SR 07-24-2018 3N
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 24, 2018
Agenda Item: 3.N
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward King, Director, Big Blue Bus, Transit Maintenance
Subject: Purchase of One Battery Electric 40-Foot Bus from Gillig LLC
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sixth modification to
Agreement #9855 with Gillig, LLC, a California-based company, to furnish and
deliver one 40-foot battery electric bus (BEB) in an amount not to exceed
$429,559. This would result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total
amount not to exceed $45,643,006.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the
Center for Transportation and Excellence (CTE) to assist in the assessment of
charging equipment and BEB technology for the BEB. This recommended award
is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section
2.24.080 (A) and is for an amount not to exceed $131,500, with future year
funding contingent on Council budget approval.
Summary
In response to Council’s direction that the Big Blue Bus pilot an electric bus to initiate
the transition to an all-electric fleet by 2030, staff reached out to Gillig, LLC, the City’s
provider of BBB motor coaches, to develop a pilot whereby the City would swap out one
planned Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) bus for a prototype Battery Electric Bus
(BEB). The additional cost for the BEB, including spare parts, training, contingency and
warranty, is $429,559.
Staff also recommends that the City enter into a separate contract with the Center for
Transportation and Excellence (CTE) as an exception to the competitive process to
assist in the assessment of charging equipment and the BEB technology. This would
allow staff to model the new technology and prepare for the 12-year transition to an all-
electric fleet. The contract for CTE to perform its analysis is $131,500.
2 of 5
Discussion
BBB has long shared a commitment to finding the most environmentally sustainable
vehicles that meet its operational needs. In response to Council’s direction, the Big Blue
Bus now seeks to prototype an electric bus and develop a strategy to move its entire
fleet to electric by 2030. In recognition of the City’s desire to move to battery electric
technology, Gillig has approached the City to partner in modifying its current order of
buses to include one BEB transit bus. This would be considered a cardinal change to
the current contract with Gillig by the Federal Transit Administration and would require a
sole source justification as an exception to competitive bidding in addition to a separate
contract modification.
Gillig’s proposed partnership with BBB is to test a prototype of an all-electric propulsion
system designed and built by Cummins for use in a heavy-duty bus. BBB has reduced
the current bus order of 20 Near-Zero CNG Gillig buses to 19 CNG buses, and would
purchase one BEB from Gillig as part of this order. The partnership would allow the
BBB the opportunity to model, evaluate and prepare its operations for the new
technology. Staff anticipates the delivery of the prototype BEB by the end of calendar
year 2018.
BBB is also proposing to bring on the Center for Transportation and Excellence (CTE)
to assist in performing an analysis of its routes and the Gillig BEB to develop an
understanding of the operational profile and charging requirements for future BEB
deployment. CTE is performing a similar scope of work for the Department of
Transportation Services of the City and County of Honolulu (DTS), which received a n
Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) grant to purchase and deploy four Gillig
BEB’s in 2019. Through a partnership between BBB and DTS, CTE could leverage
some of the work they are performing for DTS to lower the total cost of services to BBB.
Analysis
The proposed partnerships with Gillig and Cummins are of benefit to the City as the
remaining bus elements would all remain the same and eliminate any other variables
from this new technology. Since 2013, Gillig has provided BBB with 105 buses with
3 of 5
Cummins CNG engines. Staff has found the buses to be very reliable and both Gillig
and Cummins have proven to be responsible partners in providing training, replacement
parts, and customer support.
Staff recommends the purchase of one prototype 40 -foot Gillig BEB transit bus as a
replacement for one 2004 LNG bus that has reached its useful life of twelve years. This
would reduce the current contract order of 20 CNG buses to 19.
Staff also recommends contracting with CTE to assist in the assessment of charging
equipment and the BEB technology, to conduct operational performance models on five
BBB routes, and to analyze charging system utilization and electricity rates. CTE would
also assist staff in the vehicle build, periodic inspections, and deployment of the bus,
including performance reporting for the first year. Adding CTE to assist in data analysis
and sharing of data with the City of Honolulu, we could collaborate and strategically plan
the best way to introduce this technology into our system.
The cost of the prototype BEB is as follows:
Base price for BEB (includes ADA, Delivery & Tax) $ 886,594
Less amount authorized for Near Zero CNG bus (632,035)
Net increase for BEB prototype technology $ 254,559
Contingency 50,000
Spare Parts 50,000
Training 75,000
Total Increase to Gillig Contract $ 429,559
CTE Program Management 131,500
Total Authorization Requested $ 561,059
Vendor Selection
Exception to Competitive Bidding
4 of 5
Staff recommends Gillig Corporation to furnish and deliver one (1) Battery Electric Bus (BEB) prototype as an
exception to the competitive bidding per Muni Code 2.24.080 (d). Gillig and the Big Blue Bus are partnering to test a
new all electric propulsion system designed and built by Cummins for sue in a Heavy Duty BEB. Based on planned
bus purchases, Gillig will have manufactured and delivered 72.5% of BBB's fleet of transit buses. This sole source
procurement is a benefit to the City as the non-propulsion related bus elements will all remain the same, and eliminate
any other variables from this new technology.
d.
Only one vendor possesses the unique ability or capability to meet the particular requirements of the solicitation,
such as a good or service that is copyrighted, patented or otherwise only available from one license holder. The
purchase is economically available from a single source because: Compatibility of equipment is of paramount
consideration.
Staff recommends Gillig to furnish and deliver one prototype 40-foot BEB transit bus as
an exception to the competitive process basis and to negotiate a contract based on our
current CNG contract. A sole source request has been approved. The bus would be
used for proof of concept, allowing BBB to learn what infrastructure and process
changes would be needed to incorporate battery electric transit buses into its fleet.
CTE is experienced in developing, implementing, and administering advanced
transportation technology projects, with a focus on zero -emission transit buses. The
lack of widespread deployments could present challenges for transit agencies unfamiliar
with zero-emission technology, as there are specific operating characteristics and
fueling requirements associated with its deployment. Leveraging CTE’s concurrent work
with DTS would provide operational strategy, support, and data for replacing the
remainder of BBB’s fleet of transit buses with BEB’s at a reduced cost to the City.
CTE has provided technical assistance and project management services on many
zero-emission bus deployment projects made possible through a variety of FTA
programs. Overall, CTE is assisting more than 50 transit agencies that have either
deployed, or would soon deploy, more than 200 zero emission buses including Alameda
County Transit, Tri-Met (Portland, Oregon), San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and
Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority. CTE’s experience would greatly benefit
the City of Santa Monica staff in learning from other transit agency experiences with
BEB.
Past Council Actions
5 of 5
Meeting Date Description
10/25/2016
(Attachment A)
Purchase of 27 Gillig CNG Buses (7 30’ and 20 40’ buses)
4/24/2018
(Attachment B) BBB Fleet Composition Study Session
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The contract modification to be awarded to Gillig, LLC is for an amount not to exceed
$429,559 which includes a $50,000 contingency. The sole source contract to be
awarded to CTE is $131,500. Funds are available in the Proposed FY 2018-20 Capital
Improvement Program budget. The purchase orders would be charged to account
C6004810.689000.
Prepared By: David Nanjo, Administrative Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 2018-4-24 - Fleet Comp Study
B. October 25, 2016 Staff Report
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 24, 2018
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 16
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward King, Director, Big Blue Bus, Finance & Administrative Services
Subject: Fleet Composition Study
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review, and provide guidance to staff on the future implementation of a BBB
vehicle propulsion technology for the BBB fleet to achieve a goal of Zero
Emissions;
2) Provide feedback regarding a proof of concept program for evaluating the
operational effectiveness and efficiency of a sub -fleet of electric buses which
shall consist of up to 10 battery electric buses and requisite infrastructure at the
BBB yard; and
3) Authorize staff to work with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of
Innovation, FTA Region 9 Office, and Gillig, LLC for the procurement of one 40-
foot electric propelled bus from Gillig, LLC under the FTA’s Prototype Waiver
Program that would be produced in December 2018, and placed into revenue
service in January 2019.
Executive Summary
Big Blue Bus provides regional transit service for 13.6 million passengers a year,
serving an area covering 58 square miles. Since the 1990’s, Big Blue Bus (BBB) has
been a leader in using cost efficient environmentally-friendly vehicle propulsion
technology for its fixed route bus fleet. With the advent of ne w propulsion technology
being tested and evaluated at many California transit agencies and the potential that the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) proposed Innovative Clean Transit (ICT)
regulation being finalized later this year, staff initiated an an alysis to compare the
economic and environmental benefits for future ve hicle procurements under two
propulsion scenarios: 1) transitioning BBB’s existing fleet to near-zero NOx emission
(NZE) natural gas engines that would continue to be fueled by renewable natural gas
(RNG); and, 2) transitioning BBB’s existing fleet to battery electric buses (BEB).
2 of 16
Staff is committed to providing an objective and unbiased approach to help guide
Council, and while the GNA report summary and cost implications for each fuel path are
provided in the staff report, there are inherent tradeoffs with each fuel path scenario,
upsides to each, and unknowns with Scenario Number 2, (transition the fleet to BEBs)
due to how new this technology is in the transit industry. At the end of the day, BBB is
committed to consistently provide financially sustainable, efficient, effective and safe
mobility services to our customers and the community on a daily basi s.
Understanding that this technology is new in the transit industry, staff recommends a
responsible approach to first prototyping the application of electric bus operation on the
BBB system, and moving forward with the implementation of a proof of concept program
with measurable outcomes for success with a small fleet of electric buses over the next
2 years to lay the groundwork for a transition to a 100% zero-emissions fleet.
Background
BBB operates twenty fixed routes that include traditional local transit service, commuter
transit, express service, and community-based circulators. The urban area serviced by
BBB’s transit fleet includes the entire Westside region of Los Angeles. The BBB fleet
provides service to approximately 13.6 million passengers annually in an urban service
area of 58 square miles. The fleet’s service area is vastly larger than the City’s
municipal service boundary of 8.4 square miles.
To provide these services, BBB operates a fleet of 200 natural gas urban transit buses
which include nineteen (19) 30-35 foot buses, (153) 40-foot buses, and twenty-eight
(28) 60-foot articulated buses. Approximately 60% of the fleet is model year 2011 or
newer buses. The entire fleet is powered by natural gas engines fueled with renewable
natural gas. Today, 62 ½ percent of the fleet operates on compressed natural gas
(CNG) and 37.5% operates on liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, all LNG buses
within the fleet would be retired by 2019.
3 of 16
Make Year Qty # of
Buses
Fuel
Type Engine
lbs. NOx
per yr per
bus
Total lbs.
NOx per
year
Gillig 2018 20 Near Zero 32.44 649
Gillig 2017 25 Near Zero 32.44 811
Gillig 2016 4 ISLG 324.41 1,298
Gillig 2015 11 ISLG 324.41 3,568
Gillig 2013 58 ISLG 324.41 18,816
NABI 2011 6 Near Zero 32.44 195
NABI 2011 3 ISLG 324.41 973
New Flyer 2006 10 C-Gas Plus 3,568.50 35,685
New Flyer 2004 13 C-Gas Plus 3,568.50 46,391
New Flyer 2015 7 ISLG 324.41 2,271
NABI 2011 7 ISLG 324.41 2,271
NABI 2011 14 Near Zero 32.44 454
Gillig 2018 7 Near Zero 32.44 227
El Dorado 2011 10 ISLG 324.41 3,244
El Dorado 2010 5 ISLG 324.41 1,622
200
72 Near Zero 32.44 2,336
105 ISLG 324.41 34,063
23 23 RLNG C-Gas Plus 3,568.50 82,076
RCNG
VEHICLE MAKEUP
177 RCNGFUEL MAKEUP
RLNG
RCNG
RCNG
23
28
22
40
'
B
u
s
60
'
B
u
s
30
'
B
u
s
127
Figure 1 - BBB's Current Revenue Vehicles (Note: ISLG refers to a Cummins Engine
model)
The transit facility consists of a maintenance facility, administrative buildings, fueling
infrastructure, wash bays, bus yard, and a maintenance parking lot for staff vehicles.
The maintenance facility was remodeled in 2009 and there are currently no plans to
expand the facility.
4 of 16
Two fueling stations are physically located on BBB’s property. A private on -site station
is located within the fenced boundary of the transit facility, while a public access station
is located outside of the fenced boundary but still on BBB’s property. BBB’s transit fleet
is supplied with CNG (via the LCNG station) and LNG from renewable liquefied natural
gas (RLNG) that is procured from Clean Energy. On average, Clean Energy delivers
one load of RLNG each day which is transported via tanker truck from C lean Energy’s
Boron LNG plant. An onsite storage tank supplies the RLNG to the LCNG and LNG
dispensers that are co-located within the drive-through wash bays.
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the transit facility. On average,
BBB’s electricity cost is higher than that of surrounding utility customers because the
City procures a higher fraction of renewable electricity in its electricity mix than SCE’s
average delivered electricity mix. The low carbon electricity is purchased via a t hird
party energy service provider (ESP) but is delivered through SCE’s distribution system.
During peak service days, which occur Monday through Friday, BBB’s fleet operates
240 daily weekday assignments which require 162 transit buses during peak weekd ay
service. The average distance of an assignment is 71 miles; however, individual
assignments range from 13 miles up to 181 miles. Some transit buses receive more
than one assignment during a peak day. The majority of route operations occur on
primarily flat surfaces, however, there are a small number of route assignments, such
as those travelling to and from the Pacific Palisades area, that entail a significant
amount of elevation change.
Discussion
Fuel Path Analysis
To help staff better understand the issues surrounding vehicle propulsion systems, the
consulting firm of Gladstein, Neandross & Associates/Ramboll prepared a detailed
analysis looking at the different fuel paths. For each of the vehicle deployment
scenarios, cost and emissions profiles were developed on a per-mile, annual, and
lifecycle basis using fleet composition, operational, and procedural data provided by
BBB, as well as assumptions where necessary in order to characterize the recently
5 of 16
commercialized alternative technologies. The operational cost for each transit bus
technology is an aggregate of individual cost factors that include bus capital, fuel,
operations and maintenance (O&M), midlife overhaul, fuelling infrastructure, and facility
modification costs. Data provided by BBB and assumptions were evaluated to quantify
the individual cost factors as a component of the overall cost. The emissions evaluated
as part of the analysis include greenhouse gases (GHGs), oxides of nitrogen (NO x), and
particulate matter (PM10).
The analysis found the total per-mile operational cost for BBB’s existing transit buses to
be $2.789/mi compared to $2.829/mi for near-zero NOx emission natural gas transit
buses and $4.054/mi for battery electric transit buses if purchased in 2017. While
significant operating cost reductions are not expected for BBB’s existing buses or for
NZE natural gas buses over the next 20 years, it is widely projected that operating costs
for battery electric buses will fall over time.
The analysis projects that battery electric buses purchased in 2030 would have an
average operating cost of $3.382/mi. Over a 12 -year lifecycle, the operational cost of
BBB’s existing transit bus is approximately $1,079,343/bus compared to $1,094,823/bus
for near-zero NOx emission transit buses, $1,568,898/bus for battery electric transit
buses purchased in 2017, and $1,308,834/bus for battery electric buses purchased in
2030. This represents an incremental cost of $15,480/bus for near-zero NOx emission
transit buses, $489,555/bus for battery electric transit buses purchased in 2017, and
$229,491/bus for battery electric transit buses purchased in 2030. Estimated costs for
battery electric transit buses take into account significant reductions in battery costs
over time and are net of projected credits that BBB could generate under California’s
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
6 of 16
The emissions analysis found well-to-wheel (WTW) GHG emissions of BBB’s existing
transit bus to be 1,475 grams per mile (g/mi) compared to 1,213 g/mi emitted from near -
zero NOx transit buses, and 8.88 g/mi for battery electric transit buses purchased in
2017 and in 2030. Well-to-tank (WTT) NOx emissions were found to be 4.53 g/mi for
BBB’s existing transit buses, 4.55 g/mi for near-zero NOx transit buses, and 0.0653 g/mi
for battery electric transit buses purchased in 2017 and in 2030. Tank -to-wheel (TTW)
NOx emissions were found to be 0.581 g/mi emitted by BBB’s existing transit buses
compared to 0.045 g/mi emitted from near-zero NOx transit buses and 0.00 g/mi emitted
from battery electric transit buses purchased in 2017 and in 2030.
7 of 16
Transit Bus Emissions
Profiles
BBB Existing
Transit Bus
NZE NOx CNG
Transit Bus
2017 Battery
Electric
Transit Bus
2030 Battery
Electric
Transit Bus
WTW GHG Emissions 1,475 g/mi 1,213 g/mi 8.88 g/mi 8.88 g/mi
WTT NOx Emissions 4.53 g/mi 4.55 g/mi 0.0653 g/mi 0.0653 g/mi
TTW NOx Emissions 0.581 g/mi 0.045 g/mi 0.000 g/mi 0.000 g/mi
WTW NOx Emissions 5.111 g/mi 4.600 g/mi 0.065 g/mi 0.065 g/mi
In addition to evaluating the cost and emissions performance of the individual transit
bus technologies, BBB’s fleet-wide costs and emissions were evaluated over the
proposed ICT regulatory timeframe that is currently under development by the ARB.
The figure below displays BBB’s existing fleet transitioning to near-zero NOx emission
natural gas transit buses according BBB’s planned replacement schedule.
During the 23-year implementation timeframe of the ICT regulation, BBB would incur a
cost of approximately $414 million as a result of continuing to procure and operate their
existing transit bus technology. The analysis found that BBB would incur a cost of
approximately $418 million as a result of transitioning the existing fleet to a near -zero
NOx emission natural gas fleet, representing an incremental cost of approximately $4
million. The analysis also found that BBB would incur a cost of approximately $492
million (an incremental cost of $78 million) as a result of transitioning to a battery
8 of 16
electric fleet assuming expected reductions in ba ttery costs and net of projected LCFS
credits generated across the timeframe.
BBB Fleet Costs – 2018-2040 BBB Existing
Transit Fleet
NZE NOx CNG
Transit Fleet
Battery Electric
Transit Fleet
Fleet Operational Costs $ 413,748,150 $ 417,803,910 $ 492,001,711
Incremental Cost Relative to
Baseline Scenario $ - ↑ $ 4,055,760 ↑ $ 78,253,561
Transitioning BBB’s fleet to near-zero NOx emission natural gas transit buses would
reduce the fleet’s WTW GHG emissions by 26,724 MT (metric tons) during the
timeframe. Transitioning BBB’s existing fleet to a battery electric fleet would significantly
reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately 150,000 MT during the timeframe.
However, the reductions provided by the transition to battery electric transit buses come
at a cost of approximately $78 million or approximately $526/MT. The majority
(approximately 99%) of WTW GHGs emitted during the transition to a battery electric
fleet are the emissions from BBB’s existing transit buses as they operate for the
remainder of their useful lives.
The analysis found that transitioning to either of the alternative scenarios technologies
would yield significant TTW NOx reductions. During the timeframe, transitioning to a
near zero NOx emission natural gas transit fleet yields a 63% reduction from the
baseline scenario while the transition to a battery electric transit fleet buses yields a
68% reduction from the baseline scenario.
Though the reductions achieved by each scenario are comparable, there is a significant
difference in the costs that would be incurred. At an incremental cost of approximately
$4 million, the 60.1 tons of NOx reduced as a result of transitioning to a near-zero NOx
natural gas fleet would cost approximately $67,484/ton. In contrast, the 65.1 tons of NOx
reduced as a result of transitioning to a battery electric transit fleet would cost
approximately $1,202,052/ton (approximately 1800% more than the cost of the
reductions that would result from transitioning to an NZE NOx fleet) because the
9 of 16
incremental cost of transitioning to a battery electric transit fleet is approximately $78
million.
BBB Fleet Emissions – 2018-
2040
BBB Existing
Transit Fleet
NZE NOx CNG
Transit Fleet
Battery Electric
Transit Fleet
TTW NOx Emissions 95.2 tons 35.1 tons 30.1 tons
Reductions Relative to
Baseline Scenario 0.0 ↓ 60.1 tons ↓ 65.1 tons
Cost of TTW NOx Emissions
Reductions 0.0 $67,484/ton $1,202,052/ton
The analysis also found that transitioning to a near -zero NOx emission natural gas
transit fleet would not yield any significant PM10 (particulate matter) reductions. The
reason is the Cummins ISL G Near-Zero (NZ) and the Cummins ISL G (equipped in
BBB’s existing transit buses) have the same certified PM10 emissions values. In
contrast, transitioning to a battery electric transit fleet yields a 68% reduction from the
baseline scenario. While this is a significant percent reduction, the PM emissions from
each of the scenarios is very small because natural gas engines have extremely low
PM10 emissions.
In summary, the analysis found that, at an incremental cost of approximately $4 million,
the transition of BBB’s existing fleet to a fleet of near -zero NOx emission natural gas
transit buses would result in a small decrease in GHG emissions and a significant
reduction in TTW NOx emissions. At an incremental cost of approximately $78 million,
the transition of BBB’s existing fleet to battery electric transit buses would result in GHG
and TTW NOx emissions reductions that are more costly compared to those achieved
from the deployment of near-zero NOx emission natural gas transit buses.
The results of the analysis are based on projections of significant operating cost
reductions for battery electric buses over time. These reductions are based on large
reductions in battery storage costs and projections of revenue from the LCFS program.
Changes in these assumptions would have a dramatic impact on the total estimated
project costs. Were battery storage costs to remain constant (and not fall over time as
they almost certainly will based on history), the incremental cost of converting the entire
10 of 16
fleet to battery electric buses would increase to approximately $130 million as opposed
to approximately $78 million.
The LCFS program works with other programs in California, such as the Cap -and-Trade
Program, to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. Credits are generated from
the use of low carbon fuels in the transportation sector. Regulated entities, such as
petroleum refiners, are required to purchase credits to offset the GHG emissions
associated with the higher carbon fuels that they produce. It is the demand for these
credits by regulated entities that sets the credit price. Though the credit price has
remained stable in recent years, future credit prices would be established in an open
market environment and any fluctuations in the price of the credit would directly impact
BBB’s cost of operating battery electric buses.
Funding Opportunities
With the proposed 23-year length of a transition to a zero emission fleet, it is impossible
to accurately predict what the funding landscape would look like. However, this section
describes existing federal, state, and county programs and incentives outside of BBB’s
ongoing funding streams that could help pay for alternatively-fuelled buses.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) offers two relatively small funding pots for the
purchase of zero-emission transit buses. The Low or No Emission Competitive Program
(LoNo) provides funding to state and local governmental authorities for the purchase or
lease of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses as well as acquisition,
construction, and leasing of required supporting facilities. The LoNo Program distributes
$55 million nationwide. Big Blue Bus applied for funding for battery electric buses i n the
FTA’s last funding cycle but was not selected.
The FTA also offers the Bus & Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program which
allows agencies to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and
to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to
modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. The Bus and Bus Facilities Program
11 of 16
distributes $226 million nationally. BBB currently submitted an application for the
purchase of seven battery electric vehicles through this program but was not selected.
The state’s funding opportunities for zero and near zero engines have been increasing
in recent years. For example, the Hybrid and Zero -Emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP) provides vouchers to help California fleets purchase advanced
technology trucks and buses. HVIP provides vouchers for California purchasers and
lessees of hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses on a first-come, first-served
basis. Purchasers of fixed route zero emission buses receive $110,000 per vehicle
while using near zero engines receive $10,000 to offset costs. BBB would utilize these
vouchers regardless of the fuel path chosen.
To help with the implementation costs of the ICT regulation, the ARB has rec ently
proposed to invest one-third of the VW Mitigation Trust in zero-emission buses. The
program would create a maximum incentive of up to $180,000 for a new battery electric
transit bus, up to $400,000 for a new fuel cell electric transit bus, and up to $100,000 for
a new battery electric shuttle bus. These maximum funding amounts exceed the
maximum funding amounts allowed under HVIP. Unfortunately, no funding is proposed
for charging infrastructure.
In January, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) approved the first
transportation electrification applications under SB 350 from the three large investor -
owned utilities. The decision approves 15 projects with combined budgets of $42 million
statewide. One approved project in Southern California E dison’s (SCE) area is
$3.9 million for “Electric Transit Bus Make-Ready.” SCE would deploy make-ready
infrastructure at bus depots and along bus routes to serve electric commuter buses
operating in SCE’s service territory. SCE would also provide a rebate to participating
customers to cover the cost of the charging equipment and installation. SCE would
maximize the electric transit bus routes it supports in disadvantaged communities.
The California State Transportation Agency has recently finished accepting applications
for the next round of Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). The TIRCP
12 of 16
aims to increase ridership on the state-wide transit and rail network and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The five-year program is anticipated to distribute $2.4
billion. Big Blue Bus recently submitted a grant application to CALSTA asking for $3.05
million to pay for the incremental cost of ten 40-foot battery electric buses. The total cost
of the ten vehicle program would be $9.7 million. Associated infrastr ucture costs were
not included in the request in order to make the application more competitive.
At the County level, BBB’s participation in Metro’s Bus Operations Subcommittee (BOS)
allows it to apply for bus replacements and facility improvements. The B OS distributes
15% of Los Angeles County’s Federal 5307 Capital funds on an annual basis. Typically,
the fund source spreads approximately $17 million among the sixteen Municipal
Operators. The funds are allocated based on a competitive process.
Context for All-Electric Fleet Conversion
With over 200 public transit systems operating about 14,000 buses, the State of
California is leading the way nationally in making the commitment to an all zero -
emission fleet. Within the state, seven transit agencies have committed to making full
transition to an all-electric fleet by the year 2030. LA Metro currently has 100 zero -
emission vehicles on order, and has committed to the conversion if their new vehicles
comply with performance benchmarks. Foothill Transit and the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (LADOT) have also made the same commitment to have
an all zero-emission fleet by 2030. Foothill Transit has 30 zero -emission buses on the
road; Long Beach Transit has 10. LADOT has four vehicles on the road and recently
ordered 25 more zero emission vehicles. Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) has
eight buses on the street and an order placed for all 85 of their buses to be battery
electric by the end of 2019. Elsewhere in the United States, King Cou nty Metro in
Seattle has committed to purchasing 120 all electric battery buses by 2020 with the goal
of having a 100% zero emission fleet between 2034 and 2040.
The number of manufacturers currently providing battery electric buses is limited but the
number is growing as more transit systems commit to the new technology. Two battery
electric only bus manufacturers - Proterra and BYD - currently sell most of the battery
13 of 16
electric buses across the United States. Other legacy bus manufacturers such as New
Flyer and Gillig are also entering the battery electric marketplace.
The most exhaustive study of battery electric bus performance was completed in June
2017 by the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory on
twelve Foothill Transit buses. The study compared the performance of Proterra battery
electric buses versus Foothill's NABI CNG vehicles as a baseline. Highlights of the
study include: the twelve battery electric buses accumulating more than 900,000 miles
during the study period; the buses surpassed their target of 4,000 miles between road
calls with more than 6,000 miles during the evaluation period; the on -route chargers
operated reliably with minimal issues; and the high voltage batteries showed little to no
sign of capacity degradation during the study period.
Conversely, the short-range on-route charged buses are inflexible and cannot be
deployed to other routes; the higher use of air conditioning lowers the effective range in
hotter months; charger availability is needed for successful vehicle deployment; and the
CNG buses did significantly outperform the battery electric bus in many of the
evaluation areas. For comparison, BBB’s miles between road failures on the CNG and
LNG fleets are more than 18,000 miles. Additionally, systems in Albuquerque, NM, and
Long Beach have experienced significant delays in BEB deliveries from vendors,
delaying new projects that both systems had intended to launch in early 2017.
Based upon proactive discussions with Southern California Edison, and through staff
evaluation of the proposed SCE medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging
infrastructure that includes transit agencies, staff has identified up to 23 potential
charging unit locations within the maintenance/parking yard where BEBs could be
charged overnight.
14 of 16
BBB all-Electric Fleet Challenges
One of the many challenges with converting the fleet to electric is operational and
maintenance continuity of operations. As buses become eligible for replacement under
the FTA funding regulations that BBB follows, transitioning and operating a dual fueled
fleet becomes complex. During the conversion, more space would be needed for
infrastructure required to support charging the BBB electric fleet, while still maintaining
RNG fueling facilities for the CNG fleet including giving consideration to back-up power
and energy storage. As BBB is already constrained by the size of the yard and facilities
from which it operates, a feasibility and transition analysis would need to be conducted
to inform staff and stakeholders on best practices and how to ensure that service
delivery to BBB’s 54,000 daily customers remains consistent.
Other challenges and critical areas that need to be reviewed prior to transition to an all -
electric fleet include: training of mechanic staff on new fleet propulsion technology; route
specific energy analysis; impacts of a replacement analysis greater that one -to-one for
electric buses; and the evaluation of electric bus technology advancements and
reduced battery costs that are hard to accurately predict. While these challenges exist,
there are many opportunities for growth of BBB’s understanding of electric bus
technology.
BBB Transition Plan
Understanding the unknowns, benefits, costs, tradeoffs, and the City’s desire to move
toward an all-electric fleet, staff continues to responsibly and conscientiously prepare
and plan for that transition.
To address the electric bus fleet and new infrastructure costs, staff continues to seek
additional funding for both, applying for new federal and state programs for this
technology, as well as meeting with SCE to learn about their new programs. As
mentioned earlier, a TIRCP grant has been submitted to partially fund up to ten new
electric vehicles. BBB anticipates announcement of successful grant applications by
May 2018. Previous grant submittals for FTA LoNo funding and Bus and Bus
Infrastructure Program funding were not successful. Staff has scheduled a conference
15 of 16
call with FTA staff on 4/20/18 to discuss our recent grant submittals and how to improve
future grant applications.
Staff continues to work with American Public Transportation Association, California
Transit Association and sister agencies to maintain the pulse and knowledge of the
market. Locally, staff has joined the LA Regional Electric Bus Working Group to
collaboratively work with our peers to find solutions for implementation and to the
increased costs of this technology. Staff is also working on the Zero Emission Bus
Procurement Committee to provide input to the St ate Department of General Services
(DGS) for the creation of a statewide electric bus procurement, giving us options to buy
our buses as funding comes in. Additionally, we are in dialogue with Southern California
Edison (SCE) to layout plans and estimate costs for converting our property to support a
100% electric fleet. In those conversations, we have learned of SCE’s work with the
CPUC for potential funding for infrastructure. We would continue to monitor all funding
possibilities.
Finally, BBB has initiated a collaborative effort with FTA, Gillig and the Honolulu Transit
System to test one of Gillig’s five total prototype battery electric buses that they are
building at the end of this calendar year. In June or early July 2018, staff will
recommend to council procurement of one prototype electric bus. This pilot project
would help BBB immediately begin to evaluate the technology and the application of
operating an electric bus within our service area and how it would impact our operations
as we transition to an electric fleet.
Following best practices, we would perform route, charge and rate modeling to better
prepare for a future implementation plan. This process would ultimately help staff
understand the differences of this technology and how best t o procure, deploy and
operate electric buses into the BBB fleet mix. Staff would continue efforts with our
funding partners to apply for grants to fund electric bus purchases.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
16 of 16
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action associated with conducting the
study session. Depending on the direction given, costs associated with purchasing new
vehicles and accompanying infrastructure may be affected.
Prepared By: Eric O'Connor, Chief Administrative Officer
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Communication
B. Powerpoint Presentation
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 3.N
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward King, Director, Big Blue Bus, Transit Finance & Grants
Subject: Purchase of 27 Gillig CNG Buses for Replacement
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth modification to Agreement
#9855 with Gillig, LLC, a California-based company, to furnish and deliver twenty 40-
foot buses in an amount not to exceed $13,680,737, and seven 30-foot transit buses in
an amount not to exceed $4,717,157, powered by Renewable Compressed Natural Gas
(RCNG), for a total amount not to exceed $18,397,894. This would result in a third-year
amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $44,581,412, with future
year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
Executive Summary
Big Blue Bus (BBB) has developed a bus replacement plan that enables BBB to replace
buses that have reached their useful life cycle of twelve years. The goal of the
replacement plan is to purchase new vehicles that have the latest environmentally-
friendly propulsion technology and to continue to further reduce emissions. The
recommended purchase of the 27 Gillig CNG buses would be powered by a new
Cummins Near-Zero emission change that runs on Renewable Compressed Natural
Gas. The new Near-Zero engine reduces harmful NOx emissions by 80%, and the use
of Renewable Natural Gas reduces Green House Gases. This combination would make
these vehicles the cleanest operating buses in BBB’s fleet. The purchase of these
buses meets the goal of reducing transit bus emissions.
BBB recommends the purchase of twenty 40-foot CNG transit buses that would enable
the timely replacement of twenty 2004 LNG New Flyer 40-foot transit buses that will
have reached the end of their 12-year useful life cycle by the delivery date of the new
buses.
2 of 6
The purchase of seven 30-foot CNG transit buses would enable BBB to meet
operational needs for vehicles with a smaller footprint and turning radius, as they would
improve maneuverability in narrow streets and intersections. The seven 30-foot buses
would replace seven 2004 LNG New Flyer 40-foot transit buses that have reached the
end of their 12-year useful life cycle.
The total combined purchase amount for seven 30 -foot CNG transit buses and twenty
40-foot CNG buses including spare parts, training and warranty, is not to exceed
$18,397,894.
Background
BBB has 50 Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) buses that are due for replacement. The buses
were purchased in 2004 and have reached their useful life of 12 years or 500,0 00 miles
per Federal Administration (FTA) guidelines. The recommended purchase of twenty 40-
foot and seven 30-foot CNG transit buses would replace twenty-seven 2004 40’ LNG
buses that have reached the end of their lifecycle. Thus far, 40 buses have been
purchased and delivered through Agreement 9855.
On January 14, 2014, the City entered into Agreement #9855 with Gillig, LLC to
purchase up to 99 vehicles of 30-, 35-, and 40-foot, low floor, CNG powered transit
vehicles.
On June 10, 2014, Council authorized the purchase of eleven 40-foot buses and the
City Manager to execute the first modification to Agreement #9855 for an amount not to
exceed $6,763,405.
On April 14, 2015, Council authorized the purchase of four 30-foot buses and twenty-
five 40-foot buses and the City Manager to execute a second and third modification
respectively, to Agreement #9855 for an amount not to exceed $19,420.112.
Staff is recommending the purchase of twenty 40-foot and seven 30-foot CNG transit
buses and that Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth
3 of 6
modification to Agreement #9588 for an amount not to exceed $18,397,894. If the
purchase is approved, the remaining number of transit buses eligible for purchase
through agreement #9855 buses would be 32.
The recommended action would result in a fourth modification to purchase twenty 40 -
foot buses at $630,035 per bus and seven 30-foot buses at $614,579 per bus, including
tax, delivery, ADA compliance, and extended warranties. Additional costs in the amount
of $500,000 for spare parts and special tools, $150,000 for technical training and
$845,138 for contingency would bring the modification total amount to not to exceed
$18,397,894.
Discussion
Big Blue Bus is committed to further reducing harmful gas emissions. BBB’s bus
replacement plan helps meet the goal of timely replacement of vehicles that have
reached their useful life of twelve years and continue to further reduce emissions. The
current plan includes phasing in four zero-emission buses by 2018, five by 2022, and
continued replacement of CNG buses with electric buses over the next eight years.
Because the industry has yet to fully embrace this technology due to facility and
electrical grid infrastructure costs, the current plan is subject to change. At this time,
staff is in the process of evaluating proposals from qualified vendors to conduct a
“Technology Neutral Study for the Big Blue Bus Fleet Plan.” This study/analysis will
include the opportunities and challenges of operating electric vehicles in an urban
transportation environment, electric vehicle range, vehicle cost, BBB facility
infrastructure cost, industry best practices, sources of electricity and carbon offsets, and
evaluating potential funding opportunities.
The purchase of 27 Gillig buses, with the near-zero engines, is in line with BBB’s bus
replacement plan to continue to provide reliable, safe and up to date vehicles to deliver
the highest level of service quality to our customers, while also achieving the Council
goal of a zero carbon emission bus fleet by 2030. In order to achieve the goals of the
BBB fleet replacement program these vehicles will replace buses purchased in 2004
that have surpassed their useful life. As part of the progression toward a zero-emission
4 of 6
bus fleet, the new buses would have the lowest NOx emissions of any bus in BBB’s
fleet, allowing BBB to reduce emissions in its fleet while investigating the best path to
zero emissions.
The 27 new Gillig CNG-powered buses would be equipped with the new near-zero
emission engine that reduces harmful NOx emission by 80%. In combination with the
use of Renewable Compressed Natural Gas (RCNG), the 27 new transit buses would
be the lowest exhaust emission vehicles in BBB’s fleet. The se buses would produce
876 pounds of NOx emissions per year; the transit buses they would replace produce
42,821 pounds of NOx. The total reduction of harmful NOx would be 41,975 pounds.
Staff is recommending the purchase of more 30-foot buses as BBB has implemented
new service on corridors where a 30-foot bus may be more suitable than a 40-foot
vehicle. As staff continues to improve service on the new north-south corridors and
other corridors in the service area where a 40-foot bus would not be operable due to
street width and turn radii, having 30-foot vehicles to provide service is extremely
beneficial. BBB currently operates 30-foot buses on Route 18 (4th Street and Montana
Avenue), Route 43 (26th Street), as well as Route16 (20th Street).
At this time, staff recommends replacing twenty-seven 40’ transit buses, which have
reached their useful life of 12 years, in the following manner:
Recommended
Purchase
Number of
Buses
Purchase Justification Delivery Schedule
40' CNG powered
Gillig buses
20 Replace (20) 2002 and
2004 40-foot LNG buses
20 months from order
placed
30' CNG powered
Gillig buses
7
Replace (7) 2004 40-foot
New Flyer LNG buses
on routes where shorter
buses are recommended
20 months from order
placed
5 of 6
The cost of the buses is as follows:
(20) 40-foot CNG Gillig Buses
Base $10,695,180
ADA $889,480
Tax $1,016,042
Contingency $630,035
Spare Parts $300,000
Training $150,000
Total $13,680,737
(7) 30-foot CNG Gillig Buses
Base $3,644,508
ADA $311,318
Tax $346,228
Contingency $215,103
Spare Parts $200,000
Total $4,717,157
Total modification amount to Agreement #9855 in a total not to exceed $18,397,894.
Vendor Selection
Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus, along with 21 other agencies, participated in a jo int
procurement to purchase buses. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), in
Concord, California, the lead agency, issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
production and delivery of 30-, 35-, and 40-foot heavy-duty low floor transit buses.
CCCTA determined Gillig, LLC was the best bidder, with the understanding that Council
approval would be obtained separately through the term of the contract to authorize the
purchase of buses in quantities and configurations to be specified, in conformance with
the contract documents. A maximum of 99 buses would be purchased under this
contract contingent on funding availability.
6 of 6
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The modification of Agreement #9855 with Gillig, LLC is for an amount not to exceed
$18,397,894. Funds are available in the FY 2016 -17 Capital Improvement budget. The
purchase will be charged to account C410519.589000.
Prepared By: Enny Chung, Sr. Admin Analyst - Grants
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Contract with Gillig LLC to Purchase 40 Foot Buses
B. Issue a Notice to Proceed to Gillig LLC to Purchase Eleven (11) 40-foot
Compressed Natural Gas Buses
C. Authorize a Notice to Proceed to Gillig LLC to Purchase Four 30 -foot and 25 40-
foot Compressed Natural Gas Buses
D. April 14, 2015 City Council Minutes (Web Link)
E. June 10, 2014 City Council Minutes (Web Link)
REFERENCE:
Modified
Agreement No. 9855
(CCS)
&
Agreement No. 10721