Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-2024 Climate Action CommissionIowa City Climate Action Commission Agenda Monday, June 3, 2024, 3:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City Meeting Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of May 6, 2024 minutes 4. Public Comment on items not on the agenda -Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 3 minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 5. Announcements —informational updates a. Action items from last meeting i. Staff will relay commissioners' thoughts on green jobs to the partners working on the regional CPRG comprehensive climate action plan ii. Staff to add a discussion of suggestions on frequency of metrics reporting and potential uses to a future meeting b. Upcoming events I. National Weather Service CoCoRaHS training (July 15, 4:30-6 p.m.) ii. Other events in the community (Commissioners) 6. New Business a. Fleet Transition Plan — Sara Kay, ICF, presentation and discussion 7. Unfinished/Ongoing Business a. Visioning indicators of success in built environment —discussion of metrics frequency 8. Recap a. Confirmation of next meeting time and location i. Monday, July 1, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall b. Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff 9. Adjourn If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Sarah Gardner, Climate Action Coordinator, at 319-887-6162 or at sarah-Gardner@iowo-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION MAY 6, 2024 —3:30 PM— FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michal Eynon -Lynch, Jamie Gade, Ben Grimm, Zach Haralson, Wim Murray, Brinda Shetty, Angie Smith, Gabriel Sturdevant MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Anderson, John Fraser, Michelle Sillman STAFF PRESENT: Tyler Baird, Daniel Bissell, Sarah Gardner, Megan Hill, Diane Platte OTHERS PRESENT: Cameron Millel, Green Iowa AmeriCorps CALL TO ORDER: Sturdevant called the meeting to order at 3:32. APPROVAL OF APRIL 1, 2024 MINUTES: Gade moved to approve the minutes from April 1, 2024. Eynon -Lynch seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Action Items from last meeting (Staff): • Staff shared Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of green jobs for continuation of discussion • Staff coordinated with Tyler Baird, who is at this meeting, to present on urban forestry efforts Upcoming Events: • Iowa Public Procurement Association Conference (May 8) • Bike to Work Week breakfast (May 16) • Other events in the community (Commissioners) - none mentioned UNFINISHED/ONGOING BUSINESS: Climate Pollution Reduction Grant • Gardner explained that while the methane capture project for the wastewater treatment plants for Iowa City and Cedar Rapids was submitted successfully for an implementation grant by the application deadline, the cities were notified the grant application for energy efficiency projects to have been submitted by ECICOG was not successfully submitted. The next phase, a comprehensive climate action plan, will still move forward while awaiting the outcome of the Climate Action Commission May 6, 2024 Page 2 of 6 implementation grant application, with RFPs for consultant services for the next phase to be released soon. • Gardner asked commissioners to consider whether the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of "green jobs" needed any expansion or clarification for use in the comprehensive climate plan. • Shetty noted that hopefully all jobs will include elements of thinking about how processes can be more energy efficient or greener; however, gathering metrics on this would be difficult. • Sturdevant noted that some agricultural practices self -define as green while stretching that definition beyond meaning. o Gardner noted that the creation carbon sinks maybe a useful requirement for defining green agricultural practices. • Haralson noted that the definition of "production processes" is expansive enough to include operations. It's not just production; greening an office building is possible. • Gade pointed out that Johnson County has a lot of employers that are very large; collaborating with some of these large employers to track information about their workers' green jobs may be helpful in gathering data. • Sturdevant asked if retraining qualifies as creating a new green job. Gardner affirmed that if a person's job description includes or adds green tasks, it would count. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of Urban Forestry and the Iowa City Natural Areas Master Plan —Tyler Baird • In Urban Forestry, climate change impacts the tree canopy one event at a time. Pests such as emerald ash borer and the ongoing drought are also challenges. City is striving toward 40% canopy coverage. iTree assessment takes aerial views randomly around town and shows that Iowa City has 34%canopy coverage. • The plan includes a goal to plant 750 trees/year, planted by staff and/or volunteers. City has actually been averaging close to 800 trees/year over the past 5 years. So far in 2024, 157 trees have been planted with the help of volunteers. • Staff are planning to plant 500 trees this fall with staff, targeting Mormon Trek strip and South of 6, as well as infill. Focus areas are neighborhoods without much canopy coverage and neighborhoods that may not have as much disposable income to put toward trees. • Root for Trees has been a very successful program. It is a mechanism to get trees into private property. Right-of-way is harder place to establish trees, due to utilities and space. Baird suggested trying not to plant what your neighbor has as useful guidance in selecting a tree. Iowa City's current canopy is 30% maple. • The Natural Areas Management Plan was created in 2017-2018. Guiding principles cover vegetation, wildlife, soil and hydrology, and human use. • 2020 was a big year for prairie restoration. Prairie is important for carbon sequestration. • Forestry staff are seeing more invasive species, an impact partially driven by the changing climate. They can outcompete the native species and do not provide ecosystem services. Staff are targeting a number of species for removal: nonnative honeysuckle, reed canary grass, smooth brome, wild parsnip, sweet clover, Canada thistle, garlic mustard, buckthorn, knotweed, oriental bittersweet, Japanese hops, multiflora rose, barberry (do not buy even though it's available —ticks really like it), teasel, autumn olive, common reed. Two new ones: Bradford pear (do not buy even though it's available), poison hemlock. Climate Action Commission May 6, 2024 Page 3 of 6 • Restoration management tasks include removal of invasive woody vegetation (targeting Ryerson's Woods, Hickory Hill, Sand Prairie) and removal of invasive herbaceous vegetation. Ecological monitoring involves visiting sites where work has been done. Controlled burning is a best tool for making sure prairie ecosystem stays healthy. Each spring, staff burn 50-100 acres. The City's many small plots of prairie create a unique challenge. Converted 160+ acres of turf grass to native vegetation. Winning over people to be supportive of prairie as it develops. • Volunteers like Friends of Hickory Hill Park, Longfellow Nature Trail, Sycamore Greenway help maintain green spaces. Department does not yet have a full-time permanent position to manage volunteers; hoping to get funding for staff. Equipment helps with efficiency: prescribed fire gear, hydro -seeder, native seed drill, mulcher. • Priority areas: Ryerson's Woods (received REAP grant in 2021), Hickory Hill Park (received REAP grants in 2018, 2019, 2022 as well as capital funding), Kickers Soccer Park wetlands and prairie areas, Sand Prairie: woody removals, prescribed burning, targeted treatment of brome, Sycamore Greenway volunteers help with trash removal and woody/invasive removal, Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (2021 REAP grant), Waterworks Prairie Park prescribed burn regimen, prairie expansion. Other areas: Rohret Road prairie, Whispering Meadows Wetland Park (REAP grant in 2020), Ashton House. • Received $1.3 million in REAP grants in the past 5 years. • Smith thanked Baird for his passion and work. Asked how homeowners can convert lawn to prairie landscaping, what education resources are available. Baird noted that the Rec programming included Native Plant Symposium last year. Bur Oak Land Trust and Backyard Abundance offer education. Neighbors sharing with neighbors is the most powerful resource. • Eynon -Lynch praised the clear, measurable goal of 40% canopy coverage and the progress toward that. Asked how the plan gets used to determine how a natural area gets preserved or sacrificed to development. Baird answered all that natural areas identified in the plan are protected from development pressure because they are already in the parks system. REAP grants can be used to expand natural areas. The development of the assistive living facility by Hickory Hill Park added 40 acres of woodland to the park. The plan notes that larger parcels or connected parcels are preferable. For this reason, if a developer wants to give the city a small area that is going to be predominantly turf grass as a park, that is not going to be as high a priority as land that is adjacent to an already established park, especially if it is a natural area. The priority parks also help determine which areas to apply for REAP grant support. • Eynon -Lynch asked what's blocking the full-time staff and how commissioners can advocate. Baird answered City-wide budget picture is a factor, but as parks expand, the priority will become clearer. In 2015, there was not a natural areas part of Parks and Rec Division. Advocacy beyond the city level would be the best lever because City leadership is already on board. • Sturdevant asked if the heat maps could be combined with LIDAR data to target areas for tree planting/additions. Baird responded that they have not combined the heat map and the plan, but looking at them individually they are able to see where the overlap is. Management plans typically are good for 10 years, so this plan will likely be updated around 2027-28. • Sturdevant asked how much trial -and -error goes into prairie establishment. Baird explained in some cases they try again (reseed), sometimes they accept some nonnative species mixed with native species, as long as it doesn't have some of the weedy species. The process and its success are weather -dependent. They like to seed in November. • Gade asked if ticks are tracked. Baird said he was not sure who housed that data, and noted that often they are asked how to keep ticks out of a yard. He said mulch can serve as a tick barrier. Grimm described a dropcloth test that ICCSD uses. Climate Action Commission May 6, 2024 Page 4 of 6 • Murray asked how residents can add a tree to a right-of-way. Baird described some options: call Forestry staff to be added to the list for the city to plant a tree for you or fill out a right of way planting permit to plant one yourself. In both cases Forestry staff will check your proposed right of way location for suitability before approving the request. • Murray asked if any resident can apply for a Root for Trees voucher. Baird and Gardner affirmed that is the case. Gardner noted it was limited to one voucher per household per year and covered 50% of the cost of the tree. Income qualified households could apply to receive a voucher for a 90% discount. • Smith asked about Baird's insights on residential rooftop prairie programs like Portland's. Baird noted that green roofs are becoming more popular and have energy efficiency benefits as well. • Smith asked about the electrification of the department's fleet. Baird reported not much electrification yet — having capacity to charge is a challenge. Smaller chainsaws have changed over to electric, weed -eaters as well at one athletic complex as a way to test the technology. The truck Baird uses is a hybrid model that averages 38 mpg. Big equipment needs so much power, not sure if the electric technology is there yet. Gardner added that the consultant for the Fleet Electrification Plan will be presenting at the next meeting. • Grimm asked if Root for Trees program was offsetting the limits on the City's ability to plant trees in areas where right of ways are too narrow to support tree planting. Baird noted that was one of the impetuses behind starting the program, hopefully some have been planted in neighborhoods with smaller, more difficult -to -plant ROWs. Grimm asked about tree eligibility. Baird clarified that only maples and pear trees are ineligible for vouchers. • Haralson wondered how management practices might help mitigate climate change — are there any specific practices in play that help sequester carbon. Baird noted that a better mix of understory species and canopy create a better functioning ecosystem that can sequester more carbon and help reduce runoff. Prairies sequester more carbon with their long roots. Haralson asked if there are ways to work with DOT or other regional players to install more prairie. Baird noted that County has a roadside vegetation management staff that seeds back with natives where they can. State DOT has to balance height of species and ability to burn next to an interstate. Climate action impact game Gardner described an engagement activity which asks participants to rank a number of climate actions from greater to lesser in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. The degree to which they are able to do so determines how close they can stand to a cornhole board to toss a bean bag. The Forestry staff created a cornhole set for the Climate Action staff made from reclaimed urban lumber for this activity, which were displayed at the back of the room. She noted it spoke to the spirit of collaboration among City staff that has been helpful in moving forward on climate action goals. RECAP: • Confirmation of next meeting time and location: o Monday, June 3, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall • Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff: o Staff will relay commissioners' thoughts on green jobs to the partners working on the regional climate action plan o Eynon -Lynch requested adding a discussion of suggestions on frequency of metrics 4 Climate Action Commission May 6, 2024 Page 5 of 6 reporting and potential uses to a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Grimm moved to adjourn, Murray seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:05. Climate Action Commission May 6, 2024 Page 6 of 6 CLIMATE ACTION COMM ISSIONATTEN DANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. N O \ ~ N A N\ \ \ V w w w W w Michael 12/31/2025 NM O/E X O/E O/E Anderson Michal Eynon- 12/31/2024 NM X X X X X X NM X X X X Lynch Elizabeth 12/31/2025 NM O/E X Fitzsimmons John Fraser 12/31/2024 NM X O/E X X X NM X X X O/E Jamie Gade 12/31/2025 NM X X X 0/ X X NM X X X X E Ben Grimm 10/31/2023 NM X O/E X X X X NM X O/E X X Zach Haralson 12/31/2025 NM X X X X Matt Krieger 12/31/2023 NM X O/E X 0/ X O/E E Jesse Leckband MidAmerican NM X Rep Winn Murray MidAmerican X X X X X NM X X X X Rep Michelle Sillman 12/31/20025 NM X X X X X X NM O/E X X O/E Brinda Shetty UI Rep NM X O/E X X X O/E NM X X X X Angie Smith 12/31/2025 X X NM X X X x Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 NM X x X X O/E X NM X X X X Matt Walter 12/31/2023 NM X X X X 0/E X 0 =Absent O/E = Absent/ExcusedNM= No Meeting * No longer on Commission ,r ®Im4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 28, 2024 To: Climate Action Commission From: Sarah J. Gardner, Climate Action Coordinator Daniel Bissell, Climate Action Analyst Re: Fleet Transition Plan/Study Background Beginning in August 2023, Iowa City staff have been engaged in a review of the current municipal fleet of light-, medium-, heavy-duty and non -road vehicles, as well as the facilities where these vehicles are serviced, to explore possible pathways toward a fully electrified fleet. This process has been led by ICF, a consulting firm with expertise in fleet electrification that has advised multiple municipalities across the nation, and involved conversations with Iowa City staff representing Equipment, Transportation Services, Resource Management, Streets, Parks and Forestry, Police, and Climate Action and Outreach. The purpose of this memo is to capture key takeaways from those conversations and the final report produced by ICF. The plan detailed in the report outlines a fleet electrification strategy based on replacing each existing vehicle in Iowa City's fleet with an electric vehicle (EV) equivalent, if one exists at the time, as it is retired from the fleet. The analysis contained in the report suggests this approach would take an estimated 15 years to complete. Although the City does not anticipate having a fully electrified fleet within the next 15 years, it does hope to be well underway in that effort. In addition to identifying a process and infrastructure needs to support a fleet transition, this plan also supports those efforts by strengthening future funding applications. Increasingly, federal incentive programs such as the Low or No Emissions Grant program previously used to purchase electric buses for the City either require or are weighted to favor municipalities that have fleet transition plans. Because in many cases infrastructure upgrades will be required in advance of further electric vehicle purchases, this memo begins with key takeaways related to facilities followed by those related to the vehicles themselves. Facilities — Key Takeaways • To enable this transition, a significant investment in charging infrastructure will be required both within our facilities (charging stations, conduit, panels, and switchgear) and on the grid (transformers) made in collaboration with the utilities. Conversations with the utilities should begin now and be ongoing due to the lead-time required for grid upgrades. • As EV technologies evolve, the City may not strictly adhere to the vehicle replacement recommendations outlined in the plan. However, the infrastructure recommendations included in the plan are expected to remain relevant, serving as a blueprint for determining the necessary infrastructure buildout and its associated budget implications. • From a cost perspective, little difference was found between a scenario in which each vehicle is assigned a dedicated charger and a scenario in which two or more vehicles share a charging station. The appropriate charging scenario should reflect the allowable dwell time and usage specific to the vehicles. In departments in which all vehicles are unlikely to be deployed at the same time, for example, sharing charging stations among two or more vehicles will be the preferred scenario, while departments with high vehicle utilization or limited dwell time are likely to utilize a scenario in which each vehicle has a dedicated charging station assigned to it. Just as new facilities for the City should be future -proofed in design to allow for the addition of solar generation, they should also be constructed with future fleet electrification needs in mind, allowing extra space for future chargers and additional electrical capacity to be added to the facility. Vehicles — Key Takeaways • Despite higher initial vehicle cost and needed infrastructure investments, financial analysis that includes reduced fuel costs, maintenance costs, and non-competitive financial incentives such as tax credits suggests EVs are roughly cost competitive with current fleet vehicles. Over time as vehicle and infrastructure costs decline, the balance may tip further in favor of EVs. • Not all vehicles in the City fleet currently have a viable EV equivalent. For the purposes of this study, post -market retrofits of new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles were recommended to provide a basis for estimating charging and infrastructure needs, but the plan is best used as a living document with vehicle replacements updated as new EV models become available rather than pursuing costly vehicle retrofits. • In some cases the transition to EVs may require additional vehicles or a change in operations, particularly for emergency scenarios in which certain heavy duty vehicles currently operate 24-hours a day without returning to a facility. Procurement timelines for such vehicles may also shift and should be flexible depending on vehicle needs, use cases, budgets, etc. • Certain non -road vehicles, most notably mowers, floor scrubbers and ATVs/UTVs, can serve as valuable early test cases for fleet electrification as facility upgrades to support their charging needs are comparatively minimal, cost-effective equivalent EV models are currently available, and the vehicles are not utilized for emergency response. Next Steps The construction of the new transit facility, planned to begin construction in 2026, will serve as a valuable comprehensive pilot project providing key insights into how electric vehicle purchases and facility design will inform each other. Ongoing documentation of this process can help identify challenges encountered along the way and opportunities to optimize the process for future fleet electrification efforts. In the meantime, smaller pilot programs consisting of one or two vehicle purchases that do not necessitate significant grid -level infrastructure upgrades, such as the purchase of an EV patrol vehicle for the Police Department, can serve as department by department test cases to help further refine vehicle preferences and needs. Combining lessons learned from the larger, more comprehensive transit pilot and smaller vehicle pilots can help chart a course toward electrification for future facilities. Finally, in the coming months Johnson County will be undergoing a similar process to develop a fleet transition plan for its vehicles, and both CAMBUS and the Iowa City Community School District have signaled an interest in future electric bus purchases. A working group with representatives from each of these entities as well as MidAmerican Energy should be formed to help collaborate and coordinate on fleet electrification efforts, both to share knowledge gained through these efforts and to optimize investments in grid level upgrades. City of Iowa City Fleet Oinalysis & Transition Plan Iowa City Auk Sarah Kay NW Clean Transportation Manager _♦1/ **ICF Junc 2024 Background & Objectives Fleet Composition EEO Fleet Transition Planning Meeting &S49 Recommended Replacements by Availability Agenda Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Rollout Plan Cost Barriers to Electrification Fleet Electrification Plan Objectives 1. Cost effective transition 3. Evaluate the cost of of Iowa City's fleet to transition to EVs and zero emission vehicles deployment of EVSEs where feasible 4. Identify potential funding e� 2. Develop a sustainable EV sources =� charging infrastructure plan for Iowa City fleet5. Recommendation for 71al Implementation vehicles Summary of Iowa City Fleet Composition • The Iowa City has a total of 399 vehicles, of which: - 287 are on -road vehicles -112 are non -road vehicles Heavy Truck 5% Bucket Truck 1% Shuttle Bus 3% Other 3% Minivan 1 2% Light -Duty Pickup 16% .Step Van Refuse Truck Medium -Duty 1% 4% Vocational Truck 6% Medium - Duty Pickup 2% I Your fleet vehicle I and usage data Our assumptions to help fill in data gaps • Vehicle Capital Costs • Annual Fuel Costs • Annual Maintenance Costs • Charging Infrastructure Hardware Costs • Charging Infrastructure Installation Costs • Potential EV or EVSE Grants Our 500+ EV Model Library -- ICF Fleet Assessment Model Summary Presentation Detailed Report Excel Supplement CY•] 50 40 K01 20 10 v Vehicle Replacement Recommendations 54 'vs . 25 Of 23 23 ♦ �/9 20 19 a ' 13 "� 10� 10 7 4 3 3 3 1 1 n N n 0 3 v v Z v N 0 r --I = x W W G = N (D Cfir 7 OS M S S O m < O < c' < X < LD CDy W X < '� 3 0 n (Nn O CD 'p o A m 6 P m 2 1 o r ("— m 3 a o m T 0 = n n X T A W 0 ^� G ^� N < I I I Off. S n O_ O < N r 0 W O. — I N CT ID M �' m M n N n d M N W (CiN (1 N N C � .� w N A N (D O O W �. M I (D 91 (n Qy - I m (T N a < < A W O d G n m EL 0 0 I O X F .. < < N 0 Non -Road Floor Sweeper/Scrubber 5 ATV/UTV Sweeper/ Scrubber Forklift Mower Tractor Backhoe TOTAL $44B,292 $209,752 $732,947 $133,907 $1,672,043 $647,364 $31844,306 $260,300 $175,000 $411,600 $45,500 $1,080,000 $405,000 $$377,400 165 50 164 110 835 390 1,713 $312,590 $198,914 $748,583 $106,104 $1,434,455 $t307,436 $4,105,081 $226,100 $185,000 $589,200 $58,500 $1,200000 $1,215,000 $3,473,800 $135,703 $10,838 $(12636) $27,804 $237,588 $(6(,0.072) 5(260,776) 65 26 86 58 244 114 593 99 23 77 52 591 276 L120 Fleet Assessmen &Transition Plan Number of Charging/Fueling Stations by Type Grid- and Facility - Level Upgrades Analysis Charging need (including energy needed for PTOs) Charger Locations Infrastructure Cost and Implementation Schedule 1:1 Vehicle to Charging Port Ratio (A dedicated charging port per EO Multiple Vehicle to Charging Port Ratio (Multiple vehicles share a charger) Multiple EV Infrastructure Scenarios were Analyzed f Charging Infrastructure Plan 20 18 16 to 14 r 12 0 10 `m 8 E 6 Z 4 0 0 1 :' 111 1■1 11 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 146 Chargers 8,296 kW Extra load City Park a Johnson County Seats (Paratransit) ■ Augusta Place (Police) • Public Works (Winter Operations) ■ Airport Fire Station 1 ■ Training Center East Side Facility ■ Refuse Oakland Cemetery ■ Equipment Johnson County Admin Public Works ■ Augusta Place ■ Animal Shelter ■ Landfill ■ Wastewater ■ Transit ■ Tower Place Mercer Park ■ Robert A. Lee Parks Maintenance ■ City Hall Chauncey Swan Water Total EVSE Installed Cost (Capital and Installation Costs) $3.41M $3.37M Hardware Installation Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades Needs utility utility Distribution Pad -mounted Network Transformer Water Wastewater Tower Place Robert A. Lee Refuse Public Works' Parks Maintenance Oakland Cemetery Mercer Park Landfill Johnson County Seats (ParatransiA Johnson County Admin Equipment & Transit East Side Facility City Park City Hall & Fire Station I Chauncey Swan Augusta Place & Police Animal Shelter Airport Meter Panel EV Charger Electric Vehicle Conductor (Boring/Trenching) ■ Maximum V21P Incremental Load • Capacity Available 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades Cost $600,000 $500,000 , $400,000 ' $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 � / Mq�M�� Cost of Utility & Facility Upgrades ° t�'S yew �o �a k� ac y�0 Q-e sec Electric Panel Transformer ■ Conduit & Cable Trenching ■ Meter Transformer Installation ■ Panel Installation ■ Conduit & Cable Installation sec �yt ci?`�\\ i� any oe e' OF, ecA Qa� ��°<1 •\`A S�aay�es`a �a P` ��a5z °`�\� m��r °°A Ge��. G��A. ti �� ei°et e��P ��V a�oa y° G Q� Gca ��`�� ��``�- F �. aye Total Cost of Ownership • Fleet TCO Comparison of fleet electrification master plan vs. business -as -usual ICE fleet - Net Present Value (NPV) costs Cost of Transition to EV $11 M O&M $15 M Capital & EV Charging $4 M Total TCO All Costs are presented in Net Present Value (5% discount rate) $50 $47.1 M $45 $43.1 M ■ NPV Make -Ready Costs (On -Road) $40 $3.84 $3.37 $0.19■ NPV EVSE Installation Costs (On -Road) $35 $4,11 NPV EVSE Hardware Costs (On -Road) o $30 g $1 37' NPV EVSE (Non -Road) va $25 0 $7.03 NPV Capital/Fuel/Maint. (Non -Road) $20 H $15 ■ NPV Maintenance Costs (On -Road) $25.56 $10 $19.20 NPV Fuel Costs (On -Road) $5 s. NPV Capital Cost (On -Road) $ ICE Replacements EV Replacements Suite of Incentives Programs DIESEL EMISSION REDUCTION ACT (DERA) 4 nor 0 EASTERN Low or No Emission Bus Grant Program Incentives Could Bring Significant Cost Benefits $ 50.00 $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 On -Road Capital $1.37 On -Road On -Road Fuel Maint. o Increase to Decrease •Total $3.41 a $3.37 1 1 Make $4.11 $0.19 On -Road Ready EVSE Non -Road On -Road Installation EVSE EVSE Non -Road Hardware (Capital + O&M) $0.94) " On -Road $0.60) EV Incentive On- EVSE Incentive $3.5 million in rebates and incentives Ell EV EV ICE TCO TCO TCO w/o with Incentive Incentive Environmental Benefit of the Transition • Emission Reductions: Over 53,000 MT of GHG emissions reduced, equivalent to removing 11,500 passenger vehicles for a year or planting 875,000 trees. • NOx Emissions Eliminated: Over 110,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide emissions prevented. • Sustainable Transportation: Significant contribution to reducing carbon footprint and combating climate change. 110,000 Lbs NOx Emission Reductions (Lifetime) 11,500 Vehicles Equivalent to removing passenger vehicles from the road for one year 875,000 Trees Equivalent to tree seedlings grown for 10 years Barriers to Transition Upfront costs Dependence on the power grid Limited availability of EV models and production capacity Parking space availability for chargers Limited dealership networks Workforce training Range anxiety and uncertainty in charging time Min M OTNI Tqr--M Develop an EV Implementation Plan i Form an EV Fleet Transition Team Start the Conversation with your Utilities Have a Funding Strategy in Place tart with Pilot Programs Questions? icf.com © twitter.com/ICF ® linkedin.com/company/icf-international 10 facebook.com/ThislslCF 19 #thisisicf \1/ +*+ICF