City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study

City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric
Vehicle Study
Final Report


City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division



October 2017
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Quality information
Prepared by                                      Checked by                                    Approved by

Dan Nelson, AICP, ITS Planner                    Ryan Winn                                     Daryl Taavola, PE, PTOE

Katrina Lewis, Senior Analyst




Revision History
Revision      Revision date        Details                                        Authorized     Name            Position

1.0           6/22/2017            1st draft for City of Mpls. Review             DN             Dan Nelson

1.1           07/13/17             Track changes version with AECOM and           DN             Dan Nelson
                                   City comments

1.2           07/24/17             Additional track changes per City comments     DN             Dan Nelson /
                                   at July 14th meeting. Appendices added to                     Katrina Lewis
                                   document and benefit-cost assessment
                                   updated with new information

1.3           07/27/17             Additional changes made based on               DN / KL        Dan Nelson /
                                   feedback gathered at July 26th meeting with                   Katrina Lewis
                                   City in reviewing report.

2.0           09/11/17             Additional changes made based on               DN / KL        Dan Nelson /
                                   comments received from various City                           Katrina Lewis
                                   departments after reviewal

2.1           10/04/17             Changes made based on comments                 DN / KL        Dan Nelson /
                                   received from City sustainability office; EV                  Katrina Lewis
                                   type for SUV updated; other updates to
                                   estimates and scenarios in Appendix E



Distribution List
# Hard Copies            PDF Required             Association / Company Name




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                   AECOM
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Prepared for:
City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division
1200 Currie Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403


Prepared by:
AECOM
800 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis
MN, 55402
USA
aecom.com




Copyright © 2017 by AECOM

All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by
any means without the prior written permission of AECOM.




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                        AECOM
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.       Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.       Literature Review and Staff Interviews .......................................................................................................... 8
         2.1       State of the Industry / Literature Review ............................................................................................. 8
         2.2       Common Themes and Points............................................................................................................. 9
3.       Vehicle Types............................................................................................................................................... 9
         3.1       Types of Vehicle Fleet ....................................................................................................................... 9
         3.2       Purchasing Process for Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 10
4.       Costs / Benefits Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 12
         4.1       Environmental Benefits with Fleet Transition..................................................................................... 12
         4.2       Cost Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 13
         4.2.1 Payback Periods ............................................................................................................................. 15
         4.2.2 EV Charging Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 16
         4.2.3 Technician Training.......................................................................................................................... 17
         4.2.4 Replacement Considerations ........................................................................................................... 17
5.       Conversion Approaches and Transition Timelines........................................................................................ 18
6.       Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 22
         6.1       Monitor Electric Vehicle Usage in Winter Months .............................................................................. 22
         6.2       Monitor Potential Sources of Funding for EV Purchases ................................................................... 23
         6.3       Review Vehicle Replacement Approach for New EV Models ............................................................. 23
         6.4       Prepare Infrastructure and Maintenance Staff for EV Operations....................................................... 23
         6.5       Monitor Industry Progress with Electric Vehicles ............................................................................... 24
         6.5.1 Cummins Powertrain Notice............................................................................................................. 24
         6.5.2 Volvo Notice of Electric / Hybrid Vehicles in 2019 ............................................................................. 24
         6.6       Consider Key Objectives and Constraints......................................................................................... 24
Appendix A Staff Departments Interviewed ............................................................................................................ 25
Appendix B Description of Vehicle Types ............................................................................................................... 30
         B.1       Light Duty Vehicles .......................................................................................................................... 30
         B.2       Heavy Duty Vehicles........................................................................................................................ 32
         B.3       Non-Road Vehicles.......................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix C Cost Benefit Analysis Inputs ............................................................................................................... 36
Appendix D Maintenance Savings Assumption Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................... 40
Appendix E Optimized Transition Scenarios........................................................................................................... 41
         E.1       Scenario 1....................................................................................................................................... 41
         E.2       Scenario 2....................................................................................................................................... 42
         E.3       Scenario 3....................................................................................................................................... 43
         E.4       Scenario 4....................................................................................................................................... 44
         E.5       Scenario 5....................................................................................................................................... 45
         E.6       Scenario 6....................................................................................................................................... 46




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                                                      AECOM
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Figures
Figure 1. Annual CO2 Emissions Reductions by Electric Vehicle Procurement Scenario ............................................ 7
Figure 2. Total Costs by Year for Business as Usual (BAU) and EV Procurement Scenarios ...................................... 7
Figure 3. Level 2 Charging Station......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Police and Interior Vehicle Electronics ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5. EVSE Equipment in Jerry Haaf Memorial Parking Ramp.......................................................................... 27
Figure 6. Chevy Bolt ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 7. Sedan, Ford Focus (2017) ...................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 8. Ford Escape SUV for Traffic Control Department ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 9. Light Pickup, Chevrolet Colorado ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 10. Heavy Pickup, Ford F-250 for Maintenance ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 11. Western Star SB4700 .......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 12. Solid Waste Vehicle .............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 13. Volvo Wheel Loader L-90...................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 14. Bobcat S185 Skid Steer Loader ............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 15. Polaris Ranger ..................................................................................................................................... 35


Tables
Table 1 Most Common Vehicle Make / Model from City Vehicle Inventory ............................................................... 10
Table 2 Quantities of Vehicle Types from City Vehicle Inventory Data...................................................................... 10
Table 3 Estimated Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Vehicle in 2018 (pounds)................................................. 12
Table 4 2017 Capital Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5 Fuel Economy Estimates........................................................................................................................... 13
Table 6 Annual Fuel Estimates .............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 7 Potential ICE Vehicle Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................. 14
Table 8 Annual Maintenance Estimates.................................................................................................................. 15
Table 9 Payback Period Estimates by Vehicle Type (2017 Capital Costs)................................................................ 16
Table 10 Required Capital Costs for 8 year Payback Period by Vehicle Type (2017 Capital Costs) .......................... 16
Table 11. Total Number of Vehicles Included in Electric Vehicle Proposed Transition Timelines by Year.................... 20
Table 12 Transition Scenario Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 22
Table 13 Impact of Maintenance Cost Reduction Assumption Changes (1/3)........................................................... 40
Table 14 Impact of Maintenance Cost Reduction Assumption Changes (2/3)........................................................... 40
Table 15 Impact of Maintenance Cost Reduction Assumption Changes (3/3)........................................................... 40
Table 16 Scenario 1 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 41
Table 17 Scenario 1 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 41
Table 18 Scenario 2 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 42
Table 19 Scenario 2 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 42
Table 20 Scenario 3 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 43
Table 21 Scenario 3 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 43
Table 22 Scenario 4 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 44
Table 23 Scenario 4 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 44
Table 24 Scenario 5 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 45
Table 25 Scenario 5 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 45
Table 26 Scenario 6 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................................. 46
Table 27 Scenario 6 Procurement Plan Annual Financials ...................................................................................... 46




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                                                   AECOM
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Executive Summary
This report has been prepared by the City of Minneapolis Public Works Department and the Fleet Services Division
as requested by the Minneapolis City Council on the replacement of the currently used City-wide fleet of internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicle (EV) fleet technology based on the anticipated costs and
environmental benefits of this transition over the coming years.

This report presents multiple different approaches the City could take in the transition to an EV fleet of vehicles, which
can be chosen based on the availability of funds to procure an EV fleet within the current purchasing model of vehicle
replacement utilized by the City’s Fleet Services Division. These approaches will help the City continue its previously
stated mission of reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the coming years by reducing the consumption of fossil
fuels that contribute to those emissions. Several factors were considered in the recommended approaches in this
report which include the following:

     1.    Current state of the automotive industry with respect to EV fleet vehicles and EV charging equipment
           currently available. This was gathered through a literature review conducted prior to this report that also
           presented how other municipalities have been preparing for an EV fleet transition.

     2.    Input gathered from several City departments that utilize fleet vehicles to complete daily activities for their
           respective departments. Feedback was gathered from departments on how the vehicles are used by staff
           during all periods of the year throughout the City.

     3.    Detailed data on the current fleet of City vehicles and the anticipated replacement timeline of those vehicles
           over the coming years. The current model of vehicle purchases and replacements is also considered in the
           recommended approaches.

Upon review of the detailed data on the current fleet of City vehicles, these vehicles were assigned into various
categories and types to allow for a quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits of replacing the vehicles with an EV
fleet of vehicles over the coming years. This is presented and described in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.

The rate at which the City chooses to transition its fleet towards EVs depends on the driving objective of the
conversion, as well as financial and technical constraints. Given the per-vehicle costs and benefits presented in
Section 4, six different optimized procurement scenarios were analyzed. The results of the analysis in Section 5 of
this report compared a business-as-usual approach of purchasing ICE vehicles over time with each of six
recommended approaches across a variety of metrics. The comparison of the six scenarios to a business-as-usual
procurement allows the City to see how the procurement strategy would change depending on stated objectives and
financial and technical constraints. Each optimized scenario is designed to result in a greater Net Present Value
(NPV) than business-as-usual procurement. NPV takes into account the various costs and environmental benefits
that are realized with a transition to EVs. Costs include the addition of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
required for vehicle charging, as well as the use of electricity for vehicle charging. Benefits considered in the NPV
estimate include reduced fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance costs, as well as the environmental benefits of
reduced CO2 emissions with the use of EVs.

The most conservative transition approach is outlined in Scenario 6, which assumes that no EVs are allowed to be
purchased until 2020. This approach would allow the City to save funds to cover the capital cost premium of
purchasing EVs. However, this scenario only constitutes the transition of 8% of the replaceable fleet and the
reduction of 4,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MTCO 2) over the next 10 years. However, Scenarios 1, 2, 4, and 5
outline more aggressive approaches that can lead to up to a 47% replacement of ICE vehicles with EVs and 10,800
MTCO2 reduced. Obtaining a clearer understanding of the funding available to implement EV fleet transition is key to
determining the appropriate pace of the transition and which vehicle types to target. Figures 1 and 2 on the following
page illustrate the differences of the scenarios in terms of CO2 emissions and total costs over the next ten years.

The final section of this report presents a summary of next steps that can be taken by the City to prepare for a
transition to EVs. These include performing a more detailed assessment to measure vehicle operations in cold winter
months to determine if EVs can perform on a single charge during heavy usage of vehicle heaters and operation in
cold climate conditions. The City’s recent procurement of a number of Chevrolet Bolts can offer an opportunity to
observe the vehicle performance under cold weather conditions. Other steps include monitoring the automotive
industry and its progress in making EVs as an affordable option to ICE vehicles.

Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                             AECOM
                                                                                                                          6
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Figure 1. Annual CO2 Emissions Reductions by Electric Vehicle Procurement Scenario




Figure 2. Total Costs by Year for Business as Usual (BAU) and EV Procurement Scenarios




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                AECOM
                                                                                             7
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




1.           Introduction
This final report presents recommendations on the transition of City of Minneapolis fleet vehicles to electric vehicle
(EV) fleet technology over the coming years. No municipality has made a full transition to EVs, but some have been
phasing in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) to lower operating and fuel
costs while being able to perform all the necessary duties required for various vehicle types. Although EVs typically
have a higher initial capital cost to purchase or lease the vehicles compared to internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles, EVs can cost less in the long-term due to lower fuel costs, different maintenance required, and longer
vehicle lives. Therefore, it is important to consider the entire lifespan of a vehicle when investing in fleet vehicles.
There are also limiting factors of EVs to consider, such as range and power needs of certain fleet vehicles, as well as
the near-constant changes in the electric vehicle and infrastructure technology.

Based on current technology, transitioning from ICE vehicles to EVs makes more sense in urban areas compared to
rural areas due to the shorter average trip length and additional benefit of reduced noise pollution in residential areas.
Overall, the market is transitioning mostly light-duty vehicles (with some exceptions listed below) as battery
technology is still being developed for heavy-duty vehicles.

This report summarizes the Literature Review and interviews with various municipal department staff to gather insight
on how each individual department utilizes their fleet vehicles to determine if a conversion to EVs is feasible. Next,
the types of existing City fleet vehicles are described followed by a cost/benefit assessment of a fleet transition. This
report concludes with three possible transition timelines (aggressive, moderate, and conservative) and the next steps
required if the City decides to convert to EV fleets.




2.           Literature Review and Staff Interviews
Prior to making the recommendations contained in this report, a Literature Review was conducted on the current
state of the electric vehicle industry. A summary of this review is provided in Section 2.1 below.

In addition, several City departments were interviewed to gather their input on how the use of electric vehicles would
potentially impact their department staff that utilize vehicles in the performance of their daily work. This information is
contained in Appendix A of this report. A summary of key themes and points heard City departments is provided
Section 2.2.

2.1          State of the Industry / Literature Review
A literature review was completed in April 2017 and provided to the Fleet Services Division as a separate report. That
report detailed the various municipal EV fleet types that have been implemented to date. While no municipality has
made a full transition to EVs, some have been phasing in PHEVs or AFVs to lower operating and fuel costs while
being able to accommodate all the necessary duty cycles required for various vehicle types.

The review noted that while EVs typically have a higher initial capital cost compared to ICE vehicles, EVs can cost
less in the long-term due to lower fuel costs and different maintenance required.

Additionally, there is near-constant change in the electric vehicle and infrastructure technology manufactured by the
vehicle industry. For example, in 2012 there were only a few EV models available, all of them small sedans with a
range under 40 miles, and with only Level 1 charging available, and a very high sale price. In the last five years, there
are many more consumer and multipurpose EVs available with many models exceeding hundreds of miles of range.
It is anticipated that the electric vehicle industry will continue to advance the technology to make it more affordable to
the general public and to Government fleets over the coming decade. Currently, the industry provides more EV
options for light-duty vehicles, given that battery technology is still being developed for heavy-duty vehicles.

Key points summarized in the review are listed below:

      •    The higher the utilization rate of EVs, the greater return on investment in those EVs.



Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                            AECOM
                                                                                                                         8
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




      •    EVs might not be appropriate for all types of fleet vehicles, especially for vehicles that need to travel long
           distances, or heavy-duty vehicles due to lack of affordable battery technology.
      •    There is an uncertainty about how electric vehicle equipment will affect the vehicle performances, as well as
           the amount of modifications that will be needed to current City vehicles to support the operation of electric
           vehicles
      •    When planning for EV charging infrastructure, it is smart to proactively plan for the number of Electric
           Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) stations needed by installing more electrical equipment (e.g. transformers
           and conduits) than required for the initial purchase of EVs. It is more cost effective to install excess electrical
           equipment during the initial installation than having to add electrical conduit and wires each time additional
           stations are required. This electrical equipment installation does not include purchasing all the EVSEs that
           can fit with that equipment, but instead having the electrical capacity to purchase EVSEs to meet future
           capacity needs without additional construction.
      •    EVSEs should be placed at approximately a 1:1 ratio with the number of EVs in the fleet so that all vehicles
           can be charged adequately overnight. Level 2 EVSEs provide good value for infrastructure investment
           when factoring in cost and time required to charge.
      •    Fleet management software is highly recommended to provide services including telemetrics, advanced
           booking and scheduling, real-time tracking of vehicles, keyless entry, and more.

2.2           Common Themes and Points
Multiple City of Minneapolis departments were interviewed near the beginning of this project. Appendix A includes
detailed input gathered from those interviews on how each specific department would be impacted by EV fleet
conversion and how the vehicles would be utilized. A summary of the agencies interviewed is listed below:

•    Finances                   •   Public Works Traffic                •   Traffic Control Division of Regulatory Services
                                •   Community Planning and Economic
•    Police Department                                                  •   Street Maintenance
                                    Development (CPED)
•    Solid Waste                •   Fleet Services Division             •   Fire Department



In summary, there were two common themes and points that were heard from City departments through the
interviews conducted in April and May 2017, and these are summarized below.

     1.   Staff generally prefers the higher profile of a SUV type of vehicle, as it eases the physical strain of repeatedly
          entering and exiting vehicles throughout the day in the performance of their various activities for the City

     2.   City staff were all very open to the idea of using electric vehicles in their daily performance as long as the
          electric vehicle can operate within the current environment of how vehicles are currently used. This includes
          the use of heating / air conditioning throughout the day, amount of space available inside the vehicle for the
          use of other equipment, and ability to drive / perform in a similar manner.

3.            Vehicle Types
This section presents further details on the current vehicle types utilized by various departments throughout the City
of Minneapolis.

3.1           Types of Vehicle Fleet
Vehicles utilized by the City of Minneapolis are divided into the following categories:

          •     Light Duty Motor Vehicle – Light duty motor vehicle means a light duty truck, passenger car, or
                passenger car derivative capable of seating up to 12 passengers. This type of motor vehicle is rated at
                8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less. This category includes sedans, passenger
                vans, minivans, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, etc. Beginning in 2004, all the new
                passenger vehicles including SUVs, minivans, vans and pick-up trucks are subject to the same pollution
                standards as cars.



Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                     AECOM
                                                                                                                                  9
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




              •     Heavy Duty Vehicle – Heavy duty vehicle means any motor vehicle expected to be used for motive
                    power and is rated at more than 8,500 pounds GVWR. This category includes large pick-ups trucks,
                    delivery trucks, heavy trucks, semi-trucks, etc.

              •     Non-Road Vehicle – The four types of non-road vehicle category described by EPA are non-road
                    compression-ignition (CI) engines and equipment, non-road large spark-ignition (SI) engines and
                    equipment, non-road small SI engines and equipment, and recreational engines and vehicles. This
                    category includes vehicles, engines and equipment used for construction, agriculture, industrial, marine,
                    and other purposes. Examples include excavators, paving equipment, tractors, Skid steers, forklifts,
                    compressors, lawnmowers, etc.

    For simplifying the cost-benefit assessment presented in Section 4 of this report, the most common vehicle type that
    has been observed within City vehicle data provided for this study has been selected and utilized to compare future
    costs and benefits of ICE vehicles with same type of costs and benefits of EV replacements. These most common
    vehicles are depicted in Appendix B of this report. A summary listing of these vehicle types is provided below for
    reference.

     Table 1 Most Common Vehicle Make / Model from City Vehicle Inventory

                            Light Duty Vehicles                         Heavy Duty Vehicles                         Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                                                           Heavy             Light
                                  SUV /            Light         Heavy      Trucks /       Garbage                                          All other
                    Sedans                                                                              Construction      Construction
                                 Minivans         Pickups       Pickups    Cargo Vans       Trucks                                          Vehicles
                                                                                                          Vehicles          Vehicles
Most Common                                                                 Western        Crane
                     Ford         Ford           Chevrolet      Ford                                    Volvo Wheel          Bobcat         Polaris
Vehicle Make /                                                               Star          Carrier
                    Focus        Escape          Colorado       F-250                                   Loader L-90          S185           Ranger
    Model                                                                   SB4700        LET2-40

    A summary table of the quantity of these vehicle types that is used in the cost-benefit assessment and transition
    timelines presented in Sections 4 and 5 of this report is included below in Table 1. This dataset of vehicles was
    derived from City of Minneapolis vehicle inventory looking ahead at estimated vehicle replacement years for these
    vehicle types. Vehicles observed to be overdue for replacement were excluded from the data in Table 1 given
    challenges in how to estimate when those vehicles would be replaced. Focus was given to the vehicles with an
    estimated replacement year of 2018 or later.

    Table 2 Quantities of Vehicle Types from City Vehicle Inventory Data

                         Light Duty Vehicles                       Heavy Duty Vehicles                          Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                                                        Heavy             Light
                              SUV /           Light          Heavy     Trucks /         Garbage                                          All other
                  Sedans                                                                             Construction      Construction
                             Minivans        Pickups        Pickups   Cargo Vans         Trucks                                          Vehicles
                                                                                                       Vehicles          Vehicles
    Total
                   297           160             16          240           191            55             29                18               3
   Vehicles



    3.2           Purchasing Process for Vehicles
    The Fleet Services Division manages the purchasing process for a large majority of the City’s vehicle fleet by
    replacing older model vehicles at the end of their recommended life cycle with newer model vehicles that can still
    meet the basic needs of the City staff that utilize those vehicles to perform their daily operations. The Division
    collects a monthly fee from City departments which is saved into a separate vehicle account to support the purchase
    of a new replacement vehicle.

    These monthly fees are based on the anticipated replacement cost of a vehicle at the end of the current vehicle’s life
    cycle. These fees are re-calculated on an annual basis to account for any increases or decreases in anticipated
    replacement costs.

    Public works department staff familiar with the vehicle cost allocation model that maintains these cost values for
    different vehicles were interviewed on May 10 th to better understand the model and how it is utilized. It was noted
    that the monthly fees collected from City departments accrue in a separate savings account that is used to purchase

    Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                            AECOM
                                                                                                                                             10
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study



a new vehicle when it is needed. It was also noted that there often is a small gap between the cost of a new vehicle
and the amount of money saved up to support that new vehicle’s purchase. However, there are multiple ways in
which the cost model could help close this gap and support the new vehicle purchase.

Prior to purchasing a new replacement vehicle, the Division does conduct interviews with City staff to understand
their future needs with respect to their daily tasks performed for the City. Based on the input gathered from staff,
vehicle options that meet those needs can be presented. If there is the opportunity for the use of a hybrid or even an
electric vehicle, the Division may propose the purchase of that vehicle type to the City staff prior to deciding on that
type of purchase.

The general fund is supported by the City property tax and is more flexible in providing for ways to fill the gap
between the higher replacement cost of an electric vehicle than a fossil fuel vehicle. Enterprise fund departments are
supported by service fees paid by City residents for those services, such as Solid Waste and Recycling, and these
departments would have to consider raising the rates charged to residents to support a higher electric vehicle cost.

Finally, it was noted during the May 10th that the current vehicle cost allocation model would support an approach of
saving additional funds to support the anticipated higher cost for future electric vehicle purchases. This approach
could be applied to some of the recommended approaches presented in Section 5 of this report.




Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                         AECOM
                                                                                                                      11
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




4.           Costs / Benefits Assessment
This section provides information on the costs and benefits associated with a transition of the City of Minneapolis
vehicle fleet from fossil fuel vehicles towards electric vehicles.

The Cost Benefit Analysis incorporates monetized benefits covering environmental and economic changes from the
current fleet operation as compared to the proposed fleet conversion scenarios over a 10 year period (2018-2027). A
cost-benefit analysis measures the dollar value of the benefits and costs to all the members of society. Analyses
evaluate and compare alternative investment decisions based on a set of quantified benefits, costs, and avoided
costs. The alternative with the greatest net benefits compared to net costs may justify public investment. The sections
below describe the benefits, costs, and high-level assumptions. For detailed assumptions and sources refer to
Appendix C.

4.1          Environmental Benefits with Fleet Transition
Transportation is responsible for nearly seventy-five percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption. EVs can help
reduce U.S. reliance on petroleum and associated pricing volatility and supply disruptions because they are capable
of operating entirely on electricity, which is produced from natural gas, coal, nuclear energy and renewable
resources.1

On average, EVs in the U.S. emit fifty-four percent less carbon emissions than ICE vehicle counterparts within their
lifespan2 and produce zero tailpipe emissions.

A caveat to consider in assessing the environmental impact of EVs is the variation of electricity generation sources in
a given area. The state of Minnesota relies mainly on coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. However, the share of
these fuel sources as a percentage of total generation is decreasing at an average annual rate of 3% since 2010.
Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar are increasing rapidly, with wind growing at an annual rate of 3.5%
since 2010. Overall, Minnesota ranks in the fiftieth percentile among all U.S. states for greenhouse gas emissions
from electricity consumption.3

Three key factors contribute to a vehicle’s annual CO 2 emissions: average miles driven/hours operated, fuel
efficiency, and CO2 emissions factor of fuel source. Based on data provided by the City of Minneapolis, research from
the Environmental Protection Agency, and various other public sources, AECOM estimated emissions per vehicle
type for both ICE and EV vehicles (See Table 3). Transitioning the vehicles with the highest percent reduction in CO 2
emissions can help the City design a more impactful transition plan.

Table 3 Estimated Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Vehicle in 2018 (pounds)
                         Light Duty Vehicles                     Heavy Duty Vehicles                            Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                         Trucks /                      Heavy                Light
                                  SUV /          Light       Heavy                     Garbage                                          All other
                   Sedans                                                 Cargo                      Construction        Construction
                                 Minivans       pickups     Pickups                    Vehicles                                         vehicles
                                                                          Vans                        Vehicles            Vehicles
       ICE          3,200          8,000        12,100       10,400       49,700       66,400           39,600             12,400        1,600
       EV           1,100          3,000         4,900       3,100        24,800       23,900           23,800             7,500          700
      Carbon
    Reduction
     from EV        -66%           -63%          -60%         -70%         -50%         -64%             -40%               -40%         -56%
    Conversion
Note: Values Rounded to the nearest 100.
Note: As electricity generation becomes increasingly renewable, the carbon reduction from EV conversion will increase.




1
  https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html
2
  https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/3002006881/
3
  https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/minnesota/index.php


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                                 AECOM
                                                                                                                                              12
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




4.2             Cost Considerations
Capital Costs

EVs typically have lower fuel and maintenance costs than ICE vehicles, but higher capital costs. There is industry
consensus that the cost of EVs are trending downward as production volumes increase and battery costs decreases. 4
Capital costs can sometimes be offset by state and local incentives that encourage alternative fleet implementation
through funding and technical assistance. However, it is difficult for municipalities to access many of these
incentives.5

To conduct the cost-benefit analysis for the various transition scenarios, capital costs were estimated using City of
Minneapolis data, government, academic, and other public sources. Specifically, replacement costs for ICE vehicles
were estimated using public sources such as Kelly Blue Book as well as City of Minneapolis average purchasing cost
data for typical vehicles in each vehicle type (see Table 4). For EV Sedans and Light Pickups, capital costs were
estimated by assuming a typical vehicle type and using its average capital cost. However, capital cost estimates for
SUV/Minivans, Heavy Duty, and Non-Road EVs are less accessible as these technologies are nascent. Recent
announcements of luxury brands releasing electric SUVs suggest a premium over their ICE counterparts of between
$5,000 and $20,000. As such, a price premium of $20,000 was used to estimate the eventual price of an electric SUV.
For Heavy Duty Vehicles, research articles on the potential costs of similar vehicles were used as proxies for capital
cost estimates. For Non-Road EVs, there was insufficient costing data to use proxies. As such, a 50 percent cost
premium was added to corresponding ICE capital costs to serve as an estimate. These assumptions can be further
refined as additional information becomes available (See Table 4).

Table 4 2017 Capital Cost Estimates
                    Light Duty Vehicles                          Heavy Duty Vehicles                  Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                       Trucks /                Heavy            Light
                              SUV /           Light      Heavy                    Garbage                                      All other
               Sedans                                                   Cargo                Construction    Construction
                             Minivans        pickups    Pickups                   Vehicles                                     vehicles
                                                                        Vans                  Vehicles        Vehicles
    ICE        $20,554       $23,400         $26,200    $31,600       $160,000    $280,000    $150,000        $31,900           $9,000
     EV        $36,000       $43,400         $52,000    $59,800       $200,000    $420,000    $225,000        $47,900          $11,299
Note: Values Rounded to the nearest 100

Fuel Savings

EVs typically achieve better fuel economy and have lower fuel costs than similar ICE vehicles. For example, the
2017 Chevy Bolt has a combined city-and-highway fuel economy estimate of 118 miles per gallon equivalent (28
kWh/100 miles), while the estimate for the 2017 Ford Focus (four cylinder, automatic) is 30 miles per gallon. A
comparison of assumed fuel efficiencies is shown on Table 5. Fuel efficiencies for ICE vehicles were provided by the
City based on vehicle specification sheets and performance. Fuel efficiencies for EVs were estimated using public
sources, vehicle specification sheets, and academic research. It is assumed that electric heavy and light construction
vehicles will be 50% more efficient than their ICE counter parts.6

Table 5 Fuel Economy Estimates
                         Light Duty Vehicles                   Heavy Duty Vehicles                       Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                    Trucks /                     Heavy           Light
                               SUV /          Light     Heavy                    Garbage                                   All other
                  Sedans                                             Cargo                     Construction   Construction
                              Minivans       pickups   Pickups                   Vehicles                                  vehicles
                                                                     Vans                       Vehicles       Vehicles
      ICE         25 mpg       21 mpg        19 mpg    14 mpg        7 mpg        5 mpg           8 gph         1.2 gph    31 mpg
       EV
    (kWh/100       28.5          38            45           45           200           200         n/a             n/a            30
      miles)
      EV
    (mpge)*        118           89            75           75           17            17          n/a             n/a           112
*Approximate Conversion


4
  https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html
5
  Municipalities may be eligible for incentives under the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act (DERA). Through DERA, the EPA
allocates funds to U.S. states through the State Clean Diesel Grant Program. This program may fund up to sixty percent of the
labor and equipment costs of replacing a diesel vehicle with an electric vehicle. Other incentives, such as the federal Qualified Plug-
In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Tax Credit, which offers a tax credit of $2,500 to $7,500 for new EV purchases, is not available for
municipalities to leverage.
6
  https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml#end-notes, http://electriccarsreport.com/2017/03/volvo-ce-unveils-next-generation-
electric-load-carrier-concept/


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                       AECOM
                                                                                                                                    13
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




On top of fuel efficiency improvements with EVs, the cost per kWh of electricity tends to be lower and more stable
than the cost per gallon of gasoline, diesel, or bio-diesel. The City currently pays a fixed price of $2.15/gallon for
gasoline and $2.27/gallon for B-10 Diesel. Xcel Energy currently offers a special tariff for EV charging by time-of-use.
If the City charges its fleet at night, it can pay as low as $0.03/kWh for electricity. The cost-benefit model assumes
that the City would pay an average of $0.06/kWh. This assumes that 75% of the fleet is charged at night and 25% of
the fleet is charged during the day. To estimate potential fuel cost savings, the annual fuel consumed by vehicle type
was calculated using City of Minneapolis fleet data on vehicle miles traveled and assumptions on fuel efficiency for
each vehicle type. Saving estimates are in Table 6.

Table 6 Annual Fuel Estimates
                        Light Duty Vehicles                         Heavy Duty Vehicles                       Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                                                       Heavy          Light
                                SUV /         Light          Heavy        Trucks/     Garbage                                   All other
                  Sedans                                                                             Construction Construction
                               Minivans      pickups        Pickups     Cargo Vans    Vehicles                                  vehicles
                                                                                                      Vehicles      Vehicles
    ICE            $365          $903         $1,373        $1,184        $4,481       $5,990          $3,570        $1,122      $178
    EV*             $76          $212          $345          $219         $1,745       $1,681          $1,673         $526         $49
   Fuel
 Savings
 from EV           -79%          -77%          -75%          -81%         -61%            -72%          -53%          -53%        -73%
Conversion
*Assumes 75% of vehicles are charged nightly (between 9 pm and 9 am) and 25% are charged during the day

Maintenance

Due to a more streamlined vehicle system, EVs contain fewer moving components that are vulnerable for repair in
ICE vehicles. With over a dozen moving components, ICE vehicle repairs on the engine, transmission system and
gearbox are likely over the vehicle’s lifespan7. The following table lists potential maintenance, repair and
replacement costs that are not a concern for EVs:

Table 7 Potential ICE Vehicle Maintenance Costs

           Component                          Average Cost                                          Frequency
            Oil change                           $25 - $55                                 Every 3,000 – 5,000 miles
        Exhaust System                                                  Typically lasts 40,000 – 80,000 miles; dependent on driving
         replacement                            $100 - $250
                                                                                                 conditions
     Automatic transmission
          fluid change                          $75 - $150                                       Every 30,000 miles

                                                                           Typically lasts the lifespan of the vehicle; however, a
    Engine repair/replacement                $1,000 - $4,000            broken rod, damaged valve or oil leak can cause it to occur
                                                                                                    sooner.
          Head gasket                                                      Typically lasts the lifespan of the vehicle; requires
       repair/replacement                    $1,200 - $1,600
                                                                        maintenance if the engine overheats and/or coolant leaks.
         Transmission                                                      Typically lasts the lifespan of the vehicle; can occur if
       repair/replacement                    $1,000 - $3,500
                                                                                transmission fluid changes are neglected.


In addition, brake system maintenance costs are about fifty percent less in EVs due to regenerative braking.
Regenerative braking is the recovery of kinetic energy during braking. In ICE vehicles, the majority of kinetic energy
is converted into heat and emitted unused into the environment during friction braking. EVs can use the electric
motor to recover a portion of the kinetic energy for reuse. Regenerative braking provides an extended range while
lowering fuel consumption and GHG emissions8. Therefore, EVs only require one maintenance visit for brakes at
$200, while ICE vehicles require two visits at $400.



7
 http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/02/17/costs-of-the-electric-car
8
 http://products.bosch-mobility-
solutions.com/media/ubk_europe/db_application/downloads/pdf/safety_1/en_4/CC_Regenerative_Braking_Systems.pdf


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                         AECOM
                                                                                                                                      14
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Over five years, EVs can save an average of thirty-five percent on maintenance in comparison to ICE vehicles 9.
Another case study conducted by the U.S. Postal Service found that they saved forty-six percent on maintenance 10.

Maintenance costs for ICE vehicles were calculated using labor and parts cost data from the City of Minneapolis for
its fleet. These costs were reduced by a factor of 35 percent to estimate the potential savings from transition to EVs.
A sensitivity analysis of this assumption can be found in Appendix D.

Table 8 Annual Maintenance Estimates
               Light Duty Vehicles                         Heavy Duty Vehicles                  Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                Trucks /                 Heavy          Light
                        SUV /           Light          Heavy              Garbage                                 All other
        Sedans                                                   Cargo                Construction   Construction
                       Minivans        pickups        Pickups              Vehicles                               vehicles
                                                                 Vans                  Vehicles       Vehicles
ICE      $686           $1,648          $1,447        $1,188    $14,370    $13,975      $25,342        $3,388      $1,432
 EV      $446           $1,071           $940          $772     $9,341      $9,084      $16,472        $2,202       $931

Charging Infrastructure

Another consideration for charging infrastructure is the daily charging schedule. In electricity generation, the “duck
curve” refers to the imbalance between peak electricity demand times and energy production. Xcel Energy offers Off-
Peak Vehicle charging rate plans that incentivize the intentional reduction of electricity use during peak energy
demand periods, such as during hot summer days. Planning for fleet recharging during off-peak periods can add up
to thousands of dollars in savings11.

Battery capacity

Battery technology is changing rapidly, resulting in increased charge capacity and lower operating cost per mile.
Chevy and Hyundai offer eight year/100,000 mile warranties on their EV batteries (generally covering defects and
workmanship), and Chevy also offers an eight year/100,000 mile warranty on battery capacity.

Auto manufacturer warranties and charge capacity have generally reduced consumer concern about battery life and
range. As a result, the analysis of total ownership cost does not account for the cost of EV battery replacement,
assuming that municipal vehicles will be retired at the warranty expiration. See Replacement Considerations for a
more complete discussion.

4.2.1        Payback Periods

To estimate the potential payback periods by vehicle type for conversion from an ICE vehicle to an EV, the premium
capital cost was compared to the annual fuel, maintenance and carbon savings12. It is important to note that the
payback periods are a result of the assumptions descripted in this report as well as the usage of the vehicle types.
The high payback period seen for sedans is the result of the relative underuse of this vehicle type compared to other
vehicle types. If the sedans were driven on average as much as the SUV/Minivans (approximately 8,800 miles a
year), the payback period would decrease to 15 years. If the sedans were driven on average as much as the light
pickups (approximately 12,200 miles a year), the payback period would decrease to 12 years. Additionally, as the
capital costs of EV continue to decrease and eventually reach parity with ICE vehicles, payback periods will improve.
The following table shows initial payback periods.




9
  https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/3002006881/
10
   http://bea.touchstoneenergy.com/resourcelibrary/article/2311/Getting+Charged+Up+over+Electric+Vehicles
11
   https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Business%20Programs%20&%20Rebates/Equipment%20Rebates/17-03-
205%20Custom%20Efficiency%20Information%20Sheet.pdf
12
   Carbon savings are monetized using the Social Cost of Carbon estimates from the EPA.


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                           AECOM
                                                                                                                        15
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Table 9 Payback Period Estimates by Vehicle Type (2017 Capital Costs)

                    Light Duty Vehicles                        Heavy Duty Vehicles                      Non-Road Vehicles
                                                                       Trucks /                  Heavy              Light
                             SUV /            Light         Heavy                  Garbage                                       All other
              Sedans                                                    Cargo                  Construction      Construction
                            Minivans         pickups        Pickups                Vehicles                                      vehicles
                                                                        Vans                    Vehicles          Vehicles
Years            25             13             14             17          4          13             6                 8             3
Note: Payback periods assume a static carbon emissions factor of 0.896 pounds per kWh, the 2018 estimated factor from Xcel
Energy. As the emissions factors improve, payback periods will shorten.

The City typically considers 8 year payback periods for vehicle purchases. In order to realize an 8 year payback
period, the capital cost of electric vehicles needs to decrease or the benefits need to increase. Since it is likely that
capital costs of electric vehicles will continue its downward trend, the table below analyzes how much 2017 estimated
capital costs for electric vehicles by type would need to decrease to result in an 8 year payback period. As shown
below, sedans would only need to decrease in price by approximately $4,900.

Table 10 Required Capital Costs for 8 year Payback Period by Vehicle Type (2017 Capital Costs)

                       Light Duty Vehicles                         Heavy Duty Vehicles                       Non-Road Vehicles

                                                                        Trucks /                                  Maintenance
                               SUV /          Light           Heavy                 Garbage     Construction                     All other
                 Sedans                                                  Cargo                                    and Service
                              Minivans       pickups         Pickups                Vehicles     Vehicles                        vehicles
                                                                         Vans                                      Vehicles
2017 Est.
    EV
                $36,000       $43,400        $52,000         $59,800    $200,000    $420,000      $225,000          $47,900      $11,300
  Capital
   Cost
    EV
  Capital
Cost Max.       $25,500       $35,300        $41,100         $44,800    $233,400    $367,800      $245,400          $49,100      $14,400
for 8 Year
 Payback
Required
   Cost          $4,900       $11,900        $14,900         $13,200    $73,400     $87,800       $95,400           $17,200       $5,400
Reduction
Note: Payback periods assume a static carbon emissions factor of 0.896 pounds per kWh, the 2018 estimated factor from Xcel
Energy. As the emissions factors improve, payback periods will shorten.



4.2.2         EV Charging Infrastructure

When planning for EV charging infrastructure, it is recommended to proactively plan for the number of Electric Vehicle
Supply Equipment charging stations (EVSEs) needed by installing more electrical equipment (e.g. transformers and
conduits) than is needed for the initial purchase of EVs. It is more cost effective to install excess electrical equipment
during the initial installation than having to add electrical wires each time additional stations are required. This
electrical equipment installation does not include purchasing all the EVSEs that can fit with that equipment, but
instead having the electrical capacity to purchase EVSEs to meet future capacity needs without additional
construction.13
As electric vehicles are purchased by the City, EVSEs should also be purchased at an approximately a 1:1 ratio with
the number of EVs in the fleet so that all vehicles can be charged adequately overnight. The installation EVSE
stations will be simplified, provided that enough electrical capacity and conduits have been previously installed to
support the new EVSE equipment.




13
     https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/green/evse.pdf


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                                        AECOM
                                                                                                                                     16
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




Figure 3. Level 2 Charging Station 14

While there are three levels of EV charging infrastructure currently available, Level 2 charging is currently the most
prevalent among them, and requires electrical infrastructure upgrades to extend 240 volt AC service to locations
where the EVs would charge. It charges at over twice the rate of level 1, adding 10 to 20 miles of range per hour
charging. The increased rate of charging can justify the costs to serve the needs of fleet management in a timely
manner. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the cost of a level 2 EVSE to be $400 to $1,700 per unit for fleet
purposes, but can go up to as much as $6,500 with the most advanced features. Installation and electrical equipment
upgrade costs can range from an additional $600 to $12,700 per unit.15 Costs per unit can vary within these ranges
depending on the installation and labor costs, warranties for equipment, and operation and maintenance costs for the
equipment. Despite a higher upfront cost than Level 1 EVSE infrastructure, Level 2 EVSEs provide good value for
infrastructure investment when factoring in cost and time required to charge.

In addition to the EVSE charging stations, it should be noted that fleet management software is highly recommended
to provide services including telemetrics, advanced booking and scheduling, real-time tracking of vehicles, keyless
entry, and more. This software can be a valuable resource for the City to understand how their fleet of electric
vehicles is being utilized over the course of time.

4.2.3        Technician Training

Electric vehicles will require different types of vehicle maintenance than standard internal combustion engine vehicles
which are currently repaired and maintained by vehicle technicians that work for the City of Minneapolis. While City
vehicle technicians will be required to maintain an understanding of current ICE automotive industry standards, the
additional cost of maintenance training on electric vehicles is unknown given the rapid advancements in vehicle and
battery technology.

4.2.4        Replacement Considerations

Electric vehicles will require replacement at a point in time when the batteries that support the operation of the vehicle
can no longer 16. The longer an electric car operates over time, the shorter its driving range will become due to the
depreciation in the life of the vehicle battery from daily charging. This decrease in driving range will likely be
unnoticeable in the first few years of EV operations with regular vehicle charging. Many EV battery estimates predict
that the typical lithium-ion electric car battery will be good for more than 100,000 miles of driving while still
maintaining a decent driving range. As vehicles approach that figure of overall mileage, the decrease in driving range
experienced by City employees will require replacement of either the vehicle or the battery itself.

Current estimates of EV battery replacement are high enough that a complete vehicle replacement may make more
financial sense 17. Over time however, as EV battery development progresses the cost of battery replacement
decrease to a point where the City may need to determine if a battery replacement is more financially sound than a
vehicle replacement at that point in time.

14
   http://evtc.fsec.ucf.edu/publications/documents/FSEC-CR-2031-16.pdf
15
   http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf
16
   http://auto.howstuffworks.com/will-electric-cars-require-more-maintenance.htm
17
   http://auto.howstuffworks.com/will-electric-cars-require-more-maintenance.htm


Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                          AECOM
                                                                                                                       17
City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study




5.           Conversion Approaches and Transition Timelines
The rate at which the City chooses to transition its fleet towards electric vehicles depends on the driving objective of
the conversion, as well as financial and technical constraints. Given the per-vehicle costs and benefits presented in
the previous section, six different optimized scenarios with regards to a transition of the City’s current fleet towards
electric vehicles were analyzed. These are presented within this section in terms of the objective being achieved by
the given scenario and the constraints that scenario is subject to. The optimal number of each type of vehicle to be
transitioned by year from 2018 to 2027 was determined for each scenario using a Microsoft Excel-based model. This
model uses the Excel Solver function to maximize a specific goal based on identified constraints. Therefore, the
resulting procurement plans represent the best way to achieve the stated goal given specific assumptions about
technology and costs. For example, the Scenario 1 procurement plan is the best way to maximize CO 2 reduction
through the fleet conversion, assuming the costs outlined in the cost benefit analysis and that certain vehicle types
will not be available as electric until the year 2020 or 2022. More details on the resulting transition/procurement plans
and scenarios can be found in Appendix E. A brief definition of these scenarios is provided below:

     •     Scenario 1: Aims to maximize the carbon dioxide reduction over the 10 year timeframe. This scenario
           assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially mature enough for procurement until 2020. It also
           assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are not
           commercially mature enough for procurement until 2022. There are no imposed financial constraints in
           terms of capital purchase amounts.
     •     Scenario 2: Aims to maximize the carbon dioxide reduction over the 10 year timeframe. This scenario
           assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially mature enough for procurement until 2020. It also
           assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are not
           commercially mature enough for procurement until 2022. It also assumes that the City can only spend $5
           million above what it would spend to procure ICE vehicles in a business-as-usual procurement.
     •     Scenario 3: Aims to maximize the Net Present Value of the transition over the 10 year timeframe. This
           scenario assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially mature enough for procurement until 2020.
           It also assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are
           not commercially mature enough until 2022. It also assumes that the City can only spend $5 million above
           what it would spend to procure ICE vehicles in a business-as-usual procurement.
     •     Scenario 4: Aims to maximize the total project benefits (fuel, maintenance and CO 2 emissions) of the
           transition over the 10 year timeframe. This scenario assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially
           mature enough for procurement until 2020. It also assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction
           Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are not commercially mature enough until 2022.
     •     Scenario 5: Aims to maximize the total number of EVs purchased over the 10 year timeframe. This scenario
           assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially mature enough for procurement until 2020. It also
           assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are not
           commercially mature enough until 2022.
     •     Scenario 6: Aims to maximize the Net Present Value of the transition over the 10 year timeframe. This
           scenario assumes that SUVs and Minivans are not commercially mature enough for procurement until 2020.
           It also assumes that Heavy Duty Vehicles, Heavy Construction Vehicles, and Light Construction Vehicles are
           not commercially mature enough until 2022. It also assumes a more cautious transition to electric vehicles: It
           assumes no EVs will be purchased in the first two years of this timeline. This would allow for the City to
           begin saving money that could be used to purchase electric vehicles in year 2020 and beyond.
           Coincidentally, Scenario 6 results in the same optimal transition plan as Scenario 3.
These scenarios look ahead to each upcoming year for the next ten years from 2018 to 2027. It is important to note
that the number of vehicles proposed in each year for electric vehicle conversion is based upon the following:
     •     Estimated year in which the City planned to replace the current vehicle. This was observed in the timelines
           so that the recommended quantity of electric vehicle conversions does not exceed the previously planned
           purchases of replacement vehicles.
     •     The projected automotive industry standard at the time of the City’s planned vehicle replacement year. This
           included research into the availability of electric vehicles in upcoming years for each of the vehicle types,

Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division                                                         AECOM
                                                                                                                      18
You can also read
Next part ... Cancel