3. Presentation regarding Austin Resource Recovery Fleet Electrification — original pdf

Backup

ARR Fleet Electrification Plan Nia Nickens, EDF Climate Corp | November 19, 2025 Project Overview 2 Project Overview ● Zero waste by 2040. ● Austin Resource Recovery Comprehensive Plan ● Chapter 4: Sustainability (Transportation Electrification) ● Chapter 8: Infrastructure & Facilities ● Zero Waste Commission (ZWAC) Resolution 3 Project Outline ● Fleet Assessment: Identify electric alternatives for ARR’s refuse trucks; Propose phased electrification schedule and vehicle models as ICEVs age out of service. ● Charging Infrastructure: Estimate number, type, and location of chargers; develop a buildout timeline aligned with BEV adoption. ● Financial Analysis: Compare acquisition, O&M, end-of-service, and infrastructure costs to assess life-cycle savings. ● Operational Feasibility: Evaluate route feasibility, charging locations. ● Environmental Impacts: Quantify GHG, air quality, health, and community co-benefits. 4 Fleet Assessment 5 Overview – ARR’s Fleet Composition & EV Alternatives ● 189 front-line refuse trucks targeted for electrification ● Current mix: 1 BEV pilot, 2 CNG, majority diesel ● EV alternatives available across truck classes (11–33 yd, 240–500 kWh, 80–130 mi range) 6 ARR Fleet Electrification Timeline ) % ( e v i t a l u m u C V E B 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 7 2 0 2 8 2 0 2 9 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 2 2 0 3 3 2 0 3 4 2 0 3 5 2 0 3 6 2 0 3 7 2 0 3 8 2 0 3 9 t n u o C e v i t a l u m u C V E B 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Results – ARR’s Fleet Composition & EV Alternatives ● BEV Alternatives Identified ● 11-yd Rear Loaders: 3 EV alternatives ● 25-33-yd Side Loaders: 8 EV alternatives ● 25-33-yd Rear Loaders: 3 EV alternatives 8 Charging Infrastructure 9 Overview – Estimation of New Charging Infrastructure Needed ● Assess charging needs based on the 60/40 fleet split between NESC & KGSC. Also consider possible transfer station. ● Compare technology options: all-DC fast charging vs. hybrid daisy-chain approach. ● Plan phased buildout aligned with fleet adoption and cost efficiencies. ● All infrastructure funding and associated O&M costs to be covered by Fleet Mobility Services. 10 North Austin Transfer Station: 20 DCFCs Proposed Charging 38 DCFCs 78 Daisy Chains 25 DCFCs 48 Daisy Chains Funded charging • NESC: 11 funded DC fast chargers • KGSC: 4 funded DC fast chargers • Additional chargers funded by Fleet Mobility Services • North Austin Transfer Station 11 s r e g r a h C f o # 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BEV Charging Infrastructure Bulk Build-Out Timeline 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Kenneth Gardner Service Center Northeast Service Center North Austin Transfer Station BEV Cumulative % ) % ( e v i t l a u m u C V E B Financial Analysis 13 Overview – Financial Analysis of EV Transition ● Model phased replacement from ICEVs to BEVs aligned with ARR’s budget and procurement schedule. ● Analyze total cost of ownership (TCO) for ICEVs vs. BEVs, factoring capital, fuel, maintenance, and resale. 14 Financial Analysis of EV Transition - Scenarios Simple BEV Truck Adoption 4% Annual Reduction 4% Annual Reduction + Governmental Alternative Fuel Fleet Grant Program (GAFF) Costs Saving Scenarios 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 ) $ ( i s g n v a S l a u n n A ($5,000,000) ($10,000,000) Baseline BEV Adoption Savings Savings assuming 4% price decrease annually Savings assuming 4% price decrease annually and GAFF Rebate Total Cost of Ownership for A Single Truck Bought in a Year (w/ 4% annual reduction) ) $ ( p i h s r e n w O f o t s o C l a t o T $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 ICEV BEV Realistic (Middle) Financial Scenario $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 ) $ ( i s g n v a S l a u n n A $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 ($1,000,000) ($2,000,000) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Annual Savings with 4% annual price decrease BEV Cumulative % ) % ( e v i t l a u m u C V E B Operational Feasibility 18 Overview – Operational Feasibility ● Two-week snapshot (June 1 to 27, 2025) analyzed for vehicle work cycles (~804 routes total) ● Three representative routes simulated: recycling (North), garbage (East), compost (Southwest) ● Evaluation included mileage, duration, arm lifts, compactions, landfill/unloading events ● Battery performance factors considered: load weight, terrain, climate control, regenerative braking 19 North Austin Transfer Station Circular Services (formerly Balcones Recycling) Northeast Service Center Kenneth Gardner Service Center Organics by Gosh Texas Disposal System (TDS) Landfill Map of locations significant to ARR’s collection route including the Texas Disposal System (TSD), KGSC, NESC, Balcones Recycling, Organics by Gosh, and North Austin Transfer Station. Example: Recycling Route Compact service area with high number of stops; energy use for hauling totals 285 kWh Using a 375 kWh Mack LR EV, route completes with ~ 24% charge remaining → strong feasibility without mid-route charging SpeedLoadMilagekWhCollection RouteLowHalf Loaded17.847Collection Route/ Yard to Dump SiteHighFull Load2674Dump Site to Collection Route/ YardHighNo Load35.288Total210Number of kWhLifts43Dumps1Compaction5.44TotalHourskWhAir Compressor35.6Total Energy Consumption (A+B+C)Less 10% energy from regenerative breaking - Main Engine (A)5% of energy from Austin terrainTotal Energy ConsumptionBattery CapacityBattery State of Charging Remaining10 28524%295(21)11.85376A. Main Engine @ 90% Efficiency for Recycling Route (RWBU50)B. Energy Consumption @ 70% Pump EfficiencyC. EV Cabin Energy Needs7986921750Mileage Thresholds Informed by Route Analysis ● Best practice: vehicles should return to depot with 15%-20% charge. ● The detailed route analysis was used to gauge the overall impact of electrifying ARR's fleet based on current routes. ● Mileage thresholds: Unaffected Routes: <70 miles Potentially Affected Routes: 70-90 miles Highly Affected Routes: >90 miles 22 ARR Fleet Electrification Impact on Existing Routes 804 total routes Unaffected Routes (65%) Potentially Affected Routes (14%) Highly Affected Routes (21%) Average Affected Daily Routes s e t u o R f o # 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Unaffected Routes (<70 mi) Potentially Affected Routes (70-90 mi) Highly Affected Routes (>90) Environmental Impacts 25 Avoided CO2e Emissions ) e 2 O C T M ( s n o i t c u d e R s n o i i s s m E e 2 O C 12,000.00 10,000.00 8,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 - 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Savings BEV Cumulative % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ) % ( e v i t a l u m u C V E B 1 diesel refuse truck = 13 sedans x 189 diesel refuse trucks Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) ● Methodology: Based on EPA’s COBRA model using avoided NOₓ and PM emissions ● Quantified Health Impacts: Cumulative benefits from 2026–2039 estimated at $505,000–$751,000 ● Avoided Illnesses: Reductions in infant mortality, respiratory, and cardiovascular illnesses ● Pollutant-Specific Benefits: $195,000–$441,000 from PM exposure; $223,000 from avoided ozone-related deaths 28 Key takeaways Begin vehicle replacements in 2026 to align with retirements Secure funding to offset incremental vehicle and infrastructure costs Prioritize DCFC and daisy chain chargers at NESC to support longer routes needing mid- route charging Track route performance, energy use, and battery range to ensure operational feasibility 29 Thank you!