plans

10. Consider a development of other zero emission mobility options (i.e. bike share program)