Submission of Electrification + Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Copyrighted
December 21, 2020
City of Dubuque Action Items # 1.
City Council Meeting
ITEM TITLE: Submission of Electrification + Renewable Energy Feasibility Study,
Request for Policy Change and Recommendation for Budgetary Action
SUM MARY: City Manager transmitting the City of Dubuque Fleet Electrification
Feasibility Study and recommending the following City Council actions:
• That the City's Vehicle Procurement Process be updated to incorporate
the value of carbon emission reductions in the TCO (Total Cost of
Ownership)calculations.
• Consider further the implementation of a"cost of carbon" more
generally within the operations of the City, in order to achieve the priority
of a 50% reduction of the City's carbon footprint by 2030.
SUGGESTED Suggested Disposition: Receive and File;Approve
DISPOSITION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Electrification and Renewal Energy Feasibility Study- City Manager Memo
MVM Memo
Dave Lyons Memo Supporting Documentation
Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Supporting Documentation
Fleet Policy Memo Supporting Documentation
Dubuque Carbon Pricing Memo Supporting Documentation
Dubuque
THE CITY OF �
ui-Aseria cih
DuB E , . � . ,
� II �
Maste iece on tj2e Mississi i zoo�•zoiz•zois
YP pp zoi�*zoi9
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Submission of Electrification + Renewable Energy Feasibility Study,
Request for Policy Change and Recommendation for Budgetary Action
DATE: December 16, 2020
In 2018, Greater Dubuque Development approached the lowa Economic Development
Authority and the lowa Energy Council to discuss Dubuque's sustainability efforts and
successes and to request assistance on several additional fronts, including an effort to
increase the number of renewable energy vehicles in Dubuque and fueling those
vehicles with locally produced renewable energy. In 2019, a specific opportunity arose
through some remaining funding available to the State for use in supporting feasibility
studies. A key component of that funding was the need to involve private-sector
partners and models of action that could be replicated state-wide. Greater Dubuque
Development reached out lowa Power & Light, and its parent Alliant Energy, who were
not only supportive but agreed to take the lead in seeking and administering the grant
for the feasibility study. It also joined the City in contributing in-kind resources to match
the state funds. The City contributed $42,768 dollars in-kind, the largest portion being
for David Lyons' time.
Through-out 2020, Greater Dubuque Development has facilitated the feasibility study
with teams from the City, Alliant Energy and outside consultants from Burns &
McDonnell. That feasibility study was just completed and contains a comprehensive
review and recommended strategy for Dubuque as it relates to significantly reducing
Dubuque's carbon footprint from its transit and non-transit fleets. For Transit it sets out
a fifteen-year strategy and a near-term addition of three electric para-transit vehicles
and charging infrastructure. For Non-Transit Fleet it sets out a ten-year strategy, a
vehicle transition process and a near-term addition of charging infrastructure at the
Municipal Service Center.
Greater Dubuque Development Corporation Sustainable Innovation Consultant David
Lyons is transmitting the City of Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study and
recommending the following City Council actions:
• That the City's Vehicle Procurement Process be updated to incorporate the value
of carbon emission reductions in the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculations.
• Consider further the implementation of a "cost of carbon" more generally within
the operations of the City, in order to achieve the priority of a 50% reduction of
the City's carbon footprint by 2030.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
As part of the Fiscal Year 2022 budget process the City Council will also be reviewing
budgetary recommendations related to implementation of the initial phases of transit
and non-transit fleet decarbonization, including the funds to match a Federal Transit
Administration grant and the funds for charging facilities for non-transit fleet at the
Municipal Service Center."
�
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager
David Lyons, Sustainable Innovation Consultant, Greater Dubuque Development
Corporation
2
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: David Lyons, Sustainable Innovation Consultant — Greater Dubuque
Development
SUBJECT: Submission of Electrification + Renewable Energy Feasibility Study,
Request for Policy Change and Recommendation for Budgetary Action
DATE: December 13, 2020
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is four-fold:
- To submit a Feasibility Study on the Electrification of the City's Transit and
Non-Transit Fleet supported by local renewable energy.
- Request that the City's Vehicle Procurement Process incorporate the value
of carbon emission reductions in the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)
calculations.
- Recommend budgetary actions to implement the initial phases of transit and
non-transit fleet decarbonization, including the funds to match a Federal
Transit Administration grant and the funds for charging facilities for non-
transit fleet at the Municipal Service Center.
- Request consideration of the implementation of a "cost of carbon" more
generally within the operations of the City, in order to achieve the priority of
a 50% reduction of the City's carbon footprint by 2030.
BACKGROUND
Sustainability and resiliency planning and action have been a key priority of City
leadership and this community for over a decade. One guiding principle of that
planning and action has been the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50%
by 2030. Based on recent reduction calculations, the City is on track to achieve
that goal. However, it is also clear that the "low hanging fruit" (in terms of low
cost and high impact actions available to the City) has been picked and that the
remaining options will require increased effort and costs.
Transit and transportation account for over 20% of the City's carbon footprint.
The City has implemented and continues to implement operational and
technological improvements to change the environmental impact of
transportation, from automated traffic lights to round-abouts to the STREETS
program. However, the data is clear that the only way to significantly reduce the
City's footprint further in this area is to either drive less or de-carbonize the fuel
we use.
DISCUSSION
In 2018, Greater Dubuque Development approached the lowa Economic
Development Authority and the lowa Energy Council to discuss Dubuque's
sustainability efforts and successes and to request assistance on several
additional fronts, including an effort to increase the number of renewable energy
vehicles in Dubuque and fueling those vehicles with locally produced renewable
energy. In 2019 a specific opportunity arose through some remaining funding
available to the State for use in supporting feasibility studies. A key component
of that funding was the need to involve private-sector partners and models of
action that could be replicated state-wide. Greater Dubuque Development
reached out lowa Power & Light, and its parent Alliant Energy, who were not only
supportive but agreed to take the lead in seeking and administering the grant for
the feasibility study. It also joined the City in contributing in-kind resources to
match the state funds. The City contributed $42,768 dollars in-kind, the largest
portion being for David Lyons' time.
Through-out 2020 Greater Dubuque Development has facilitated the feasibility
study with teams from the City, Alliant Energy and outside consultants from Burns
& McDonnell. That feasibility study was just completed and contains a
comprehensive review and recommended strategy for Dubuque as it relates to
significantly reducing Dubuque's carbon footprint from its transit and non-transit
fleets. For Transit it sets out a fifteen-year strategy and a near-term addition of
three electric para-transit vehicles and charging infrastructure. For Non-Transit
Fleet it sets out a ten-year strategy, a vehicle transition process and a near-term
addition of charging infrastructure at the Municipal Service Center.
Attached is the full Feasibility Study and two research memos on carbon policy,
one relating to a recommendation to implement a policy addition for City vehicle
purchasing and one recommending City consideration of a process to apply a
valuation to carbon emissions more generally within City operations.
BUDGET IMPACT
There will be two near-term budgetary recommendations as part of your FY22
budget considerations. First, funding of $193,400 in City match to the pending
Federal Transit Administration award for renewable energy vehicles and
electrification infrastructure for Dubuque's Transit system. The City had
previously pledged a match of $242,000 for this grant application. Second,
funding of $104,800 to install initial charging infrastructure at the Municipal
Service Center for non-transit fleet vehicles that park there over-night.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
It is respectfully requested that you accept and review this Feasibility Study and
recommend to the City Council the following actions:
- That the City's Vehicle Procurement Process be updated to incorporate the
value of carbon emission reductions in the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)
calculations.
- Approval of budgetary actions to implement the initial phases of transit and
non-transit fleet decarbonization, including the funds to match a Federal
Transit Administration grant and the funds for charging facilities for non-
transit fleet at the Municipal Service Center.
- Consider further the implementation of a "cost of carbon" more generally
within the operations of the City, in order to achieve the priority of a 50%
reduction of the City's carbon footprint by 2030.
I would like to thank both the Alliant and City Team for all their effort and
support. The City Team included Cori Burbach, Gina Bell, Steve Sampson-Brown,
John Klostermann, Russ Stecklein and Wally Wernimont, with the help of many
others in data collection and analysis.
c.c. Jenny Larson
Cori Burbach
Gina Bell
Steve Brown
John Klostermann
Russ Stecklein
Wally Wernimont
■
TH�ECITYOF City of Dubuque
I�UB E - - -
Fleet Electr�f�cat �on
Mas terpiece on the Mississippi F e a s i b i I i t S t u d
v v
Alliant City of Dubuque, lowa
Ener��/, in partnership with Alliant Energy
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study
Prepared by 1898 & Co., part of Burns & McDonnell
Internal Project No. 124032
• � •
• • , Funded in part by lowa Economic Development Agency
Date: 11/23/2020
DRAFT-Not for Public Release
� -_�., - _
��-
;� � • �
� i :
'� U � V V '� '� +, � �
� � � � � � � ':
� � � � � � � i. ` � �
• • • � • • • f
• • • • • i • I �
• • • • • • • l_ ��
• • • • • • • I `�
• • • • • • • '
� � � A A � r
�
�
This page intentionally left blank
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 Table of Contents
Page No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 FEASIBILITY OF ELECTRIFYING THE CITY FLEET...............................................................2-3
2.1 General Fleet Assessment........................................................................................................2-3
2.2 The Transit Fleet Assessment.................................................................................................2-6
2.3 Non-Transit Fleet Assessment ...............................................................................................2-9
2.4 An Attrition Strategy Requires Policy Change..............................................................2-12
3.0 CITY FACILITIES ARE CAPABLE TO SUPPORT ELECTRIFICATION .............................3-13
3.1 City Fleet Facilities....................................................................................................................3-13
3.2 Jule Operations and Training Center (JOTC)................................................................3-13
3.3 Municipal Service Center (MSC)..........................................................................................3-16
3.4 Additional Facilities to Support Renewable Generation...........................................3-19
4.0 PARTNERSHIP IS CRUCIAL TO SUCCESS.............................................................................4-21
4.1 Electric Utility Partnership.....................................................................................................4-21
4.2 Consulting and Engineering Partnership.........................................................................4-21
4.3 Pursuit of Grant Funding .......................................................................................................4-22
4.4 Third Parties................................................................................................................................4-22
APPENDIX A
City of Dubuque, lowa i
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 Table of Contents
Page No.
Table 1: Energy Profile of Each Vehicle Type.................................................................................................2-5
Table2: Transit Fleet Summary...........................................................................................................................2-7
Table 3: Non-transit Fleet Summary................................................................................................................2-10
City of Dubuque, lowa ii
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 Table of Contents
Page No.
Figure1: Vehicle Age Histogram.........................................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2: Vehicle Count and Age by Department........................................................................................2-4
Figure 3: JOTC Electrification Roadmap.........................................................................................................2-6
Figure 4:TC0 of a Paratransit BEB vs Paratransit ICE Bus......................................................................2-8
Figure 5: Transit Fleet Attrition Based Schedule and Emissions Reduction....................................2-9
Figure 6: Non-Transit Fleet Attrition Schedule and Emission Reduction........................................2-10
Figure 7: TCO of BEV's vs ICE Vehicles ..........................................................................................................2-11
Figure 8: Hypothetical Policy Approach to Electrify Fleet Vehicles..................................................2-12
Figure9: JOTC Meter Data..................................................................................................................................3-13
Figure 10: JOTC Phased Infrastructure Plan.................................................................................................3-14
Figure 11: Conceptual JOTC Vehicle Charger Installations.....................................................................3-15
Figure 12: Estimated Range of Initial JOTC Vehicles and Infrastructure Costs.............................3-16
Figure13: MSC Meter Data...................................................................................................................................3-17
Figure 14: MSC Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Plan...............................................................................3-17
Figure 15: Sites Evaluated for Solar Generation.........................................................................................3-20
Figure16: Energy Balance...................................................................................................................................3-20
City of Dubuque, lowa iii
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 Table of Contents
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
1898 & Co. 1898 & Co., part of Burns & McDonnell
Client City of Dubuque, lowa
IEDA lowa Economic Development Agency
BEB Battery Electric Bus
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CaaS Construction as a Service
DCFC Direct Current Fast Charger
DTT Direct Transfer Trip
EV Electric Vehicle
FTA Federal Transit Authority
IaaS Infrastructure as a Service
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
JOTC Jule Operations and Training Center
MSC Municipal Service Center
PV Photovoltaic
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
VaaS Vehicle as a Service
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
City of Dubuque, lowa iv
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 Disclaimers
1898 & Co.s"' is a division of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. which performs or
provides business, technology, and consulting services. 1898 & Co. does not provide legal,
accounting, or tax advice. The reader is responsible for obtaining independent advice
concerning these matters. That advice should be considered by reader, as it may affect the
content, opinions, advice, or guidance given by 1898 & Co. Further, 1898 & Co. has no
obligation and has made no undertaking to update these materials after the date hereof,
notwithstanding that such information may become outdated or inaccurate. These materials
serve only as the focus for consideration or discussion; they are incomplete without the
accompanying oral commentary or explanation and may not be relied on as a stand-alone
document.
The information, analysis, and opinions contained in this material are based on publicly
available sources, secondary market research, and financial or operational information, or
otherwise information provided by or through 1898 & Co. clients whom have represented to
1898 & Co. they have received appropriate permissions to provide to 1898 & Co., and as
directed by such clients, that 1898 & Co. is to rely on such client-provided information as
current, accurate, and complete. 1898 & Co. has not conducted complete or exhaustive
research, or independently verified any such information utilized herein, and makes no
representation or warranty, express or implied, that such information is current, accurate, or
complete. Projected data and conclusions contained herein are based (unless sourced
otherwise) on the information described above and are the opinions of 1898 & Co. which
should not be construed as definitive forecasts and are not guaranteed. Current and future
conditions may vary greatly from those utilized or assumed by 1898 & Co.
1898 & Co. has no control over weather; cost and availability of labor, material, and
equipment; labor productivity; energy or commodity pricing; demand or usage; population
demographics; market conditions; changes in technology, and other economic or political
factors affecting such estimates, analyses, and recommendations. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, 1898 & Co. shall have no liability whatsoever to any reader or any other
third party, and any third party hereby waives and releases any rights and claims it may have
at any time against 1898 & Co., Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., and any Burns
& McDonnell affiliated company, with regard to this material, including but not limited to the
accuracy or completeness thereof.
Any entity in possession of, or that reads or otherwise utilizes information herein, is assumed
to have executed or otherwise be responsible and obligated to comply with the contents of
any Confidentiality Agreement and shall hold and protect its contents, information, forecasts,
and opinions contained herein in confidence and not share with others without prior written
authorization.
City of Dubuque, lowa v
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 1.0
�� - - �� '"^""4RY
Electrification of the Dubuque fleet, coupled with local renewable generation, will help the
City reach its long-term sustainability goals. The existing fleet, including transit and non-
transit vehicles, consists of numerous aged vehicles that may be feasibly and economically
transitioned to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) today. The City facilities that house and
service most of the City's fleet may accommodate charging infrastructure to support initial
stages of electrification and can support rooftop solar panels to supply renewable energy to
account for initial stages of electricity consumption by transitioned fleet vehicles.
This study represents a joint assessment by the City of Dubuque, Alliant Energy, and 1898 &
Co. (part of Burns & McDonnell), partially funded by the lowa Economic Development Agency
(IEDA). The primary objective of this study is to assess the operational and economic
feasibility of electrifying the City's fleet fueled by local renewable generation and avoiding
adverse local grid impacts. The results should inform other municipal fleet owners and electric
utilities on strategies, assumptions, expectations, and partnership opportunities across lowa.
The City of Dubuque has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 50% by 2030
through the Community Climate Action & Resiliency Plan established in 2013. This plan
identified the sources of GHG's emissions in the City of Dubuque. The City fleet vehicles were
identified as a significant source of GHG emissions that could and should be addressed.
Electrification has emerged as a viable strategy to decarbonize fleets.
Transitioning a fleet to electric vehicles involves setting the goal, assessing economic
impacts, assessing operational impacts, developing a transition plan, and then committing to
execute that plan. This study demonstrated economic value by comparing total cost of
ownership (TCO) for various electric alternatives to existing fleet vehicles. Once economic
potential was understood, operational feasibility and charging infrastructure was addressed.
Finally, both transit and non-transit transition roadmaps were derived.
As a result of this study, the key findings below were learned. The key findings are numbered
and listed throughout the report.
Feasibility of Electrifying the City Fleet
1.) The overall City fleet is aged with an average vehicle age of 8 years. Many vehicles
may feasibly be electrified without sacrificing safe and effective operations.
2.) Limited BEV's are currently available for purchase but those that are may have an
equivalent or lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
3.) New BEV's are being introduced each year that will begin to meet other operational
needs such as pickup trucks, and medium-duty vehicles.
4.) A reasonable and prudent strategy to electrify both transit and non-transit vehicles
through procurement policies implemented via attrition could yield a 35% reduction in
Citv fleet emissions bv Fiscal Year 2031.
City Facilities Ability to Support Electrification
5.) Local renewable energy potential on the roof top of the Jule Operations & Training
Center (JOTC) can support the energy needs for 17% of the transit fleet.
City of Dubuque, lowa 1-1
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 1.0
6.) The City's facilities can accommodate charging for the initial wave of BEV adoption.
However, facilities will eventually require significant upgrades to electrical systems
and utility transformers to support full fleet electrification and charging.
7.) For non-transit vehicles, the existing rooftop solar panels on the Municipal Service
Center (MSC) can support 35% of the Non-Transit fleet energy needs.
8.) The majority of the City fleet has reasonable energy requirements and is parked
overnight thus peak load impacts affecting the grid can be mitigated. The need for
adding batteries for storage should only be necessary to avoid expensive grid
upgrades.
9.) Additional local renewable generation on adjacent roofs, nearby locations, through
power purchase agreements, or other strategies may be required to provide enough
renewable energy to support full electrification.
10.)Due to utility rate structures and expected vehicle charging times based on City
operations, the net cost impacts of adding solar generation may not offset charging
costs.
Utility Partnership is Crucial to Success
11.) The electric utility provides fleet-owners valuable insight on approaches,
considerations and best practices other fleet-owners in their service territory are
employing and help fleet-owners understand the impacts fleet electrification will have
on their bills and options they can pursue.
The City recognizes significant positive environmental impact from electrifying their fleet
fueled by renewable energy. This prudent transition will improve local air quality without
straining budgets. Having a comprehensive feasibility study accomplished improves and
accelerates a community's ability to accurately direct limited resources and implement public
policy in support of decarbonization through electrification.
The following sections describe the detailed findings and transition strategies established by
this study.
City of Dubuque, lowa 1-2
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
' r.�. i KIFYING THE CITY FLEET
2.1 General Fleet Assessment
The inventory of the City fleet was reviewed and analyzed to identify opportunities for
electrification. The vehicle inventory included data such as make and model, age, mileage, use
case, department, and dwell location. The City fleet is comprised of over 266 vehicles across
9 different vehicle categories and 21 City departments. Figure 1 below shows the age and
variety of the different vehicles in the City fleet.
Figure 1: Vehicle Age Histogram
�ombination Short Haul
Large hansit Bus
Low diversity of •LightCommerdalTruck
transit bus fleets
•Passenger Car:Non-Palice
2S Passenger Car.Police Sedan
�Passenger Truck
Refuse Truck
zc •Single Unit Short Haul Truck
. - Small 7ransft 8us
e �s ' Specialty and Limited Use Vehicles
> �
�� , ' Rre�epL Pfck-up
� - Oiler,Flusher_Fre,Hazmat Truck
� � �Fire,Plow Truck
Water Truck
. '
o .� 1�1.� 1. .' _� 1 �
o s �u ._ :�u ts 3u
8 years VehicleAge
Average age
From Figure 1 we can see that the transit fleet is aging and many of the transit buses were
purchased in 2011. Transit bus purchases generally occur when Federal Transit Authority
(FTA) funds become available. In 2011 the Jule, which is the City of Dubuque transit agency,
was able to purchase new buses through the Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER) fund from the FTA. The City fleet includes cars, vans, SUV's, and
heavy-duty trucks with several of the vehicles identified utilized for specialty and limited use
applications. The specialty and limited use vehicles may not be suitable for electrification due
to the current lack of an available electric option. The non-transit vehicles identified are used
across 20 City departments with suitable targets from engineering and the building
department dwelling at the Municipal Service Center. The breakdown of vehicle age and
department are represented in Figure 2.
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-3
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
Figure 2: Vehicle Count and Age by Department
Vehfde Count 6y�epartment pepar.ment Fverage niAqe Vehide Ceunt
45 Cateyory POLiCE 425 4d
- Combination Short Ffaul TRANSiT 955 33
40 Large Transit Sus PARK DIV 535 26
FlRE 12.33 24
•Li�ht Commercial Truck SiREEi 635 23
REFUSE/RKVCLING 8.22 18
35 •PassengerCarNon-Police ENGWEERING 5.88 V
Pd552nc)2C Cef:POlire Sedan WASER 1043 14
AIRPORT 1338 73
•Passenger Truck Housw� a.as e
30
Re(use Truck Bl11LDING 7.71 7
RAMPS 10.71 7
•Single Unit Short Haul Truck SEwER itn 6
�z5 STREETQEANING 11.67 6
Small Transit Bus
WR&RC 10.67 6
LANDFlLL 1475 4
j 2� GARAGE 633 3
- . HERLTH 5.00 3
GRAN�RNERCTR 100 2
�5 - CABLE TV 5.00 1
. PLANNING 11.00 1
Total 8.01 266
10
. ■
5 � ,
0
� J 1 � ■ , ■ , � � ■ - � �
c�LE NS� �Q\J FQF. �E.�1 C`a ���C� P�E0. Q�� S�G o�C� �pS EP N� �pC. F�,�. �,t �`1Y� P�(F- 41.1 ��C+
Q 1Q9' epP 5 ���,y �,N4 `� p:Q' �O`� $J� PP SE` .`ET ��' `p�� �,P� � o-yF. �,� Q`pc�\
FEFJy41 Et, S�a��� �'�NO
Based on the diversity of the fleet and the various vehicle functions, the energy usage of each
vehicle was evaluated by creating an energy profile based on vehicle type, equivalent EV
energy efficiency, mileage travelled, departmental use case, and the yearly ambient
temperature in Dubuque. The energy profile was used to understand and identify:
• The target vehicles and facilities for electrification
• The potential charging infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles at the
facilities
• The amount of solar energy required to enable decarbonization of the City fleet.
The energy profile for the fleet vehicles along with a total summary of energy needs is shown
in Table 1. The highlighted rows represent the vehicles specific to the transit fleet. Once the
energy profile of each vehicle was evaluated, a strategy for vehicle electrification was divided
into the transit and non-transit fleet.
Key Finding (7):As shown in Figure 1 the overall City fleet is aged with an average vehicle age
of 8 years. Figure 2 and Table 1 show the diversity of the City fleet. Multiple vehicle types have
a comparable electric option available today such as passenger cars and buses. Sections 2 and
3 will show that various vehicle types can be transitioned to electric while meeting City
operational needs.
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-4
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
Table 1: Energy Profile of Each Vehicle Type
Vehicle Vehicle Average Average Average
Category Subcategory Count Class Annual kWh/mi of Yearly
Mileage kWh
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van 2 Class 1 � 7732 � 0.56 4,337
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car 23 Class 1 5582 I 0.34 1,881
Passenger Car: Police Sedan Light Duty Police Car 22 Class 1 9413 0.56 5,281
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup 13 Class 1 I 7470 0.56 4,191 I
Truck
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV 14 Class 1 11363 0.45 5,102
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van 5 Class 2 4494 0.90 4,036
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup 33 Class 2 I 7875 0.67 I 5,308 I
Truck
IPassenger Truck Light Duty SUV 17 Class 2 15323 0.56 8,596
Small Transit Bus Light Duty Bus 2 Class 2 18771 0.67 12,651
Passenger Truck Medium Duty 1 Class 3 11193 1.12 I 12,570 I
Ambulance
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup 24 Class 3 I 6529 0.90 I 5,863 I
Truck
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Street 3 Class 4 I 526 2.25 I 1,182 I
Sweeper
ISmall Transit Bus IMedium Duty Bus I 12 � Class 4 I 21226 I 1.12 I 23,837 I
Medium Duty � � I
Passenger Truck Ambulance 3 Class 5 8462 0.67 5,704
�Large Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus 8 Class 6 30401 2.25 68,251 '
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Airport 6 Class 6 9000 1.68 15,156
Truck
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Truck 19 Class 6 5662 1.68 9,535
Large Transit Bus Heavy Duty Bus 6 Class 7 27541 2.81 77,307
Refuse Truck Heavy Duty Trash 13 Class 7 I 1278 I 2.81 I 3,588 I
Truck
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Airport 1 Class 7 I 9000 1.68 I 15,156 I
Truck
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Streetcar 2 Class 7 25835 2.25 58,000
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck 23 Class 7 5714 1.68 9,623
Combination Short Haul Heavy Duty Fire Truck 1 Class 8 3278 2.25 7,359
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Airport 1 Class 8 I 9000 2.25 I 20,205 I
Truck
ISingle Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Fire Truck 10 Class 8 7569 2.25 16,993
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck 2 Class 8 11909 2.25 26,735
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-5
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
2.2 The Transit Fleet Assessment
The transit fleet was identified as a strong candidate for
electrification as Battery Electric Bus (BEB) technology
is available and improving, the transit fleet is aging and
accounts for 50% of City vehicle emissions and the City
of Dubuque was recently awarded a FTA grant to
replace 4 paratransit buses. A roadmap was developed -
to support electrification of the transit fleet during the
next 15 to 20 years with the goal of:
• Reducing the carbon footprint
. Eliminating tailpipe emissions
• Reducing noise pollution Electrificativn Pilvt
• And enhancing the rider experience � � �
A high-level electrification roadmap is represented in Figure 3. Through opportunistic grants
and vehicle attrition, it will take more than 15 years to convert the full transit fleet to BEBs.
Figure 3: JOTC Electrification Roadmap
� �
1 .tr�'.�F I
r.d.��a3
������ r.i� -,�-
� Goala
• Transition all 6uses fran ICE to BEB
witli anly specially exceplions 6ased on
unique rouEas and iunetions
��� � • Electric Vehicles are the S�ndard,ICE
� G?-� Goals vehides acquired 6y exceplion anly
• Idenfify S72 additional viahle huses • Upgrade utilily transformer and
thal demanslrate Total Cos1 of 6uilding electrical sysiem ta supporl iull
OwnersFiip[fCD}6enefits hy elecirvfication
' � �' transitioning Trom an IGE 6us[a a 6E6 ' flplinixe operations and mutes
���$ • Nok all routes are techndogically or around new electric transportation
• Identify 2d via6le paratransit hus econarnicalty suitahle at this sTage °�4��°
candidates Por electrification pilot ' Upgrade utiliiy transformerwith Charaino Caoacilvf'1
• Ulilize existing electrical capacity horn minimal upgrades to 6uilding eleclucal • A 1-2 MVA sys6em should he sulficient
uhlity transfarmer
system Oo-suppat more BEB charging ior the ovemigM charging of Ihe eniire
• Facilitates training ofiechnicians and ��ro��Caoacilvt'Y J6TC transit tleet
opera6ors • A SOOkVA transfortner enahles: • Ouerhead charging will enahle higher
Charain�Cavacilrr{`I • ��5�dC fast chargers io support charging speeds and operaiianal
� Existing 1 SOkVA transformer ena6les: up io 12 small 6uses,3 rnedium
flexihil"
huses and 3large 6uses. Renewatrle Enerpy
� 2�6kN1�G iast chargers that • No additional on-sile rooflo PV
suppurt up-6a 8 paratransit 6uses[+] Renewahle Enemv P
Renewa6le Enerny ' E�and io 200 kW rooflop P5! • Renewahle PPA secured for remainder
• 50-55 k4Y roaRap PV • 260,040 k1A7t of annual produc6on ofiransporFation iueling needs beyond
� 80,000 kLYh of annual praduction suppoAs energy use for up to f i unsde renewables
supports energy use far up to-3 small huses or up to 3 large 6uses ' Bal6ery siorage plus TOIJ ra6es optirniae
elecidcily costs and grid intmgration
paralransit huses through parinership with Alliant Energy
i-Nss���s�v��yk�n,qlnqulveniGes.TTenuirbervfnuee:swwr abyEvu�sge,sma�u�erg�ebeemYd.�wmu�eanery.and.l0'rcopemiioNleomva.in.
{.;M1ssurnes�r.v dwgers urc.de�d parts lor chayig antlwild icqdie vd:cle�ahr.am�ed�Xmiqh Wpig see'vn.
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-6
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
To develop the roadmap, the energy profile shown in Energy Profile of Each Vehicle Type
Table 1 and dwell times at the facility were used to identify vehicles for electrification and
charging infrastructure. Table 2 below summarizes the vehicles in the transit fleet and the
vehicle energy needs. The focus of near-term electrification was for the transit buses are
highlighted in blue in Table 2.
Table 2: Transit Fleet Summary
Category Subcategory Vehicle Vehicle Yearly
Class Count (kWh)
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car Class 1 1 1,718
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 1 1 16,767
Small Transit Bus Light Duty Bus Class 2 2 25,289
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup Truck Class 3 1 3,353
Small Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus Class 4 12 285,970
Large Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus Class 6 8 546,117
Large Transit Bus Heavy Duty Bus Class 7 6 463,809
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Streetcar Class 7 2 116,022
The pilot targets the replacement of 2-4 paratransit minibuses (Class 4 small transit bus) and
installing 2 60kW DCFC that can support up to 8 buses in the next 2-5 years. To demonstrate
the feasibility of electric paratransit buses, the TCO was calculated to show the benefits of a
BEB paratransit bus vs an ICE paratransit bus as shown in Figure 4. Over a 12-year life cycle a
BEB bus can save approximately $26k in fuel and O&M savings. This assumes that each bus
will require $31,000 of EV charging infrastructure to support operations. If the cost benefit of
avoided emissions is added at a cost of $20 per MTCO2 a further savings of$8,400 can be
achieved if the BEB is supplied by renewable energy.
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-7
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
Figure 4:TC0 of a Paratransit BEB vs Paratransit ICE Bus
. .. .
,.. : ,... ,
$300K � I �
� �
Yearly Vehide P:lileage 22,000'
�� ICE fv1PG 6.5'
Costof�ieseVGallon $177'
o. ..
BEB Effciency
�� (kWYVmi} �.0
u Cast of EleclricitylkNlh $0.12
�`� � ICE D&M($!mi] $0.5'
� BEB O&M{$lmi� $0.12"
SioaK 6flkW DCFC Charger $31���,�„
InsTallaliorUBus
Charger 08M $35�""
5so-c $IMTCO2 $20.0
5�K
Paratransit 6E6 CE Fa�ztranst 3.is
'Mileage,MPG,and O&M$hni are 6ased on data from city for ihe Jule Chevy Gla�als.Cos[of diesel is based on number used by 1he Cily of Uu6uque for ihe 2018 AFLEET sludy
"Based on expecled OdM$Imi for eleclric shutlle busesfrom the Calrfomia HVIP cost eslimator
"`Basetl on a 60KW Pro[e�ra�CFC 11iat can expand to 4 pedestals.Assumetl 4 vehicles woultl share 1he cosis of{1)inslalletl charger at a cosl of 125k.
^"Cost is an estimale hasetl on chargers being intloors antl assumes Ne cost of warranty antl service plan 6eing tli+ntletl mer 4 huses
Moving beyond the pilot stage and into the economic stage, 8 to 12 additional electric buses
that provide a TCO benefit should be identified for replacement to a BEB. These buses could
consist of fixed route or paratransit buses depending on available funding. Additionally,
installation of 6 more 60kW DCFC should be considered to support operations. Full
electrification will occur when BEB technology is matured to the point that all Jule fixed bus
routes can be supported by BEB's throughout all seasons. Charging should be evaluated
based on technology and operational needs. Charging could include high-rate overhead
pantograph systems or in-ground wireless charging systems that could be located at the
JOTC, along routes, at the intermodal facility, or at a transfer location.
To support the roadmap, a potential BEB purchase schedule was developed based on
replacing existing buses though an attrition approach. Replacements may occur sooner or
later than what is represented depending on operational events or potential grant awards the
City may receive. The attrition schedule approach considers recent and planned purchases of
clean diesel buses and the anticipated lifetime of new buses (12-15 years).
Upfront capital investment costs for purchasing a BEB and limited grant funding currently
available has led the City to acquire some new clean ICE vehicles to mitigate imminent
function risk. The City recently added 4 30ft clean diesel buses and is expected to replace 2
more transit buses with 30ft clean diesel buses and 7 paratransit ICE buses soon.
Figure 5 shows estimated vehicle transitions for the roadmap. By FY 2030 around 36% of the
transit bus fleet could be electrified and 490 MTCO2 can be avoided each year for an annual
emissions reduction of 32%. Due to the long lifetime of the transit buses, there is a period
where no replacements are expected to occur until the mid-2030's where the potential exists
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-8
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
to electrify the remaining fleet vehicles by FY2037 and achieve a 100% reduction in emissions
from transit buses assuming renewable energy is used to power the vehicles.
Figure 5: Transit Fleet Attrition Based Schedule and Emissions Reduction
�g,�o�
sn saaa�o
h9"��aus BEB
'. '. 26,93% L`32,1[IO%
�VPG{Mini6us} ' '
9 � �Freightliner5printer{Mini6usE '',, '',, za,as%� L'77,90% 9�
Fixed Route BEB '�, '�,
$ �Gillig{Fixed Route} , , — g�
'� '� 1R23,80%
�EI Dorado{Fixed Route} '�, '�,
Paratransit BE B '� '� �
�
� � �ChevyGlaval{paretrensitE '� '� 7�
`�' ' ' ta.6a�
�
Q —%of Vehides Eledrified ��, ��,
� � � 4 934,61% ��
�. 6 — %of Emissions Awided ,, ,,
y
N ' '
w '�, '�, '�.
7
m 5 2 5045
a�
� 4 4046
� � 10,36% 10,36%
� 8,29% 8,79% ■
C
C
a 3 a 2 ?, aso,azx a9a,3x� 3046
6,/21%��3,29% 443.79% �'�,
Z � 4 4 2�
4,1/456 259,l9% '', '�,
1 / 2 � � '�� � � � 2 2 1�
.I �135,9% ''... . '�. . '�. . . �
0 O�O� 0�
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY4D
2.3 Non-Transit Fleet Assessment
The non-transit fleet is comprised of 233 vehicles and accounts for a little over 50% of all
emissions produced by the cities fleet. The non-transit fleet consists of a wide range of
vehicle types such as cars, mini-vans, SUV's, pick-up trucks, and medium and heavy-duty
trucks. It is recommended that the City target vehicles that are located at the MSC for initial
stages of electrification since most of the non-transit and non-emergency service vehicles
reside at this location. The City can decarbonize the non-transit fleet by:
1) Implementing new policies and procedures relating to vehicle procurement
2) Expanding renewable energy at the MSC
3) Installing Level 2 chargers at the MSC
To identify non-transit vehicles targeted for electrification an attrition approach was
developed based on:
1) Expected year a comparable EV will be available
2) The age of the vehicle and an estimated life expectancy
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-9
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
Applying these two metrics to the non-transit fleet will achieve a 58% vehicle electrification
by FY2031 and reduce emissions by 730 MTCO2 or 42% per year as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Non-Transit Fleet Attrition Schedule and Emission Reduction
LVR&RC
35 i , , 100% WATER
I, I, I, �STREET CLFANING
3 I ', ', 40%
30 � �, �, �STREET
'�, ''�, ''�, �SE W ER
3 , , SO%
I, '�, '�, REFUSE/RECYCLING
� z5 ' ' ' �aaMPs
E �, , , ,., 7030
',, '�, '�, '�, a �POLICE
q '�� ��� �', �', N
uai � ''� ''�, '�, '�, - PLANNING
� ''�, '' ' ' 60� "
�20 � , � w PARK�IV
� 3 - '�, �, '136,58% Y
� ' ' LL �u�NOFa�
a ' � �� �zz,sx� 50%
� � '�, / o HOUSING
d 15 z ' �,�.�
629,36.6% �
_104,45% �H EALTH
s 40% �
j ' � 1 �92•39`� 4�•�'� ' GRAND RIVER CTR
1 �
� n.eo% so.3ara a
385,22A%' 30� GARAGE
Q 10 61,26% ■
3 , �� ��� � �FIRE
j 4'.20% 793.17.WG, � ZOo� CABLEN
37,16% 245.LQ29G + 3
5 �� 170,9.@96 . s � AIRPORT
33,14% ' �'���'�� • � � � � I ' . 10oJ EN6INEERING
� 121i7.1%' ' j ■ ' � ° 1 i i ■ � �6UIlDING
Q � � ` � � � ` ' � 0� —%of Vehides Electrified
EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE ssofemissionsFlvoided
FY22 FY22 FY23 FY23 FY24 FY24 FY25 FY25 FY26 FY26 FY27 FY27 FY28 FY28 FY29 FY29 FY30FY30 FY31 FY31
Table 3 shows a summary of the vehicles located at the MSC.
Table 3: Non-transit Fleet Summary
Category Subcategory Vehicle Vehicle Yearly
Class Count (kWh)
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van Class 1 1 6,263
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van Class 2 1 1,086
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car Class 1 17 33,572
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck Class 1 7 24,967
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck Class 2 13 64,464
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 2 1 5,318
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup Truck Class 3 10 56,191
Refuse Truck Heavy Duty Trash Truck Class 7 13 46,641
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck Class 7 21 208,774
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Street Sweeper Class 4 3 3,545
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Truck Class 6 13 102,191
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-10
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
A review of the City fleet vehicles presents an opportunity for ownership savings through
purchasing BEV's versus traditional ICE vehicles. The figure below shows some cost scenarios
that demonstrate the cost benefit of BEV ownership over an 8-year vehicle life. Two critical
components to realizing savings from operating an electrified fleet are:
1) Fuel savings enabled by efficient electric drive trains,
2) Lower O&M costs per vehicle mile travelled.
Currently, the City's non-police passenger cars travel an average of 6,000 miles per year. It is
recommended that the City review the utilization of these passenger cars to increase annual
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per vehicle per year. When the VMT doubles, passenger cars
begin to yield tangible cost benefits versus traditional ICE vehicles as shown in Figure 7.
Increased utilization of these assets increases their value realized from fuel and maintenance
savings.
Figure 7: TCO of BEV's vs ICE Vehicles
r
Cost benefit for all BEV's Types I I Cost benefit for BEV SUV`s I Cast benefit far BEV Pickup's and
� t �
I SUV's
� � � �
Fuel{$IGaV} $2.0 Fuel($1Gal) $12 Fuel{$fGal} $1.2
Electricity{$fkWh) $U.05 IEIecVicity[$IkWh} $0_fl5 Eledricity($IkWh} $0.09
Average MileagelYear 12,000 A�erage MileagefYear �3,d04 Average MileageJYear 12,�OD
•Vehidp�Energy;��:el PA�nt?nai';2 •y4hitlg+E�F�gylFpgl+MdiMenar:e •�phi�Ip�EnPr�FiFucl h'aintenai•CP
SS�.SK 5.:�::K 5:�K
559K 559.'i K
545's�c � Sss;K 56t.7x
5�?.�K �L�li
5:h. iGC:�*N
.. ;.:::K .
� S'•�K
5� r.
. �d�K
SiQN
�1flK i'1N
SlOK
S��K
5�9K
Sii�K :.�K
S9K
�hp�y F4rd F4rrl c�_�h S�k
Bpl� FuSian S Fucinn Fnrc1 �eep iecla I nrd�:n�vn FaM F750
Plug�in Mus[arg Grand ModelY E��CII�J'1LL' CrevrCall
Hyhrirl Ma�h�E iheiokee d°d
Key Finding (2 & 3): Currently Chevy Bolt's are on the State of lowa, DOT, and Regents
Vehicle Contract Catalog and show potential for yielding TCO benefits. The Mustang Mach E is
set to go on sale in 2021 and the electric Lordstown Endurance pickup truck is expected to go
on sale in 2021.
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-11
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 2.0
Key Finding (4)_As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, a reasonable and prudent strategy to
electrify both transit and non-transit vehicles through procurement policies implemented via
attrition could yield a 35% reduction in Citv fleet emissions bv Fiscal Year 2031.
2.4 An Attrition Strategy Requires Policy Change
Using an attrition strategy to accomplish vehicle electrification does not lead to a rapid
conversion rate. However, this approach allows the City to implement feasible transitions
immediately, avoid stranding investment in undepreciated assets, learn how to operate
effectively with electric vehicles, and provides additional time for more viable electrified
vehicle products to become available for purchase. In the next 5 years it is expected that a
greater number of vehicles that will meet City operational needs will come to market. This
includes battery electric pickup trucks such as the F-150, cargo vans such as the Ford Transit,
refuse trucks, and class 6 and class 8 heavy-duty trucks.
The City is also exploring a policy change that will include savings from avoided emissions
into TCO calculations when considering the economic viability of electrified options and the
benefits that can be yielded for considering the cost of emissions.
Currently, the City acquires new or replacement vehicles through a budget request and
approval process. If a department needs a new vehicle or needs to replace an existing vehicle,
a request is made for its expense to be included in the following budget year. If approved by
the budgeting process, the requested funds are allocated to the requesting department to
purchase a vehicle to be selected and transacted by the department.
Given this approach, we believe electrifying the fleet may most effectively be accomplished
through updating policies that govern the request and approval process for new or
replacement vehicles. These policies will establish a more limited set of default vehicles for
any department to choose from when requesting a new or replacement vehicle. These default
vehicles will be electric vehicles for those categories that are viable. If a department feels
none of the default vehicles will meet their needs, they must apply for an exception and
provide detailed justification to be reviewed by management. A simple diagram of this policy
approach is depicted in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Hypothetical Policy Approach to Electrify Fleet Vehicles
ODepartment identifies need for new or replacement
vehicle based on age,condition,relevance or other
reason
0 a
�epartment fills out form requesting vehicle
Default EY Selected Exception Selected
� Managem�t Revfews � Managem�t Revfews
Request based on Need Request based on Need
&Budget &Budget
Approved Rejected Appraved Rejected
1 • � l •
O�ept purchases pept purchases
vehfcle through vehicle
arranged cfty independently
dealer
City of Dubuque, lowa 2-12
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
^ �� �Tir� c . . qt � . . _rTn���rnTi�}r,�
3.1 City Fleet Facilities
Solar generation, battery storage, and grid impacts were assessed at target facilities selected
for electrification. For the transit fleet the target facility is the JOTC located at 949 Kerper
Blvd and for the non-transit fleet the target facility is the MSC located at 925 Kerper Court.
The City fleet will require an estimated 3M kWh of renewable energy per year to support
100% decarbonization. No City owned facility evaluated had enough roof top capacity
available to produce this amount of energy. However, options such as a potential ground site
near the MSC, partnering with the Andersen windows facility, or a floating solar site near the
JOTC could provide the additional renewable energy required to support the City fleet.
3.2 Jule Operations and Training Center (JOTC)
The JOTC is currently served by a three-phase 150kVA transformer and the peak building
load is 35kW. Behind the meter, building loads are served by a three-phase 480V/277Y 600A
panelboard. The load profile of the building is represented below. The load of the facility is
relatively flat with peak loads occurring at 6am and at 9pm as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: JOTC Meter Data
' — .i' . ` ' .�'
■' . • ■" . � ■" , � ■' . ■
ua��,�y Fee��a�y rna��n ap.o•nnay�u��e.mif n�g„:e , �. .._,:.i,.� �,.,.P���.� oF-��»�,:_� ,..��.�,i.�;•a:::��d,���•i�esday wed�esday•rn,,,sdar•���day Sam�ary
,P..� .
]68""'..'."'............................'."...."""..'._._._._.'._._..._._'.'..""..."'.'..'.. ifb..............'................'.....'.....'.'..'..'..'..'..........'..'..'.....................
/ '.
25
✓� - Lo `
�� � �� I£ae �
]P '. __� .__- \. . . "_.__. . '..... ...... ........ ". "."..__._.
� . ___ ._.__.__ __
r'
� � .. .. " � ��
� /
�• .
� :
s �� t ,� s
_ T��-�— _
a -' q
� T_� � '_________________________ ___ _._.._.._.._.._.__.__._.._"...'._...'.'..'_._.__.__._._.._.
__'
E �
g ��
Low peak power dunng eady The 9pm peak is suspected to The 9pm peak was present until 31181202fl after
morning hours presents 6am peak during be pressure washfng of buses which operations at the Jule changed and the peak
opportunfty(or oaemight charging facility startup at this time at the facility shifted to 6am
The roof at the JOTC was designed to support a solar PV system and based on a preliminary
assessment of the facility it is estimated that a 200 kW solar PV system can be incorporated
onto the roof of the JOTC. A 200 kW solar PV system could potentially generate an
estimated 260,000 kWh per year which could potentially support up to 3.5 large transit
buses or 11 paratransit buses. Adding solar PV to the roof was considered in a phased
approach as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 10.
Key Finding (5): The City transit fleet requires around 1.46 M kWh per year and the rooftop of
the JOTC could generate 260,000 kWh which is around 17% of the required energy of the
transit fleet for a year of operation.
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-13
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
After reviewing the transit fleet and facility, a potential infrastructure plan was developed for
the JOTC outlined in Figure 10.
Figure 10: JOTC Phased Infrastructure Plan
. . . . -.
� � . , �a. --- - � � • �
k ; � 2x 60 KdV DCFC wdh
r ,,: :;.
.� 4x dispensers each
� � � 2-4x Paratransit BEB
\� - — __
• .. . � � � �
*
� �� £_ �jl �� fix addRional small BEB
4�h�`�� 2x large transit 6uses
� ;�� 2x medfum transit buses
- 4x 60 kW�CFC with 4x
m000m : ��F �� � dispensers each
�r�oom
� �oom
�or--�
�
� �� �
�
I�r'
� � � =y
_- Add�i0-150kW�CFCwfth multfple dfspensers and
r� high-powered wireless or overhead charging to meek
hn��{ operational needs.Chargers and vehicles will be
���' added hased on lessons leamed from the pflot and
�Uni1s ` economic stages.Battery and charging technalogy
�� wfll 6e fmproved at full elednficakfon and more
optionality could be availa6le.
Note�.Proterra 60kW charging syslems can accommatlate up to(4]charging tlispensers per charging unit
'Pdatl<ing indlcates a concspiva��ocaticn anC aill change hasstl on ihe developing neetls anC raquirements of Jula ope�atlons
The initial pilot of installing 2 60 kW DCFC with overhead cable reel dispensers can be
accommodated without major upgrades behind the meter or to the utility grid. The charger
locations and costs for a conceptual and potential charger installation are shown in Figure 11
and Figure 12.
Adding additional solar PV capacity to the existing circuit that serves the JOTC will require
additional studies and review with Alliant Energy. The utility circuit that the JOTC is served
from is currently shared with the Alliant Downtown Dubuque Solar Garden <link). This solar
PV installation is currently utilizing all the PV capacity from the circuit and for additional solar
PV to be added a Direct Transfer Trip (DTT) scheme may be required. The DTT scheme will
allow Alliant Energy to have control over the ability for the solar PV system to back feed onto
the Alliant Energy transmission system.
As additional chargers are added in the economic stage of the roadmap, the utility
transformer will need to be upgraded. Without upgrading the 480/277V 600 A panelboard
the JOTC could support up to 8 60 kW DCFC's with the installation of a 500 kVA three-phase
transformer. Additional solar PV could also be added to the roof to provide renewable energy
for additional electric buses.
For full electrification the transformer will need to be upgraded again along with the JOTC
main panelboard. Depending on operational and charging needs it is estimated that a 1 to 2
MVA transformer and a 1500 A to 2500 A switchboard will be needed to support the
additional charging required for full electrification. At full electrification there is still sufficient
capacity in the existing utility grid to support the additional peak load from charging.
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-14
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
Figure 11: Conceptual JOTC Vehicle Charger Installations
�----------.------.-------------.------ {4} charging dispensers
r—"-- ---- "—�
;�� �' 140' 1" PVC � o � mounted �n overhead �, ; 2-60kUV DC
� , cable reel systems Fast Chargers
� 140 (4] #4 �
� �
; + �" ; 3-Ph 48(7f27�V 4VI1
� � � .' � 2�4A AC Sub Panel
� - �
� o � ,
� rn � v` i
I � 1
; � ' 225'{1}-2" PUC
; � ; 225' (4}-3f0
� �
� �5 � 111�_9 1:�4�� � E3b3
� �
� $ (4J charging dispensers � �.. � 1
� _
� maunted an overhead , � ;
; cable reel systems • ;
i 1F0' 1" PVC - o i
; "'� � 160' (4] #4 � ;
� � �
�� � � � � � �
� �
� � � ,
� � �' �
� Add 3•Ph 2fl4A 48a1277V HFQ � �
; �reaker to Panelboard MQP _ �6�'•�" ;
� cu 4 �'°"��e� —
T� ' � EV� ~ ERM I� I .
v �
I S'Y} z. 43 T�� � O Y I
---- " ----�.a..--� i
r-..,---- -___---••-�r-----� �.,
--
�-- �$�� �---�-- �-- {�-- ��,�., aFsu.-----
-- --A . 1__----------xF '-_G_�:" J
�''''_9'�� � � � � �
:I� 1
� Existing 4{3C:�77V 3-Ph 4W �
; cn EQDA Main Panelboard MQP ; Existing 150kVA
� �
; " a � �' �, a ; Utility Transformer
� � � E302
� r� b � �
� � 1
i Q �� �� � �
i � � O i
i � i
; u � �' � �
� �. �.
i m � i 's�
i p �a � i
� �
��� � �� q � � � �� FOR REFERENCE OIVLY
� � � �
L J
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-15
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
Figure 12: Estimated Range of Initial JOTC Vehicles and Infrastructure Costs
Thousands USD Charging Vehicles
infrastructure + - ----- -
835 �
Charging ;
730
;-' 730
------ - -- � � �
'
615 .
Vehicles
;=' 605 ----------------- --------------- Electric
- 520 520 Paratransit z40k � u350-480k
Bus
480 � 60 kl':��CFC 58C�-125k 2 a1Gi�-250k
,
JOTC Tor�i fa,
% -- --
Rooftop Buses+ $520�73�k
.S0�2f Chaiging
, PV System 55�an' S0-55 kN,' $9rr105K
240 Total+pV $60rr835k
180
1 x Eledric 1 x Electric 1x 60 kW DC 1x 60 kW DC Cost for BEB PV Syslem Total Project
Paratransit Bus Paratransit Bus Charger Charger and Cast
I�rastructure
Key Finding (6): The analysis discussed in this section demonstrates that initial electrification
is possible within the existing facility. However, as additional buses and energy intensive
routes are transitioned to electrified vehicles, increased levels of power for charging will be
required along with facility upgrades.
Currently, the JOTC pays a nominal rate of approx. 0.14c/kWh for electricity. For an average
year estimated electricity costs will be roughly $3,400 for a small transit bus and $11,000 for
a large transit bus. This will change as more demand and energy is consumed at the facility;
however, at the scale of energy and power required by the JOTC the economics may not be
feasible for battery storage until the very late stages of electrification.
Key Finding (8):Since the transit fleet will be parked at the JOTC overnight there is sufficient
time during the evening hours to replenish the energy needs of the transit fleet. For the pilot
and economic stages, the utilization of battery storage is not necessary or cost effective as
the gird will not experience peak load impacts from charging. For example, if a 1.5 MWh was
used to support early electrification the battery needed would cost$900,000 dollars at an
estimated cost of$600/kWh. At full electrification an estimated 4.5 MWh may be needed to
support the JOTC which would equate to a battery cost of$2.7M.
3.3 Municipal Service Center (MSC)
The MSC has an existing 200 kW solar PV system installed on its rooftop which has generated
up to 250,000 kWh in the past. The facility is served by a 500 kVA three-phase transformer
and the building loads are served from a 2000A 480/277 V main switchboard that is behind
the utility meter. The MSC experiences two peak loads daily, one at 4am and another at 7pm.
The 4am peak is assumed to be the facility morning start up and caused from lighting loads.
The 7pm peak load is the highest in the winter months. The 7pm peak is assumed to be
caused by the solar PV production tapering off. Electric meter data collected from the MSC
shows that the solar PV system causes the load shape of the MSC to experience a duck curve
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-16
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
with generation reducing net load and energy taken from the grid during sunny hours of the
day. The peak load at the facility is 196 kW leaving roughly 300 kW available for charging.
Figure 13 shows the meter data from the MSC.
Figure 13: MSC Meter Data
` - .�- . • - .i-
i- _ • i- . � ■- . � ■- . �
/
a. 1 - -
.o �
,� � ._._._.'.'.... . -..--------r� - '� �
�u � � � .:�..,.,.�:...... "�
. _.� . � ........ ................. .. ............ .
4 .. ......................'..._._.
....---..:i�... �" ` ..........�...�. .... .... ..... .y.. �.... . ......
� o ' _�__�_',,
; o �, —_
� ,�` _ _ __.,
.n '�L=—. ..
a.� �
� .. _
...... .......................................'"'"..~ .................
At�ects af PV in the
Low peak power during summer lower peak
early morning hours demand through the day As expected,PV A 6pm-7pm peak is
presents opportunily for The affed is dampened generation lowers Peak recorded on most days
overnight charging through the cooler �emand through the week
monihs
Based on the attrition schedule shown in Figure 6, a phased infrastructure plan was
developed as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: MSC Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Plan
-=��=�=v
...,..
,.-.,���t��--
.. .�.
�.,. ._.
�,,_,-:..�.
,;
, _... �
ark ng ae�aa
Existing Roaftop S�Isr �
2��]k'r•r• � �; ~ -
180-25ak KV•;I�±;a= � ��� � ._
€xisYrnp Rooitop SWar appes�e�: i i' _ Up to 220kW additional RooRop Sodar
be grrd cnnnected.fx,-�c:. r r. - ` - :i Provucinp ug to 300k kWhlyear
movrrrg ihis behind Ne mete,�... �
elec[rr(rce^�:: . .
� .., � — Ex�st�ng540kVATranstormar
Ir�si21 up*�,c�:1=���a:��: ' � [Llpgrade Transiormerwhen neededJ'
6_6k4�1 dual port Level2 Ghatyzr:. • /�� A � —
for o+rer night chargi°:i � � �7"4,� �29 spacesJ Ins#all up ta 15
-:-•:�,�3t;�n r_k�7 '.' _ � ��� c.okLV dual pnrt Levei 2 Chargefs
r, � �a€over night charging
f� �� '�,� ,-��L�catian FY 2424]
.
r��t :' 4 ,�-_ ���
F,a::i�:i it.;�;=�-'�i���,��.'If1=fu,"5=r uryr� Instail up fo 20(49 spacesJ
electricel s:�;iich�e�rto sen,�e Levea 2 and y� ��- -� �.��W dual pa�t�evel2 Chargers;ar
DC Fast chargers in this area � �; � a:°Yislirx�parki�g spaces
(requires new service drop Trom utility�
� �='a^.- 3 Locatinn F1`2U26]
. K .F _
S ace to enfiai e and roduction of �
P � � � � � � EnstaH up 4o 10(20 spacesy
so�ar genera�ion that can suppor!char�ir_i 50kW dval pad�C Fast Chargers
_�c�r��:e`:cles i ar. .vn�.;siti�n ra�.�i::.. �i,
Lr.Y 4 [4 Locaticm FY2U28]
•�aema�d otrnsc e��id��p��„r.e�uy�ae�w.�r m io�i z�na,�may cneo�es�yte N�ned nem�a me r.�eer m�wn,.p9r�g e�v�sa,��r.
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-17
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
Key Finding (6): The MSC infrastructure plan demonstrates that initial electrification is
possible within the existing facility. However, as heavy-duty vehicles are added facility
upgrades may be required. The City has additional property across the street from the MSC
that could be utilized for future charging infrastructure.
For the first wave of charging, 22 6.6 kW dual port Level 2 chargers were targeted to be
installed in the parking area to the south west of the MSC. Peak load from 22 charging
stations will add approximately 150 kW of load to the MSC. The charging stations can support
up to 44 vehicles; however, at this time there are only 41 parking spaces in the targeted area
of the MSC parking lot. It will be critical to minimize demand charges by charging during
hours that avoid the 4am and 7pm peaks or by implementing a managed charging solution.
The MSC is currently on Rate 800 - Electric Large General Service Supplemental Power that
includes demand charges. If charging demand is placed under the overall 196 kW demand
envelop that exists today, the marginal cost of electricity is an average of 5c/kWh based on
the current rate schedule.
Key Finding (8):Due to the relatively low duty cycle of most City vehicles, there is sufficient
time to provide the energy needs of these vehicles with Level 2 charging during times that will
avoid exacerbating the peak load, avoid grid upgrades, and mitigate the need for energy
storage. During later stages of electrification, battery storage may be considered if grid
demand charges increase. The potential peak daily energy for the MSC is almost 2 MWh which
could potentially cost$1.2M at a cost for storage at an estimated cost of$600/kWh.
An additional 20 Level 2 6.6 kW chargers could be supported from the existing transformer
provided there is spare capacity in the main switchboard of the MSC. This could enable up to
40 more parking spaces in the parking location across the street from the MSC. This
infrastructure could be supported from the MSC building under the current electric rate.
However, investigation with Alliant Energy is recommended to determine if installing a new
service on a specific EV charging rate (not currently available) may be more beneficial as
electrification of the cities fleet grows. In addition, the nominal cost of electricity versus
demand charges, and the increased costs of trenching across the street will need to be
considered.
The MSC is served by a separate utility circuit from the JOTC therefore expanding the solar
PV system is not an issue at this time. Additionally, the extra solar PV can be integrated into
the building without having to upgrade the utility transformer. As heavy-duty trucks are
electrified in the later years, DCFC may be required inside the MSC and across the road near
the existing fueling section. Transformer and building switchboard upgrades will become a
limitation and will require upgrading.
Key Finding (7): The MSC facility currently consumes a majority of the so/ar produced from
the existing 200 kW solar PV system. An additional 220 kW solar PV system can be added to
the MSC and has been analyzed to deliver roughly 300,000 kWh per year which can support
the renewable energy needs ofaround 50% of the non-transit fleet that is located at the MSC.
The energy generated from an additional 220 kW system at the MSC roughly provides energy
for 18% of the total non-transit fleet.
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-18
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
3.4 Additional Facilities to Support Renewable Generation
Several additional sites were assessed to balance the energy consumption of the fleet versus
the renewable energy production from solar PV. The Sites were evaluated based on an A, B,
C, D grading scale with A being the best rating and D being the worst. The evaluation criteria
included how much solar energy each site produced, the potential cost of the system at the
site ($/kW), the complexity of the install, and if grid upgrades were required. The results of
the site assessment are shown in Figure 15. The energy output of each site was then
compared to the amount of energy required by the City fleet vehicles as shown in Figure 16.
Key Finding (9):Since adding renewable energy at the MSC and JOTC is insufficient to supply
the total energy needs of the transit fleet, other sites may need to be considered for
renewable generation or procuring Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) to help offset energy
supply shortfalls from local sources and to enab/e decarbonization of the local fleet.
Key Finding (10): The meter data for the MSC shown in Figure 13 demonstrates that solar PV
generation most often will occur at different times to vehicle charging. Due to the electric
rates at the MSC, it is possible that the net cost impact of adding so/ar PV generation may not
adequately offset charging costs. When adding additional solar PV, working with Alliant
Energy on energy rate analysis will be critical to a successful implementation of solar PV
generation.
While adding solar energy to a site on an economic basis may not offset charging costs, the
improved environmental impacts will be beneficial when considering the cost of emissions.
The City and Alliant Energy should continue to review new solar tariffs and options to
determine the most economically viable method of acquiring local renewable energy
generation to offset local emissions. This will allow the City to align electrification and
decarbonization goals to reduce GHG emissions.
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-19
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 3.0
Figure 15: Sites Evaluated for Solar Generation
��'�' ���,�,�;�� �.�1 "�L �
���
� r 4 a�. L ..J.;�::9 i f'o�;'�tf:a� �.C: ti::�a.LJ i ��.c.11��„
- Y�}�` � �, �,,e t ,r:i
�•� ��,+��.?°.�� / r':(l `��-'�
�w� ,�. .�'�uLr �;"r�A�� � ;•� t Production $IkW" Camplexlty' Grid pverall
,,��� .:,; ,j �r, l Ur�gr�ides
I��s�x1;�:77inC1:'^"�.�I` 4_ -
:,;''��.�: �;,• �f _ �+t, Andersen B B B B B
��r�'`�`:. '% ���
x.� �:�s� / � `.
�, t � � �` �
�,��.�/.;� Andersen PL B
� � :
r.� -r�
��, � .�F. J _ e uy,v . ,1�
�+�l � nnsc � � � B �
.��l ��� ��
���•�a , Potential Lot � � B B �
►'��= ,-•
�9'_f�'A�� ��� ,[�
i - .3'�' � � : �
r���� y� -[ �- � 1�' �laating Solar � B
�,��� ,
��;�����-�" -r� �'` � ��
�'���� .
-',�:� '-- h f�' � ` JOTC � B � � B
, ,
��� �- ��-��, � �
��� t�;^1 " r ���. ,�� � Leg�r,i
�� �i'fF} in �
� .,'`� ' Bs. c
���;Qi�i'.p�i�• � '.:�`'�`• i� � g �
� �� � �— Best � Worst
- �f-°.6�'%'.
":a�,��� W does not include buildmg u�grades
Figure 16: Energy Balance
[ategory
Com6ination Short Haul
Large 7ransit 8�s
an�
8M LightCommercialTruck
PassengerCar.Non-Police r
� •NassengerCer�.wli�e�rdaii �
� Passenger r�uck e
� o
ar kef�se7ruck � 6h1
�
� (M •s��rc,•-e u.•���.��h�,ri�i„�i-���:k o 5�33M • �
a
•sm all-�arsii sus �`
d �
LL �
� N
�
� � 4M
a 4M �
;� a
c '0
a � °1
�: � 2.12M
2M 7M
�
0.68M 0.56iv1
. . 0.30M 0.27M 0.2bM
OM aM _ � � �
Potential Floating Andersen Andersen Full MSC Additional Existing JaTC
Ground Solar Windows Parking Lot Site MSC MSC
Site
City of Dubuque, lowa 3-20
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 4.0
4.1 Electric Utility Partnership
The active involvement of electrification managers and distribution engineers from the
electric utility (Alliant Energy) provided unique insight and information to the City essential in
identifying best practices, obstacles, and options for the City to consider in their
electrification planning.
Alliant Energy serves numerous similarly sized communities across lowa and Wisconsin who
are also considering electrification initiatives. Their electrification managers were able to
share decisions, product selections, infrastructure strategies, and lessons learned from other
customers and communities. In addition to sharing lessons learned, the electrification
managers also maintain a network of contacts across the EV industry including scientists,
research analysts, vehicle, software and charging equipment providers to help incorporate
accurate cost and lifecycle expectations from equipment.
Since the electrical grid is integral in the recurring charging of electric vehicles, fleet-owners
must understand limitations of existing electrical service, impacts to their bill to add
electricity consumption, and costs to meet future electrical service requirements should
electrification needs exceed current service capabilities. These questions can be complex and
are best answered directly by the utility providing this service.
For this study, Alliant Energy:
1) Determined available capacity on circuits to accommodate forecasted load growth
due to full fleet electric vehicle charging
2) Estimated feasibility and rough costs of upgrading or adding electrical service to meet
vehicle charging needs
3) Estimated availability and rough estimate costs of incorporating rooftop renewable
energy
4) Estimated bill impacts from adding electric vehicle charging loads
5) Provided various rate options to consider minimizing bill impacts at various stages of
the electrification transition
Key Finding (77): Without the involvement of the electric utility, (Alliant Energy), many of
these questions would be difficult for the City to answer on their own.
4.2 Consulting and Engineering Partnership
This feasibility study has demonstrated the value a city like Dubuque realizes when a
consulting partner helps them to assess their fleet and facilities in detail. Consulting and
engineering partnerships enable overburdened city personnel to leverage the experience of
the consultant to establish prudent and actionable transition expectations and plans. The
actionable work items identified in the electrification plans can then be translated into site
City of Dubuque, lowa 4-21
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Feasibility Study Revision 1 4.0
engineering that will enable the installation of the necessary technology and equipment. The
partnership approach will help the City achieve a smooth transition to operating electric fleet
vehicles and position the City to take advantage of future grant opportunities.
4.3 Pursuit of Grant Funding
The City should leverage the findings of this feasibility study and continue to partner with
organizations that can provide grant writing support to win funding for sustainable
technologies. For example, the City should continue to pursue funding from the FTA, such as
Low/No grants which are awarded yearly for the purchase of BEB's. The City should also
pursue grant applications for Volkswagen Settlement Environmental Mitigation Trust (link)
funding that is administered by the IOWA DOT for both ZEV supply equipment and for class
4-8 transit buses and class 4-7 freight trucks.
4.4 Third Parties
To reduce upfront capital infrastructure costs, the City should also explore partnerships with
third parties that may be able to provide Infrastructure, Vehicles, or Charging as a Service
(IaaS, VaaS, or CaaS). These partners may be able to help avoid the intense capital costs of
purchasing vehicles or installing infrastructure and maintain the equipment inclusive of the
levelized service fees. A services model could help the City of Dubuque control both its
capital expenditure and operational costs through known fixed fees that can be incorporated
into TCO calculations for electrified vehicles.
The City should also continue to establish relationships with electric vehicle manufacturers
and charging infrastructure providers to establish a greater understanding of available
equipment, technology, and a smoother transition from ICE vehicles to EV's.
City of Dubuque, lowa 4-22
APPENDIX A
o c x -� �,��' �'�,.�����:��'���������t �� �
�
o c ��� ��f�.���....�Q ��1�:��C�.� �C�. �.�
,� :�; .���.�.��. ,���.,r...r��.r �� ���� '
���� ������ �
O c �,..�����:�-� ���.,���. � f�������� - -
�����������:������6������-
o c .�..���.�. 1 �,�,��.�
�����
�
o � �
o � -
� -- -
� _ - -_ -.
� �.� _ _ � - - -_ _
� -- -
� � � �� � ��� _� r
• • � .�:- � �.���
_ �� _ _- _ , � � � i
� __
� � - �,_;, ____ Y _: �- � ,
, . � : : �-� i �
� � � � � � �
� 3
� �
� �
■ � � � , � , � � � �._ __ , ��i � c -,��� ^� � I I
L�
�. � ,� _ _
� �. �:
� `� . � __ .
�5_ r = a- �.
■ ■ ■ I _ - _ -
D F I t E I trif i ti n - �� � ��= - �
u bu ue ee ec ca o
a ;
. . . � �
�. _ _�_
Feas i b i I it Stu d � _��=-� � �.
y y . , ��: . .�� .
.ti,..
. , . -. . �,.�
, . �.. :�,�:�,�
.'_ . ' ,;...�..•� .i• . . q
+ -: �..- r ��,, -����;�� - � ..
':',..�:"'y;' �;'Ti�-�. . . �. ,. ...�.
:. . �-= +}�, q:.�:i•�,�,.�L:.:,.. . . �,�
:i.j�.i.1��.i@�.7,� �t.� ..� ,: '�. .
. . ,.,,ii�/".fT���",:;5, '�::1 ��.}::'�'.s�w�r_�. jF,
r" '' . + ::�...:.;� -
;t-e y Sy�;.,:'_;Y'�< ;'�'�'#,��Fp4�`.:.;��
r f� �::��.�,:,x� x:.�:. , . �s .: M,:,.x�
�,l;. ��U��r� , ��,
� , .. �:�'��':'.��,'� .f�:'��•.s�i�:�w.�r'�
DRAFT November 23, 2020
�
Dubuque Fleet Electrification Strategy Development Process
General Fleet Assessment
• Fleet Category and Count
■■■� • Vehicle Miles Traveled ����
• Assumed Vehicle Efficiency •
•
. Identify Target Facilities
� • Locations that currently dwell
:�:
vehicles, or potentially could
Document Strategy/ Roadmap
• Summarize target progression scenarios
Evaluate Facilities
� • Identify conditions that will affect timing/scale
• Electric service/grid capacity
• Renewable energy potential �
�i �
Identify Target Vehicles
�� • Near-term targets—"Pilot"
• Long-term targets—"Future States"
i
Build Progression Scenarios
• Cost/Savings/ Emission analyses
• Establish approximate timing
. � .
• • �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
1898 a
Fleet Vehicle Electrification Assessment r - - - - - - - - - - '
� DRAFT �
� - - - - - - - - - - -'
�
• •
. .
. - . . -
- . . . .
� . .
• Collected from the City of Dubuque "Fleet Analysis — City of Dubuque" and City staff
• Collected from the City of Dubuque "Fleet Analysis — City of Dubuque"
.
• Odometer of vehicles provided by city and estimates based on previous analysis
• Annual vehicle miles calculated based on vehicle age and odometer reading
• Screening level estimates based on vehicle type for energy consumption
• Average of 1 .15 kWh/mile based on vehicle count and miles
• • Annual energy is estimated on vehicle miles traveled, vehicles per category, and the
_ , estimated kWh/mi for each vehicle category
. . .
. . ,
Vehicle fleet b a e histo ram u dated summer 2020 r DRAFT- - - �
y g g ( p ) � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _�
Combination Short Haul
30
Large Transit Bus
Low diversity of •Light Commereial Truck
transit bus fleets •passenger Car: Non-Poli�e
25 Passenger Car: Police Sedan
Passenger Truck
Refuse Tru�k
zo �Single Unit 5hort Haul Truck
. - Small Transit Bu5
�
_
0
U
m 15
� Specialty and Limited Use Vehicles
� � �
�
1D Fire Dept. Pick-up
- Oiler, Flusher. Fire, Hazmat Truck
� Fire, Plow Truck
� . � Water Truck
5 .
-
Q � - . . . � -
0 5 �D 15 2D 25 3D
8 years Vehi�le Age
. . .
Average age • • �
....�� �
Breakdown of vehicles er de artment u dated su mmer 2020 ; _ _ DRAFT _ _ _�
p p � p )
Vehicle Count by Department aepartment A�erage af Age Vehicle Count
45 Categary PQLICE 4.25 44
- Combination Short Haul TRANSIT 9.55 33
4� Large Transit Bus PARK DIV 5.35 26
FIRE 12.33 24
•Light Cammereial Truck STREET �.35 23
REFUSE�RECYCLING $.22 98
35 �Passenc�er Car: Nan-Palice ENGINEERING 5.88 97
Passenger Car: Poli�e Sedan WATER 10.43 �4
AIRP�RT 13.38 93
Passenger Truck H�LJ5ING 4.88 8
30
Refuse Truck BUILDING 7.71 7
RAMPS 10.71 7
�Single UnitSf�ort Haul Truck SEWER ��.�7 5
; 25
� Small Transit &us STREET CLEANING 11.�7 5
� WR&RC 10.�7 6
�,
� LANDFILL 14.75 4
� �� GARAGE �.33 3
- HEALTH 5.00 3
GRAND RIVER CTR 1.00 2
15 - � CA&LE TV 5.00 9
PLANNING 11.00 1
Total 8.07 266
10
�
5
�
0
� �� ■ ■ � � # - � � �
eo���-� ��5•� �,�o�� ��e-� �����-� �L�,�[� �����[� �P��� ,�Q��� o�s,�[s �,����� �A�QS ����� P�,�,� ����c. �o���.. A�A��. �A4�� ����� ���.�� ��,�„�,
� eA ��J��`�ti� �a�,e� A �, � �������..� 4v- C� �`�A�O�.�•1 ��' Q�-� � � �
� �
\/ohi�lo �i immar�i frnrp �QFI � �T Cti irl�i �niac i icorl ac a roforonr�o r�nint
�ategor} ubcategory Vehicle Number of Vehicle Mak� �partments r �
Class Vehicles � DRAFT �
_.a.._ __..�mercial Tr__.. � _uty Van Class 1 4 Ford Ecoline, Freestar, and Transit Connect �Qu�e i v, tngineering, uprary, Fire I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _�
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car Class 1 25 Ford Taurus and Fusion,Chevy Malibu and Impala, Nissan Leaf. Building, Health, & Housing
Passenger Car: Police Sedan Light Duty Police Car Class 1 22 Chevrolet Impalas Police
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck Class 1 12 Chevy Colorado&510, Ford Ranger, Dodge Dakota Building, Engineering, Park, Ramps, WR& RC
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 1 10 Ford Escape,Jeep Wrangler,Toyota RAV4 Engineering, Fire, Landfill, Park, Police,WR& RC
Passenger Truck Light Duty Picl<up Truck Class 2 Chevy Silverado 1500, Dodge Ram 1500, Ford F-150 Engineering, Fire,Garage, Health, Landfill, Park, Police, Ramps,
31 Refuse, Street, Water, WR& RC
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 2 15 Chevy Tahoe, Ford Explorer& Expedition Fire, Police
Small Transit Bus Light Duty Bus Class 2 1 Sprinter Bus Transit
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van Class 2 6 Chevrolet Express, Ford Cargo,Toyota Sienna Park, Police,Water,WR&RC
Light Commercial Truck Amb I nc�e tY Class 3 1 McCoy Miller Fire
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup Class 3 Chevy 2500HD &3500HD, Ford F-250 & F-350, Ram 2500 Engineering, Fire, Garage, Grand River, Housing, Landfill, Parl<,
Truck 19 Ramps,Sewer, Street, Transit, Water,WR& RC
Single Unit Short Haul Truck S edeue Duty Street Class 4 3 Elgin Street
p
Small Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus Class 4 12 Chevy Galval Transit
Passenger Truck Amb I nc�e tY Class 5 3 International Ambulance Fire
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Truck Class 6 Chevy Dump Truck, Ford Dump Truck International Dump Landfill, Park, Police, Refuse, Sewer, Street, Water
20 Truck, Isuzu NRR
Small Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus Class 6 13 EI Dorado Aerostar Transit
Large Transit Bus Heavy Duty Bus Class 7 4 Gillig Bus Transit
Refuse Truck Heavy Duty Trash Truck Class 7 14 International Packer, Freightliner, GMC Packer Refuse/Recycling
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck Class 7 Inernational Dump Truck, Freightliner Dump Truck,Aerial park, Refuse Ramps, Sewer, Street, Water
24 Truck,Chevrolet Dump Truck
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Streetcar Class 7 2 Optima Streetcar Transit
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Fire Trucl< Class 8 10 Inernational, Rosenbauer, Freightliner Fire
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck Class 8 2 Water Truck, Chipper Truck Landfill, Park
Combination Short Haul Heavy Duty Fire Truck Class 8 1 Bronto Fire Truck Fire
• Vehicle category's, counts, average annual miles are from the "Fleet Analysis — City of Dubuque" from August 2018
• Detailed information on each vehicle, for mileage, MPG, fuel consumed, and idle time is ideal to develop more accurate estimations ; • ; �
i , ,
Energy nr�filP� wPrP c�PVPI�nPc� for each vehicl� c: a�sification �_ _ _ DRAFT _�
Vehicle Vehicle Average Annual Average of Yearly
Category Subcategory Count Class Mileage Average kWh/mi kWh
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van 2 Class 1 7732 0.56 4337
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car 23 Class 1 5582 0.34 1881
Passenger Car: Police Sedan Light Duty Police Car 22 Class 1 9413 0.56 5281
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck 13 Class 1 7470 0.56 4191
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV 14 Class 1 11363 0.45 5102
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van 5 Class 2 4494 0.90 4036
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck 33 Class 2 7875 0.67 5308
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV 17 Class 2 15323 0.56 8596
Small Transit Bus Light Duty Bus 2 Class 2 18771 0.67 12651
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Ambulance 1 Class 3 11193 1.12 12570
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup Truck 24 Class 3 6529 0.90 5863
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Street Sweeper 3 Class 4 526 2.25 1182
Small Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus 12 Class 4 21226 1.12 23837
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Ambulance 3 Class 5 8462 0.67 5704
Large Transit Bus Medium Duty Bus 8 Class 6 30401 2.25 68251
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Airport Truck 6 Class 6 9000 1.68 15156
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Truck 19 Class 6 5662 1.68 9535
Large Transit Bus Heavy Duty Bus 6 Class 7 27541 2.81 77307
Refuse Truck Heavy Duty Trash Truck 13 Class 7 1278 2.81 3588
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Airport Truck 1 Class 7 9000 1.68 15156
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Streetcar 2 Class 7 25835 2.25 58000
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck 23 Class 7 5714 1.68 9623
Combination Short Haul Heavy Duty Fire Truck 1 Class 8 3278 2.25 7359
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Airport Truck 1 Class 8 9000 2.25 20205
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Fire Truck 10 Class 8 7569 2.25 16993
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck 2 Class 8 11909 2.25 26735
• Vehicle category's, counts, average annual miles, and gallons of fuel consumed were derived from the AFLEET study with data reviewed and updated by the city of Dubuque.
• When data was not available from the City, the AFLEET study was used as a reference.
• The Average kWh/mi accounts for potential energy variance throughout the year based on temperatures in the City of Dubuque. . � .
• • �
• MPG was estimated by the amount of fuel consumed, mileage driven by the city vehicles from city data and an estimated fuel purchase cost of%1.75 for gasoline.
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■
1898 a
�� ���, � .y ,�,� �,� �
; � -�. .
r � �
���� '� t�.}:�µ,rf�.-.�y `,y -�
,�+ ,�r �.. � ..� + r.� �
� l+��r�A ' � � �� , � Solar Resource Scorecard
,
� - -
`� �n;r.i �-.t7 � . '�.���� �.����
k ��'` �1,�, .;.,''r _ . •
T�' .� � "+�•� • a 4 ''�.
•� J *'�{
A Grid
�`�*� f�� ��' °�:���- � � ' '� Production /kW* Com lexit * Overall
�. �� _ �.� , , �� �� � � $ p Y Up9rades
. '� t � �.�;� �; ;:�, .� -
:�+... ,
:
� 3- ���' � -���if+L�; . ;
,�, ... .� � ..� l • '
�'°=�-� •-r{,:k�-�,� /.:� � �. �.. Andersen B B B B B
�� :� � �:., . ..� ��,
� - ; - - .
.�+,� �� f � ,-�.�����'
� �� j �,.
l.� �r� �� �`' �� r ,,��
�• �
� �_ �I�� '�;:�� .� Andersen PL " B
�l� � :f _ . s, . ,
,�� �� . _ ,�r.
� �g-'`�''' �+wy�,
` _ � _ �� - ,:= �1
_ _
-. � �� MSC B ' B B
� ��� 1 .� ":'d�/� �' t
A-,, '�,
�l� .,.. y S h '�, -� „ Sti
-.,�� ; - - - � 1
�'�'" � 5'�r � � �� Potential Lot ' ' B B '
��_•..- �' -
, �� .
����� � ,, ¢.,� � _ -
{ � ._ . .
�c�`�+�� -.'�� �
^� �i-..� {�.��rY ,�� .
,�.� ��
��*r -�a - ..�," �S'', �
i���-,r.�,,�� ;_ - �e� _� � � - - - - '�`�}� ;�'� � Floating Solar ' ' � B
'����l :�� ' . _
� t r--?!== � r '� -�'4.�
,�y � ��� � � �� � � �
n. �'. � _ -�
��� ��y �� f'y � i �� �
yx*- R ��• �t r '� �` -� �� J OTC ✓ � • U
e. i �
r �� � � � .�� f
,.,�'`� -- .� _ �� y. �
�� - _ �� : . , I�'c �,� ,� ..x._
�".�:J._�1 � �]�'f +�' f
y'��f � � 1 � Legend
x
� . _.� �s '�: 1���_-r����r'_'�t- �
.�`����, .� � � Li .fi� _ ..'� �� � / _ ` � J�� � � �
8 �. • �. r
Y',.� '-�'`� 1
�� �t °, - � _ � a'� Best Worst . .
�' �f5�.. � � 4J ��ra � •
���.. � • • �
�� . -'
� -., � �.� �y . � ��. * Does not include building upgrades
Solar Resource Assessment r '
� DRAFT '
� - - - - - - - - - - -'
i • � � •
-
. • • . . - . . - .
. . . - . . � � - .
. .
. • Estimations were calculated in SAM (System Advisory Model) from NREL.
. • The Sunmodule Plus, SW 240 Poly was modeled for every rooftop site.
- • The ground site used a generic 340 W panel
• Inverters sizes were chosen to based on total DC capacity. Each roof had different
inverters sizes. This is not optimal, but was done for modeling limitation and brevity
• Solar irradiance data was taken from the NREL solar irradiance map. The most viable
file was a 2018 rolling average in a Dubuque zip code.
• Default loss assumptions were kept in SAM. Shading loss from other structures and
self-shading were not always included.
. . .
. . ,
� - - - - - - - - - - ,
Potential Solar Production Per Site ' DRAFT �
� - - - - - - - - - - -�
Annual Energy Praduction {kWh� per Site '
J�T� 5 it�
Ful I M�C Site 0.6M �,2M � ��tential Ground�ite
Andersen Parking Lot Q.7M -� =loating Solar
��lncersen Vl�indows
��lncersen �'arking Lot
=ull MSC Site
Anderser� Windows �.1 M �
=xist��❑ h��5�.
.���TC
-y,....,.,.�i 4Y'•Yc F�.:�'�=..
�
— Pater�tial Graund �ite 9,1 M
�
i
Flaating Salar 5.3M �
�
. � .
• • �
Total Seasonal Solar Production per Site i - - DRAFT- - - �
�- - - - - - - - - - -
Site •Andersen Parking Lot �Andersen Wndows •Existing M5C Flaating 5olar �Full MSC 5ite J�TC Potential Ground 5ite
1,4M � � �
� • • •
.
� �
a,BM
•- - -- -•
• - - - • • •�- -
• . •- - •
-• -• • . •- - • -
- - - • - •
C,E�F.�1 .... . .... ..... .. ..... ... .... . .... .... . .... ... . ..... . ..... ..... -• - - -
r
�
s
�,
�
`m
C
W
6,4M , , , , , „ „ „ „ „ , „ „ „ , , , , , ,
6,2M _..... _...
■
� � 1 1 I I � � � � 1 I 1 � � 1 . .
6,4M •
Januoy Februar} k9o'C" � . -, . _ .I1` —.,,Jst 5�,-.�m6er �ct�ber �lo�vem6e� �e��;;Ler � � �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■
■
1898 a
Transit buses and trucks will consume the most energy from the
fleet when compared to the light duty vehicles in the fleet
,
.-
,
, __
, o ����
,.aM ' _ R �� _
� �Fr� �;
,
,
__ ,
- . . .
_,
. . .
0.8M
�
�
Y
a
a�
�
a
� 0.6M
�
`a
w
m
c'
a
a
�
� 0.4M
N
W
0.2 M
O.OM
Large Transit Bus Single Unit 5hort Passenger Truck Small Transit Bus Passenger Car: Refuse Truck Passenger Car: Light Commercial Combination Short � • �
• • �
Haul Truck Police Sedan Non Police Truck Haul
i- - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Fleet Energy Requirements Vs Potential Annual Solar Production �_ _ _ DRAFT
�o�
�,o�nn
Category
Combir7ation Shart Haul
Large Transit Bus
$�
Light Co�nmercial Tru�k
��
Passenger Car: Non-Poli�e �
� •Passenger Car: Police Sedan �
� Passenger Tru�k �
� �
a� Refuse Truck � ��
� ��� •Single Unit Short Haul Tru�k �
0 5,3.3 h+1 � � � � - - - �
� i5mall Transit Bus �
�
� �
� �
L� �
� �
�
�
� ��� � 4M
� �
� �
� � �
a �
� , � 2,12M
F
�� L�
�.���
�.���
� � � ��� �.� 0,�
OM OM
Potential Floating Andersen 1�nderser� Full M�� A,dditian�l Existing J�T�
�round �al�r UVindows Parking La# �ite M�� M�� . . .
�ite � � '
Average Number of Paratransit Buses Supported by Site Annually
� - - - - - - - - - - ,
� DRAFT �
• Potential 5olar Energy Production {kWh} — AUerage of Yearly (k1Nh} Yearly �kWh) �- - - - - - - - - - -'
�D�DDK
� B�DDK ■■■'
Y
�
b
'++ � .
u �
�
0 6�flflK '
�
a
�,
�
�
�
�
w
� 44��K
� ■■■�
�
�
°' - -
� zaooK ' , '
�K
Potential Flaating Andersen Andersen Full MSC Existing JOTC
Ground Site 5alar Windows Parking Lot 5ite N15C
■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■�
:1 :: :
• � •
• • �
Average Number of Fixed Route Transit Buses Supported by Site
r - - - - - - - - - - ,
� DRAFT '
�- - - - - - - - - - -'
• Potential 5olar Energy Production (kWh} — A�erage of Yearly (kWh} Yearly �kWh}
1����K
■■■�
� 8��OK
Y
� � '• � • i
O
�
U
7
0 6QQOK
�
a
a
rn
�
m
w ■■■�
� 4000K
0
N
� '• ' • :
�
a� ;
�
a z000K
�
�K
Potential Floating Andersen Andersen FuIIIV1SC Existing JOTC
Ground 5ite 5olar Windows Parking Lot 5ite M5C
■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■� ■■■�
. .
. � .
_ � � �
� ' � • ' • ' • • � ' ' • • • ' • • '
� - .
'* - . � . - � ' � f ■ - .�- � -.
�1�1
.� � �.+ �F,� �F,�
233 Cars, Pick-ups, and Trucks
�1.5M kWh/year
� �
� � �i7 �� �R
Average vehicle consumes
; 6.8k kWh/year
• � �
�
■■ - ■ � ■ r � . ■ �- - ■ ■
r �
G�,
F��. � F.�;. L.�.+ ��R ����
�A�R ���� �A�A �A�A �� �� ►.�. •.�.
1325 779 309 99 82 38
Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles I898 0
Year to year variability in solar production will impact generating local
energy to support electric fleet vehicles
Existing N1�� �ite Hist�ric�l Producti�n
����� • - • • •
� - - - - - - - - - - ,
� DRAFT ' � _ _ _ , �
� - - - - - - - - - - -'
• . - - .
zs���
. . • • .
zao�c �
� ' — . • — ' • • •
�
� 7}0�
�
�
C
�
100K
�ear �utput `/ ��viation fram Av�rage
�
�016 �1',704.OD -4�
Ss�K �01� �5',55?.OD 1496
�018 �Sd,546.CC� 1�°�
�019 177�876.OD -��96
���
2�16 2�1� ��18 2019
Y�ar
. � .
• • �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■
■
1898 a
Decarbonization of the City of Dubuque Vehicle Fleet r - - - - - - - - - - ,
� DRAFT '
�- - - - - - - - - - -'
266
Vehicles
Both currently available and emerging EV's enable
the City of Dubuque to begin decarbonizing both
transit and non-transit fleet vehicles. Combining fleet
electrification with local renewable energy production 343 , ���
will allow the City of Dubuque to reduce its carbon
footprint, remove tail-pipe emissions from the Gallons of Fuel
community, save money on operating and
maintenance costs, and improve the community by
shifting to a sustainable fleet.
3 ,400
MTCO2
. . .
. . ,
Estimated Timeline of Activities
The example timeline shown is subject to change by the City of Dubuque based on the budgetary and operational requirements of fleet electrification
Implement policy to replace ICE vehicles Expand Level 2 EV charging to city
with alternative BEV owned parking across from MSC r — — — — — — — — — — �
� Build out first wave of(6)6.6kW Level 2 Review availability of heavy-duty trucks �_ _ _ DRAFT �
W EV charging stations at the MSC to and pick-ups - - -
W support 12 EV's Review operational needs of DC fast
J Expand rooftop solar at the MSC to chargers near existing MSC fueling site
LL
� support energy needs of EV's
� Build out second wave of(16)6.6kW Review electrification of heavy-duty trucks and
Z Level 2 chargers to at the MSC to evaluate if current charging infrastructure is sufficient
� support up to 41 vehicles
H
�
Z
O N M � �1'> �C 1` 00 O� O
Z N N N N N N N N M
N N N N N N N N N
L�L L�L L�L L�L L�L L�L L�L L�L L�L
Build out 50kW of PV on JOTC Evaluate changes in charging
rooftop solar technology to support future
� generations of electrification
W The Jule begins pilot of(2-4)
W Paratransit electric transit buses
J Expand solar capacity at the JOTC
� Build out (2)60kW DC fast chargers by additional 70kW on north east roof
H at the JOTC that can support up-to
� 8 BEB's Expand solar capacity at the JOTC
ZQ by additional 75kW on north west roof
a, Target replacement of aging ICE
� buses with BEB buses through grants Review potential to expand onsite
Implement procedures and policies to solar production
support bus fleet electrification Build out additional DC fast charging
stations as large BEB buses are
procured
. � .
• • �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■ ■
ee ec r� � ca � on
.
u m mar i es
1898 a
Decarbonization of the Dubuque City "Non-Transit" Fleet by 2040
Electrifying transit vehicles and fueling them through local renewable energy will: � DRAFT '
�
1 . Reduce our carbon footprint,
� - - - - - - - - - - -�
2. Eliminate tailpipe emissions, and
3. Reduce operations and maintenance costs.
50% b 2030 100% b 2040*
v v
F,�;, F,�;, i;�;, i;;�;.
Full electrification of the non-transit fleet may be done effectively through
F,�;, F,�;, i;�;, i;;�;.
attrition, maximizing utilization of current assets while capitalizing on market-ready
� � electric vehicle options available.
�.• . . . . �
�,, �,, (,�,, (,�,, . . . .
., �A �A *�R
;�- �.. 1I1R — ��� �
�' ���
�" *,R x- T
� O
.. � � *� Implement new policies Expand renewable Build Level 2
'''� ''�' '�'R and procedures energy at MSC charging at MSC and
�� ��' *��' strategic locations**
. . .
* Excluding specialty vehicles that may not have suitable electric or zero carbon vehicle alternative. • • �
** Some specialty vehicles may require Level 3 or higher charging infrastructure, but a majority will be served adequately by Level 2.
A Policy Approach to Transforming the City's fleet to Electric Vehicles
Currently, the City of Dubuque acquires new or replacement vehicles through a simple request and approval process. If a department needs a new vehicle or
needs to replace an existing vehicle, a request is made for its expense to be included in the following years budget. If approved by the budgeting process, tr - - - - - - - - - - '
requested funds are allocated to the requesting department to purchase a vehicle to be selected and transacted by the department. Outside of the approvai_ _ _ DRAFT
the budget, fleet vehicle acquisition/replacement is done in this decentralized manner.
Given this approach, electrifying the fleet may best be accomplished through
centralized policies that govern the request and approval process for new or
replacement vehicles. These policies will establish a limited set of default Department identifies need for new or replacement
vehicles for a department to choose from when requested a new or vehicle based on age, condition, relevance or other
replacement vehicle. These default vehicles will all be electric vehicles. If a reason
department feels none of the provided vehicles will meet their needs, they must then �
request an exception and provide detailed justification to be reviewed by Q
management.
Department fills out form requesting vehicle
30 Recent Vehicle Purchases by City of Dubuque DeparlmenS
Default EV Selected Exception Selected
AI�PORT
.,��_��N� l l
a_vG W EER�NG
-� •=.3E
, `':�a`E Management Reviews � Management Reviews
eaa,u.rc�-:e,:�.-_.
v .HEA�T- Request based on Need Request based on Need
� -
L HOUSti�
� .�NOF�_ & Budget & Budget
�
� PARK DI`J
u ._ •POIICE Approved Rejected Approved Rejected
r '
j REFUSE/RECYCLING . .
� 1 1
� •57REET
v .;':;T`5
� "
Z ? , O �
� ; � 6 3 Dept purchases Dept purchases
- vehicle through vehicle
, , , Z arranged city
o , , ,
dealer independently
2015 __�_ 2017 20'8 2619
Year of Purchase
• � •
• • �
A policy approach could achieve >50% electric fleet by FY2031
A policy approach means that vehicles will be replaced with electric versions through attrition. An existing vehicle will complete its useful life and then be
replaced by an equivalent EV when needed and requested. v�rR�'Rc _
�5 �oo� ' Q �_
' R �
WATEI�'�, _ ���,
Assum tions result in hi h � ;
p J �STREET CLFA N I NG`
3 electrification in year one. 730 MTCO2 are avoided by �0°� ' �__%
�� Many of these may likely be FY31 which is a reduction ��TREET
' deferred to FY23 of CO2 emissions by 42% �SEWER
3 $0°�
REFUSEfRECYCLING
� �5 ��annPs
� 70%
� � �PoucE
� � �
w L •L PLANNING
� ��� �
� �� 3 ' 1 6 58� u`�,� PARK DIV
� � �
U a� �LANDFILL
'0 , ix2,sz� 5��f �
a �
�' :� � HOU5ING
oc
� 1� z 73U,42.546 y
GZ�k,36.G% �
� ;�Zo�,a5� ;° �HEALTH
� � � � ��¢� v
� 1 `�9z,3996 A59,26.796 � GRANd RIVER CTR
1 �
= i i Jl,30°G Sd �� a �
� 385,2Z4% 1 ��o� GARAGE
� 10 6�,�$� ■
331,79.39G � �FI R E
3 1 1
3 a6,2a�. 243,17.0a6� 1 � ��°� CABLE N
37,1596 245,14.29i � s 1
� 174,9.9% � s � AIRPORT
z
33,14°6 ' 132,7.746 � z 1 i
� 1 � 1 , ■ 3 1 ■ ��o� ENGINEERING
4 12�.196� 1 a a 1 ' 1 1 �BLJIL�ING
� � 3 1 ' 1 1 1 ■ 1
� _ 1 � � 1 z 1 � � � 1 ' 1 � �� —9�of Vehides Electrified
EV ICE El! ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE E01 ICE El! ICE EV ICE EV ICE EV ICE °r6 0#EmissionsAvoided � � �
FY22 FY22 FY23 FY23 FY24 FYZ4 FY25 FY25 FY2� FY26 FY27 FY27 FY28 FY28 FY29 FY29 FY3QFY30 FY31 FY31 • • �
Charging Infrastructure may be installed at MSC for Non -Transit EVs
Mix of Level 2 and DC Fast �"'��
� � Chargers integrated into ;� ,
, , n n ,rtprn�l bay parking areas. ' �/4 �
Existing Rooftop Solar ,_.. - �F �,
`/�' �� ��= %�� _�. �� � T �
200 �VV a�ir �! � I
180-250k kWh /year �-�, . ,:;� `;�� _ _- •e � ' _;
� � � �� . s � � U to 220kW additional Roofto Solar
�.�. f .� p P
. � .. .�.
Existin Roofto Solar a ears to ;1•:���
9' P Pp �� .
�� ::�: �� , - '' �'�`, Producin u to 300k kWh/ ear
be grid connected. Explore ,;;� ���r > � g p y
moving this behind the meter w/ :;����, � d
electrification. ����`�'��� `� � �
.. ' i �.
• ; �'�; E'';
� f� -��� Existing 500kVA Transformer
�����d�� u� �� � � �� ��d�� c . :;� � ° [Upgrade Transformer when needed]*
6.6kW dual port Level 2 Charger� � ; ��`� '�
��:;� i�`�� ��� �►�� 29 s aces Install u to 16
for over night charging — � ( p ) p
[1 St Location FY2022] �' ' �` � / � ,�. ��� 6.6kW dual port Level 2 Chargers
� ��, � �;� ����: . � for over night charging
� ;..
�- �� � .,;r,,.,. T 7 n r1 I .-..,.,+�.,,-, C V 7!17 A 1
.�� �� ; :,�,:
�, .
*'�' ' °,r�� �_,�„�..��-
'r"r �` �� � ���� Install u to 20 40 s aces
New utility 500-1000 kVA transformer and �� p � p �
��<�.e
electrical switchgear to serve Level 2 and ` .� � '��"`�"���� , "°'' 6.6kW dual port Level 2 Chargers, or
DC Fast chargers in this area r i�� � ; ����� � `` '' at existing parking spaces
(requires new service drop from utility) � '�
. •� � ` �
, � � <���
s: .
� , - ��� �-
-��_ � '. ' � �
Space to potentially expand production of ����� , , §, � �� ," , � Install up to 10 (20 spaces)
solar generation that can support charging - , �;� '� 50kW dual port DC Fast Chargers
electric vehicles land ac uisition re uired �`°���`��� '
� a a ) � h�'� [4t" Location FY2028]
�� �s��,�� .�.��..� �.. .
. . .
. . ,
' Peak demand of MSC building is currently 196kW,up to 40 Level 2 chargers may theoretically be installed behind the meter without upgrading the transformer.
The location of the charging station drives installation costs . At full
build out, 41 vehicles can be supported at a cost of $5 . 8k ��r__v�k�i���,_.,
FY2022: Cost for installing 6 chargers at 12 parking spaces ; DRAFT ;
�---------------------------
Line Item � QTY Unit Labor Cost Matrial Cost Sum Line Item QTY Unit Sum
6.6kW Level 2 Charging Station 6 ea $ 3,960.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 14,160.00 � ' � • � - aa �� ' � �
Charging Pedestal 6 ea $ 1,320.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 5,520.00 • � ' • ' • m� '� � • � "
75kVA 3-Phase 480/277V to 208/120V 1 ea $ 2,640.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 7,640.00 • • ' • ' • • � • • • �� '� � � � �
800A 3PH 4W Nema 3R Switchboard 1 ea $ 2,640.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,640.00 • • • " ' • • • m� '� � "
4/0 Aluminum Conductor 2280 ft $ 1,760.00 $ 3,807.60 $ 5,568.00
# 6 Copper Conductor 4500 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 4,905.00 $ 9,305.00
2�� Pvc �7o ft � 4,400.00 $ 340.00 � 4,740.00 (22) 6.6kW Level 2 Dual Port Chargers sharing a
1" PVC 1500 ft $ 8,800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 10,300.00 single 32A208V circuit
Trenching + Pavement 300 ft $ 8,800.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 14,800.00
� � , . . - aa �, . , , . . „ „
. . . aa �. . . . . . , , �; . • „ �: , . , , : , ,
, . , . . , . 0� �, . . � , �, • � � � �, , � Supports up to 44 Parking Spaces with 41 targeted
FY2024: Cost for installing 16 chargers at 29 parking spaces spaces at the MSC
� Line Item !� QTY Unit Labor Cost Matrial Cost Sum
6.6kW Level 2 Charging Station 16 ea $ 10,560.00 $ 27,200.00 $ 37,760.00
Charging Pedestal 16 ea $ 3,520.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 14,720.00 Assumes enough capacity in existing MSC 2000A
75kVA 3-Phase 480/277V to 208/120V 1 ea $ 2,640.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 7,640.00 Switchboard
800A 3PH 4W Nema 3R Switchboard 1 ea $ 2,640.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,640.00
4/0 Aluminum Conductor 65 ft $ 1,760.00 $ 108.55 $ 1,869.00
# 6 Copper Conductor 3600 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 3,924.00 $ 8,324.00 Infrastructure build out can support double the
2" PVC 65 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 130.00 $ 4,530.00 charging capacity to accommodate future
��� Pvc �20o ft � $,$oo.00 � �,200.00 � �o,000.00 upgrades in charging infrastructure
Trenching + Pavement 240 ft $ 8,800.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 12,400.00
, � , . . - aa �, . , . , , �, „
. . . �� ', - i � i �, . - • . - . � � �
� � � i � i � • � � ' • '
� � . . . . m� • • �
,-
Potential Infrastructure Confi uration for the MSC ;" \����
g . o __
, Rq,c�. ,;
_ ,
�� ,
,
(22) 6.6kW Peak Load MSC Peak Load Infrastructure coufd�-'
Level 2 Dual Port Supports up to 41 �150 kW �196 kW support double the
Chargers Parking Spaces �180A @ 3PH 480V Transformer Size load if EV charge
�730A @ 1 PH 2O8V 500 kVA power increased
For the F1�� 1'� P11� c�n�uit to �aCh �h��rger �S' {�}-�" P11� ���duit
��ra�gers ar� ir�sta�led b.u. . � witF� �3) #6 �er cond�it {��- �-410
�-�:� ... .:......... .��:,-,
� -� 7�k11A ��Ph �8�1��711 to
— — .t
20�f1�Olf Trar�s�orrner
ti' � ����
���� �har�d �i�c��� �.ev�l � _ - � '
-- �-- �; �
���I Por# �.�1�.3kVll � �
Char e� ' ��' ��
9 �'
�1�� . �� �`• '�'�"�
�-a• r. . J F �T * � IF� .
�����--- ��fl -�Z.'�'��'�'_���, ��
;
� ' �
Far the F1��4 ir�staElataa�, expa�d �. .. ���-�- � �� �" ���, BD�A 3yPh 4V�1 �wifchbaard
installa�ian to 16 char�ers b�r �� . • �� - �� .-
�dding �r��th�r k����f�r�t�r, � ' � � �� � •
��� ��"'� ` _-• ,
} �� fi�f �1)-�" P11� �anduit
swit��rge�r ar�d charaers_ � � ��,aw'-��€ �"'�� .
- ,� - {4}-4l�
�O�P� 3-Ph 4V1! �witchboard * � EY'�`i�� ._ ��� 75kV� �-P� 4��1���V #a
� ' � ��$112QV Tr��sf�rmer
'; . � 'Ff��.:;c..:.i, .�
.. � �__ — � �
• � •
� � �
Example AltArnatP I n� � ��n � G� � '� aii ni�n _Tran��t EV Charging Stations
��]� �� Assuming there is parking capacity to handle
` ,..�.. ... . .
� _ -�--�� ��.. � , ,, dwelling of fleet vehicles and handle daily
' � � �� employee and citizen needs, up to 18
�-� ,
' ' ��� '_ �� ' � �'=" ' � , charging ports could be integrated into the
- � t `t City Hall parking lot.
� R r„ o�-'f[��A�] .
� �' � � p —
� � — ` .y+����p.:..l� IX 1. ' �
I
l�}?)��������x��. i
f� �r�F �;,��� ;.,� ��i ,
i�J.LW.�j+LL�11llLL��,f� .-� � ' j O `�
' ':m.�uf�r�ii�� .�k*-�:�: ` , � �` ',
� _ �.�,,_ .� � - � qFT� _ ,,
�• � �.
. -� ,
, . }� � r ,. , � ;
- ��� . ��� ,
, �_: _ . , . ti _
� '- � �nstall up to 4 (8 spaces)
{ � �� � + �� - � . � � � � 6.6kW dual port Level 2 Chargers
F',� y ~' �+� �
�M1���
� �'� 1 . � at existing parking spaces
-� ' ���• '.r .
��- � y� [1St Location FY 2023]*
_ � . ,� \` � `
5a 5 � i
� � i� .
�z�,,, + �I�� r �
( 'i 11l�Li�J � ��(�� + ^ �;-^ \ � ■
� 't.` f._�..a.11�JL'�'.�icA.`.�e.�r�.4'� � ..e - � 5� �
r. � #+
� - . � i � � Install up to 5 (10 spaces)
��'� ', . C���;��,�: p � • ��.- — 6.6kW dual port Level 2 Chargers, or
� , .,. r i '�C'.,�`.L�� ' .y i 3��
" ° °-� -� , � � �.:;. ��' at existing parking spaces
� y ��''� � T *� � ' � ' ; [2"d Location FY2025]*
}'. . , `�� �:�� �-,�� , �
� . . �*� �� .
� �/. ��� __ .
y]'�� _ ��
�� L'J+y 'y� _ +�
T.� ti �;��- �4 i
7"� '�l f�_
� _ � �
� �a ��� -
;r,:.
�� � , k
, ,
. ... ��iin'in���r� � �� ����
• � •
� � �
*City Hall parking lot selected as potential site for opportunity charging away from MSC. Final site location for opportunity charging to be determined at a later time.
As annual vehicles miles travelled (VMT) increases, EV's become cost competitive
with ICE vehicles due to savings in fuel and maintenance ;� DRAFT �;
��� ' �
FordFusion5 FordFusionPlug-inHy6rid{ChevyBolt -leepGrandCherokee�TeslaModelY FordMustangMach-E�FordF150CrewCab4x4 LordstownEndurance --------------------------�
2022 Ford F-150 is the most expensive
Denotes:
rco or�cE ven���es � vehide to operate over 8 years
BEV/PHEV ',�
$fi°K - Jeep Grand Cherokee is more
� asoK �rr�;4- �
expensive to operate vs a BEV Tesla
- Model Y over 8 years
? 540K .. .. . y� `�_
���
$3oK � � BEV Lordstown Endurance vs F150
TCO ot ICE Vehides vs BEV
� 2021 yields Payback in 6 years
`;�- BEV Ford Mach-E yields potential
$60K -- '� ; � � �°�� � payback before year 4
� $SOK �� • BEV Tesla Model Y vs Cherokee
E a4oK �,, � � ';�� yields payback in 7 years
a3oK �+���r� Ford Fusion Plug-in Hybrid is more
� ,� ��m expensive to operate vs BEV Chevy Bolt
TCO oF ICE VehicLes vs BEV+Value of Emissions
S�oK BEV Chevy Bolt is cheaper to operate vs
� _`_��� a plug-in hybrid. Can be cheaper vs
� 5°K ' fusion with increased VMT
; 54oK � Due to annual mileage, benefits of
" $30K —� , , � BEV's do not overcome difference in
� purchase cost for a Ford Fusion S
., 1 2 3 4 5 .. - S
Vehicle Average Yearly O&M Cost ICE Vehicle BEV Vehicle Yearly
Vehicle Make and Model MSRP g ($/mi)[1] Range(mi)[3] Range(mi)[3] MPG MPGe Emissions
Type Vehide Milea e' MTCO2[4]
Ford Fusion Plug-in Hybrid[5] PHEV $ 35,000.00 6000 $ 0.12 588 26 42 109 0.25 [1] Mileage, MPG, and O&M $/mi are based on data from the city fleet.
Gasoline assumed to be$1.75/gal and electricity is$0.12/kWh
Ford Fusion S ICE $ 23,170.00 6000 $ 0.12 336 - 24 - 2.22 [2] O&M for EV's assumed to be 1/3 to 1/2 of ICE equivalent
Chevy Bolt BEV $ 36,620.00 6000 $ o.oa�2� - 25s - ��a _ [3]Vehicle ranges are from manufacturer or calculated on MPG/MPGe
ratings and battery or fuel tank size
Jeep Grand Cherokee ICE $ 36,000.00 13000 $ 0.13 517 - 21 - 5.50 [4]Assumed 0.008887 MTCO2/Gal of Gasoline and avoided emissions
Tesla Model Y BEV $ 49,990.00 13000 $ 0.04[2] 316 - 121 - VaIU2 Of$ZO�MTCOZ
[5] For PHEV, assumed 80%of miles driven consumed electricity and
Ford Mustang Mach-E sEv $ a2,895.00 �3000 $ 0.04[2] - 230 - 110 - ZO%consumed gasoline � • �
Ford F150 Crew Cab 4x4 ICE $ 41,890.00 12000 $ 0.10 - - 15 - 7.11 �
Lordstown Endurance BEV $ 52,500.00 12000 $ 0.04[2] - 250 - 81.45 0.00
Over an 8- ear a back BEV's are chea er or close to the cost o� �
Y p Y . p ,----------------------------,
Note: VMT used for these examples are the same as example on previous slide ' DRAFT �
� �
� � •Vef�ricle *Energy�Fuel Maintenan�e r �! � ''__________________________'�
$70K ���
Fuel ($/Gal) $1.75 $65.7K Fuel ($/Gal) $1.2 $60.9K $6�.7K
Electricit $/kWh $0.12 $61.4K ��z.zK �60K Electricit $/kWh $0.09 $s7.6K $58.3K
ssoK y � � $58.6K y � �
$51.9K $52.3K - _ $50.8K $51.2K � � �
$SOK .
$SOK
$44.7K _ $43.7K -
$40K
$44.4K - saaK $41.9K - ` -
_` �
$30K S�GK � �
� � $20K � .
�Z°K For sedans there is a Due to increased For low gas prices and BEV SUV s and Pickups
0.6% price difference mileage travelled by city average MSC electricity are still cheaper to
$'°K prices, the BEV car will operate compared to
�,°K with assumed average BEV SUV's and Pickups o
fuel/ energy prices are cheaper to operate c�out�or� - IC=
� � � �oK
$OK Ford Fusion S Chevy Bolt Ford Mustang Ford Fusion 7esla Model Y Jeep Grand Lordstown Ford F150 Crew
Ford Fuslon 5 Chevy Bolt Ford Musteng Ford Fuslon Tesla h.4cdel'1 Jee:,Grand _o�dsrativn Ford F150 Crew Mach-E Plug-In Hy6rid Cherokee Endurance Cab 4x4
Iv�arh-E Plug-In Hy6rid Cherokee Enduran�e Cab 4x4
$70K � �� � � �� �
$7QK
�6oK Fuel ($/Gal) ��•2 $583K $59.1K $61.7K Fuel ($/Gal) �2.2 $$99K $63.9K $64.DK $69AK
Electricity ($/kWh) $0.05 $56.4K �6oK Electricity ($/kWh) $0.16 �
$49.4K $50.11� � $53.3K 553.5K -
SSOK � .
�soK $4b.4K
$42.5K � _
�aoK $45.9K
$41.9K � _a�, _ _
�
$30K �
S�l K ■
_ For low gas prices and the �
�ZOK marginal cost of a kWh (no If gas prices escalate and
�zox
demand charges), the the highest electricity
�,oK BEV car cost 1.5% more prices at MSC are used
to operate $'°K the BEV car costs about
�qK � � 1% less to operate • • •
Ford Fusion 5 Chevy Bolt Ford Mustang Ford Fusion Tesla Model Y Jeep Grand Lordstown Ford F156 Crew
�oK • • �
Mach-E Plug-in Hybrid Cherokee Enduranre Cab 4x4 Chevy Bolt Ford Fusion 5 Ford Mustang Ford Fusion 7esla Model Y Lordstom�n Jeep Grand Ford F156 Crew
Mach-E Plug-In Nybrid Enduranre Cherokee Cab 4x4
BEV's yield lower TCO depending on the cost of fuel and the price of electricity
Cost benefit for BEV Sedans Cost benefit for BEV SUVs Cost benefit for BEV Pickups
The marginal cost of electricity at the MSC Under the condition of low fuel prices and The average cost for electricity at the MSC
is �5c/kWh with no demand charges. As the highest cost of electricity at the MSC, during a year, including demand charges,
fuel prices increase, battery electric cars including demand charges, a BEV SUV is is 9c/kWh. When fuel prices are low, a BEV
are estimated to be over 5% cheaper to almost 10% cheaper to operate over 8 pickup truck is -1% cheaper to operate
operate over 8 years. years. over 8 years.
� _ � T" �
Fuel ($/Gal) $2.0 Fuel ($/Gal) $1.2 Fuel ($/Gal) $1.2
Electricity($/kWh) $0.05 Electricity($/kWh) $0.16 Electricity($/kWh) $0.09
Average Mileage/Year 12,000 Average Mileage/Year 13,000 Average Mileage/Year 12,000
•Vehicle +Ener Fuel Maintenance •Vehicle +Energy/Fuel Maintenance � '
gyl Vehi�le �Energy�Fuel Mainte�arice,
$50.5K $60K '
$50K $59.9K $6�•�K
545.5K � $58.3K $�OK O `
$53.3K - 5�D.9K /��`,
$50K � _ � �`
$40K $42.5K � `
- . $50K �
- ,
.
.
$40K �
.
$30K $40K
$30K
$30K
$20K
$20K $20K
$10K
$10K $10K
50K
Che�y Ford Fard 50K 50K
Balt Fusian 5 Fusian Ford Jeep Tesla Lordstown Ford F150 : � :
Plug-in Mustang Grand Model Y Enduran�e Crew Cab �
Hybrid Ma�h-E Cherokee 4x4
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■
■
1898 a
Recently Purchased Fleet Vehicles by Department (Excluding Transit)
,-
,
,
,
?C ; O�� Department
qF�. ���P��
_;
_ , •gui�oi�v�
,
,
�'� ' aEVUI�E=RNG
4 "
�� •FI�E
1 C AFc.4C-
C RAI�C R VE��TR
�
� •�EALTh
� f0
� HOUSIIVG
u
L �LANDFILL
�
�
PARK�I V
N
u y5 �POLICE
f '
� � R=FUSE,%�ECY�L NG
1
� �STtiEET
� 'VI+AT=R
� 'C ? 3
� 1
� 1
1
� 1 � �
6
5 �
�
�
1 1
4 �
� 1 1 1
��� � ����� ��7� f i;'i� }.v�i�,
Year of Purchase
. . .
• . ,
Th r r iv r m k n m I f imil ry hi I h h v n r n I �
e e a e d e se a e a d ode s o s a e c es t at a e bee ece t y
----------------------------
purchased by the ity o Du"� ��� �r - �
' DRAFT '
�
Make and Model Year QTY Make and Model � i
This graph depicts a ��,�:;14tonFik�up _ P���hased ____________________________�
potential replacement iChel�����e� zo�$ � For�Xp�orer
2016 1 Che Silverado 1500
s scenario by department of �he��Colbalt zo,6 , �h�ys,e�zoo�X
■Che��Color�do 2016 3 F150 Supercab
vehicles that could become Chet�Impala Z016 2 F250 Truck
� EV'S 2016 1 Ford Fusion
1 Che��Nali6u 2016 2 Ram Crew Cab Pickup
�Che1+PickJp 2017 1 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo
■Chet�51 D Z017 1 2017 Ra m 1 500
2017 1 Chevrolet truck w/dog carrier
q �� •Che��Sil�Jerado 2017 1 Chrysler 200
•Chel'1'ar 2017 1 F150CrewCab
2017 6 Ford Explorer This table
7cdge�akota z017 1 Ford Explorer Police
1 •�cdge Pickup 2017 2 Ford Fusion shows recent
■-ordCargoVan 2017 1 JeepGrandCherokee replacements
� 2017 1 Ram 3500 Truck
•=ord Cannect4�ar z017 1 Ram Quad Cab Pickup of vehides
3 2 _ =ord Es[ape 2018 1 Dodge 3500 pickup
=ord Es�ape F;6rid zo18 1 Dodge pick-up7ruck
2018 1 Dodge Ram 1500
=Dfd F150 Z018 1 Dodge Ram 1500 Crew Cab
� 1 1 1 1 1
=o�d Fo[us 2018 1 Dodge Ram Tradesman
2018 1 Ford F350
=ord Pickup
� 2018 1 Ram 3500 Truck
z �■ _ _ =ord Ranqer 2019 1 F250 Super Duty
■=ord Van 2019 1 Ford F150 pickup truck
2019 2 Ford F250 Super Duty
To:;ota Hybrid z019 1 Ford F250Truck
1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 To',�ota Frius-HYBRIC 2019 1 Ford Fusion
■To',rota R�'d4 LE z019 1 Ford Fusion 5
� � Total 42
' � � � � — � ! � � �
, , , , , , � , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
a � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�,3�``� ��-` �wy z.,ti� z�,� �,3,�.s za� zzti~� z.,ti~� z.�� ,�a�� z2� z�~� 3k� ,� �.���' a� p�~� a�.� 5� ,5�'' y� ywy �,ti� y�
��',�a `��y,�u� o�t,�fluv 4'�,�a - ��¢,�o ��G,�� *��tin `��,�q `��,�a - �lL�,�o ��¢,�4r p���� 1��,�n,. *��,�nz ��z4i ���,�o. 4`���z ��t,�ai ��,�az �t,�oz. ��,�ar ���Qz �,�oi �¢,�az �,�oa
4�, ��]14� Ati�-� Q�.��` �A .r�4 ��,titi� 1�,�.��' ��S �y.e�a ��` ���` �Ar�`' ��,�.��' ��� ��.���' �P�-�' S��` �4� �.�¢�� $a��� �ti�`�` Q�.�-�`� -��'� .��`�y`
��G ��CS 4 ktyC> S�t�
��,4� • � •
• • �
Vehicle Life and EV Forecast Assumptions (Excluding Transit)
----------------------------
�
� D RAFT �
�
' ---------------------------,
-.. . -.. .- -.
.- -. .
.. .
Passenger Car: Non-Police Light Duty Car Class 1 8 2020
Passenger Car: Police Sedan Light Duty Police Car Class 1 5 2025
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck Class 1 10 2022
Passenger Truck Light Duty Pickup Truck Class 2 10 2022
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Pickup Truck Class 3 10 2025
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 1 10 2020
Passenger Truck Light Duty SUV Class 2 10 2023
Passenger Truck Medium Duty Ambulance Class 5 15 2030
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Fire Truck Class 8 25 2030
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck Class 8 20 2025
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Heavy Duty Truck Class 7 20 2025
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Street Sweeper Class 4 25 2025
Single Unit Short Haul Truck Medium Duty Truck Class 6 20 2030
Refuse Truck Heavy Duty Trash Truck Class 7 20 2030
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van Class 1 10 2022
Light Commercial Truck Light Duty Van Class 2 10 2022
Light Commercial Truck Medium Duty Ambulance Class 3 15 2030
Combination Short Haul Heavy Duty Fire Truck Class 8 20 2035
. • .
• • ,
The MSC ex eriences two dail eak demands in the morninc �
p Y p . ,----------------------------
evening. The PV system lowers demand during the day. ; DRAFT ;
----------------------------
Data shown is the average hourly meter data for the MSC from 14/7/2019 to 8/24/2020 aggregated by month. The data was provided by Alliant Energy.
. ' . • - . ' . • -
� - . • � - . • � - . • � - . •
• • � : 1
January February-March April May�June July August September Octo6er November December •Sunday�Monday Tuesday Wednesday�Thursday�Friday Saturday
----•--•----•--•-•--•----•--•----•-- -•--•----........•------••-'-•--•----•......-•----•-••"--•...........-•--•"'••-
"_"_'""'"_"'"'"._'"'" .'_""'_'"'"'"__'""'"._'"'""_'""""'__"'"'"_"'""""_"""'"'_' 13502
14� iazaa """""""""""""""""""'
\ /� 120 �
\
120 ' �,
/
� 100 \\
100 \\
l -
}� r/ ' ..� � SL30""' "'""' """"""" ""'""""'.' '""""""""'""""" '�"' """"""'""' ""
Y dL42 . �� Y " "'"_ _ '
— ..... — 8�
-c _'_'.'_ """' '"""""""' "" ""'""""" '""""""""'"""'"" ' ""'"'"""'""' ' /
� $C ' " """' ""' ' ' " c J
E o �
m
o � w
o °
m 60
m � / o,
� 6p � .. . _�1_ _......_ . m
L \ �
a �� a 40
4� �—
32.45
21,91
z� _""_"__"""__"__"""__" '�"'""'��""'"" �'""'"��"'""'�'""'""�'" '"��.'"".'��""'""�"'""'" ""'""'�'""'""�"'"""�""'"'
z�
� �
12:00 3',00 AM 6:00 AM 9',00 AM 12:00 PM 3:60 PM b',00 PM 9:00 PM 12:D0 AM 3',00 AM 6:00 AM 9:OD AM 1200 PM 3:00 PM b',00 PM 9:00 PM
Affects of PV in the
Low peak power during summer lower peak As expected, PV A 6pm-7pm peak is
early morning hours demand through the day. generation lowers Peak recorded on most days
presents opportunity for The affect is dampened Demand through the week
overnight charging through the cooler
months . . .
• • ,
Generation from roofto solar on the MSC is insufficient to se �
p ----------------------------
energy requirements of the non-transit fleet at the MSC ; DRAFT ;
----------------------------
Graph shows the energy balance between the potential of solar generation at the MSC vs the estimated energy needs of the non-transit fleet
��Drlt��!�r ���r�-T'"c�'l�'t E'1�1'C7!�r '�C�.'�.�H,: ����c�r Er��raV �r�?L�L1C+'��Il f{�fl�
°°� In the winter BEV energy consumption
� increases and solar generation decreases.
��� In the summer BEV energy consumption
decreases and solar generation increases.
.� '
�a�r �
�
� �����
�
2DK �
10K
OK
Januar�r Febr�ary� Mar�h April Ma�r June July r�ug�st September October November De�ernber • • •
• • �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■ ■
ee ec r� � ca � on
.
ummar � es
1898 a
Decarbonization of the Dubuque Transit Fleet
Electrifying transit vehicles and fueling them through local renewable energy will:
1 . Reduce our carbon footprint, --����,
,
,
2. Eliminate tailpipe emissions, �F� �
3. Reduce noise pollution, and �� ��P
,
,
4. Enhance our rider experience. '��--���"��
15'20 rs* Full electrification of the transit fleet will take 15-20 years
Yto accomplish sustainably and economically. . .
� � However, recently awarded Grant funding may be used to pilot the integration
.
of electric paratransit vehicles into the Dubuque transit fleet soon!
. . , . • • • • • -
� � ��"�.
_r �
t �� � � � r
2x 55 kW 2x 50-60 kW
Electrification Pilot paratransit buses rooftop solar vehicle chargers
(with up to 4 ports each)
� � � • • •
• • �
*The duration of electrification is primarily driven by economic factors.
,
The Roadmap to Full Electrification of the �� �
,� ,,
Dubu ue Transit Fleet will take 15-20 ears ,- �o��'� �� ._ �
a y -- . �- .
,;,� � ����������. � � � s�
and starts with an initial ilot funded b a `�� � ���9�������
p Y �_-
recently awarded Grant � �� - - -
�-- . . . . -
� ■� ��.n��j I �`� f � � ��
4� - � Goals
• Transition all buses from ICE to BEB
with only specialty exceptions based on
• • . • -
unique routes and functions
� ��,�� �� � �� • Electric Vehicles are the Standard, ICE
�� Goals vehicles acquired by exception only
• Identify 8-12 additional viable buses • Upgrade utility transformer and
that demonstrate Total Cost of building electrical system to support full
Ownership (TCO) benefits by electrification
� • - • " transitioning from an ICE bus to a BEB • Optimize operations and routes
Goals • Not all routes are technologically or around new electric transportation
. economicall suitable at this sta e "normal"
Identify 2-4 viable paratransit bus y g Charqinq Capacitv(*)
candidates for electrification pilot • Upgrade utility transformer with
• Utilize existing electrical capacity from minimal upgrades to building electrical • A 1-2 MVA system should be sufficient
s stem to su ort more BEB char in for the overnight charging of the entire
utility transformer y pp g g JOTC transit fleet
• Facilitates training of technicians and Charqinq Capacitv(*)
operators • A 500kVA transformer enables: • Overhead charging will enable higher
Charqinq Capacitv(*) • 8-60kW DC fast chargers to support charging speeds and operational
. up to 12 small buses, 3 medium flexibility
Existing 150kVA transformer enables: buses and 3 lar e buses. Renewable Enerqy
• 2-60kW DC fast chargers that g
Renewable Enerqy • No additional on-site rooftop PV
support up-to 8 paratransit buses(+) Expand to 200 kW rooftop PV • Renewable PPA secured for remainder
Renewable Enerqy . 260,000 kWh of annual roduction of transportation fueling needs beyond
• 50-55 kW rooftop PV ' p
• 80,000 kWh of annual production supports energy use for up to 11 on-site renewables
supports energy use for up to 3 small buses or up to 3 large buses • Battery storage plus TOU rates optimize
paratransit buses electricity costs and grid integration
through partnership with Alliant Energy
. . .
• • �
(")Assumes overnight charging of vehicles.The number of buses supported by EV chargers may change based on individual route analysis and JOTC operational constraints.
(+)Assumes two chargers provides 4 ports for charging and would require vehicles to be rotated through charging sessions.
JOTC Bus Charging Infrastructure — Pilot Stage ;� DRAFT �,
. . . -
�---------------------------
' . - . . . . - . - •
�.:
_ ....... : • • •
C � • - • '_ �� •.. . , •:�•••:••.
. .�'��\\'•�.\4:k�i�.\4•� 4 i�.��v��•.k4'i•.'i'•.
��4�.\4:k�'v�ti\':k.\��4 i�.�4vk.\�vk�'v�
� _ �•k4'i i+�':k.\4:k4'i M1��v�.\k:\4 v�\�..,+.,.'v�.
•�i4i\'k�;\4:k�i�.�'vti'v�•.i•.,,,..,.. � �
. _ ...ti..k.k�4 vk..iM1 v�.k�4.k..v:::::�...
5 A!,•
:- g �.�.'�'�.�.� ., 4�4\ k4 \4�4\
.�.,�.,�.,
// � i • �y�� \,k4\ \k4 _ � �
�.Y� '•.4.\�:k�\�vti'v4.\4:k.'i'•.'•.
_____ y
� `
A
� � � .
r' >
� _
�
�.��:,�.,�.,�:��.,�.,�.,�.,�.
.,•.,•.,•.,•.,v,•.,y,•.,�.;�.'�.'�'�'�
.,�.,-�.,�.;•.tiM1,�ti•.;M1;•.,-�.;�:':.'�'�'�
'-'.',.',.'•.•.'•.',.',.',.',.',.',.',.',.',.'�.�� _- _ _ _ •
'.',.�'��'�' _______________ _ _ ___ __ ________
,.k........................ 2x 60 kW DCFC
;�.:� :��::�;�:'.:.'`.:.'::...:::::.'`....::`�.
::::::::::::::::::::::.::::..:..:... :;.�
! � a .; .;:::..:,�..:.:...:..:..:...:.:. ...�.:::::�:::
,�.���,..:..:..:..:..:...:.:. :�.:��;�.:�:�.:�.:�.:�.:�:� �����
'.�'........ • 2-4x Paratransit BEB
•..�:;.;�.;�.::;:::::::;::: .
;`::k�:k:�::;:;::: :: :��::k�::':�;`::':�:��:`�::�� —
:::.; ���.:<:.;.:::�.:::�:::�:��.: :�.:ti:.;�::�.�.:�.:�.:�.:� , • No Grid Up rades
;k;;;��. :::��::�:�::�::::�:�� 9
�•�.4,k4.\,v�,ti�•
.,�•,�•,?ti•'�•,+.ti.��M1�:ti•,\�••'..,�.,�.,�.,�.,�.,:.
I
•...:>.�..•.....•... .... ��� Overhead electric char er s ot
, .�..
......
�
, :'':' p
� ,•.;::;::::;�::;:.;<:.;�::.•.;�::k.;<:.;�..�•. _ _ ----------------------
� ......... ;:�:::�::�:: , g
�'•�4`k••�•�•��•�•�•��•� ••'' 0 0 0� � Regular bus parking spot
�::<:;<::;::;�::;�::�:::;::::::::
:�;:�k:::::;:::::::�:::�:::::..
.............,..,...,
:::::::::::::::::::.
::'::::::::����::`:::�:��:`�:�:��:::����:`:::�::::: .:...:.:..:..:.: _ �i -xe�t�-----
, _,�' :::..::::..::.::.:..::.:..:.::. , --- - -----------------
k ��uuuu 0 0 0�
.'�:, rJ��J'�. .. a0004o 1��':
�R�a r-;,� ;..: �00000 ' �V. —
;:�:���::' �:: �00000
�000000 ,,,�
:����� ���� • ����� Typical bus layout at
:�:������
,`:'��::.:�;`:<`�;..�.���`:`�:��;`:';:�::.:�;`::��;`:'�:��:`�'�'�����
�\\ 4hk . • ;�� the JOTC during dwell
•��\k�.�'v4\�\•�,i4.,\�v��klk'•.+'�'.�... _
�,.:�. . � `3`� . � �� (overnight) hours.
,....
__ _- � , . �,r' K'� _y,� �-k
_ �', _�,.. �'�
r`
• � •
Note: Proterra 60kW charging systems can accommodate up to(4)charging dispensers per charging unit • • �
�Marking indicates a conceptual location and will change based on the developing needs and requirements of Jule operations.
JOTC Bus Charging Infrastructure — All Stages ;� DRAFT ;
. . . .
____________________________
. . . . .
' . - . . . . - . - •
1� 0 • � --. ....... : • • •
�� �
C � • — • , .� � ••.•. •. •.. •��'••;;•..
� 4'• '•4''
. .�+.\\'•�.\4:k�i�.\4•� i�.��v��:k.'i•.'i'•.
: - ..�;ti�:,4:<��;•::,�;k:,��4;�.�4;k:,��k•�;•::,��:�:��. 2x 60 kW DCFC with
✓� M1 4 vk.M1.' 4 4\�� \ 4��v�v.M1.'.. � �
�. �.\• .ti.\:k.'v•.��.\:k.i�k.'•.•.•.'v'�.'�.�.
� :.;`:'k.;`:k`:k;;`:��;k:;`�::,:�:;;;�:�� 4x dispensers each
I, �, ti��k,k�4 vk�,tiM1 v�,k�4.k�.:::.���.,..
L
.�� .ti.:ti4�4k k4 k4�4k �
�.� � � 2-4x Paratransit BEB
. �•;\,k4\ \k4
��," �'••4.\�:k�\�v ti'v4.\4:k.'i'•.'•.
� �
� � -
�.,�•k.,y.,���,`����.,�.,'�.;�.;�.'�.
����k��titi•�iM1��•v�.�������.•�.M1�.?��•.
��:� �'..\'•.'•.'�.'�.'�.'�.'�.'� ........
• M1.,\•., '•.\'ti' * �
' ..'..'..'..'..'..'.......'..'..'..'..'..'.. . .'..'..'..'..'..'..'..'..'..'..'..'.'..'..'..'..'..'..'..' .
•. .:..:..:..�:,:.,:.,'.�•.\:•...v..`..'..'..'..'.. '. • •• •'.'ti'ti'ti':�'..'..' '�..� ___________________________________"''_______'_
., . .,
� ..::: ��•��•���>.�k.������...�... :::�:7(�::��k�:;::�;�:::�::::���� . �� �� . . . 6x additional small BEB
- � �
� .
�
. a
2x lar e transit buses
;:��::�:�:��:�tF�:::
� ��
9
..'��.4,+v'•..'M1;•vM1.;i'•.'•.'v'•.'.'v'•.'v'.. �
' •.�',•'•.
.- .'•.'•�'•�'•' ......... �
..•.•.•.•.. -.v...
�
0
O
� ..:.:;�..�:�.��.:�,..;.:.��.;:�.��:�;.:;:.������������� �M1������ - - -- o 000
2x medium transit buses
..,.. •��.:�.:�.:�.: :��::�,�.:�:�'� .��- -�= ��
� ,•::,;:����.;�:�.;ti::::.:::::.: � . o o a
����<:;<::�•�;•.:����k��::�:��:::: 4x 60 kW DCFC with 4x
...;..:;:::k:;�:;•:....:�::�';.. _ � o •
���:::::�:;,4:;;:�::.:..:..::.:.:. ❑❑❑❑ dispensers each
•..��;�.:�:�.:�;�..•.:� : : 111 �
,�' .•��; �����'���`������'''�������� a000Qr
,���.� r:. ;` ���:::�C�N..:: �00000 � ��
-� �00000 . o 0
�00000
�000000 ,� ❑❑�
:������ ,,�°� � ��r� o
.,�4..
. ❑❑❑�
•ti\'•.M1.'vM1•.v�'vM1•.k•\'kM1•.y.'vM1•.'•.'•.M1.'vM1•.k'vM1•.'.''•vv�'''''���� ._ _
�'k;\••,\�,4 k;\v\•,\�,.,k v4�,•, \ti .,.,�.,�. , � I'�/ � . �
\ \ \ �\\ \� \ e�
�\4�� 4\�\•� 4\ �1�� ' .� '
\ - �'�
Y
J _�� _ . ` ,' '� a .
y.�..�....... ...... .. . . .. . . ..
. .. '...''...'... '...' .. ..- .
�' _,__.x -���� - ,,.�... 7� Add 60-150kW DCFC with multiple dispensers and
�'=� Q � o°°O high-powered wireless or overhead charging to meet
XX operational needs. Chargers and vehicles will be
Units °��� added based on lessons learned from the pilot and
���� economic stages. Battery and charging technology
0 o Will be improved at full electrification and more
optionality could be available.
. • .
Note: Proterra 60kW charging systems can accommodate up to(4)charging dispensers per charging unit • • �
�Marking indicates a conceptual location and will change based on the developing needs and requirements of Jule operations.
A Paratransit BEB bus currently has a cost premium . However, energy and
O&M savings enable the BEB to be competitive over a 12-yr life cycle
The graph below shows a side-by-side breakdown of the total lifetime costs by category of each type of Paratransit Bus
--------.
-------
.----------- �
•Vehi�le fEnergylFuel �&M Charging Infrastructure � BatterylEngine Replacement ; DRAFT �
�3�0� � -----.�
�3�0�
�� � I
� � . .
Yearly Vehicle Mileage 22,000*
�zso�
ICE MPG 6.5*
� Cost of Diesel/Gallon $1.77*
� �zaaK BEB Efficiency
� (kWh/mi) 1.0
�
c� Cost of Electricity/kWh $0.12
�
� =-�aK ICE O&M ($/mi) $0.5*
�
J BEB O&M ($/mi) $0.12**
�7o0� 60kW DCFC Charger $31,000***
Installation/Bus
Charger O&M $350****
�sflK $/MTCO2 $20.0
�o�c
Paratransit BEB ICE Paratransit Bus
*Mileage, MPG, and O&M$/mi are based on data from city for the Jule Chevy Glavals. Cost of diesel is based on number used by the City of Dubuque for the 2018 AFLEET study
*� Based on expected O&M $/mi for electric shuttle buses from the California HVIP cost estimator
*�*Based on a 60kW Proterra DCFC that can expand to 4 pedestals.Assumed 4 vehicles would share the costs of(1)installed charger at a cost of 125k. • • •
����Cost is an estimate based on chargers being indoors and assumes the cost of warranty and service plan being divided over 4 buses � � '
A Paratransit BEB could save substantial mone in fuel and O&M each ear �
y y
The graph below represents the cumulative costs over a 12-year life cycle of a Paratransit BEB vs an ICE paratransit bus ;� ',
� DRAFT ;
'�---------------------------,
� ICE Paratransit Bus � Paratrar7sit BEB w/o Charging � Paratran�it BEB w/ Charging
���o�
Additional $8.4k
$26k Savings with $62k Savings Reduction of 420 savings with value of
Infrastructure without Infrastructure MTCO2 /bus/year* avoided emissions*
$3DOIC
Battery
31 k of charging per Replacement
���p� bus assuming . . . . .. . . . .
support for up to (4)
buses per charger
Payback occurs in
� ����� the 10th year of
� ownership when
EV charging
infrastructure is
considered
����� Payback occurs by
� the 8th year of .. .. . . .. .. .
133%
premium ownership when no
for BEB EV charging
� infrastructure is
����� considered
$�01�
0 1 f 3 � 5 � � 9 10 11 1�
Year of Ownership
. . .
. . ,
�Assumes use of renewable energy to charge BEB, 6.5 MPG for an ICE paratransit bus, and a value of$20.00 per avoided MTCO2
JOTC Phase 1 Pilot will cost approximately $615,000-$835,000, depending on
equipment and size
Thousands USD Charging Vehicles
----------------------------
, ,
Infrastructure + ,;; $35 --------- ------ � ; DRAFT ;
Charging ,, ' - -------�
;
, �730
730 , ,_
:' --------- ------ •
615 � �
Vehicles :��� 605
;� ------ --------- ---------- -------� Electric
" � 52� Paratransit 240� 2 $360-480k
Bus
48� 440 60 kW DCFC $80-125k 2 $160-250k
- ---------- -
JOTC Total for
360 Rooftop Buses+ - - $520-$73ok
Solar Charging
, PV System $1'90� 50-55 kW $95-105K
W att
24� � Total+ PV $605-835k
180
1x Electric 1x Electric 1x 60 kW DC 1x 60 kW DC Cost for BEB PV System Total Project
Paratransit Bus Paratransit Bus Charger Charger and Cost
Infrastructure
1) Cost difference in Electric Paratransit Buses will vary based on whether high-floor or low-floor units are procured.
2 Difference in EV char in re resents ossible variance in costs based on e ui ment chosen and installation ex enses. � � �
) 9� 9 P p q p p • • �
A potential build out of 2 DC fast charging stations that can support
ch a rg i n g fo r u p-to 8 b u ses -�--------------------------��
� DRAFT ;
Phase 1 Pilot: Install (2) 60kW DC Fast Chargers
'�---------------------------,
� Line Item � QTY Unit LaborCost Matrial Cost Sum �-�,------------------------------------(4)chargingdispensers _______�
' mgunted on overhead � � 2-60kW�C
'� �"'�'° 140'1" PVC � � � � Fast Chargers
60kW DCFC w/4 Dispensers 2 ea $ 5,280.00 $ 153,150.00 $ 158,430.00 � 140'(4J#4 cab�e ree�systems i
Cable Reel for Dispenser 8 ea $ 7,040.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 23,040.00 � � � i 3-Ph 480���7�4w
200A Circuit Breaker 1 ea $ 440.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,440.00 ' � �" _ ' � �ooa ac s�e Pa�ei
� �
� � m �
200A 480/277V Sub Panel 1 ea $ 1,760.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,760.00 � 'N i > N v �
3/0 Aluminum Conductor 225 ft $ 1,760.00 $ 338.00 $ 2,098.00 � � � ; z2s���a�-3ioPvc
#4 Copper Conductor 300 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 480.00 $ 4,880.00 ; � ffi 111' s 1�4' i E303
2" PVC 225 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 450.00 $ 4,850.00 ; g (4)charging dispensers � �. � 1
� mounted on overhead �, �
1" PVC 300 ft $ 4,400.00 $ 300.00 $ 4,700.00 ; cab�e ree�systems � ;
1 ' • . - �� ' ' . 1 1 � 1 1 � 1 1 I ' 16D' 1"PVC o ;
� '� � 160'(4J#4 r � �
• • __ . 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I �� (�d � � � � �
�
• • � • • �� . : 11 1 . 1 11 ' 1 I i � i
� �. �
�
• . . .. - ' . : . • �� '' 1 1 ' . 1 : 1 1 ' 1 ' I 1 1 � �Add 3-Ph 200A 4801277V HFD � � �
; Breaker to Panelboard MDP _ ��-6$'-2" ;
� cv _ ��
, � ; � �, � o.���
e o E�m
Fs..,,, �------�,�=a. ----`-a---, --------�0 i
cable reels in the ceilin �
2 60kW Level 2 hargers with 4 dispensers mounted to ,�a, o �--=,�--I --- ""`
���� �---�---�-- � ----�
� � .
g ; Existing 48D:'277V 3-Ph 4W '�
; � 600A Main Panelboard MDP I Existing 154kVA
; e o � � � o ��, Utility Transformer
Supports up to 8 electric buses ' � ' E3o2
� �
� cr� o n �
� � 1
i � 9 � 'i
i �' 8 8 � 'i
� � o �
� �� �
Peak Load from EV Chargers:�120kW ' � � � � -
� s� s � .r
� m � � � � ;,,
PeakAmperage from EV Chargers: �144A @ 480V 3-phase i fl� D `A � � '�� - ���
� � � ��
.n� n � n o ¢� �, . � �..� ...,,
i (� � � i �Y.-'�
i i
Current Peak Load at JOTC: �36kW
Current Transformer Size: �150kVA • • •
. . ,
12 to 15-year bus lifetimes may delay emission benefits of electrification
if BEB's not procured in the nearterm . r - - - - - - - - - '
� DRAFT '
�- - - - - - - - - - -'
Due to current fleet age, purchasing diesel ICE buses today causes electrification and emission reduction benefits to be delayed until FY34 and beyond.
�s,soas�
�� Procurement practices in � ���
""""�"��E� the past have led to lack of � 1s3�.wo�
2fi,9396
� ����^^�R����1 diversity in the purchasing � ��
�Freightlin�rSprinter{Minibus} schedule of new buses z�,s��, 1���•�
Fixed Route BEB
g �Gillig�Fixed Rout�� g�
1223,8U96
�EI Dorado{Fiwed Route} Due to current fleet age
���atra„�;t�E� and vehicle lifetimes,
�' � ��hevy Glaval�Paratransit� purchasing replacement � , ��
� 18,649G
� —96 of Vehides Electrified there is a space of several
�� years with no movement in ��'�1�,
� %of Emissions Atiroi�ed � ��
�, emission reduction
�
�
�
� 5 � 509�
�
•� �
� � � � �
�c
� � . . 4�b
� 14,3fi% 1�,3G4fi-
� 7 8,294fi 8,�94d
�
C
� 3 � z ?, a�o,�z� asa,3z�, 309�b
6,Z14d�443,�99fi 443,Z99fi �
� � 4 4 ��
�' 1�� ��'i�� 490 MTCO2 is avoided by
� � FY31 which is a reduction � � ��
�.�°� ,�� g� of CO2 emissions by 32%
�
o,o�, . . .
0 � 09�
. � .
FY�Z Fl��.� FY�4 FY?5 FY�� F1'�7 FY�� FY2� F1�.�0 FY�� FY3� FY33 FY.�4 FY�5 FY36 FY�7 F1��8 FY�9 FY4{l ' ' �
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■
■
1898 a
. . —
The max power demand at the JOTC is 36 kW and occurs at 9pm _with________________
a smaller peak occurring at 6am ; DRAFT ;
�---------------------------
Data shown is the average hourly meter data for the JOTC from 4/2/2019 to 5/28/2020 aggregated by month. The data was provided by Alliant Energy.
. ' . • - . ' . • -
� - . • � - . • � - . � � - . �
.
• . •
January February March April •May •June �July August Septem6er October November Decem6er •Sunday •Monday Tuesday Wednesday �Thursday Friday Saturday
-------•---•--------•---•------------------------------------ ---•--------•--------------- ------..
zs.za ..........................................•-----••-----------------------------•------...... ......__.,
23.n4
, / .
2S
� 20 /� /
� �- / ��
%�` ,' ,s.8o .
_ �--�
��.. �� _..�-.;-1�...----••- --��---•--------------- ---- ---�
-�--�--- �--...- - ----- ---
n�i � ..,, 15 �
-- -----`--- --- ---•- --•..,--- ....................... ................... .:�.
� �
� 7y s
a �
C C 1 I?0
m m ..""""""""""....' ". ....""""""""""""""""""""""...... ......""
E E
m c ia m
-------------------------------------------- ------- ---------• � 10
70
5
5
0 0
12:00 AM 3,00 AM 6:D0 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:60 PM 6:00 PM 9:60 PM 12',00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM
Low peak power during early The 9pm peak is suspected to The 9pm peak was present until 3/18/2020 after
morning hours presents 6am peak during be pressure washing of buses which operations at the Jule changed and the peak
opportunity for overnight charging facility startup at this time at the facility shifted to 6am � � �
. • .
Peak power of 36kW occurs during summer months and could be a
combination of HVAC and pressure washing buses at the JOTC
Data shown is the max, average, min of hourly meter data for the JOTC from 4/2/2019 to 5/28/2020 aggregated by month. The data was provided by Alliant Energy.
Temperature data is from Weather Trends 360 for the City of Dubuque. ,---------------------------�
Max af aernand ---Min of aemand -�����r�verage of Qe��and Ar�•erage af Aug. Temperature � DRAFT ;
35 �---------------------------
�
y,
.,�}
'�.
*• 70
� ' '- • ...♦
30
6D
s'
25
50
.*�+�
,�
. �
� �a ' • • .. . r.• ' ' ' ... _ ... _ ... - ' �6 ?
� ,• � + � �• � .a.. .. .. ...... ......... . [S7
� {��• +� a
w
� 15 �
, •� - .. 'd ~
;•_• ,_•_•_•_•_•�• �rr�� r�rrw;~�;+ '����������������������i�rtr��� �7!l
�d � �+ r � �+ '
xrr���r� �ti4�*L +yr�I �� �w CV
r +� �t
��%�����;���y�'J*rr
5 7�
D D � � �
January Fet�ruary March April May June July August September Octaber Navember �e�ember • • �
Solar generation from rooftop solar on the JOTC is insufficient to serve the
energy requirements of the Transit fleet
Graph shows the energy balance between the potential of solar generation at the JOTC vs the estimated energy needs of the Transit fleet
Lar�e Tra��s�t Bus •5��7a11 T���nsi� B�.s 5olar Ei�ergy Producti�n (kV1fh}
�°'� In the winter BEB energy consumption
increases and solar generation decreases.
. In the summer BEB energy consumption
��� . decreases and solar generation increases.
... . .. .. .. ...
�
�a� . . . . . . . . .
�
�
� �
� �
�OK
1QK
QK i � i �
January February March April May June luly August 5epternber October Nave��ber Decernber
Adding a battery enables greater EV charging from existing grid connection
Charging Capabiliti�s with Batt�ry & N� Transf�rm�r lJpgrad�
.
e . . . - .
300 1800
1600
2so � Sprinter 1 48 1/1
1400 �
�, VPG MV-1 1 48 1/1
200 1200 hA
L
� � Chevy 12 80 12/12
Existing Transformer Cap�ity- 15�kW Z000 V Glaval
� 15D � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � .� �
D
� soo �, EI Dorado 8 161 8/8
v
r�
a 100 � � `� Gillig 9 225 0-2/9
a
L
400 �
50 \ �
_ _ _ _, _ _ Peak Fa�ility Load -3� kW _ _ _ _ _ _ Z� �p
� . • ' • . ' . • '
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • � • � •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0
. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. ..
o � r� m � �n �o n oa rn o � r.i m � �n �o n oa rn o � ni m
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N 1�: N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 � � � �
Hvur vf Day
. • ' • . ' • • '
• . ' . • • •
OBattery State of Charge � �Building Load{kW} � �Transformer Capacity
Charging Battery Charging Vehicles from Buildirg Charging Vehicles from Battery — • —
�Total Vehicle Charging Capacity
.
• • � . . — • � • • •
� � � � � . �
' • i . � • • • � � � � . • . • • ' •
• . • ' ' '
' � • � • • � • • • • ' • ' �
� � I • � •
. • • • • � • • �
Estimate existing fleet energy and charging needs based on fleet
data and estimated electric vehicle efficiency
O p 4
• - • - • • - . - � - . . . - . . .
• • - - � - - •
� . . - � . . - � - -
. . -
e � . � . • .
. -
Sprinter 1 59 0.81 48 Level2 19.2 2.5 32
VPG MV-1 1 59 0.81 48 Level 2 19.2 2.5 32
Chevy Glaval 12 59 1.36 80 Level 2 19.2 4.17 19.2
EI Dorado 8 59 2.73 161 Level 2 19.2 8.39 9.6
Gillig 9 66 3.41 225 DCFC 50 4.5 20
*Note: Numbers are shown are for estimating potential charging scenarios. JOTC has perFormed specific vehicle and route analysis for BEB
options. Detailed analysis to determine if a specific route can be electrified is required on a case by case basis. . • .
• • ,
� �
" JOTC Charging Concepts
- . . ._
� 150 kVA
�
existing transformer �
1 ��� _
±� � ...����� ����f
12 0 kVA ������-�� ���.:-����
, � - � -�_
� � � ' ��
� - -- _ Of capacity provides
�
three options
• • • . - • • . • •
� �
� :� e .� � �
• • ' •
� �
6 Chargers 3 Chargers � _- - 3 2 Chargers
� � �� � � � 19.2 kW each -,�� 19.2 kW ��_�_��� 60 kW
_ f � � ._ r—�
19 miles of range 1 Charger , _ -<< 24 miles of range
� � � 60 kW ._ . r
� :� per hour per � � � per hour per
charger . . . - •- . - • . � charger
. . . . .- - .- .�
. • . •
• � • ' �
11 ' • • • i ' • �� '. • � • ' •
5 hours/bus Up to 6 Small Transit 4-5 hours/bus Up to 3 Small Transit buses 4 hours/bus Up to 4 Large � � �
Buses and 2 large Transit bus Transit Buses • ' �
� �
. " JOTC Solar Concept �
. . ._
'-r`. �r r f: � �� ,-- E • '�'�'- ,'�� •-i�y�' ���t" a'ti:��G
J'" �,�.�.�' .r "i '
�' � � � � ��f+ r� 'v .
;���
� � � � �
� ��, Transformer will ��� �� � ��� � �� ��� ��.
.,,�� , , �� /
.— �
/ � limit size of solar / � �
�l� — / / � :. ::.
— / / • ,
� / � / � .
� interconnection / � ,��
, � � - , / / :
� � �- /. � � �
'�: y . /. . �
�.� � , ..�� _ � � � �///:% .
.�:��. ' - ,- - . `,' �- `°' �
t. 'a��p� . .t ^/�
_ � •. ' �� " . .�'�� �.�' ._,�
-� . '�. ['��' . �.. ' ` . , ��.._ ..��/�
� a 1 .. i. - — �(r� .
��`'k`>i'C1��r_ � �� �r �
i
' • 0 kW ' '
125 kW ,
- � . -� � � � Install �65% of solar Wait to install � � � �
• capacity 100% solar � , . � � � � �
• - '► • - • - . Install remaining capacity of 200 kW - . -
- • • capacity in future phases in Phase 2 • • • " - • "
. . . . -
� - � ' • • - • ' 1 . • • • � - • � - � ' • • - • - � • • • � - �
187,000 kWh Up to 6 Small Transit Busses or 260,000 kWh Up to 9 Small Transit Busses or
2 Large Transit Buses 3 Large Transit Buses . . .
. . ,
Phase 1 _ . _
� • • • .
"Pilot Stage"
Battery not
Economically Viable
� ��
O O
100 kW / 50 k h B atte
battery �
• Store solar and use to
charge vehicles
• No economic value in • Revisit battery value in
Phase 1 Phase 2 & 3
� Make scalable for
additional load
1898 a
� �
' JOTC Charging Concepts
. . . ... .
�______
500 kVA ;�
j upgrade transformer
���.
�� . ���� ����€
s� �:. s- ���
' � ' ��"��.�=�`��`" ..�.��s�..
� I �,;,`-` "a � ��__ '�'�
� 470 kVA �' i�
� - - Two potential options
_ _ _ _ ,,.:, � _ _
4 Chargers • � • • • • ' ' '
v. ., .._, - .,_, _>
60 kW ,. . , ,_ 7 Chargers
; .
,..,.�.
e_ ,:,�_ �� _, � - , . - �;. 60 kW
� 24 miles of range per
- � - 24 miles of ran e er
hour per charger � � i g p
� � g � g � ; � � hour per charger
12 Chargers
� �. � � � � � � 19.2 kW each Fa�.� .�. �a�..y' ° � .. �,�:
19 miles of range per
�
hour per charger � � � �
� � � � �. - � ( � �
1 �
, . - . . . - .
1 .5 to 5 hours/bus 12 Small Transit Buses
3 hours/bus 4 Medium Transit Buses
. . .
4 hours/bus 4 Large Transit Buses ' ' '
Phase 2 � � � _ �
.
"Economic DevelopmenY'
� .. .
.f i+ "
+�' �"t 1
��
.v'�� � - _ � ,�....f_:�;
.�-
Once the Utility transformer is
� upgraded a 200kW system could
potentially be installed on the roof of
the JOTC.
:�;�:,_,
,:.
;:
, ,..
Q ;�;.
` E ed
�' �' �' . 1 111 . . • . . : - .
���:.- �� .
:�::=' - _
. • - . .
1i
Note: The East roof has a pitch not ideal for solar installation. This may cause a price
increase in $/kW installed for this section as it could require extra labor and/or different
racking systems.
1898 a
Phase 2 • � � _ � _ �
"Economic Adoption" Battery manages
peak
�
:
Demand Charge: A fee applied to an
.
electric bill based on the highest amount -
of power during a specified time interval
(15 mins). '
.
Energy Charge: A portion of the bill that
is calculated by multiplying the total �
� � �
energy used over a tim , , _ .,
$/kWh fact .. � - ..- . -. - . - : -
�
Install remaining Rate with demand
solar if applicable charges. Size �/ithout battery: 18 kW x $/kW + 146 kWh x $/kWh
battery to manage .
peaks.
Upgraded service ✓
to 500+ kVA will Rate with no
demand charges '
require a rate Without battery• 146 kWh x $/kWh
change and don't install With battery: 148 kWh x $/kWh
battery 1898 a
Phase 3 � , � � � _ �
Full Electrification
Configuration of charging setup will be based on lessons learned during the pilot and
economic stages. Various charger styles may be implemented for full electrification such as
overhead charging, inground wireless charging, and DC fast chargers with higher power
outputs
Full electrification does not include changing specialty vehicles to EVs as some vehicles may
never have a suitable alternative vehicle available
}� -
���F ����
- � �■Y �, `' �••� , t t�Yy t Fw�,. .
' I �� ��� ��, � .�` T y k�Y-- �, I _ '
' .. 1` .t
*. -"���ti. y.f �~$ �~ 1 ��t�• .�•� f��+ _ �1 ! '-_ �.L � _
� � �:, '.SrS � ; "� . -'-_ .
� ' � J. _ � - 'M- � ,� � - ' - - + I
� ��� .� �� �;
_ _ �s�-. � -_ .�=_ - _ -- r .�� � ;l
_.. � - � � ��_ - _ - — -
, � i
�i+ ��}�.�' ' � _y �� _ - - ------� . .
• ' • ' �
1898 a
Phase 3 � . � _ � � � _ �
"Full Electrification"
Operate & Maintain - � � . - - �
Maximum Solar was .f ., � . ��r� -
2�� kW of Solar ���
installed in Phase 2 �: t
Produces 260,000 kWh/year �Y� ��
'_� ;,
::�
�.
�
Collaborate with Battery FueIS � �'
,:
��
Installation / 9 Small Transit Buses � , ..� r
Replacement if OR �
y��:�-
applicable 3 Large Transit Buses
1898 a
Phase 3 � � _ � � � _
"Full Electrification"
If Needed - Install, Replace, or
Evaluate Electricit Determine Batter Augment Battery
Rate & Load Profi Needs Likely Range:
500MW/ 1000 OOOMW/4000MWh
Overbuild: Build in excess the amount of capacity loss expected over the
Determin lifetime of the battery
Replace
Sched Augmentation: Build to the needs with excess space for modular expansion &
repeated replacement
Overbuild Year of Phase 3 Augmentation Battery Key
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -
0 . .
. - . .
0 . .
• . - . .
0 0 0 0 : 1 0
1898 a
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
■ ■
o a r ac � � ssess m e n s
. .
u or � n n orma � on
1898 a
JOTC
1 • : 11 • . � _- . . � . , N .:
f,�"; �-. �►'� ,,,'
. ■ '�~"- r . ' ��� � � : -' .���� -� �p,,
• • • � . • . • '�, � �r
��, i. ,; , - E
�� �� . �
• ►`s���� �� �
•' � '�
•
25K �� r
20K ... .. ... .. ...
�
3 '
�.lik '
� 5 �
W
lili � y �
SK � �•.5 �i '��, - ��
� �
� � . ;� � + •
OK • } ti 1
Jan�ary tck��ueiy hl��di ACn' May .��i. ,�I•; n�y�sl �ple��Ler �-}
MonN � • ,
. � . � ��
• May have to be treated as separate solar . � �-� ; � � ; �
systems ��� � ��1 `� � � �
��� , ��, _ `� . . �
No obvious non-start� •
�- ,� � ' ti;_• "� � r r
' + r� .. �
.�i � j
JT
� '-'^ r
� �,ti ,, ' . � .
��� , �. � . . �
• � .
• • �
� • � � • • . � . •
2.1M kWh & 1 .8MWdc
Annual Production Potential - � ,}�� �' I1 ; �� l�� �;`� J
�. ,��
. .':f�• . y}t 4 4 �i� �ti '1
�
4 14l114yy1ty�14 �� 4 �ti ti 4
41 ti441 4}4 44y�4` ��� 1 � } �1 y �}�"�, f
� .�4yyy��fy44yy���54{S{4 ti 44 15 z4 �;����S } 1
ti4tiyt � 4 y4l 11 �t l t :
�� 4k� 4���41���ti�4��4 44 iy4tiy4 l4y + �414� 4 � l�L �y �1 h
�� �� ��� � � '� ��
tti���tit � `� ; � l �ti� � 1��
5 44y�4}l�yy44yy��li�4l����41�4�4�4{��� 1���4 '` y }1 t }' .
'}y� y,�yy44yyti4���1i41�4y1 4�4y��4,�sy 4 �y . } �1 � � 1} }ti� . ��
�� � ` ti.1{f�l� � �� 5�4� �4� �� � � ti� y �� :: --
'4 �y4 ti4i 14 4y 1.t1 titi4� ,� �1� yl 1 k`� } ly}14yy�1i1 .., -
. l 4 4��4�'ti 1 l ti� �` 1�� 14 �4f1 3}�} �� .
� 4��4y y��,ti�iy 4 � �y'4 ,, ��l}l��} 1 4 ` y yti , � �� .
4 � � � y y
f 4� ti 4 ti y4 4 ���4 � 1 y y 1y}}1'3l iy31S�;y} ti .
yiti 4 {��4y �t' � 4 y y1}l�} y�y}}y}}�l y33 ti 1 .
�. 4;y�titi� t 4S� `' } � 4 y�tii3y �ti�ti� }}ti � �,�'
}, l4� y.titi y��1�4 S }�, ti � ��.-e
�� 4 f ytitiy :;i4ti ; '� f '�.
'i '�4��4 t� ����4y 4 y i }} �ytik�i��} �ti . ti
ti , ��
� - 1S 1�14� �4}���1��ti 3 } y y } } � 5
� • �l { - � '� y ;ti 4� }titi;4y}�1y ;}y4yy5yy ;'
t�yft�1 � 4l � �y� }S`��y� }4}1}ti�y}y1 4
. ,r;: tiy4f I 4ti 4 �l { � t � ' 1 ti� i�1 14 4
,� y� 4 4 t4� '4� ��1 1 y 1
4 ti 4� y'y��4��y y h�l 1 4� i��` y y�} 1 }ti} h;�}1,i
y { �� � � ti �t ti� t�,
� _ tiyyti4y4yy y ty����� �tl � ti 1;,�} y4�y'ti�}iti}Y}y44�41y�i��y;i}}tiftil
�Fr. �. w�. V4�'4ti4�ti1 �4 l }� i}y �ti}3yti�ytiti1�} iyti tii y }i 4y �
l 3 y
. • . -- ` _• - 4 l 4 4 4 y l �l1 1 i �� �i y } } ����hh} �}y;}}
� i � � � � - 'iy�.*;�,i� ��t4.4�t�ti4t4y y,l y y�,1 �1 } �;y}S tiy ti;���}yy�yyy}y�y1tiy�4ti}tiyti y.
� -. 4 i-� 114ktit4�1y��44���4 ti} 4 }h 3��y}1�ti ti'tiy��}�ti yy y h ti -
i � � � � � � - _ ,� 4 4 41 ti 4 4' ` 4 �ti}l� 1 4l 1t 1 , }1�1. ti � i tiyy ti�4 j�44�1y1ti }tititiy titi5y tiy .
... �y } � �`�` �t���l� �� } ` }� } 4�5ti�}}i}�}�}ti�}yyytiS}titilf .
�l ��� � t �� ti
. • � • � • � . • • • • � _ -- 1��44i 4t�1 �ti1 4 ' ti �} ��� }�y}�ti,�i,x }ti�ti � ti
. ' � yy t t,k � k �� � � ti }5� 1 1}f ti 41 ti;fy ;4 ti}y 4 1y�}ytiyyyy �
'ti 1 4` �4 i� 1�4�5 ,� � � y 3 y } 1�4}} y �ti ti}54!i
� � � � � � � � � �ti1' t t4� � � � �y �3 ti f �}fy tiy1 5��fyf�y�ylfy�y
��y���4� l �� s} �}y` ti j}��'}��h�yy���yy�fltiy��}ti��ti�tiytiti�y�ti�titi��ti�ti�,4
� � _ �r �,� . � 4 kl 1l,� 4� 4�� y 3y y��l ;ti'4�tii;ti4}�4��}y4ytiy}}�yt�f}y yi;} - --
- . - - — -- �-: . yy�����4y 4�4�Si�'� �� t 15+�} �f 4}1 i 4
� � � � � � � � • � • - - - f�y�44��4�� �� � •fi
4
� � i ' i
1898 a
� • - - • • � . • •
0.7 M kWh & 500 kWdc
Annual Production Potential - --- --- - -= �
�,` - _ __ - -__ _------ ---__- _ x ���
- - - "� �
- - - ,.
_ � ��
sy� -
YM' - �� - -
"��=�� - _ ''r"� �k��
1��� - - �
_�,� - _ - . �:.
�� �' -- '- - - -
:'�.`=t _ �:'_ - - _
_ ��::�.. --,- --
- '- ,"i M� 5
a,'�:L.W x:S{v7p p�`w`.y.�� - 1,'
+- "����Y ^�":�'��
�� w�� ��� ��yry - `�ti
.�� �V•_ �y�� _ _
- - '�_
:� «,r m ' _ _
��..:y _ - - - _ --
�'^A'� rW a~�� -
�5�r
_- _ = �`�Y,�=. __ - •
- -- - 1
����M �-
� • • � • • � • � �� _- -
. ' ' �i • . ' '
_ - �,
• � • . • • . � . • � • - - - _ - - - - _ -
- "K�
�'� s :«a
��w� 1,
��y t
rs��" - '�
_ }
r . .. � - - � C
I 898�a
Munici al Service CentPr
p
rf �
�� �f- �
. . . , : , . f�� =¢�� -
��
;;�Ly � .
.�� �
� _���_..i� W E
' • • • ' . ' • . �,����-`�'��:�"���
Ytl. ;tit
� f �����Ly� �.#.�'������ �`{� ;
�,_ �
a '`�''i �a�°�a{�y��x��-��� t
_ �r��"+ '�`a��'���a � x�:_ �
Site '�!unl�_ipal>erriceCenter t"*���� �'�y� i�� �,..., 1� �:rti�
�� � '� � �����. .
3�C /' ��
�"�A- �ir �{������7 r'/ .f..
. �y�R`�a�����ti ` ,�'�''�� �j.
30K . �� 1'r. ���� • ._�F���4 -
� .q. �v,t
����� � �. �� �
� .� `�,��-Y ��`����-��-. -
.�'�+�'����� '���� Z�`c-,'__�-: , - �, ti
���''+�Ti-�� �'�. ' ..��r7��}�.,. -,ti...
25K .l���F '"2��� ,1 ` ��
ti r��a��. i' f� � �:....
�
' r �� �4�;,.������s���i ,��{' r�� �
zo< � , - "���� . + � ��.. �.
r �� � �
�� � + `� �
�-�
s � {°�a�`��-��z;��' ����. , .'_ r��:-� ',
�J� �� �y� � � � �r�� ��Y, �� J
. ��'Y•�y����� [y� �� �'r r ��
��� ` +4
"IOK ��'�a����' -r �} �� '1''"
�c��, t '.`l 4 r, � �.�'�. � 3 � .!
, - .��..I+ ���{ ,���,�'�i��� �Y .
s ��7�,
. � �`
sK ' ��� ��.��'rt�"�,. �''�,.�.� -' �
��� ��.
_ _� � r �`�
. - � �.-�'�����.'�_���_.:, '';'r' �'•' '
�K January Fehr�ary March April May .'une :.ily August September Ocioher November Decem6er • •�t���.��r���{� -,�?�.Y. ~ � �-� � ' �
Month _'-�= -=,�-'�' - •
� r �... -;.r• "''' `' � :f� �
• Installation would double solar � � �'.�:t:-'T�=`r���z- - `=°-� � r■ ;�� . �
�.� �_�.�.}._ � �
production _����� ��`���� ,,�� •`�� �
��, ►�=�� �, �}� ;� �
• Roof weight restrictions were listed as a �--� ,.� ��� �;;�
potential limiting factor � _ � �
- � �� �
�'� : � ' �-� --
� .t
• � •
• • �
Non-building Potential Solar Production
Site FI48tff1� S4I�f Potential Graund Site
1,6M
1.4M .. . ..
1.2M
1.4M . ... .. . .
�
� J.�PJ1 . ... .. . .
�
�.oM
fl.4M .. . ...
fl.2M
D,OM
s�anuary February hllar�h April hllay lune Jul_,� �..i�.is` S�r`�r�la�r r�c`ob�r P:o�:ei77�er Ge��r��h�r
Mon#h
. • .
• • ,
Potential Ground Site
f �._ `
, . � � y� �r .
. • � �%�f �,�
� � A � �:
' • • • ' . ' • . �!R`. �` �'
�, -. '1 � - o�.s _ ��; W ''
l '1 �
l r�'�� ��`�' ';`s�`t`
� �"� �•� � �'�
Site Potential Ground Site �
'� �. 4.. . .. ,��
1,OM / . .. . . ' �r.=f.
..�- ����� _ �Y
*
�'� _- _ - " _ — _ _ ' -
o,aM r ' - ' --� . _ . .. , ... . ..� . �.� ,
f
,,k
o,bM
;'i
` .
r
s ,7
_ _ ._ ,_. .. "-'4"' , -
. . . - - . . . . . �. .. .._... ._. . . /
o,aM i' . ��
�Y7�ti��Y S.�U�;�' �
: �
o,zM �. � i't
y:..-`'� . -' . . . ...:... : :... " . ,_ '. : .. ...,. _ .. . - ._ .
. ,
�' �'
y •� �..lS�—�S f;
'
O,OM
.anuary Fehniary Mar�h April May lune luly August Septem6er Octo6er Noveinber �ecer�6er
Month �
' a . _ i -
_ .
- . `—' - �-- �� �'a � - -
• Tradeoff for the value of this lot being � :� ' �. - �
ya _rY.x> u� I-,i_ i`
� �`� �� �� �s
developed ` .�
• The whole lot doesn't need to be used to
offset miles for the city's fleet
• Does not include shading from the
highway � � �
. . ,
Floatin Solar
g
. . ' . _ ,�=i':� `�,� �`��"� " ;�, N
• � 1 � • I • � I _ ' /� �_ 4..''� . ;i t _ ��$
" _x': - 'N" 1�, 1
,1. ' "_
� -- : �::.'" ,_,
�` � I,�
S112 I.:..�': '"'f J -
- _g�1�!,
�4 ,� -.� �:� ,�
��
�
� ..,z'
L_
� . � I
�
r,�.�
+4C� �I�''�
� � r �
c�:;:r,
� L
} .,_
Y
�_ � � .
J,zr:S ":�, ^��fi` �^` 4�� i�,,.:�.��c.�,-��.� "`�-�.��3. r��.'�� b�' �` '_ . ..:�_ _ �;.. 9;
�'K 4��'�; �'ecr5s"' 3"�a�w S � � s ... - . . +h'.
� i �&f ��`�'�i��'��w'"''� -��� ��� � e . ,�. 5y
�� �� � f � � .�+'-- 4
w`^C R-' fi;r. �`�+� �..�s 5 _
�`�s� �s� s';�.
o,�M i� ;�s r,� `��-�r� '
� ��*�y�`'� } e
� ' ' ��;.:��� � - � •
�j � .�s�,.,�,e ��. . ' � 74 �;.
s �
t � �' ��� ��,-,
�6�� ��t5 ;,�. . '�-i:�' � [�
�,OM
.anuary Fe6ruary Pdar�h April PAay Jun� luly .=.ig.is= ��p_�r�L�� �:_�L�r L..-:_n�.,_r Gecerh�r �-�� ,� k ^ �' '��°� _ _ ��'"
Month �: j � _�' ° '
� �.��.� . ,��, ���,F { .
�j ��� � ' � �� � �'- �
��'SbaFr��j(D 7RR" 3 � ' " 1' ��Yl[xrrx�J[:,
k ��:�`� -
�-r=�� 'R �,7 i-
• $/kW will be much higher than the rest of
the sites
• Doesn't interfere with undeveloped land
• Can offset most of electric vehicle miles
. . .
. . ,
,
`
SM
, C
PART OF BURNS M _ D4NNELL
�
� � �
� � �
..
_. c� �.�-- ., c� c.� �._, c_ ta
Cii7Q �" ,� � �iQC -_i
C� '? OOCOCCiCO
:) GC .� OC; OC- -?
O i5 " ,_ iCSCO
C? '� �i �., .. �� C :i G il
C; ;�) C.� • ;� �., ��� �... :�)
� • • • • � • • • •
� � � � � � � � � �
■
9400 Ward Parkway .... .. .......... .. ...
Kansas City, MO ��� �� �� ��� ��� � ���
To: Michael Van Milligen, City Manager
From: David Lyons, Sustainable Innovations Consultant
Date: November 28, 2020
SUBIECT: Solar+Storage+Electrification Feasibility Study and Policy Implications
for City Non-Transit Fleet Vehicle Purchasing
Sustainability and resiliency planning and action have been a key priority of City
leadership and this community for over a decade. One guiding principle of that
planning and action has been the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50%
by 2030. Based on recent reduction calculations, the City is on track to achieve
that goal. However, it is also clear that the "low hanging fruit" (in terms of low
cost and high impact actions available to the City) has been picked and that the
remaining options will require increased effort and costs.
Attached is the recently completed Feasibility Study relating to the potential for
increased sustainability opportunities for Dubuque through
Solar+Storage+Electrification collaborations (where we use locally produced
renewable energy to run our facilities and power our transit and non-transit
fleets). As we conducted that feasibility study, two major policy issues were
identified as it relates to City non-transit fleet vehicle purchasing policy. We
restate those for your consideration and possible action.
First, City purchasing policy is largely driven by a vehicle's TCO (Total Cost of
Ownership). The City's present TCO calculations reflect a value of $0 for reduced
greenhouse gas emissions. That is counter-intuitive to the City's overall reduction
goals and creates a bit of a "thumb on the scale" in favor of fossil fuel vehicles. I
have researched the various public and private approaches to reflecting the
appropriate value of reduction in emissions within a corporate entity and
recommend that the City incorporate at least a modest $20 to $30 per MTCO2e
calculation within its vehicle purchasing TCO calculations going forward.
Second, City policy on fleet vehicle purchasing and utilization is very de-
centralized. Agency Directors have fairly wide discretion on purchasing decisions
and how and when City vehicles are used. This creates a challenge for
comprehensive and uniform efforts to move to a low/no emission fleet. For
example, many City vehicles have quite low annual miles. Improved fuel and
maintenance costs of low/no emission vehicles normally compensate for higher
initial purchase prices. However, with low mileage vehicles there is less fuel and
maintenance in the calculation, and therefore less opportunity to make up the
purchase price delta. I would recommend that the City request or incent its
Agency Directors to explore the possibility of vehicle sharing, where one or more
employees or one or more agencies "share" a vehicle to increase the number of
hours of utilization a year, thereby reducing the number of overall vehicles
required and increasing the viability of low/no emission vehicles for inclusion in
the City non-transit fleet.
And on a related matter I would reiterate the importance of movement to low/no
emission vehicles as it relates to the community's air quality. As has been
reported previously, Dubuque's comprehensive efforts on sustainability and air
quality over the past decade have had significant positive results. There is one
area, however, that has stubbornly been resisting improvement. That area is
ground-level ozone. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems
including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, airway inflammation, reduced
lung function and worsening bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and other chronic
diseases. The simple, but unfortunate, math on this is that since the vast majority
of remaining Dubuque ground-level ozone is generated by vehicle transportation
the only significant impact on this pollutant for Dubuque will come from either
reducing the number of miles we drive or changing the fuel we use.
Also, given the financial impact of the pandemic the City has put on hold its
discretionary vehicle purchasing. That either creates a significant opportunity or a
significant challenge for our sustainability and resiliency efforts. If the
recommended new policies are in place by the time any FY 2022 vehicle
purchasing is allowed, the opportunity to increase low/no emission efforts could
be boosted. However, if the pent-up demand is filled before the new policies are
in place, there will be many vehicles that cannot be considered for low/no
emission options for another five to eight years.
Your consideration of the above policy recommendations is sincerely appreciated.
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: David Lyons, Sustainable Innovation Consultant
SUBJECT: Establishing a Carbon Pricing Model for the City of Dubuque
DATE: November 28, 2020
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to recommend that the City of Dubuque begin the
process of establishing an internal pricing for carbon emissions within its operations
in order to improve climate outcomes, support long term sustainability of the
community and to reach the City Council's goal of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030.
BACKGROUND
Sustainability and resiliency planning and action have been a key priority of City
leadership and this community for over a decade. One guiding principle of that
planning and action has been the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50%
by 2030. Based on recent reduction calculations, the City is on track to achieve
that goal. However, it is also clear that the "low hanging fruit" (in terms of low
cost and high impact actions available to the City) has been picked and that the
remaining options will require increased effort, costs and innovation.
Increasingly, public and private entities are turning to an internal carbon price as
one tool to help them reduce carbon emissions, mitigate climate-related
economic risks and identify opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon
economy. Establishing a carbon price internalizes the cost of green-house gas
emissions associated with the entity's activity by assigning a monetary value to
each ton emitted, and thereby impacts investment decisions and incents the
transition from emission-intensive to low-carbon alternatives whenever
economically feasible.
DISCUSSION
The process by which organizations set their internal carbon price varies but can
largely be captured within four general categories of approach:
- Carbon Fee. This approach assigns a monetary value to emissions that result
from activities, recovers that fee from organizational units within the entity
and then re-deploys the funds to projects capable of ineeting the entities
green-house gas goals. Reviewing the range of public and private entities
using an internal carbon fee approach, it appears that levels are set
relatively low ($5 to $40 per metric ton) to avoid over-burdening operational
units and to ensure internal stakeholder buy-in.
- Shadow Pricing. In contrast to an actual fee, some entities use a theoretical
price on carbon ("shadow price") as a risk-assessment tool to evaluate
expenditures and investments. Normally driven by anticipated regulation or
future commodity pricing it serves as an indicator of how various
expenditures will fair in a potentially carbon-constrained economy. As an
example, most major oil companies now apply a carbon "shadow price" to
investments, which appear to range from $30 to $80 a metric ton.
- Implicit Carbon Pricing. This is essentially the marginal abatement costs of
the measures and initiatives an organization has implemented or needs to
implement to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals. Initially most
entities set a 'bench-mark" that estimates the costs per metric ton of
emission reduction they have undertaken to date and then retroactively
adjusts that bench-mark to actual costs. Ranges have been observed from
$10 to $75 per metric ton.
- Organizational alignment. Many organizations, both public and private,
have begun to look to expert, independent third-parties to set carbon
pricing based upon agreed climate outcomes. According to the World Bank
there are now over 75 major International, National or Sub-national/Private
carbon pricing systems with bench-mark carbon prices ranging from (in US
dollars) $1 to $127. The majority that appear relevant to the City of
Dubuque appear to be in the mid-range of $40 to $80 per metric ton. (For
example, the Congressional Research Service estimates that the Paris Accord
would set carbon pricing in the United States at $43 per metric ton.)
In reviewing results from various public and private entities there appear to be
two additional observations I think would be of value to the City. First, it seems
that implementing a carbon pricing approach, in and of itself, has a positive
impact on an organization's carbon emissions regardless of where that price is
set. Second, many of the more successful efforts have introduced carbon pricing
gradually over time, normally starting with a pilot organization or activity within
the entity (often something like "business travel") and expanding as their internal
budgeting and planning processes begin to understand and adapt to more
comprehensive carbon approaches.
BUDGET IMPACT
Depending upon how the City presently budgets to accomplish its greenhouse gas
emissions goals, implementing a carbon pricing model may or may not have a direct
budgetary impact to the City. However, I expect that it will appear to create a
budget increase to account for carbon emissions within its operations/purchasing in
the near term when there are not effective low-carbon alternatives to present
practices. For example, until there are more local renewable energy sources to use,
the carbon intensity of City energy purchasing will depend on efforts made by its
energy Franchisees (Alliant Energy/IPL and Black Hills Energy) to incorporate low-
carbon alternatives into their generation systems. Within City budgeting processes
it may make a particular organizational unit (say the Water Department) look like it
has higher energy costs than previous years. However, if those funds are then used
to implement a City energy efficiency program which overall uses less energy, that
budget increase is negated within the organization.
RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION REQUESTED
It is recommended that the City consider the alternate pricing mechanisms for
internalizing the price/cost of its carbon emissions and establish a long-term strategy
for using such a mechanism to achieve the City's climate action goals.
In the meantime, it is also recommended that that the City implement a simple
"carbon fee" on at least a pilot basis to gain experience and measure stakeholders
reaction. Based upon my research, I would suggest the City begin with a relatively
modest carbon fee ($20 to $30 per metric ton) as I believe it will see an "out-sized"
effect from simply implementing any fee. (You may also want to refer to your
recently completed Climate Action Plan that suggests a carbon price roughly double
my recommendation). In addition, I would recommend fleet vehicle purchasing as
the pilot area to begin carbon price implementation. Present renewable energy and
vehicle electrification projects, coupled with readily available and competing carbon
intensive and non-intensive choices in the marketplace, make this likely the easiest
and quickest means to test the impact of carbon pricing.
c.c. Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager
Gina Bell, Sustainable Community Coordinator
Alignment with City goals and plans
HISTORY
•Fleet Analysis
•Renewable Energy Capacity
•Infrastructure needs/Grid impact
•Financial Analysis
•Optimization
PROCESS
FINDINGS
•This feasibility analysis confirms there are substantial economic and
environmental opportunities
•It suggests that these opportunities will not occur overnight and will
require significant planning and policy action
•The work will be grouped into three components:
-Transit (JOTC)
-Non-transit (MSC)
-Community (Everywhere)
•From this study we recommend several immediate steps the City can take
on pending grants and policy actions
TRANSIT PATH
VALUE PROPOSITION
ENERGY SOURCE
NON-TRANSIT FLEET PATH
VALUE PROPOSITION
ENERGY SOURCE
Issue: City presently applies no economic
valuation or consequences to its production of
greenhouse gases
Recommendations:
•For vehicle purchasing, apply a reasonable valuation for carbon within the TCO
(Total Cost of Ownership) calculations and establish processes to assure
appropriate progress.
•For vehicle policy, consider incenting vehicle -sharing between departments
(which improves financial performance of zero-emission options)
•Create a central process or application managers can use when considering
zero-emission purchases.
•For City operations generally, broaden the application of carbon costs and
then integrate strategy into City-wide action plan to achieve Council goal of
50% reduction by 2030.
IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY:
•Previous grants were submitted by JULE Transit, one for large EV
buses (DOT) and one for batteries and equipment (FTA)
•FTA was approved. DOT was not.
•Opportunity is to revise FTA Grant to begin EV implementation with
para-transit.
•Total project costs and City match would be slightly less than
pledged.
Secondary Benefit:
Policy:
-Approve/Disapprove overall
direction on electrification
-Approve/Disapprove carbon
costs/savings in TCO vehicle
calculations (recommended $20 -
$30 range)
-Consider carbon costs/savings
in general City operations
-Consider incenting vehicle
sharing
Financing (as part of FY 22 budget):
-Approve/Disapprove JULE Transit to seek
FTA grant amendment
-Approve/Disapprove FY 2022 matching
funds to FTA Grant
-Approve/Disapprove FY 2022 funding for
MSC EV infrastructure
QUESTIONS -SUGGESTIONS -DIRECTIONS ?