Philadelphia’s Municipal
Clean Fleet Plan
October 2021

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s Strategic Transportation Plan

1

2

City of Philadelphia

Table of Contents
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions

4

Executive Summary				6

Introduction 		

			

10

Current Fleet and Procurement Process

11

Alternative Fuels and Vehicles 			

16

Vehicle and Fueling Recommendations

33

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)

40

EVSE Recommendations

50

Conclusion			

54

Appendices					 54CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

3

Abbreviations, Acronyms,
and Definitions
Electric Vehicle (EV): A vehicle powered at least in part by electricity, usually from an on-board battery – aBattery Electric Vehicle (BEV), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, or (rarely) a Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV).
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV): A vehicle solely powered by electricity which has no internal
combustion engine. It must be charged from a utility power supply and includes regenerative
braking technology. An example of this vehicle would be the Chevrolet Bolt.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV): A vehicle with an internal combustion engine (ICE) which runs on
gasoline or diesel. The vehicle has a regenerative braking system which captures energy as it
slows down, stores it in a small battery, and then uses it to provide a boost to the vehicle upon
subsequent acceleration. All power for the vehicle originates from gasoline or diesel. The hybrid
technology only serves to improve fuel efficiency. An example of this vehicle would be a Toyota
Prius.
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV): A vehicle with the features of the HEV except the onboard
battery is slightly larger and can be charged from a utility power supply while parked. Thus, thesevehicles can be powered by gasoline or directly by grid charging. An example of this vehicle would
be a Ford Fusion Energi.
Electric Vehicle Supply (or Support) Equipment (EVSE): A free-standing or mounted piece of equipment
which supplies electric energy from a power source for the safe resupply (charging) of electric vehicle(EV) batteries. Typically referred to as charging stations with one of more units/’heads’ or ports, EVSE isoften categorized by level which specifies the voltage input. For the City’s immediate purposes, levels are
simplified as follows: Level 1 (AC, alternating current) at 120V; Level 2 AC at up to 240V; and Level 3 (DC,direct current) at 400-600+V. The most popular types of charging/plug connectors are the SAE J1772 forLevel 1 and 2 charging, and CHAdeMO or CCS for Level 3 charging.
EV-Capable Space: Capable of future Level 2 charging infrastructure installation. Installed electrical panel
capacity and space to support a minimum 40-ampere, 208/240-volt branch circuit for each parking space
and the installation of continuous raceways, from the panel to the intended EV parking space. Foundational
electrical capacity installed but lacks conduit to an electrical outlet with required voltage and amperage.
EV-Ready Space: A parking space with installed electrical panel capacity (EV-Capable, as above) for future
Level 2 charging infrastructure installation, in close proximity to a conduit terminating in a junction box (withservice loop) or a 240-volt charging outlet. Ready for installation of charging station equipment to supply
electrical power for an EV. Overcurrent protection devices are also recommended.
EVSE-Installed Space: A vehicle parking space with completed EV-Capable and EVSE-Ready work, withfully operational Level 2 charging station already installed.

4City of Philadelphia

Fossil-Fuel-Free (F3): As per the City of Seattle Green Fleet Plan – ‘Liquid fuels that are renewablehydrocarbon biofuels (also called “green” hydrocarbons, bio-hydrocarbons, drop-in biofuels andsustainable or advanced hydrocarbon biofuels).’
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle: A vehicle whose propulsion is powered by the combustion(burning) of fuel and oxidant which produces heat and power – as well as carbon monoxide, nitrogenoxides, hydrocarbons, other pollutant vapors, and greenhouse gases.
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (MTCDE or MT CO2e): A metric measure used to compare
the emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

5

Executive Summary
Background and Context
In January of 2021, Mayor Jim Kenney announced Philadelphia’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality
by 2050, along with the release of the City of Philadelphia’s Climate Action Playbook. This goal requires theelimination of emissions in the buildings, energy, transportation, and waste sectors by 2050 and is in linewith what experts indicate is needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
Nationally, transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions. This is why the Biden Administration hasprioritized vehicle electrification in its efforts to address climate change and to protect and grow Americanjobs. Government agencies around the country are transitioning their fleets and seeing the benefits ofdoing so, including major operational savings. Auto manufacturers are also getting in the game, such as
General Motors who announced their plans to stop making gas-powered cars by 2035
The City of Philadelphia’s Municipal Clean Fleet Plan lays out a strategy to transition the City’s fleet- which
represents around 13% of the municipal government’s carbon footprint- to clean and electric vehicles. Thistransition will allow the City to lead by example in reducing carbon pollution. But additionally, the transition
will allow the City to achieve cost savings, to support local job creation, and to enhance Philadelphia’scompetitiveness among peer cities.
It is no small feat to transition a large fleet that serves many functions. This Plan provides guidance
and recommendations that will ensure the City’s fleet transition is cost-effective and results in tangible
outcomes. An overview of the recommendations is provided in the Action Plan below.
This Plan is the culmination of multiple analyses which considered the City’s current fleet, its vehicle andsupporting infrastructure procurement projections, the current electric vehicle market, and future trends
in transportation electrification. The plan draws heavily from reports produced by two city consultants(Wilson Engineering Services/WES, see Appendix B; and ICF’s Infrastructure Analysis, see Appendix C)
which reviewed the 2020 market for vehicles and fuels and made projections on charging infrastructureneeds to support a zero-emissions fleet. The plan is also supported by regional efforts like Pennsylvania’s
participation in the multi-state Memorandum of Understanding on medium- and heavy-duty electricvehicles and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant(AFIG) program.

Action Plan: Clean Fleet Recommendations
The following provides a summary of the recommendations outlined within the body of this Clean Fleet
Plan, for both fleet vehicles and necessary supply infrastructure. The Plan prioritizes the electrification ofPhiladelphia’s fleet to achieve reduced operating costs and emissions, in line with the City’s goal for carbon
neutrality by the year 2050.

6City of Philadelphia

1. Adopt goals for the fleet that will provide a pathway to zero emissions:•

By 2025, lay out a procurement strategy to achieve 100% procurement of EVs for sedans, sportutility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and light duty pickup trucks by 2030.

•

By 2030, reduce light- and medium-duty vehicle emissions by at least 45% from 2019 levels bytransitioning to zero-emissions electric vehicles (EVs).

•

Procure no new fossil-fuel consuming vehicles after 2030

2. Institute a Clean Fleet Procurement Policy
This procurement policy will support the above goals by establishing a vehicle procurement hierarchy
that prioritizes battery electric vehicles (fairly strictly for light- and medium-duty vehicle classes) anddiscourages gas- and diesel-fueled vehicles (with some flexibility for heavy-duty classes). The policy
would also aim to reduce the overall size of the fleet and the share of SUVs.
3. Limit procurement of medium and heavy-duty vehicles in the short term; pilot new fuels or
procure CNG vehicles where feasible
This recommendation is meant to support achievement of the procurement targets listed as partof #1 above, and to move towards piloting new fossil-free fuels including electricity, hydrogen, andrenewable diesel, and to scale them when effective.
4. Conduct an EV suitability assessment
Using fleet telematics and data analysis is a best practice for supporting data-driven fleet electrification
on a mass scale. For example, an EV suitability assessment conducted for the City of Columbus,
OH informed its deployment of over 300 electric vehicles between 2018 and 2020, along with therequired charging infrastructure.
5. Establish a Clean Fleet Committee (CFC) to support infrastructure coordination and to track goals
This Committee will track progress and refine implementation of the Plan. It would meet at least
semiannually and include representatives from Office of Fleet Management; Procurement
Department; Office of Transportation, Infrastructure, and Sustainability; Department of Public
Property; the Office of Sustainability / Energy Office; Fleet Liaisons from various departments. andother stakeholders as needed.
6. Develop funding programs to connect capital procurement and fuel cost/operational savings
Capturing and tracking data as the City fleet progresses towards electrification will be essential fordemonstrating success. Accrued vehicle fuel and maintenance savings should be used to offset
the price differential between an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle and its comparable EVequivalent in future procurements.
7. Optimize Alternative Fueling and EVSE Infrastructure•

Moderately expand compressed natural gas (CNG); focus on deploying renewable natural gas(RNG) – The City should explore ways to procure RNG for its current CNG-fueling facility, whichshould be expanded to its full capacity.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

7

•

Evaluate E85 or B20 Fueling Locations – Consolidate flex-fuel capable vehicle refueling to E85/
B20 fueling locations.

•

Consolidate Alternative Fuel infrastructure and EVSE management under a single department
and expand staffing support appropriately – Currently, EVSE is installed and managed by thedepartment owning the EV. There is no coordinated strategy for EVSE deployment or use. Given
the cross-cutting nature of plan implementation, the Managing Director’s Office should oversee the
Clean Fleet Committee and designate that body to manage all aspects of EVSE with appropriate
staffing. A full time staff position should be hired as soon as possible, but no later than FY23.

•

Develop an EVSE deployment scenario; expand dual-port Level 2 charging availability at locations– The Clean Fleet Committee should use the EV Charging Infrastructure Analysis Tool to complete
a 10-year EVSE deployment framework and begin expanding EVSE installation immediately. The
City is encouraged to simplify and streamline its internal EV charging infrastructure permitting
process to facilitate this rapid infrastructure buildout, and also to require new and renovatedmunicipal facilities to be ‘EV-ready’ in order to minimize the costs of installing charging infrastructure
at those sites in the future.

Emissions Impacts of Recommended Targets
In 2017, light and medium duty vehicles, which are the fleet’s primary users of gasoline, emitted 26,441
Metric Tons CO2e, or slightly over half of the city fleet’s greenhouse gas emissions (see Wilson Engineering
Services/WES Report, Appendix B). If the City of Philadelphia achieves 100% procurement of clean energy
for municipal operations by 2030 and adopts the recommended targets for light and medium-duty vehicle
electrification, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the light and medium duty fleet are estimated to
decline by 47%.

Table 1. Estimated Fuel Reduction and Emissions Impacts of Recommended Targets

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Gallons Gasoline
Avoided Annually

20,00049,00053,00087,000147,000

218,000

376,000

687,000

1,068,000

1,429,000

Metric Tons CO2e
Avoided Annually

148

369

409

670

1,146

1,707

2,955

5,416

8,424

11,281% Reductionof CO2e from‘17 Baseline for
Gasoline Vehicles

0.5%

1.3%

1.5%

2.4%

4.2%

6.2%

10.9%

20.1%

31.6%

42.7%

8

City of Philadelphia

Cost Impacts of Recommended Targets
Tables 11 and 12 highlight the projected total costs for the vehicle purchasing scenario illustrated between
2021 and 2030, with and without state incentives. Based on available vehicle model prices and projected
cost trends, BEV sedans are projected to reach cost parity with conventional vehicles by 2025, whereas
electric SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans are projected to remain more expensive than conventional vehicles
through 2030. All cost assumptions are documented at the end of this section.
Based on the cost assumptions documented at the end of this section, it’s estimated that the vehicle
electrification scenario articulated in this Plan would incrementally cost the city $7M between 2021 and
2030 in capital costs, and save the city $2.5M in operating costs over that same time period. If the city could
leverage available state incentives through the AFIG and Driving PA Forward programs, the city could
potentially save on capital costs in the same time period.

EV Charging Considerations
The City’s strategy around siting and deploying vehicle charging equipment should focus on ‘futureproofing,’ or meeting the needs of electric vehicles that will join the fleet not just imminently but in thelonger term. It is recommended that the City consolidate and reduce installation costs as much as possible
by installing the total required electrical capacity and conduit during the first set of installments.
The Infrastructure Analysis confirms that a 2:1 vehicle-to-plug equipment sharing would effectively cut
project costs in half (as opposed to a 1:1 vehicle-to-charger ratio), but there still exist logistical challenges
associated with sharing charge ports between vehicles, at least in the near term. To improve this type ofanalysis moving forward, it is recommended that the City collect parking location data from more fleet
vehicles. Fleet telematics capture, as part of an EV Suitability Assessment, would satisfy this data need.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

9

Introduction
The fundamental role of the City of Philadelphia is to provide essential services and amenities to
Philadelphians. The City pumps clean drinking water to residents, collects garbage and recycling, maintains
a system of parks, and much more. Yet, none of this would be possible without a highly diversified fleet
of municipal vehicles or the tireless work of the Office of Fleet Management (OFM), which procures andservices these vehicles across 43 City departments.
The municipal fleet deserves significant attention because it represents both an asset and liability. The
vehicles are critical because they enable tasks that allow the City to successfully function. But the fleet also
costs the City significant sums of money in terms of upfront procurement costs and ongoing maintenanceand fueling. More critically, the current fleet, which runs almost exclusively on gasoline and diesel, is asignificant emitter of carbon and other dangerous pollutants. Although low- and zero-emission vehicle
technologies have been around for decades, they have not always been widely commercially available
or viable. However, the future is set to be electric, with more and more auto-manufacturers debuting allelectric vehicle models and committing to phasing-out combustion-engine vehicle production within
the next one or two decades. As these vehicles become more mainstream, and the impetus to improve
air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from City operations becomes more pressing,it is essential that the City reassesses its procurement opportunities with the goal of keeping pace withindustry-wide shifts by incorporating these low-emissions technologies into the City fleet.
This Municipal Clean Fleet Plan is based on the latest available data from OFM on the City’s vehicle
composition, and seeks to provide a more robust view of how OFM can procure vehicles which pollute less,have lower maintenance and fueling costs, and act as a beacon of sustainability for all of Philadelphia. This
plan draws heavily from reports produced by two city consultants (Wilson Engineering Services/WES, see
Appendix B; and ICF’s Infrastructure Analysis, see Appendix C) which review the 2020 market for vehicles
and fuels and make projections on charging infrastructure needs to support a zero-emissions fleet. ICF
additionally developed a Charging Infrastructure Analysis Tool to support this Clean Fleet Plan, for which
they conducted EV charging equipment location analysis based on parking location data available fromthe City. Using more current data to analyze immediate fleet electrification opportunities and associatedcarbon-emissions savings across all vehicle classes, the Dashboard for Rapid Vehicle Electrification (DRVE)
Tool was also deployed — this report can be found in Appendix A.
Philadelphia’s municipal fleet represents about 13% of the City’s carbon footprint due to its reliance on fossil
fuels. By transitioning away from fossil fuel-powered vehicles and being more thoughtful about efficient
vehicle procurement and how this matches operational needs, the City will be one step closer to meetingits goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
The City of Philadelphia Clean Fleet Plan recommends pursuing an electrification procurement schedule,
which would allow the City to pursue a 100% EV procurement plan by 2030, generating up to $12,000,000
in total cost and operational savings; a 20% savings compared to a continued procurement plan of internal
combustion engine-only vehicles.

10

City of Philadelphia

Current Fleet andProcurement Process
Fleet Makeup
As of January 2020, the City of Philadelphia owned a fleet of approximately 5,500 vehicles which assist City
workers in performing a variety of services. These vehicles are spread across 43 departments within theCity and vary in terms of vehicle class and fuel type (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1. Vehicle Count by Department

Figure 2. Vehicle Count by Class Size

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

11

Three key takeaways from these figures:
1.

Light-duty trucks comprise almost double the number of sedans, and many could be right-sized
to allow for electrification. While sedans present an immediate and easy opportunity to transition toelectric vehicles, they are only 6.8% of the (non-Police) fleet. Over 11% of the City fleet consists of lightduty trucks (Class 1-2a), the smallest and lightest of trucks which are rarely used for towing and hauling.
Pursuing vehicle right-sizing exercises with the light-duty trucks is an opportunity to further transitionsome of these to smaller vehicles more suited for electrification. Additionally, auto manufacturers
are preparing to debut several electric truck models (light-duty and otherwise), which bodes well forelectrification of this vehicle class in the next 3-5 years.

2.

SUVs may also benefit from vehicle right-sizing exercises. The share of SUVs in the fleet has grownsignificantly in the past decade, from about 14% in 2010 to over 19% in 2020. SUVs are heavier vehicles
and use more fuel per mile than a sedan, thereby reducing the average fuel efficiency of the fleet, even
if transitioned to cleaner vehicles. Identifying opportunities to right-size these SUVs to lighter-duty,
more fuel-efficient vehicles — without impacting service delivery — presents an opening to significantly
decrease fuel consumption through electrification. Reducing the number of SUVs in the city fleet(transitioning these vehicles to sedans as possible) also provides an opportunity for Philadelphia tolead by example with respect to the Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems’ (oTIS) Vision
Zero goals. SUVs are more often involved in crash fatalities and injuries, and calls are growing to limit
the size and scope of these larger vehicles on city streets.

3.

Police and other emergency vehicles are considered separately from other vehicles and are asignificant share of the fleet. These vehicles are considered in their own category, since compromisingon performance or responsiveness may directly lead to public safety issues. They often have longer
and more erratic duty cycles and may require special consideration when transitioning to alternative
fuels. While their special operational needs must be considered, their large share of the fleet indicatesthat they too will eventually need to transition in order for the City to reach its climate goals.

Along with vehicle right-sizing exercises, efforts to downsize the fleet by leveraging alternative transport
options for city staff — such as the city contract for car-sharing services or pre-tax transit benefits that staff
may use in lieu of pool vehicles — can also help eliminate underutilized fleet assets. These strategies canprovide an avenue to increase efficiency, as well as the number of electric miles travelled by staff (if the
car-share service includes electric vehicles).

12City of Philadelphia

Overview of the Fleet Vehicle Lifecycle
This section describes the key steps in a City fleet vehicle’s lifecycle, for both conventional internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles.
Table 2. Fleet Vehicle Lifecycle Comparison
Internal Combustion Engine(ICE) Vehicles

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Procurement

Departments have “fleet liaisons” which relay
the needs of staff to OFM, which then uses
capital funds from its budget to procure thevehicles requested by these liaisons.

The same as ICE Vehicles.

Use

Departments use vehicles — these are
either assigned to a specific staff member orpooled across a department — to meet theiroperational needs. With funding from OFM’soperating budget, drivers fill up their tanks at
City-owned fueling sites.

The Department of Public Property (DPP)
pays for electricity. EV charging stations areprocured, and the department receiving the
EV is responsible for installation of the charging
equipment. The electricity supply for thevehicle is not sub-metered, it is included in thewhole building mix.

Maintenance & Repairs

OFM employs in-house mechanics to ensure
vehicles perform optimally and complete
necessary repairs. OFM may also contract out
for services.

The same as for ICE vehicles. OFM has specificshops and trained staff who can work on EVs.

Retirement

OFM “flags for retirement” vehicles based onage, mileage, parts availability problems andlife-to-date maintenance cost. After a unit isflagged it still remains active, though it’s closely
examined when maintenance work is done.
A flagged vehicle will only be relinquished if
it requires a major repair, such as an engine
failure, transmission failure, rear differential
failure, or collision damage. These vehicles arethen sold at auction.

The same outlet as for ICE vehicles (auction),though it is recommended that warranty
coverage (currently at least 8 years/100,000
miles) be the primary driver for EV replacement
cycles. This is a good way to protect against
any battery defect, and vehicles that sill have
12 months or more of factory warranty left will
fetch significantly more at auction than likemodels that are out of the warranty period.

Fleet Fuel Use and Emissions
Certain offices and departments use more fuel than others to provide their services, with fuel use intensity
being highest in departments which utilize heavy duty vehicles, such as Streets and Fire. Table 3 shows
fuel use consumption and associated emissions for each of the top 13 fuel-consuming City departments.
These departments represent 98% of all fuel consumption by the City. Based on the corresponding 2017
City Government GHG Inventory (see Appendix B, Table 3), the municipal fleet represents about 13% of theCity’s carbon footprint due to its reliance on fossil fuels. See Appendix B for more information on vehicle
ownership patterns among the 13 departments with the greatest vehicle use based on fuel consumption.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

13

Table 3. Top Fuel Consuming Departments in Descending Order by Total Gallons (2017)

Department

Total Gallons
Average&
Vehicle Age (Gasoline
Diesel)Number of
VehiclesGallons Per
VehicleMTCDE

Police4

1,926,224

1,556

1,238

15,264Streets

6

1,539,764

811

1,899

14,387Water

6768,358

896

858

6,693

Fire

8

638,514

354

1,804

5,952

Parks & Recreation

8

219,170

318

689

1,853

Commerce/ Division of Aviation

9200,006

310

645

1,729

Fleet Management

11

109,342

116

943

913

Managing Director’s Office

7

89,976

131

687

757

Human Services

6

69,989

105

667

553

Sheriff’s Office

568,734

69

996

564

Prisons

6

62,978

67

940

508

Public Health6

53,840

117

460

429

Public Property

651,374

82

627

421

Key Takeaways•

14

Data on annual vehicle miles driven was not available, which would shed more light on the level ofvehicle utilization in each department. However, this chart still provides a good indication of therange of fuel savings and GHG emissions reductions that could be achieved by the replacementof a single vehicle with a more efficient vehicle.

City of Philadelphia•

Excluding in total the Police/Fire/Sheriff’s Departments, which have an outsized effect given theirfuel intensity, 45% of the City’s emissions are accounted for in the table. The Police and Sheriff
Departments’ fleets have the shortest average vehicle replacement times, and so these should be
evaluated closely year-over-year for opportunities to transition to electric. Given the fuel intensityof the Police Department, and market developments which continue to maximize EV range andperformance with respect to the operational needs for this department’s vehicles, electrification of
the Police fleet is something that should be anticipated, not dismissed. Other police departments
have successfully introduced electric vehicles into their fleets, such as Holland, MI; Eden Prairie,
MN; Windham County, VT; Logan, OH; Bargersville, IN; Westport, CT; Hyattsville, MD; Hastings-onHudson, NY; Spokane, WA; and Brookhaven, GA, to name a few.

•

Both the Water Department and Parks and Recreation Department present good opportunities
for vehicle electrification, given their fuel use intensity and average vehicle age. In other cities, thesedepartments have traditionally been one of the first to adopt electric vehicles, given the associatedapplications, vehicle size, average vehicle age, and opportunity for leadership with zero-emission
vehicle deployment given those departments’ roles.

•

Outside of the Sheriff’s Office, the Police Department, and the Fire Department, the Streets
Department presents the largest fuel use intensity (gallons per vehicle per year), which translates
to the biggest opportunity for GHG savings through fleet electrification. This department utilizes many
heavy duty vehicles, so maximizing the electrification opportunities in this fleet stands to improve theDepartment’s overall emissions and fuel intensity. The same rationale applies for departments withlonger average vehicle ages, such as Commerce/Aviation, or the Office of Fleet Management. The
Office of Fleet Management also deploys many SUVs, providing another good reason to explore
aggressive electrification.

Additionally, the City’s gasoline and diesel costs have risen by $2.3M dollars in the three years from 20172020, despite seeing a net decrease in consumption over that time. Between the years in question, thefleet added about 100 new vehicles while gasoline and diesel prices rose by an average of $0.60/gallon.
Table 4. City of Philadelphia Gasoline and Diesel costs (2017, 2020)
2017

2020

Gallons

Cost

Gallons

Cost

Gasoline

4,064,843$6,357,330

3,838,215$7,537,575

Diesel

3,087,162$4,919,464

2,758,168$6,048,706

Total

7,152,005$11,276,794

6,596,383$13,586,280- 555,622$2,309,486- 7.8%

20.5%

Total Change% Change

Efficiency is the hallmark of cost-savings, and this mantra must be prioritized by sizing vehicles appropriately
for their duties, reducing the city’s overall fleet size, and reducing the use of price-volatile fuels. Employing
electricity as a widely-used transportation fuel is more efficient and supports domestically produced
energy which is free from the national security risks posed by price-volatile international markets.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

15

Alternative
Fuel & Vehicles
Various fuels differ in terms of associated emissions, cost, energy density, supply, infrastructure needs,
extraction and refinement methods, and geographic availability, amongst other factors. GHG emissions
from transportation fuels were evaluated on the basis of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, in accordancewith the Climate Registry and the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Scope 1 is defined as carbon dioxide
equivalents emitted due to direct combustion at the point of use. Scope 2 is defined as emissions due
to purchase of grid electricity.
While electricity ranks among the lowest for net Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions (see Appendix B),
it is critical to note that electric vehicles have Scope 2 emissions because EVs charge from the electricity
generated in the immediate grid region, which contains natural gas and coal plants. Yet, when the City
sources electricity solely from renewable energy — which is the City’s goal by 2030 — electric vehicle
Scope 2 emissions would essentially drop to zero. Despite currently having Scope 2 emissions, EVs arestill found to produce at least 68% fewer GHG emissions than gasoline vehicles in Pennsylvania.
Figure 3. Electricity Sources and Emissions – Averages for Pennsylvania

Source: Alternative Fuels Data Center

Clean transportation fuels are also evaluated on the basis of lifecycle emissions using pathways certified
by the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Figure 4 shows the GHG emissions for each fuelrelative to the energy content of the fuel, adjusted for the energy efficiency ratio (EER) of the vehicle. In
general, EER is an apples-to-apples comparison of emissions per energy unit. For liquid and gaseous fuelsources, total energy content (measured in British Thermal Units, BTUs) in each relative unit is converted.

16

City of Philadelphia

The possible negative emissions from certain compressed natural gas (CNG) pathways are based onusing renewable natural gas (RNG) produced by an anaerobic digester processing animal waste, which
otherwise would have created uncontrolled methane emissions during decomposition. However, there
exists a very limited supply of renewable natural gas (RNG) from waste — and when used in vehicles,
natural gas provides limited climate benefits compared with diesel. Fueling heavy-duty trucks with RNG
instead of diesel still involves the combustion of methane in the vehicle, emitting carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Anaerobic digesters also leak methane, at a rate of between 2 and 3
percent — a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that, if the leakage rate in natural gas
pipelines exceeds 1.4%, the climate benefits of switching from diesel to RNG are negated. See Appendix
B, for more information on the alternative fuel technologies evaluated for Philadelphia.

Figure 4. EER Adjusted Carbon Intensity for Selected Transportation Technologies

Note: Data from CA LCFS certified pathways as of 11/5/2019. EERs obtained from the CA LCFS Credit Price Calculator version 1.3.
EER based on LCFS default values of 1 for gasoline, ethanol, and diesel, 0.9 for propane replacing diesel, 1 for CNG and LNG used
in a heavy duty compression ignition engine, 5 for an electric heavy duty vehicle, and 1.9 for a hydrogen fuel cell heavy duty vehicle.
Electricity emissions are based on usage in CA: the high value for electric represents the default CA grid while the lower values
represent wind or solar derived electricity. Ethanol and biodiesel blends will have a blended carbon intensity.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

17

Currently, only a small percent of the City’s fleet runs on alternative fuels, including EVs, CNG, and 85%
E85. Table 5 lists the alternative fuel vehicles in the City’s fleet. Although the City has many flex fuelvehicles that can use E85, it is assumed these vehicles are fueled with conventional E10 gasoline.
Table 5. Alternative Fuel Vehicles in Philadelphia Fleet
Fuel Type

Count

E85

1,227

Hybrid EV (HEV)

394

Battery EV (BEV)49

Plug-In Hybrid EV (PHEV)

33

CNG

16

In terms of individual vehicles, analysis revealed that the City’s FY 2019 combined hybrid-electric(HEV) and battery-electric vehicles (BEV) purchases (103 vehicles total) reduced the City’s annual GHG
emissions by 305 MTCDE, approximately 0.6% of the City’s total vehicle emissions as of 2017. This offset
is an estimate based on the average GHG emissions of all gasoline vehicles in the fleet — including
police cars — and it does not take into account the specific departments or use cases of these newvehicles. See Table 6 below, which provides an example of the amount of annual GHG emissions offset
with the purchase (or retrofit) of a single light-duty gasoline vehicle using selected clean transportation
technologies.
Table 6. Annual GHG Reduction Potential for Light Duty Vehicles
MeasureGHG Savings

MT CO2e Avoided Per Vehicle

BEV

70%

5.2

Anti-Idle

5%

0.4

E85

35%

2.6

HEV

37%

2.7

The City purchased its first hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) in 2004 and has steadily increased annual
purchases of this vehicle type. In FY19, the City purchased 93 HEVs, making it their highest annual HEV
purchase year. In FY14, the City acquired its first Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), and in FY18,
the City acquired its first Battery-Electric Vehicle (BEV). Currently, the City has 394 HEVs, 49 BEVs, and33 PHEVs in its fleet. The City also procured four CNG-fueled trash trucks and has another 21 being
delivered by summer 2021.

18

City of Philadelphia

EV Adoption Potential and Benefits
For the majority of City departments, the percent of vehicles which are hybrid or electric is between 3%
and 8% — but the Department of Public Health (DPH) has 39% hybrid or electric vehicles, likely promptedby the opportunity to lead by example with low-emission vehicle deployment given the department’s
public health focus. Many departmental fleets are comprised of less than 4% PHEVs and BEVs, with the
Department of Health and Department of Prisons at 12% and 8%, respectively.
EVs are a key solution to reducing both GHG emissions and operational costs associated with the City’s
fleet, most immediately for the light-duty sedans and trucks required by certain City staff. Beyond thesebenefits, EVs present other long-term advantages, including:• Cost competitiveness with comparable ICE vehicles over five-year time horizon: EV prices
have dropped significantly over the past decade. Looking at vehicle costs over the first five yearsof ownership, EVs are extremely competitive with ICEs. Although capital costs will still be a factor
initially, EV technology for all light-duty classes is expected to reach price parity with comparable
ICE vehicles in the next 5-10 years.
• Reduced maintenance and upkeep: The reduced cost of upkeep is factored into the five-year
cost estimates. With fewer moving parts, EVs require less maintenance which allows these vehicles
to stay in operational rotation longer, with fewer trips to the shop. The New York City Fleet, which
has the most experience with electric vehicles on the East Coast, reported “dramatic” reductions inmaintenance costs when compared with gas, hybrid, and hybrid plug-in models after a year-longreview in 2018. Annual maintenance costs for the fleet’s all-electric vehicles ranged from $204 with
the Chevrolet Bolt to $386 with the Ford Focus Electric.
• Less fuel price volatility: Volatility and uncertainty in international oil markets lead to unstable
and higher long-term costs for operating ICEs, which can pose an economic burden on the City
in addition to a national security threat. Electricity is domestically produced (increasingly fromrenewable sources like solar and wind) with low, predictable rates, which provides for cost-stablefleet fueling free from volatile price swings to which petroleum-based fuels are especially subject.
Electricity costs are also a fraction of petroleum fuel prices, leading to a minimum of 50-56%
operational savings from fuel switching alone, in line with the Vehicle Cost Calculator from the
Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center.
• Improved local air quality: Unlike fossil fuel vehicles, EVs have zero tailpipe emissions of air
pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO), which can cause or exacerbate
health-related issues, like asthma. Reduced emissions will improve local air quality and decrease
related healthcare costs for Philadelphians.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

19

Light and Medium Duty Fleet Electrification
Procurement Research and Emissions/Cost Analysis to Support 2030 Targets
This section analyzes ambitious yet feasible targets for light and medium duty fleet electrification forthe city fleet between 2021 and 2030. Table 7 illustrates a recommended purchasing schedule thatwould include procuring 100% electric sedans, station wagons, and sport utility vehicles by 2025, and
75% electric radio patrol cars, unmarked police cars, pickup trucks, van cargo and passenger vehicles
by 2030.
Table 7. Fleet EV Procurement Targets
2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Sedan andStation Wagon

75%

75%

75%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Radio Patrol Car

25%

25%

25%

25%

50%

50%

75%

75%

75%

100%

Unmarked
Police Car

25%

25%

25%

25%

50%

50%

75%

75%

75%

100%

Sport Utility
Vehicle

25%

25%

50%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Pickup Truck

0%

25%

25%

25%

50%

50%

75%

75%

75%

100%

Cargo and
Passenger Van

0%

25%

25%

25%

50%

50%

75%

75%

75%

100%

The above analysis includes the 3,743 light and medium duty vehicles included in the ICF report (seeAppendix C, Table 1), and utilizes ICF’s analysis of when existing vehicles will need to be retired andreplaced (Appendix C, Table 4). The analysis also utilizes ICF’s EV eligibility criteria based on availability of
EV alternatives, excluding for example large SUVs like Tahoes and Suburbans. In total, 2,148 vehicles, orabout 60% of the light and medium duty fleet, are included in the analysis as eligible to be replacedby an EV between 2021 and 2030.

In total, about 60% of the light andmedium duty fleet are included in theanalysis as eligible to be replaced by
20
Philadelphia’s Municipal Clean Fleet Planan EV between 2021 and 2030
City of Philadelphia

20Table 8 summarizes the number of EVs that would be procured per year based on the estimated vehicles
up for replacement that could be replaced by an EV, and the schedule of EV purchasing targets on page
20.
Table 8. Fleet EV Procurement Estimates Per Year
2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Sedan andStation Wagon

18

17

0

8

8

20

17

24

10

24

Radio Patrol Car

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

106

90

48

Unmarked
Police Car

11

10

4

5

7

6

34

46

20

36

Sport Utility
Vehicle

12

12

4

35

37

52

73

27

115

180

Pickup Truck

0

6

0

0

21

8

20

32

49

68

Cargo and
Passenger Van

0

8

0

4

17

24

11

43

97

82

Total

41

53

8

52

90

110

186

278

381

438

Based on the procurement schedule outlined above, it is estimated that the light and medium duty inservice fleet would be 44% electric by 2030. This is further illustrated in Table 9.
Table 9. EV % of In-service Light and Medium Duty Fleet
2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Sedan andStation Wagon

7%

13%

13%

15%

18%

25%

32%

40%

44%

52%

Radio Patrol Car

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

19%

32%

39%

Unmarked
Police Car

2%

4%

4%

6%

7%

8%

14%

22%

26%

32%

Sport Utility
Vehicle

1%

2%

3%

6%

9%

14%

21%

23%

34%

51%

Pickup Truck

0%

1%

1%

1%

5%

7%

11%

17%

26%

40%

Cargo and
Passenger Van

0%

1%

1%

2%

5%

9%

11%

18%

34%

47%

Total

1%

3%

3%

4%

7%

9%

14%

22%

32%

44%

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

21

By 2030, the recommended targets are
estimated to reduce light and medium
duty fleet GHG emissions by 47%

Emissions Impacts of Recommended Targets
In 2017, light and medium duty vehicles, which are the fleet’s primary users of gasoline, emitted 26,441
metric tons of CO2e, or slightly over half of the city fleet’s greenhouse gas emissions (see WES Report,
Appendix B, Table 4). Based on the assumptions outlined in the upcoming sections, including the City’s
procurement of 100% clean energy for municipal operations by 2030, the following table summarizes
the estimated emissions impacts of the recommended targets. By 2030, the recommended targets are
estimated to reduce light and medium duty fleet GHG emissions by 47%.

Cost Impacts of Recommended Targets
Tables 11 and 12 highlight the projected total costs for the vehicle purchasing scenario illustrated on page
21. between 2021 and 2030, with and without state incentives. Based on available vehicle model prices andTable 10. Estimated Fuel Reduction and Emissions Impacts of Recommended Targets
2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

20,00049,00053,00087,000147,000

218,000

376,000

687,000

1,068,000

1,429,000

Metric Tons
CO2e Avoided
Annually

148

369

409

670

1,146

1,707

2,955

5,416

8,424

11,281% Reductionof CO2e from’17 baseline
for gasoline
vehicles

0.5%

1.3%

1.5%

2.4%

4.2%

6.2%

10.9%

20.1%

31.6%

42.7%

Gallons ofGasoline
AvoidedAnnually

projected cost trends, BEV sedans are projected to reach cost parity with conventional vehicles by 2025,
whereas electric SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans are projected to remain more expensive than conventional
vehicles through 2030. All cost assumptions are documented at the end of this section.
Based on these assumptions, it’s estimated that the vehicle electrification scenario articulated above
would incrementally cost the city $7M between 2021 and 2030 in capital costs and save the city $2.5M inoperating costs over that same time period. If the city could leverage available state incentives through the
AFIG and Driving PA Forward programs, the city could potentially save on capital costs in the same time
period.

22

City of Philadelphia

Table 11. Total Fleet Transition Costs, 2021-2030 - Without Incentives
Capital costs

Operating costs

Total costs

Total - ICE

Total - EV

Total - ICE

Total - EV

Total - ICE

Total - EV

$4,120,000$4,561,000$447,000$256,000$4,567,000$4,817,000--$11,907,000$10,498,000$11,907,000$10,498,000

Unmarked Police Car$5,765,000$5,518,000$657,000$362,000$6,422,000$5,880,000

Sport Utility Vehicle$16,276,000$19,537,000$1,531,000$783,000$17,807,000$20,320,000

Pickup Truck$7,255,000$10,349,000$475,000$251,000$7,730,000$10,600,000

Van Cargo and Passenger$11,573,000$12,708,000$700,000$390,000$12,273,000$13,098,000

Total$44,989,000$52,673,000$15,717,000$12,540,000$60,706,000$65,213,000

Sedan and Station Wagon
Radio Patrol Car*

Difference (total)$7,684,000- $3,177,000$4,507,000

17%

- 20%

7%

Difference (%)*Because Radio Patrol Cars are not part of the Capital Budget, their cost of purchase is included within the Operating Costs.

Table 12. Total Fleet Transition Costs, 2021-2030 - With Incentives
Capital costs

Operating costs

Total costs

Total - ICE

Total - EV

Total - ICE

Total - EV

Total - ICE

Total - EV

$4,120,000$3,135,000$447,000$256,000$4,567,000$3,391,000--$11,907,000$7,679,000$11,907,000$7,679,000

Unmarked Police Car$5,765,000$3,734,000$657,000$362,000$6,422,000$4,096,000

Sport Utility Vehicle$16,276,000$14,068,000$1,531,000$783,000$17,807,000$14,851,000

Pickup Truck$7,255,000$8,258,000$475,000$251,000$7,730,000$8,509,000

Van Cargo and Passenger$11,573,000$9,777,000$700,000$390,000$12,273,000$10,167,000

Total$44,989,000$38,972,000$15,717,000$9,721,000$60,706,000$48,693,000

Sedan and Station Wagon
Radio Patrol Car*

Difference (total)- $6,017,000- $5,996,000- $12,013,000

- 13%

- 38%

- 20%

Difference (%)*Because Radio Patrol Cars are not part of the Capital Budget, their cost of purchase is included within the Operating Costs.
CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

23

Table 13 highlights key assumptions utilized to estimate the emissions and cost impacts of the proposed
light and medium duty electric vehicle purchasing schedule detailed in Table 12.
Table 13. Cost and Emissions Inputs and Assumptions for Target Analysis
Description

Input and Source

Capital Costs

Vehicle purchase costprojections

Lutsey, Nic, and Michael Nicholas. “Update on electric vehicle costs in the United States
through 2030.” ICCT (2019) (Cars, SUVs) Analysis utilizes BEV200 and PHEV50 figures.
Energy Information Agency (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2020 - New Light-Duty Vehicle
Prices (Vans, pick-ups). Analysis utilizes small pick-up and large van figures, for BEV200 and
PHEV40 vehicles. Utilized to project cost changes over time from current MSRP.

EV charging infrastructure
costs

Vehicles per port: 2 (Atlas DRVE tool default assumption)
Type of equipment: Assumes all non-networked Level 2
Charging equipment cost per port: $600 (cost for Clipper Creek non-networked station)
Make ready cost per port: $4,900 (average from ICF report)

Incentives

Vehicles: $7500 BEV / $2000 PHEV from AFIG.
Charging infrastructure: $3,500 or up to 50% of total project costs - Driving PA Forward.[BK2]Operating Costs
Estimated vehicle lifetime

12 years (City of Philadelphia fleet data)

Vehicle utilization

Average annual VMT by vehicle type (City of Philadelphia fleet data) – Ranges from 4,624 forsedans and station wagons to 13,414 for radio patrol cars.

Fuel economy

Current: fueleconomy.gov
Projections: EIA AEO 2020 - New Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy. Analysis utilizes BEV200,
PHEV40 figures for midsize car, small utility (SUV), small pick-up, and large van.

Fuel - electricity [$/kWh]$0.07 (City of Philadelphia)

Fuel - gasoline [$/gallon]$2.35 (City of Philadelphia)

Vehicle maintenance$0.09 — conventional vehicle$0.05 — BEV$0.08 — PHEV
(Alameda County, 2017 (Passenger Vehicle) via U.S. DOE-funded Atlas Public Policy Fleet
Procurement Analysis Tool)

Charging station
maintenance [$/year/port]

3% of equipment cost (Atlas DRVE tool assumption)

Emissions
Gasoline TTW emissions
factors

Argonne National Labs’ GREET tool via Atlas Public Policy fleet procurement tool

Electricity TTW emissions
factors

EPA eGRID 2019 emissions factors by fuel type (coal, gas, etc.) by region (RFCE) utilized toproject forward based on Ameren’s projected grid mix. Also incorporates grid loss estimates.

Electricity emissions
projections

City of Philadelphia’s Municipal Energy Use Dashboard. Includes target to generate orpurchase 100% of all electricity for the City’s built environment from renewable resources by
2030.

Avoided fuel use andemissions from retiring
vehiclesTo estimate emissions reduction from retiring vehicles, utilizes implied fuel economy
estimates based on average mileage and fuel use per vehicle type in the current fleet.

24

City of Philadelphia

Table 14 highlights the sample vehicles modeled for each vehicle type in the light and medium duty
fleet, and their base year MSRP.
Table 14. Replacement Vehicle Base Year Purchase Costs
ICE

BEV

PHEV**

Make/
model

Purchaseprice/
MSRP*

Make/
model

Purchaseprice/
MSRP*

Make/
model

Purchaseprice/MSRP*

Sedan and Station Wagon

Ford Taurus$27,800

Chevy Bolt

$36,620

Ford Fusion
Energi$37,000

Radio Patrol Car

Ford
Interceptor$37,500

Tesla Model Y
Long Range
AWD$48,000

N/A

N/A

Unmarked Police Car

Chevrolet
Impala (E85)$31,620

Tesla Model
3 Standard
Range Plus

$37,990

Ford Fusion
SpecialService PHEV

$37,000

Sport Utility Vehicle

Chevrolet
Blazer$28,800

Ford Mustang
Mach-E AWD$47,595

Ford Escape
PHEV$34,755

Pickup Truck

Ford F150
4WD$33,390

Lordstown
Endurance
BEV$52,500

N/A

N/A

Van Cargo and Passenger

Ford Transit
T150$37,470

Ford Transit(EV)$45,000

N/A

N/A*MSRP and fuel economy from fueleconomy.gov unless otherwise linked.
**Assumes 25% of sedans and station wagons, unmarked police cars, and SUVs purchased through 2025 are PHEVs, and 0% of othervehicle types.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

Table continued on next page.

25

DRVE Tool Fleet Analysis
Immediate opportunities for electrification savings across all vehicle classes
Analysis using the Dashboard for Rapid Vehicle Electrification (DRVE) Tool identified a maximum of 840
light-duty vehicles that offer Philadelphia lifetime savings today under current market conditions without
including any federal or state level rebates, such as Pennsylvania’s Alternative Fuels Incentives Grants(AFIG) Program. The competitiveness of light-duty EVs will of course increase if the City pursues state
rebates and federal tax credits to offset the upfront costs. Table 15 provides a summary of these vehicle
opportunities – see the DRVE Tool Report for additional details, assumptions, and analysis (Appendix A).
Table 15. Near Term Light-Duty EV Procurement Options

Use Case

Count

EV
Alternative

Per Vehicle
Savings
Range

Average %Savings

Ford Taurus

Sedan

340

Chevy Bolt

$774-$19,535

12%

Chevy Impala

Sedan (Police)

66

Tesla Model 3$24-$3,322

2%

Ford Fusion

Sedan

14

896

$83-$4,150

4%Chevy Tahoe

SUV

116

354

$1,383-$13,575

12%

Chevy Equinox

SUV

56

318

$2-$1,212

1%

Dodge Durango

SUV

12

310

$33-$5,791

6%

Ford Explorer

SUV (Police)

194

116

$33-$15,044

7%

Ford Expedition

SUV

14

131

$2,442-$5,231

8%

Conventional Vehicle Model

When including AFIG rebates as a factor, the City could immediately cost effectively electrify
2,400 light-duty vehicles, or 83% of the total light-duty fleet. These calculations include statelevel incentives/rebates ($3,500) for Level 2 charging infrastructure. Electric SUVs, which are themost common light-duty vehicle in the fleet, have an average cost per mile roughly equal to that ofconventional vehicles. Figure 5 shows the cost per mile comparisons across different light-duty vehicle
types — no federal or state incentives were applied to the calculations displayed in this figure.

26

City of Philadelphia

The analysis depicted in Figure 5 (next page) considered the use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles(PHEV), but not hybrid electric vehicles (HEV). Compared to the conventional ICE version, the Ford
Escape PHEV has a similar cost per mile even without applying available incentives. The fuel cost for theplug-in Escape is four times lower than the conventional version.
Figure 5. Cost Per Mile Breakdown Across Light-Duty Vehicle Types

Across all plug-in hybrids, it is assumed that the vehicle will exhaust its electric-only range before turning
to gasoline consumption — fuel cost savings are high because many vehicles do not have a daily driving
range that is greater than the electric-only battery range. The Ford Escape plug-in, for example, hasa battery range of roughly 30 miles which exceeds the average daily driving distance of SUVs in the
Philadelphia fleet. The comparison depicted in Figure 6 does not include state or federal incentives, forwhich the Ford Escape PHEV is eligible. Adding these incentives would increase the lifetime savings
potential of the applicable model.
While electric medium- and heavy-duty EVs are eligible for Pennsylvania purchase incentives (under theAlternative Fuels Incentives Grants (AFIG) Program, their high upfront cost and limited number of available
models limit the savings potential of these vehicles, which offer significant fuel and maintenance costsavings. Fuel cost alone for electric trash trucks are more than 10 times lower than conventional trashtrucks. In the near term, four (4) medium-duty EVs offer lifetime savings potential (about 5%) compared
to conventional models on Philadelphia’s fleet (the Chevrolet Express Van). See Appendix A for moredetails.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

27

Alternative Fuel & Vehicles
Cont’dFigure 6. Cost
Per Mile Comparison – Ford Escape ICE vs Ford Escape PHEV

Collaborative Procurement
Depending on their application, electric vehicles present a unique value proposition which may be
best realized by pursuing alternative procurement, financing, and ownership options. Collaborative
procurement — where multiple entities consolidate their procurements into a single process or bid
request — saves staff time and effort during the procurement phase and eliminates the need to develop
an RFP or evaluate its responses to secure competitive solicitations for electric vehicles and related
equipment. Combined with the available Federal Tax Credit for plug-in vehicles — currently up to $7,500
off the vehicle purchase-price, subject to availability —procurement innovations and powerful financial
incentives are available to support the adoption of (light-duty) electric vehicles on municipal fleets.
Municipalities, as public fleets with no tax burdens, are unable to take advantage of federal tax credit
incentives. But under a lease financing arrangement, ownership resides with the lessor (a financing entity)
until the lessee (the end-user, in this case the municipality) takes possession of the vehicle title at the endof the agreed-upon lease term. In this way, the lessor is able to monetize the tax credit directly as part ofits annual tax return, and, in anticipation of this future tax credit, can presently agree to lease the vehicle
in question to the lessee for a lower-than-normal monthly payment. In total, the lessee essentially takes
advantage of the tax credit since the total purchase price of the vehicle is reduced (the original cost of
the vehicle minus the available tax credit).
Solutions like the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing Collaborative provide flexible lease financing througha partnership with NCL Government Capital, under contract with collaborative procurement agent
Sourcewell. The City of Philadelphia signed on to the EV Purchasing Collaborative but has not yet taken

28

City of Philadelphia

advantage of the program. This EV Purchasing Collaborative allows cities to save time and money during
the procurement phase, while allowing cities to take advantage of the federal tax credit for plug-in
vehicles. See Figure 7 below for more information. Other benefits include:• Predictable budgeting — terms never change over the life of the agreement• Lease payments come out of the City’s operating budget, not capital budget• Lease payments billed monthly OR annually, as needed• Lease agreements include non-appropriation clauses, providing room for cities to ‘default’ on
payment and not be held responsible
Such a financing arrangement also enables cities to explore different ownership options for its fleet
vehicles – and decide whether or not to take on the depreciation risk of the asset. Closed-end leases
are essentially long-term vehicle rentals, whereby the vehicle is returned to the lessor at the end of
pre-arranged lease term. In this case, the lessor takes on the depreciation risk. Open-end leases (leaseto-own offerings) are more common for vehicles that record high vehicle miles travelled, and so thedepreciation risk resides with the lessee who agrees to make a balloon payment at the end of the leaseterm to build equity in the asset/own the vehicle outright. In all cases, cities know up-front how much themonthly payments and the residual value will be – these never change over the term of the agreement.
Different financing options may be employed for specific vehicles based on their applications, achieving
enhanced fleet spending efficiency.

Figure 7. 2019 Nissan Leaf Procurement Comparison the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing Collaborative*Maintenance, repairs, licensing/registration and insurance costs NOT included. Sales Tax will be charged on the monthly lease
payment and the appropriate rate.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

29

Opportunities for Non-EV Alternative Fuel Vehicles
See Appendix B for a more detailed review of Alternative Fuel Technologies
Electric Vehicles should be prioritized for procurement in the light duty vehicle classes, especially fleet
sedans. All-electric options for SUVs, light-duty pickup trucks, and transit vans are on the horizon for 2022,with wide market penetration and at more competitive prices by 2025. While electric options exist forheavy-duty fleet vehicles such as sanitation haulers and fire trucks (of specific interest to this plan given
those Departments’ fuel intensity), barriers to these vehicles’ widespread and near-term adoption by
the City fleet include price, size, and service abilities. To add further complexity, Philadelphia’s sanitation
vehicles have dual duty cycles in the winter when they are deployed as snow plows.
Regulatory pressures may also shift the medium- to heavy-duty market in the next decade, unlocking
more widespread EV availability in Pennsylvania. On July 14, 2020, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)1 with 14 other states and the District of Columbia
committing to work collaboratively to accelerate the market for electric medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. The goal is that by 2030, at least 30% of new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in the
MOU states will be zero emission vehicles, and 100% by 2050.
With this state-level goal in place and efforts to transform the market underway, Philadelphia can
expect more options to replace its medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the next decade. The Biden
Administration has also been very vocal in support of vehicle electrification, which might include federal
support for increased or expanded EV purchase incentives (especially for government fleets); public
transit electrification (including school buses); manufacturing incentives and support; EV charging
infrastructure development; and EV Charging workforce development.
Other alternative fuel opportunities exist that may allow for reduced emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
in the near term. The City has been developing a CNG trash truck pilot which presents an opportunity forthe expanded use of this fuel on the City fleet, especially with fueling infrastructure already in place. In
the short term, the City should review strategies for obtaining a reliable, local/regional, ethical, and costeffective supply of renewable natural gas (RNG) as feasible, and focus the expansion of its CNG trashtruck pilot project on using RNG as a fuel source.
Renewable diesel is an attractive, though currently unattainable, fuel for the City’s heavy-duty vehicles.
While the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) recently conducted a trial of renewablediesel in its fleet, this fuel is not available on a commercial basis outside of California. There is not enoughdemand on the East Coast to support the necessary barge terminal and rack facilities that would need to
be allocated for the provision of renewable diesel. However, the City’s 2.6 million gallons of annual dieseluse (FY17), when aggregated with several other large customers, could be enough to support an East
Coast market for this fuel. The City could potentially consult with large commercial customers and fleetsin the area (such as PANYNJ) to help develop the availability of this fuel. Furthermore, if New York State
votes to implement a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which may happen within five years,
renewable diesel will likely become available in the region. The price point of renewable diesel may
exceed conventional diesel in Pennsylvania when it’s available, but it does offer potential cost savings interms of reduction in maintenance of fuel filters and diesel emissions control systems.

1. https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-governors-mou-20200714.pdf

30City of Philadelphia

Department Perspectives on Fleet Electrification
OFM captures a significant amount of data related to fleet operations, such as fuel usage and the vehicle
owner. This data allows staff to better understand how vehicles are used across departments and what
future changes may be most appropriate. To supplement this data, OOS interviewed City staff andcirculated a survey to understand individual vehicle usage as well as departmental needs and concerns
related to fuel switching. Representatives from 15 departments responded concerning their departments’vehicle driving, refueling, idling, and parking patterns:
Table 16. Staff Survey Highlights

Question

Response Highlights

Average distance for individual
trips taken by employees in yourdepartment?

66% travel less than 30 miles (roundtrip)
26% travel 30-60 miles (roundtrip)
Prison Department travels >60 miles (roundtrip)

What time of day are trips most
likely to occur?

Two-thirds of all departments drive during normal business hours (9am-5pm)
One-third of all departments drive within and outside normal business hours

Where do drivers in yourdepartment most frequently
park vehicles?

Portion of departmental vehicles which are parked:
On street — 46%
Building-adjacent parking lots — 20%
In a garage — 46%

Note: departments park vehicles inmore than one location; for this reason,
total vehicle percentages exceed 100%.

< 4 hours — 20% of vehicles
4-8 hours — 40% of vehicles> 8 hours — 20%*Department of Human Services – Never

Average vehicle downtime?

< 15 mins — 46% of vehicles
15 – 60 mins — 20%
Never — 33%

Average vehicle idle time?

Note: Despite the demonstrated operational necessity, idling for these lengths of time isprohibited by both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania law

Vehicle assignment?

86% of vehicles are pooled/shared

Process for deciding to request
a vehicle and determining what
type to request?

Overwhelming majority of departments make their own decision on the type of vehicle
and when to procure

What factor(s) represent themost significant barriers to eachdepartment’s adoption of EVs?

Concerns about:
Availability of EV infrastructure — 60%
Ability to meet operational needs — 33%
EV range — 33%
EV costs and knowledge of EVs — 13%

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

31

Through these discussions with City staff, OOS also gleaned information related to the current benefitsof EVs, and challenges they foresee in expanded adoption.

Benefits• Departments find EVs are easy to maintain and generally reliable.
• Hybrids are especially advantageous for departments with respect to fuel efficiency, resulting
in a significant reduction in fueling frequency.
• Departments are proud of EVs and what they represent, and feel it shows residents theircommitment to climate action.

Challenges• Accessing EV charging infrastructure is a major barrier, with lingering questions about
installation, accessing and using/sharing EV charging equipment• EV size constraints, as electric SUVs and trucks are either not yet available or too costly tojustify• Educating employees about EV refueling patterns and normalizing plugging-in the vehicles• EV battery capacity and driving range (“range anxiety”)• Upfront costs of EVs being higher than their gasoline-fueled counterparts

Certainly, the most challenging aspects were concerns with building out EV infrastructure given the
problems identified with the EV chargers the City already operates. These problems include thedisconnected nature of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) procurement, use, and management
by departments; aging parking infrastructure; inefficient charger utilization by seldom-used vehicles;
and the absence of EV charging data to inform fuel efficiency comparisons. Solutions identified during
internal City discussions include centralized management of stations, the development of strategic Cityfleet charging hubs and adding EVSE requirements to requests for proposals (RFPs) for leased parking
spaces.

OOS interviewed City staff and circulated
a survey to understand individual vehicle
usage as well as departmental needs andconcerns related to fuel switching
32

City of Philadelphia

Vehicle and Fueling
Recommendations
1) Adopt goals for the fleet that will provide a pathway to zero emissions
The City should adopt the following goals related to its fleet:1.

By 2030, reduce light- and medium-duty vehicle emissions by at least 45% from 2019 levels
by transitioning to zero-emissions electric vehicles (EVs). A comprehensive review of the City’s
3,743 light- and medium-duty vehicle inventory was completed, and was compared to scheduled
vehicle replacements and available zero-emission vehicle options. The results of this review andcomparison indicate that the City can successfully electrify over 1,600 vehicles by 2030 (over 44%of the light and medium duty fleet). This would eliminate over 11,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions
annually, or 43% of associated gasoline vehicle emissions. Across all vehicle classes today, electrifyinga Philadelphia fleet vehicle is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 70% on average compared toexisting conventional vehicles on a per mile basis. By 2030 when the city aims to procure 100%
renewable electricity for city operations, this figure would reach 100% reduction on a per mile basis.

2.

By 2025, lay out a procurement strategy to achieve 100% procurement of EVs for sedans, sportutility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and light duty pickup trucks by 2030. The passenger sedan vehicle
class presents the most immediate opportunity for electrification, to be followed by light-duty pickup
trucks and vans by 2023/2024. With the federal tax credit available and procurement options thatallow the City to take advantage of tax credits, fleets are encouraged to transition as many sedans
and SUVs to plug-in versions as feasible.
The procurement strategy should include planning for the electrification of vehicles in these classes(sedans, SUVs, Vans, and Light Duty pickup trucks) in the Police Department fleet. It should also
include, specific to the Police fleet, a plan for installation of charging infrastructure to complement
EV procurement, and a deployment strategy to meet the fleet’s operational needs; this includes
planning specifically for deployment of EVs compatible with fast-charging infrastructure. The Police
Department EV procurement strategy should include motorcycles, radio patrol cars, and “chasevehicles”. Exceptions may be considered for unmarked vehicles used primarily for covert operations— their identification as City vehicles may incapacitate them from performing their normal duties.
However, this should not be used as a barrier to the electrification of the Police Fleet.

3.

Procure No New Fossil-Fuel Consuming Vehicles after 2030. By effectively halting the procurementof fossil-fuel consuming vehicles by 2030, the City’s fleet will be well on its way to becoming fossilfuel free by 2050. By 2030, there is expected to be full market penetration of medium- and heavyduty electric vehicle options, and the next decade will allow the City to fully prepare its infrastructure
and budgeting to support the fueling and financial implications of a transition away from fossil-fuelbased vehicles. The Clean Fleet Committee (CFC, see #5) must play a critical role by helping todevelop intermediate milestones to reach these targets; establishing and tracking costs, savings,
and progress metrics; and convening and supporting staff with research on available funding
opportunities, alternative fueling opportunities, and the market outlook for vehicle availability. The
CFC may also make exemptions to this policy as they deem appropriate.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

33

2) Institute a Clean Fleet Procurement Policy
Goals of the clean fleet procurement policy are to reduce the overall size of the fleet, rightsizing SUVs and larger vehicles as feasible, deploying managed idle technologies to reduce
fuel consumption of legacy vehicles, and requiring departments to prioritize electric or zeroemission vehicles in the procurement process. Strategies to help reduce the size of the fleet
include leveraging alternative transport options for city staff, such as the city contract for car-sharing
services or pre-tax transit benefits that staff may use in lieu of pool vehicles. Both strategies can beused to help eliminate underutilized fleet assets, as well as provide an avenue to increase efficiency
and the number of electric miles travelled by staff (if the car-share service includes electric vehicles).
Requests for new vehicle purchases/upgrades would be evaluated and authorized by OFM, first
determining that a new vehicle procurement is warranted; that the vehicle request is the follows
rightsizing principles; and that a pool vehicle/resource (such as a city-staff carshare), bikeshare,or transit benefits cannot meet the need. OFM would then follow the highest-to-lowest decisionhierarchy (Figure 8) to ensure that fleet procurement goals align with the City’s carbon neutrality
and cost management targets. This decision-hierarchy should be updated with the consensus
of the Clean Fleet Committee (CFC) by the Transportation Electrification Manager (see EVSE
Recommendations, below) as new fossil-fuel free technologies emerge, and the tiers may berevised to more accurately account for GHG emissions potential.
Figure 8. Proposed Vehicle Procurement Hierarchy3) Limit procurement of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the short term;
Pilot new fuels or procure CNG vehicles where feasible
While there are currently limited electric options for replacing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles,
several models are actively being developed and will be more widely available and viable within the

34

City of Philadelphia

next decade. Due to market forces, as well as the multi-state MOU related to vehicle electrification,
this is an area that should be revisited at least every five years to ensure that Philadelphia is procuring
the latest in zero-emission vehicles and supporting infrastructure.
Given the market trajectory of medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles, the City should try as
much as possible to limit procurement of fossil-fuel vehicles in these classes over the next 5 years,
instead ‘piloting’ EV or other low-emission vehicle options where possible. For any unavoidable
procurement, the City should first consider alternative fuel vehicles, including the expansion of
CNG-fueled vehicles given the sanitation vehicle pilot (the City should try to use RNG wheneverpossible to fuel its CNG fleet). If electric- or CNG-fueled vehicles are not feasible, the City should
consider whether piloting other low-emission fuels, such as renewable diesel or hydrogen, may
provide long-term benefits.

City of Philadelphia’s CNG-powered Trash
Compactor Fueling Station
The Office of Fleet Management (OFM) has started to convert Streets Department trashtrucks to compressed natural gas (CNG). Due to the size of the city, there is no central trashtruck facility. Instead, the approximately 341 City trash trucks are based out of numerous
facilities that are local to the areas that they serve. The City selected the Southwest
Sanitation Convenience Center as the CNG fueling location and, in partnership with
Clean Energy Fuels Corp, completed the retrofit in 2021. The City selected the location
due to the availability of natural gas and its proximity to a publicly accessible fast-fill
CNG station at the Philadelphia International Airport. The fast-fill station could serve
as a backup fueling source if the City’s station is unavailable due to maintenance ormalfunction. The City’s CNG fueling station configuration can accommodate 44 trashcompactors and an additional 40 trash trucks (70 total). Currently, OFM has 16 CNG
compactors in active service and 11 will be on line by September of 2021.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

35

4) Conduct an EV Suitability Assessment
Given the size of the City’s fleet and the need to achieve deep electrification quickly, a thirdparty telematics assessment (specifically, a months-long EV Suitability Assessment) is highly
recommended. This data-capturing exercise provides a high level of detail into vehicle duty cycles(hours driven per day, per week and total miles per measurement cycle) as well as vehicle drive
cycles (average speed, number and frequency of vehicle stops and starts, idle time, and engine-offtime). This data can then be used to calculate fleet greenhouse gas emissions and assess which
vehicles are the best candidates for electrification. For PHEVs, telematics can track how many miles
are driven using the internal combustion engine versus the battery.
An inherent benefit of telematics is the collection of location data, which is not only useful tounderstand where a vehicle travels (to potentially identify optimum sites for installation of on-routecharging) but also to better understand where vehicles regularly park, especially overnight. This
real-world data will support Philadelphia’s informed decision-making about the number of Level 2
charging stations that need to be installed in support of the planned EV deployment. By indicating
best sites for strategic and consolidated charging infrastructure installation, and then validating thatthese plans are sufficient to meet the driving needs of the planned EV procurements, infrastructure
and overall project costs can be reduced. Fleet telematics and data analysis were specifically
identified by city consultant Wilson Engineering Services (WES) as an exercise with the potential toprovide benefits to fleet maintenance departments (see Appendix B). For example, an EV Suitability
Assessment conducted for the City of Columbus, OH informed its deployment of over 300 electricvehicles between 2018 and 2020.

5) Establish a Clean Fleet Committee (CFC) to oversee plan implementationand track goals
The Clean Fleet Committee (CFC) should be an intragovernmental body that meets at least biannually
to support the transition to a carbon-free fleet and to meet the goals listed in this plan. While OFM
will manage vehicle procurement requests and ensure they follow the decision hierarchy, the CFC
must play a leadership role in coordinating the infrastructure needed to support electrification. The
CFC can provide support to OFM in ensuring that all departments are adhering to the procurement
policy. All requests for non-electric vehicle procurements (especially SUVs and light-duty cars/
trucks) must include an operational and/or cost justification. Any plans to upsize a department’s
fleet must be supported by a reasonable strategy to offset any incremental fuel consumption
or emissions impacts that would result.
The CFC will serve as a general clearinghouse for questions on alternative fuel vehicles; as a reviewer
36City of Philadelphia

of market conditions and vehicle availability; as a coordinator for EVSE and infrastructure planningand implementation; and will develop metrics to track fleet composition changes towards zeroemissions (vehicle number and type, emissions, and operational performance and costs including
EV charging, etc.). It is envisioned that this Committee will prepare a report for relevant stakeholders— including the City Fleet Liaisons — after each meeting, which will inform the next iteration of the
Clean Fleet Plan.
At each meeting, the Clean Fleet Committee will:••

Review key performance indicators (KPIs)>

Ongoing fleet maintenance costs, by vehicle category: Consider tracking maintenance for
new EVs compared to maintenance costs of comparable ICE vehicles (or the vehicles they
replaced), and adding indicators to the City’s sustainability dashboard (see Recommendation#6 below)>

Vehicles procured and retired during the timeline, including: Number of EVs or AFVs
procured; Number of vehicles permanently retired/not replaced>

Fuel usage and year-over-year comparison, by department>

EV charging station installations, utilization, and operational EV supply costs (see EVSE
Recommendations)

Review issues encountered during implementation of the Clean Fleet Plan, not limited to:>••

Vehicle and EVSE costs, meeting needs of end users, technical issues, workforce issues,and EVSE planning and deployment

Provide resources to staff to support the familiarize them with Electric/Alternative Fuel
Vehicles and Best Practices:>

Familiarize City staff with the benefits of (and industry-wide shift to) vehicle electrification>

Identify upcoming availability of EVs and AFVs, including procurement and grant-funding
opportunities

Review fleet management techniques and ensure alignment with documented Best Practices:>

Vehicle assignment/’take-out’/parking efficiency>

Promote ‘eco-driving’ to improve fuel efficiency of drivers through better operational
practices•

Collect, streamline, and analyze data such as electricity rates and EV operational costs tofaciliate the streamlined development of program baselines and compoarisons to other fleet
fuels

•

Spearhead EVSE installation processes and coordinating stakeholder roles acrossdepartments

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

37

The facilitator and lead convener of the Clean Fleet Committee would be the Transportation
Electrification Manager (see EVSE Recommendation #1. The Committee would additionallybe composed of at least four (4) departmental fleet liaisons, as well as indicated staff from City
departments, outlined in Table 17.
Table 17. Proposed Clean Fleet Committee Personnel
Department

Function

Representative

Office of Fleet Management (OFM)

Purchases vehicles on behalf ofdepartments

Houses Transportation Electrification
Manager to coordinate EV infrastrucure;
Senior automotive engineers

Procurement Department

Manages contracts for vehicle
procurement

Department Buyer; Procurement
Representative; or as assigned bydepartment leadership

Office of Transportation,
Infrastructure, and Sustainability(oTIS)

Oversees critical municipal infrastructuresuch as right of way and street paving

Deputy Managing Director; or as
assigned by department leadership

Department of Public Property(DPP)

Manages a majority of the City’s built
environment and also provides capitalproject management for various
departments

Deputy Commissioner of Operations;
Deputy Commissioner of Capital; or as
assigned by department leadership

Office Of Sustainability (OOS)

Manages the citywide GHG inventory andhas established goals in order to mitigate
the impact of climate change

Director of Sustainability; or as assigned
by department leadership

Energy Office (EO)

EO manages vehicle fuel procurementin addition to electricity for all municipal
government

City Energy Manager or as assigned bydepartment leadership

Office of Innovation andTechnology (OIT)

OIT manages major technology projects
for the City and encourages municipal
employees to engage with technology inuseful ways.

SmartCityPHL Director6) Develop funding programs to connect Capital Procurement and Fuel Cost/
Operational Savings
Currently, the City’s EV and clean fleet procurement goals are disconnected from the funding
allocated for new capital and vehicle procurement. Given the current price premiums for EVs andthe impetus to reduce fleet emissions, there is a need for specific budget allocations to support fleet
electrification. Fuel switching – from price-volatile petroleum-based liquid fuels to domesticallyproduced and relatively price-stable electricity – is a widely accepted operational-savings factor
indicating the economic benefits of EVs over conventional vehicles.
Since the City already collects information on metrics like fuel expenditures and vehicle miles
traveled by vehicle category, a relatively simple comparison can be made with electricity rates andelectricity dispensed from fleet-dedicated charging stations to account for fuel cost savings posttransition. These accrued fuel savings should be used to offset the price differential between an ICE
vehicle and its comparable EV equivalent in future procurements.

38

City of Philadelphia

Additionally, since EVs demonstrate lower maintenance costs compared to ICE vehicles, the City
should establish a method of quantifying and tracking maintenance savings per vehicle/class todevelop a complete profile of the financial impact of the fleet’s breakdown as it progresses towards
full electrification (see #4 above, Clean Fleet Committee). It is recommended that indicators likeannual maintenance costs and time spent in the shop/out of duty be tracked and reported on theCity’s sustainability dashboard, with avoided maintenance costs similarly used to support an internalfund to help offset the higher price premiums for electric vehicles. Combined with available federal
funding opportunities or state-based initiatives, like Pennsylvania’s Alternative Fuels Incentives
Grants (AFIG) Program or Driving PA Forward from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, this internal fund would be well poised to support a sustainable funding pathway for fleet
electrification.

7) Optimize Alternative Fueling and Infrastructure•

Moderately expand compressed natural gas (CNG); focus on deploying renewable gas (RNG):
RNG presents the best short-term opportunity for transitioning medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
to lower emission alternatives. The City should explore ways to procure RNG for its current CNGfueling facility, which should be expanded to its full capacity.

•

Evaluate E85 or B20 Fueling Locations: The City currently has 1,227 flex fuel (E85 capable)
vehicles in the fleet, although the extent to which E85 fuel is used is unknown. Since many City
fueling depots may only provide two dispensers, for E10 gasoline or diesel, availability of E85 forCity vehicles may be sparse or nonexistent. However, it may be worth looking at where vehicles
are fueled to see if there are specific fuel depots which serve primarily flex fuel vehicles, and thenit may be possible to convert the E10 dispensers to E85, if the non-flex fuel vehicles can be moved
to other fuel stations. In this way, a GHG offset can be used with existing vehicles, and at very little
cost, since E85 is priced similarly to E10 on an energy cost basis.
The same type of evaluation could be conducted for diesel vehicles, to determine which vehicles
are supported to run on B20 by their manufacturers. Although moving to B20 from the current
B2 does not provide as significant of a GHG offset as the difference between E10 and E85, thetransition could be worthwhile it if it requires minimal effort.

•

Consolidate Alternative Fuel infrastructure and EVSE management under a single department
and expand staffing support appropriately: Currently, EVSE is installed and managed by thedepartment owning the EV. There is no coordinated strategy for EVSE deployment or use. Given
the cross-cutting nature of plan implementation, the Managing Director’s Office should oversee the
Clean Fleet Committee and designate that body to manage all aspects of EVSE with appropriate
staffing. A full time staff position should be hired as soon as possible, but no later than FY23.

•

Develop an EVSE deployment scenario; expand dual-port Level 2 charging availability at
locations: The Office of Fleet Management should use the EV Charging Infrastructure Analysis
Tool to complete a 10-year EVSE deployment framework and begin expanding EVSE installation
immediately. The City is encouraged to simplify and streamline its internal EV charging infrastructure
permitting process to facilitate this rapid infrastructure buildout, and also to require new andrenovated municipal facilities to be ‘EV-ready’ in order to minimize the costs of installing charging
infrastructure at those sites in the future.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

39

Electric Vehicle Supply
Equipment (EVSE)
Technology Overview
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) is typically differentiated by the maximum amount of powerthat can be delivered to the vehicle’s battery. Table 18 presents an overview of different charging types aswell as a comparison of estimated equipment/installation costs – see Appendix B for more information.
Table 18. Comparison of EV Charging Levels
Level 1
Alternating Current

Level 2
Alternating Current

Used for PHEV and BEV charging

Description

Uses a standard plug – 120 volt (V),single phase service with a threeprong electrical outlet at 15-20
amperage (A)Connector
type(s)J1772 charge port

J1772 charge port

208/240 V AC split phase service
that is less than or equal to 80 A

Level 2 & 3
Direct Current (aka DC Fast
Charging)
Used specifically for BEV
charging
Typically requires a dedicatedcircuit of 20-100 A, with a 480 V
service connection

J1772
combo

CHAdeMO

Tesla
combo

Residential or workplace charging

Residential, workplace, oropportunity/public charging

Rapid charging for transportation
depots, vehicle fleets, public
corridorLow power delivery lengthens
charging time

Requires additional infrastructure
and wiring

Can only be used by BEVs
currently. Higher upfront andoperational costs

2 to 5-mi range/1-hr charging

10 to 25-miles range/1-hr charging

Depending on the vehicle battery
size, PHEVs can be fully charged in
2-7 hours and BEVs in 14-20+ hours

Depending on the vehicle battery
size, PHEVs can be fully charged in
1-3 hours and BEVs in 4-8 hours

50 to 70-mi range/20-min
charging

Estimated
Installation Cost

Minimal

1-5 chargers per site: $2,800$3,100

Estimated
Equipment Cost

$600 to $820 per non-networked
charger per pedestal

UseLimitations

Time to Charge

6+ chargers per site: up to $2,300

Depending on the vehicle battery
size, BEVs can be fully charged in
30-60 minutes.
1 charger per site: $45,500*
3-5 chargers per site: $27,000*$940 to $1,200 per non-networked
charger, per pedestal

50 kW: up to $28,400 per
pedestal networked charger*$2,800 to $3,200 per networked
charger, per pedestal

150 kW: up to $75,000 per
pedestal networked charger**Note that these cost estimates include estimated charges for upgrading of switchgear and distribution lines - consult with your utility
about how these charges can be managed. Equipment and installation costs are based on average manufacturer hardware quotes,
surveyed in 2019 by the International Council on Clean Energy

40City of Philadelphia

Current Municipal EVSE Deployment
To meet the current charging needs of its fleet, the City has installed 47 single-port, non-networked,
Level 2 EV charging stations at 28 locations throughout the City of Philadelphia (Figure 9, below). The
largest concentration of charging stations is in North Philadelphia, with ten charging locations that offer
access to 16 charging stations. Fifteen locations citywide have one charging station; and the remaining
13 locations have more than one charger. OFM procures and provides EV charging infrastructure to
the department procuring EVs. The procuring department is then responsible for the installation andmaintenance of the stations (see recommended changes to this process in EVSE Recommendations #1).
There is currently no coordination between EV drivers or departments on EVSE deployment.
Figure 9. City of Philadelphia Charging Stations Locations

With the required growth in the City’s EV fleet over the next decade, thoughtful EVSE deployment andmanagement will be critical to provide adequate charging options to drivers. The following sections
provide a review of resources currently available to effectively meet Philadelphia’s increased need for EV
charging. A more detailed report, including equipment, installation, and operational cost comparisons,can be found in Appendix B.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s Strategic Transportation Plan

41

Networked vs. Non-Networked Charging
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) is typically differentiated by the maximum amount of powerthat can be delivered to the vehicle’s battery. Table 18 presents an overview of different charging types aswell as a comparison of estimated equipment/installation costs — see Appendix B for more information.

Networked charging stations

Non-networked charging stations

Also called “smart” chargers, networked
chargers incorporate the hardware, software,and communications capabilities necessary
to connect it with a network service provider’scharging station management software, andcommonly access a network “dashboard”
for ease of monitoring and enhanced user
experience (Figure 10, below). This facilitates theautomated delivery of detailed, customizable
reports on energy use, costs and avoided
emissions, providing enhanced visibility on fleet
operations. This dashboard also makes it easy
for remote infrastructure management in thecase of hardware/network failures. Networked
chargers can also restrict access to certain users
via RFID access cards, while enabling payment
facilities for public use. Networked chargers canalso support the City’s building energy efficiency
work as well, since they allow the differentiation
between electricity used to charge vehicles andbuilding electricity use.

Non-networked charging stations are standalone (Level 1 or Level 2) EVSE which allow
users to simply access electrical power tocharge vehicles. This equipment lacks the
hardware and software to inherently connect tothe internet or other communications networks,
and therefore cannot be accessed or managed
remotely. Non-networked EVSE collect very
limited data on energy dispensed, meaning thatstation owners will only be able to see the total
electricity consumed by the unit over a given
period of time. For this reason, non-networked
EVSEs are the least expensive and simplest
option to meet charging needs. Non-networked
EVSEs are best suited for residential and small
workplaces, where a limited number of charging
stations are necessary.

In addition to the costs for the physical charging equipment, networked charging station owners (i.e., theCity) pay a fee that covers the cost for cellular/Wi-Fi network communications and back-end support,
which would provide access to the dashboard (see Appendix B for more information on these costs).
While networked chargers are more expensive, networked charger management software allows
for real-time monitoring of the charging equipment including maintenance needs, up-time, energy
usage, and charging station status. These additional features make networked chargers an attractive
complement to EV-fleet management and for fleets seeking enhanced energy and operational data
tracking.

42

City of Philadelphia

Figure 10. Example of an EVSE Network Dashboard

Source: California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. Electric Vehicle Charger Selection Guide.

EVSE Maintenance
Maintenance and repair costs vary, depending on the type and features of charging equipment deployed.
Basic, non-networked Level 1 and Level 2 chargers do not require regular maintenance unless physicaldamage occurs. The equipment is typically modular in design, and any malfunctioning components canbe replaced separately rather than replacing an entire unit.
Networked chargers with advanced features or communications systems may require periodic
maintenance. Depending on the station ownership structure, maintenance and extended warranties
may be included in agreements or provided as a fixed annual fee.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

43

Charging as a Service (CaaS)EV charging-as-a-service (CaaS) is a relatively new option offered by EVSE network companies. CaaS
minimizes the financial burden on hosts by reducing the upfront cost of chargers to essentially zero.
Theoretically, the only expenses for which a host would be responsible are the network fees and theoperating fees. EVSE providers which offer this service cover the purchasing and installation of charging
equipment, as well as an equipment warranty.
One important difference between CaaS and a standard equipment leasing arrangement is that at theend of the fixed term, CaaS customers do not have the option to buy the EV charging equipment. The
advantage to the City would be zero upfront cost for the charger, zero maintenance fees, and for someproviders that offer fixed pricing, a clear understanding of future costs.
However, a review of other public entities’ experience with this option reveals that it is not as simple as it
appears. For example, during installation the EVSE provider does not cover any infrastructure upgrades(electricity panel upgrade, transformer replacement, etc.), nor will it cover the cost for any required
trenching. As stated, charging equipment cannot be purchased at the end of the fixed term, so in lightof the high infrastructure costs this may not be the most cost-effective option for the City. Please refer
to Appendix B for more information on companies offering a charging-as-a -service option, including
companies who offer this option in in the Philadelphia area.

Advanced Fleet Management Opportunities
One concern when managing a large EV fleet is the logistical challenge of maintaining sufficient charge
across a large number of operational vehicles when the ratio of available charging infrastructure toplug-in vehicles is less than 1:1 (i.e., when multiple EVs must share access to 1 charge port). Queuing
opportunities, facilitated by the network service provider through a platform or dashboard add-on, may
allow for the enhanced coordination of fleet charging by aggregating data related to EV driving patterns
and EV battery state of charge. This data would be analyzed to prioritize the charging of vehicles that:1.

are due for a vehicle trip, and/or

2.

are insufficiently charged to carry out a pending vehicle trip.

Although no companies currently offer this ‘queuing’ option, ChargePoint does currently offer a ‘waitlist’
feature which allows EVs to ‘get in line’ when all charging spots are being used and receive a notification
when there is an opening. ‘Auto-Queueing’ is another available feature which automatically adds a car to
the waitlist, obviating the need for drivers to add themselves to the queue.

44

City of Philadelphia

Location Considerations
The Charging Infrastructure Analysis Tool, created by ICF for the City, provides a range of estimated costs
related to the charging infrastructure necessary to support the City fleet’s transition to electric. The Tool
combines information on the fleet’s EV adoption projections (over the next 10 years, based on currently
deployed vehicles) with location analysis based on existing parking location data. From this identificationof potential ‘hot spots’ for future EV charging needs, Table 19 presents the Top 15 City parking locations.
Note that over the next decade, 641 EV chargers are anticipated for City-vehicle parking spots for which
no accurate or consistent location data could be found; additionally, this Top 15 list includes several
Police Department sites (highlighted in blue). See Appendix B for full citywide results and an overview of
the assumptions used in the analysis.
Table 19. Expected EVSE Demand at Various City Parking Locations

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Total 5
Year

Total
10
Year

NO DATA

63

45

10

28

73

52

44

48

154

124

219

641

POLICE TRAFFIC
DIV.

0

2

0

0

3

5

13

11

10

6

5

50

SW WATERPOLLUTIONCONTROL PLANT

1

1

0

4

6

6

5

8

7

10

12

48

NE WATERPOLLUTIONCONTROL PLANT

1

4

0

5

0

1

2

12

9

9

10

43

POLICENARCOTICS

5

1

1

0

2

3

12

10

1

7

9

42

AUTO SERVICES

2

2

4

3

4

1

3

5

7

0

15

31

HOMICIDE
DETECTIVE DIV.

1

7

4

0

2

1

1

6

3

1

14

26

35TH POLICE DIST.

1

0

0

1

2

2

10

4

5

1

4

26

39TH POLICE DIST.

0

2

0

1

1

1

9

3

8

1

4

26

HOMELAND SEC/DIG PROTECT/CRIM INTELL

4

2

1

3

2

0

2

6

1

4

12

25

INTERNAL
AFFAIRS BUREAU
IAB

3

5

1

1

0

1

4

4

0

4

10

23

CONSTRUCTION
UNIT

2

0

0

6

0

11

1

0

0

3

8

23

DISTRIBUTION
PWD

1

2

0

1

0

0

1

6

7

5

4

23

9TH POLICE DIST.

0

1

2

1

0

1

6

4

5

2

4

22

OFM
INTERAGENCY
POOL

3

4

0

4

5

1

1

0

3

0

16

21

FIRE ADMIN BLDG

0

2

0

3

0

1

1

7

2

5

5

21

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

45

EV Charging Costs and Considerations
See also ‘Charging as a Service,’ page 44.
Total charging infrastructure costs are primarily composed of:• Permitting fees, which account for City administrative staff time as the municipality enforces
the applicable electrical code to protect both the public and property. EVSE permitting feesvary widely (from $0 to $624 nationally), adding great variability to total charging infrastructure
costs. For example, near Philadelphia, permitting fees are calculated as a percentage of the total
job cost, meaning that permitting fees would increase along with EVSE labor and capital costs.
Permitting processes also vary widely, and it is recommended that the City streamline this internal
process and minimize fees to complement the planned municipal EVSE deployment and support
increased equipment installations throughout Philadelphia.
• Hardware costs include the level and number of chargers deployed, and available features suchas networking. While non-networked Level 1 or Level 2 chargers are the least expensive, they are
not expected to serve the City well in the long term. As EV range and battery size increase, thesevehicles will quickly outpace Level 1 charging’s ability to provide them sufficient charge. There isalso value in having more sophisticated Level 2 charging infrastructure as more EVs are deployed.
This will allow the City to track and manage electricity consumption remotely, reducing potential
impacts to building energy costs. More sophisticated Level 2 equipment may also increase
utilization potential at the stations through advanced features such as queueing capabilities andother notifications.
• Installation costs are based largely on site-specific concerns, such as the charger distance fromthe electrical panel and the associated need for boring/trenching through any hardscaping; or if
the equipment will be wall- or pedestal-mounted. Installation costs are the most widely variable
cost factor – a 2013 EPRI study found that L2 sites that required special work such as trenching or
boring were about 25% more costly.
The City’s strategy around siting and deploying vehicle charging equipment should focus on ‘futureproofing,’ or meeting the needs of electric vehicles that will join the fleet not just imminently but inthe longer term. This means maximizing the utility of instances of boring/trenching activities during
an infrastructure upgrade and installing excess electrical panel/conduit capacity at that time. Suchmeasures reduce long-term project costs by delaying the need to modify the site at a later date toaccommodate additional equipment installation.

Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean Fleet Plan
46

City of Philadelphia

...over the next decade, thoughtful
EVSE deployment and management
will be critical to provide adequatecharging options to drivers
For example, based on the findings from the EV Infrastructure Analysis Tool and shown in Table 19, theOFM interagency pool parking location will need an estimated 16 EV charge ports over the next five
years, and 21 charge ports total in the next 10 years. Therefore, instead of installing seven charge ports
in 2021 and 2022 at this site, it is recommended that the City consolidate installation costs as much as
possible by installing the total required electrical/conduit capacity during the first set of installments. To
improve this type of analysis moving forward, it is recommended that the City collect parking location
data from more fleet vehicles. Fleet telematics capture, as part of an EV Suitability Assessment, would
satisfy this data need — see Vehicle and Fueling Recommendations, #4, as well as Appendix C for thefull list of analyzed City parking locations and their requisite expected EVSE demand.

Vehicle-to-Plug Ratio
It is also important to note that the City currently uses a 1:1 vehicle-to-plug ratio when procuring/installingcharging equipment to support new fleet EVs. Moving forward, the City should move to a vehicle-toplug ratio of at least 2:1 in order to reduce infrastructure capital costs. The following tables provide more
information on projected EV Infrastructure costs per year (both a low- and high-cost scenario), and acomparison of total costs over the same period.
The Infrastructure Analysis confirms that 2:1 vehicle-to-plug equipment sharing would effectively cut
project costs in half (as opposed to a 1:1 vehicle-to-charger ratio), but there still exist logistical challenges
associated with sharing charge ports between vehicles, at least into the near term. In order to accomplish
this successfully, vehicles with complimentary daily trips and uses must be paired together at charging
locations in order to achieve an overall adequate state of operational charge. Other strategies tomanage equipment include scheduling charging sessions by using a charging platform (see EV Fleet
Management Opportunities, above), or by pairing staff EV users who easily and effectively communicate
with each other.

Projected City EVSE Deployment Needs and Estimated Costs
Adapted from the ICF Report in Appendix C, the following table illustrates Philadelphia-specific estimatedcosts for the recommended City EVSE deployment scenario each year through 2030 – networked or
non-networked Level 2 charging stations, where each charge port is shared by 2 electric vehicles. See
Appendix C for additional cost scenarios, including if all chargers were Level 1 and if a 1:1 Vehicle-toCharger Ratio was employed instead. Again, while basic Level 1 or Level 2 charging is most economical,
that approach not recommended to support the City’s long-term electrification plans.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

47

Table 20. EV Infrastructure Costs by Year, Assuming 2:1 Vehicle to Charger Ratio per year
2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

If all chargers were L2 non-networked
CapitalCosts
Operational
Costs
Total Costs

Low$34,850$22,500$3,000$17,000$20,500$25,000$53,500$117,000$137,000$123,000High$221,339$242,933$32,391$183,549$221,339$269,925$577,640$1,263,249$1,479,189$1,328,031

Low$3,075$6,450$6,900$9,450$12,525$16,275$24,300$41,850$62,400$80,850High$4,100$8,600$9,200$12,600$16,700$21,700$32,400$55,800$83,200$107,800Low$37,925$28,950$9,900$26,450$33,025$41,275$77,800$158,850$199,400$203,850

High$225,439$251,533$41,591$196,149$238,039$291,625$610,040$1,319,049$1,562,389$1,435,831$7,650$43,350$52,275$63,750$136,425$298,350$349,350$313,650

If all chargers were L2 networked
CapitalCosts
Operational
Costs
Total Costs

Low$52,275$57,375High$324,864$356,558$47,541$269,399$324,864$396,175$847,815$1,854,099$2,171,039$1,949,181

Low$7,790$16,340$17,480$23,940$31,730$41,230$61,560$106,020$158,080$204,820High$13,325$27,950$29,900$40,950$54,275$70,525$105,300$181,350$270,400$350,350Low$60,065$73,715$25,130$67,290$84,005$104,980$197,985$404,370$507,430$518,470

High$338,189$384,508$77,441$310,349$379,139$466,700$953,115$2,035,449$2,441,439$2,299,531

Table 20 Summary. Cumulative EV Infrastructure Costs by Year, Assuming 2:1 Vehicle to Charger Ratio
Cumulative 10-year costs
If all chargers were L2 non-networked
Capital Costs

Operational Costs

Total Costs

Low$553,350High$5,819,583

Low$264,075High$352,100Low$817,425High$6,171,683

If all chargers were L2 networked
Capital Costs

Operational Costs

Total Costs

48

Low

$1,374,450

High$8,541,533

Low$668,990High$1,144,325

Low$2,043,440

High$9,685,858

City of Philadelphia

In summary, the cumulative costs for infrastructure over the next ten years can range considerably basedon the type of equipment selected and varying installation costs across different types of sites. Table 21
presents a summary comparison of the cumulative 10-year costs.
Table 21. Cumulative 10-Year EV Infrastructure Costs (2020 undiscounted)
Charger Types

Vehicles per
ChargerLow

High

If all chargers were L2 non-networked
and each vehicle had its own
chargeport

L2 non-networked

1$ 1,634,850$ 12,343,366

If all chargers were L2 networked andeach vehicle had its own chargeport

L2 networked

1$ 4,086,880$ 19,371,716

If all chargers were L2 networked andtwo vehicles shared a chargeport

L2 networked

2$ 2,043,440$ 9,685,858

Scenario

Power Management Considerations
All large fleets undergoing electrification must find ways to balance their charging load while making
sure that all vehicle operational needs are met. This can be a daunting task for fleet staff, as they must still
consider remaining ICEs in their fleet while onboarding EVs and accounting for energy considerations —which are typically outside of their area of expertise. Luckily, networked chargers and third party vendors
offer solutions to manage challenges like demand charges, which are determined by the highest levelof electricity demand in kilowatts (kW — not kWh, which measures the amount of electricity consumed)
during a billing period, known as the ‘peak demand.’ By remotely managing power draw, networked
chargers can split or reduce load drawn from the grid by co-located Level 2 chargers, in order to avoid
demand charge impacts which can be substantial. Charging stations located at facilities that are a part of
the Energy Office’s demand response program could also be managed during events, helping to further
reduce demand and generate additional program revenue.
For the City, these types of charge management regime offerings — especially the possibility of splitting
power among vehicles and shifting EV charging to off-peak electricity periods — may prove invaluable
to managing charging costs as fleet electrification gains further momentum. There are also documented
examples of entities which operate multiple EVSE stations and are utilizing creative solutions to reduceand or spread out the electricity demand in order to reduce demand charge costs. See Appendix C fora brief review of these examples.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

49

EVSE Recommendations
1) Consolidate EVSE management under a single department and expand
staffing support appropriately
Committing to electrifying a fleet is more than just procuring vehicles — it requires the installationand ongoing management of charging infrastructure to service the growing complement of plug-in
vehicles in a cost-effective way.
To date, the department procuring and using the EV has also been responsible for the installationand maintenance of the associated EVSE, while OFM arranges the procurement. Meeting the goalsof this plan warrants a more strategic approach to efficiently and cost-effectively building out the
charging network. The fueling, maintenance, and procurement logistics will require increased levelsof coordination compared to the management of a conventional vehicle fleet. Therefore, centralizing
duties under one unit to take ownership of the EV charging equipment management is critical.
•

The Managing Director’s Office (MDO) has been identified as the department best suited tobe the centralized overseer of all municipal EVSE: Concentrating the skills, knowledge, andexperience of charging station procurement, installation and management under one department
is a recognized best-practice for achieving maximum cost-effectiveness and easing the City’s
future efforts to deploy charging equipment at a wide scale. Having the Managing Director’s Officeoversee the CFC to take ownership of all EV infrastructure-related needs would streamline datacollection and analysis, the tracking of program costs, and the identification and rapid response tomaintenance needs in order to ensure reliability. Centralized EVSE program management under
MDO would create a uniform point of contact for other city departments and external stakeholders
seeking information and updates on the City’s EV deployment and its impacts.
For optimum efficacy, a centralized oversight structure would still necessitate coordination with,at least, oTIS, OOS, the Energy Office, and DPP — as well as other departmental building owners
whose sites will house charging equipment. OFM will continue to identify and respond quickly tomaintenance needs to ensure reliability, and report electricity use data to the Energy Office so theutilities management database can incorporate chargebacks to build energy use as needed.

•

50

The City should hire a Transportation Electrification Manager: To support the implementationof the Clean Fleet Plan and spearhead the electrification of Philadelphia’s fleet, the City shouldallocate funds to hire a Transportation Electrification Manager as the go-to person for all
electrification and alternative fuel issues. Among other duties, this Manager would compile
resources, track operational metrics, and lead activities related to the Clean Fleet Committee(see Vehicle and Fueling Recommendations, #5 above), which include accounting for EVSE
planning and installation to support City EV deployment. Importantly, the Manager’s executionof City EV and EVSE deployment must be actively managed to ensure that the city’s real-world
procurement, installation, and deployment timelines are meeting expectations and projections

City of Philadelphia

(such as those provided in this plan and the attending consultant reports). Another important
responsibility for this role is to coordinate with City grant researchers and writers, and to facilitate
mutual support in the pursuit of incentives and grant financing to help fund Philadelphia’s fleet
transition. It is recommended that the Transportation Electrification Manager be located in
the Managing Director’s Office.
•

The City should define a streamlined process for the uniform procurement, permitting,installation, and utilization-tracking of City EV charging equipment: A defined process for the
procurement and installation of EV charging equipment to service Philadelphia’s growing plug-in
vehicle fleet must be established. Currently, the procurement of the charging equipment (doneby OFM) is disconnected from the installation and maintenance of said equipment (which ismanaged by the department to which the EVSE is provided) and there is no coordination between
EV drivers or departments on charging station deployment. This results in a situation that fails to
capture implementation efficiencies and advanced planning opportunities to support broad fleet
electrification, all of which would substantially reduce installation costs to the city.
The City should establish a defined process across all agencies to unify activities related to charging
equipment procurement and installation at City facilities/sites, in line with the planned procurementof EVs. Especially when trenching, curb cuts and drilling through hardscaping or structures will be
required to make infrastructure upgrades and/or complete equipment installation, it is most costeffective to plan for future electrification by installing more capacity than is needed in the moment.
This installation factor is the source of greatest variability in installation costs, with other factors
being the need of electrical panel upgrades (if required) and distance from EV charger to electrical
panel.
It is also recommended that City EVSE permitting processes be simplified and streamlined tosupport the rapid EVSE deployment and fleet transition presented in this Plan. Uncertainty, process
redundancies, and burdensome or unnecessary requirements cause delays during the permitting
process which can then delay or outright deter EVSE installation and EV procurement. For the
purposes of achieving rapid EVSE deployment at City facilities, it is worthwhile for the City to subject
fleet electrification EVSE installations to the least burdensome (and therefore most economical)
permitting processes. In several jurisdictions, this means defining Level 2 charging equipment as
appliances and allowing their installation to fall under ‘minor’ electrical work. On the other hand,the need in many cases to create excess electrical capacity or conduit/panels at City facilities may
complicate EVSE installation scenarios, necessitating increased inspection stringency.
However, efficiencies in EVSE permitting can be achieved, the City is encouraged to make thesechanges in support the Clean Fleet Plan. This would make EVSE installation faster, easier and morecost-effective. Streamlining and simplifying the EVSE permitting process and providing clarity of
applicable fees will assist vendors, service providers and City liaisons to plan and execute EVSE
installations in a timely manner, mitigating project costs and meeting project timelines.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

51

2) Develop an EVSE Deployment Scenario
To support the Clean Fleet Plan, consultant ICF developed a Charging Infrastructure Analysis Tool toprovide the City with EV projections and the range of expected costs associated with the charging
infrastructure anticipated over the next 10 years. This Tool is valuable for appreciating the long-term
EVSE program scale and its estimated fiscal impacts. Overall, the objective of the Tool is to help theCity understand the quantity of infrastructure needed and what a program at scale would look likeand cost over the next ten years. OFM should use this Charging Infrastructure Analysis Tool as thebasis to develop a 10-year EV Charging Station Deployment Plan to present to the Clean Fleet
Committee, based on the recommendations provided in this Clean Fleet Plan and attending
Appendices. OFM should then begin pursuing the procurement and deployment scenario
immediately.
••

Expand dual-port L2 charging availability at locations included in deployment scenario: To
meet the current and future needs of the fleet, it is recommended that the City pursue a mix of
non-networked Level 2 charging stations in the short-term and networked Level 2 charging
stations in the mid- and long-term.
>

In the short-term, given the relatively low number of plug-in vehicles on the fleet, the benefit
of networked Level 2 charging stations may not exceed the higher capital costs and ongoing
networking fees. The City should review the operational status of existing City EV charging
equipment and replace/upgrade equipment as necessary.

>In the mid- and long-term, especially as queueing technology and other management
services develop, it will be important for the City to begin procuring networked Level 2
equipment and leveraging the connected capabilities to coordinate and manage increased
EV charging and maintenance schedules.

>

The City should prioritize purchasing (owning outright) EV charging equipment at sites that
require significant infrastructure upgrades. Charging-as-a-Service (see page 42 above) may
be a beneficial approach in cases where infrastructure upgrades remain low.

Require new and retrofitted municipal buildings to be ‘EV-ready’: The installation of EV charging
infrastructure is four to six times less expensive when included during the construction phase as
opposed to a building retrofit, an activity with typically includes costs such as labor expenses fordemolition, trenching and boring, balancing the circuits, and new permitting costs.
The City should develop and implement an EV Infrastructure Ordinance for municipal buildings,
sties, and facilities which capitalizes on the construction phase (new construction, extensive facility
alterations/additions, or upgrades to surface parking or facility electrical systems). This ordinancewould define EV-Ready Parking Spaces and mandate the installation of full circuits (electrical panel
capacity + branch circuit + constructed raceway + 240-volt outlet accessible to parking space) for acertain percentage of existing parking spaces, making these spaces ready for the ‘plug and play’
installation of Level 2 EV Charging Station equipment. Strategic alignment with municipal capital
improvement timelines and the EVSE Deployment Scenario (above) can further minimize total
costs and barriers.

52

City of Philadelphia

Building or facility retrofitting activities will trigger EV-readiness requirements if they:1.

Involve 50% or more of building property

2.

Include the parking area (repaving or lighting)3.

Include upgrades to electrical infrastructure3) Provide Adequate Signage and Accessibility
It is recommended to utilize signage and accessibility guidance to ensure proper wayfinding andusability of chargers. This includes two core elements:•

Signage and Wayfinding Guidance: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued
interim signage guidance for EV charging stations, which can be used for signage of local EVSE in
turn.

•

ADA Accessibility Guidance: There is currently no regulation with respect to EV charging and
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Guidance has been issued however for illustrating how
accessibility can be planned into EVSE spaces. Incorporating accessibility into charger design will
ensure safety and ease-of-use and access to EV owners and users of all capabilities.

CONNECT: Philadelphia’s
Philadelphia’s
Municipal Clean
Strategic
FleetTransportation
Plan
Plan

53

Conclusion
Identified as a key component of the city’s Climate Action Playbook, the transition to a municipal fleetof clean and electric vehicles will see the City lead by example on reducing carbon pollution, achieve costsavings, support local job creation, and enhance Philadelphia’s competitiveness in the state and among
peer cities. While there has been some penetration of zero-emission electric vehicles among the municipal
fleet of approximately 5,500 vehicles, most fleet vehicles are still internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles
which produce carbon emissions and other tailpipe air pollutants during operation.
This City of Philadelphia Clean Fleet Plan is intended to provide guidance and recommendations on
concrete actions that the City can take to significantly reduce fleet-related emissions by transitioning its
vehicles to electric options. Focusing specifically on the next ten years, the plan identifies opportunities
to accelerate electrification of the light, medium, and heavy duty fleet, and makes recommendations to
set clear procurement targets, institutionalize procurement policies and procedures that prioritize clean
vehicles, and build out charging infrastructure in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
If the City of Philadelphia achieves 100% procurement of clean energy for municipal operations by 2030
and adopts the recommended targets for light and medium-duty vehicle electrification, GHG emissions
for the light and medium duty fleet are estimated to decline by 47%. Based on available vehicle model
prices and projected cost trends, BEV sedans are projected to reach cost parity with conventional vehicles
by 2025, whereas electric SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans are projected to remain more expensive thanconventional vehicles through 2030. It’s estimated that the vehicle electrification scenario articulated inthis plan would incrementally cost the city $7M between 2021 and 2030 in capital costs, and save the city
$2.5M in operating costs over that same time period. If the city could leverage available state incentives forvehicles and EVSE, the city could potentially also save on capital costs in the same time period.

AppendicesFind appendix documents A through C referenced throughout the Plan linked below.
Appendix A: City of Philadelphia - DRVE Tool Analysis Report
Appendix B: WES 2020 Vehicle & Fuels Report
Appendix C: ICF EV Charging Infrastructure Report

54

City of Philadelphia

Acknowledgements
This plan was supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Climate
Challenge and technical advisor partners, including:•

The Electrification Coalition•

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)•

Delivery Associates•

Lion Advisors for Community and Environment, LLC

Thanks to the City of Philadelphia Managing Director’s Office; Office of Fleet Management;
Office of General Services, Arts and Events; Office of Innovation and Technology; Officeof Sustainability, and Office of Transportation, Infrastructure and Sustainability for theirpartnership on this plan.
Graphic design and plan template by Francesca Furey.

58

City of Philadelphia