Appendix D Benefit-Cost Analysis

Appendix D Benefit-Cost Analysis

Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County Electric Bus Initiative TIGER Discretionary Grant Program Benefit-Cost Analysis Supplementary Documentation April 29, 2016 1

Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 2. INTRODUCTION... 6 3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK... 6 4. PROJECT OVERVIEW... 7 4.1 Base Case and Alternatives... 7 4.2 Types of Impacts and Affected Population... 7 4.3 Project Cost and Schedule... 8 4.4 Effects on Long-Term Outcomes... 8 5. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS... 9 6. DEMAND PROJECTIONS... 9 7. BENEFITS MEASUREMENT, DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS... 10 7.1 State of Good Repair... 10 7.2 Quality of Life... 11 7.3 Environmental Sustainability... 12 8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND BCA OUTCOMES... 14 9. BCA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS... 15 10. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA TABLES... 17 2

Table of Tables Table 1: Project Costs... 8 Table 2: Expected Effects on Long-Term Outcomes and Benefit Categories... 8 Table 3: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of State-of-Good-Repair Benefits...10 Table 4: Estimates of State-of-Good-Repair Benefits...11 Table 5: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Quality of Life Benefits...12 Table 6: Estimates of Quality of Life Benefits...12 Table 7: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Environmental Sustainability Benefits...13 Table 8: Estimates of Environmental Sustainability Benefits...13 Table 9: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2015 Dollars*...14 Table 10: Benefit Estimates by Long-Term Outcome...15 Table 11: Quantitative Assessment of Sensitivity, Summary...16 Table 12: Annual Estimates of Total Project Benefits and Costs...18 Table 13: State of Good Repair: Annual Benefit Estimates...19 Table 14: Quality of Life: Annual Benefit Estimates...20 Table 15: Environmental Sustainability: Annual Benefit Estimates...21 3

1. Executive Summary The Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) Electric Bus Initiative includes the purchase of 15 all-electric, zero-emission buses, charging stations, solar power generation, battery storage, and the study and software to optimize electric bus operations. This project will transform the image and operating framework of public transportation in Washoe County, supporting the development of clean technologies in the transit industry. The primary benefits of the RTC Electric Bus Initiative include state of good repair, quality of life, and environmental sustainability. TIGER funds will be used in particular to replace 15 diesel buses in the RTC fleet that will have reached the end of their useful life with all-electric buses. They will also be used to purchase and install the necessary charging stations at the RTC transit centers and bus maintenance facility. RTC s electric vehicle program began in 2010, when the FTA awarded RTC $4.65 million for an Electric Bus Initiative under the Transit Investment for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) II program. In April 2014, four Proterra electric buses were placed into revenue service The program will be further enhanced in 2017 through the purchase of four Proterra electric buses which are part of a 2014 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant for the 4th Street/Prater Way Bus RAPID Transit Project. The Electric Bus Initiative in this grant application includes the acquisition of 15 additional electric buses, which would bring our fleet up to 21 electric buses. A table summarizing the changes expected from the project (and the associated benefits) is provided below. Table ES-1: Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits Current Status or Baseline & Problems to be Addressed Changes to Baseline / Alternatives Type of Impacts Population Affected by Impacts Benefits Summary of Results Discounted at 7%* Page # Use of diesel buses Replacement of 15 diesel buses by electric buses and purchase of charging stations, solar power generation, battery storage, and the study and software to optimize electric bus operations Reduction in bus maintenance Reduction in fuel consumption and energy costs Reduction in noise level Reduction in air criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions Agency (and by extension taxpayers) and transit riders Agency (and by extension taxpayers) and transit riders Transit riders (primarily) and local community Local community Maintenance cost savings Energy cost savings Noise pollution cost savings Emissions cost savings $2,518,757 11 $3,700,001 11 $17,981 12 $1,742,894 14 * All dollar values are in 2015 dollars discounted to 2016 with a 7 percent real rate. 4

The period of analysis used in the estimation of benefits and costs extends from 2016 to 2030. The total project costs are $8.8 million dollars 1 and are expected to be financed by Federal, State, and local funds. A summary of the relevant data and calculations used to derive the benefits and costs of the project are shown in Table ES-2 (in 2015 dollars). Based on the analysis presented in the rest of this document, the project is expected to generate $8.0 million in discounted benefits and $7.9 million in discounted costs, using a 7 percent real discount rate. Therefore, the project is expected to generate a net present value of $0.1 million and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01. Table ES-2: Summary of Pertinent Data, Quantifiable Benefits and Costs, Discounted at 7 percent Calendar Year Project Year Total Benefits State of Good Repair Quality of Life Environmental Sustainability Total Costs 2016 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2017 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,522,430 2018 3 $531,487 $391,630 $1,164 $138,693 $3,255,508 2019 4 $895,392 $666,500 $2,040 $226,853 $15,698 2020 5 $829,660 $628,264 $1,906 $199,490 $14,671 2021 6 $770,902 $593,467 $1,781 $175,654 $13,711 2022 7 $723,019 $564,219 $1,665 $157,136 $12,814 2023 8 $678,653 $533,869 $1,556 $143,228 $11,976 2024 9 $637,926 $505,702 $1,454 $130,770 $11,192 2025 10 $600,740 $478,793 $1,359 $120,588 $10,460 2026 11 $566,492 $453,646 $1,270 $111,576 $9,776 2027 12 $535,631 $429,952 $1,187 $104,491 $9,136 2028 13 $507,761 $407,696 $1,109 $98,956 $8,539 2029 14 $480,988 $386,549 $1,037 $93,403 $7,980 2030 15 $220,979 $178,470 $452 $42,057 $7,458 Total $7,979,633 $6,218,758 $17,981 $1,742,894 $7,911,350 1 This estimate only accounts for the difference in capital costs between the alternative (or build scenario) and the base case (or nobuild scenario). 5

2. Introduction This document provides detailed technical information on the benefit-cost analysis conducted in support of the grant application for the RTC Electric Bus Initiative. Section 3, Methodological Framework, introduces the conceptual framework used in the Benefit- Cost Analysis (BCA). Section 4, Project Overview, provides an overview of the project, including a brief description of existing conditions and proposed alternatives; a summary of cost estimates and schedule; and a description of the types of effects that the RTC Electric Bus Initiative is expected to generate. Section 5, General Assumptions discusses the general assumptions used in the estimation of project costs and benefits, while estimates of travel demand growth can be found in Section 6, Demand Projections. Specific data elements and assumptions pertaining to the long-term outcome selection criteria are presented in Section 7, Benefits Measurement, Data and Assumptions, along with associated benefit estimates. Estimates of the project s Net Present Value (NPV), its Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) and other project evaluation metrics are introduced in Section 8, Summary of Findings and BCA Outcomes. Next, Section 9, BCA Sensitivity Analysis, provides the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis. Additional data tables are provided in Section 10, Supplementary Data Tables, including annual estimates of benefits and costs, as well as intermediate values to assist DOT in its review of the application. 2 3. Methodological Framework Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) is a conceptual framework that quantifies in monetary terms as many of the costs and benefits of a project as possible. Benefits are broadly defined. They represent the extent to which people impacted by the project are made better-off, as measured by their own willingness-to-pay. In other words, central to BCA is the idea that people are best able to judge what is good for them, what improves their well-being or welfare. BCA also adopts the view that a net increase in welfare (as measured by the summation of individual welfare changes) is a good thing, even if some groups within society are made worseoff. A project or proposal would be rated positively if the benefits to some were large enough to compensate for the losses of others. Finally, BCA is typically a forward-looking exercise, seeking to anticipate the welfare impacts of a project or proposal over its entire life-cycle. Future welfare changes are weighted against today s changes through discounting, which is meant to reflect society s general preference for the present, as well as broader inter-generational concerns. The specific methodology developed for this application was developed using the above BCA principles and is consistent with the TIGER guidelines. In particular, the methodology involves: Establishing existing and future conditions under the build and no-build scenarios; Assessing benefits with respect to each of the five long-term outcomes identified in the February 23, 2016 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); 2 While the models and software themselves do not accompany this appendix, greater detail can be provided, including spreadsheets presenting additional interim calculations and discussions on model mechanics and coding, if requested. 6

Measuring benefits in dollar terms, whenever possible, and expressing benefits and costs in a common unit of measurement; Using DOT guidance for the valuation of travel time savings, safety benefits and reductions in air emissions, while relying on industry best practice for the valuation of other effects; Discounting future benefits and costs with the real discount rates recommended by the DOT (7 percent, and 3 percent for sensitivity analysis); and Conducting a sensitivity analysis to assess the impacts of changes in key analysis assumptions. 4. Project Overview RTC s electric vehicle program began in 2010, when the FTA awarded RTC $4.65 million for an Electric Bus Initiative under the Transit Investment for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) II program. In April 2014 four Proterra electric buses were placed into revenue service The program will be further enhanced in 2017 through the purchase of four Proterra electric buses which are part of a 2014 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant for the 4th Street/Prater Way Bus RAPID Transit Project. The Electric Bus Initiative in this grant application includes the acquisition of 15 additional electric buses, which would bring our fleet up to 21 electric buses. 4.1 Base Case and Alternatives The Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) Electric Bus Initiative includes the purchase of 15 all-electric, zero-emission buses, along with charging stations, solar power generation, battery storage, and the study and software to optimize electric bus operations (alternative). These electric buses will replace diesel buses in the RTC fleet that will have reached the end of their useful life in the next two years. If RTC is not awarded a TIGER grant, it will purchase diesel buses instead (base case). 4.2 Types of Impacts and Affected Population The project is expected to generate a number of benefits including: Reduced bus maintenance costs; Reduced energy costs; Support for the development of clean technologies; Improved access to jobs for residents of Washoe and Storey counties; Reduced vehicle noise pollution; Reduced fuel consumption; Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and air criteria pollutants. The RTC Electric Bus Initiative will serve the entire RTC transit service area in metropolitan Reno and Sparks, as well as the INTERCITY route to Carson City, the Nevada State Capitol. In addition, it may serve a potential new commuter service to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, in Storey County, where the new Tesla Gigafactory is under construction. Washoe County, with 7

almost 440,000 residents and 260,000 jobs, is the central employment and residential hub for Northern Nevada. 4.3 Project Cost and Schedule 3 As shown in Table 1 below, the net project cost is estimated at $8,797,000. Eight (8) buses will be purchased in 2017 and seven (7) buses will be purchased in 2018. New buses are assumed to be put in service the year following their purchase. Table 1: Project Costs Cost Category Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Net Cost* Bus $790,000 15 $11,850,000 $5,850,000 Other Bus Equipment $93,000 15 $1,395,000 $0 Fast Charger $349,000 3 $600,000 $600,000 Shop Charger $40,000 15 $1,047,000 $1,047,000 Charger Design and Installation $650,000 1 $650,000 $650,000 Battery Storage $400,000 1 $400,000 $400,000 Analysis and Performance Reporting $250,000 1 $250,000 $250,000 Total $16,192,000 $8,797,000 * Represents the difference in capital costs between the build scenario and the no-build scenario. 4.4 Effects on Long-Term Outcomes The main benefit categories associated with the project are mapped into the five long-term outcome criteria set forth by the DOT in the table below. Table 2: Expected Effects on Long-Term Outcomes and Benefit Categories Long-Term Outcome Benefit or Impact Category Description Monetized Quantified Qualitative State of Good Repair Reduction in Maintenance Costs Reduction in Energy Costs Maintenance cost savings from using electric buses Energy cost savings from using cheaper, renewable energy and smart charging technology Yes Yes 3 All cost estimates in this section are in millions of 2015 dollars, discounted to 2016 using a 7 percent real discount rate. 8

Long-Term Outcome Benefit or Impact Category Description Monetized Quantified Qualitative Economic Competitiveness Reduction in Transportation Costs Long-Term Job Creation Promotion of public transit across local communities Support for the development of clean technologies Yes Yes Quality of Life Better Access to Jobs Reduction in Noise Improved access to jobs for residents of Washoe and Storey counties Reduced vehicle noise pollution from using electric buses Yes Yes Environmental Sustainability Reduction in Environmental Emissions Fuel Consumption Savings No air criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from all-electric buses Reduced diesel fuel consumption from using allelectric buses Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. General Assumptions The methodology makes several important assumptions and seeks to avoid overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs. Specifically: Input prices are expressed in 2015 dollars; The period of analysis begins in 2016 and ends in 2030. It includes project development and construction years (2017 to 2018) and 12 years of operations for each new bus (2018 to 2029 or 2030 depending on the date the bus is put in service); A 7 percent real discount rate is assumed throughout the period of analysis; and A 3 percent real discount rate is used for sensitivity analysis. 6. Demand Projections The project is not expected to have a significant impact on RTC ridership, though some studies have shown that all-electric buses can attract new travelers. 4 Each bus is assumed to cover 500,000 miles over a 12-year lifecycle. 4 See for instance: Cal Poly. 2003. Master Plan: Circulation Element Suggestions for Implementation. Prepared by The Master Plan Circulation Group and Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers. 9

7. Benefits Measurement, Data and Assumptions This section describes the measurement approach used for each benefit or impact category identified in Table 2 (Expected Effects on Long Term Outcomes and Benefit Categories) and provides an overview of the associated methodology, assumptions, and estimates. 7.1 State of Good Repair To quantify the benefits associated with maintaining the existing transportation network in a state of good repair, the impacts of the project on bus maintenance costs and energy costs were estimated. 7.1.1 ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used in the estimation of state-of-good-repair benefits are summarized in the table below. Table 3: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of State-of-Good-Repair Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Maintenance Cost, Diesel Bus $ per Mile $1.00 RTC of Washoe County Maintenance Cost, Electric Bus $ per Mile $0.44 Proterra, Inc. Fuel Consumption Rate, Diesel Bus Energy Efficiency, Electric Bus Miles per Gallon Miles per kwh 3.51 RTC of Washoe County 0.58 Diesel Fuel Price $ per Gallon Varies* Electricity Price $ per kwh Varies* Current Average Demand Charges Estimated Average Demand Charges with Battery Storage $ per Month for 4 Buses $ per Month for 4 Buses PennState. 2012. STURAA Test 12 Year 500,000 Mile Bus from Proterra, Inc.: Model BE-35. The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. Energy Information Administration. 2015. Annual Energy Outlook 2015. (Inflated to $2015 with U.S. CPI) Energy Information Administration. 2015. Annual Energy Outlook 2015. (Inflated to $2015 with U.S. CPI) $2,850 RTC of Washoe County $1,500 RTC of Washoe County * The real costs of fuel and electricity vary over time (based on $2013 projections from the Energy Information Administration s Annual Energy Outlook 2015). 10

7.1.2 BENEFIT ESTIMATES Table 4 presents the monetized values of expected maintenance cost savings and energy cost savings from using electric buses and battery storage in 2018 and throughout the lifecycle of the project. In the first year, maintenance cost savings and energy cost savings amount to $186,667 and $261,711 respectively. Over the project lifecycle, maintenance cost savings and energy cost savings total $2.5 million and $3.7 million respectively, discounted at 7 percent. Table 4: Estimates of State-of-Good-Repair Benefits Benefit Category In Project Opening Year Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Maintenance Cost Savings $186,667 $4,200,000 $2,518,757 Energy Cost Savings from Using Electric Buses $192,861 $5,078,363 $2,978,110 Energy Cost Savings from Battery Storage $68,850 $1,202,850 $721,891 7.2 Quality of Life Electric buses produce significantly less noise than diesel buses, on average, thereby contributing the quality of life or riders and the local community. 7.2.1 METHODOLOGY As shown in Figure 1 below, noise pollution cost savings resulting from the use of all-electric buses are calculated based on the difference in the average sound pressure level, measured in decibel A-weighted or db(a), between electric buses and diesel buses. Figure 1: Structure and Logic Diagram for Estimating Noise Pollution Cost Savings Diesel bus Marginal external costs for noise, bus ($/mile) Exterior sound level for electric bus (db(a)) Bus mileage over lifecycle (mile) Legend Noise pollution cost savings ($) Input BCA Model Output 11

7.2.2 ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used in the estimation of quality of life benefits are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Quality of Life Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Sound Level, Diesel Bus db(a) 73.4 Sound Level, Electric Bus db(a) 53.3 External Cost for Noise, Bus $ per Mile $0.015 J. Ross, M. Staiano. 2007. A Comparison of Green and Conventional Diesel Bus Noise Levels. NOISE- CON 2007. PennState. 2012. STURAA Test 12 Year 500,000 Mile Bus from Proterra, Inc.: Model BE-35. The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. Federal Highway Administration. 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (Inflated to $2015 with U.S. CPI) 7.2.3 BENEFIT ESTIMATES Table 6 presents the monetized values of expected noise reductions in 2018 and over the lifecycle of the project. In the first year, noise pollution cost savings amount to $1,333. Over the project lifecycle, noise pollution cost savings total $17,981, discounted at 7 percent. Table 6: Estimates of Quality of Life Benefits Benefit Category In Project Opening Year (2018) Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Noise Pollution Cost Savings $1,333 $29,983 $17,981 7.3 Environmental Sustainability The project will also contribute to environmental sustainability through reduced consumption of diesel fuel. In the BCA, only the benefits from reduced emissions are monetized. Two categories of environmental impacts are considered for this project: reductions in carbon emissions and reductions in non-carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are measured in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent and non-carbon emissions include volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 7.3.1 METHODOLOGY Based on an average speed of 11 miles per hour, bus emission rates for Washoe County are obtained from Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) a tool provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Per-unit emission costs are applied to the emission 12

reduction volumes due to the use of zero-emission, electric buses. Figure 2 below, describes the structure and logic of the estimation of emissions cost savings. Figure 2: Structure and Logic Diagram for Estimating Emissions Cost Savings SO2 CO2 PM2.5 NOx Economic cost of VOC ($/metric ton) No-Build Aggregate emission volumes in build scenario (metric ton) Legend Emissions cost savings ($) Input BCA Model Output 7.3.2 ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used in the estimation of environmental sustainability benefits are summarized in Table 7 below. Table 7: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Environmental Sustainability Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Cost of Carbon Emissions $ per Metric Ton Varies* Cost of VOC Emissions $ per Metric Ton $2,032 Cost of PM2.5 Emissions $ per Metric Ton $366,414 Cost of SO2 Emissions $ per Metric Ton $47,341 U.S. DOT. 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Resource Guide. (Inflated to $2015 with U.S. CPI) Cost of NOx Emissions $ per Metric Ton $8,010 * The social cost of carbon increases over time because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater levels of climatic change. 7.3.3 BENEFIT ESTIMATES Table 8 presents the monetized values of expected reductions in emissions in 2018 and over the lifecycle of the project. In the first year, emissions cost savings amount to $308,346. Over the project lifecycle, emissions cost savings total $1.7 million, discounted at 7 percent. Table 8: Estimates of Environmental Sustainability Benefits 13

Benefit Category In Project Opening Year (2018) Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) $296 $6,385 $3,849 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) $83,751 $969,886 $643,641 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) $818 $9,920 $6,525 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) $37,445 $469,014 $305,568 Carbon (CO2) $31,863 $783,309 $783,309 Total $308,346 $2,238,514 $1,742,894 8. Summary of Findings and BCA Outcomes The tables below summarize the BCA findings. Annual costs and benefits are computed through 2030. As stated earlier, eight electric buses will be purchased in 2017 and seven more the following year. Benefits will accrue during the 12-year lifecycle of each bus. Table 9: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2015 Dollars* Project Evaluation Metric 7 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate Total Discounted Benefits $8.0 $10.3 Total Discounted Costs $7.9 $8.4 Net Present Value $0.1 $1.9 Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.01 1.23 Internal Rate of Return (%) 6.4% Payback Period (Year) 8 * Unless specified otherwise. Considering all monetized benefits and costs, the estimated internal rate of return of the project is 6.4 percent. With a 7 percent real discount rate, the project results in $8.0 million in total benefits and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01. With a 3 percent real discount rate, the net present value of the project increases to $10.3 million, for a benefit-cost ratio of 1.23. 14

Table 10: Benefit Estimates by Long-Term Outcome Long-Term Outcome Benefit Category 7 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate State of Good Repair Maintenance Cost Savings $2,518,757 $3,336,454 Energy Cost Savings $3,700,001 $4,950,189 Quality of Life Noise Pollution Cost Savings $17,981 $23,818 Environmental Sustainability Environmental Emissions Cost Savings $1,742,894 $1,989,531 Sum of Benefits $7,979,633 $10,299,992 Energy cost savings account for the highest benefits of all categories over the project lifecycle. They are anticipated to be $3.7 million when discounted at 7 percent and $5.0 million when discounted at 3 percent. Maintenance cost savings amount to $2.5 million with a 7 percent discount rate and $3.3 million with a 3 percent discount rate. Emissions cost savings are estimated at $1.7 million and $2.0 million with a 7 percent discount rate and a 3 percent discount rate, respectively. 9. BCA Sensitivity Analysis The BCA outcomes presented in the previous sections rely on a large number of assumptions and long-term projections; both of which are subject to considerable uncertainty. The primary purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to help identify the variables and model parameters whose variations have the greatest impact on the BCA outcomes: the critical variables. The sensitivity analysis can also be used to: Evaluate the impact of changes in individual critical variables how much the final results would vary with reasonable departures from the preferred or most likely value for the variable; and Assess the robustness of the BCA and evaluate, in particular, whether the conclusions reached under the preferred set of input values are significantly altered by reasonable departures from those values. The outcomes of the quantitative analysis for the Electric Bus Initiative using a 7 percent discount rate are summarized in Table 11 below. The table provides the changes in project NPV and resulting B-C ratio associated with variations in variables or parameters (listed in row), as indicated in the column headers. For instance, the sensitivity results show that a 20 percent reduction in electricity efficiency leads to a $0.22 million decrease in the NPV and a B-C ratio of 0.98. Also, when using EIA s high fuel price scenario, the NPV jumps to $2.6 million and the B-C ratio increases by 32 percent to 1.33. 15

Table 11: Quantitative Assessment of Sensitivity, Summary Parameters Change in Parameter Value Change in NPV New B-C Ratio Electricity Efficiency Fuel Cost Capital Cost Annual Maintenance Cost Low Electricity Efficiency (20% Reduction) -$0.16 0.98 High Electricity Efficiency (20% Increase) $0.20 1.02 Low Fuel Cost Scenario -$0.80 0.90 High Fuel Cost Scenario $2.60 1.33 Low Capital Cost (15% Reduction) $1.24 1.18 High Capital Cost (15% Increase) -$1.13 0.88 Low Annual Maintenance Cost (20% Reduction) $0.45 1.06 High Annual Maintenance Cost (20% Increase) -$0.34 0.96 16

10. Supplementary Data Tables This section breaks down all benefits associated with the relevant long-term outcome criteria (State of Good Repair, Quality of Life, and Environmental Sustainability) by year for the RTC Electric Bus Initiative. Supplementary data tables are also provided for some specific benefit categories. For example, estimates of annual emission reductions (in metric tons) and annual fuel consumption reductions (in gallons) are provided under Environmental Sustainability. 17

Table 12: Annual Estimates of Total Project Benefits and Costs Calendar Year Analysis Period Total Benefits Total Capital Costs Undiscounted Net Benefits Discounted Net Benefits at 7% Discounted Net Benefits at 3% 2016 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2017 2 $0 $4,839,000 ($4,839,000) ($4,522,430) ($4,698,058) 2018 3 $603,883 $3,727,231 ($3,123,348) ($2,724,021) ($2,942,226) 2019 4 $1,083,224 $19,231 $1,063,993 $879,694 $978,859 2020 5 $1,068,329 $19,231 $1,049,098 $814,989 $938,994 2021 6 $1,056,512 $19,231 $1,037,281 $757,191 $903,204 2022 7 $1,053,824 $19,231 $1,034,593 $710,205 $876,592 2023 8 $1,050,618 $19,231 $1,031,387 $666,677 $850,692 2024 9 $1,048,985 $19,231 $1,029,755 $626,734 $826,706 2025 10 $1,048,681 $19,231 $1,029,450 $590,280 $804,520 2026 11 $1,049,009 $19,231 $1,029,779 $556,716 $783,548 2027 12 $1,051,556 $19,231 $1,032,325 $526,494 $764,834 2028 13 $1,056,245 $19,231 $1,037,014 $499,223 $748,168 2029 14 $1,061,058 $19,231 $1,041,827 $473,008 $731,622 2030 15 $517,786 $19,231 $498,556 $213,521 $340,771 Total $12,749,710 $8,797,000 $3,952,710 $68,283 $1,908,227 18

Table 13: State of Good Repair: Annual Benefit Estimates Calendar Year Analysis Period Maintenance Cost Savings Energy Cost Savings Maintenance Cost Savings at 7% Energy Cost Savings at 7% Maintenance Cost Savings at 3% Energy Cost Savings at 3% 2016 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2017 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2018 3 $186,667 $261,711 $163,042 $228,588 $175,951 $246,687 2019 4 $350,000 $466,491 $285,704 $380,796 $320,300 $426,905 2020 5 $350,000 $473,526 $267,013 $361,251 $310,970 $420,722 2021 6 $350,000 $482,369 $249,545 $343,922 $301,913 $416,095 2022 7 $350,000 $496,740 $233,220 $330,999 $293,119 $416,012 2023 8 $350,000 $507,277 $217,962 $315,907 $284,582 $412,463 2024 9 $350,000 $518,891 $203,703 $301,999 $276,293 $409,617 2025 10 $350,000 $530,242 $190,377 $288,417 $268,246 $406,387 2026 11 $350,000 $542,390 $177,922 $275,724 $260,433 $403,589 2027 12 $350,000 $554,986 $166,282 $263,670 $252,847 $400,934 2028 13 $350,000 $568,210 $155,404 $252,292 $245,483 $398,531 2029 14 $350,000 $581,522 $145,238 $241,311 $238,333 $395,988 2030 15 $163,333 $296,858 $63,343 $115,127 $107,983 $196,258 Total $4,200,000 $6,281,213 $2,518,757 $3,700,001 $3,336,454 $4,950,189 19

Table 14: Quality of Life: Annual Benefit Estimates Calendar Year Analysis Period Reduction in Noise Reduction in Noise at 7% Reduction in Noise at 3% 2016 1 $0 $0 $0 2017 2 $0 $0 $0 2018 3 $1,333 $1,164 $1,256 2019 4 $2,499 $2,040 $2,287 2020 5 $2,499 $1,906 $2,220 2021 6 $2,499 $1,781 $2,155 2022 7 $2,499 $1,665 $2,093 2023 8 $2,499 $1,556 $2,032 2024 9 $2,499 $1,454 $1,972 2025 10 $2,499 $1,359 $1,915 2026 11 $2,499 $1,270 $1,859 2027 12 $2,499 $1,187 $1,805 2028 13 $2,499 $1,109 $1,752 2029 14 $2,499 $1,037 $1,701 2030 15 $1,166 $452 $771 Total $29,983 $17,981 $23,818 20

Table 15: Environmental Sustainability: Annual Benefit Estimates Calendar Year Analysis Period Reduction in Fuel Consumption (Gallon) Reduction in Air Emissions (Metric Ton) Reduction in Air Emissions ($) Reduction in Air Emissions at 7% Reduction in Air Emissions at 3% 2016 1 0 0 $0 $0 $0 2017 2 0 0 $0 $0 $0 2018 3 94,865 713 $154,173 $138,693 $147,152 2019 4 177,872 1,329 $264,235 $226,853 $246,967 2020 5 177,872 1,321 $242,304 $199,490 $222,168 2021 6 177,872 1,314 $221,645 $175,654 $199,629 2022 7 177,872 1,306 $204,585 $157,136 $181,474 2023 8 177,872 1,298 $190,843 $143,228 $167,252 2024 9 177,872 1,291 $177,596 $130,770 $154,004 2025 10 177,872 1,283 $165,940 $120,588 $142,712 2026 11 177,872 1,279 $154,121 $111,576 $131,976 2027 12 177,872 1,275 $144,071 $104,491 $123,141 2028 13 177,872 1,271 $135,537 $98,956 $115,889 2029 14 177,872 1,268 $127,037 $93,403 $108,695 2030 15 83,007 590 $56,429 $42,057 $48,473 Total 2,134,459 15,539 $2,238,514 $1,742,894 $1,989,531 21