San Jose Fleet Electrification Assessment

Analysis Overview	EVSE Recommendation	Transition Planner	EV Procurements	ACF Compliance	GHG Emission Reductions	Fuel/Maintenance Cost Savings	Risks/Challenges	Conclusion

The City of San José has committed to reducing its carbon footprint, with its fleet representing the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions citywide. Along with decarbonization of fleet operations, compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation is the primary driver of this transition, which aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as criteria pollutants. The transition to electric vehicles (EVs) also offers the potential for lower lifecycle costs, helping to offset their higher upfront purchase prices. The City engaged a consultant team, Frontier Energy and DKS Associates, to develop a comprehensive master plan for transitioning its municipal fleet to EVs. The scope of work included evaluating the current fleet composition, identifying potential impacts and benefits of electrification, providing strategic recommendations for public and workplace charging infrastructure, and outlining practical steps to efficiently and cost-effectively integrate EVs and chargers across City facilities. The assessment aims to support a phased transition to EVs over the next 15 years where feasible, reinforcing the City’s commitment to sustainability. The analysis was informed by data provided by the City and supplemented with insights gathered through meetings and interviews with City staff. The consultants’ recommendations align with the City’s Climate Smart San José climate action plan and reflect a fiscally responsible approach to fleet electrification. The strategy provides detailed guidance for vehicle procurement and charging infrastructure deployments to ensure long-term alignment with the City’s environmental and financial goals. Our recommendations address 2025-2028 procurement cycles in detail and 2029-2040 procurement cycles more generally to ensure fiscally responsible procurement and deployment of EVs as well as proposed charging infrastructure.

Analysis Overview

The team conducted an analysis on transitioning the City’s fleet of 1,572 light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles to EVs, along with the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) commonly referred to as EV chargers for the city fleet, city employees, and the public in three implementation phases. The following chart shows the planned growth of EVs over the transition period. To facilitate the City’s transition to electric vehicles (EVs) within budgetary and ACF constraints, the procurement of EV replacements for the 1,572-vehicle fleet can be implemented over a 15-year period. Since light-duty EVs have minimal price premiums (if any) compared to their internal combustion powered counterparts, the City should procure light-duty EVs whenever possible. In contrast, many medium- and heavy-duty EVs currently lack suitable replacements, with limited availability projected in the near term. Deferring these vehicle replacements to the latter half of the transition period aligns with market readiness and technological advancements while still maintaining ACF compliance. In this assessment, 65 facilities were identified as viable locations for siting EV chargers for fleet, public and employees. To provide both lower cost overnight charging as well as more costly but quicker charging, AC Level 2 (L2), DC Slow and DC Fast Chargers (DCFC) were considered for each of these locations. City employees with “take home” vehicles would charge at home or at an available charger (city-owned or public). The smart charging platform can handle employee reimbursement or bill the appropriate department automatically. Off-road vehicles and equipment, which were outside the scope of this study, were excluded. The cost to transition to EVs are compared to the costs in the Baseline Scenario. The scenarios are defined below:

Baseline Scenario: Business as usual case where the City would continue using ICE vehicles
Transition Scenario: The City would replace ICE vehicles over time with EVs and install EVSE (L2, DC (slow), and DCFC) to charge them

The City could fully transition to EVs, install 2,139 charging ports for fleet, public and employee use. This would result in 2,013 Level 2 ports (1,992 AC Level 2 ports plus 21 DC Slow single port Level 2s), reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 122.9 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, and reduce OpEx by $35.2M for an additional $53.8M in CapEx for a net cost increase of $18.6M over 15 years. The cost reductions in the Transition Scenario are driven by vehicle incentives, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits, fuel cost savings and reduced maintenance costs.

BACK TO TOP

EVSE Recommendations

The detailed EVSE recommendations for each site this analysis evaluated are found in the downloadable document below. These recommendations include overnight chargers, which are Level 1 (L1), Level 2 (L2), and DC slow chargers, as well as supplemental DC fast chargers (DCFCs).

DOWNLOAD SITE DETAILS Charger Type Selection Methodology: Selecting Level 2 Chargers: Typical EV models suitable for municipal fleet applications have a limited AC charging power acceptance rate, often not greater than 11.5 kW. This diminishes the incremental value of a charging station with higher power outputs, such as 19.2 kW. Additionally, the presented Level 2 charger recommendations primarily include low-output (6.6-7.2 kW per port) and medium-output (9.6-11.5 kW per port) chargers given their use case: overnight charging. With higher-output chargers, many EV models would complete charging early on in the night, resulting in sub-optimal use of the installed infrastructure since the EVs would be fully charged for the remainder of the night, gaining no benefit from the faster but more costly chargers. Typical EV models suitable for municipal fleet applications have a limited AC charging power acceptance rate, often not greater than 11.5 kW. This diminishes the incremental value of a charging station with higher power outputs, such as 19.2 kW. Additionally, the presented Level 2 charger recommendations primarily include low-output (6.6-7.2 kW per port) and medium-output (9.6-11.5 kW per port) chargers given their use case: overnight charging. With higher-output chargers, many EV models wouldcomplete charging early on in the night, resulting in sub-optimal use of the installed infrastructure since the EVs would be fully charged for the remainder of the night, gaining no benefit from the faster but more costly chargers. Selecting DC Slow ChargersSelecting DC Fast ChargersDual-Port Chargers: The terms dual-plug, dual-port, or dual-connector are used interchangeably to mean that one charging station can charge two electric vehicles simultaneously. This is accomplished in the following ways:

The charger has two charge cables attached to the unit itself; such units can run on either one circuit (splitting the load between the two connectors) or on two circuits (enabling each connector its maximum rated output). It is DKS’ recommendation to use units that can be fed by two separate circuits.

Two single-plug chargers on a dual-mount pedestal. In this case, each charger has its own circuitry contained within the pedestal body

While there are some differences between the two setups, the end result is the ability to charge two EVs parked in adjacent stalls. Compared with two single-port chargers each with their own pedestal and parking stall, dual-port chargers consolidate infrastructure and cut installation costs. A number of hardware manufacturers offer some form of dual-port Level 2 AC chargers. DCFC infrastructure comes either in the form of all-in-one stations or modular architecture comprised of separate power cabinets and dispensers. For San José, the recommendation is to select dual-port all-in-one units that can dispense 150 kW (or more) at each port simultaneously. Actual Charging Speeds: The actual charging speed of EVSE is determined by the EV’s acceptance rate and battery state of charge, thus it will only charge at peak rates when the EV’s onboard charger will allow it and when the battery has a low state of charge. EVSE Capital Expenditures (CapEx): The installation of EV chargers for the fleet, public and employees will cost the City about $70.9M.EVSE Operating Expenditures (OpEx): The annual EVSE operating expenses include maintenance (routine, preventative, corrective), software/licensing fees, and networking fees. Electricity costs are included in the EV operating costs.Charging Strategy Recommendations: To maximize infrastructure efficiency, it is recommended that chargers be used sequentially by multiple EVs coupled with smart energy management. The easiest way to achieve this is through the use of a charge management platform that offers network operations, dynamic load balancing, and optimized charging schedules. This will help maximize the use of the available power, which can significantly increase charging capacity without requiring major electrical upgrades that can add cost and delay implementation. Other important system features include advanced billing, user provisioning and driver self-service tools. To ensure flexibility, charging hardware and software should be selected that use open industry standards (e.g. OCPP 1.6 or 2.0) that work with multiple charger models. One example of such a system is the Driivz charger management platform that supports charger provisioning under one unified system, with role-based controls to make it easy to reassign or adjust user access as demand for charging evolves over time between the three user types (fleet, employee and public). Driivz also provides comprehensive analytics and reporting tools that offer visibility into charging usage, energy consumption and costs, informing data-driven operational and budgetary decision-making. It also has “self-healing” algorithms and remote diagnostics to automatically resolve charger issues without any staff intervention, which helps to maintain high uptime availability. Due to battery technology improvements, future EV models are expected to have reduced charging times in the near future. Charging an EV using a high-speed DCFC is already comparable to fueling a gasoline vehicle in some cases, so there should be no need for dedicated fleet personnel to charge and reposition EVs. Charging-as-a-Service Option Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) offers a financial model that could replace capital expenditures such as charger installation costs with onging operating expenditures. Under this approach, a third-party provider would assume responsibility for installing, operating, and maintaining the charging equipment, while the City pays a recurring fixed service fee plus a per-kWh charge. By shifting capital expenditures into operating expenses, CaaS can remove the $70M cost of infrastructure, enhancing the City’s financial flexibility. While long-term service contracts may carry higher total costs over time and reduce direct control over infrastructure, the predictability, scalability, and risk-sharing benefits of CaaS make it a compelling option—particularly in early implementation phases where flexibility and resource constraints are key considerations. As noted above, a platform like Driivz could enable dynamic charger allocation, allowing the City to maximize charger use and adapt to changing demand over time. The following interactive visualizations show the charger installation recommendations to meet fleet charging needs as well as employee workplace and for public use along with other facility details. The use of these chargers can be optimized by a charger management platform such as Driivz that dynamically adjusts charger assignment as needed.

*How to use these visualizations**: Select any of the filtering options to customize the view. Items can be selected individually or as a group.*

How to use this visualization: Click on the Layers Icon to view the different maps. Then click on the desired map element to view details about that site.

Assumptions

HARD COSTS: 1. EV Chargers This includes:

Level 1 EV chargers (120V receptacles)
Level 2 EV chargers (ChargePoint CT4000 or equivalent)
Power cords and cable management for Level 1 or 2 chargers
DC Fast Chargers (150 kW Blink/BTC/ABB or equivalent)
Gateway Module/ Load Management Devices

Note: this excludes costs for warranties because the standard warranty that vendor offers is part of the cost estimate tool. 2. Materials/Equipment This includes costs of purchasing and installing materials typically required for fleet EV charging projects (other than the EV chargers themselves) including the following items:

Wiring (Note 50 feet of conduit, wiring assumed per Level 1 and 100 feet per Level 2 and DC Fast charger)
Conduit Systems (underground and/or surface-mounted)
Trenching and/or directional drilling
Pull Boxes (installed in the ground and/or surface mounted)
Aerial wire spans
Footings for installation of EV charger pedestals and electrical service panels
Bollards
Wheel stops
Step Down transformers
Electrical service panels including sub panels
Circuit breakers
Signage
Striping for parking stalls

3. Site restoration Site restoration covers the costs to install Civil/Landscaping improvements to restore the site following excavation and other construction activities including:

Minor restoration for civil infrastructure such as roadway and/or sidewalk repaving
Minor curb and gutter restoration
Minor surface water (drainage infrastructure) restoration
Minor landscaping restoration such as replanting

SOFT COSTS: 4. Contracting/Design An estimated 20% mark-up has been applied to the total project costs to include:

Engineering design fees
Contractor profits

5. Permitting Each local authority with jurisdiction mandates electrical permits for installation of EV chargers:

Electrical permit fees charged by local jurisdictions, typically $5k per site plus $1k for labor and contingency.

6. Utility fees This consists of fees charged by PG&E to bring additional power for the EV chargers, including:

Electrical upgrade design
Transformer replacement

7. Contingencies A 20% mark-up has been applied to the project costs for each cost category (categories #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 including contracting/design) consistent with public agency capital project budgeting.Charging-as-a-Service to Reduce Upfront Infrastructure Costs Cost savings can be realized by sharing chargers and optimizing their utilization. As noted above, a platform like Driivz could enable dynamic charger allocation, allowing the City to maximize charger use and adapt to changing demand over time. In addition, Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) offers a financial model that could replace capital expenditures such as charger installation costs with onging operating expenditures. Under this approach, a third-party provider would assume responsibility for installing, operating, and maintaining the charging equipment, while the City pays a recurring fixed service fee plus a per-kWh charge. By shifting capital expenditures into operating expenses, CaaS can remove the $70M cost of infrastructure, enhancing the City’s financial flexibility. While long-term service contracts may carry higher total costs over time and reduce direct control over infrastructure, the predictability, scalability, and risk-sharing benefits of CaaS make it a compelling option—particularly in early implementation phases where flexibility and resource constraints are key considerations.

BACK TO TOP

Transition Planner

Recognizing that there are many ways to achieve full fleet electrification, this Transition Planner (see visualization below) would allow the City to consider many different approaches to achieving this goal. For example, the City may prioritize the replacement of the oldest vehicles first, or it may decide to replace vehicles by facility, based on availability of EVSE. Use the Transition Planner below to explore ways to adjust costs and timelines to fit anticipated budgets. This planner uses representative vehicle capital costs and may not reflect the actual vehicle costs of the chosen make and model at the time of purchase.

How to use this visualization: Select any of the desired filtering options from Facility, ACF, Class, Department and/or Replacement Year to customize the view. Items can be selected individually or as a group.

BACK TO TOP

EV Procurements

It will cost the City about $110M to transition the current ICE fleet to EVs over the next 15 years. Many of the City’s vehicles are past their useful lifespans and are due for immediate replacement. To reduce the cost of EVs due to be replaced in 2025, some vehicles are assumed to have a deferred replacement. Police patrol vehicles are expected to complete one more lifecycle as a conventional or hybrid vehicle prior to electrification. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles subject to the Advanced Clean Fleets rule have been deferred according to their group category. All vehicles should be transitioned by 2040. Costs for replacing electric vehicles are not included in this analysis. Use the interactive visualization below to view EV costs by year and/or by facility.

*How to use this visualization**: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.*

Many light-duty EVs in the market today could meet the City’s needs and are reasonably priced. However, it might take five or more years for Class 3–8 EVs to reach sticker price and performance parity with their conventionally-fueled equivalents. The City might also consider replacing some of its existing medium-duty vehicles with light-duty EVs (e.g., Ford F-250 replaced with a Ford F-150 Lightning) where increased towing and hauling capacity are not needed. The Ford F-150 Lightning reportedly loses around 50% of its range when towing equipment, but this might still be acceptable performance for some of the City’s needs. For medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that haul or tow short distances, there are several currently available EV options. Some vehicle types are better suited to electrification than others. For example, bucket trucks, yard tractors, buses and panel vans typically have duty cycles where an EV alternative is suitable. Heavy-duty vehicles such as dump trucks, vacuum trucks, and rodders, which require substantial energy to operate, are unlikely to have suitable battery-electric alternatives in the short to medium term. Battery electric refuse trucks and sweepers are available now, though their range and performance are still somewhat limited, typically requiring mid-shift opportunity charging. To optimize its fleet size in alignment with operational requirements, the City may consider gathering driver input through surveys. Implementing a straightforward online questionnaire or trip diary to document several days of travel can provide valuable data on vehicle usage patterns. This approach could lead to reductions in capital and operating costs for vehicles and chargers, particularly if underutilized vehicles are retired at the end of their service life without replacement, while still preserving the City’s operational capacity. Police department EV costs do not include upfitting equipment such as lights, sirens, and radios.According to Wired, ancillary systems like lighting and cabin climate control consume minimal energy, especially when high-efficiency heat pumps are utilized. However, cabin heating that relies on resistance heating can significantly increase power consumption. Tesla vehicles are notable for their ability to scavenge heat from 16 different sources. An advantage of EVs is their ability to power equipment, lifts, and lights without the need for engine idling. EVs are typically charged at their parking locations. For light-duty EVs, L2 chargers can provide about 10-20 miles of range per hour, fully recharging a battery in about 6-12 hours. Larger vehicles equipped with bigger batteries may require extended charging times of 8-12 hours or be charged at a DCFC to reduce charging times. The following are potential EV replacement options for each duty cycle:

Duty Cycle	Potential EV Replacement Options
Sedan	Hyundai Kona Hyundai Ionic 6
SUV	Ford Mustang Mach-E Chevrolet Blazer EV
Police SUV	Chevrolet Blazer EV PPV
Minivan	Kia EV9 VW ID.Buzz
Utility Van	Ford E-Transit Cargo Van Lightning ZEV3 Passenger Van
Class 1-2 Pickup	Ford F-150 Lightning Ram 1500 REV
Parking Enforcement Vehicle	MAXEV3
Motorcycle	Zero DSR Harley Davidson LiveWire
Class 2/3 Truck	Chevrolet Silverado Ford E-Transit Chassis Cab
Class 4/5 Truck	Rizon e16L Motiv EPIC 4
Class 6 Truck	Kenworth K270E Freightliner eM2
Class 7/8	Volvo VNR Mack MD Electric
Sweeper/Vacuum Truck	Kenworth K270E Global M3EV
Refuse	Kenworth K270E Mack LR Electric

BACK TO TOP

ACF Compliance Tool

The Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) Compliance tool can be used to help plan medium- and heavy-duty vehicle purchases to ensure compliance with the ACF CARB rule and to ensure enough chargers are installed and operational before the delivery of EVs. The Pass/Fail table automatically updates to indicate whether or not the replacement vehicles above comply with either the Procurement Pathway or the Milestone Pathway. How to use this tool:

Click on the green or red bars to select a replacement vehicle from the dropdown list.
Move the green or red bars left or right to line up with the desired replacement year.
To add/remove a vehicle from the table calculations, check/uncheck the box on the far left.
To expand/contract the existing vehicle table, click on the |-> symbol at the top.
To filter the dropdown list by vehicle class, select the toggle at the top “Filter by Class”.
To search on any field, use the search bar at the top next to the 🔍 icon.
To open the tool in a new tab, click on the new tab icon in the upper right corner.
To save a configuration, click on the 🇽 icon in the upper right to “Export Current Configuration”. This action will download an excel spreadsheet to your computer. Send this file to asanjar@frontierenergy.com or tpaddon@dksassociates.com so it can be uploaded into this webpage. Once this is completed, your new configuration will be saved as the new starting state (but not until then).

BACK TO TOP

GHG Emission Reductions

Over a 15-year period, transitioning San José’s municipal fleet to EVs is projected to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 122.9 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (MMTCO₂e). This reduction is calculated based on avoided GHG emissions from the displacement of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. To contextualize, this reduction is nearly 1.8 times the city’s total community-wide emissions in 2020, which were approximately 68.2 MMTCO₂e. It’s also equivalent to removing over 26 million gasoline-powered cars from the road for one year. Emissions are calculated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) framework, which measures carbon intensity (CI) values in grams of CO₂-equivalent per megajoule (gCO₂e/MJ) to represent the full lifecycle emissions of fuels. The formula used is:

Emissions (MT) = Fuel Volume × CI × Energy Density / 1,000,000

The City’s electricity is supplied by San José Clean Energy (SJCE), which currently has a CI value of 22.62 gCO₂e/kWh, reflecting its present energy mix. Starting in 2031, this CI value is projected to decrease to 0.00 gCO₂e/kWh, aligning with SJCE’s goal of providing 100% carbon-neutral electricity by 2030. This methodology aligns with the GHG Protocol by accounting for Scope 1 emissions from combustion vehicles and Scope 2 emissions from electricity use, while excluding upstream emissions from vehicle manufacturing. The emission reductions are projected through 2040, aligning with the city’s vehicle replacement schedule. Delays in EV acquisitions could slow the progress of GHG reductions during this period.

How to use this visualization: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.

BACK TO TOP

Fuel/Maintenance Cost Savings

A significant benefit of transitioning to EVs is the reduced fuel and maintenance costs. To calculate gasoline and diesel average costs, EIA data was used from November 2024. The estimated per kWh cost of electricity was $.30/kWh for power provided by San Jose Clean Energy and delivered by PG&E (mostly Super Off-Peak rates). Electricity costs were offset by CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits. The table below shows how the kWh cost was estimated.

Studies show that EVs have about half the maintenance costs of gasoline and diesel vehicles. In this study the team assumed maintenance cost savings of 45% over conventional vehicles. The costs to fuel an electrified fleet would still be lower than a conventionally powered fleet, even without LCFS credits. Fuel cost savings are based on the transition of the City’s existing conventional fleet to electric vehicles. Policy and Operating Procedure Recommendations for Leveraging LCFS credits The City should ensure that EV chargers it installs are technically capable of and actively used for LCFS credit generation and sales to maximize the ability to offset the capital expenditure required for charger installations. The City’s Department of Transportation (DOT) should develop a citywide policy that defines which department is entitled to the credits generated under California’s LCFS program from the use of its chargers. This could either be the department owning and operating the charging station or the department who’s fleet EVs are using it in any given instance. Alternatively, a central department (such as DOT) could collect and track credits and distribute resulting revenue to fleet departments based on respective charger usage. The development of this policy should consider that some departments may be more reliant on or interested in generating, tracking, and selling LCFS credits as a revenue source than others. To implement the adopted policy, the City could hire a 3rd-party administrator for oversight and facilitation of tracking and selling LCFS credits across the various departments. In the visualization below, the green bars represent the total fuel costs of the transition fleet (gasoline, diesel & electricity), which is significantly less than the fuel costs in the Baseline scenario (gasoline & diesel), as indicated by the orange bars.

*How to use this visualization**: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.*

BACK TO TOP

Risks and Challenges

Transitioning the City’s fleet is a critical component of San José’s Climate Smart plan, aligning with the ACF regulation and supporting the City’s ambitious goal of achieving communitywide carbon neutrality by 2030. While this shift offers significant environmental and operational benefits, it also presents several challenges that should be carefully considered.

1. Availability of EV models suitable for fleets – Many light-duty EVs are available at competitive prices today, though supply chain, tariffs, worker strikes and other geopolitical factors can significantly affect availability. Pricing and delivery times have been especially volatile. Medium- and heavy-duty EVs are available in low volumes and have long lead times. As a result, many fleets have been unable to comply with planned replacement schedules and prices have escalated far above budget estimates. Therefore, the City should plan on adjusting budgets to address these constraints. Fleet customers who traditionally have benefitted from volume price discounts have had their orders repeatedly delayed or canceled outright and experienced massive price hikes for the few models that were delivered.

2. Utility delays providing electrical service upgrades – One of the longest lead items that most fleets have little control over is provision of electrical capacity to power chargers. It can take months just to engage a typical utility in the planning process plus many more months to procure critical electrical hardware such as transformers, making utility engagement and provision of facility electrical upgrades the critical path on many projects. Delays in procurement may lead to additional cost for labor, equipment and materials. However, some of this risk can be mitigated or even eliminated with battery storage systems.

3. Grid-scale power constraints – The power grid is a relic of an era when electricity was only used for static loads like buildings, not mobile loads like EVs. The grid is already strained beyond capacity in many areas of California. The transition of vehicles from fossil fuels to grid-supplied electricity in the coming years and decades while power demand from server farms is also growing will increase demand for electricity, furthering this strain. The City utility’s strategic plan addresses the commitment to meet grid capacity needs for both building and vehicle electrification.

4. Facility-scale power supply constraints – Even in locations where the utility grid has sufficient power capacity, there may be localized constraints at the substation or site level. Since most fleet or public parking facilities were not designed for charging EVs, the electrical loads from EVSE will likely exceed the available power capacity for any fleet facility with more than a modest number of EVs. Upgrading a facility’s electrical capacity typically requires expensive utility provided electrical upgrades and other equipment, and this can add significantly to project implementation timeframes.

5. Resiliency for EV charging during power outages – Power outages are becoming increasingly common in California, so the City needs to be prepared by investing in backup power to charge mission-critical EVs, especially during extended power outages. The conventional approach has been to install diesel engine-powered generators. However, an expanding variety of alternative technologies are becoming available that can provide resiliency with lower emissions. For example, conventional generators can be powered by renewable diesel fuel or replaced by highly efficient linear generators that can be powered by low or zero emission fuels. Stationary battery storage systems are becoming more cost effective due to falling battery costs and a rapidly growing industry, though costs associated with battery storage have not been explored or reflected in this analysis. Power can also be delivered to fleet facilities or to individual EVs via mobile batteries, including power purchased from third-party power or charging-as-a-service vendors. Power can also be generated by onsite renewable sources using solar arrays or micro-wind systems, typically integrated with storage batteries as part of a microgrid. The increasing popularity of EVs like the Ford F-150 Lightning with bi-directional charging capability allows fleets to use their own EV batteries to charge one another, via the facility microgrid that can also power other loads, like buildings.

6. Placement of EVSE – Careful planning will be required for the installation of EVSE. There are restrictions on where EVSE may be placed, and they often must meet ADA accessibility guidelines. EVSE for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will require accommodation due to the length and limited maneuverability of these vehicle types.

Conclusion

The transition of the City’s motor vehicle fleet will require the purchase of EVs to replace conventional ICE vehicles and the installation of EVSE and related infrastructure to support the transition. This study presents an optimal EVSE deployment scenario that minimizes cost through efficiently shared charging. L2 and DC charging infrastructure installations are recommended at various locations to offer the optimal quantity of ports needed to meet the projected energy demand of the City’s fleet, employees and public users. The transition of the City’s fleet to EVs is expected to cost the City an additional $53.8M as compared to the Baseline Alternative and also save the City around $35.2 M in operational expenses over the next 15 years resulting in a net cost increase of about $18.7M for the transition. The City’s EV fleet transition is estimated to provide GHG emission reductions of 122.9 MMtCO2e over a 15-year period.

San Jose Fleet Electrification Assessment

Analysis Overview

BACK TO TOP

EVSE Recommendations

How to use these visualizations: Select any of the filtering options to customize the view. Items can be selected individually or as a group.

How to use this visualization: Click on the Layers Icon to view the different maps. Then click on the desired map element to view details about that site.

Assumptions

BACK TO TOP

Transition Planner

How to use this visualization: Select any of the desired filtering options from Facility, ACF, Class, Department and/or Replacement Year to customize the view. Items can be selected individually or as a group.

BACK TO TOP

EV Procurements

How to use this visualization: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.

BACK TO TOP

ACF Compliance Tool

BACK TO TOP

GHG Emission Reductions

How to use this visualization: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.

BACK TO TOP

*How to use these visualizations**: Select any of the filtering options to customize the view. Items can be selected individually or as a group.*

*How to use this visualization**: Customize the view by moving the slider to include the desired timeframe. Click on a facility to view facility-level results.*