05-2: Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study Report — original pdf

Backup

Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study October 2025 Prepared by City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study ii Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Jen Cregar (Terra Lumina Consulting) and Leonor Vargas (Wisdom En Familias) for the City of Austin Climate Action and Resilience. We are grateful to the 53 individuals who completed an online survey and the following individuals who shared their time and insights via interviews and written feedback. Their collective knowledge and experience greatly informed the recommendations offered in this study. • Anthony Humphrey, Austin Aviation • William Bedford, Austin Aviation • Amanda Mortl, Austin Climate Action & Resilience • Josiah Wooten, Austin Watershed Protection • Juliet Morgan, Austin Watershed Protection • Rick Harland, Austin Fleet Mobility • Sarah Campbell, Austin Watershed Services Protection • Alex Castillo, Austin Parks & Recreation • Amanda Ross, Austin Parks & Recreation • Brandon Brown, Austin Parks & Recreation • Brian Piper, Austin Parks & Recreation • Desiree Garcia, Austin Parks & Recreation • Erick Roegner, Austin Parks & Recreation • Hayden Doskocil, Austin Parks & • Victor Nelms, Austin Watershed Protection • Aaron Hyman, Austin Yard Barber • John Hart Asher, Blackland Collaborative • Toby Russell, Boulder County Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE) • Greg Fox, CleanScapes Landscaping • Christopher Morris, Dallas Park and Recreation Recreation • Jason Walker, Austin Parks & Recreation • Joshua Erickson, Austin Parks & • Freddie Ortiz, Dallas Park and Recreation • Jonathan (Brett) Johnson, Dallas Park and Recreation • Kraig Harris, Austin Parks & Recreation • Lucas Massie, Austin Parks & Recreation • Malcolm (Larry) Houseton, Austin Parks & Recreation • Matt McCaw, Austin Parks & Recreation • Merredith Giles, Austin Parks & Recreation • Nate Thayer, Austin Parks & Recreation • Steve Hammond, Austin Parks & Recreation • Sarah Talkington, Austin Parks & Recreation • Andy Dawson, Austin Resource Recovery • Esther Houari, Austin Resource Recovery • Fred Freeman, Austin Watershed Protection Recreation • Aaron Bollier, Horizon • Jesse Sunley, Horizon • Nicholas (Nik) McKay, New York Department of Environmental Conservation • Jacob LaBure, Regional Air Quality Council • Emily Waddington, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District • Roy Johnson, St. Edward's University • Savanna Taylor Thornton, Texas Landscape & Nursery Association Region VIII • Sam Berg, Travis County Transportation & Natural Resources Department • Adriane Horne, Waterloo Greenway Conservancy City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background & Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Approach .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Representativeness ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Market Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Equipment Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 User Preference for Electric versus Fossil Fuel Equipment ............................................................................. 8 Electric Equipment Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................................ 9 Recommendations .........................................................................................................................................................................18 Leading by Example in City of Austin Operations ................................................................................................ 19 Incenting Communitywide Landscaping Equipment Electrification ........................................................ 24 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix A. Survey Results .................................................................................................................................................. A-1 Government Survey Responses ................................................................................................................................... A-2 Non-Government Survey Responses ........................................................................................................................ A-9 Appendix B. Participant Perspectives on Electric Landscaping Equipment Disadvantages ......... B-1 Figures Figure 1. Research Study Participants by City of Austin Department ............................................................. 4 Figure 2. Examples of Electric Saws .................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Examples of Electric Blowers .............................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4. Examples of Electric Mowers .............................................................................................................................. 8 Tables Table 1. Average Equipment Age by Government and Non-Government Survey Respondents ...... 6 Table 2. Survey Respondents' Preferred Landscaping Equipment Fuel Source ....................................... 8 Table 3. Pricing, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Preferred Brands by Equipment Type ................ 10 Table 4. What Survey Respondents Like About Electric Landscaping Equipment ................................ 16 Table 5. What Survey Respondents Dislike About Electric Landscaping Equipment ........................... 17 Table 6. How Survey Respondents View the City of Austin's Role in Reducing Landscaping Equipment Air and Noise Pollution ......................................................................................................................................18 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study ii Executive Summary Austin’s landscaping professionals and community members face repeated exposure to high levels of noise and air pollution from fossil fuel-powered landscaping equipment, which can negatively impact health. For example, leaf blower noise can cause hearing damage within a couple of hours,2 and operating a leaf blower for one hour creates smog-forming pollution equivalent to driving about 1,100 miles.3 Switching to electric equipment can reduce this air and noise pollution as called for in the Austin Climate Equity Plan, Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA Regional Air Quality Plan, and recent City Council resolutions. This report presents barriers to and opportunities for the City of Austin to support the transition to battery electric commercial landscaping equipment and other low-emissions landscaping practices. Eighty-five people representing 38+ organizations participated in the study. Key Findings • Low Electrification Rates: Likely less than 10% of Austin’s commercial-grade landscaping equipment is electric, constrained by both supply and demand factors. • Supply Barriers: Electric products that meet diverse commercial performance needs are limited, and prices remain higher than comparable fossil fuel equipment. • Demand Barriers: Customers rarely specify electric equipment, except in noise- sensitive areas or enclosed locations. • Benefits of Electric Equipment: Users value quieter operation, safer handling, ease of use, comfort, and less air pollution. • Challenges of Electric Equipment: Common concerns include insufficient power for some tasks, limited battery life, and impractical intra-day charging options. For City staff, adequate charging infrastructure is limited by facility age and condition, recently introduced code requirements, and lack of a Citywide implementation strategy. • Cultural and Identity Considerations: Effective adoption strategies must address not only operational and cost concerns, but also cultural and identity factors due to normalization of fossil fuel use. Recommendations • City Leadership Role: Seventy-nine percent of survey respondents see a role for the City in reducing landscaping-related pollution through leading by example with City- operated equipment, financial incentives, and community education. • Collaborative Approach: Success requires cross-departmental and industry collaboration to ensure initiatives are equitable, coordinated, and effective. • Strategic, Operator-Centered Transition: Gradually phasing in electric equipment and centering operator needs can protect worker and community health, advance climate and air quality goals, and ensure responsible stewardship of public resources. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 1 Background & Purpose As part of its Climate Equity Plan, the City of Austin (“City”) is committed to equitably reaching net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040 with a strong emphasis on cutting emissions by 2030. Achieving net-zero emissions requires reducing fossil fuel combustion to nearly zero, in part, through strategic electrification of buildings, vehicles, and off-road equipment like landscaping equipment. The City also supports implementation of the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA Regional Air Quality Plan to maintain compliance with federal air quality standards. In line with both plans, recent Austin City Council resolutions direct City staff to reduce pollution from landscaping equipment: • Resolution 20240229-058 directs the City Manager to implement an environmentally preferred purchasing program starting with landscaping and concrete construction. What is commercial landscaping equipment? Any commercial-grade equipment used professionally to provide: • Landscape design, installation, and maintenance • Hardscape design, installation, and maintenance • Lawn, horticulture, and grounds maintenance • Tree maintenance and removal • Irrigation services • Wildland management • Debris removal (such as during emergency response) • Resolution 20240307-020 directs the City Manager to (1) explore expanding Austin Energy’s electric landscaping equipment rebate and (2) create a program to incentivize landscaping equipment exchange and disposal. As of May 2024, there were more than 10,000 landscaping-related professionals in the Austin area.1 Many of these professionals face repeated exposure to high levels of noise and air pollution from fossil fuel-powered landscaping equipment, which can negatively impact health. For example, exposure to leaf blower noise pollution can cause hearing damage within a couple of hours,2 and operating a commercial leaf blower for one hour creates smog- forming pollution equivalent to driving about 1,100 miles,3 roughly the distance from Austin to Phoenix. 1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May. Available: https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/geoOcc/Multiple%20occupations%20for%20one%20geographical%20area. Accessed August 23, 2025. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020. Too Loud! For Too Long! Loud noises damage hearing, Jan. Available: https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/hearingloss/index.html. Accessed August 23, 2025. 3 California Air Resources Board, 2021. SORE – Small Engine Fact sheet, December. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engine-fact-sheet. Accessed August 23, 2025. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 2 All that air pollution adds up! In 2020, landscaping equipment in Travis County created an estimated: • 154,400 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), like driving nearly 34,000 cars for a year • 361 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), like driving more than 161,500 cars for a year • 128 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), like driving more than 1.3M cars for a year4 Switching to electric landscaping equipment can reduce air and noise pollution. To protect worker and community health and make progress toward the community’s climate change and air quality goals, Austin Climate Action and Resilience commissioned this study to better understand barriers to and opportunities for electrifying commercial landscaping equipment and other low-emissions landscaping practices. Approach The study included: • An online survey (English and Spanish) to solicit feedback from local landscaping professionals on their experience with and perspectives on electric landscaping equipment. Fifty-three responses (49 English, 4 Spanish) were received. • Virtual interviews with local landscaping professionals (including City of Austin staff). Thirty-two individuals representing 12 organizations participated. • Online research and virtual interviews with individuals from across the country who have supported government or commercial landscaping electrification initiatives. Seven individuals representing five organizations participated. • In person tours of an electric landscaping equipment storage area and a distributor showroom. The opportunity to participate in the survey and/or interview were promoted through email, phone, text, social media, radio, attending a local chapter meeting of the Texas Landscape and Nursery Association, and distributing print fliers. A focused effort was made to reach Latino communities via trusted messengers and gathering spaces. To encourage participation, a $50 gift card was offered to one randomly selected survey respondent. 4 Dutzik, T., Sokolow, L., Schatz, K., and Metzger, L., 2023. “Lawn care goes electric,” October. U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Available: https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/lawn-care-goes-electric/. Accessed August 23, 2025. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 3 Representativeness The study engaged private and public sector landscaping professionals representing businesses and organizations of all sizes from single-person operations to businesses with 1,000 employees and annual revenues more than $5 million. Participants represented locally, minority-, and woman-owned businesses; current and past City vendors and employees; organizations with zero to nearly 100% electric equipment; and professionals serving residential, commercial, government, and school customers with all types of landscaping, hardscaping, horticulture and tree care, and lawn and grounds maintenance services. Among government entities, we heard from employees from eight City of Austin departments, Travis County, Austin Independent School District, and the University of Texas at Austin. In all, 85 people representing an estimated 38+ organizations5 completed the survey and/or participated in an interview. One of the goals of the study was to identify opportunities for the City of Austin to electrify its landscaping equipment inventory. Therefore, the research team prioritized speaking with City of Austin staff and in particular Austin Parks and Recreation staff, who may pilot additional electric equipment to inform a broader Citywide landscaping equipment electrification strategy. Figure 1 shows the number of City staff who completed the survey and/or participated in an interview by department. 3%3%3% 5% 8% 14% 17% Austin Parks & Recreation Austin Watershed Protection Austin Aviation Austin Water 47% Austin Resource Recovery Austin Development Services Austin Fleet Mobility Services Austin Library Figure 1. Research Study Participants by City of Austin Department 5 Survey respondents were not required to provide an organization name or identifying information, so the number of organizations is an estimate based on respondents who voluntarily provided contact information via the survey and interviewees representing known organizations. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 4 Findings Market Overview The study found that likely less than 10% of Austin’s commercial-grade landscaping equipment is electric-powered. Feedback is mixed on how viable achieving higher electrification rates is in the near-term. For example, a representative from a large municipal parks and recreation department that has electrified approximately 10% of its equipment inventory feels it has converted all the equipment it can until battery electric technology matures further. A (non-Texas) state environmental agency representative suggested that any organization can readily transition 25% of its inventory with today’s technology. A large (non- Texas) school district has phased out the majority of its gas-powered landscaping equipment across 800 campuses. A representative from a national landscaping company estimates the industry is four to five years away from commercial-grade electric equipment being able to comprehensively meet professional landscapers’ needs. The commercial landscaping equipment market faces supply and demand side constraints. On the supply side, widespread equipment electrification is limited by electric product availability that meets the performance requirements of diverse commercial landscaping applications at prices comparable to internal combustion engine (ICE) technology. While electric equipment is preferred for certain types of equipment (e.g., small chainsaws, light-duty trimmers) and applications (e.g., light tree pruning, clearing debris from walkways and enclosed workspaces), many equipment operators perceive electric landscaping equipment as not powerful enough and with insufficient battery life to get through a full shift. This perception is based on some users’ firsthand experience and, in other cases, on cultural norms that equate the noise and heft of gasoline (“gas”) equipment to power and durability. The former will require technology maturation and increasing product availability, while the latter can begin to be addressed through education and hands-on experience. On the demand side, customers are not specifying electric equipment except in cases where noise reduction is a priority due to proximity to neighborhoods or other noise- sensitive locations like golf courses and protected bird habitats or in enclosed locations where air pollution can build up like in the tug tunnel at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. While a small minority of local landscaping companies have converted nearly 100% of their equipment to electric technology to position themselves as the clean and quiet choice, most landscaping companies, government agencies, and others continue to operate ICE equipment, typically powered by gas for handheld and smaller push equipment and sometimes by diesel or propane for larger equipment. Given the higher upfront cost of electric equipment and especially of the batteries and charging infrastructure, generally organizations that provide landscaping services are not investing in electric equipment at scale. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 5 Equipment Overview Survey respondents and interviewees reported that electric equipment typically makes up less than 10% of their landscaping equipment inventory and that they primarily own their equipment. Entities may rent some larger equipment that is used infrequently like dozers and other ground- clearing equipment, but the day-to-day handheld tools and mowers are owned. Therefore, strategies to encourage use of electric equipment should focus on ownership models. Survey results also showed that equipment used by non-government entities is newer than equipment used by government entities. Government survey respondents reported 62% of their equipment averages three to ten years old; whereas no non-government survey respondents reported having equipment that averaged more than five years old (see Table 1). This suggests that, as electric technology matures, non-government equipment inventories may electrify more quickly due to more rapid replacement cycles. It also suggests that electric equipment needs to provide high-performing, reliable service for at least three to five years to match the expected duration of today’s ICE options. Table 1. Average Equipment Age by Government and Non-Government Survey Respondents What is the average age of your equipment? Non-Government Government Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years Not sure 1 9 8 0 0 0 6% 50% 44% 0% 0% 0% 1 3 5 5 0 2 6% 19% 31% 31% 0% 13% Total 18 100% 16 100% One-third of non-government survey respondents and half of survey respondents indicated they regularly use electric equipment. The following types of electric landscaping equipment are available in commercial grade options and in use in the Austin area: • Pole and chain saws • String and hedge trimmers • Leaf blowers • Mowers (push, walk behind, automated, and smaller riding options) • Carts/utility terrain vehicles City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 6 Figure 2. Examples of Electric Saws Figure 3. Examples of Electric Blowers City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 7 Figure 4. Examples of Electric Mowers User Preference for Electric versus Fossil Fuel Equipment Survey responses indicated a near-even split in equipment fuel source, with 44% favoring electric and 40% favoring gas-powered equipment. Disaggregating by sector reveals a more pronounced difference: a third of non-government respondents prefer electric equipment compared with 60% of government respondents (see Table 2). The research did not reveal an overarching reason for this sector-based variation, other than differences in subjective user experience. Interviewees also noted significant variability in the quality of commercial electric products, which directly affects usability and willingness to adopt electric technology. Table 2. Survey Respondents' Preferred Landscaping Equipment Fuel Source Which equipment do you prefer to use? Electric Gas N/A or Other Diesel Total Non-Government Count Percent 33% 47% 13% 7% 100% 5 7 2 1 15 Government Count Percent 60% 30% 10% 0% 100% 6 3 1 0 10 Total Count Percent 44% 40% 12% 4% 100% 11 10 3 1 25 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 8 Electric Equipment Advantages and Disadvantages User experience with electric equipment varies based on equipment type, body type, and specific work application. Participants generally reported that hand-held battery-powered tools provide a superior user experience for light-duty tasks, offering quieter operation, lower maintenance, and reduced environmental impact compared with gas-powered alternatives. However, performance and battery life often decline for heavy-duty applications, such as large tree removal, extensive leaf-blowing, and mowing large or multi-site properties. Table 3 provides estimated pricing, advantages, disadvantages, and preferred brands for different types of equipment. Pricing is sourced from interviewees, a local distributor, and online research. The remaining data points were based on research participant feedback, which is inherently subjective. A summary of general advantages and disadvantages of electric equipment follows. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 9 Equipment Type Pole & Chain Saws String Trimmers Table 3. Pricing, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Preferred Brands by Equipment Type Price Range* Advantages Disadvantages Preferred Brands Other Notes $350-$1,300 • Quieter operation • • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Less vibration • Can be lighter weight with improved weight distribution • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., tree removal, emergency response, and construction) Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty applications (e.g., tree removal, emergency response, and construction) • • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • More expensive upfront cost Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., thick grass or brush) • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Conflicting perspectives on theft risk • Husqvarna • (durability, power output, battery performance) Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • GreenWorks • Conflicting • Echo perspectives on availability of electric saw- compatible safety chaps • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Conflicting perspectives on theft risk • Husqvarna • • Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty applications (durability, power output, battery performance) Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures $300-$700 • Quieter operation • City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 10 Equipment Type Price Range* Advantages Disadvantages Preferred Brands Other Notes • No fuel handling • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • More expensive upfront cost • Less vibration • Can be lighter weight with improved weight distribution • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Milwaukee (power and torque output, battery performance, strong warranty, less expensive than competitors) • Echo (lighter weight, availability of parts) Hedge Trimmers $250-$950 • Quieter operation • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • More expensive upfront cost • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Less vibration • Can be lighter weight with improved weight distribution • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Conflicting perspectives on theft risk Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • Husqvarna • (durability, power output, battery performance) • Milwaukee (power and torque output, battery performance, strong warranty, less expensive than competitors) • Echo (lighter weight, availability of parts) City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 11 Equipment Type Price Range* Advantages Disadvantages Preferred Brands Other Notes Leaf Blowers $220-$840 • Quieter operation • • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Less vibration • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Less vibration • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., heavy leaf fall, large leaves) • Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty applications • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • More expensive upfront cost Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., thick or wet grass) • Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty and large acreage applications • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Husqvarna (durability, power output, battery performance) • Echo • Conflicting perspectives on theft risk, weight, and ergonomics • Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Conflicting perspectives on theft risk • Toro • Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures Push & Walk-Behind Mowers $650- $4,000 • Quieter operation • City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 12 Equipment Type Price Range* Automated (Robotic) Mowers $2,500- $6,000 Advantages Disadvantages Preferred Brands Other Notes • More expensive upfront cost • Scythe (pros: performance, increased productivity; con: more expensive) • Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • Quieter operation • • Easier start (push button) • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Improved productivity • Can be programmed when site users are not present to reduce conflict Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., thick or wet grass) • Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty and large acreage applications • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • More expensive upfront cost • More expensive repair cost • Learning curve with programming software and hard-to- find specialty parts • Increased vandalism and theft risk (mowers and copper wire) City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 13 Equipment Type Price Range* Riding Mowers $3,000- $40,000 $9,000- $17,000 Carts & Utility Terrain Vehicles * Price includes battery and charger. Advantages Disadvantages Preferred Brands Other Notes Insufficient power output for heavy-duty applications (e.g., thick or wet grass) • Stihl (battery performance, strong warranty) • Mean Green • Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • Insufficient battery life for heavy-duty and large acreage applications • Lack of interoperability between batteries and charging systems • GreenWorks (pros: battery efficiency and performance, strong warranty; con: more expensive than competitors) • Toro • More expensive upfront cost • More expensive upfront cost • Club Car • Cushman • E-Z-GO • Yamaha • Inconsistent perspectives on effects of extreme temperatures • Quieter operation • • Easier start (push button) • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Less vibration • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Quieter operation • Less maintenance • Zero emissions • No fuel handling • Potentially lower “fuel” and lifecycle costs • Lighter weight reduces turf damage City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 14 Electric Equipment Advantages and Disadvantages Task Suitability • Electric tools perform well for light-duty tasks (e.g., trimming, edging, small-scale mowing). • Power output and battery life limit electric equipment’s suitability for heavy-duty applications (e.g., large tree removal, heavy leaf-blowing, large-acreage mowing). User Experience and Culture • Electric equipment benefits include quieter operation, ease of use, lower maintenance, less vibration, zero emissions, and no fuel handling. • Handheld electric tools can be too heavy and/or produce poor ergonomics for users with smaller bodies and smaller hands. • Experience and peer influence can overcome cultural resistance to electric equipment. Maintenance and Replacement • Electric equipment generally requires less frequent maintenance and repairs compared to gas-powered equipment. • Autonomous mowers have sophisticated software and electronics that have a steeper learning curve for some users. • Users need guidance on recycling and disposal options for batteries and equipment. Climate Impacts • Extreme temperatures may impact performance and battery life. • Equipment storage areas and charging stations should be designed to maintain safe temperatures to reduce fire risk and preserve battery life and performance. Cost Considerations • Proprietary batteries and charging systems, theft, and vandalism can increase costs. • Total cost of ownership—including equipment, fueling, maintenance, and productivity—should guide investment decisions. Brand Preferences • Stihl, Husqvarna, and Echo are commonly recommended across equipment types. • Brand selection should align with organizational needs, battery and charging system compatibility, user preferences, and budget constraints. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 15 Advantages of Electric Equipment Survey respondents were asked, if given the choice, would they use electric equipment more often. Among the 50% of non-government respondents and 83% of government respondents who said yes, they cited electric equipment’s better user experience, including being quieter, safer, and easier to use, in addition to the environmental benefit from reduced emissions. As one City of Austin employee put it: The [electric] tools are usually lighter weight so they're easier to handle and more ergonomic. Also they're WAY QUIETER, so I have to use less hearing protection. Additionally, electric means that I don't have to deal with gas, diesel, or gas fixatives. Charging batteries is easy and clean compared to dealing with gas. Table 4 summarizes the positive attributes that survey respondents reported for using electric landscaping equipment. These findings were validated by interviewees, who generally noted better user experience with handheld electric equipment used in light-duty applications, while also reporting technological and cost concerns described in the next section. Table 4. What Survey Respondents Like About Electric Landscaping Equipment What do you like about electric equipment? Less pollution / healthier Quieter Less vibration Less maintenance Lower operational cost Lasts longer Other None / not applicable Total Count Percent 31 27 21 18 10 5 3 1 27% 23% 18% 16% 9% 4% 3% 1% 116 100% Disadvantages of Electric Equipment Table 5 summarizes the concerns with electric equipment reported by survey respondents, which are consistent with feedback from interviewees. Appendix B. Research Participant Perspectives on Electric Landscaping Equipment describes participant concerns in more detail. The most common complaints from equipment operators are that 1) electric equipment doesn’t have enough power to effectively and efficiently perform their jobs, 2) batteries don’t last long enough to complete a day’s work, and 3) intraday charging and back-up battery options are impractical. For City staff, the charging constraint is a notable problem in part due to facility age and condition, electrical and battery storage fire City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 16 safety requirements, and lack of a Citywide charging infrastructure strategy. Without adequate infrastructure and understanding of code requirements, broad adoption of electric landscaping equipment could face operational delays, safety concerns, and increased costs. Secondary concerns include uncertainty about maintenance, repair, and environmentally friendly end-of-life disposal options, as well as safety impacts from the weight and ergonomics of some electric equipment. Many City of Austin interviewees expressed openness to trying more electric options, but they lack time and knowledge to evaluate equipment options, set up charging infrastructure, and adapt workflows to accommodate mid-day charging requirements. Interviewees also expressed a desire to overcome siloing among City departments to build collective knowledge to help implement the City’s electrification goals. Table 5. What Survey Respondents Dislike About Electric Landscaping Equipment What concerns do you have about electric equipment? Short battery life Not powerful enough Charging constraints Higher purchase cost Not enough people / knowledge to maintain equipment Other Higher O&M cost Too heavy Not enough training options None / not applicable Total Count Percent 23% 19% 18% 14% 36 29 28 22 10 9 8 7 3 3 155 6% 6% 5% 5% 2% 2% 100% In addition to these technological and economic concerns, interviews revealed cultural norms as a formidable barrier. Interviewees generally expressed familiarity and trust in gas-powered tools, citing their reliability, power, and suitability for demanding tasks. This was especially true for respondents whose roles involve urgent response scenarios (e.g., post-storm cleanup), large-scale maintenance, or extended run times, where performance and durability are non- negotiable. In these cases, gas equipment was often viewed as more dependable. Regional identity also plays a role. Multiple interviewees acknowledged that being from Texas— a state with a long-standing cultural and economic connection to the oil and gas industry— biases some users towards ICE equipment. This connection can create a perception that gas- powered equipment is the default or more legitimate option for professional use. These insights suggest that effective transition strategies must address not only the operational and cost requirements of users, but also the cultural and identity-based factors that influence decision-making, especially when fossil fuel use is normalized or even valorized. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 17 Recommendations Survey respondents and interviewees offered insights into ways to overcome barriers to greater adoption of electric landscaping equipment. When asked what would make them personally feel more confident using electric equipment, participants primarily seek improvements in battery life and recycling options, as well as better equipment performance and ergonomics. Some also expressed interest in training, primarily via video and in person, and the ability to try out electric options. When asked what would make it easier for their organization to transition to electric landscaping equipment, the primary recommendations were addressing the higher cost of electric equipment and batteries, followed by greater availability of electric options that match the performance and features of gas-powered equipment. Government staff also expressed a need for larger budgets to support the higher cost of electric equipment, clear guidance for how to electrify their inventories, and opportunities to engage with electric equipment users in other departments to learn their firsthand experience and gather ideas for implementation on their own teams. Related to a communitywide approach, 79% of survey respondents see a role for the City of Austin in reducing air and noise pollution from landscaping equipment. Table 6 shows the breakdown by government and non-government survey respondents’ perspectives on the City’s role in addressing landscaping equipment pollution. Recommendations are discussed in more detail following Table 6. Recommendations are organized by opportunities for the City to lead by example through its own procurement and practices and incentivizing communitywide landscaping equipment electrification. Table 6. How Survey Respondents View the City of Austin's Role in Reducing Landscaping Equipment Air and Noise Pollution What do you view as the City of Austin’s role in helping reduce air and noise pollution from landscaping and lawncare equipment? No role Incentives Unspecified Lead by example Education Mandates Partnerships Phased approach Battery recycling Clear direction Total Total Government Non-Government Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 21% 18% 18% 16% 11% 6% 4 5 3 8 2 2 0 1 1 1 27 15% 19% 11% 30% 7% 7% 0% 4% 4% 4% 100% 13 11 11 10 7 4 2 2 1 1 62 9 6 8 2 5 2 2 1 0 0 35 26% 17% 23% 6% 14% 6% 6% 3% 0% 0% 100% 3% 2% 2% 100% City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 18 Leading by Example in City of Austin Operations Survey and interview findings indicate strong support for the City of Austin to take a leadership role in advancing the commercial electric landscaping equipment market by electrifying its inventory where practical and cost-effective. At the same time, City staff expressed a range of comfort levels with fully investing in electric equipment. Insights from government staff in other cities and states emphasize the value of an outcome-oriented, phased approach that centers equipment operator experience, helping to build confidence, reduce resistance, and support a sustainable transition. Achieving electrification is as much a cultural shift as it is a technological one, requiring patience, persistence, and intentional planning. A holistic lead-by-example approach should: • Prioritize outcomes over technology type: Focus on operational goals, efficiency, and sustainability rather than treating electrification as the sole objective. • Implement a phased rollout: Gradually introduce electric equipment to allow operators to build comfort while technology continues to evolve to meet higher power and larger acreage needs. • Develop citywide charging infrastructure: Include facility and electrical upgrades to ensure accessibility and reliability across operations. • Use lifecycle analysis for decision-making: Guide equipment purchases strategically, factoring in total cost, environmental impact, warranty, and vendor service support. • Leverage service agreements to drive market impact: Explore opportunities to encourage broader adoption of electric equipment through contracts and vendor partnerships. • Invest in workforce development: Provide training and support that addresses both technological skills and behavioral change to ensure smooth adoption. • Plan for equipment end-of-life management: Ensure responsible disposal or recycling to maximize environmental benefits and sustainability. By modeling these practices, the City can lead the transition towards sustainable landscaping operations while supporting staff and vendors through an informed, equitable, and pragmatic process. Technology-Neutral Outcome-Based Approach Rather than equipment electrification being the end goal, the City of Austin might set a technology-neutral emissions reduction goal and/or worker safety goal that would allow for a holistic approach that includes electrification as part of a larger environmental and human health-focused program. Taking an outcome-based approach would allow departments to incorporate non-electrification strategies such as the following that were identified by survey respondents and interviewees: City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 19 • Design landscapes to minimize ongoing maintenance needs, for example, by “rewilding” lands to a state closer to what conditions were before intensive human intervention and using native and adapted plants. Looking to nature for guidance, such as through prescribed burns, seasonal cutbacks that mimic natural seeding cycles, and use of goats and other ruminant animals,6 can help lessen the emissions impact from ongoing maintenance. Examples of low-impact land management strategies can be found in the Recommended Land Management Strategies and Climate Vulnerability Analysis report prepared for Austin Parks and Recreation. • Identify opportunities to reduce mowing frequency at City-maintained properties. For example, Austin Watershed Protection found that crews that were mowing along creeks to enhance visibility for drivers near residential areas were duplicating mowing with crews hired by homeowner associations. Eliminating this redundancy saves money, fuel, and emissions. Converting turf areas to wildflower meadows and pollinator habitats also reduces mowing emissions and cost and supports water conservation, biodiversity, and local food production goals in plans like the Austin / Travis County Food Plan and Water Forward. • Consolidate and/or strategically schedule staff at shared locations to reduce vehicle trips and associated emissions. • On poor air quality and high heat days, adjust equipment-heavy work to occur earlier in the day or forego some operations to protect workers and reduce the build- up of pollutants that can worsen air quality as the day heats up. • For applications where electric landscaping equipment is not a fit, use propane and other lower emissions fuels. • Increase capital budgets to allow departments to more regularly replace landscaping equipment to get the emissions and safety benefit of newer technology, even if electric options are not yet viable. Phased, Flexible Implementation Interviewees and survey respondents emphasized the importance of a flexible, phased approach to electrifying landscaping equipment. Rather than imposing a strict timeline for full electrification, stakeholders recommended replacing equipment with electric options at the end of their useful life and when suitable electric options are available that meet or exceed the performance of current ICE equipment. 6 Ruminants should be used strategically as they can be indiscriminate in their grazing and may eat desired vegetation. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 20 Examples from interviewees that illustrate this approach include: • A smaller organization with a compact campus estimated a six-year timeline to fully electrify its landscaping equipment using a phased approach. • A large municipal parks and recreation department prioritized rapid electrification at three flagship parks with high visibility, achieving approximately 80% electrification within two years. The department chose to wait for technology to mature before expanding electric equipment deployment across all sites. This phased implementation allows staff to gain experience with electric equipment and charging infrastructure across different seasons, gather user feedback, and integrate lessons learned into broader deployment strategies. The City may also consider phasing electrification by equipment type, starting with tools such as trimmers, pole saws, smaller chain saws, and walk-behind mowers, which have received consistently positive feedback from early users. To ensure product quality and reliability, the City could explore third-party certifications, such as those offered by the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA), in equipment procurement contracts. Some interviewees also noted the importance of retaining some ICE equipment even as the City’s inventory transitions to electric to maintain flexibility and reliability to provide services during emergency events when electricity may be limited or when electric equipment can’t perform as reliably or effectively as ICE options. Citywide Charging Infrastructure Deployment Interviews with City of Austin landscaping personnel revealed that existing facilities may be outdated and not fully equipped to accommodate the transition to electric vehicles or electric landscaping equipment, especially in light of recent battery storage and electrical fire safety code requirements. So far, departments are independently developing charging solutions to varying degrees of success. Departments could benefit from a forum to share lessons learned and potentially central procurement and implementation of charging infrastructure and associated facility and electrical capacity upgrades. There is an opportunity to conduct a more comprehensive charging needs assessment of some of the larger landscaping equipment as part of Austin Fleet Mobility Services’ existing effort to catalogue citywide electric vehicle charging needs to inform a citywide charging implementation plan. Integrating landscaping equipment electrification efforts with ongoing vehicle electrification efforts could also provide shared cost efficiencies by installing charging infrastructure that can support vehicle and landscaping equipment charging and uniformly meet code requirements for battery and electrical fire safety. For example, Austin Fleet Mobility Services is developing solar-powered portable charging stations that could have dual vehicle and equipment charging use, and some electric vehicles—like the Ford F-150 Lightning, which City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 21 received high praise from interviewees—have onboard charging capabilities that could be used for handheld landscaping equipment out in the field. Lifecycle-Based Equipment Procurement While electric equipment and other lower-emissions landscaping practices can have a higher upfront purchase cost, lifecycle cost savings from reduced labor, maintenance, and fuel can help offset this higher capital cost. Austin Fleet Mobility Services’ assessment of the lifecycle costs and benefits of electrifying the City’s vehicle fleet provides a model that could be applied to the City’s landscaping equipment inventory. A comprehensive electrification analysis should also consider the costs of providing accessible and safe charging infrastructure, including potential electrical capacity upgrades at City properties. To support frontline staff and promote equitable access to new technology, purchase agreements should include strong warranty coverage, vendor-provided training, and battery/equipment take-back programs. These measures reduce lifecycle costs while empowering operators to confidently adopt, maintain, and responsibly manage electric equipment, fostering both workforce readiness and sustainable City operations. Service Procurement The City could also pursue efforts to influence private contractor landscaping equipment through contract specifications. Austin Financial Services could provide standard language for all departments to use in their landscaping service agreements to encourage vendors to invest in electric landscaping equipment to serve City properties. Some departments report existing contracts having language that encourages the use of alternatively fueled equipment when possible but noted that the use of such equipment is not enforced. Texas Senate Bill 1017 (2023) limits the City’s ability to require electric equipment in its contracts (and via ordinance), but other voluntary contractual options include: • Default to best value procurement for landscaping services and include preferential points for vendors meeting higher levels of electric equipment use. • In multi-year service agreements, allow vendors that increase their use of electric landscaping equipment to increase their service rates at higher levels than those who do not invest in electric equipment to account for the higher purchase price of electric options. Peer Learning and Workforce Development Interviewees and survey respondents stressed the need for a clear implementation plan and education to help overcome some of the uncertainty interviewees and survey respondents voiced about not knowing how to select and service electric equipment or set up charging systems and processes. Gaining familiarity with electric engines and charging infrastructure used for landscaping equipment could also benefit the City’s ongoing electric City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 22 vehicle transition, as equipment operators and service technicians become familiar with electric motor operation and parts and charging solutions. Those with existing electric equipment experience stressed the importance of providing opportunities for equipment operators to try out electric equipment for extended periods of time (days to weeks) and in different conditions to gain familiarity and comfort before deciding which products to invest in. City staff also expressed interest in learning from their peers (crew members, not just supervisors) in other departments. To provide these peer learning opportunities, Austin Climate Action and Resilience or Austin Fleet Mobility Services could convene equipment operators from across City departments to test out equipment, receive and offer training, find solutions for common needs, and celebrate early adopters of electric equipment. Learning opportunities could be integrated with the Austin Infrastructure Academy or the Texas Green Workforce Collaborative, managed by EarthShare Texas and funded by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate-Ready Workforce grant. Manufacturers and distributors are eager to facilitate demonstration events and training opportunities. To alleviate some of the time pressure that departmental purchasers face when selecting equipment, Fleet Mobility Services could provide recommendations for suitable electric equipment options based on departments’ landscaping needs as part of Fleet Mobility Services’ annual vehicle and equipment replacement recommendations. End-of-Life Management Interviewees and survey respondents also expressed concern about how to properly dispose of spent batteries and retired equipment. While Austin Fleet Mobility Services disposes of retired departmental vehicles and large off-road equipment, departments manage disposal for most landscaping equipment because it is under Fleet Mobility Services’ size threshold. Fleet Mobility Services and/or Austin Resource Recovery could provide guidance to departments on end-of-life best practices using available City resources such as: • Starting in early 2026, all City departments can access a third-party battery recycler via an in-development citywide battery recycling contract. In the interim, Austin Resource Recovery and Austin Parks and Recreation staff can drop off spent batteries at the Austin Recycle and Reuse Drop-off Center. Other departments cannot use the residential waste management facility due to a technicality of the state law related to household hazardous waste. • All City departments can drop off retired landscaping equipment at Austin Metal & Iron to have salvageable materials recycled via a citywide scrap recycling contract. • Austin Financial Services could work with departments to integrate vendor take-back requirements into purchase agreements. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 23 Incenting Communitywide Landscaping Equipment Electrification Texas Senate Bill 1017 (2023) limits the City’s ability to restrict the use of ICE landscaping equipment or require the use of electric equipment, but the City can pursue voluntary incentive programs to encourage local landscape professionals to transition to electric equipment. Three voluntary program models to lessen the cost barrier of electric landscaping equipment are offered for the City’s consideration: • Rebate/voucher program • Equipment trade-in program • Equipment lending program Equipment Rebate/Voucher Program The research team reviewed rebate/voucher program websites and interviewed three program administrators: • Boulder County’s Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE) Electric Landscaping Equipment Grant Program • (Denver area) Regional Air Quality Council’s (RAQC) Mow Down Pollution Program • Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s (SBCAPCD) Landscape Equipment Electrification Fund (LEEF) Program Programs often provide a pre-approved voucher or rebate that can be used at participating program retailers. The voucher/rebate amount is usually a percentage of the purchase price up to a per-equipment or per-recipient cap or a fixed amount per piece of equipment subject to a per-recipient cap. The typical process is: 1. Program administrator invites funding applications during a limited time window and/or until some percentage of program funds have been reserved. 2. Applicant applies online for a specified number and type of equipment at an eligible retailer. 3. Program administrator ensures applicant meets program requirements and issues a voucher in the approved amount to be spent only at the approved retailer by a deadline. 4. Program administrator informs the specified retailer of the approved applicant, equipment number and type, and dollar amount. 5. Retailer may contact applicant to provide a quote that incorporates the discount from the approved voucher and specifies when the equipment can be picked up. 6. Applicant purchases equipment at the discounted price. 7. Retailer floats the approved voucher amount and submits an invoice with purchase receipt to program administrator for payment. 8. Program administrator pays retailer. 9. Program administrator carries forward any unused vouchers to future funding cycles. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 24 Program design and implementation recommendations are provided for the following: • Program administrator options • Funding • Design considerations • Education and outreach Program Administrator The program administrators developed their programs primarily to reduce noise complaints and to reduce criteria pollutants that contribute to local smog and haze. As a result, programs are often administered by state-mandated air quality entities like SBCAPCD or RAQC. In other cases, programs are run by cities and counties like Boulder County, which prioritizes greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant reduction. Potential Austin program administrators include: • Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) because of alignment with its existing regional air quality program in which the City of Austin participates. • Austin Energy because of its multi-decadal experience administering similar rebate programs, including an existing point-of-purchase incentive program for residential lawn equipment. Funding Because many of the existing electric landscaping equipment incentive programs are part of state efforts to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (federal limits on criteria pollutant emissions), locally or regionally administered programs sometimes receive state air quality funding that can also be supplemented by local government funds—like Boulder County’s sustainability sales tax—and private funding—like RAQC’s use of equipment manufacturer contributions. The Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), provides grants to local governments and others to replace vehicles and off-road equipment with cleaner options that reduce NOx emissions. While TERP does not currently offer grants for reducing emissions from landscaping equipment, the City could explore advocacy options with the Texas Legislature to direct TCEQ to include electric landscaping equipment as an eligible technology for future funding cycles. Incentive program budgets are typically in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. After program start up, small programs can be maintained with a part-time staff position; whereas larger programs may have a program manager and more junior outreach staff that support multiple programs. Example budgets include: City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 25 Boulder County PACE Electric Landscaping Equipment Grant Program (source: local sustainability sales tax revenues) • Year 1 pilot - $150,000 with $50,000 allocated to program design and $100,000 to vouchers • Year 2 - $1 million, which was more than 3X the planned budget. Boulder County reallocated funds from other incentive programs to cover the higher-than-expected demand. • Year 3 - $300,000 SBCAPCD LEEF Program • Year 1 pilot - $100,000 (source: local air quality funds) • Year 2 - nearly $100,000 (source: local air quality funds) • Years 3-4 - $1.25 million split across both years (source: state air quality funds) RAQC Mow Down Pollution Program (source: local government and manufacturer contributions) • $200K per year, including an estimated 20% of an FTE to manage the program Program Design Considerations Incentive programs can be administratively cumbersome due to the applicant approval process and retailer payment process. Program administrators offer the following recommendations to streamline processes: • Administrators encouraged flexibility on what types of equipment, batteries, and charging systems qualify for rebates/vouchers so that staff time isn’t unnecessarily spent researching suitable options as product availability and pricing changes. Similarly, some administrators cautioned against limiting eligibility to specific equipment makes and models to avoid the time and effort associated with keeping lists up to date and approving equipment eligibility details. Another administrator emphasized the importance of ensuring program participants have a positive experience with electric equipment so that they continue to choose electric options and support ongoing market transformation. Because of the wide variability in product quality, the administrator recommended limiting funds to only specific makes and models that have been certified by the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA) to provide confidence that the user will have a positive experience. To minimize staff burden, participating retailers are responsible for ensuring equipment is certified using an AGZA-certified equipment list that is updated annually. This approach can also reduce program staff time and liability responding to requests from equipment manufacturers that want to be added to the eligibility list. Instead of staff determining City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 26 equipment suitability, they direct interested manufacturers to AGZA to meet their certification requirements. • A per-recipient—rather than a per-equipment cap—can be easier to administer because equipment pricing fluctuates based on market dynamics, which may require administratively cumbersome adjustments to incentive amounts. One program administrator shared the average incentive amount requested by program participants is about $7,000 per applicant. While its per-applicant cap has been more generous in past funding cycles ($15,000 to $30,000 per applicant), the program administrator will likely limit incentives to no more than $7,500 per recipient in the next funding cycle. • Though improving equitable outcomes and processes was important for program administrators, some noted that requiring equity criteria like limiting eligibility to individuals or companies with lower incomes by verifying tax return information can be prohibitively cumbersome. Instead, one administrator recommended providing targeted outreach to small and minority-owned businesses using trusted messengers and outreach tactics like calling or texting landscape professionals with program information in multiple languages rather than (or in addition to) inviting them to government-hosted events that they may be hesitant to attend. • The application and voucher/rebate approval process needs to be simple to ensure smaller entities can participate and program staff aren’t overwhelmed by requests for assistance. Landscape professionals don’t have experience or the time to deal with lengthy bureaucratic processes, which can conflict with reporting requirements from funding partners. • While some administrators require applicants to dispose of the ICE equipment being replaced, others noted that documenting such destruction can be administratively cumbersome and can have unintended consequences. For example, program administrators want landscape professionals to have a positive experience with electric equipment and many equipment operators stress the need to maintain backup gas-powered equipment for use in high-power applications like seasonal clearing of heavy leaf fall or during emergency events. For this reason, one administrator opted not to require scrapping of ICE equipment. Other administrators that had to provide emissions reduction calculations to program funders opted to have applicants self-certify that they properly disposed of the ICE equipment and that they will continue to operate the new electric equipment within their jurisdictional boundaries for a designated time (varies from two to four years). Note: Landscaping professionals located in Travis County may drop off ICE equipment that has been drained of fuel and lubricants at the Austin Recycling and Reuse Drop-off Center. However, landscaping professionals cannot recycle batteries at the center due to state law prohibiting the processing of commercial hazardous waste at the facility. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 27 Education and Outreach Incentive programs can also provide an opportunity to build local knowledge that can support long-term market transformation. Demonstration events that allow landscape professionals to try out electric landscaping equipment and talk to equipment suppliers are a key tool program administrators use to drive program awareness and participation. Administrators recommend partnering with equipment manufacturers, distributors, or certifiers to host demonstrations at program launch and annually. These partners are often willing to bear much of the cost and responsibility of putting on the event because of the promise of future sales driven by the program incentives. Program administrators also emphasized the importance of building relationships with trusted retailers. Motivated retailers can significantly reduce program marketing budgets by proactively promoting the program due to the potential for increased sales. Administrators noted that smaller, specialized retailers tend to have more credibility with local landscaping companies and can be better program partners because they have a repeat business mindset. However, they often do not have the same capacity as big box stores to carry costs, so minimizing payment timelines is critical to sustain retailer participation. One administrator suggested vouchers need to be reimbursed to retailers within four weeks for retailers to be able to participate. Suggestions for accelerating payment include providing clear sales documentation requirements and setting up ACH deposits rather than relying on mailed checks. Supporting knowledge-building for retail staff can also support long-term market transformation. Landscaping professionals are more likely to maintain relationships with retailers than they are with program administrators, so there’s value in offering training and education opportunities for retailers that can then transfer to equipment operators. For example, one program administrator used the allure of the program incentives to also promote fire safety related to charging infrastructure. The program provided participating retailers with free fire blankets and managed charging boxes to give to voucher recipients. The managed charging boxes have charging ports that allow multiple batteries to charge sequentially to not overload a circuit, a common fire risk. These freebies can be a discussion starter to get equipment operators thinking about charging safety. Equipment Trade-In Program Austin Energy has experience administering a residential landscape equipment trade-in program in partnership with Austin Resource Recovery that could provide insights for similar trade-in programs for commercial-grade equipment. These types of exchange events, while expensive, can be used as a complementary tool for increasing accessibility of electric options for smaller businesses and independent landscaping professionals who may not have the financial resources to cover even reduced-price electric equipment. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 28 Equipment Lending Program Interviewees highlighted the importance of demonstration events where equipment operators can try out equipment onsite, but many also noted the importance of testing out equipment in real-world conditions over days or weeks before investing in electric equipment. One model that could help overcome this barrier is for the City to operate a commercial electric landscaping equipment lending program. The City would procure varying makes and models of equipment that have been proven to meet performance requirements in Austin’s environmental conditions and allow local landscaping professionals to check out the equipment on a trial basis. The City could explore partnerships with equipment manufacturers and distributors to donate equipment and offer training to equipment operators. The City of Austin could offer a parallel residential electric equipment lending program to residents and community groups to increase public awareness of electric landscaping equipment’s benefits to drive communitywide demand for quieter, cleaner options. For example, the City of San Antonio offers a Community Tool Shed Program that loans out residential electric landscaping equipment to residents, businesses, and community groups, and the City of San Marcos offers a similar Home Equipment Lending Program for residents. The City of Dallas partners with Keep Dallas Beautiful to offer electric landscaping equipment and a portable charging trailer that community groups can request for community beautification events through the Community Hand Tool Program. The City of Austin could explore similar offerings to complement projects supported by the City’s Neighborhood Partnering Program and the Austin Parks Foundation It’s My Park Day. Conclusion Adoption of electric commercial landscaping equipment in Austin remains limited, at around 10% of the market. The City of Austin has an opportunity to responsibly leverage its purchasing power, provide targeted incentives, and offer education for landscaping professionals and community members to support the transition to electric equipment and other low-emissions landscaping practices. Success will require strong collaboration across departments and industry partners to ensure initiatives are coordinated, equitable, and effective. By employing a strategic, equipment operator-centered approach, the City can protect worker and community health, advance climate and air quality goals, and be a responsible steward of public funds. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study 29 Appendix A. Survey Results The research team administered an online survey from June 3 through August 13, 2025. The survey solicited feedback from landscaping professionals on their experience with and perspectives on electric commercial landscaping equipment. The survey was administered in English and Spanish. Forty-eight people completed the English survey, and four completed the Spanish survey (n=53). Respondents were invited to answer questions based on their experience as decision-makers or equipment operators and as government or non- governmental professionals. Most questions were optional, so the number of responses varies by question. Text in red font indicates the research team’s summation and coding of the respondents’ data. All other data are presented verbatim from the survey responses. We have captured the survey responses from government staff separately from other respondents to inform City of Austin operational decisions. The majority (82%) of government respondents were City of Austin staff. • Government Survey Responses • Non-Government Survey Responses City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-1 Government Survey Responses Are you a City of Austin or other government employee? Yes 22 63% No 37% 13 Total 35 100% Which department? Austin Parks & Recreation Austin Aviation Austin Water Austin Independent School District Austin Development Services Austin Fleet Mobility Services Austin Library Austin Watershed Protection Travis County Transp. & Nat. Resources UT-Austin Grounds and Landscape Total Do you manage a team? Yes No Not answered Total 8 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 36% 14% 14% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 22 100% 12 5 5 55% 23% 23% 22 100% How many employees does the team that you oversee have? Full-time Part-time / seasonal Total 93% 7% 572 100% 532 40 Irrigation services What types of services does your team perform? Lawn maintenance 7 Tree care 6 5 4 3 4 3 Landscape design / installation Hardscaping Wildland Management Other Total 22% 19% 16% 13% 9% 13% 9% 32 100% Other We support the teams that perform all of the above Burial related services Horticultural Maintenance City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-2 What types of properties (e.g., building grounds, parks, rights-of-way) does your team maintain? building grounds, right of ways, open field areas Land preserves for conservation Wildlands 7 Automotive Service Centers, 1 Admin. Bldg., and 42 fuel stations. Cemeteries Tree on school properties All parks, rec centers, cultural and arts centers Landscape beds, lawns, and athletic fields Campus at UT Wildlands - woodlands and grassland savanna and caves Parks Office buildings, preserve land, roads, trails. Do you use contracted or in-house staff to perform landscaping and lawncare services? Employees perform all services in house 100% outsourced using vendors Mix of in-house and contracted vendors Total 5 42% 1 6 8% 50% 12 100% What is your team’s annual budget for landscaping and lawncare services? Less than $100,000 $100,000 - $500,000 $500,000 - $1 million $1 million - $5 million More than $5 million Total 25% 3 42% 5 8% 1 25% 3 0 0% 12 100% What types of equipment does your team use? Lawn mowers Leaf blowers String trimmers Hedge trimmers Chainsaws Other Total 18% 17% 20% 17% 23% 6% 66 100% 12 11 13 11 15 4 Other Tractors Tractors fire line blower, ant boiler, drip torches, pumps We procure and repair large mowers, but do not manage hand lawn maintenance equipment City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-3 How do you acquire your equipment? Purchase (new or used) Lease or rent Both Not sure Total 14 0 1 1 16 Do you seek feedback from employees when selecting equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 14 1 1 16 88% 0% 6% 6% 100% 88% 6% 6% 100% Do you feel that your opinion is considered when your supervisor chooses equipment for you to use? Yes No Not sure Total 3 2 1 6 50% 33% 17% 100% Do customers (or supervisors) ever request or require low-emissions or low-noise equipment? Yes No Not sure Total What is the average age of your equipment? Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years Not sure Total 11 3 2 16 1 3 5 5 0 2 16 69% 19% 13% 100% 6% 19% 31% 31% 0% 13% 100% How much do you spend on equipment in a typical year? How does this equipment expenditure compare to labor costs? Labor is much more expensive. Annual equipment costs vary widely. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-4 What types of equipment does your team use? Gas-powered Diesel-powered Electric / battery-powered Other Total 37% 15 29% 12 27% 11 3 7% 41 100% What percentage of your equipment is powered by the following fuel sources? Gasoline Diesel Electricity (battery) Other (please list fuel type and percentage) 15-90% 0-80% 0-10% 0% What percentage of your equipment is electric / battery-powered? 2-100% Have you considered switching to electric equipment? 80% 4 20% 1 0 0% 5 100% Yes No Not sure Total What do you like about electric equipment? Less pollution / healthier Quieter Lasts longer Less maintenance Lower operational cost Less vibration None / not applicable Other Total 13 10 2 8 5 9 1 2 26% 20% 4% 16% 10% 18% 2% 4% 50 100% Other Easier for beginners to use chainsaws start with a push of a button rather than pulling a cord Have you had any issues using electric equipment? / What concerns do you have about electric equipment? Short battery life Not powerful enough Too heavy Not enough people / knowledge to maintain equipment Not enough training options Higher purchase cost Higher O&M cost 15 14 3 5 2 9 4 21% 19% 4% 7% 3% 12% 5% City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-5 Charging constraints None / not applicable Other Total 14 1 6 73 19% 1% 8% 100% Other need long bars on chainsaws High percentage of lemons managing multiple batteries for each saw is unsustainable Batteries failing from high ambient temp Poor design to it damaged the machine's cord, now fixed in newer models so reading the reviews is important and buying high quality equipment that wont fail due to design flaws Sometimes an outlet is not available near where I'm working to recharge batteries, or work is limited by battery lifespan. This could be changed by having more batteries, and battery technology and lifespan is getting better every day, so this might not be an issue soon. What would make it easier for your organization to transition to electric equipment? Better performance / features Better battery life Better charging infrastructure N/A or Other More affordable More available equipment options More funding More training Battery interchangability Better equipment life More available repair options 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 How long have you worked in landscaping or lawncare? Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years Total 0 1 0 2 3 6 0% 17% 0% 33% 50% 100% City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-6 What kind of work do you do most often? Lawn mowing Blowing leaves Trimming Irrigation Tree care Other 1 2 2 1 3 3 Total 12 8% 17% 17% 8% 25% 25% 100% Other Ran a Design + Build Landscaping Company now do Outdoor Learning and Design Program Coordinator - Cities Connecting Children to Nature and Community PARKnerships Gardening Education/Native Plants Which types of equipment do you use regularly? Gas-powered Diesel-powered Electric / battery-powered Other Total 1 0 4 3 8 13% 0% 50% 38% 100% Which equipment do you prefer to use? Why? Electric Gas N/A or Other Diesel Total 6 3 1 0 10 60% 30% 10% 0% 100% Have you ever had any health or safety concerns using gas- or diesel-powered equipment? Description: Inhaling exhaust especially fine particulate matter. Yes No Not sure Total 1 1 0 2 50% 50% 0% 100% Do you think quieter or cleaner equipment would be better for your health at work? Yes No Not sure Total 2 0 0 2 100% 0% 0% 100% City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-7 Have you received training on electric or battery-powered equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 1 5 0 6 17% 83% 0% 100% Would you like more training or information about electric or battery-powered equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 50% 50% 0% 100% 3 3 0 6 In which language do you prefer to receive information? 3 English How do you prefer to receive training or information (e.g., materials to read, videos, in- person demonstration)? Videos In person If you had the choice, would you use electric equipment more often? Why or why not? Yes No Maybe Why Yes Reduce noise Environmental / reduce Why No 5 1 Battery life 0 2 4 1 emissions Healthier Safer What would help you feel more confident using electric equipment? Education / training Battery recycling 2 options Better battery life Implementation plan N/A or Other What do you view as the City of Austin’s role in helping reduce air and noise pollution from landscaping and lawncare equipment? Lead by example Incentives No role Unspecified Education Mandates Battery recycling Clear direction Phased approach City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-8 2 3 1 1 1 1 8 5 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Non-Government Survey Responses Do you own or manage a landscaping and lawncare company? Yes No Total 58% 18 13 42% 31 100% How many employees does your company have? Full-time 2476 Part-time / seasonal 886 Total 74% 26% 3362 100% What types of services does your business offer? Lawn maintenance Tree care Irrigation services Landscape design / installation Hardscaping Other Total 12 10 7 12 9 3 23% 19% 13% 23% 17% 6% 53 100% Other Chemical Landscape Distribution Wholesalers Ecological Restoration What types of clients does your company serve? Residential 14 Commercial or Multifamily 13 Government 8 Schools or Institutions 8 Other 0 Total 33% 30% 19% 19% 0% 43 100% Do any of the following apply to your business? Locally owned Woman owned Minority owned Current City of Austin vendor Past City of Austin vendor None / not applicable Total 14 45% 2 6% 4 13% 5 16% 3 10% 10% 3 31 100% City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-9 What is your estimated annual revenue? Less than $100,000 10 $100,000 - $500,000 4 $500,000 - $1 million 0 $1 million - $5 million 4 More than $5 million 4 Total 22 45% 18% 0% 18% 18% 100% What types of equipment does your business use? Lawn mowers Leaf blowers String trimmers Hedge trimmers Chainsaws Other Total 20% 23% 16% 19% 21% 1% 14 16 11 13 15 1 100% 70 Other Amoozemeter, Cone Penetrometer How do you acquire your equipment? Purchase (new or used) Lease or rent Both Not sure Total 17 1 0 0 18 94% 6% 0% 0% 100% Do you seek feedback from employees when selecting equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 78% 22% 0% 100% 14 4 0 18 Do you feel that your opinion is considered when your company or supervisor chooses equipment for you to use? Yes No Not sure Total 62% 15% 23% 100% 8 2 3 13 Do customers (or supervisors) ever request or require low-emissions or low-noise equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 50% 44% 6% 100% 9 8 1 18 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-10 What is the average age of your equipment? Less than 1 year 1 9 8 0 0 0 18 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years Not sure Total 6% 50% 44% 0% 0% 0% 100% How much do you spend on equipment in a typical year? How does this equipment expenditure compare to labor costs? Labor is much more expensive. Annual equipment costs vary widely. What types of equipment does your business use? Gas-powered Diesel-powered Electric / battery-powered Other Total 14 6 12 0 32 44% 19% 38% 0% 100% What percentage of your equipment is powered by the following fuel sources? Gasoline Diesel Electricity (battery) Other (please list fuel type and 5-100% 0-80% 0-10% 0-5% percentage) What percentage of your equipment is electric / battery-powered? 1-98% Have you considered switching to electric equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 17% 67% 17% 100% 1 4 1 6 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-11 What do you like about electric equipment? Less pollution / healthier Quieter Lasts longer Less maintenance Lower operational cost Less vibration None / not applicable Other Total 18 17 3 10 5 12 0 1 27% 26% 5% 15% 8% 18% 0% 2% 66 100% Other Can make a compatible fleet using the same batteries Have you had any issues using electric equipment? / What concerns do you have about electric equipment? Short battery life Not powerful enough Too heavy Not enough people / knowledge 26% 18% 5% 21 15 4 5 6% to maintain equipment Not enough training options Higher purchase cost Higher O&M cost Charging constraints None / not applicable Other Total 1 13 4 14 2 3 1% 16% 5% 17% 2% 4% 82 100% Other Electric chainsaws do not have the same safety features as gas powered chainsaws The technology is not there yet We've resolved this by having backups charging What would make it easier for your organization to transition to electric equipment? More affordable Better performance / features Better battery life Better charging infrastructure N/A or Other Better equipment life More available equipment 7 5 4 3 3 2 options More available repair options 2 2 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-12 How long have you worked in landscaping or lawncare? Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years Total What kind of work do you do most often? Lawn mowing Blowing leaves Trimming Irrigation Tree care Other Total 1 1 1 1 9 13 8 5 6 2 7 2 8% 8% 8% 8% 69% 100% 27% 17% 20% 7% 23% 7% 30 100% Which types of equipment do you use regularly? 11 2 7 1 21 Gas-powered Diesel-powered Electric / battery-powered Other Total 52% 10% 33% 5% 100% Which equipment do you prefer to use? Why? Gas Electric N/A or Other Diesel Total 7 5 2 1 15 47% 33% 13% 7% 100% Other General Landscape care mulch production Have you ever had any health or safety concerns using gas- or diesel-powered equipment? Yes No Not sure Total Description: Noise and dust 17% 67% 17% 100% 1 4 1 6 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-13 Do you think quieter or cleaner equipment would be better for your health at work? Yes No Not sure Total 4 1 1 6 67% 17% 17% 100% Have you received training on electric or battery-powered equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 54% 7 31% 4 15% 2 13 100% Would you like more training or information about electric or battery- powered equipment? Yes No Not sure Total 38% 54% 8% 13 100% 5 7 1 In which language do you prefer to receive information? English Spanish Portuguese 4 2 1 How do you prefer to receive training or information (e.g., materials to read, videos, in-person demonstration)? Videos 3 2 In person Materials to read 1 If you had the choice, would you use electric equipment more often? Why or why not? Yes No Maybe Why No Battery life Charging infrastructure Batteries bad for environment Why Yes Better Easier Safer 6 4 2 2 1 1 Cost 2 2 1 1 City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study A-14 Appendix B. Research Participant Perspectives on Electric Landscaping Equipment Disadvantages The research team synthesized insights from survey respondents and interviewees regarding common barriers to using electric commercial landscaping equipment. The findings are organized around common themes: • Unreliable battery life and charging availability • Insufficient power output • Prohibitive cost • Uncertainty about equipment maintenance, repair, and end of life options • Weight and ergonomic concerns Battery Life and Charging Many interviewees noted the inability of batteries to last long enough to complete individual tasks, let alone a full day’s work. Reports of batteries lasting only 30 minutes were common, and some interviewees indicated manufacturers’ estimates of battery runtime were not reflective of real-world conditions. Multiple interviewees suggested doubling the number of back-up batteries recommended by manufacturers. Some felt like this short lifespan was manageable by having sufficient backup batteries available in the field, while others found it impractical to carry a pocket full or even a bucket of batteries while performing their work. For example, felling a large tree with a medium-blade chain saw might require five to six batteries plus help from a gas-powered saw to complete the job. Landscape professionals who maintain relatively compact campuses typically can keep enough back-up batteries with them or access buildings outlets for charging during shifts. However, some commercial landscapers noted clients not allowing them to charge tools at electrical outlets on jobsites, and others noted the charging time impairs their productivity. For example, one interviewee said it can take 30 minutes to charge a battery for a piece of handheld equipment versus 30 seconds to fill up a gas tank. Another interviewee noted it takes five to six hours to fully charge a zero-turn electric mower, making them impractical for crews that mow multiple sites in a day. Professionals responsible for managing parks, cemeteries, and wildlands noted that access to buildings or any type of existing outlet is unrealistic at many locations. City of Austin staff highlighted charging infrastructure as a limiting factor in part due to facility age and condition, electrical and battery storage fire safety requirements, and lack of a Citywide charging infrastructure strategy. Without adequate infrastructure and understanding of code requirements, large-scale adoption of electric landscaping equipment could face operational delays, safety concerns, and increased costs. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study B-1 Some examples of the types of charging solutions electric equipment operators have used include: Inverter retrofit kits that allow electric tools to be charged off a vehicle’s onboard battery. This typically requires the engine to be running, which creates idling emissions that can offset some of the emissions reduction benefit of electric equipment. However, one interviewee noted field crews often run their vehicles for heating or cooling, so they do not create additional emissions by charging batteries from the engine that would otherwise be running. Portable generators. These are typically gas or diesel generators, which can offset some of the emissions reduction benefit of electric equipment, and can be subject to theft. One interviewee noted that equipment operators may charge batteries using a generator or vehicle battery even if a building outlet is nearby because the fuel-powered charging is faster. Trailers retrofitted with solar panels and charging ports. These can be supplemented with diesel or gas generators for additional charging capability. Box trucks retrofitted with charging boxes that allow multiple batteries to charge simultaneously or serially to reduce overheating risk. Several interviewees recommended that charging set ups be protected from hot temperatures, noting that chargers automatically shut off when battery temperature exceeds 100 degrees, which can easily be reached even in modest ambient temperatures. For example, one municipal parks crew recorded temperatures inside an enclosed trailer reaching 110 degrees when the ambient temperature was 80 degrees. Insulation, ventilation, and potentially supplemental cooling may be necessary to maintain safe battery storage and charging temperatures. Perspectives on whether extreme temperatures significantly affect battery performance were mixed. While some reported battery life degradation in high heat, others reported heat had no impact on battery life or performance. A couple interviewees noted that sub-freezing temperatures can impair performance and battery life. Insufficient Power Output Some interviewees and survey respondents noted commercial electric landscaping equipment options are not yet able to match the power output and performance of their ICE counterparts. Examples of insufficient power were cited for activities like mowing thick or wet grass, cutting through large trees, and blowing large leaves and during heavy leaf fall. Others commented that lack of power may be more of a perception issue common to other forms of culture change. For many day-to-day applications, electric versions have comparable power capacity to their ICE counterparts, but because electric equipment doesn’t make as much noise, operators don’t trust that they are getting sufficient power output. Some noted that this effect may be influenced by operating in a crew environment that is sensitive to cultural norms. Some reported this cultural resistance can be softened with firsthand experience and accounts of peers using electric equipment in similar environments and applications. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study B-2 Prohibitive Cost Survey respondents and interviewees reported electric landscaping equipment options costing 1.5X to 3X more than their ICE equivalent. Interviewees provided the following cost comparisons: • Gas chainsaw: $720 vs electric chainsaw: $1,300 (1.8X more) • Gas blower: $290 vs electric blower: $840 with one battery and charger (2.9X more) • Gas mower: $1,500 vs electric mower: $3,000 (2X more) • Batteries: $150-$500 each Electric equipment costs are exacerbated by the proprietary nature of each manufacturer’s batteries and charging equipment. Batteries and chargers are not universally compatible. While some interviewees were comfortable investing in one or two brands, others were hesitant to go all in on one brand only to find a better option from a competing manufacturer a year or two out and having the sunk cost of the older equipment’s batteries that can’t be used with the new equipment. Interviewees also cited the cost of building electrical upgrades to accommodate charging infrastructure as another barrier. For example, a large national landscaping company spent $50,000 to $60,000—inclusive of chargers and electrical capacity upgrades—to set up a charging station for their electric mowers. They also explored robotic mowers, but opted not to invest further in them due to higher mower and charging infrastructure costs. A municipal parks and recreation department estimated $250,000 to $300,000 to upgrade electrical service at 90-year-old service centers to accommodate the charging needs for an estimated 200 batteries that would be required to fully electrify their equipment inventory. Doing a lifecycle cost comparison of electric versus ICE options was uncommon among interviewees. However, a state environmental agency estimated that lifecycle costs are about even between electric and ICE commercial landscaping equipment. The agency found equipment costs—excluding batteries—to be about 10% to 15% more for small electric equipment (push mowers, trimmers, saws). On a lifecycle basis, the environmental agency reported batteries and charging (electricity) costs combined are roughly equivalent to what it would cost to fuel the equipment with gas. The agency had not yet quantified labor cost savings, which they expect to accrue from the time savings of operators not having to refuel or troubleshoot engines that won’t start. A representative from Austin Fleet Mobility Services also noted City of Austin departments that electrify their vehicle fleets and off-road equipment like landscaping equipment could benefit from operational cost savings because the typical electricity rate departments pay is lower than the per-gallon fuel price, which includes a surcharge imposed by Fleet Mobility Services to fund electric vehicle (and equipment) charging infrastructure Citywide. Another potential cost driver is the higher risk of theft of electric equipment. Some interviewees noted higher incidences of electric equipment, battery, and charger theft due to City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study B-3 their higher cost. One interviewee reported electric tool theft being less of a concern because the equipment isn’t functional without the proprietary batteries and chargers. Maintenance, Repair, and End of Life Management Many users reported less maintenance with electric equipment due to fewer moving parts being susceptible to failure. However, some interviewees perceived electric equipment to fail at inopportune times and without clear reason, and others expressed concern about the steep learning curve with more advanced electric options like robotic mowers that require hard-to-find parts, specialty wiring, and programming software knowledge. Electric equipment manufacturers offer training, but this typically requires offsite travel, which can be a barrier. Some interviewees noted the potential for partnerships with local community colleges and trade schools to learn how to maintain and repair electric equipment, but none had yet pursued these partnerships. While lower maintenance needs are generally seen as a benefit of electric equipment, some interviewees were concerned about the inability to repair electric equipment and uncertainty about how to properly dispose of batteries, which they view as having a negative environmental impact, and inoperable equipment. Awareness of recycling options and manufacture take-back programs is limited among interviewees, though online research shows that some manufacturers accept batteries for recycling through local dealerships and national recycler partnerships. Weight and Ergonomics Equipment weight and ergonomics is another area where feedback was inconsistent. Some users reported electric equipment being lighter than ICE counterparts, while others felt they were heavier, especially with the backpack blowers and carrying around back-up batteries. Some find the handheld and backpack electric equipment is not designed for small bodies or small hands. For example, one municipal parks and recreation department noticed an increase in women and older crew members needing shoulder surgery after switching to electric backpack blowers. Others found the ergonomics improved, especially with the latest model equipment, and found push button start easier and safer than pull strings. City of Austin Commercial Landscaping Equipment Electrification Market Study B-4