The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - May 17, 2023 C-14CITY OF Z CALIFORNIA AGENDA ITEM C-14 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Adopt the City of Lodi Fleet Electrification Master Plan MEETING DATE: May 17, 2023 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director Electric Utility Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the City of Lodi Fleet Electrification Master Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is drafting an Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation which is expected to take effect on January 1, 2024. In July 2022, City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Consulting, LLC (ICF) for fleet electrification master planning services. The purpose of these efforts was to develop a comprehensive system wide assessment of electric vehicle needs for the City and to recommend a strategy for a multi -tiered vehicle purchase and replacement process, inclusive of the facilities and infrastructure required to support those vehicles. The ACF regulation requires state and local government agencies to convert their fleet vehicles having gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds, to zero emission vehicles. Since emergency use and light duty vehicles are exempt from State requirements to electrify, the City does not anticipate a requirement to convert 100% of its citywide fleet to zero -emission under existing regulations. The Citywide Fleet Electrification Master Plan effort was intended to evaluate vehicle classes for which electric alternatives are available, the cost of said alternatives, upfront and lifecycle costs, financing incentives and options, as well as operational challenges and safety as it relates to electric alternatives. Staff and ICF presented the draft Fleet Electrification Master Plan to the City Council at the April 25, 2023 shirtsleeve meeting. Staff and ICF answered questions and concerns from the Council during the meeting. The final version of the Fleet Electrification Master Plan is prepared and ready to be adopt by the City Council. Staff will be utilizing this master plan to plan our electric vehicle purchase and charging infrastructure installation. Due to the fact fleet electrification is relatively new and evolving, staff may modify the master plan as fitted in the future to comply with CARB ACF regulations. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the City of Lodi Fleet Electrification Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be an increase in upfront vehicle procurement cost and the charging infrastructure cost. Most costs will be paid by the respective utility funds. Fleet in the Parks Department will be paid by General Fund. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. Char es E. Swimley, Jr. Jeff Berkheimer Public Works Director Electric Utility Director Cc: Utility Manager Fleet Superintendent Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director APPROVED: Steve schwabauer Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager \\cvcfilv02\pubwks$\WP\COUNCIL\2023\C_Adopt Citywide Fleet Electrification Master Plan.docx 4/28/2023 City of Lodi Fleet Electrification Master Plan May 2023 ICF Oo)) CITY OF i if* Z1610 CALIFORNIA b r� 1 ICF Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................................................1 The Imperative for EV Fleet Transition and Baseline Inventory Analysis.....................................................................3 The Need to Transition to Electric Vehicles..............................................................................................................3 Overviewof City's Existing Fleet...............................................................................................................................6 FleetTransition Plan...................................................................................................................................................10 Process for Determining the EV Replacement Recommendations........................................................................10 KeyAssumptions.....................................................................................................................................................11 Electric Vehicle Acquisition and Timeline Recommendations................................................................................13 Fleet EV Charging Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................16 Process for Determining the EV Charging Infrastructure Needs............................................................................16 Scenario 1— 1:1 Vehicle to Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure Scenario...............................................................17 Scenario 2 — Maximum Vehicle to Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure Scenario....................................................18 Scenario 3 — 1:1 Vehicle -to -Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure with Reduced Dwelling Time..............................21 Grid- and Site -Level Electrical System Capacity and Potential Upgrades...............................................................23 The Role of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) in Reducing EV Charging Costs..................................................29 Charging Infrastructure Cost...................................................................................................................................31 Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks of the Two Charging Infrastructure Alternatives......................................33 Projected Costs & Benefit & Other Barriers to Fleet Conversion...............................................................................34 Cost of Transition of Fleet Electrification...............................................................................................................34 Environmental Benefit of the Transition................................................................................................................36 Barrierto Transition....................................................................................................................................................36 Technology Availability & Procurement Challenges...........................................................................................37 Infrastructure Buildout Challenges.....................................................................................................................37 WorkforceTraining.............................................................................................................................................38 Emergency Response Vehicles............................................................................................................................38 Funding& Financing Programs...................................................................................................................................39 StackingOpportunities...........................................................................................................................................41 Funding and Financing Recommendations.............................................................................................................43 Options for Medium- and Heavy -Duty EVs.........................................................................................................43 iiIPage Optionsfor Light -Duty ZEVs................................................................................................................................44 Options for Charging Infrastructure...................................................................................................................44 Recommendations for Implementation.....................................................................................................................45 Appendix A — Details of Funding & Financing Programs............................................................................................47 FundingPrograms...................................................................................................................................................47 FederalPrograms................................................................................................................................................47 StatePrograms....................................................................................................................................................49 LocalPrograms....................................................................................................................................................60 FinancingPrograms....................................................................................................................................................60 Public -Private Partnerships.....................................................................................................................................60 Purchasing Contracts from Sourcewell...................................................................................................................61 FinancingOptions through IBank...........................................................................................................................62 Infrastructure State Revolving Fund(ISRF).........................................................................................................62 ClimateTech Finance..........................................................................................................................................63 Charging Infrastructure-as-a-service......................................................................................................................63 iii IPage Executive Summary The City of Lodi is proactively making strides towards compliance with forthcoming state -level Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates, particularly focusing on the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation. The ACF regulation will require transitioning the City's departmental fleet of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles (EV). Such a transition is expected to both provide benefits and bear challenges as compared to business -as -usual ICE vehicle replacement. Although transitioning to EVs can yield long-term cost savings for the City due to demonstrably lower operating expenses, it is crucial to acknowledge the considerable upfront costs and operational and logistical challenges that must be addressed. Moreover, lack of technology availability, especially for specialty vehicles, as well as high upfront cost of vehicles and infrastructure could pose significant challenges to the City as it strives to achieve compliance. These potential challenges require careful planning and strategic investment to successfully achieve a full EV fleet. The City's fleet currently consists of approximately 243 vehicles: 193 are gasoline - powered, 45 are diesel -powered, and 5 are battery - electric. To this end, the City has initiated a comprehensive study to develop a Fleet Electrification Master Plan. The plan aims to assess the City's current fleet and provide recommendations for cost effective transition to clean transportation alternatives, along with installing EV charging stations for City fleet vehicles. Furthermore, the plan offers guidance on the potential funding and financing sources available to facilitate the transition to an all -electric fleet. The assessment carried out during this project revealed that out of the 243 vehicles currently in the City's fleet, a total of 126 could potentially be transitioned to battery - electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). This transition would require the installation of a robust charging infrastructure, consisting of between 41 to 70 dual -port chargers (DPCs) with power levels ranging from 2 kW to 56 kW. This charging infrastructure will be critical to ensure that the City's electric fleet can be efficiently charged and operated without disruption. Based on the findings of the project team's assessment, transitioning the City's fleet to EVs will require a capital investment of $2.7 million for vehicle procurement and between $720,000 to $1.25 million for charging infrastructure (in net present value). The project team evaluated an alternate scenario in which City vehicles have only 2 hours of available charging time to respond promptly to emergency situations. In this case, the City would need to invest $4.1 million in deploying charging infrastructure at its facilities. In addition to the charging infrastructure cost, the project team also estimated that the City of Lodi will require approximately $300,000 for electrical infrastructure upgrades (e.g., transformers, panels, conduit) to accommodate the need for the proposed fleet electrification master plan. Based on the project team's estimates, the total cost of ownership for an EV fleet over its lifetime could be approximately $480,000 less than operating a fleet with ICES. The potential cost savings can be further enhanced by pursuing and obtaining various vehicle incentives and tax credits provided by state and federal governments. In an optimal scenario, the City could save up to $2.1 11 P a g e million in total cost of ownership by leveraging all available grants and credits. Of course, the total amount of funding made available to the City is contingent on successful application processes, which can take considerable time and resources. The project analysis also revealed that transitioning to an EV fleet will not only result in long-term cost savings, but also provide substantial environmental benefits for the City of Lodi. By replacing 126 fossil fuel vehicles with battery and plug-in hybrid EVs, the City could reduce over 9,859 metric tons of GHG emissions and eliminate more than 25,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide emissions. This environmentally responsible outcome would be equivalent to removing over 2,130 passenger vehicles from the road for a year or planting around 162,670 trees. Despite all these benefits, transitioning to an EV fleet is a complex and multi -faceted process that the City must carefully consider. Some of the challenges that the City might face during this transition include: • Upfront costs: While EVs have a lower total cost of ownership over their lifespan, the initial cost of purchasing an EV can be higher than a traditional ICE vehicle. This can be a significant financial hurdle for a City with limited budgets. Transitioning to an EV Fleet Requires Meticulous Planning, Substantial Investment, and Unwavering Collaboration among Stakeholders, and Experts There are several challenges to consider when transitioning to an EV fleet: upfront costs, limited EV models, production capacity, charging infrastructure, range anxiety, uncertainty in charging time, dependence on power grid, parking space availability, and workforce training • Limited availability of EV models: While there are an increasing number of EV models available on the market, the selection of vehicles is still limited compared to traditional ICE vehicles. This can make it difficult for the City to find the right type of EV for its specific needs. • Limited production capacity: EV manufacturers may have limited production capacity, which can result in longer delivery times for the City when purchasing EVs for its fleet. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of global supply chains, and disruptions in the supply of parts and components that can impact the production of EVs. • Limited dealership networks: The distribution network for EVs is still evolving, and there may be limited dealership networks available in some regions. This can make it more difficult for the City to access and purchase EVs for its fleet. • Charging infrastructure: The City will need to install a network of charging stations to support its EV fleet, which can be a costly and time-consuming process. They also need to ensure that the charging stations are strategically located and able to handle the increased demand for electricity. • Range anxiety: EVs have a limited range compared to ICE vehicles, which can cause "range anxiety" among drivers. This can be particularly challenging for fleet vehicles that need to cover a wide range of distances in a single day. • Uncertainty in charging time: In this assessment, the project team assumed that most of the City vehicles would have at least 8 hours of charging time. However, there may be situations where emergency response and utility fleet vehicles need faster charging times to maintain their availability on the road. To accommodate such scenarios, the City would need to invest in building a more powerful charging infrastructure, which could be significantly more expensive and place a much higher burden on the City's electrical infrastructure. As described earlier, under a scenario where City vehicles have only 2 hours of available charging time to address emergency situations in a timely manner, the City would need to invest $4.1 million in deploying charging infrastructure at its facilities. This cost does not include potential expenses associated with grid upgrades, such as transformers and panels. 2 1 P a g e • Dependence on the power grid: EVs require electricity to operate, and any disruption to the power grid can impact the ability of the City to charge its vehicles. This can be particularly challenging during extreme weather events, such as high winds, wildfires, or flooding, which can cause widespread power outages. Most EV charging stations do not have backup power sources, which means that they will not be operational during power outages. This can impact the ability of the City to keep its EV fleets charged and operational. Additionally, during emergencies, such as natural disasters or other crises, the power grid may need to prioritize power to critical infrastructure, such as hospitals and emergency services. This may result in less power being available for charging EVs. • Parking space availability: EV charging infrastructure typically requires dedicated parking spaces for charging, which can impact the availability of parking for other vehicles. This can be particularly challenging in areas where parking is already limited. • Workforce training: EVs have a different set of maintenance requirements than ICE vehicles. The City will need to invest in workforce training to ensure that its technicians have the necessary skills and knowledge to maintain and repair EVs. The technology used in EVs is different from traditional ICE vehicles, and there may be a limited number of skilled technicians available to service and maintain EVs. This can impact the ability of the City to keep its EV fleets running smoothly. • Take Home Vehicles: Electrifying take-home vehicles presents various challenges, including a lack of residential charging infrastructure, which can make it difficult for employees to charge their vehicles at home and lead to range anxiety. Different usage patterns between take-home and fleet vehicles may also impact the selection and placement of charging infrastructure. Installing charging infrastructure in residential areas can be costly, particularly for smaller fleets with limited budgets. Furthermore, reimbursing employees for home charging may prove challenging if separate meters are not in place. Transitioning to an EV fleet requires detailed planning, significant investment, and strong collaboration among stakeholders. Although this report offers a blueprint for the City to comply with state zero -emission mandates and transition its fleet to EVs, it's important to acknowledge that the listed challenges are not exhaustive, and further obstacles may emerge during the process. The Imperative for EV Fleet Transition and Baseline Inventory Analysis The Need to Transition to Electric Vehicles To accelerate the adoption of zero -emission vehicles (ZEVs), JR'� OQ�Io ZEV SaI@S by 2035 the state of California has implemented a range of measures, including mandates requiring automakers to produce a ition to certain percentage of ZEVs, financial incentives for Full tra ZEV short-haul/drayage trucks consumers, and investments in charging and fueling by 2035 • infrastructure. In September 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order No. N-79-20, which sets ambitious goals ofFull transition to ZEV buses & transitioning to 100 percent light-duty ZEVs by 2035 and all Q heavy-duty long-haul trucks medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to ZEVs by 2045. The order by 2045* also includes directives for accelerating the deployment of l transition to charging infrastructure, increasing the number of ZEVs in�Off-rL�ad equipment public fleets, and promoting consumer awareness and Source: CARB by 2035 *where feasible adoption of EVs. This executive order lays the foundation for implementing policies to achieve these targets. To date, California has implemented several regulations that address all vehicle modes, including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, transit vehicles, and rail. Table 1 3 1 P a g e provides a summary of the most significant regulations currently in effect pertaining to the zero -emission transition of on -road vehicles. Of all these regulations, the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation will have the most direct impact on municipalities. The ACF regulation applies to cities, counties, public utilities, special districts, local agencies or districts, and State government agencies that own a Class 2b-8 vehicle. When adding vehicles to their California fleet, affected fleet owners must add ZEVs according to a specific schedule. The percentage of ZEVs required depends on the population density of the county where the fleet operates. For fleets outside designated low - population counties, 50 percent of the total number of vehicle additions must be ZEVs beginning January 1, 2024, increasing to 100 percent beginning January 1, 2027. For fleets in designated low -population counties, 100 percent of the total number of vehicle additions must be ZEVs beginning January 1, 2027. The entities affected must provide annual reports, starting April 1, 2024, and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. The following entities and vehicles are exempt from requirements: school buses, military tactical vehicles, vehicles awaiting sale, emergency vehicles, historical vehicles, dedicated snow removal vehicles, two -engine vehicles, heavy cranes, transit vehicles subject to the Innovative Clean Transit regulation, and vehicles subject to the Zero -Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. The regulation also offers several exemptions, some of which are described here: • Exemptions for purchasing new ICE vehicles if a suitable ZEV or NZEV configuration is unavailable. CARB will establish a ZEV Purchase Exemption List, which will specify vehicle configurations unavailable as ZEVs or NZEVs, and fleet owners may purchase an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle of the same configuration and weight class from this list. Fleet owners may also request exemptions by submitting a ZEV Purchase Exemption Application, which requires detailed information about the vehicle configuration needed and documentation from manufacturers stating the unavailability of ZEV or NZEV options. CARB will rely on various sources of information and their engineering and business judgment to determine if the criteria for exemption are met. If a suitable ZEV or NZEV is identified, the exemption request will be denied, and the vehicle configuration will be removed from the ZEV Purchase Exemption List. • Backup Vehicle Exemption: Fleet owners can designate vehicles as backup vehicles during the March reporting period if they meet specific criteria related to vehicle operation, reporting, and compliance. • Daily Usage Exemption: Fleet owners can request an exemption to purchase a new ICE vehicle if no suitable battery electric vehicle (BEV) is available that can meet the demonstrated daily usage needs of the fleet. • ZEV Infrastructure Delay Extension: Fleet owners can request extensions if they experience delays due to circumstances beyond their control while installing ZEV fueling infrastructure. Two extensions are available: a) ZEV Infrastructure Construction Delays: Fleet owners may request this extension if they experience construction delays. They must submit documentation showing the executed contract for ZEV fueling infrastructure installation, reasons for the delay, and supporting documents b) ZEV Infrastructure Site Electrification Delays: This exemption allows fleet owners to request extensions on ZEV compliance deadlines if their electric utility provider cannot supply the needed power for ZEV charging or refueling. Fleet owners can request an initial 3 -year extension and an additional 2 -year extension, providing documentation about site electrification, utility response, and infrastructure capacity. 4 1 P a g e Table 1. California Regulations Supporting ZEV Deployment Upcoming fleet requirements are influencing the City's short-term compliance priorities and long-term strategies for fleet procurement, maintenance, and operation. The central approach focuses on transitioning to the most cost-effective EVs that fulfill the fleet's existing operational needs. To achieve this, the City has devised a master plan that includes conducting a comprehensive inventory of its fleet to identify opportunities for EV adoption, developing a plan for deploying EV charging infrastructure at City facilities, and collaborating with local and regional partners to secure funding and support for the transition to EVs. 5 1 P a g e The Advanced Clean Cars II regulation will reduce light-duty passenger car, pickup truck, and SUV emissions from the 2026 model year through 2035. The regulations amend the Zero -Emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of ZEVs, including battery -electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, and plug-in hybrid EVs. By 2035, the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation requires 100% of new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be ZEVs. These amendments support California Governor Newsom's executive order that all new passenger vehicles sold in California must be zero emissions by 2035. The Low -Emission Vehicle Regulations were also amended to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier light-duty trucks. The ACT regulation requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to sell Advanced Clean increasing percentages of ZEVs in California, culminating in a requirement for 100% ZEV Trucks Regulation sales by 2045. The ICT regulation, adopted in December 2018, requires public transit agencies to transition to a 100% zero -emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040. All transit agencies that own, Innovative Clean operate, or lease buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 Transit Regulation lbs. must comply with the regulation. The ZEB purchase requirements vary depending on the transit agency's size. Starting in 2024, the regulation requires fleets operating in California to transition to zero emission technology with the goal of transitioning all drayage trucks to zero Advanced Clean emission by 2035 and the rest of the medium- and heavy-duty (MD -HD) vehicles to zero Fleets Regulation emission by 2045. Specific to municipality fleets, 50% of the total number of vehicle additions must be ZEVs beginning January 1, 2024, increasing to 100% beginning January 1, 2027. Upcoming fleet requirements are influencing the City's short-term compliance priorities and long-term strategies for fleet procurement, maintenance, and operation. The central approach focuses on transitioning to the most cost-effective EVs that fulfill the fleet's existing operational needs. To achieve this, the City has devised a master plan that includes conducting a comprehensive inventory of its fleet to identify opportunities for EV adoption, developing a plan for deploying EV charging infrastructure at City facilities, and collaborating with local and regional partners to secure funding and support for the transition to EVs. 5 1 P a g e Overview of City's Existing Fleet Currently, the City's on -road fleet consists of 243 vehicles, the majority of which are fueled by gasoline. Note that of these 243 vehicles, the following public safety and EVs were excluded from the assessment: 77 police department vehicles, 20 fire department vehicles, and 3 EVs. In summary, emergency response and public safety vehicles were excluded from this assessment due to their exemption from the ACF regulation, and the unavailability of suitable ZEV or NZEV replacements in many instances. Furthermore, some of these vehicles are designated as take-home, which presents additional challenges that are elaborated upon in the document. This means that out of the City's 243 vehicles, only 143 vehicles are considered in this fleet electrification master plan. The vehicle type distribution of the analyzed 143 vehicles is illustrated in Figure 1 below. Approximately 57 percent of the vehicles are light-duty, and the remainder of vehicles are considered medium- to heavy-duty (MD -HD) vehicles. Also as shown in Figure 2, the majority of the vehicles (approximately 91 vehicles) typically dwell at the MSC site, 18 of them dwell at the City hall, 17 at Park & Rec, and the rest are within the Hutchins Street Square, Surface Water Treatment Plant, and White Slough facilities. Figure 1. Vehicle Types of Existing Fleet Bucket Tru( 6% Street Sweeper 1% Box Truck 1% Medium -Duty Vocational Truck 1% Van 6% Sedan Heavy Truck 7% 1 a o% Medium -Duty Pickup 15% Minivan 6% Light -Duty Pickup 36% 6 1 P a g e Figure 2. Number of Vehicles by Dwelling Location 90 80 s 70 j 60 0 50 40 E 30 D Z 20 10 0 MSC City Hall ■ Street Sweeper ■ Bucket Truck ■ Medium -Duty Vocational Truck ■ Van Minivan Sedan ■ Heavy Truck ■ Box Truck ■ Medium -Duty Pickup Light -Duty Pickup SUV Parks & Rec White Slough Surface Water Hutchins Street Treatment Plant Square The existing retirement schedule for the City's fleet is shown in Figure 3. This schedule is based on the fleet -provided in-service date and retirement years for each vehicle. The existing retirement schedule shows a high number of vehicle retirements in 2023, due to a number of vehicles that were scheduled to retire before 2023 based on fleet - provided values for the typical lifespan of each vehicle type. Additionally, the City provided some input on adjusted retirement years based on vehicle attributes, such as mileage and utilization, that were also considered in the replacement schedule. In the recommended EV replacement schedule, fleet vehicles that were scheduled to retire before 2023 were adjusted to retire based on average lifetime mileage assumptions by vehicle type per a tool created by Argonne National Laboratory called the Alternative Fuel Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool. These lifetime mileage assumptions are described in more detail later in this section. Figure 3. Retirement Schedule of Existing Fleet zn . 25 Ln aU 20 0 15 E 10 73 Z E 0 ■ Street Sweeper ■ Bucket Truck ■ Medium -Duty Vocational Truck ■ Van Minivan ■ Heavy Truck ■ Box Truck ■ Medium -Duty Pickup Light -Duty Pickup SUV 1 1 1 0 — oti�'x ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti do Replacement Year On average, City fleet vehicles operate around 25 miles per day; however, this varies significantly across different vehicle types. For instance, bucket trucks have the highest average daily mileage at 33 miles, while cargo vans 7 1 P a g e have the lowest at approximately 14 miles. Notably, even within the same vehicle type, there is considerable variation in daily mileage. For example, bucket trucks can travel anywhere from 10 to 87 miles per day. The distribution of the City's fleet daily mileages are illustrated as a box and whisker chart in Figure 4. Also, according to data provided, the City fleet is estimated to annually consume 54,000 gallons of diesel and 42,000 gallons of gasoline as demonstrated in Figure 5. Heavy trucks, bucket trucks and light-duty pickups are the top three major consumers of gasoline and diesel at the City. Figure 4. Whisker plot demonstrating the variation in daily operations of City fleet vehicles 100 90 80 70 60 a� 50 40 C) 30 rz > C: c Q Q > > O ~ _0 N N •Y Y N U V V V x � Y Y [Q 7 N t E 7 J -Q N cv G 8 1 P a g e O ~ ~ N •Y Y U V � 7 N E 7 N 8 1 P a g e Figure S. Annual Fuel Consumption 30,000 25,000 - 20,000 15,000 c 0 10,000 5,000 IIS OJ��Q Jae` ee�-`� O��Q J �e 9 1 P a g e �t 5e \fit �`c• � o+ J O a` 9 1 P a g e Fleet Transition Plan Process for Determining the EV Replacement Recommendations To determine the most suitable EV replacements for the City's existing fleet, ICF leverages its extensive EV Library, which contains up-to-date information about currently available and soon -to -be -released EV models. ICF also utilizes its Fleet Assessment Model to evaluate the type of operations, daily mileage, fuel consumption, and retirement year of each vehicle in the City's fleet, providing a comprehensive view of the existing vehicles' requirements. The process ensures that the recommended EV replacements are the most suitable option for each vehicle, considering their unique operational requirements, while also considering factors such as performance, availability, and cost-effectiveness. The process for determining the EV replacement recommendations is summarized in the following steps: ➢ Data Collection: ICF maintains a comprehensive database known as the "EV Library" that contains all the essential information about each EV available in the market, such as vehicle type, sub -type, application, expected availability, all -electric range, battery size, drivetrain, GVWR, and vehicle price. ➢ Fleet Assessment: To identify appropriate replacement options that meet the existing vehicle requirements, ICF utilizes its Fleet Assessment Model, which assesses the operations, daily mileage, fuel consumption, and scheduled retirement year of each vehicle in the City's fleet. ➢ Identifying Potential EV Replacements: ICF utilizes the Fleet Assessment outcomes to determine the EVs from the EV Library that meet the City's operational and financial criteria. ICF's fleet assessment model makes the best effort to select EV counterparts with operational specifications consistent with standard vehicles, however, it is possible that manufacturers may not be building EVs with identical specifications. ➢ Evaluation of EV Replacements: ICF evaluates the potential EV replacements by considering factors such as their performance, reliability, availability, and cost-effectiveness. Table 2 below shows the number of available BEV/PHEV models by year and vehicle type. Table 2. EV Availability by Vehicle Type Sedan 42 27 69 2021 27 0 38 4 SUV 59 31 90 2021 30 1 49 10 Minivan 1 1 2 2022 1 0 1 0 Light -Duty Pickup 14 18 32 2021 18 0 5 9 Medium -Duty Pickup 7 12 19 2021 12 0 4 3 Van 31 0 31 2021 0 0 25 6 Step Van 20 0 20 2021 0 0 19 1 Medium -Duty Vocational 31 4 35 2021 4 0 29 2 Box Truck 16 0 16 2021 0 0 14 2 Street Sweeper 2 0 2 2020 0 0 2 0 Refuse Truck 5 0 5 2021 0 0 5 0 Shuttle Bus 3 0 3 2022 0 0 3 0 Transit Bus 44 0 44 2021 0 0 44 0 School Bus 33 0 33 2021 0 0 33 0 Bucket Truck 1 0 1 2021 0 0 1 0 Heavy Truck 19 0 19 2021 0 0 15 4 Motorcycle 37 0 37 2021 0 0 36 1 101 Page Key Assumptions The project team relied on several key assumptions and data sources for this analysis, including those shown in the list below. These assumptions were applied within ICF's Fleet Assessment Model tool ("the model"), which was used to analyze the fleet and develop EV replacement recommendations. ❖ EV Recommendation Threshold: replacement of existing vehicles with EVs is recommended on a per -vehicle basis if a commercially available EV equivalent is capable of meeting the daily estimated range requirements of the vehicle. To assess the cost of a fleetwide transition, this analysis evaluates the total cost of ownership (TCO) for replacing all vehicles with EV equivalents that have adequate range, regardless of the cost differential between EV replacements and existing ICE vehicles. ❖ Vehicle Pricing: the model uses the manufacturer suggested retail prices (MSRPs) for EVs where available. When MSRP pricing is unavailable, the model uses average pricing based on vehicle and fuel type via Argonne National Laboratory's Alternative Fuel Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool and ICF's Comparison of Medium- and Heavy -Duty Technologies in California report for the California Electric Transportation Coalition (CaIETC report). Vehicle pricing was escalated annually using the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2022 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Table 52. New Light -Duty Vehicles Prices and ICF's CaIETC report for the California Electric Transportation Coalition. ❖ Fuel and Maintenance: the model uses the gasoline and diesel prices provided by the City, which are $6.10 per gallon of diesel and $5.39 per gallon of gasoline and incorporates the 2022 California Energy Commission (CEC) price escalation projections in its Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). The model determines the average annual fuel use for each vehicle based on its annual mileage and average fuel economy (miles per gallon), and then multiplies the fuel use value by the price per gallon of fuel. ICF uses annual mileage and fuel efficiency data provided by Lodi when available. When annual mileage or fuel efficiency data is not available, the model uses assumptions by vehicle and fuel type from the AFLEET Tool and ICF's CaIETC report. The model also uses these sources to estimate average per mile maintenance costs based on vehicle and fuel type. Maintenance costs are escalated 2.2 percent annually. ❖ Electricity Price: the model uses a $0.16/kWh base rate, based on the City's electric utility rate, and assumed an annual escalation of 3 percent between 2022 through 2045 and 1 percent afterward. ❖ Timing of Vehicle Replacements: to establish the vehicle replacement schedule, ICF employed the City Fleet Replacement Policy and Guideline (Table 3). For each vehicle, ICF calculated the time frame until it reached the "red" year and used this to estimate the appropriate replacement year. ICF relied on the City -provided annual mileage data to determine when vehicles would enter the "red" zone. Table 3. City of Lodi Fleet Replacement Policy and Guideline Use Classification Service Life (years) Yellow Anticipated Mileage by "Red" Year Police Patrol <4 4 to 6 >6 100,000 Police Undercover <3 3 to 8 >8 80,000 Police Motorcycles <3 3 to 5 >5 60,000 Fire Engine <10 10 to 25 >25 150,000 General Purpose Transportation <8 8 to 10 >10 120,000 Light/Medium Commercial <10 10 to 15 >15 120,000 11 1 P a g e Heavy Duty Commercial <15 15 to 20 >20 100,000 Light Transit Buses <5 6 to 10 >10 220,000 Heavy Transit Buses <12 12 to 15 >15 500,000 Special Purpose Specific to each vehicle/equipment as approved by the City Manager ❖ Timeframe: This analysis focuses on vehicle replacements occurring in 2023 through 2040, with TCO calculations extending across the vehicle lifespans of all replacements out to 2050. ❖ Discount Rate: A discount rate of 5 percent was used to estimate the net present value (NPV) of future cash flows. ❖ Vehicle Ranges: The estimated mileage ranges per vehicle were accounted for when recommending EV replacements. The analysis used an average temperature range of 41 to 927 to assess the potential impact temperatures in Lodi can have on EV ranges; this is estimated to reduce EV model ranges to 75 percent of their maximum mileage range. For Lodi's current vehicles, the model estimated the range required each day by dividing the fleet -provided annual mileage by 250 days per year; this varies from 4 to 87 miles per day depending on the vehicle. 12 1 P a g e Electric Vehicle Acquisition and Timeline Recommendations The City of Lodi's fleet comprises 243 vehicles, with the Figure 6. Vehicles considered in this analysis following distribution: Sao • 77 vehicles belong to the police department (excluded ■ Police Department from this analysis) Fire Department • 20 vehicles belong to the fire department (excluded 250 from this analysis) 3 • 3 vehicles are already EVs ICE not Subject to ACF • 73 vehicles are subject to ACF (above 8,500 lbs. GVWR) 200 • 70 vehicles are not subject to ACF ICE Subject to ACF N N �1 A This analysis concentrates on the 73 ACF -subject vehicles and o 150 the 70 vehicles not associated with either the police or fire department. The analysis excluded police and fire department z vehicles primarily because proven EV technology is currently ioo lacking for these fleet segments. While several electric pursuit - rated vehicles exist (e.g., Ford Mustang Mach -E, Tesla Model Y, and F-150 Lightning), they are still undergoing testing by a 50 limited number of police departments nationwide. Furthermore, as first responders, these vehicles often have D insufficient downtime for charging, making it challenging to City of Lodi Fleet transition them to EVs at this time. Also, it should be note that some of these vehicles are take home vehicles of which electrification of them could pose several challenges. One of the primary issues is the lack of charging infrastructure in residential areas, which can make it difficult for employees to charge their vehicles at home. This can lead to range anxiety, where employees worry about not having enough charge to get to and from work. Additionally, take-home vehicles may have different usage patterns than fleet vehicles, which can impact the selection and placement of charging infrastructure. The cost of installing charging infrastructure in residential areas can also be a challenge, particularly for smaller fleets with limited budgets. Also there will be a challenge on how fleet could reimburse their employee for charging at home if they do not have separate meters. Additionally, some of these take-home vehicles are used by troubleshooters who provide 24/7 response to electrical emergencies. The unique operational requirements of troubleshooters, such as the need for rapid response times and specialized equipment, may limit the range of suitable EV models. For the 143 on -road vehicles examined in this analysis, the project team found that most have commercially available EV equivalents (or will soon have them). However, this may not hold true for specialty vehicles, as some upfitters have not yet begun working with EV chassis. The analysis conducted for this project was set up to recommend EV replacement for all 143 of those vehicles in order to assess the timeline, cost, and emissions impacts of replacing all vehicles that have EV equivalents. The project team used the model to identify the lowest -cost EV replacement on a vehicle -by -vehicle basis that would meet each vehicle's daily mileage and charging dwell time constraints. Table 5 below summarizes the EV makes and models recommended to replace the City's existing fleet vehicles through 2040, including both battery BEVs and plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEV). Importantly, this initial analysis was designed to identify and recommend the lowest -cost EV replacement that can meet the daily mileage requirements for each existing vehicle, and as such the model used for this analysis did not filter for either all -electric BEVs or PHEVs. Compared to PHEVs, which have a 131Page ■ Police Department Fire Department 20 ■ Already Electric 3 ICE not Subject to ACF 70 p) ICE Subject to ACF N N �1 A U N IZ s M �1 73 limited number of police departments nationwide. Furthermore, as first responders, these vehicles often have D insufficient downtime for charging, making it challenging to City of Lodi Fleet transition them to EVs at this time. Also, it should be note that some of these vehicles are take home vehicles of which electrification of them could pose several challenges. One of the primary issues is the lack of charging infrastructure in residential areas, which can make it difficult for employees to charge their vehicles at home. This can lead to range anxiety, where employees worry about not having enough charge to get to and from work. Additionally, take-home vehicles may have different usage patterns than fleet vehicles, which can impact the selection and placement of charging infrastructure. The cost of installing charging infrastructure in residential areas can also be a challenge, particularly for smaller fleets with limited budgets. Also there will be a challenge on how fleet could reimburse their employee for charging at home if they do not have separate meters. Additionally, some of these take-home vehicles are used by troubleshooters who provide 24/7 response to electrical emergencies. The unique operational requirements of troubleshooters, such as the need for rapid response times and specialized equipment, may limit the range of suitable EV models. For the 143 on -road vehicles examined in this analysis, the project team found that most have commercially available EV equivalents (or will soon have them). However, this may not hold true for specialty vehicles, as some upfitters have not yet begun working with EV chassis. The analysis conducted for this project was set up to recommend EV replacement for all 143 of those vehicles in order to assess the timeline, cost, and emissions impacts of replacing all vehicles that have EV equivalents. The project team used the model to identify the lowest -cost EV replacement on a vehicle -by -vehicle basis that would meet each vehicle's daily mileage and charging dwell time constraints. Table 5 below summarizes the EV makes and models recommended to replace the City's existing fleet vehicles through 2040, including both battery BEVs and plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEV). Importantly, this initial analysis was designed to identify and recommend the lowest -cost EV replacement that can meet the daily mileage requirements for each existing vehicle, and as such the model used for this analysis did not filter for either all -electric BEVs or PHEVs. Compared to PHEVs, which have a 131Page hybrid ICE -EV powertrain, BEVs are anticipated to result in greater reductions in emissions because of zero tailpipe emissions. Table 4. Electric Vehicle Recommendations Sedan SUV Light -Duty Pickup Minivan Medium -Duty Pickup Van Medium -Duty Vocational Truck Street Sweeper Bucket Truck Heavy Truck — Straight Truck Box Truck — Class 4/5 Chevrolet - Bolt EV 1LT 10 Chevrolet - Bolt EUV LT 5 Kia - Niro Plug-in Hybrid SUV 6 Chevrolet - Silverado EV 41 Lordstown Motors — Endurance (Crew Cab) 8 Canoo — Lifestyle Vehicle 8 Ford — E -Transit Chassis Cab 16 Canoo - MPDV1 4 Maxwell Vehicles — ePro SR Passenger Van 1 Ford - E -Transit (Chassis Cab) 2 Global - M3 SUPERCHARGED 2 Terex — EV Aerial (Class 6) 9 Peterbilt - 220EV (Class 7 - 141 kW) 13 SEA Electric — SEA Hina M5 Box 1 The project team also established a proposed timeline for EV replacement based on the existing fleet's retirement schedule and the predicted availability of recommended replacement EV models. Figure 7 illustrates the recommended replacement timeline for all 143 vehicles. The replacement timeline also introduces some flexibility in 2040, where the City may choose to retire some vehicles slightly before or slightly after 2040 based on its annual or departmental budget. Figure 7. Recommended EV Replacement Timeline: Vehicle Types 30 25 V 1 a) 20 a� 1 E Z71 10 5 ' Box Truck - CLASS 4/5 Heavy Truck - Straight Truck ■ Medium -Duty Pickup ■ Minivan ■ Street Sweeper ■ Van - Cargo Bucket Truck Light -Duty Pickup ■ Medium -Duty Vocational Truck ■ Sedan ■ SUV ■ Van - Passenger 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 14 1 P a g e 1 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 14 1 P a g e Considering the ACF regulation, the project team also established EV replacement timelines for vehicles impacted by the rule (e.g., MD -HD vehicles) and vehicles not impacted by the rule (e.g., light-duty vehicles). The reason why to consider the fleet in terms of "ACF" and "non -ACF" vehicles has to do with the fact that the ACF regulation has three different regulatory components: state and local agencies, drayage fleets, and high priority/federal fleets. The City of Lodi would be subject to the state and local agency regulatory component of the ACF, which requires that 50 percent of vehicle purchases to be zero -emission beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero -emission by 2027. In other words, the City of Lodi can reduce the number of EV replacements between 2024 through 2026 and instead opt for standard ICE vehicle replacements, which would be allowed to operate through the end of each vehicles' useful life. Based on this 50 percent ZEV purchase requirement between 2024 through 2026, the total number of EV replacements for vehicles subject to the ACF regulation decreases from 73 EVs to 56 EVs. The EV replacement timeline for "ACF" vehicles is shown in Figure 8, and the EV replacement timeline for "non - ACF" vehicles is shown in Figure 9. Figure 8. Recommended EV Replacement Timeline - Vehicles Subject to ACF by Type 151 Page 10 Box Truck - CLASS 4/5 Bucket Truck Heavy Truck - Straight Truck 9 Light -Duty Pickup ■ Medium -Duty Pickup ■ Medium -Duty Vocational Truc 8 ■ Street Sweeper ■ Van - Cargo 7 v s a� 6 0 5 a) � 4 3 'Z 1 1 2 1 0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 151 Page Figure 9. Recommended EV Replacement Timeline - Vehicles Not Subject to ACF by Type 12 10 v v 8 s a� 0 6 v E 4 Z A IC Light -Duty Pickup Minivan Sedan SUV ■ Van - Passenger 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 This analysis presents two EV replacement timelines for the City of Lodi: one for vehicles affected by the ACF regulation and one for vehicles not affected. These timelines are designed to help the City comply with future state policies and demonstrate how 126 vehicles will transition to EVs. The actual transition may commence after 2023, taking into account extended lead times on orders or the City's decisions on when to initiate purchases. In the next section, the team will describe two charging infrastructure options to support these 126 EVs, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Fleet EV Charging Infrastructure This section describes the charging infrastructure analysis conducted by the project team for the fleet vehicles. We assessed the charging infrastructure needs under two different scenarios. In the first scenario, the project team assessed the need for charging infrastructure assuming a dedicated charging plug for each vehicle. This scenario is called the 1:1 vehicle -to -plug (V2P) ratio scenario. The project team also assessed the charging infrastructure needs under an alternative scenario where the team increased the V2P ratio to minimize the number of electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) needed while meeting the overall charging demand for the fleet vehicles. Under both scenarios, the project team developed a rollout schedule as well as cost estimates for the deployment of EVSEs. Process for Determining the EV Charging Infrastructure Needs To estimate charging infrastructure needs for the 1:1 V2P scenario, the team first calculated each vehicles' daily electricity consumption based on average daily mileage and energy efficiency (kWh per mile). For each vehicles' daily energy demand, the project team also included the potential energy demand due to the use of Power Take Off (PTO), or the transfer of engine power to external devices (e.g., pumps, cherry pickers, etc.). Next, the team divided the energy consumption by the assumed average charging time of 8 hours per vehicle. This allowed the team to determine the necessary charging power level for each vehicle to meet daily travel demand. The data was then grouped into five vehicle classes (Light Duty, Light -Duty Pickup, Medium Duty, Heavy Duty, and Street Sweeper) and the number of DPCs, as well as their power levels, were identified for each group at each City facility. For each charger group, the team used the maximum power level requirement as the power level for the chargers 161 Page in that group. For instance, for the 10 light-dutyvehicles (sedan, SUV, and minivans) located at City Hall, they needed charging ports with power levels between 0.4 kW and 3 kW. Instead of providing multiple chargers with different power levels, the team recommended five DPCs with a power level of 6 kW (each port providing 3 kW). This allows light-duty vehicles at City Hall to use any available charger, rather than being limited to specific ones. In the maximum V2P scenario, the team calculated each vehicle's daily energy use and determined how long it would take for a vehicles' charge to drop from 100 percent to 20 percent. Vehicles were then sorted into five classes and grouped by facility. The vehicle that took the least number of days to reach 20 percent charge determined the maximum V2P ratio. For example, at City Hall, 9 light-duty vehicles take an average of 7 days to reach 20 percent charge. However, one SUV needs recharging every two days due to its 55 -mile daily mileage. Because of this, a V213 ratio of 2 is assumed, meaning each charging port can serve two vehicles, with one charging on odd days and the other on even days. Regarding charger power levels, the highest power level required for each group was assigned to all chargers in that group. This approach could be refined by using charging management solutions to further increase the V2P ratio, reducing the number of chargers and their associated power levels. Scenario 1-1:1 Vehicle to Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure Scenario This scenario assumes a dedicated plug for each EV. To determine the power requirements (kW) of each EVSE, the nominal vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each vehicle as well as vehicle efficiency assumptions were used. Additionally, the location of chargers are assumed to be the same as the dwelling location of EVs. Table 5 illustrates the number of DPC stations by maximum power level that the project team estimated for this scenario. Please note that the power is for the whole DPC station, and not for the single port. Table 5. Number of Chargers by Max Power Level (kW) under 1:1 V2P Ratio Scenario Light- Light Medium Heavy Street Light Light -Duty Medium Total Power Heavy Street Dwell Location Duty De mand Duty Pickup Duty Duty Sweeper Duty Pickup Duty Duty Sweeper (ma City Hall 5 3 2 0 0 6 5 3 N/A N/A 51 Hutchins Street 0 1 0 0 0 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 Square MSC—Public 3 10 7 3 1 4 9 11 24 56 304 MSC — LEU 5 3 6 4 0 5 3 54 41 N/A 522 Parks & Rec 0 6 2 1 0 N/A 5 8 2 N/A 46 Surface Water 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 N/A N/A N/A 6 Treatment Plant White Slough 2 2 1 0 0 4 4 3 N/A N/A 20 Total Number of 17 26 18 8 1 Chargers 952 Total Number of 32 49 33 13 2 Vehicles In this scenario, the project team assumed that charging stations would be installed in the same year that an EV replaces an ICE vehicle. However, due to factors such as permitting, construction, and product availability, there may be a delay in completing the installation of charging stations. Thus, it is recommended that the procurement process for EVSE should commence at least one year prior to the purchase of an EV. 171 Page The results of the 1:1 V2P ratio scenario recommend a total of 70 DPC stations to be deployed across the City's seven facilities, with an average of four stations installed per year. The highest total number of EVSE deployments will be required in 2040 (8 chargers in total), however, the City may opt to install some of those chargers in years slightly before or slightly after 2040. Note that the MSC -Public and MSC -LEU will require the highest number of charging stations, 24 and 18, respectively. MSC -LEU refer to the vehicles owned by the Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) vehicles, and MSC -Public refers to vehicles owned by the public fleets. The EVSE rollout schedule for the 1:1 V2P ratio scenario is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Figure 10 - EVSE Rollout Schedule by Vehicle Type, 1 -to -1 V2P Ratio Scenario Heavy Duty Light Duty Light -Duty Pickup Medium Duty ■ Street Sweeper 10 U 8 a 0 6 4 ':_ Z 2 • • 1 0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Figure 11 - EVSE Rollout Schedule by Base Location, 1 -to -1 V2P Ratio Scenario 9 City Hall Hutchins Street Square 8 _ MSC - Public MSC -LEU 7 ■ Parks & Rec ■ Surface Water Treatment Plant U ■ White Slough a 6 0 5 a) 4 Z 3 1 1 2 0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Scenario 2 — Maximum Vehicle to Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure Scenario To determine the maximum V2P ratio for the optimized scenario, the project team needed to calculate the highest number of vehicles that could share one EVSE plug while still maintaining their operational duty cycle. To estimate the maximum V2P ratio, the team used the nominal VMT for each vehicle and the assumed vehicle efficiency to determine the number of days it takes for each vehicle to reach 20 percent battery state of charge (SoC)1, which is the industry standard for requiring a vehicle to be recharged. The team then calculated the total number of vehicles in each vehicle class that could complete their duty cycle with this SoC threshold. This process was performed for 1 State of Charge describes the current level of electrical charge stored in a battery relative to its maximum capacity. 181 Page each vehicle class and base location with BEV replacements. The resulting maximum V213 ratio for each vehicle type and base location is presented in the Table 6 below. Table 6 - Estimated Maximum Vehicle -to -Plug Ratio City Hall 2 7 4 N/A N/A Hutchins Street Square N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A MSC 3 4 2 1 1 MSC -LEU 2 12 1 1 N/A Parks & Rec N/A 4 2 12 N/A Surface Water Treatment Plant 3 23 N/A N/A N/A White Slough 3 9 10 N/A N/A Consider the following example: in this hypothetical maximum V213 scenario, assume a ratio of 5. In this case, a single DPC station can be shared among 10 vehicles at a specific location. With this arrangement, each pair of vehicles would need to charge once every 5 days, following a schedule that ensures all vehicles receive the necessary charging. This is visually demonstrated in Table 7 below. Table 7 - Hypothetical Vehicle Charging Schedule -�i Plug #2 2 ©_ 5 7�- Day 1 2 X X 1 Day 2 ©- X X 5 5 Days Days 5 Days Day 3 5 0 5 5 XX Day 4 7 F 8 days days 5 5 X X Day 5 Days Days 5 X X Day 6 2 X X Days 5 5 Day 7 X X Days Days 5 Day 8 5 5 5 X X 5 Days Days Day 9 days days 5 5 X X Day 10 Days Days 5 5 X X Day 11 X X Days Days 5 5 Day 12 X X�� Days Days 5 Day 13 5 5 5 X X 5 Days Days Day 14 days days 5 5 X X Day 15 Days Days 5 5 X X Day 16 X X Days Days 5 5 Day 17 Day 18 5 5 5 X X X X Days Days 5 Days 5 Days Day 19 days days 5 5 X X Day 20 Days Days 5 5 X X Day 21 X X Days Days 5 5 Day 22 X X Days Days 5 Day 23 5 55 X X Days 5 Days Day 24 days days 5 5 X X Day 25 Days Days 5 5 X X Day 26 X X Dayss 5 5 Day 27 X X Days 5 Day 28 5 5 Day 29 days 5 days 119Days X X 5 5 X X Days 11 5 Days Day 30 Days Days1 I tw6mmi 19 1 P a g e Table 8 summarizes the number of chargers by power level that the project team estimated for this scenario. Please note that the rated power is for the whole DPC station and not for the single port. Table B. Number of Chargers by Power Level (kW) under maximum V2P Ratio Scenario Light - Light Medium Heavy Street Light Light -Duty Medium Heavy Street Total Power Dwell Location Duty Duty Duty Duty Sweeper Duty Pickup Duty Duty Sweeper Demand Pickup City Hall 3 1 1 0 0 16 40 35 N/A N/A 123 Hutchins Street 0 1 0 0 0 N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A 22 Square MSC 1 3 4 3 1 16 40 42 29 56 447 MSC -LEU 3 1 6 4 0 16 40 54 41 N/A 576 Parks & Rec 0 2 1 1 0 N/A 40 35 29 N/A 144 Surface Water 1 1 0 0 0 13 40 N/A N/A N/A 53 Treatment Plant White Slough 1 1 1 0 0 16 40 35 N/A N/A 91 Total Number of 9 10 13 8 1 Chargers - _ _ 1456 Total Number of 32 49 33 13 2 Vehicles The rollout schedule for this scenario was determined based on the first EV that required a corresponding plug. For instance, let us consider a charging station for light-duty pickups at the MSC -Public that can accommodate a total of 6 vehicles (V213 ratio of 3), which is triggered in 2023 when the first light-duty pickup truck transitions to an EV. In this case, another charging station would not be necessary until the seventh vehicle appears. Figure 12 and Figure 13 below depict the number of EVSE required by year to accommodate the accompanying EVs. The results of the maximum V2P ratio scenario recommend a total of 41 DPCs to be deployed across the City's seven facilities, with an average of two station installations per year. Similar to the 1:1 V2P ratio scenario, the highest number of EVSE is required in 2040 (6 chargers in total); however, the City may opt to install some of those chargers in years slightly before or slightly after 2040, especially since years 2029 and 2034 do not require any installations. Note that in this scenario as well, the MSC -LEU and MSC -Public will require the highest number of charging stations, 14 and 12, respectively. 201 Page Figure 12 - EVSE Rollout Schedule by Year and Vehicle Type, Maximum V2P Ratio Scenario Heavy Duty Light Duty Light -Duty Pickup Medium Duty ■ Street Sweeper 7 6 U 5 a 0 0 4 L -a 3 E 73 Z 2 PF 1 0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Figure 13 - EVSE Rollout Schedule by Year and Base Location, Maximum V2P Ratio Scenario 7 City Hall Hutchins Street Square MSC MSC -LEU 6 ■ Parks & Rec ■ Surface Water Treatment Plant ■ White Slough 5 u a 4 0 a� 3 E Z 2 1 ■ 0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Scenario 3 —1:1 Vehicle -to -Port Ratio Charging Infrastructure with Reduced Dwelling Time As a sensitivity analysis, the project team also analyzed a scenario where instead of 8 hours of dwelling time, all vehicles operated by the City will only have 2 hours of dwelling time. This scenario represents a case where, under emergency situations, vehicles need to charge in a significantly shorter timeframe (in this case 2 hours). The project team assessed this scenario to illustrate how the power level of the chargers and overall power demand at each facility will change if the City were to decide to pursue this scenario. Table 9 illustrates the number of chargers by power level that the project team estimated for this scenario. Please note that the rated power is for the whole DPC station and not for the single port. As shown, this scenario will add 3.8 MW of additional load on the City's grid with 3.3 MW of that being at the MSC. In the reduced dwelling time scenario, the added load would place significant strain on the Henning sub, enough to require additional significant costs to accommodate the induced demand by 211 Page EVs using higher power chargers. Therefore, it is unlikely that the City may pursue this charging configuration or infrastructure upgrades, especially when the previous two scenarios accommodate the fleet with significantly less strain at the distribution level. Table 9. Number of Chargers by Max Power Level (kW) under 1:1 V2P Ratio Scenario with Reduced Dwelling Time 221 Page Light Light- Medium Heavy Street Light Light -Duty Medium Heavy Street Total Power Dwell Location Duty Duty Duty Duty Sweeper Duty Pickup Duty Duty Sweeper Demand Pickup (kW) City Hall 5 3 2 0 0 23 21 13 N/A N/A 204 HutchinsStreet 0 1 0 0 0 N/A 7 N/A N/A N/ASquare 7 MSC — Public 3 10 7 3 1 16 35 46 94 223 1,224 MSC — LEU 5 3 6 4 0 21 13 216 163 N/A 2,090 Parks & Rec 0 6 2 1 0 N/A 19 33 9 N/A 188 Surface Water 2 1 0 0 0 9 7 N/A N/A N/A Treatment Plant 25 White Slough 2 2 1 0 0 18 16 14 N/A N/A 82 Total Number of 17 26 18 8 1 Chargers 3,819 Total Number of 32 49 33 13 2 Vehicles 221 Page Grid- and Site -Level Electrical System Capacity and Potential Upgrades This section outlines the anticipated effects of the City's fleet electrification on Lodi Electric Utilities' distribution system. It starts with a brief overview of the power delivery system and highlights the City facilities where EVs will be stationed. Furthermore, it provides an overview of the implications for the power system and the costs associated with managing the increased load from these vehicles. The introduction of EVs in areas with power grid constraints may require equipment upgrades and new infrastructure investments, depending on the scale of the additional load from the vehicles. However, with proper planning and the implementation of new utility programs and initiatives, distribution utilities can effectively incorporate a substantial number of EVs into the grid, ensuring power quality, safety, and reliability. This section also briefly addresses the potential use of distributed energy resources (DERs) to mitigate the grid impacts of EV charging. Figure 14. Structure of the Electric Power Systemz Electricity generation, transmission, and distribution power plant generates electricity el �_ transmission livres carry electricity long distances distribution lines carry :ctricity to houses transformer steps up voltage f-ur transmission neighborhood transformer steps down voltage Source: Adapted from National Energy Education Development Project (public daman) 1 no transformers on poles step dl]wn electricity before it enters houses As background information, electricity is generated at large central power plants using a variety of sources, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear fuels, solar, wind, battery storage, and hydropower. Transformers then increase (step up) the voltage level of the generated electricity to deliver power over transmission lines to load centers, often located far from power plants. Subsequently, transformers decrease (step down) the voltage to a lower level, allowing underground and overhead distribution lines to carry electricity to customers. Additional pole -mounted or pad - mounted transformers are often needed to further step down the voltage, making it safe for residential and business customers to use. On the other hand, industrial customers with heavy equipment and machinery typically receive electricity at higher voltage levels compared to residential and business customers. EVSE, like chargers, are typically installed at distribution voltages on customer premises, which can include residential, office and commercial garages, fleet depots, and public parking lots. Although electric utilities can manage low levels of EV adoption, the clustering of EVs (e.g., fleets) and the introduction of heavy-duty EVs (e.g., trucks) have the potential to negatively impact the City's distribution system. In such scenarios, it is crucial for electric vehicle and fleet owners to work closely with utilities to successfully integrate EVs into the power system. I Source: US Energy Information Administration. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/delivery-to-consumers.php 231Page To evaluate the impact of the City's fleet transition to EVs on Lodi Electric Utilities' distribution system, ICF estimated the additional load from EV charging based on the previously described charging scenarios: • A 1:1 V2P ratio scenario with 8 hours of available dwelling time, implying that each EV would require its own dedicated charger, and • A maximum V2P ratio scenario The tables below illustrate the incremental power demand expected in each of the scenarios at various locations in the City. Table 10. Incremental Charging Demand -1:1 Vehicle Charging Port Ratio City Hall 51 Hutchins Street Square 2 MSC 304 MSC -LEU 522 Parks & Rec 46 Surface Water Treatment Plant 6 White Slough 20 Table 11. Incremental Charging Demand - Max Vehicle to Charging Port Ratio City Hall 123 Hutchins Street Square 22 MSC 447 MSC -LEU 576 Parks & Rec 144 Surface Water Treatment Plant 53 White Slough 91 For both vehicle to charger ratio scenarios, ICF determined the impacts of EV charging at each site based on the estimated incremental EV charging demand and the available transformer capacity at each location .3 At locations where ICF projected that new transformers would be necessary, it was assumed that the transformer with the minimum power rating required to resolve an overload would be used. For instance, a 25 kilovolt -amperes (kVA) transformer would address overloads ranging from 0 kVA to 25 kVA, a 50 kVA transformer would handle overloads between 25 kVA and 50 kVA, and so forth. In both the 1:1 and maximum V2P ratio scenarios, the analysis indicates that LEU will need two new transformers at the MSC site — one at the Public Works Department and another at the utility premise —to support the increased EV charging load. The total capital cost of these transformers (excluding labor, commissioning, etc.) is $120,000, with each transformer costing $60,000. The new 500 kVA transformer at the utility premise is likely to be sufficient for serving the new load, as ICF's projection of 522 kW of load from EV charging represents a worst-case snapshot in time of EV charging demand. The EV charging demand during most hours is expected to be lower than the 522 3 The Hutchins Street Square site has two 3-phase transformers, rated at 750 kVA and 300 kVA. The available capacity at these transformers (before the addition of EV load) was 609.84 kW and 228.12 kW respectively. 241 Page kW estimate. Additionally, ICF assumed a transformer installation cost of $40,000. In addition to the transformer upgrades needed at the MSC, the analysis also shows that a new 25 kVA transformer, at a capital cost of $2,800, will also be required at City Hall and the Parks and Rec site under the maximum V2P scenario. ICF assumed that the installation cost of the transformer for this site is insignificant. As directed by LEU, ICF did not consider the White Slough site in this analysis as LEU's distribution system does not power the site. There is a 2.5 MW generator at White Slough, which can accommodate the incremental EV charging load if required. In addition to the transformer upgrades at the MSC site, our analysis indicates that the City needs to purchase and install two dedicated panels/switchgears for the new transformers considered at MSC. These panel upgrades are necessary when the City decides to have dedicated transformers for chargers, as they ensure proper distribution and control of electricity to the charging infrastructure. The project team has assumed a cost of $25,000 for each panel and an additional $25,000 for the installation of each panel. 251 Page Table 12. Site Level Incremental Charaina Demand and Costs of New Infrastructure -1:1 Vehicle to Charaer Ratio Incremental EV Charging Power Demand (kW) 51 2 304 522 48 6 Available Electrical Capacity at Site (kW) 117.28 609.84 228.12 N/A N/A 127.16 886.8 New Transformer(s) Required? No No Yes Yes No No Transformer Capacity (kVA) N/A N/A $500 500 N/A N/A Estimated Transformer Cost ($) N/A N/A $60,000 $60,000 N/A N/A Estimated Transformer Installation/Labor Cost ($) N/A N/A $40,000 $40,000 N/A N/A Estimated Panel Cost ($) N/A N/A $25,000 $25,000 N/A N/A Estimated Panel Installation Cost ($) N/A N/A $25,000 $25,000 N/A N/A 19 N/A No N/A N/A $120,000 N/A $80,000 N/A $50,000 N/A $50,000 Total Cost ($) $300,000 261 Page Table 13. Site Level Incremental Charaina Demand and Costs of New Infrastructure — Maximum Vehicle to Charaer Ratio Incremental EV Charging Power Demand (kW) 123 22 447 576 144 53 Available Electrical Capacity at Site (kW) 117.28 609.84 228.12 N/A N/A 127.16 886.8 New Transformer(s) Required? Yes No Yes Yes No No Transformer Capacity (kVA) 25 N/A 500 500 25 N/A Estimated Transformer Cost ($) $2,800 N/A $60,000 $60,000 $2,800 N/A Estimated Transformer Installation/Labor Cost ($) N/A N/A $40,000 $40,000 N/A N/A Estimated Panel Cost ($) N/A N/A $25,000 $25,000 N/A N/A Estimated Panel Installation Cost ($) N/A N/A $25,000 $25,000 N/A N/A 91 N/A No N/A N/A $125,600 N/A $80,000 N/A $50,000 N/A $50,000 Total Cost ($) $305,600 271 Page The investments needed to support the increased EV load can be divided into two main categories: investments required for building EVSE, and investments required for constructing or upgrading the electrical distribution system infrastructure serving an EV charging site (Figure 15). The customer or owner of an EV site bears all costs related to the first category and may also be responsible for costs associated with distribution system upgrades if their EV project triggers the need for such upgrades. In situations where a primary electrical feeder or source substation project is needed to accommodate hundreds or thousands of kilowatts of new load, the electric utility may distribute these costs among its rate base. Figure 15. EVSE Infrastructure Requirements and ownership Electric Distribution Grid Primary Mainline Conductor AE Secondary Conductor and Service Drops Customer Site Single -Phase EV Charging Service Infrastructure Transformer The cost information provided in Tables 11 and 12 demonstrates the cost for both utility and facility level electrical infrastructure upgrades needed. As shown, under the 1:1 V2P ratio, the City will need to invest approximately $300,000 to upgrade its electrical system infrastructure to accommodate the additional loads from the charging infrastructure. Under the maximum V213 ratio scenario, this cost will increase to $306,000 considering the transformer upgrade needed at the City Hall. 281 Page The Role of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) in Reducing EV Charging Costs Modular distributed energy resources (DERs) such as battery energy storage systems (BESS) and solar photovoltaics (PV) can play a role in reducing EV charging costs by providing energy and capacity services for EV charging sites. However, the benefit of installing such DERs is dependent on several factors, including but not limited to location, cost, and the utilization rate of the chargers. Sites that demonstrate ideal criteria and potential for high utilization will experience increased benefits. BESS enables use cases that can deliver significant financial benefits to the battery owner/operator under the right conditions (e.g., tariff rate structures, customer site demand, etc.). Two use cases most pertinent to EV charging sites include time -of -use bill management and demand charge management. In the first instance (time -of -use bill management), the spread between on- and off-peak prices acts as a signal to the storage device to charge during the low-priced hours and discharge during the high-priced hours. A battery co -located with EV chargers at a potential site could charge during off-peak periods from the grid. The battery could then discharge during times of peak demand to reduce grid impacts and cost. The second use case (demand charge management) is generally beneficial to large electricity consumers with short duration load spikes who must pay demand charges based on their peak 15 -minute electricity usage each month. Customers can use batteries to reduce their load during peak periods and in turn lower their demand charges. Battery discharge during peak periods could also help a customer reduce the charging site's maximum monthly EV charging demand (kW). For EV charger installations that are subject to demand charges, the use of BESS can help minimize demand charges. DERs can also help mitigate the cost of upgrading electrical infrastructure, such as transformers, due to the added load from charging infrastructure in several ways. First, DERs, such as PV, BESS, and small-scale wind turbines, can provide local electricity generation and storage capabilities, contributing to the overall energy mix. This reduces the need for additional power generation during peak demand periods, which alleviates stress on the electrical infrastructure. By leveling the load, transformers and other components can operate within their designed capacity, reducing the need for costly upgrades. Second, DERs, particularly BESS and smart grid technologies, can participate in demand response programs. For example, during periods of high demand or when the grid is stressed, these systems can be used to reduce or shift electricity consumption, easing the burden on transformers and other grid components. This demand-side management can help defer or avoid infrastructure upgrades related to increased load from charging infrastructure. Also, DERs can be configured to create microgrids, which are small-scale, localized power networks that can operate independently from the main grid. When a microgrid is capable of "islanding," it can disconnect from the main grid during periods of high demand or grid stress, reducing the load on transformers and other grid components. This can help delay or avoid the need for costly upgrades to accommodate the added load from charging infrastructure. DERs can also increase the resiliency of the City of Lodi's charging infrastructure, particularly during power outages and emergencies, through several approaches. First, by integrating DERs such as solar panels and BESS into microgrids, the City of Lodi can create localized power networks that can operate independently from the main grid. In the event of a power outage or emergency, these microgrids can continue to provide electricity to critical charging infrastructure, ensuring that EVs can still be charged, and essential services can be maintained. Second, BESS can be installed alongside charging infrastructure and other DERs. These storage systems can store excess energy generated by DERs or the main grid during periods of low demand. During power outages or emergencies, stored 291Page energy can be used to power EV charging stations, ensuring continued operation even when the main grid is down. Third, DERs with islanding capabilities can disconnect from the main grid during power outages and continue to generate and supply electricity to local loads, such as charging infrastructure. This ensures that critical charging infrastructure remains operational during emergencies, providing a reliable source of power for EVs used by first responders, emergency services, and the general public. Furthermore, by deploying a diverse mix of DERs throughout the city, Lodi can increase the redundancy and diversification of its power supply. This reduces the risk of widespread power outages affecting the entire charging infrastructure, as different DERs can continue to provide power even if one source is compromised during an emergency. The cost of implementing DERs can have a significant impact on the overall cost of fleet electrification. Several factors can influence the cost of DERs, including the type of technology, installation, operation, and maintenance costs. Despite these costs, DERs can provide long-term financial benefits and contribute to the affordability, sustainability, and resiliency of fleet electrification. For example, the upfront cost of DER technologies can vary significantly depending on the specific resources being deployed. For instance, solar panels, wind turbines, energy storage systems, and combined heat and power (CHP) systems each have different capital costs. While some DER technologies have experienced significant cost reductions in recent years, such as solar panels and batteries, others might still have relatively high initial costs. The City needs to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of different DER technologies based on their specific needs and local conditions. The installation costs for DERs can also affect the overall cost of fleet electrification. Proper installation of DER technologies requires infrastructure, such as mounting structures for solar panels, or suitable locations for wind turbines. Additionally, interconnection with the existing electrical infrastructure, distribution level and larger grid level upgrades, and compliance with regulations and safety standards can further increase installation costs. Fleet operators must consider these expenses when determining the feasibility of integrating DERs into their electrification plans. Additionally, the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of DERs must be taken into account as they contribute to the total cost of ownership for fleet electrification. While some DER technologies, such as solar panels, have relatively low O&M costs, others, like wind turbines and CHP systems, might require more frequent maintenance or replacement of parts. By assessing the long-term O&M costs of various DER technologies, The City can make informed decisions about which resources are the most cost-effective to incorporate into their electrification strategies. 301 Page Charging Infrastructure Cost With respect to cost for charging infrastructure deployment, the project team is using cost estimates based on a comprehensive literature review that ICF has conducted. This included reviewing the work completed by International Council on Clean Transportation' (ICCT), National Renewable Energy Laboratory5 (NREL), Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), Environmental Defense Fund? (EDF), Department of Energy' (DOE), Electric Power Research Institute' (EPRI), National Renewable Energy Laboratory" (NREL) and many others where they quantified both the cost of equipment as well as charger installation. Additionally, the equipment and installation cost for 19kW chargers has been provided by the City of Lodi, which is used to interpolate for higher power charger costs. It should be noted that the costs mentioned only cover the equipment and its installation and do not take into account any infrastructure upgrades required, such as distribution upgrades, that may need to be carried out by the utilities. A summary of these costs can be found in Table 14. The cost of electrical infrastructure upgrades were summarized earlier in Tables 11 and 12. Table 14. Charger Equipment and Installation Cost by Capacity Charger CapaciQ rVSE Installation Charger Capacit EVSE Capital Cost EVSE Installa (M) SEL Cost (I I 3 $2,500 $3,500 1 32 1 $17,500 $27,500 4 1 $2,500 $3,500 1 33 1 $18,000 1 $28,500 5 $2,500 $3,500 34 $18,500 $29,500 6 $2,500 $3,500 35 $19,500 $31,000 7 $3,000 $4,500 36 $20,000 $32,000 8 $3,500 $5,000 37 $20,500 $33,000 9 $4,000 $6,000 38 $21,500 $34,500 10 $4,500 $6,500 39 $22,000 $35,500 11 $5,000 $7,000 40 $23,000 $36,500 12 $5,266 $8,000 41 $23,500 $38,000 13 $5,712 $8,500 42 $24,000 $39,000 14 $6,158 $9,000 43 $25,000 $40,000 15 $6,500 $9,500 44 $25,500 $41,500 16 $6,866 $10,500 45 $26,500 $42,500 17 $7,287 $11,000 46 $27,000 $43,500 18 $7,708 $11,500 47 $27,500 $45,000 19 $8,000 $12,000 48 $28,500 $46,000 20 $9,000 $13,500 49 $29,000 $47,000 21 $9,500 $14,500 50 $29,500 $48,000 22 $10,500 $15,500 51 $30,500 $48,500 23 $11,000 $17,000 52 $31,000 $48,500 24 $11,500 $18,000 53 $31,500 $48,500 25 $12,500 $19,000 54 $32,000 $49,000 26 $13,000 $20,500 55 $32,500 $49,000 27 $14,000 $21,500 56 $33,500 $49,000 ° https://theicct.ore/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT EV Charging Cost 20190813.pdf 5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435120302312 6 https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/RMI-EV-Charging-Infrastructure-Costs.pdf 7 http://blogs.edf.org/energvexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf a https://afdc.eneray.gov/files/u/publication/evse cost report 2015.pdf s https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002000577 10 https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=52542-4351percent2820percent2930231-2 311 Page 28 $14,500 $22,500 57 $34,000 $49,000 29 $15,000 $24,000 58 $34,500 $49,500 30 $16,000 $25,000 59 $35,000 $49,500 31 $16,500 $26,000 60 $35,500 $49,500 The approximate total cost of DPC stations in the 1 -to -1 V2P ratio scenario is $721,89811, with the largest investment required in the year 2040, totaling around $93,987 across all base locations. Among the seven base locations where EVSE will be installed, the MSC -LEU incurs the highest investment of approximately $406,346. Total EVSE costs (i.e., hardware and installation) by year and base location for the 1:1 V213 ratio scenario are illustrated in Figure 16. Figure 16 - EVSE Costs by year and Base Location, 1 -to -1 V2P Ratio Scenario $100.000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 II. ■ White Slough ■ Surface Water Treatment Plant ■ Parks & Rec I MSC -LEU MSC Hutchins Street Square City Hall I" M 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 The cost of DPC stations under the maximum V213 ratio scenario amounts to approximately $1,248,258. The largest investment occurs in the year 2024, with the cost of charging stations totaling around $172,220 for all base locations. Among the seven base locations where EVSE will be installed, MSC -LEU necessitates the highest level of investment at roughly $467,059. Total EVSE costs by year and location for the maximum V213 ratio scenario are illustrated in Figure 17. 11 Note that this is not in net -present value 321 Page Figure 17 - EVSE Rollout Schedule by Year and Vehicle Type, Maximum V2P Ratio Scenario $200,000 ■ White Slough $180,000 ■ Surface Water Treatment Plant $160,000 ■ Parks & Rec $140,000 ■ MSC -LEU $120,000 MSC $100,000 Hutchins Street Square $80,000 ' City Hall' , $60,000 $40,000 ' $20,000 $0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 As described earlier, ICF examined a scenario with a 1:1 V21P ratio and shorter dwelling times (Scenario 3). As shown in Table 9, this scenario would require chargers with significantly higher power levels, up to 223 kW. Based on the project team's assessment, the total cost of chargers, including hardware and installation, for this scenario would be around $4.1 million. The high cost of charging infrastructure in this case is primarily due to the large number of Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs) needed to accommodate this scenario12. Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks of the Two Charging Infrastructure Alternatives It is crucial to discern the disparities between the two charging scenarios, especially regarding costs and logistics. In the first scenario, a 1:1 V21P ratio is assumed, which means each EV is assigned a dedicated plug. This scenario requires a higher number of charging stations, but each station has a lower kW demand compared to the maximum V21P scenario. This translates into a lower overall cost for the charging infrastructure, which is approximately $721,898. On the other hand, the second scenario assumes a maximum V21P ratio charging infrastructure, which determines the maximum number of vehicles that could share one plug while maintaining their duty cycle. This scenario requires fewer charging stations, but each station has a higher kW demand compared to the 1:1 V21P ratio scenario. This translates into a higher overall cost for the charging infrastructure, which is approximately $1,248,258. Another factor to consider between the two scenarios is potential space requirements, as Scenario 1 implicates the acquisition and installation of 70 stations. Moreover, for Scenario 1, since it involves the installation of more charging stations, construction costs such as trenching and installing conduit will be higher than the maximum V213 scenario. It is vital to comprehend these differences to make well-informed decisions when implementing charging infrastructure. lz L2 chargers provide a lower power output than DCFC chargers, which offer a much higher power output. L2 chargers typically have a power output of around 7-10 kW, while DCFC chargers can provide a power output of up to 350 kW. 331 Page Projected Costs & Benefit & Other Barriers to Fleet Conversion Cost of Transition of Fleet Electrification The fleet electrification cost analysis revealed that transitioning to EVs is a more cost-effective option than business - as -usual ICE vehicle replacements. The project team produced two cost analyses, one without incentives, and one with government incentives that reduce the cost of the vehicles. These incentive programs (e.g., HVIP, CVRP, IRA) are further described in the next section. In the scenario without incentives, replacing the current fleet with ICE vehicles would cost approximately 6 percent more than the EV replacement scenario by 2040; whereas with incentives (i.e., HVIP, CVRP, IRA), replacing the current fleet with ICE vehicles would cost approximately 28 percent more than the EV replacement scenario by 2040. Note that these cost analyses do not account for the needed grid and utility level upgrades needed to accommodate the charging infrastructure. As described earlier, the City would need to invest approximately $300,000 to upgrade the electrical infrastructure at various facilities to accommodate the added load from chargers. Even with these electrical infrastructure upgrades, the EV scenario still shows a total cost that is lower than the scenario where the City continues purchasing ICE vehicles. The transition scenarios are illustrated in Figure 18 and Figure 19, showing net present value (NPV) costs for the fleet without incentives and with incentives, respectively. Additionally, Figure 18 and Figure 19 each break down the costs by subjectivity to the ACF regulation and the overall fleet. One of the main reasons for the cost savings associated with EVs is the significant reduction in operating costs. EVs have lower fuel costs since they are powered by electricity, which is typically cheaper than gasoline or diesel fuel. Additionally, EVs have fewer moving parts, which means they require less maintenance and have lower repair costs. This leads to lower total cost of ownership over the vehicle's lifetime. Moreover, EVs are becoming increasingly cost -competitive with ICE vehicles in terms of upfront costs. While the initial cost of an EV is typically higher than a comparable ICE vehicle, this cost differential is shrinking as EV technology improves and production volumes increase. Funding in the form of incentives and grants for EVs also contribute to reduced capital cost burdens for vehicles; a more detailed discussion on the incentives the City may be eligible for and how to secure them is provided in the Funding & Financing Programs section of this report. The analysis showed that EV replacements recommended for the City of Lodi have a 60 percent reduction in NPV fuel costs and a 65 percent reduction in maintenance costs compared to ICE vehicles. Without incentives, overall EV capital costs are approximately 4 percent greater than ICE vehicle capital costs; with incentives, however, EV capital costs can be up to 54 percent less than ICE vehicle capital costs (in a best -case scenario of incentive and grant acquisition), with the greatest savings available for vehicles subject to the ACF regulation. The City may be able to achieve greater capital cost savings through vehicles not subject to the ACF regulation by only making cost- effective (i.e., within 10 percent of ICE vehicle purchase price) EV purchases. However, it should be noted that purchasing fewer EVs would increase fuel and maintenance costs overall over time. 341 Page Figure 18. Fleet TCO Comparison - NPV Costs through 2040 (without incentives) :..................................................................................................:............................................ $9,000,000 Subject to ACF Not Subject to ACF Overall Fleet ................................................................................................: , $8,000,000$7,772,798 $7,293,471 $7,000,000 ' $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,632,020 $4,875,919 $4,000,000 $2,661,451 $2,896,879 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE Capital Fuel Maintenance Infrastructure Figure 19. Fleet TCO Comparison - NPV Costs through 2040 with applicable incentives (amount not guaranteed) ............................................ ;...................................................... ............................................. $9,000,000 Subject to ACF Not Subject to ACF Overall Fleet .................................................................................................. ............................................: $8,000,000 $7,772,798 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,631,728 $4,875,919 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,260,926 $2,896,879 $3,000,000 J $2,370,802 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE Capital Fuel Maintenance Infrastructure As the City of Lodi plans to build a fleet EV charging infrastructure, it is important to consider the maintenance costs, staffing needs, and any additional training required for maintenance staff. Transitioning to EVs and installing charging infrastructure will necessitate extra staffing for maintenance and operations, such as regular upkeep of the charging equipment, addressing any issues, and ensuring the equipment functions properly. In terms of staffing, the City might need to hire new employees or assign existing staff members to handle these tasks. This could involve electricians, maintenance technicians, or other trained personnel with the necessary skills and knowledge to maintain the charging infrastructure. Moreover, the City should consider the level of training required for their staff 351 Page to maintain the infrastructure, including electrical safety, troubleshooting, repair techniques, and other relevant skills. All of these factors will incur additional costs for the City, which must be taken into account. Note that the cost information provided earlier does not include the staffing and maintenance costs associated with EV charging infrastructure. Environmental Benefit of the Transition In addition to the long-term cost savings of transitioning to an EV fleet, this analysis has also shown that the decision can yield significant environmental benefits for the City of Lodi. Our analysis indicates that the transition to EVs can provide substantial environmental benefits in addition to cost savings for the City of Lodi. Specifically, we found that the EV replacement scenario could result in a reduction of nearly 10,000 metric tons (MT) of GHG emissions over the lifespan of the vehicles (Figure 21). This would be equivalent to removing more than 2,100 passenger vehicles from the road for a year or planting approximately 162,670 trees. Additionally, over 25,000 lbs. of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions would be eliminated. These results highlight the significance of sustainable transportation practices in reducing the transportation carbon footprint and addressing the exasperators of climate change. Thus, transitioning to EVs is not only a cost-effective solution but also an environmentally responsible decision for the City of Lodi. Figure 20. Summary of Environmental Benefits with the EV Replacement Scenario _ GHG Emission 9,859 MT Reductions (Lifetime) 25,003 Lbs NOx Emission Reductions (Lifetime) 2,130 Vehicles Equivalent to removing passenger vehicles from the road for one year '� 162,670 Trees Equivalent to tree seedlings grown for 10 years Figure 21. Total Fleet Cumulative GHG Emissions (MT), by Vehicle Replacement Scenario 14,000 12,000 0 10,000 8,000 v :2 6,000 4,000 2,000 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 ICE Emissions Recommended EV Replacement Emissions Barrier to Transition Moving to an EV fleet involves a complicated and diverse approach that requires the City to undertake careful consideration. There are numerous significant obstacles to transitioning the Lodi City fleet to EVs, including the 361 Page higher initial expenses of EVs relative to ICE vehicles, the limited availability of EV models, the possibility of production capacity constraints, an ever-changing distribution network, and the necessity for charging infrastructure development. Moreover, factors such as range anxiety, reliance on the power grid, space constraints for charging, and workforce training for EV and EVSE maintenance could pose challenges in the transition process. This section delves deeper into some of these challenges. Technology Availability & Procurement Challenges One of the most significant procurement challenges associated with fleet electrification is the limited availability of vehicles and charging infrastructure at hand or ready to deploy. On the vehicle side, although the number of EV models on the market is increasing, the selection remains limited compared to ICE vehicles. This can pose challenges for cities trying to find the right type of EV to meet specific needs and requirements forvarious municipal services. Furthermore, EV manufacturers may encounter limited production capacity, potentially leading to longer delivery times for cities purchasing EVs for their fleets. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the vulnerability of global supply chains, with disruptions in parts and components supply impacting EV production. Despite the availability of EV technologies, the distribution network is still evolving. In some regions, dealership networks might be limited, making it more difficult for cities to access and purchase EVs for their fleets. Ultimately, these issues could affect the pace of fleet electrification. Regarding infrastructure, the manufacturing of specialty equipment, like transformers, can involve long lead-times, potentially delaying planned vehicle or charger purchases. This is because, without the added load capacity, the grid might be unable to accommodate the increased power demand. Coordination with suppliers and contractors to identify areas where site readiness can be expedited will be critical for seamless EV charger installations. Infrastructure Buildout Challenges As the City moves towards expanding its fleet of EVs, it must proactively anticipate and address the challenges associated with installing sufficient charging stations to support its goals. Deploying charging infrastructure in a strategic and planned manner can help address these challenges more effectively. One of the challenges the City may face is electric grid limitations as well as site electrical infrastructure constraints. Therefore, it is necessary to review the distribution network by utility representatives to determine whether upgrades will be required or recommended. Interconnection challenges may vary based on the location, number, and schedule of charging stations, as well as charging speed. For instance, DCFC designed for heavy-duty vehicles require a higher power rating and may require more significant upgrades to the electrical infrastructure as compared to level 2 stations for light-duty vehicles. There is another potential challenge that may arise during the transition to an all -electric fleet, which is related to site constraints. EV charging infrastructure typically requires dedicated parking spaces for charging, potentially affecting the availability of parking for other vehicles. This can be particularly challenging in areas where parking is already limited. Moreover, EVs rely on electricity, and disruptions to the power grid can impact the city's ability to charge its vehicles. This is particularly challenging during extreme weather events that cause widespread power outages. Most EV charging stations lack backup power sources, which can impact the ability of the city to keep its EV fleets charged and operational during emergencies. Additional costs could potentially be incurred as it relates to back-up generation sources and fuel to operate said equipment. 371 Page Workforce Training EVs have different maintenance requirements than ICE vehicles. Cities will need to invest in workforce training to ensure their technicians possess the necessary skills and knowledge to maintain and repair EVs. Limited availability of skilled technicians to service and maintain EVs can impact the ability of the City to keep its EV fleets running smoothly. To successfully transition to an EV fleet, the City must take into account staffing and training recommendations. Additional staff may need to be hired to ensure expertise in EV procurement, charging infrastructure installation, and fleet management. They must be knowledgeable about the technologies and processes involved in managing an EV fleet. Training is also crucial to equip staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to manage the new EV fleet. This training must cover topics such as EV charging infrastructure, battery technology, and EV maintenance. Furthermore, the City may need to invest in ongoing training programs to ensure staff stay up to date with the latest developments in EV technology and maintenance. Regular training sessions, workshops, and seminars can be included. The City must also establish a comprehensive training program for drivers who will be operating within the new EV fleet. The program must cover safe driving practices, range management, and charging protocols. Emergency Response Vehicles Transitioning emergency response vehicles to EV presents a unique set of challenges that need to be carefully considered and addressed. One of the primary concerns is ensuring that EVs can meet the rigorous performance and reliability standards required for emergency response, including high-speed acceleration, extended driving range, and the ability to handle diverse driving conditions. Additionally, these vehicles must be able to support the power demands of specialized equipment, such as communication systems, emergency lights, and other life- saving tools, without significantly reducing their driving range. Another challenge lies in the availability and deployment of charging infrastructure that can provide fast and reliable charging for emergency response vehicles. These vehicles may require more frequent charging due to the high energy demands associated with emergency response operations, which could lead to increased downtime if charging infrastructure is insufficient or unreliable. Ensuring that charging stations are strategically located near emergency response facilities and are compatible with the unique needs of emergency vehicles is essential to maintaining an effective response capability. 381 Page Funding & Financing Programs Upon estimating the cost associated with transitioning the fleet and deploying the required infrastructure, the project team crafted a funding and financing strategy to reduce the City of Lodi's cost of transitioning to an all - electric fleet. The strategy was created following a meticulous research process on various grants, rebates, and incentives available to the City, for which it was qualified to apply, through consultations with the Alternative Fuels Data Center's (AFDC) Laws and Incentives Database. The database contains information on nearly 1,000 regulations, incentives, and programs related to EVs and EVSEs. Moreover, leveraging their expertise in California's policy landscape, the team identified and presented additional funding opportunities for the City. The funding aspect of the plan outlines the various programs available for EV procurement and charging infrastructure development, including federal programs like the tax rebates for EVs and charging infrastructure provided through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The plan includes state programs such as the Low Carbon Transportation Investments and Air Quality Improvement Program administered by the CARB and the Clean Transportation Program managed by the CEC. The plan provides information on eligibility requirements, application procedures, and the possibility of stacking multiple funding sources; a summary of funding and financing options is available in Table 15, and stacking opportunities are summarized in Table 16. The plan's financing component presents strategies for reducing the costs involved in transitioning to an all -electric fleet. These strategies include public-private partnerships (PPP), Charging as a Service (CaaS), and low-interest loans. PPPs are collaborations between the public and private sectors to jointly finance, build, and operate a project or service, leveraging the resources, expertise, and incentives of both sectors. For charging infrastructure deployment, a PPP can finance the installation and maintenance of charging stations, with the private partner being an infrastructure provider such as an energy company, a charging network operator, or a private equity firm. In this arrangement, the private partner provides financing for the charging infrastructure in exchange for a long-term contract with the public sector to operate and maintain the charging stations, generating a steady revenue stream for the private partner and increased access to charging infrastructure for the public sector. Additionally, the plan discusses the CaaS model which offers EV charging infrastructure on a subscription or pay - per -use basis to customers such as fleet operators and commercial property owners. The provider is responsible for installation, operation, and maintenance of the charging stations, and customers pay based on energy consumption or time spent charging. The CaaS model allows fleet operators to shift to electric fleets without large initial investments. The plan evaluates the options and selects the most appropriate option based on fleet -specific factors. 391Page Table 15. Summary of funding and financing programs IRA — Vehicle Tax Federal tax credit Credit IRA - Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Federal tax credit Credit CMAQ Program Federal grant program HVIP Point-of-sale incentive Carl Moyer State incentive EnerglIZE LCFS TCIRP CALeVIP SJVAPCD Incentive Project SJVAPCD Fueling Infrastructure Incentive Program PPP Sourcewell (Bank ClaaS iQ- Individuals, businesses, and tax- exempt organizations Individuals and businesses Public and private organizations Up to $7,500 for light-duty ZEVs Up to $40,000 for medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs 30% of the cost or 6% in the case of property subject to depreciation, not to exceed $100,000 Up to 50 percent of identified funds Class 2b-8 ZEVs purchased by individuals and businesses $7,500 to $120,000 (Base) Clean combustion and Zero emissions Up to $160,000 for 0.02 engines Requires scrappage I Up to $410,000 for ZE trucks Public and private fleets of medium State incentive and heavy-duty vehicles as well as public charging Local EV Up to 50 percent of the project cost Up to $7,000 per rebate; maximum of two rebates Up to 30 rebates per year for public fleets Number of credits earned x Credit price Project specific $3,500 per EV charger (Base). infrastructure Local public or private organizations 50% of project cost (Base) incentives Joint financing Individuals and businesses State tax rebate Individuals, businesses, and tax - contracts Public Fleets Credit based Individuals, businesses, and tax- Non-residential EV charging program Individuals and businesses Clean vehicle replacement and EV State grant infrastructure deployment Local EV project California site owners, public or incentives private Local EV Up to 50 percent of the project cost Up to $7,000 per rebate; maximum of two rebates Up to 30 rebates per year for public fleets Number of credits earned x Credit price Project specific $3,500 per EV charger (Base). infrastructure Local public or private organizations 50% of project cost (Base) incentives Joint financing Public and private organizations Purchasing Individuals, businesses, and tax - contracts exempt organizations Individuals, businesses, and tax- exempt organizations exempt organizations EV charger revenue Individuals and businesses Varies EV lease- to -purchase pathways Between $1,000,000 and $65,000,000 Loan terms vary Varies by electric utility rates 401 Page Stacking Opportunities Aside from each incentive program providing funding to facilitate the transition to clean vehicle technologies, to the extent possible, fleets may want to stack up and combine multiple funding sources to reduce the cost of transition. Examples include using one grant to fund vehicles and another to fund charging infrastructure, using a state grant to meet the match requirements of a federal grant, or stacking non-utility funding with participation in a utility program. It should be noted that despite the incentive programs having their own unique eligibility criteria, these programs often provide stacking opportunities. For example, with respect to HVIP program, local- and federal - funded incentives may be combined with HVIP vouchers, so long as each incentive program is not paying for the same incremental costs, or the total sum of incentives does not exceed the total cost of the vehicle. Local incentives that may be combined with HVIP include programs administered by local air districts or local municipalities that are locally funded. Federal incentive programs may be combined with HVIP vouchers, including funding provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal agencies. Except for public transit buses, stacking HVIP with State -funded incentives is not allowed. To clarify this, Table 16 shows the stacking opportunities across various funding sources described in this report. Each cell in the table shows whether the two funding programs (the one representing the row and the one representing the column) can be stacked or not. In cases where one funding program only pays for infrastructure and the other program only pays for vehicles, we marked those as "No Overlap". 41 1 P a g e Table 16. Stacking Opportunities across various programs 421 Page ID IRA N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes CMAQ Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HVIP Yes Yes Yes N/A No No No N/A No No Overlap No Overlap Carl Moyer Yes Yes Yes No N/A No No Yes No No Overlap No Overlap No N/A No Yes Yes EnerglIZE Yes Yes Yes No No N/A F- CVRP Yes Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A Yes No Overlap No Overlap LCFS Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes TCIRP Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes N/A No No CALeVIP SJVAPCD Incentive Project Yes Yes Yes No Overlap No Overlap Yes No Overlap Yes No N/A Yes SJVAPCD Fueling Infrastructure Incentive Yes Yes Yes No Overlap No Overlap Yes No Overlap Yes No Yes N/A Program 421 Page Funding and Financing Recommendations Fleet electrification is crucial for reducing emissions and achieving sustainability goals, but it poses challenges such as high upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and the need for specialized maintenance and training. Although zero -emission vehicle and infrastructure costs are expected to decrease over time, present financial burdens are hindering more widespread or rapid adoption. This guide identifies funding and financing options that can help advance fleet electrification and infrastructure deployment. Various funding and financing sources are available, including federal, state, local, and utility programs. The programs identified in this guide were selected based on the City's likely eligibility to receive funds, based on each specific program's requirements. Most programs identified in this guide do not require matching funds and can offer tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fleet electrification support; however, most of these programs only provide funding for either just zero -emission vehicle purchases or just refueling infrastructure. Additionally, total funding amounts vary based on vehicle size and purpose, as well as charger power levels in the case of EV infrastructure. As the City embarks on its fleet electrification process, the following recommendations based on vehicles and infrastructure may be considered. For more detailed explanations of the various funding and financing options, see the Funding and Financing Programs in the Appendix A of this report. Options for Medium- and Heavy -Duty EVs A funding strategy to consider for medium- to heavy-duty zero -emission vehicles that combines different incentives for maximum financial support is listed below: • State programs (non -stackable) directed towards fleet vehicles, such as one of: a. Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) b. Carl Moyer Program c. VW Environmental Mitigation Program • Federal program directed towards fleet vehicles, such as the: a. Inflation Reduction Act b. CMAQ Improvement Program • Financing for leased or owned fleet vehicles, through options such as: a. Public -Private Partnerships b. Purchasing Contracts from Sourcewell First, the City shall consider the funding potential from State programs. The funding potential of State programs is significant, ranging between thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars for eligible zero -emission vehicles. However, funding provided by one State program cannot be stacked with funding from another State program. Pursuing any of the three primary state programs suggested here—HVIP, Carl Moyer, VW Trust—would make the City ineligible for also receiving funds from the TIRCP. Moreover, any additional funds towards the same vehicle or fleet of vehicles must come from other sources, which can either be the applicant's own matching funds or funds from local and federal incentives. The choice between one of the three primary State programs can be narrowed down based on the City's specific vehicle needs. For example, HVIP offers funding for more vehicle classes. HVIP's maximum base amount of funding increases incrementally between Class 2b through 8 vehicle classes, ranging between $7,500 to $120,000 (as shown 431Page in Table 16). If the City has more medium -duty vehicles than heavy-duty vehicles, funding potential could be maximized through the HVIP program and a combination of other local or federal incentives. On the other hand, if the City has more heavy-duty vehicles, like Class 8 trucks, or foresees higher utilization of heavy-duty vehicles into the future, it may consider the Carl Moyer Program or VW Mitigation Program instead. If the City has any environmental goals in lieu of State policies, such as the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, the City may prefer to apply to programs directed more towards heavy-duty trucks and buses. However, pursuing either the Carl Moyer or VW Mitigation programs would mean the City would have to adhere to scrappage requirements set by those programs. Assuming the City selects one of the three primary State programs, the next applicable pool of funding could come from the IRA, which would pay the minimum of 30 percent of the vehicle purchase price, or the funding cap based on the GVWR. Additionally, the City may submit a CMAQ Program application for zero -emission vehicle and infrastructure funding, if it can demonstrate emission reductions that would benefit a nonattainment zone. It is likely the case that federal funding would be applied after whatever amount is discounted by the selected State program, and any remaining balance due on the vehicle purchase would need to be fulfilled either by the City or through a financing agreement in the form of a loan or bond program. Options for Light -Duty ZEVs A funding strategy to consider for light-duty zero -emission vehicles that combines different incentives for maximum financial support is listed below: 1. State program directed towards passenger vehicles, such as: a. California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) 2. Federal program directed towards passenger vehicles, such as: a. Inflation Reduction Act b. CMAQ Improvement Program 3. Financing for leased or owned passenger vehicles, through options such as: a. Public -Private Partnerships b. Purchasing Contracts from Sourcewell Based on current program descriptions and requirements, there are fewer funding opportunities for light-duty zero - emission vehicles compared to those for medium- and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles. Most of the funding that the City may find itself eligible for is through the IRA or approved CMAQ Program project, in the form of direct payments and grants, respectively. Alternatively, the City may consider mixed ownership contracts through innovative PPPs or Sourcewell contracts. Options for Charging Infrastructure A funding strategy to consider for charging infrastructure that combines different incentives for maximum financial support is listed below: 1. State programs, such as some of: a. Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero -Emission (EnerglIZE) b. California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) c. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) 441 Page 2. Local programs, such as the: a. SJVAPCD Clean Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Incentive Program 3. Federal programs, such as the: a. Inflation Reduction Act b. CMAQ Improvement Program 4. Financing programs such as the: a. Charging Infrastructure -as -a -service b. Financing Options through (Bank i. Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) ii. Climate Tech Finance Based on current program descriptions and requirements, the greatest stacking potential exists within the charging infrastructure landscape. In the case of funding for charging infrastructure, most State program incentives can be combined with other federal, state, or local agency incentives. In addition to EnerglIZE and CALeVIP, the City would be eligible to generate LCFS credits from electricity dispensed by charging infrastructure and sell the credits through a broker for additional funds. As with vehicle procurement, the IRA (through the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit) is another funding option available to reduce overall charging infrastructure project costs, provided that the site meets the outlined environmental justice requirements. In the case that the City is ineligible for charging infrastructure tax credits from the IRA, direct payments are available specifically for the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure programs. Other options, such as the ISRF and CaaS, are available for acquisition or operation stages, respectively. Recommendations for Implementation Taking an EV transition plan into the implementation phase requires a significant amount of planning, coordination, and allocation of resources. It is a complex process that involves multiple steps and considerations, as outlined in this report. Developing a detailed implementation plan should be the first step in the process. This plan should outline the specific actions that need to be taken, the timelines for each action, and the budget needed to transition to an EV fleet. The plan should outline the infrastructure upgrades needed, the budgetary mechanisms, the procurement strategy, and the utility coordination — even in the case of City of Lodi that owns and operates its own utility. For example, one of the most important next steps will be to conduct a comprehensive analysis on charging infrastructure, including the development of engineering documents that outline the technical specifications for the charging stations and help to ensure that they are installed safely and efficiently. Once the plan is developed, allocating funding is the next critical step. This is a significant investment, and the City may need to seek grants and other funding sources to supplement their budget. The City's successful transition to EVs will heavily rely on securing enough funding. To achieve this, the City should consider exploring different funding sources such as grants, loans, and other financing options to ensure that the transition is completed in a timely manner and within budget. Additionally, the City should also assess different procurement options for acquiring EVs, which may include leasing or purchasing, depending on the City's specific requirements and available resources. 451 Page Establishing a dedicated project team to manage the implementation of the EV transition plan is also an essential ingredient in a successful transition. This team should include staff with expertise in fleet management, EV charging infrastructure, procurement, grant application writing, and financing. Collaboration with stakeholders, such as EV manufacturers and charging infrastructure providers, is also crucial to the success of the EV transition plan. Pilot programs can also be a helpful tool to analyze the feasibility of the transition plan before scaling up. This approach allows the City to identify and address any challenges or issues before committing significant investment to a full-scale transition. 461 Page Appendix A — Details of Funding & Financing Programs Funding Programs Federal Programs There are several federal incentive programs that are aimed at increasing the adoption of EVs and the installation of EV charging stations. Some of the key federal incentive programs include the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit. These incentive programs offer different tax credits for qualifying vehicles and can reduce EV charging equipment installation costs. The federal government has initially aimed its incentive programs towards the promotion of light-duty EVs and the installation of lower -power EV charging stations. However, there are now programs available that cater to MH -HD EVs as well. This section is meant to provide a general overview of the federal incentive programs that the City may be eligible for and serve as a starting point for the application process. Inflation Reduction Act The IRA contains several provisions aimed at increasing the number of clean fuels and vehicles used by fleets. The IRA will offer refundable income tax credits for qualifying EVs and extends tax credits for alternative fuel refueling property through 2032. Notably, the IRA will provide different tax benefits based on the type of applicant and type of EVs being considered for purchase. Figure 18 features an illustration that breaks down eligible applicants, types of EVs, and maximum applicable tax credits under the IRA. The final tax credit amount offered through IRA is the smallest of the following amounts: 30 percent of the vehicle purchase price for EVs and FCEVs • The incremental cost of the EV compared to an equivalent ICE vehicle Figure 22. Summary of IRA Tax Credits Available for Individuals and Commercial Entities The IRA has several clean vehicle credit options, most notably: 1) credits for new clean vehicles purchased in or after 2023 and 2) commercial clean vehicle credits that are aimed at individuals and their businesses, which may qualify for a credit up to $7,500 when buying new, qualified BEVs or FCEVs assembled in North America. Qualifying BEVs must have a battery capacity of at least 7 kilowatt-hours (kWh) and have a GVWR of less than 14,000 lbs.; no 471 Page restrictions are set for FCEVs. Additionally, the vehicle's MSRP cannot exceed $55,000 for light-duty vehicles or $80,000 for vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Credit for new clean vehicle purchases between 2023 through 2032 can be claimed by filing Form 8936, Qualified Plug -In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit, and providing the vehicle identification number (VIN). One important thing to note is that the Clean Vehicle Credit is not eligible for direct pay. Businesses and tax-exempt organizations can receive a tax credit or direct payment of up to $40,000 for buying a qualified commercial clean vehicle under IRC 45W. The credit amount is based on the lesser of 15 percent of the vehicles' basis or the incremental cost of the vehicle. The maximum credit is $7,500 for qualified vehicles with GVWRs under 14,000 pounds and $40,000 for all other vehicles. To qualify, the vehicle must be made by a qualified manufacturer as defined in IRC 30D(d)(1)(C), be for use in the business, not for resale, primarily used in the US, and not have received a credit under sections 30D (Clean Vehicle Credit) or 45W (Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit). The vehicle must meet also one of the following requirements a) it must be treated as a motor vehicle for purposes of title II of the Clean Air Act and manufactured primarily for use on public roads (excluding vehicles operated exclusively on a rail or rails), or b) it must be classified as mobile machinery according to IRC 4053(8), including vehicles that are not designed to transport a load over a public highway. Additionally, the vehicle or machinery must be either a PHEV that draws significant propulsion from an electric motor with a battery capacity of at least 7 kilowatt hours if the GVWR is under 14,000 pounds, or 15 kilowatt hours if the GVWR is 14,000 pounds or more. Alternatively, it can be an FCEV that meets the requirements of IRC 3013(b)(3)(A) and (B). There is no limit to the number of credits a business can claim, but the credits are nonrefundable and can only be carried over as a general business credit. Additionally, the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit is a federal income tax credit for businesses and individuals who install alternative fuel infrastructure. As of January 1, 2023, fueling equipment for natural gas, propane, hydrogen, electricity, E85, or diesel fuel blends containing a minimum of 20 percent biodiesel, is eligible for a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost or 6 percent in the case of property subject to depreciation, not to exceed $100,000. Note that permitting and inspection fees are not included as part of the covered expenses. Also note that under IRC 30C, the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit is direct pay eligible, meaning that entities that do not benefit from income tax credits, such as state, local, and tribal governments or other tax-exempt entities can elect to receive these tax credits in the form of direct payments. Eligible fueling equipment must be installed in locations that meet one of the following census tract requirements: • The census tract is not an urban area; • A population census tract where the poverty rate is at least 20 percent; or • Metropolitan and non -metropolitan area census tract where the median family income is less than 80 percent of the state median family income level. Additionally, eligible projects must also meet workforce requirements, such as apprenticeships and prevailing wages. To apply for the credit, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires that Form 8911 be completed and filed with a federal income tax return. CMAQ Improvement Program The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), continues the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). The CMAQ Program provides funding to State DOTs and MPOs for projects that reduce mobile source emissions in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Eligible project types include transit improvements, travel demand management strategies, congestion relief efforts 48IPage (such as high occupancy vehicle lanes), diesel retrofit projects, alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure, and medium- or heavy-duty zero emission vehicles and related charging equipment. Projects supported with CMAQ funds must demonstrate emissions reductions, be in or benefit a U.S. EPA -designated nonattainment or maintenance area and be a transportation project. Descriptions for projects relevant to fleet electrification and eligible for CMAQ funding are listed below: 1. Diesel Retrofits: Vehicle and engine replacements, engine rebuild and conditioning, after -treatment or other technologies, heavy-duty vehicle retirement programs; applies to on -road vehicles, non -road construction equipment, and freight and intermodal projects. 2. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Infrastructure: Purchases, conversion to alternative fuels, diesel alternatives, hybrids; fueling facilities that dispense one or more alternative fuels (public and private facilities eligible). The FHWA administers the federal -aid program through State departments of transportation (DOTS) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which make decisions about how to spend federal transportation funds through a continuous transportation planning process. All eligible CMAQfunded projects must be included in the MPO's metropolitan transportation plans and transportation improvement program (TIP) where applicable, and the State DOT's statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). In 2019, the City's MPO, San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), solicited a call for projects for the CMAQ Program, which made approximately $20.5 million available for 14 eligible projects13 in San Joaquin County, to be programmed in FYs 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23. Applicants may ask for up to 50 percent of available funds identified in the call for projects. Projects are ranked based on CARB's cost effectiveness calculation methodology14, which calculates air quality benefits of a project as CMAQ dollars per pound of emissions, and the lower the value, the higher the rank. In other words, SJCOG reviews transportation projects with the lowest cost-effectiveness values to determine the final funding recommendations. Although no local match is required, the CARB cost effectiveness calculation methodology would estimate a lower cost effectiveness value if a project utilizes local dollars, which would make the project rank higher and increase the likelihood of approval. To apply for CMAQ Program funding, the City would need to wait for the next call for projects by SJCOG and submit an application similar to the 2019 SJCOG CMAQ Application (complete with air quality calculations, project description, and work phase timeline). Note that private agencies and non-profit agencies can submit a CMAQ Program project application only if it establishes a partnership with a public agency, which would oversee the application and investment process. State Programs The State of California has its own set of programs that provide financial incentives to purchase or lease EVs. For example, the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) provides rebates up to $7,000 for the purchase or lease of a new, eligible zero -emission or light-duty PHEV. Additionally, CARB has several programs in place to increase the adoption of MD -HD EVs and installation of charging stations. The Electric Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (ETVIP) provides vouchers to cover a portion of the cost of MD -HD electric trucks, buses, and delivery vehicles. The Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) provides vouchers for the purchase or lease of hybrid and zero -emission MD -HD trucks and buses. The Carl Moyer Program provides grants for the purchase of cleaner -than -required engines, including electric powertrains, for MD -HD vehicles. The following sections are 13 https://www.s0cog.org/DocumentCenter/View/5972/FY-2019-20-CMAQ-Approved-Programming-Recommendations 14 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/congestion-mitigation-and-air-quality-improvement-cmag-program 491Page intended to provide high-level descriptions of State incentive programs the City may be eligible for and provide starting points for application processes. Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) The Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) is a first-come first-served, point-of- sale incentive program. HVIP funding is available forvehicles between Class 2b through 8 weight classes: the funding amounts for ZEVs by weight class for FY22-23 is shown in Table 18. Additionally, incentives for electric power take- off (ePTO) may cover up to 65 percent of the incremental cost of the ePTO, not to exceed the funding amounts listed in Table 19. Table 17. HVIP FY22-23 Zero -Emission Funding Table Class 2b $7,500 Class 3 $45,000 Class 4-5 $60,000 Class 6-7 $85,000 Class 8 $120,000 Table 18. HVIP FY22-23 Eligible ePTO Voucher Table 3 —10 kWh $20,000 10 —15 kWh $30,000 16 — 25 kWh $40,000 >25 kWh $50,000 For HVIP, purchasers are not required to apply for a voucher, instead, HVIP has streamlined the process by having dealers become HVIP-approved and having dealers submit requests for HVIP vouchers to CARE. Upon approval, the voucher amount is discounted from the purchase order. This process makes it simpler for purchasers to explore the HVIP-eligible vehicle catalog and work with HVIP-approved dealers for direct access to incentives. Currently, HVIP offers vouchers for 151 vehicles, many of which can be found across at least 65 HVIP-approved dealers in California. Individuals who wish to purchase vehicles are allowed to request a maximum of 30 vouchers annually. It's worth mentioning that the voucher amount may be adjusted based on the type of applicant and vehicle. Table 20 outlines the voucher adjustments based on the applicant type, while Table 21 describes the adjustments based on the vehicle type. These adjustments to the voucher amount will be applied by the dealership, so it is recommended that buyers contact dealers ahead of time to find out if they are eligible for any increased voucher amounts. For instance, the City may be eligible for a 15 percent increase in the HVIP voucher amount, as census tracts in the area have been identified as disadvantaged communities by CARB Zs Noteworthy to mention is that except for public transit buses, HVIP cannot be stacked with State -funded incentives. However, local- and federal -funded incentives may be combined with HVIP vouchers, so long as each incentive program is not paying for the same incremental costs, or the total sum of incentives does not exceed the total cost of the vehicle. Table 19. HVIP FY22-23 Public and Private Fleet Voucher Adjustments 11 CARB Climate Investments Priority Populations 2022 CES 4.0 501 Page Public and Private fleets with 10 or fewer medium- and heavy-duty vehicles +15% Public fleets with 11 or more medium- and heavy-duty vehicles 0% Private fleets with between 11 and 100 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles 0% Private fleets with between 101 and 400 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles -20% Private fleets with more than 500 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles -50% 51 1 P a g e Table 20. HVIP FY22-23 Vehicle Voucher Modifiers Class 8 Drayage Truck Early Adopter* +25% Refuse* +25% Disadvantaged Community** +15% Class 8 Fuel Cell +100% Public Transit Agencies*** +15% School Buses for Public School Districts (not including Set -Aside funds) +65% Plug-in Hybrid -50% In -Use Converted/Remanufactured -50% *As part of CARB's Refuse Reimagined initiative, a voucher enhancement of 25% is applied to HVIP eligible refuse vehicles used for solid waste collection starting November 18, 2022. This increased incentive amount is available until Dec. 31, 2023. The existing Drayage Truck Early Adopter 25% voucher enhancement is also extended until Dec. 31, 2023. **For vehicles domiciled in a disadvantaged community that are purchased or leased by any public or private small fleet with 10 or fewer trucks or buses, and less than $50 million in annual revenue for private fleets, or for any purchase or lease by a California Native American tribal government. There is no revenue provision for public fleets. ***The Public Transit Modifier is reserved for transit buses purchased by a city or county government; a transportation district/transit district; or a public agency. Public transit includes paratransit services. Carl Moyer Program The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) is a grant program in California that provides funding to offset the incremental cost of purchasing or leasing eligible equipment or technologies that reduce emissions from mobile sources, such as MD -HD trucks, buses, and other off-road vehicles and equipment. The Carl Moyer Program provides funding for the purchase or lease of new, cleaner engines and equipment and the retrofit or replacement of existing engines and equipment. This program covers a wide range of equipment types and technologies, including BEVs, PHEVs, FCEVs, and technologies to reduce emissions from diesel engines, such as diesel particulate filters and diesel oxidation catalysts. The program also provides funding for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and the installation of alternative fueling infrastructure such as EVSEs, hydrogen fuel stations, and compressed natural gas fueling stations. The Carl Moyer program is an example of a program that cannot be stacked with other State -funded programs, such as HVIP, and there are other caveats that make Carl Moyer distinct from HVIP and similar programs. One of the key differences between HVIP and Carl Moyer is the scrappage requirement. An applicant is required to scrap existing vehicles in order to use funds from the Carl Moyer program. This is to ensure that the funding will achieve early or extra emission reductions beyond the natural turnover of vehicles. Additionally, the Carl Moyer program only provides funding to replace vehicles that are six years and older. For example, this year, the newest existing engine model year that is eligible to participate in the program would be 2017, and 2018 to 2023 model year vehicles would not be eligible to be scrapped, leaving them available for purchase by any consumer. Moreover, the Carl Moyer program applies a cost-effectiveness limit to calculate the amount of funding that can be allocated to a certain project. On November 19, 2021, CARB approved amendments to the Carl Moyer program's cost effectiveness limits and funding caps for optional advanced technology and ZE replacement on -road projects. The amended cost-effectiveness limits are presented in Table 21. Table 21. Amended Cost -Effectiveness Limits for Carl Moyer Program 521 Page Base Limit $30,000 $33,000 Optional Advanced Technology Limit $100,000 $109,000 On -Road Optional Advanced Technology Limit — 0.02 g/bhp-hr $100,000 $200,000 or cleaner On -Road Optional Zero -Emission Limit School Bus (combustion) $100,000 $500,000 $276,230 $300,000 To apply for funding through the Carl Moyer Program, eligible entities must submit a grant application during the annual application period, and follow the guidelines and requirements outlined in the grant application. CARB evaluates applications based on specific criteria and selects the most promising projects for funding. Applicants must bear in mind that the Carl Moyer program also has tax implications. Current federal and state laws do not exclude Carl Moyer Program grants from gross income, and therefore, the grant received through these programs is subject to federal and state income tax. In other words, a fraction of the grant may have to be paid as income tax, which can increase out of the pocket costs for purchasing new vehicles with the Carl Moyer program. VW Environmental Mitigation Program The California Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Program is a state initiative that aims to reduce the impact of VW's excess diesel emissions on the environment. It provides funding opportunities for eligible entities to implement projects that reduce NOx emissions from mobile sources like heavy-duty vehicles, trucks, and buses, as well as off-road equipment, ferries, and shore power systems. The program has a total allocation of $423 million, of which $90 million is allocated to zero -emission Class 8 freight and port drayage trucks, and $60 million allocated to combustion freight and marine projects (e.g., Low NOx natural gas trucks). Public agencies, private companies, and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for funding on a first-come, first-served basis. The VW Environmental Mitigation program has a vehicle scrappage requirement and requires that both the old and new vehicles operate within the State 75 percent or more of the time. It should be noted that as with most State programs, VW Trust funding cannot be stacked with other State funding sources, such as HVIP or Carl Moyer. However, like HVIP, transit agencies may stack Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds with VW Mitigation Trust funds for purchasing zero -emission transit buses and supportive infrastructure. One caveat is that VW funds cannot be stacked with any other funding sources that takes credit for NOx emission reductions. Table 22 below illustrates the eligibility criteria for VW Trust Fund. As shown, for non-government fleets, the program covers up to 75 percent of the cost of zero -emissions truck (with the maximum funding of $200,000) and 25 percent (50 percent for drayage trucks) of Low NOx natural gas engines (with the maximum funding of $85,000). As an example, if a new Class 8 zero -emission truck costs $350,000 before taxes, the amount of funding is calculated as the minimum of a) 75 percent x 350,000 = $262,500, and b) funding cap of $200,000. In this example, the available funding is $200,000. Alternatively, a non -drayage Low NOx CNG truck with a purchase price of $200,000 would have a funding amount equal to the minimum of a) 25 percent x $200,000 = $50,000, and b) funding cap of $85,000. In this case, the program would offer $50,000 toward purchasing a Low NOx natural gas truck. Table 22. Eligibility Criteria for VW Environmental Mitigation Program for HD Vehicles 531 Page Class 8 Freight Engine Model Zero -Emission Trucks (including Years 1992 to Vehicle Government 100% drayage trucks, 2012* waste haulers, Engine Model Low NOx 25% (Non -Drayage) dump trucks, and Years 1992- (certified 0.02 Non -Government 50% (Drayage) $85,000 concrete mixers) 2012* g/bhp-hr) Government 100% Energy Infrastructure Incentives forZero-Emission(EnergllZE) The California Energy Commission (CEC) Clean Transportation Program is a program that provides funding to support the development and deployment of clean transportation technologies in California, including EVs and EV charging infrastructure. The program offers funding for a wide range of clean transportation projects, including: • Development and deployment of EVs and charging infrastructure; • Fleet electrification and charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles; • Workplace and public charging infrastructure; and • Development of hydrogen fueling infrastructure The CEC Clean Transportation Program also includes several rebate and incentive programs to support the purchase of EVs, such as the Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Rebate Project, which provides rebates for the purchase and installation of EV charging equipment. To apply for funding through the CEC Clean Transportation Program, eligible entities must submit a proposal through a competitive solicitation process that occurs periodically, and follow the guidelines and requirements outlined in the solicitation. The CEC evaluates proposals based on specific criteria and selects the most promising projects for funding. As part of the draft funding allocations for FY 2022-23, CEC has allocated more than $160 million to support medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure to address the need for rapid transition to zero -emission technologies across the state. To facilitate distribution of the Clean Transportation Program funds allocated to MD -HD vehicles, in March 2022 the CEC and CALSTART launched the $50 million EnergllZE Commercial Vehicles block grant which will provide exclusive zero -emission infrastructure funding to support the transition of MD -HD vehicles to BEVs and FCEVs. Participation in the EnergllZE incentive project requires that the applicant or the funding recipient belong to one of the following categories: a) a business, organization, or individual responsible for the operation of a MD -HD ZEV (vehicle Class 2b and above) in the State, or b) a business, organization, or individual responsible for the engineering, construction, procurement, and completion of a ZE infrastructure site in the state of California which shall service MD -HD ZEVs Class 2b or above. EnergllZE also establishes four "Funding Lanes" each with differing qualifications and incentive structures, as shown in Table 23. Of the four available funding lanes, the EV Fast -Track is the most accessible funding lane for municipal or commercial fleets to participate in, since any of the following that apply mean that the fleet is eligible: EnergllZE EV Fast -Track Eligibility for Commercial Fleets • Can provide proof of ownership for MD/HD ZEV(s) registered in the state of California. • Can show proof of purchase order (PO) for a vehicle(s) registered in the State of California, funded or otherwise incentivized through state/federal projects. Funding and incentive sources may include but are not limited to: Clean Off -Road Equipment Voucher Incentive Project (CORE), Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), VW, Carl Moyer, AB 6178, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), California Secure Transportation Energy Partnership (CALSTEP) CMO, and DERA. 541 Page • MD/HD off-road equipment does not require vehicle registration, but must reside and operate 75 percent of its time in the state of CA. Table 23. EnergllZE incentive structure across four funding lanes Type of Application Maximum Incentive Offering Eligible for Milestone Payments Maximum Project Cap First Come, First Served 50% of Hardware and Software Costs Incurred Yes $500,000 Competitive Competitive Competitive 75% of Hardware, 50% of Hardware Software, and Soft and Software Costs Software of Hardware and are Costs Incurred Costs Incurred Yes Yes Yes $750,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) The California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Proiect (CALeVIP) was introduced by the CEC in December 2017 to provide incentives for EV charging infrastructure. The project simplifies the funding process and accelerates charger deployment, with each project targeting specific regions throughout the state that have low rates of infrastructure installation. Through 2022, the CEC has allocated $200 million for charger rebates through CALeVIP, and 13 regional incentive projects covering 36 counties have been launched. Funding amounts are also available for disadvantaged communities and multifamily complexes, and CEC staff works with local governments to leverage other funding opportunities to increase chargers in focused locations. To apply for CALeVIP, the applicant needs to follow these steps: 1. Determine eligibility: The CALeVIP program provides incentives for the installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers in California. Eligible applicants include public agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals who own or lease property in California where EV chargers will be installed. 2. Choose project type: CALeVIP offers two types of projects: Regional incentive projects and Equity incentive projects. Regional incentive projects provide incentives for EV chargers in specific regions throughout California, while equity incentive projects provide higher incentives for EV chargers installed in disadvantaged communities and multi -unit dwellings. 3. Choose charger type: CALeVIP provides incentives for Level 2 and DCFCs 4. Apply for incentives: Once the applicant has determined their eligibility and chosen their project and charger type, they can apply for incentives through the CALeVIP website. The application process involves submitting an online application, providing project details and specifications, and signing a rebate agreement. Eligibility requirements for CALeVIP vary depending on the type of project and the applicant. However, generally, to be eligible for incentives, applicants must meet the following requirements: • Applicant Requirement: To be eligible for any CALeVIP rebate, the applicant must be a site owner or authorized agent, a business, nonprofit, California Native American tribe, or public/government entity based in California or operating as a California-based affiliate. Some projects require a valid California business license, except for public agencies or joint powers authority agencies. • Site Requirements: To qualify for rebates for electric vehicle charging stations in California, the properties must be located in the state and comply with federal, state, and municipal laws. DCFC sites must be publicly 551 Page available 24/7 and located in specific areas such as airports, gas stations, and hospitals. Level 2 charging sites must be located in eligible commercial sites, workplaces, multiunit dwellings, public facilities, or curbside charging sites. Some eligibility criteria only apply to certain rebate programs, and more information can be found on individual project pages. • Disadvantaged Community (DAC) and Low -Income Community (LIC) Requirements: Some CALeVIP rebates are only available for EV charger installation sites located in disadvantaged or low-income communities, which are identified by the CalEnviroScreen tool and census tracts that are at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income. These sites may qualify for higher rebate amounts from some projects. For CALeVIP 2.0, a DAC is defined as an area that falls into one of the three categories mentioned, while an LIC is defined as census tracts that are below 80 percent of the statewide median income or at or below the threshold designated as low-income by the HCD's Revised 2021 State Income Limits. For CALeVIP 1.0, a DAC is defined as any census tract that scores in the top 50 percent of CalEnviroScreen 3.0, and an LIC is defined as census tracts that are either below 80 percent of the statewide median income or at or below the threshold designated as low-income by the HCD's 2016 State Income Limits. • Installation Requirements: According to CA Public Utilities Code 740.20, EV chargers must be installed by Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) certified electricians for all CALeVIP projects except for the Central Coast, Northern California, San Joaquin Valley, and Sonoma Coast projects. If the charging installation supports a port supplying 25 kW or more, at least 25 percent of the electricians working on the crew must be EVITP certified. One crew member may be both the contractor and the EVITP-certified electrician. To find an EVITP-certified electrician or other EV charging provider, visit CALeVIP Connects. • Equipment Requirements: To be eligible for CALeVIP rebate, DCFC equipment must be new, have at least an SAE CCS connector, be networked, capable of 50 kW or greater, use an open standard protocol, be approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program, and accept some form of credit card and multiple forms of payment if payment is required. For Level 2 charging equipment, it must be new, ENERGY STAR certified, networked, capable of 6.2 kW or greater per connector, use an open standard protocol, have a minimum two-year networking agreement, and accept some form of credit card and multiple forms of payment if payment is required. Eligible costs for CALeVIP projects include solar EV charging systems, demand management equipment, installation costs, network agreements, and other related expenses. Costs such as permits required by authorities having jurisdiction are not eligible for reimbursement, and certain projects may not cover upgrades of existing ADA noncompliance. Specific to SJV, the SJVAPCD Incentive Project is a program that aims to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin Valley region of California. The program offers funding and incentives to encourage the deployment of clean transportation technologies, especially charging infrastructure. The incentives can be combined with other federal, state, or local agency incentives, however applicants are ineligible if they have already received incentives funded by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) such are Charge Ready (SCE), EV Charge (PG&E), or Power Your Drive (SDG&E).16 Non-residential properties, such as commercial, workplace, or light-duty fleet sites, can apply for Level 2 charger projects that are private access. The program offers eligible entities up to $70,000 per charger for DCFC installations or 75 percent of eligible project costs, whichever is less. The incentive for Level 2 chargers is $3,500 per connector. Additionally, entities with sites located in DACs are eligible for up to $80,000 per 11 https:Hcalevip.org/sites/default/files/docs/calevip-san-joaquin/Implementation-Manual-San-Joaquin-Valley.pdf 561Page DCFC, or 80 percent of eligible project costs, whichever is less; the incentive for L2 chargers within a DAC area is $4,000 per connector. In San Joaquin county, entities can apply for up to 10 Level 2 charger incentives, provided that funding is available. The most recent figures for available funding in SJV are shown in Figure 19, illustrating that there are currently $1.42 million in remaining funds for L2 chargers. The SJV Incentive Project outlines specific equipment requirements, as summarized in Figure 24. The program also provides rebates for other equipment, including transformers, electric panels, demand management equipment, select distributed energy resources, and installation costs (labor and materials). Eligible fleets can start the application online, and rebates are reserved on a first-come, first-served basis. Figure 23. SJV Incentive Project Available Funding, as of Fri Jan 20, 2023 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 $1,507,385 $361,706 $337,267 $265,000 $1,403,000 DCFC Funds L2 Charger Funds Remaining Provisionally Reserved ■ Reserved Issued Figure 24. SJV Incentive Project Requirements and Additional Information California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) promotes clean vehicle adoption in California by offering rebates from $1,000 to $7,000 for the purchase or lease of new, eligible light-duty zero -emission vehicles, including EVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs. Applicants must be based in California and submit a CVRP application within three months of the vehicle purchase or lease date while funds are available. Eligible vehicles must meet the following criteria for a purchaser or lessee to qualify for a rebate: 571 Page Have a base MSRP for the following vehicle categories: o Base MSRP of $60,000 or less for vehicles that fall under the Large Vehicles category (i.e., Minivans, Pickups, SUVs) o Base MSRP of $45,000 or less for light-duty vehicles (i.e., hatchbacks, sedans, wagons, and two- seaters) With the exception of FCEVs, all vehicles must meet the base MSRP caps according to the listed vehicle categories above. According to the CVRP Implementation manual, the CVRP rebate can be combined with federal, state, or local agency incentives as well as Administrator match funding, if available, to help further buy -down an eligible vehicle's costs'. It should be noted that individuals and businesses are limited to one rebate for a non-FCEV and one rebate for a FCEV, for a total of two rebates; when individuals or businesses meet their two -rebate limit, they will remain ineligible for an additional rebate. In contrast, public fleets are eligible for up to 30 rebates per year. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a regulatory program that incentivizes fuel carbon intensity reduction and non-residential ZEV infrastructure. In particular, fleets that own Level 2 and DC fast chargers are eligible to apply for the generation of LCFS credits, since electricity is a low -carbon transportation fuel. The number of credits a fleet generates depends on the amount and carbon intensity of electricity dispensed to vehicles. For example, Based on data from March 2023, fleets can increase their LCFS revenue streams by up to 20 percent using renewable electricity for charging or purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), as illustrated in Figure 25. Participants in the LCFS program can manage fuel and credit transactions through the LCFS Reporting Tool and Credit Bank & Transfer System (LRT-CBTS), part of CARB's database management system for all LCFS processes. Credits earned through the LCFS program may be sold by a registered broker, and the value of the credits are generally required to be reinvested in electric vehicle infrastructure or services. This could include services such as EV purchases and maintenance, charging infrastructure purchases and maintenance, electricity costs, and administrative fees. The value of the LCFS credits for any one EV charging site is influenced by many factors including but not limited to: the number of EV chargers in operation, the type of EV chargers installed, the amount of fuel dispensed, and the value of the credit when sold. One limitation of LCFS credits are the fluctuations in their selling price, as illustrated in Figure 26, which can lower EV and EV charging infrastructure deployment potential. For example, while in 2020, the LCFS credits were traded at $200 per credit, the credit prices have dropped to —$60 per credit in the first quarter of 2023 Figure 25. An Example of Annual Revenues Generated using LCFS Cass 6 Bo. Track Grid Electricity $3,600 �riCWa 1e El�(:lTlCli}r $4,300 •� Class 8 Truck Grid Electricity $1�.�00 Renewable Electricity �zl,000 � Assuming an average credit price of $100/credit Assumes Class 6 truck with 20,000 annual miles and 1.3 kWh/mi electricity consumption rate 17 https://cleanvehiderebate.org/sites/default/files/docs/nav/transportation/cvrp/documents/CVRP-Implementation-Manua1.Of 581 Page Figure 26. Monthly LCFS Credit Price and Volume Transacted (March 2023) $250 $200 iz $150 aD U ^L LL N L U $100 $50 $0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) provides grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to fund capital improvements that modernize California's transit systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase ridership, integrate rail services, and improve safety. TIRCP has awarded $9.1 billion to almost 100 projects in California. AB 180 appropriated $3.63 billion to the program and $350 million for High Priority Grade Crossing Improvement and Separation projects. CaISTA has awarded $2.54 billion to existing projects and will award the rest to new projects by April 2023. The programmatic goal is to provide at least 25 percent of funding to projects that directly benefit disadvantaged communities. According to the most recent TIRCP guidelines18, a project is considered eligible for TIRCP funding if the application can demonstrate that the project will achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions using the CARB quantification methodology19. Projects that demonstrate significant reductions in vehicle miles traveled and congestion are more likely to be approved. Significant change will be measured both in percentage terms (percent increase compared to the existing system or corridor) and in total quantity terms (increase in number of riders and passenger miles per day). Moreover, while there is no minimum match requirement for this funding source, funding leverage is desirable and will be considered in the evaluation of expected project benefits. If a project is awarded funds, all funds identified as committed to the project (i.e., other federal, state, local, regional, or private sources) may be required as a funding match at the time of project selection. Clean fleet, facility, and network improvement projects that help replace aging vehicle fleets with zero -emission vehicles, and associated fueling or charging infrastructure or facility modifications, may be eligible for TIRCP funding. Such projects may qualify through efforts that improve network efficiency with transit priority investments, implement improvements to payment systems to increase ridership, or improve integration with other corridors and operators. Smaller and rural agencies that may have difficulty transitioning to electrified fleets without additional support are encouraged to apply for TIRCP funding and seek technical assistance. Zero -emission vehicle leases are also eligible, but benefits modeled must match the duration of the lease. 18https://calsta.ca..qov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/tircp-cycle-6-draft-quidelines ally.pdf 19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/auction-proceeds/caIsta tircp finalgm cyde4.pdf 591Page Applications must be submitted in accordance with the Call for Projects. For example, the application guidance for Cycle 6 are provided at: https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prop. Local Programs SJVAPCD Clean Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Incentive Program The SJV Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Clean Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Incentive Program provides incentive for the installation of new stations, conversion of existing stations, and expansion of existing stations for hydrogen fueling, and electric battery charging of heavy-duty vehicles. The program is open to two types of applicants: • Public entities — include but are not limited to State, metropolitan, county, city, multi -county special district (e.g., water districts), school districts, universities, and federal agencies. • Private entities — include but are not limited to private organizations and corporations. The Program offers funding for the installation, conversion of existing station, or expansion to existing station, of Level 2 or better charging stations. Projects are funded on a first come, first serve basis after applicants submit entity details and planned infrastructure project forms to the SJVAPCD. Applicants must have a signed, executed contract from the SJVAPCD prior to purchase and installation of new equipment. Incentive amounts for private projects are based on the following percentage of eligible costs shown in Table 24: Table 24. SJVAPCD Clean Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Program Funding Amount 50% 65% Baseline maximum for all projects Projects with solar/wind power systems *Additional 5% funding available to applicants of heavy-duty truck parking facilities that provide communal charging opportunities (e.g., truck yards, truck depot, truck stops etc.) Eligible costs are limited to the purchase and installation of the equipment for power delivery or fueling directly related to the infrastructure project. Besides equipment and installation costs, these include fees incurred pre- contract execution and other eligible costs included in the Carl Moyer guidelines as determined by SJVAPCD. One potential requirement for participation is that the SJVAPCD may require a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to be performed and obtain approval prior to funding, which can potentially pose as a barrier for select projects. Financing Programs Public -Private Partnerships Public-private partnerships (PPP) can be used to build charging infrastructure by involving a private partner who finances initial capital costs with private debt and equity in exchange for returns on investment over time. This involves a partnership between a government entity and a private sector company, where the latter takes the lead in designing, financing, constructing, and operating the charging infrastructure. The government entity provides funding, land, and other resources, while the private partner is responsible for financing and operating the charging infrastructure. This model allows for the sharing of risks and benefits and can lead to the faster deployment of charging infrastructure, as well as increased innovation. 601 Page There are several PPP models that are available for charging infrastructure deployment. Some of the common PPP models include: • Build -Operate -Transfer (BOT) Model: Under this model, a private partner is responsible for the design, construction, and operation of charging infrastructure, and transfers the ownership to the government or public entity after a specified period of time. • Design -Build -Finance -Operate -Maintain (DBFOM) Model: Similar to the BOT model, a private partner takes responsibility for design, construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of charging infrastructure, but operates it for a specified period of time before transferring ownership back to the government or public entity. • Concession Model: This model involves the government granting a private partner the right to build and operate charging infrastructure within a specified area for a specified period of time, in exchange for payment or a share of revenue. • Joint Venture Model: This model involves the formation of a joint venture between the public and private sectors, where both partners collaborate to develop and operate charging infrastructure. The choice of PPP model depends on the specific goals and needs of the government or public entity and the private partner. The model selected should allow for efficient and effective deployment of charging infrastructure while ensuring that public interest is protected. There are a few examples of PPPs for MD -HD EVs. One example is the CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) partnership, which aims to accelerate the deployment of MD -HD EVs in the State of California. The partnership provides funding for the deployment of these types of EVs, as well as for the construction of charging infrastructure. Another example is the partnership between the Port of Los Angeles and the private sector to deploy and test medium -duty electric delivery trucks. The partnership aims to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from cargo movement in and out of the port, and to demonstrate the feasibility of electric trucks in a real-world commercial environment. Purchasing Contracts from Sourcewell Sourcewell is a government agency that provides cooperative purchasing contracts to public entities in the United States and Canada. Sourcewell financing is a way for entities to finance the purchase of goods or services, spreading the cost of the purchase over time. By pooling the purchasing power of its members, Sourcewell is able to negotiate lower prices and better terms on the products and services it procures. This allows its members to save time and money compared to if they had to purchase these products and services on their own. In terms of charging infrastructure, Sourcewell may negotiate contracts with suppliers and manufacturers of EV charging equipment and services and offer these contracts to its members. By leveraging the collective purchasing power of its members, Sourcewell may be able to secure more favorable pricing, terms, and conditions, which can help reduce the cost of procurement for its members. There are a variety of Sourcewell purchasing contracts available for fleet related services, including loan and lease programs for EVs, charging equipment, and workforce training. Figure 27 shows some of Sourcewell's current finance and leasing contracts. These purchasing contracts can make it easier for entities with limited budgets to access the goods and services they need. D&M Leasing has partnered with Sourcewell to offer EV leasing and purchasing solutions to commercial and government entities. Municipal leases remain eligible for any applicable state and federal incentives, and D&M Leasing simplifies the process of receiving the largest federal tax -credit. Lease terms range from 24 through 60 months, and at the end of the lease, fleets may purchase the vehicles. Over 61 1 P a g e the duration of the lease, fleets also have access to vehicle telematics and vehicle maintenance programs through D&M Leasing's fleet management program. Merchants Fleet Management is another Sourcewell partnerthat offers EV leasing and management solutions, along with EV fleet pilot programs. Merchants Fleet Management can facilitate the delivery of different EV models to help fleet managers understand vehicle capabilities and determine which subsections of their business should adopt more EVs. NCL Government Capital, another contract available through Sourcewell, differs from the two previous contracts by offering tax-exempt financing solutions to acquire light- through heavy-duty vehicles. Figure 27. Sourcewell Financing & Leasing Contracts J U N N O co O C U) M O J W Merct, C Ur D Q E2 a) , N C C-4 O � O —q) " LL W C c� I Financing Options through (Bank NCL - Government Capital. _ J Z U N Z Uo N NCD O C it O J U Z The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) is a state agency that has broad authority to issue tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds, provide financing to public agencies, provide credit enhancements, acquire or lease facilities, and leverage State and Federal funds. IBank's current programs include the Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Loan Program and partnership with Climate Tech Finance. The ISRF offers low-cost financing to state and local government entities and non-profit organizations sponsored by a government entity for a wide variety of infrastructure and economic development projects. In partnership with Climate Tech Finance, this program provides loan guarantees to de -risk the lending process for banks and open new sources of working capital for climate tech entrepreneurs. These financing options provide small- and mid-sized governments and businesses with low-cost and direct financing for EVs and EV charging infrastructure through different loan and repayment structures. Generally speaking, IBank interest rates are set based on a combination of an Interest Rate Benchmark and Interest Rate Adjustments, which are dependent upon the repayment source. The Interest Rate Benchmark will be based on the Thompson's Municipal Market Data Index (MMD) and use published letter category ratings for the pledged revenue stream to determine the base (market price) spread from the MMD AAA GO Scale applicable to the borrower. Interest Rate Adjustments will cause the interest rate on financing to generally be below the Interest Rate Benchmark. The specifics of these programs are discussed below. Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) The ISRF most notably finances economic development and public infrastructure projects, but private developments, such as zero -emission vehicle fleets and charging stations, qualify as well. ISRF financing is available in amounts ranging from $1 million to $65 million, with loan terms for the useful life of the project—up to a 621 Page maximum of 30 years. The origination fee for processing of an ISRF loan the greater of $10,000 or 1 percent of the original loan amount. Applications for ISRF are continuously accepted and can be filled out in detail after initial consultation with (Bank to determine if the project meets creditworthiness and underwriting criteria. Applications approved by the (Bank board can have funds issued within 45 to 90 days, and different financing repayment solutions, such as revenue producing enterprise systems or property/sales/special taxes, can be used to repay ISRF financings. Climate Tech Finance The Climate Tech Finance partnership is meant to accelerate the development and adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gases across California. The program is administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in partnership with (Bank but is accessible to entities statewide. The BAAQMD recommends contacting their office via email for proposed projects. Through the (Bank and Climate Tech Finance partnership, applications for loans and loan -guarantees are available for projects focusing on emission -reducing technologies. Climate Tech Finance offers loan guarantees of up to $5 million are offered on loans of up to $20 million, with up to a 7 -year term (the loan term can be longer). For the loan guarantee, 80 percent of the loan amount is backed by a leveraged trust fund held by the State of California. A single loan guarantee is then issued by the State of California to cover the entire single 90 percent loan guarantee. (Bank provides loans for public entities ranging from $500,000 to $30 million, with up to 30 -year terms. Charging Infrastructure -as -a -service Charging Infrastructure -as -a -service (CIaaS) for EV chargers refers to the provision of EV charging infrastructure as a service to customers. CIaaS for EV chargers offer a range of charging solutions and services that can be tailored to the needs of businesses, municipalities, and property managers. This type of service allows them to provide charging infrastructure to their customers without having to invest in the equipment themselves, and also allowing them to manage the installation, maintenance, and billing of the service, which can make the adoption of EV more accessible and convenient for the end-users. Some established companies providing CIaaS for EV chargers include: 1. ChargePoint: This company offers a variety of EV charging solutions, including CIaaS for businesses, municipalities, and property managers. ChargePoint provides the charging stations and manages the installation, maintenance, and billing for the service. 2. EVgo: EVgo is another provider of CIaaS for EV chargers. The company offers a network of fast -charging stations for EV drivers and provides CIaaS to businesses, municipalities, and property managers. EVgo also offers a mobile app for customers to locate and pay for charging services. 3. Blink Charging: Blink Charging is a provider of EV charging equipment and services, including CIaaS for businesses, municipalities, and property managers. The company provides the charging equipment and manages the installation, maintenance, and billing for the service. 4. Greenlots: Greenlots is an open -source network provider of EV charging infrastructure and services. They offer a variety of charging solutions, including CIaaS for businesses, municipalities, and property managers. The company provides the charging stations, manages the installation, maintenance, and billing, and also offers a mobile app for customers to locate and pay for charging services. 5. SemaConnect: SemaConnect is another provider of EV charging infrastructure and services. The company offers a range of charging stations and manages the installation, maintenance, and billing for the service. They also provide a web -based network management system that allows property managers and fleet operators to manage and monitor EV charging on their premises. 63IPage