DPR E-Buses For Bishkek

DPR: E-Buses for Bishkek
Client ADB
Version 01
Date 19/05/2020
Author Jürg Grütter, Grütter Consulting
Revision Bart Franken and Daniel Wunderlin, Grütter Consulting
Contact Rte. des Esserts 92, 1854 Leysin, Switzerland
jgruetter@transport-ghg.com, www.transport-ghg.com
2
Contents
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................... 7
1. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Overview Electric Buses ...................................................................................................................... 8
3. Public Bus Transport in Bishkek ........................................................................................................ 10
PART B: TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 12
4. Technology Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 12
4.1. General Considerations.............................................................................................................. 12
4.2. Technology Options ................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.2.2. Diesel Buses ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.2.3. CNG Buses ........................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.4. Conventional Trolleybuses .................................................................................................. 15
4.2.5. Hybrid Trolleybuses ............................................................................................................ 16
4.2.6. Overnight Charged BEBs ..................................................................................................... 17
4.2.7. Fast-Charged BEBs .............................................................................................................. 19
4.3. Comparison of Technologies ...................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.3.2. Comparison of Environmental Performance ...................................................................... 21
4.3.3. Financial and Economic Comparison of Technologies ........................................................ 23
4.3.4. Risks .................................................................................................................................... 26
4.4. Conclusions Preferred Technology Option ................................................................................ 30
4.4.1. Fossil versus Electric Buses ................................................................................................. 30
4.4.2. Comparison of e-Bus Options ............................................................................................. 31
C: THE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 33
5. Description of Preferred Technology Option .................................................................................... 33
5.1. Types of Buses to be Purchased................................................................................................. 33
5.2. Recommended Bus and Charging System ................................................................................. 33
6. Grid Impact and Grid Upgrades ........................................................................................................ 35
7. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 39
7.1. Current Emissions of Bishkek Public Transport Fleet................................................................. 39
7.2. Avoided Emissions with Project ................................................................................................. 39
E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

3
7.3. Life-Cycle Emissions ................................................................................................................... 40

7.4. Energy Impact of Project............................................................................................................ 40
7.5. Battery Disposal ......................................................................................................................... 41
8. Financial and Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 43
8.1. Bishkek Trolleybus Administration ............................................................................................ 43
8.2. Profitability of E-Bus Operations................................................................................................ 45
8.2.1. Government Perspective .................................................................................................... 45
8.3.2. Impact on Operating Company ........................................................................................... 46
8.3. Differential FIRR ......................................................................................................................... 46
8.4. Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 47
8.5. Summary Financial and Economic Analysis ............................................................................... 47
9. Social Impacts and Training & Capacity Building .............................................................................. 48
Annex 1: Methodological Approaches .................................................................................................. 50
A1.1. GHG Calculations ..................................................................................................................... 50
A1.1.1. GHG Levels ........................................................................................................................ 50
A1.1.2. Direct Emissions (TTW) ..................................................................................................... 51
A1.1.3. Direct plus Indirect Emissions (WTW) .............................................................................. 51
A1.1.4. Life Cycle Emissions .......................................................................................................... 53
A1.1.5. Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 54
A1.2. Pollutants ................................................................................................................................. 55
A1.2.1. Pollutants Levels ............................................................................................................... 55
A1.2.2. Tailpipe Emissions ............................................................................................................. 55
A1.2.3. Non-Combustion Emissions .............................................................................................. 55
A1.2.4. Indirect Emissions ............................................................................................................. 56
A1.2.5. Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 57
Annex 1.3. Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................... 58
Annex 2: Data ........................................................................................................................................ 60
References ............................................................................................................................................ 76

4
Abbreviations
AC Air Conditioning
ADB Asian Development Bank
BAU Business as Usual
BC Black Carbon
BEB Battery Electric Bus
BPTC Bishkek Public Transport Company
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BTC Bishkek Trolleybus Company
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CM Combined Margin
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
EAEU Eurasian Economic Union
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EEC Eurasian Economic Commission
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EU European Union
EV Electric Vehicle
FAME Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid and) Electric Vehicles
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
ICCT International Council on Clean Transportation
IEA International Energy Agency
IHME Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
NA North America
NCV Net Calorific Value
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPEX Operational Expenditure
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PM Particulate Matter
PRC People’s Republic of China
SCC Social Cost of Carbon
SOC State of Charge
SOH State of Health
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
TTW Tank-to-Wheel
UITP International Association of Public Transport
UNFCCC United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention
VAT Value Added Tax
WE Western Europe
WHO World Health Organization
WTT Well-to-Tank
WTW Well-to-Wheel

5
Summary
1. Bishkek suffers from severe air pollution, especially in winter. Around 50% of transport related
particle and NOx emissions result from buses. An electrification of bus operations could improve
significantly air quality and reduce noise.
2. Kyrgyzstan needs to import fossil fuels whilst having a surplus electricity production based 90% on
renewables. The country has a very low carbon factor of the power sector. The electrification of bus
services would reduce dependence on imported energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Fast-charged Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) are technically and financially the best option for
electrification of bus services in Bishkek. They can be operated on any routes, can be re-charged within
15-30 minutes, are not reliant on overhead catenaries and can also operate without problems during
harsh winter days.
4. BEBs only consume electricity during off-peak hours. Consequently, they do not use electric
generation capacity and transmission networks at times (winter) that these are scarce. Operation of
BEBs will increase electricity demand on average by 12 MWh per day i.e. 0.03% of national production.
5. Hybrid trolleybuses are not recommended as the trolleybus infrastructure demands in the near
future considerable investments. Compared with BEBs hybrid trolleybuses have the disadvantages of
less route flexibility, usage of electricity also during peak hours, high infrastructure investments and
higher total costs of ownerships. The future of electrification in buses is clearly with BEBs and their
different charging forms.
6. Fast-charged BEBs have a lower total cost of ownership than diesel, CNG or any other electric bus
alternative. This is due to very low operational costs as a resultant of low energy consumption and a
low electricity price as well as low maintenance costs. Electric buses also have a longer lifespan than
fossil units due to less vibrations and moving parts. The bus investment costs including charging
infrastructure is around double as for a fossil bus. The differential FIRR comparing the BEB with a diesel
or CNG bus is 6% and the EIRR 12%.
7. BEBs reduce compared to fossil units >90% of greenhouse gas emissions whilst not resulting in
combustion related air pollutants. Upstream production related emissions of battery manufacturing
are recovered within 3 months of operations. Contrary to widespread mis-believing’s CNG buses are
not better than modern diesel units concerning greenhouse gas emissions. This is due to the high
energy consumption of CNG buses in urban traffic and methane slip of such buses.
8. Municipal bus operators cover operational expenses through fare revenues and subsidies from the
municipal government. Vehicle investment costs and infrastructure costs e.g. for the trolleybus
infrastructure are paid by the government and not recovered through operational income. As in many
other cities bus operations are thus far from being profitable. BEBs will require a higher upfront
investment but will reduce operational costs of municipal bus operators significantly thereby
improving the financial sustainability of these companies as they will be less dependent on operational
subsidies to maintain operations. Usage of electric buses also reduces greatly the exposure to external
fossil energy price fluctuations thus improving the financial stability of municipal bus operators.
9. Fast charged BEBs offer a proven and sound technical solution for electrifying public transport in
Bishkek. They reduce greatly emissions and have due to reduced emissions of pollutants and less noise
also a positive social impact. The country can use national renewable energy resources instead of

6
imported fossil fuels and can thus reduce its political dependency and its balance of payments. BEBs
also have the important advantage of only consuming electricity during off-peak periods when
sufficient surplus capacity is available. Cost-wise they are competitive with fossil options and avoid
locking-in the country for another decade on fossil energy solutions, as would be the case with CNG
buses which have the same or even higher greenhouse gas emissions as diesel buses, still emit high
quantities of NOx and result in a financial and political dependency on imported fossil gas.
10. It is recommended to purchase 100 BEBs with 55 chargers of 100 to 300 KW (each equipped with
2 connectors) installed primarily at the two bus depots plus some chargers near to ends of bus routes.
New substations would be required at the bus depots. It is recommended to contract with a functional
bidding procedure one system supplier which provides the buses, the chargers and the necessary
electric grid upgrades such as transformers and substations i.e. a solution from off-take of electricity
to operating buses. This allows for a technically and financially optimal total system configuration and
avoids costly and potentially problematic interfaces between bus-charger and charger-grid. The total
expected investment for 100 BEBs, 55 chargers plus grid connections is 33 MUSD. Additional sums are
invested for bus depot upgrades, training and capacity building.

7
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Background
Kyrgyzstan is a landlocked country with mountainous terrain. Bishkek has a population of around 1
million inhabitants. Total net Greenhouse (GHG) emissions of Kyrgyzstan were in 2010 13 MtCO 2e of
which 7 MtCO2e were from the energy sector (54%). Within the energy sector transport accounted for
2.9 MtCO2e of emissions of which 99% are from the road transport sector. 2010 GHG emissions per
capita were on average slightly above 2 tCO2e/capita1. The long-term climate target is to limit GHG per
capita emissions to 1.23-1.58 tCO2e/capita reducing with domestic efforts emissions by 11-14% below
Business as Usual (BAU) by 2030 and 13-16% below BAU by 20502.
The direct (tank-to-wheel TTW) GHG emissions of the transport sector in Bishkek have been estimated
for 2018 at around 1.2 million tCO2e whilst direct plus indirect emissions (well-to-wheel WTW including
Black Carbon emissions) are estimated at around 1.5 MtCO2e.3 Passenger cars are the main source of
GHG transport emissions in Bishkek. Buses although representing only 1% of the vehicle fleet are
responsible for more than 10% of transport emissions of the city.
Bishkek suffers from severe air pollution especially during winter months. PM2.5 average monthly
concentrations during winter months are between 60 and 100 μg/m3 whilst in summer months they
drop to 10 μg/m3 or less (the average annual concentration in Bishkek in 2018 was 30 μg/m3 – this is
3x higher than the air quality guideline value of the WHO4)5. It is estimated that the transport sector
contributes to around 10 μg/m3 of pollution with the main source of PM2.5 during winter being from
heating. Diesel vehicles are the main source of PM2.5 vehicle emissions. 50% of transport related PM2.5
emissions of Bishkek are due to buses i.e. replacing all urban buses with electric units could reduce
the annual PM2.5 mean by around 5 μg/m3. This would be sufficient to achieve during 6 months of the
year PM2.5 levels below the WHO guideline (currently no month has values which are lower than the
maximum guideline level) but additional strong efforts in the heating sector would still be required to
achieve low enough emission values also during winter months.
Average monthly NO2 concentrations in Bishkek are around 0.06 mg/m3 with only small variations
between summer and winter. The WHO guideline maximum annual mean value is 0.04 mg/m3 i.e. also
in this case the pollution levels of Bishkek clearly exceed recommended annual means. Transport
emissions are responsible for around 70% of total NOx emission levels (40% of which comes from
buses). The scenario with 100% e-buses could lower average annual NO2 levels by 0.02 mg/m3. NO2
concentrations could thus be below the annual WHO maximum level for the entire year by replacing
fossil buses. It should be noted that replacing diesel buses with CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) units
would have a significant impact on reducing PM2.5 emissions. However, even modern CNG buses still
have high levels of NOx emissions i.e. CNG buses would not help significantly in improving the air
quality in this aspect.
1
3rd National Communication, 2016
2
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of Kyrgyz Republic
3
Grutter Consulting for ADB, 2019
4
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
5
Bishkek air quality values from IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation); calculations of
contribution from transport and buses from Grutter Consulting, 2020

8
Average monthly SO2 emission levels in Bishkek are between 2 and 3 μg/m3 which is well below the
WHO guideline level of 20 μg/m3 for 24 hours.
Since 2013, Russian emission regulations have been applicable to member states of the Eurasian
Economic Union (EAEU, formerly Eurasian Customs Union), which includes Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The EAEU technical regulations are adopted by the Eurasian
Economic Commission (EEC). The currently valid vehicle emission standard is thereby Euro 5/V (for
light duty vehicles since 2016 and for heavy duty vehicles since 2018) implying also the usage of Euro
5 fuels since 2018 with a maximum sulphur content of 15 ppm. However, a large share of vehicles
including buses are >10 years old and correspond basically to a Euro 2/II vehicle emission standard.
Kyrgyzstan produces more than 90% of its electricity output with hydropower and is a net exporter of
electricity. This results in a low carbon grid factor of 0.13 kgCO2/kWh.6 The country produced in 2017
15,500 GWh of electricity of which 14,200 GWh with hydropower. The hydropower potential is
estimated at 6x the current total production level7. At the same time the country meets less than 10%
of its national demand of gasoline, diesel and CNG with domestic production i.e. replacing fossil fuels
with electricity is not only positive for the environment but also favourable for balance of payments
as well as for energy independency.
The 3rd National Communication clearly identifies as mitigation measure to establish a favourable
environment for the import and taxation of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs). It also calls for fostering
of public transport. The Government of Kyrgyzstan is interested in promoting EVs especially as means
to reduce air pollution and to reduce dependency on energy imports. As first step they are working
on a roadmap for EVs and have eliminated the VAT (Value Added Tax) and custom tax for EVs. The
priority for the government is on electric buses, taxis and government vehicles.
2. Overview Electric Buses
In 2018 more than 430,000 electric buses plied the roads globally, with 98% of the total located in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC)8. E-buses in the PRC in 2018 made up around 18% of the total bus
fleet with many cities going for 100% electric bus fleets within the next few years, a target already met
by Shenzhen in 2018 with more than 16,000 e-buses operating in the city. Bloomberg NEF projects
that Battery Electric Bus (BEB) deployment will result in a tripling of e-buses until 2025 reaching 1.2
million units, with the large majority being operated in the PRC.
Outside PRC far less BEBs are operating - however, this is changing rapidly with many cities gearing up
for electric buses. India, as example initiated the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid and)
Electric Vehicles (FAME) program to stimulate the demand and the supply side of e-buses. The
government has sanctioned 5,600 electric buses in 64 cities under the second phase of FAME India
scheme9. Santiago de Chile already operates more than 400 e-buses thus having the largest fleet
6
OECD/IEA data for 2017
7
3rd National Communication of Kyrgyz Republic, 2016
8
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/in-shift-to-electric-bus-it-s-china-ahead-of-u-s-421-
000-to-300
9
400 intercity units and the rest urban buses; https://india.uitp.org/fame-ii-allocates-5595-electric-buses-64-
cities-thrust-public-transport

9
outside PRC10. Bogota, Colombia has also purchased around 400 electric buses11. Moscow operates
already 13 pure electric bus routes with 200 12m e-buses for 85 passengers 12 and will add another
200 units until August 202013. Moscow only wants to purchase e-buses from 2021. Minsk in Belarus is
also operating 60 electric buses14.
In Europe BEBs are since 2017 the largest segment of alternative fuel buses having passed the
previously dominant Compress Natural Gas (CNG) buses. In Western Europe plus Poland the largest
number of BEBs are operated in the Netherlands, followed by France, UK and Germany15. More than
2,500 BEBs are now operating in Europe next to electric trolleybuses16. Annual registration of new
BEBs has jumped from 35 units in 2015 to more than 1,100 units in 2019. Liquefied Petrol Gas (LPG)
buses are not being sold anymore since 2011, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and fuel-cell electric buses
have never taken off (each technology with less than 100 registered units) and only 7 plug-in hybrid-
electric buses have been registered in 2019 after a short surge in 2015. The most important trend is
however that CNG buses have clearly lost in importance and BEBs are now clearly the technology of
choice in Europe (as well as worldwide) when renovating a bus fleet with low-emission units.
Figure 1: Registration of Alternative Fuelled Buses in Europe
2,500
2,000
new registered buses
1,500
1,000
500
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CNG LNG LPG BEB PHEV FCEV
CNG: Compressed Natural Gas; LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas; LPG: Liquefied Petroleum Gas; BEB: Battery Electric
Bus; PHEV: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle; FCEV: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Source: https://www.eafo.eu/vehicles-and-fleet/m2-m3
10
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/santiago-de-chile-makes-another-electric-step-183-byd-
ebuses-ordered/
11
https://blogs.iadb.org/sostenibilidad/en/bogota-is-a-pioneer-in-acquiring-electric-buses-by-tender/
12
https://www.mos.ru/en/news/item/60142073/
13
https://kamaz.ru/en/press/releases/KAMAZ_will_deliver_another_200_electric_buse_sto_Moscow/
14
https://www.tvr.by/eng/news/ekonomika/do_leta_kolichestvo_elektrobusov_na_ulitsakh_minska_uvelichitsy
a_v_5_raz/
15
Sustainable Bus, April 2020, https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63263584/sustainable-bus-2020-
04
16
London has the largest e-bus fleet in Europe with nearly 300 units as of early 2020;
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/95979/three-london-double-deck-bus-route-now-fully-
electric/

10
The International Association of Public Transport UITP estimates that the market share of urban
electric buses will be more than 50% by 203017. Multiple cities all over Europe, from small to large
cities have declared that their fleet will be fully electric. For example, Basel in Switzerland will replace
all fossil units by 2025 with e-buses, in Paris by 2025 two thirds of the fleet must be electrically
powered and one third biogas powered, all public transport buses purchased in the Netherlands must
be emission free by 2025 or Moscow will not purchase any fossil buses anymore from 2021.
The PRC also dominates the BEB manufacturing market with Yutong (market leader with around 20%),
BYD18, Zhongtong and Jinlong having a combined market share of 50%19. However, outside PRC other
bus makers have also started producing e-buses at increasing numbers e.g. in Europe Irizar (which
inaugurated recently Europe’s first plant dedicated to e-mobility), Iveco, MAN, Mercedes, Optare,
Scania, Solaris, VDL, and Volvo; in Indian manufacturers such as TATA or Ashok Leyland (jointly with
Optare UK); in Russia Kamaz and GAZ; in Turkey Bozankaya, in Belarus Belkommunmash and in the
US manufacturers include New Flyer and Proterra. In Western Europe plus Poland the top-selling BEB
brands in 2019 were VDL (23% of market share), followed by BYD (14%), Solaris (9%), Volvo (8%), Irizar
(8%), Mercedes (8%), Yutong (6%) and Ebusco (6%). All other manufacturers sold in 2019 less than 100
BEBs in Western Europe20.
3. Public Bus Transport in Bishkek
Public transport shares are gradually decreasing in Bishkek whilst the number of passenger cars is
increasing strongly. Whilst the population of Bishkek only grew by 28% between 2005 and 2018 the
number of cars increased by factor 5 from 61,000 units in 2005 to more than 330,000 passenger cars
by 2018. This has resulted in a significant increase in the passenger car density of Bishkek reaching
around 330 cars per 1,000 inhabitants (see figure below).
Figure 2: Passenger Car Density Bishkek (passenger cars per tsd inhabitants)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: http://www.stat.kg/ru/publications/publikaciya-socialnye-tendencii-kyrgyzskoj-respubliki/
17
UITP, 2017
18
BYD has also various joint ventures in other countries for e-bus production e.g. in the UK with ADL or in India
with Olectra
19
Bloomberg NEF, 2018
20
Chatrou – CME solutions, 2020; see Sustainable Bus, April 2020,
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63263584/sustainable-bus-2020-04

11
Public bus-based transport is provided in Bishkek by private minibuses (so called “marshrutki”),
electric trolleybuses managed by the Municipal enterprise “Bishkek Trolleybus Management” and
medium to large fossil buses operated by the municipal enterprise "Bishkek Passenger Motor
Transportation Enterprise”. It is estimated that private minibuses transport 80-90% of passengers21.
The Bishkek Trolleybus Company (BTC) and the Bishkek Public Transport Company (BPTC) manage
around 180 operational trolleybuses, 52 of which have been acquired recently (2018) with support of
the EBRD plus around 450 CNG and diesel buses. Around 40 private operators manage some 3,000
minibuses running in Bishkek. The majority of minibuses are old or very old units (over 15 years).
The trolleybus network has seen underinvestment over many years, with partial replacements of
equipment being made over the last few years. Replacements have not been made systematically
along certain lines but based on the most urgent demands. This means that all lines include still old
equipment and will require investments for updating lines. Also, voltage levels might not be
sufficiently stable on all the current network thus limiting the usage of latest generation trolleybuses.
21
See OECD, 2019, table 6.11 for 2016 which excludes however passengers transported by trolleybuses

12
PART B: TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS
4. Technology Alternatives
4.1. General Considerations
The current bus fleet of municipally operated 12m urban buses are diesel Euro II, CNG EEV and
standard trolleybuses (with and without energy recovery). The trolleybus infrastructure has been
partially renovated. Renovations have not been systematically upon specific trolleybus lines but based
on demand i.e. faulty and oldest equipment have been replaced. All trolleybus lines will thus need
further investments to continue operations in the future. The basic technical conditions of a trolleybus
infrastructure include a traction power supply system with substations, cable lines, overhead lines as
well as various fittings and masts. The latest generation of trolleybuses may have difficulties to operate
on the current network because they require a stable voltage level22.
Buses operate in winter with heating and partially in summer with AC. The curve below indicates
average monthly temperatures in Bishkek. Based on average temperatures new buses should be
equipped with an efficient heating system as well as with AC. AC usage is previewed during 3 months
(June to August) and heating during up to 8 months, but especially from November to February. During
these months temperatures can be significantly below 0 degrees which puts stress on a heating
system, relevant especially for Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) as this will result in significantly higher
energy usage plus longer charging times. Temperatures during the night can fall well below -100 C.
Figure 3: Temperature Curve Bishkek
Source: https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/kyrgyzstan/bishkek-climate
BEBs can also be used in cold climates. Many cities with comparable climatic conditions (e.g. Beijing)
or even harsher winters than those experienced in Bishkek use BEBs. Harbin for example, considered
one of the coldest cities on earth and often referred to as “ice city” due to its harsh winter with average
January temperatures of minus 22 to 24 degrees centigrade and cold days reaching minus 40, operates
successfully 600 Yutong BEBs since 2 years (100% electric buses, no diesel engine for heating23). The
electricity demand during cold winter days can be up to 40% higher than during a spring or autumn
day without heating and without AC. This is largely due to the heating system, which should be
22
See OECD, 2019, p. 117
23
The same bus brand has also been purchased for operations in Helsinki, Finland

13
optimized (highly efficient heating system, well-isolated buses with double-glazed windows) and also
temperature setting should be optimized (maximum 16-180C; the bus driver can keep on the jacket,
passengers anyway have on their coats). Pre-heating of buses prior operational start as well as keeping
buses in protected areas during the night are important to reduce the drain on batteries and to keep
batteries from getting to cold which not only reduces the driving range but also affects the capacity of
batteries to take up power. Also, during work breaks the driver should not park the bus at wind
exposed and shady sites but rather in the sun. Additionally, in snowy or icy conditions, BEBs may
experience a reduction in the energy captured during regenerative braking. If the bus detects slippery
conditions, regenerative braking is automatically turned off to avoid skidding.
Electricity consumption in cold winter days might therefore be higher than the projected energy
consumption. This will reduce the driving range of the bus and will increase the charging time. With
overnight-charged BEBs the solutions to this problem are by designing buses with larger battery sets,
by using the methods described previously to prevent drain on batteries during the winter and by
using especially older BEBs in winter on shorter routes. Technical solutions for cold winter days for
fast-charged BEBs are re-charging the batteries twice instead of once during the day or re-charging
batteries for a slightly longer time period (e.g. 30 instead of 20 minutes). For hybrid trolleybuses the
bus battery design is sufficient to cope with increased electricity demand on non-catenary routes even
during harsh winter conditions. However, during cold winter days the electricity demand on the
catenaries might be too large during certain times or segments of the route to allow for battery re-
charging. To solve this problem, an upgrade of the trolleybus infrastructure is required.
4.2. Technology Options

4.2.1. Overview
Technology options considered are based on new standard 12m urban buses with low-entry, AC and
heating. Following technology options are considered:
• Diesel Euro V;
• CNG EEV;
• Conventional trolleybus;
• Hybrid trolleybus;
• Overnight charged BEB (slow-charged BEB);
• Fast-charged BEB.
Options which are not considered are:
• LPG, LNG or fuel-cell electric units as these are not anymore or not yet commonly used
technologies for buses.
• Hybrid or plug-in hybrid units (diesel or gaseous-hybrids): hybrids reduce fuel consumption by
around 20% but only have a limited impact on reducing GHG emissions and other pollutants.
Their operational costs are comparable to fossil units whilst purchase costs are higher. Plug-
in hybrid buses are complex to manage and significantly costlier than hybrid units24. They
therefore do not represent an attractive option from the environmental and the financial
viewpoint. Hybrid buses were considered an intermediate technology until BEBs being
24
The overwhelming majority of plug-in hybrid buses used in PRC are for example never charged from the grid
and are thus used just like conventional hybrids; see ADB, 2018

14
technology ripe but the rapid progress of battery technology has made this technology option
obsolete reflected also in low and decreasing sales numbers of such buses.
• Biofuel powered buses (biodiesel, bio-ethanol or biomethane). The bus technology is in this
case the same as for a diesel or CNG bus using biofuels instead of fossil fuels. Biofuels are not
readily available in Bishkek and thus these options are not considered.
4.2.2. Diesel Buses
The EAEU technical regulations are adopted by the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The
currently valid vehicle emission standard is thereby since 2018 Euro V for heavy duty vehicles. This is
therefore taken as the emission standard for a new fossil bus. The following table summarizes main
characteristics of a new Euro V diesel bus. The cost of a diesel filling station is not included as the
diesel price used with financial calculations is the final retail price which already includes all costs of
establishing and operating a filling station.
Table 1: Main Characteristics of an Urban 12m Euro V Diesel Bus
Parameter Value Source
Various cities in Asia; OECD (2019) assumes USD 126,000
Bus CAPEX 120,000 USD
for a Euro VI bus for Bishkek
Maintenance cost excl. tyres 0.05 USD/km Based on current maintenance cost of diesel units of BPTC
Energy usage 44 l/100km EEA (2019), COPERT model Tier 3 with 15 km/h average
PM2.5 emissions 0.07 g/km speed, 0% gradient and 50% load factor; average of SCR
NOx emissions 9.24 g/km and EGR technology
GHG emissions TTW 1,173 g/km Based on NCV and EFCO2 of diesel and energy usage
WTT based on diesel mark-up factor of 23% (UNFCCC,
GHG emissions WTW incl. BC 1,492 g/km 2014); BC based on BC fraction of PM2.5 (EEA, 2019) and
the GWP of BC (IPCC, 2013)
Bus lifespan 14 years Based on 1 million km (70,000 km/a)
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure; GHG: Greenhouse Gases; TTW: tank-to-wheel (direct emissions); WTW: well-to-
wheel (direct + indirect emissions); WTT: well-to-tank; BC: Black Carbon; NCV: Net Calorific Value; EFCO2: CO2
emission factor; GWP: Global Warming Potential; EGR: Exhaust Gas Recirculation; SCR: Selective Catalytic
Reduction
Note: See for the methodological approach for calculations on GHG and pollutant emissions Annex 1 and for
data details Annex 2
4.2.3. CNG Buses
The comparison CNG bus is an EEV (Enhanced Environmentally Friendly Vehicle). The following table
summarizes its main characteristics. The cost of a CNG filling station is not included as the CNG price
taken for financial calculations is the final retail price which already includes all costs of establishing
and operating a CNG filling station.
Table 2: Main Characteristics of an Urban 12m EEV CNG Bus
Typically, 15% higher than for diesel bus; OECD (2019)
assumes USD 145,000 for Euro VI CNG bus for Bishkek
Based on 20% higher maintenance cost for CNG units
Maintenance cost excl. tyres 0.06 USD/km
compared to diesel buses
Energy usage 49 kg/100km
EEA (2019), COPERT model Tier 3 with 15km/h average
PM2.5 emissions 0.01 g/km
speed, 0% gradient and 50% load factor
NOx emissions 4.84 g/km

15
Based on NCV and EFCO2 of CNG and energy usage; direct

GHG emissions TTW 1,457 g/km
methane slip based on ICCT (2015)
WTT based on CNG mark-up factor of 18% (UNFCCC,
2014); BC based on BC fraction of PM2.5 (EEA, 2019) and
GHG emissions WTW incl. BC 2,014 g/km
GWP of BC (IPCC, 2013); direct plus indirect methane slip
based on ICCT (2015)
Bus lifespan 14 years Based on 1 million km (70,000km/a)
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure; GHG: Greenhouse Gases; TTW: tank-to-wheel (direct emissions incl. direct
methane slip within bus); WTW: well-to-wheel (direct + indirect emissions including indirect methane slip at
filling station); WTT: well-to-tank; BC: Black Carbon; NCV: Net Calorific Value; EFCO2: CO2 emission factor; GWP:
Global Warming Potential
Compared to the diesel bus a CNG unit has a slightly higher CAPEX and higher maintenance costs but
lower energy costs due to low CNG prices. CNG buses have lower levels of air pollutants than diesel
units (especially PM2.5) but higher GHG emissions due to high energy usage as well as methane slip.
GHG emissions of CNG buses have long been underestimated due to assuming too low energy
consumption levels25 and due to not including non-regulated methane slip emissions. From above
table it is however clear that CNG buses are not a solution to reduce global warming.
4.2.4. Conventional Trolleybuses
Conventional trolleybuses require overhead wiring for the entire route. Such buses are currently being
used in Bishkek. An important financial point concerns the investment required to refurbish the
trolleybus infrastructure. Risks or problems of trolleybuses are that they are dependent on a constant
electricity supply and have a very limited flexibility in usage i.e. they cannot operate outside the area
of overhead wiring. The following table summarizes the main characteristics of conventional
trolleybuses.
Table 3: Main Characteristics of an Urban 12m Conventional Trolleybus
Bus CAPEX 150,000 USD OECD (2019) and BTC
Based on renovation of 40% of lines; 0.7 MUSD per km
return line (based on Jinan, PRC – the average cost
Infrastructure CAPEX per bus 180,000 USD worldwide is >1 MUSD); 217 km single line trolleybus
network with capacity for 170 trolleybuses; 20-year
lifespan of investments
Maintenance bus excl. tyres 0.05 USD/km BTC (audited financial accounts 2018)
BTC based on actual costs 2019 (24 million Som) and
Maintenance infrastructure 0.04 USD/bus-km
actual distance driven same year (9.2 million km)
Based on a modern trolleybus; the electricity usage of
current trolleybuses operating based on 2019 data of
Energy usage 1.3 kWh/100km
traction electricity used (17.5 GWh) and distance
driven (9.2 million km) results in 1.9 kWh/km26
PM2.5 / NOx emissions 0 g/km No combustion (tailpipe) emissions
25
Energy consumption levels as included in the EEA (2019) model are also confirmed by large fleet managers
of latest-technology CNG buses e.g. in Medellin/Colombia with an average consumption of 52 kg/100km
(monitoring realized by Metro Medellin, data management by Grutter Consulting; registered CDM project of
the UNFCCC)
26
The electricity usage of current trolleybuses is much higher than of modern units as many units operated by
BTC lack regenerative energy systems or are old inefficient buses

16
GHG emissions TTW 0 g/km No combustion (tailpipe) emissions

GHG emissions WTW 167 g/km Based on carbon grid factor of Kyrgyzstan (OECD/IEA)
2 years more than diesel bus due to less vibrations and
Bus lifespan 16 years
less moving parts
wheel (direct + indirect emissions)
4.2.5. Hybrid Trolleybuses
A hybrid trolleybus27 has typically an electric battery of 30-80 kWh with a range of autonomy without
catenary of up to 40 km. Mostly such buses are operated on routes where the last 5-20 km are without
catenary whilst buses drive with overhead wiring in the central business district. The power
requirement from the overhead line will increase significantly compared to usage of conventional
trolleybuses, because in addition to the electricity needed for driving, electricity is also needed to
charge the battery. Especially on sections of line used by several routes, it may be necessary to
increase the feed-in power. In such cases, it may make sense to think about shorter feed-in sections
or increasing the feed-in voltage, which would bring additional stability to the overhead line network.
If insufficient power is available the batteries will not be able to re-charge and the hybrid trolleybus
might not be able to fulfill its route on the section without catenary.
Disconnection and especially connection to the catenary is often manual or semi-automatic.

Automatic connections are in general done at bus stops during boarding and de-boarding of
passengers (time requirement around 15 seconds) and require precise positioning of vehicles. Manual
connection takes more time (around 2 minutes) thus resulting in intermediate stops along the route.
Trolleybuses with automated connectivity equipment are more expensive and also require some
minor additional investments of infrastructure at sites of connection (funnels).
The major advantage of such buses compared to conventional trolleybuses is that they have a higher
flexibility of usage and require less infrastructure investments and maintenance. However, bus
purchase costs are higher compared to conventional trolleybuses. Hybrid trolleybuses are used for
example in various Swiss and Chinese cities and various bus manufacturers produce such units. The
following table summarizes main characteristics of hybrid trolleybuses.
Table 4: Main Characteristics of an Urban 12m Hybrid Trolleybus
Based on PRC cost with 40 kWh battery (e.g. Beijing);
BTC received an offer from Belkommunmash with 50
kWh battery for 280,000 USD; OECD (2019) assumes
290,000 USD; manual connection system
Based on renovation of 40% of lines; 0.7 MUSD per km
return line (based on Jinan, PRC – the average cost
108,000 USD
worldwide is >1 MUSD); 217 km single line trolleybus
trolleybus
network with capacity for 170 trolleybuses; 20-year
Infrastructure CAPEX per bus infrastructure +
lifespan; 40% without overhead wiring i.e. capacity for
11,000 USD
280 buses; chargers based on 50 kW charger per bus
chargers
for overnight charging; includes charger plus
installation costs
27
Some manufacturers also use the term In-Motion Charging (IMC) for hybrid trolleybuses

17
20% higher than for conventional trolleybuses due to

Maintenance bus excl. tyres 0.06 USD/km
additional battery system
Based on cost of trolleybus infrastructure conventional
Maintenance infrastructure 0.03 USD/bus-km trolleybuses but additional number of buses (partial
driving outside catenaries) thus lower cost per km bus
Energy usage 1.3 kWh/100km Based on modern trolleybus
less moving parts
wheel (direct + indirect emissions)
4.2.6. Overnight Charged BEBs
Overnight charged BEBs have large battery sets which are charged during the night. Batteries of such
buses cannot be fast charged i.e. the battery pack must be sufficient to operate the entire day without
re-charging. Slow charging is the “oldest” BEB technology as previously batteries were not capable of
receiving high-power charges. More than 300,000 such buses are in operations. If the battery set is
too big this might go at expense of the passenger carrying capacity (100 kWh of battery weight
approximatively 1 ton) as the back-axle will get overloaded.
Major advantages of such buses are their route flexibility, their simple operations and relatively simple
chargers with charging of buses realized during off-peak power demand periods at night. The major
disadvantages of slow-charged BEBs are a high bus investment cost, a high bus weight due to having
a large quantity of batteries on-board, a higher tyre usage of such units (due to increased bus weight)
and the risk of not being able to comply with the required range and thus not being fully operational.
Bus electricity consumption will vary with usage of heating and AC and also depends on traffic
conditions, the load factor and the driver. Over the years the battery diminishes its energy retention
capacity i.e. the State of Health / State of Charge (SOH/SOC) of batteries is originally 100% and then
drops to around 80% within 8 years28. This means that the driving range with a full battery will drop
slowly. Operators can circumvent this problem by using new units on longer routes and older BEBs for
shorter ones.
The design of the required battery capacity to cover daily average operations is critical and needs to
take into account the following factors:
• Average electricity consumption of slow-charged BEBs (1.2 kWh/km)29;

• Maximum daily distance driven (operational plus dead-km; in the case of Bishkek 235 km);
• Risk ratio due to higher energy usage for heating/AC, exceptional driving circumstances, bad
driver etc. The risk ratio taken is 10%;
28
Electric bus manufacturers from PRC guarantee 80% SOH for 8 years. The SOC has an important role in
determining the remaining capacity of the battery pack. The SOH is an important indicator of a battery's
life. The SOH reflects the ability of a battery to deliver and receive of energy and power. In this report SOC and
SOH are used as synonyms.
29
Slightly higher than of fast-charged units due to additional bus weight

18
• Reserve ratio: buses cannot be driven until their batteries are empty as buses might get
stranded; Also, batteries might get a reduced life-span if used until 0% SOC. A 20% reserve
ratio is considered a minimum. Most Chinese operators apply a reserve ratio of 20-30% i.e.
drivers must return to the bus depot if the SOC falls below these values;
• SOC drops over time: buses shall also be able to comply with operational requirements in
later years. The SOC of buses initially drops fast and then flattens out. In year 8 batteries will
have a SOC of around 80% i.e. the calculation is made with a 20% loss of SOC.
Typically, a manufacturer will claim that with a 350 kWh battery set (typical for an overnight charged
bus) the driving range is over 300 km. This might be correct for a new bus on a standardized route.
However, it is not the battery size required to ensure safe, reliable, continuous operations also in some
years from now. The following graph shows the required battery set for overnight charged buses for
usage in Bishkek.
Figure 4: Recommended Battery Size for Overnight Charged BEBs in Bishkek (235 km of operations)
Source: Grutter Consulting
A battery set of around 480 kWh would be required to comply with operational demands of Bishkek.
Buses with such battery sets are available e.g. MAN Lion’s City E has a battery capacity of 480 kWh
using NMC (Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide) batteries. Based on the average daily electricity
consumption and the availability of 6 hours during the night for charging buses, the required charging
power per bus is around 60 kW. The following table summarizes the main features of an overnight or
slow-charged BEB.
Table 5: Main Characteristics of an Urban 12m Overnight Charged BEB
Bus CAPEX 300,000 USD Various offers from PRC manufacturers excl. chargers
Recommended battery capacity to ensure a daily
Battery capacity of bus 480 kWh
driving range of 235 km; charging during the night
60 kW charger per bus; includes charger plus
Infrastructure CAPEX per bus 26,000 USD
installation costs

19
Battery replacement cost Based on expected decrease of battery costs (DOE

58,000 USD
year 8 projections)30
60% lower than for diesel bus based on experience of
large operators in PRC (ADB, 2018)
Maintenance infrastructure 1% CAPEX
Based on median value with heating/AC of PRC
operators with large fleets of BEBs (ADB, 2018);
average values of large fleets of BEBs show 0.9-1.0
Energy usage 1.2 kWh/100km kWh/km without AC/heating; 1.1-1.3 kWh/km with AC
and 1.3 -1.6 kWh/km in winter with heating (upper
value during December/January) with temperatures as
in Bishkek31.
less moving parts; 1x replacement of batteries
wheel (direct + indirect emissions); BEB: Battery Electric Bus
4.2.7. Fast-Charged BEBs
Fast charged BEBs can be re-charged from 20-80% of SOC of batteries within 30 minutes or less.
Batteries on such buses can receive high-powered charges. Buses are typically charged during the
night and once or twice during the day depending on usage. Opportunity charged BEBs are also fast-
charged units. Opportunity charging is basically done at the end of the bus route whilst waiting to start
the next turn-around. Buses are thus partially re-charged every 20-30 km (depending on the route
length) thus allowing for smaller batteries. However, they can only be used on charger-equipped
routes and also require space and sufficient time (5-10 minutes) at the end of routes. Another version
of fast-charged BEBs is flash-charging buses during 15-30 seconds whilst passengers board and de-
board the bus. This system is basically used for Bus Rapid Transit systems with larger articulated buses
and requires charging facilities at every 2nd to 4th station. Opportunity charging is automated (in
general with a pantograph).
For Bishkek the most flexible and cost-effective option is manually fast-charged BEBs with charging
realized once, and if required, twice per day. Re-charging during the night shall only occur outside
peak electricity demand. In general re-charging will be done at the bus depot i.e. the bus returns to
the bus-depot during off-peak transit times for 15-30 minutes e.g. when switching drivers. As bus
depots are relatively centrally located various bus lines end at the proximity of the bus depots and
buses could be driven back to the depot without major loss of time or distance driven. Another option
30
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/67089%20EERE%20LIB%20cost%20vs%20price%20metrics%2
0r9.pdf
31
Note: European manufactured BEBs tend to use more energy than good PRC products; BEBs are more
efficient in electricity usage than trolleybuses due to better energy recovery and less losses in overhead
wirings; Cities which manage BEBs and trolleybuses on comparable routes e.g. in PRC show on average a 20%
higher energy usage of trolleybus systems

20
is to install some chargers near the end of routes where buses wait during off-peak operation periods.
Initially bus routes could be selected for electrification which end close to one of the bus depots.
The difference to slow-charged BEBs is that batteries of such buses can be charged with a higher power
e.g. 300-400 kW thus enabling a quick re-charging. 100 km of additional range can be charged in 30
minutes or less. This enables the bus to be operated without major range anxiety i.e. if required
another partial charge of 15-30 minutes is made during the day. This is a major advantage compared
to slow-charged BEBs for cities like Bishkek where limited experience with BEBs exist and the actual
electricity consumption e.g. during winter times, is not well known. Also, routes are not yet defined
and might thus require a longer daily distance driven than previewed. This will not present a problem
for fast-charged buses as they could simple be charged a bit longer or twice per day instead of once.
For slow-charged BEBs however, the battery set and the distance driven is fixed as charging during the
day would take too long. Another advantage of fast-charged BEBs is the smaller battery set on-board
the bus (thus reducing the bus CAPEX, the bus weight and tyre usage). Fast charged BEBs have become
the most popular BEBs in PRC as well as in Europe.
Based on the daily operation routine a battery set of 220 kWh is recommended for fast-charged BEBs
in Bishkek. This allows under normal circumstances and including risk and reserve ratios to operate
the entire day with 1 re-charge of 15-30 minutes. The following graph shows standard operating
procedures of a fast-charged BEB for Bishkek.
Figure 5: Operational Procedures Fast-Charged BEB
Bus 1 with break after 6 hours Bus 2 with break after 10 hours
120% 120%
100% 100%
SOC battery
SOC battery
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
cumulative distance driven on km cumulative distance driven in km
The following table summarizes the main features of a fast-charged BEB.

Table 6: Main Characteristics of Urban 12m Fast-Charged BEB
Various offers from PRC manufacturers excluding
chargers
Recommended battery capacity to ensure a daily
Battery capacity of bus 220 kWh driving range of 235 km with 1 re-charge during the
day and slow-charging during the night
300 kW chargers (7 buses per charger) and 100 kW
chargers per 2 buses during the night; includes charger
Infrastructure CAPEX per bus 38,000 USD plus installation costs; includes 5 300 kW chargers
distributed in the city close to end of routes for 100
BEBs.

21
Battery replacement cost Based on expected decrease of battery costs (DOE

28,000 USD
year 8 projections)32
60% lower than for diesel bus based on experience of
large operators in PRC (ADB, 2018)
Maintenance infrastructure 1% CAPEX
Based on median value with heating/AC of PRC
operators with large fleets of BEBs (ADB, 2018);
average values of large fleets of BEBs show 0.8-0.9
Energy usage 1.1 kWh/100km kWh/km without AC/heating; 1.0-1.2 kWh/km with AC
and 1.2 -1.5 kWh/km in winter with heating (upper
value during December/January) with temperatures
such as in Bishkek.
less moving parts; 1x replacement of batteries
wheel (direct + indirect emissions); BEB: battery Electric Bus
4.3. Comparison of Technologies

4.3.1. Introduction
A comparison is made between the different bus technologies concerning their environmental
performance, the comparative financial costs and the involved technical risks. The following table
shows common parameters used for comparison purposes.
Table 7: Common Parameters for Technology Comparison
Parameter Value
Annual distance driven per bus 70,000 km
Diesel price 0.64 USD/l
CNG price 0.46 USD/kg
Electricity price 0.03 USD/kWh
Exchange rate 85 SOM per USD
Discount value for Net Present Value 4%
Finance conditions 8-year term, 2.5% interest rate, fixed monthly payments
Charger cost 200 USD per kW of power of charger; 100% mark-up for
installation of chargers
Note: the lifespan of buses is 14 years for fossil and 16 years for electric buses; all prices as of March 2020
Source: BTC for mileage; energy prices MOE and local sources; discount value assumption author; finance
terms based on possible ADB loan (same conditions for all bus technologies)
4.3.2. Comparison of Environmental Performance
The local pollution and the GHG impact are assessed. The following graph compares the performance
of diesel, CNG and electric buses concerning the problematic local pollutants PM2.5 and NOx. These
32
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/67089%20EERE%20LIB%20cost%20vs%20price%20metrics%2
0r9.pdf

22
include only tailpipe (combustion) emissions. Non-combustion emissions due to brake and tyre
abrasion and re-suspension of particles, which can be significant, is not included. See Annex 1 for a
further discussion of combustion and non-combustion emissions.
Figure 6: Comparison of PM2.5 and NOx Emissions (g/km)
10
9
8
7
6
g/km
5
4
3
2
1
0
diesel CNG
NOx PM2.5
Source: Calculations by Grutter Consulting based on EEA (2019) COPERT model; see for the methodological
approach Annex 1 and for data details Annex 2
Obviously, e-buses are far better for local air quality and emit less pollutants than fossil buses.
Additionally, fossil units will degenerate over time and if maintenance is not optimal emissions can be
far higher than expected. It is therefore clear, that even modern fossil buses are a threat to human
health and a significant source of air pollution.
The following figure compares GHG direct plus indirect emissions of different bus technologies. Direct
emissions are based on tank-to-wheel i.e. combustion emissions. For electric units these are 0. Indirect
emissions are those caused for energy production (for fossil fuels these are based on a mark-up factor
for extraction, refinery and transport and for electricity emissions are based on electricity production
and transmission and distribution losses), GHG emissions related to Black Carbon and GHG emissions
related to methane slip within the bus and the filling station. Trolleybuses and BEBs have different
GHG emissions due to having different electricity consumption values.
Figure 7: Comparison of GHG Emissions (gCO2e/km, WTW incl. BC and methane slip)
2,500
2,000
gCO2e/km
1,500
1,000
500
0
Diesel CNG Trolleybus BEB
Source: Calculations by Grutter Consulting; see for the methodological approach Annex 1 and for data details
Annex 2

23
CNG buses are the worst-case scenario for the climate. This is due to high energy consumption of such
buses (they consume much more than manufacturers claim) and methane slip emissions within the
bus and at filling stations. The lowest emissions are from BEBs closely followed by hybrid or
conventional trolleybuses. The very low carbon grid factor of Kyrgyzstan results in very low WTW
emissions for electric units. Electric buses can reduce GHG emission by more than 90% in Bishkek
compared to fossil units.
A comparison is also made of life-cycle emissions (cradle to grave) including vehicle manufacturing
and disposal as well as battery manufacturing. Calculations are made for a 16-year lifespan. Vehicle
manufacturing emissions are higher for fossil units due to having a shorter life-span than electric
buses. Battery production related emissions are based on average values of a meta-study performed
by the ICCT (2018) and a replacement of batteries after 8 years.
Figure 8: Lifecycle GHG Emissions (tCO2e)
Source: Calculations by Grutter Consulting; see for the methodological approach Annex 1 and for data details
Annex 2
Considering lifecycle emissions BEBs are 80-90% better than fossil solutions. Battery production
related emissions are recovered with 3 months of operations i.e. after 3 months of operations a fossil
bus has emitted the equivalent of GHG emissions as resulting from battery production.
4.3.3. Financial and Economic Comparison of Technologies
The following table shows the financial comparison of alternatives. The financial comparison is based
on real constant prices in USD i.e. do not take into account inflation or real price increases/decreases
e.g. of energy prices. Calculation are based on differential costs i.e. only Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)
and Operational Expenditures (OPEX) which differ between technologies are included. This includes
the bus CAPEX plus infrastructure CAPEX and for OPEX energy, maintenance bus, maintenance

24
infrastructure, and finance costs. Costs such as drivers, bus depot or administration which are
independent of the technology chosen are not included. All technology alternatives can be managed
with the same number of buses. Overnight charged buses are equipped with sufficient batteries to
manage all routes and fast-charged buses are 1-2 times daily re-charged during off-peak periods
during 15-30 minutes i.e. do also not require additional buses33. The main comparison parameter is
the total cost of ownership (TCO) per kilometre. As mentioned, the TCO only includes differential costs
and not total operational costs of the bus company34.
Table 8: Financial Comparison of Technology Alternatives (all values in constant USD of 2019)
Hybrid Slow- Fast- Conventional
Parameter Diesel CNG
trolley charged BEB charged BEB Trolleybus
CAPEX bus 120,000 140,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 150,000
CAPEX chargers per bus 0 0 11,000 26,000 38,000 0
CAPEX trolleybus
0 0 108,000 0 0 180,000
infrastructure
Replacement cost
0 0 6,000 58,000 28,000 0
battery year 8
Energy cost p.a. 19,500 15,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 2,400
Maintenance cost bus
3,500 4,200 4,000 2,100 2,100 3,300
engine excl. labour p.a.
Maintenance
0 0 2,100 300 400 2,600
infrastructure p.a.
Finance cost year 1 to 8 1,600 1,800 3,400 4,300 3,800 4,300
Average annual OPEX
23,900 20,900 10,200 6,700 6,400 10,400
non-discounted
Net Present Cost with
360,000 350,000 450,000 410,000 350,000 400,000
discount rate
TCO per km non
0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.37 0.41
discounted
Source: Grutter Consulting, see Annex 2 for details
Electric buses are cost-competitive with fossil alternatives. This is primarily due to the very low
electricity price. The lowest cost alternatives are clearly fast-charged BEBs followed by conventional
trolleybuses. Hybrid trolleybuses and overnight charged BEBs have around 20% higher total costs than
fast-charged BEBs and standard trolleybuses (this is based on using only the current trolleybus
network; expansions to the network would increase significantly the costs of the conventional
trolleybuses).
Without grant the differential investment costs between a diesel or a CNG bus and a fast-charged BEB
would only be recovered in year 11 which is a very long time period. With a 30% grant the differential
investment is recovered in year 5 (see graph below). This clearly points to the necessity of concessional
support for the purchase of e-buses.
33
Fast-charging as structured for Bishkek is not based on opportunity charging at the end of the route during
some minutes which might require additional buses depending on headway and backlogs of buses as well as
battery size and charging power.
34
For an analysis of the profitability overall for the company see chapter 8

25
Figure 9: Differential Profit Fast-Charged BEB versus Diesel Bus with 30% Grant (cumulative, USD)
200,000
150,000
100,000
USD
50,000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-50,000
-100,000
Source: Grütter Consulting, see Annex 2 for details
A rapid assessment of the economic cost of emissions is made by assigning a monetary cost to
emissions of PM2.5, NOx, SO2, and CO2e and to noise35. The economic cost of air pollutants for Kyrgyzstan
are taken from an IMF (International Monetary Fund) publication and the cost of noise pollution from
a meta-study of the Victorian Transport Institute36 and updated to USD of 2019. The cost of pollutants
calculated by the IMF are based on local levels of pollution at the ground level and the impact on
health and costs caused by this type of pollution in Kyrgyzstan. This is based on the exposure of the
population to contamination and how increased pollution increases mortality risks using the World
Health Organization's dose response functions to concentration. The greater risk of mortality or, more
precisely, the value of premature death is valued economically on the basis of stated preference
studies performed by the OECD. The global warming externality cost is expressed through the social
cost of carbon (SCC). Latter is an estimate of the economic damages associated with an increase in
CO2 emissions. Valuating the economic damage of CO2 emissions is complex and very much dependent
on discount rates. The SCC value is based on ADB (2017). The following table shows values used for
this report.
Table 9: Economic Cost of Emissions Kyrgyzstan (USD of 2019)
Emission Economic cost
PM2.5 22,100 USD per ton
NOx 160 USD per ton
SO2 760 USD per ton
CO2 40 USD per ton
Noise 0.001 USD/km lower noise cost of e-buses relative to diesel units
Source: Calculations by Grutter Consulting based on IMF (2014), ADB (2017) and VTPI (2017)
The following graph shows the financial and economic TCOs of different bus technologies.
35
See for methodological details Annex 1
36
IMF, 2014 and VTPI, 2017, Table 5-11.7.1; the noise cost pollution is for Western Europe (WE) and North
America (NA); Figures are adjusted to Kyrgyzstan by calculating the relation between average cost of pollutants
WE/NA and Kyrgyzstan and applying this relation (1:20) to WE/NA noise costs.

26
Figure 10: Financial and Economic TCO of Bus Technologies Bishkek (USD 2019)
Note: TCO only includes differential costs between technologies and not fully operational expenditures of a
bus company; see Annex 2 for details
The ranking of technologies is comparable with the financial or the economic TCOs. However, with
economic TCOs the spread between fossil and electric buses increases i.e. the advantage of electric
buses (primarily fast-charged BEBs and conventional trolleybuses) becomes more apparent. The
economic advantages of reduced emissions are also a major argument for concessional support for
the purchase of e-buses.
4.3.4. Risks
Diesel Buses
Diesel buses are well known in their operations. The main financial risk of these buses are the highly
fluctuating diesel prices. A 20% increase in diesel prices would result in an increase by 0.05 USD/km
of operational costs. As the public bus companies are close to operational cost break-even an increase
in diesel prices results immediately in losses which would need to be covered with tariff increases or
additional subsidies both of which are politically a problem. The sustainability of operations with diesel
buses is thus critical.
An energy supply and political risk is the dependency of diesel buses on imported fossil fuel. Kyrgyzstan
must import diesel fuels and usage such units increases the dependency on other countries.
A major risk of modern diesel buses pertains to their maintenance and appropriate operations. To
actually achieve and maintain low emission levels a high-quality maintenance of the diesel engine is
critical. Without such maintenance buses will consume more fuel and will have much higher pollution
levels. This will require intensive maintenance training such as cleaning of diesel particle filters which
can be expensive and time-consuming. If no effective independent control is made of emission
compliance, companies will refrain from doing this maintenance. A large on-road testing study made
in Santiago de Chile showed that 20% of all buses controlled randomly had a malfunction of the Diesel
Particle Filter with emission levels of Euro VI buses being the same as of Euro II or even older units37.
As high-quality maintenance is more costly a bus company with tight finances might opt for relaxing
standards. Also, Euro V or Euro VI diesel buses require AdBlue to reduce NOx levels. Again, AdBlue is
37
Grutter Consulting, 2015

27
potentially costly or might not always be readily available and companies might opt to not use it: the
consequence is that the engine will continue to work normally but NOx emissions will skyrocket. The
major risk of using diesel buses is therefore that theoretically emission levels should be low but in
practice such buses will probably continue to be heavy polluters comparable to the old buses used
currently.
CNG Buses
CNG buses are, just like diesel units, well known in their operations and a proven technology. Energy
usage of modern CNG buses remains high i.e. CNG buses are less energy efficient than diesel units.
The major financial problem with CNG buses is like for diesel buses the fluctuations of CNG prices,
which are coupled to oil prices. Just like for diesel units an increase of CNG prices automatically results
in a significant increase in operational costs and the risk of running operational deficits.
CNG buses rely on imported CNG, transported through pipelines. As historical experience shows this
entails a significant political dependency. A shutdown of the pipeline results in a lack of fuel and public
transport relying on CNG grinds to a stop. As example Belarus has threatened to stop gas deliveries to
Western Europe or gas deliveries to Ukraine were threatened – both after hefty price increases of
Gazprom38. To be dependent on one delivery agent, Gazprom, which has a history of threatening to
cut deliveries, poses a significant political risk. The sustainability of urban bus operations relying on
CNG is thus questionable.
To avoid operational disruptions sufficient CNG stations must also be available. Refilling of a CNG bus
takes with a fast-filling station around 10 minutes. For a fleet of 100 buses thus at minimum 2 double-
filling stations must be built. This will entail investments excluding land of around 1.2 MUSD per
station or 24,000 USD per CNG bus39. It has been assumed that this investment will be realized by a
3rd party running the gas stations recovering the investment through gas sales. However, the margin
for a filling station might not be sufficient and gas stations might not be set up (this happened e.g. in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam where the lack of gas stations resulted in difficult operations for bus
companies which had invested in CNG buses).
A major environmental risk of CNG buses is their high GHG emissions. Claims raised by some experts
or the OECD OPTIC model that CNG buses reduce GHG emissions compared to diesel units are based
on outdated and non-realistic energy consumption assumptions. The OECD Optic model uses a fuel
consumption value of 38.5 kg/100km for a new CNG bus whilst the European Union EEA COPERT
model latest version (2019) shows with an average speed of 15 km/h a consumption of 48.5
kg/100km40. CNG buses tend to be inefficient with low or moderate average speeds and stop-and-go
traffic typical for urban driving patterns41. Values such as used in the Optic model are only achieved
with average speeds of 23 km/h of an urban bus which is not achievable in urban circumstances, not
38
https://www.dw.com/en/belarus-threatens-to-stop-gas-deliveries-to-europe/a-2291331;
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gazprom-threatens-to-stop-gas-deliveries-to-
ukraine/848297/; https://www.energyworldmag.com/russia-world-gazprom-stop-gas-deliveries-ukraine-
focus-nord-stream-2-pipeline-completion/
39
NREL, 2014
40
At the same time the Optic model uses higher fuel consumption values for diesel buses (50 l/100km for Euro
VI bus) than those determined by the EU COPERT model latest version (44 l/100km with speed of 15km/h, 0%
gradient and 50% load factor; the COPERT model is built upon real-world fuel efficiencies). This combination of
underestimating energy consumption of one technology while overestimating the energy consumption of
another technology could be interpreted of a non-neutral technology approach.
41
See also https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Low-carbon-tech-pathways-soot-free-buses-
megacities_ICCT-working-paper_31082017_vF.pdf

28
even in BRT systems. Underestimating fuel consumption by 25% results in an under-estimation of GHG
emissions of CNG buses by 25%. Even under the most optimistic assumptions it is clear that CNG buses
will not reduce GHG emissions compared to modern diesel units42.
Conventional Trolleybuses
Conventional trolleybuses are a well-known technology and used extensively in Bishkek. They have no
range issues such as other electric buses. The major technical disadvantage of conventional
trolleybuses is their very limited flexibility. They can only be used on routes equipped with overhead
wiring.
The financial risk with conventional trolleybuses is the old trolleybus infrastructure. Whilst a part of
the network has already been upgraded significant additional investment will be required to have the
entire network in good technical conditions. Extension of routes are also not possible without new
investments in trolleybus routes. Putting up new trolleybus routes is however financially not justified
in light of much lower cost electric bus alternatives which have a higher flexibility of usage and do not
require overhead wiring.
The risk of conventional trolleybuses is also that power shortages during peak winter times might
occur resulting in buses being stranded. Peak power reserves are low. Trolleybuses use electricity
permanently, also during peak periods. Expanding trolleybus services will thus create additional stress
on the power system. Compared to BEBs trolleybuses are also less energy efficient due to considerable
energy losses in the catenaries and less efficient energy recovery systems.
Hybrid Trolleybuses
Hybrid trolleybuses are a relatively new technology combining the features of a BEB with a trolleybus
and re-charging the battery whilst operating in areas with overhead wiring. Such trolleybuses can
therefore operate outside overhead wiring sections.
The financial risk with hybrid trolleybuses is the same as with conventional trolleybuses. Hybrid
trolleybuses are also dependent on a well maintained and fully functional catenary system. The old
network will however require significant investments to upgrade existing equipment. The power
requirement from the overhead line will increase significantly compared to usage of conventional
trolleybuses, because in addition to the electricity needed for driving, electricity is also needed to
charge the battery. Especially on sections of line used by several lines, it may be necessary to increase
the feed-in power. In such cases, it may make sense to think about shorter feed-in sections or
increasing the feed-in voltage, which would bring additional stability to the overhead line network. If
insufficient power is available the batteries will not be able to re-charge and the hybrid trolleybus
might not be able to fulfill its planned operations on the section without catenary.
Another risk or problem associated with hybrid trolleybuses is that connecting to the catenary is often
manual or semi-automatic. This is done at bus stops during boarding and de-boarding of passengers
and requires precise positioning of vehicles. Manual connection will result in slight delays of the bus
of 1-2 minutes for each connection (de-connection can be automated without major problems).
Trolleybuses with automated connectivity equipment are more expensive and also require some
minor additional investments of infrastructure at sites of connection (funnels).
42
See e.g. also http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-08_m_web.pdf; if methane slip is included (within
the vehicle due to engine slip, leakage through the engine crankcase and dynamic venting) then CNG buses
clearly emit more GHG emissions than modern diesel buses (even if BC emissions are included for diesel buses)

29
The risk of hybrid trolleybuses equal to conventional trolleybuses is also that power shortages during
peak winter times might occur with buses being stranded. The battery capacity of hybrid trolleybuses
is not sufficient to allow operations except for some 30-60 minutes running for around 10-15 km. Peak
power reserves in Bishkek are low. Hybrid trolleybuses use electricity permanently when operating
within the catenary system, also during peak periods. Expanding the number of trolleybuses will thus
create additional stress on the power system. Compared to BEBs hybrid trolleybuses are also less
energy efficient due to considerable energy losses in the catenaries and a less efficient energy
recovery system.
Slow-Charged BEBs
The technology is well known with large fleets of slow-charged BEBs operating since more than decade
in PRC. This includes many cities with comparable climatic conditions (e.g. Beijing) or even harsher
winters than those experienced in Bishkek. However, in Bishkek no experience exists with BEBs. Actual
electricity consumption might be different from projected energy consumption, especially during cold
winter days. This poses the risk of BEBs not being able to comply the daily driving range requested,
especially after a few years when the SOC of batteries has dropped. The risk is therefore that slow-
charged BEBs might only be used, especially during winter, on shorter routes or that additional buses
will be required to fulfil the timetable.
Introducing a new technology also poses risks due to unknown maintenance procedures. Training of
maintenance staff as well as of drivers will be required to ensure appropriate operations and reliability
of bus services.
The risk of using limited available electric energy in winter is considered as very small if at all existent.
Slow-charged BEBs are charged during night-time i.e. during power off peak periods. Chargers can
easily be controlled to only deliver electricity to buses outside peak demand hours. The additional
electricity demand of 100 slow-charged BEBs is 20-30 MWh daily (if all the BEBs are additional or
replace fossil buses). No additional peak power would be required i.e. buses would be charged after
10 PM (in general between 12 PM and 5 AM). The additional power demand during off-peak periods
between 10 PM and 5 AM as well as during the day between 12 AM and 4 PM would be less than 4
MW for 100 BEBs. This is well within the available capacity range of the power supplier in Bishkek also
during winter periods.
The additional power demand required at bus depots will be in the order of 3 MW per bus depot
(based on 50 BEBs per depot). This will require upgrading of substations which is factored into project
costs. However, it does not pose a significant risk or problem to the grid network.
Usage of domestic produced electricity is a major plus point for BEBs as this reduces the dependency
and foreign reserve outflow required to purchase oil.
The risk of future battery disposal is considered as small as large bus batteries can be used without
major problems for a further decade as low-cost energy storage device. After ending the normal
lifespan, estimated at 8 years for BEB batteries, three options avail for used batteries (i) usage for
energy storage, (ii) recycling or (iii) final disposition. The final disposal in illegal landfills or dumps is
naturally the least desirable. This might occur in case of lack of regulations concerning battery disposal
or weak enforcement of regulations. In cases where the battery pack is damaged by a collision, the
final disposal of the battery will also have to be used. The alternatives of recycling or energy storage
currently still present some technical, regulatory and financial challenges. In order for the batteries to
be used stationary, they must first be adapted. The lack of standards and regulations for the use of
batteries in a stationary manner presents one of the most important obstacles. There are no

30
guarantees as to their quality of operation, safety, efficiency etc. However, there are already
manufacturers that are establishing alliances with energy companies in order to secure their space in
the emerging energy storage market. Lithium-ion batteries are made of various materials whose value
is high enough not to be lost in landfills. However, it will depend on the costs of collection, transport,
storage, sorting, dismantling etc., whether a use of the materials in Kyrgyzstan will be profitable.
Currently, there is very little information on the costs of this process, and the prices of materials on
the market also vary, so it is difficult to analyse the financial viability. The battery recycling process as
such is complex. Almost all dismantling occurs manually and there are very few options for automating
it43. In addition, the amount of materials in each battery is different according to the model, which
also makes it necessary for the processes to be manual. This is why high volumes are required to be
cost-effective. Whilst batteries can pose an environmental hazard if not disposed of correctly, the re-
usage for stationary sources or recycling are considered as far more realistic pathways. Both could be
profitable business models with used batteries thus not being a problem but being an opportunity.
Fast-Charged BEBs
Fast charged BEBs have, in contrast to slow-charged BEBs only a very low operational range risk. If
electricity usage e.g. in winter, is higher than expected the bus can simply be re-charged 5-10 minutes
longer or be re-charged twice during the day (re-charging only requires 15-30 minutes). Some re-
charging stations can also be put close to end of routes for rapid 5-minute re-charging during
operations. Fast-charged BEBs thus have a major advantage compared to slow-charged units as they
do not result in an operational risk for cities not familiar with the technology. Also, fast-charged BEBs
can be used on different routes with different mileage without problems.
The risk concerning lack of know-how and experience in maintaining e-buses is the same for fast-
charged BEBs as for slow-charged units. This is also true concerning battery disposal.
The grid or power impact of fast-charged BEBs is comparable to that of slow-charged units. Charging
is only done during off-peak demand periods and does not affect peak power demand. The power
demand at the bus depot as well as daily electricity consumption is comparable between slow and
fast-charged BEBs.
4.4. Conclusions Preferred Technology Option

4.4.1. Fossil versus Electric Buses
From a financial perspective fossil buses have the advantage of lower investment costs and therefore
less financial burden for a company compared to electric buses. Looking at TCOs fossil buses are
comparable to electric units i.e. electric units can recover their incremental investment with lower
operational costs, primarily lower energy costs. From a pure financial perspective, the incremental
investment however only pays off after a long time (around 10 years). Electric buses do however have
the advantage of less price volatility of energy costs which is a major operational cost component of
bus operators in Bishkek. This improves the sustainability of municipal transport operators as they
face less risks of operational deficits requiring tariff adjustment or increased subsidies. Summarized
fossil buses have an investment cost advantage whilst electric buses have the advantage of increased
sustainability of bus operators. If concessional finance is available the balance tilts towards electric
buses.
43
Steward, 2019

31
Form a risk perspective fossil buses have the advantage of being a well-known technology, with
multiple bus providers and simple operations. The major drawbacks are a dependence on energy
imports, political pressure and high price volatility. Electric bus risks are very much relative to the
chosen e-bus technology and can range from limited operational risks (for trolleybuses and fast-
charged BEBs) to high operational risks. BEBs represent a new technology for Bishkek – however this
is to a certain extent also true for modern diesel or CNG buses. The risk of lack of power during winter
months (during peak demand periods) for electric buses can be circumvented by using BEBs which are
charged during off-peak periods. Total electricity demand of electric buses is marginal against
available supply, even during winter months.
From an environmental perspective the decision is very clear. Fossil buses present a considerable
pollution risk (especially for diesel buses where very high emissions are common with sub-optimal
maintenance) and are an important source of GHG emissions in Bishkek. Electricity produced in
Kyrgyzstan has a very low carbon factor, even during winter months, and the country has a very high
additional renewable energy capacity. Even in winter months Bishkek has sufficient electricity supply
to easily accommodate 100 electric buses. The supply curve is only close to the demand curve during
peak hours where BEBs would not use electricity. Using cheap, renewable, nationally produced
electricity instead of costly and polluting fossil fuels should be a no-brainer.
Electric buses can provide bus services at a comparable financial cost and with a comparable technical
risk as fossil buses whilst reducing energy dependency and usage of scarce foreign exchange to
purchase fossil fuels and whilst avoiding high levels of pollution and GHG emissions caused by fossil
buses thus also preserving the health of citizens. From an economic and environmental viewpoint,
they are clearly the preferred option. The financial structuring can be made in a manner that electric
buses result in a comparable financial performance to fossil units. From a technical and risk
perspective a good choice of the e-bus technology can reduce risks and make operations as smooth
as with fossil units.
4.4.2. Comparison of e-Bus Options
Overnight charged e-buses are financially and from a risk perspective the least preferred option. They
result in buses with a very large battery set, whilst running the risk that in cold winter days the driving
range will be insufficient. The large amount of batteries required results in a very high bus CAPEX, a
high TCO and a high bus weight which again can reduce the carrying capacity of passengers and
increases tyre as well as energy usage of the bus. Overall, slow-charged BEBs are clearly not
recommended for Bishkek.
Conventional trolleybuses face as major problem a partially deteriorated trolleybus infrastructure

which would require significant investments in the short and medium term to allow for reliable
services. E-bus options available today offer for any type of routes and bus size alternatives which can
be realized at a lower cost without overhead wiring. Virtually no cities are therefore establishing new
trolleybus lines but are scrapping them when a renovation is due. E-buses can be charged either
overnight, once or various times during the day with fast charging, at the end of routes or even during
10-15 seconds at bus stops whilst boarding and de-boarding passengers. Trolleybus systems continue
to be used in cities which have a sunk investment in overhead wiring and where no major
refurbishment investments are needed. In Bishkek the trolleybus infrastructure requires major
refurbishment investments. This is not warranted anymore with the technology options available
today and will result in sunk investments hampering also future new bus purchases. It is therefore an
ideal moment to switch gradually towards BEBs and discontinue investments in an obsolete

32
infrastructure and technology pathway. Hybrid trolleybuses in this context have similar disadvantages
as conventional trolleybuses: they still need, although at a smaller scale, a costly overhead wiring
infrastructure, they lack flexibility in usage, they are less energy efficient than BEBs and they require
electricity also during peak periods thus putting more pressure on the grid during winter months.
The preferred electric bus technology option is clearly fast-charged BEBs. They have the lowest total
CAPEX (bus plus infrastructure) of all e-bus options, the lowest TCOs, they can be used flexibly and
have a low operational risk as they can be re-charged 10-30 minutes during the day with high-powered
chargers. Thus, depending on routes, driver and climatic conditions it will be sufficient in general to
charge the bus during 20 minutes per day during off-peak operation periods whist in more demanding
circumstance a 2nd or a longer charging of batteries will be required. This flexibility is also important
in light of lack of operational data with BEBs in Bishkek. Fast-charged BEBs due to having a smaller
battery pack also result a smaller environmental footprint and less potential problems related to
future battery re-usage, recycling or disposal than slow-charged BEBs. An important advantage of fast-
charged BEBs for Bishkek is also that they only use electricity during off-peak periods, especially
important in winter when surplus capacity of electricity during peak hours is constrained.

33
C: THE PROJECT
5. Description of Preferred Technology Option

5.1. Types of Buses to be Purchased
The recommendation is to purchase only 1 type of bus: fast charged BEBs. It is not recommended to
buy a batch of hybrid trolleybuses together with fast-charged BEBs as:
• Fast-charged BEBs have 20% lower TCOs than hybrid trolleybuses;

• Fast-charged BEBs do not require future refurbishment investments in trolleybus
infrastructure;
• Fast-charged BEBs can be used flexibly over any part of the route network;
• Fast-charged BEBs use less electricity than hybrid trolleybuses and only consume electricity
during off-peak periods. Hybrid trolleybuses on the other hand increase the power demand
also during critical peak demand periods in winter;
• Purchasing one batch of vehicles of the same characteristics reduces purchase costs, simplifies
the charging infrastructure, reduces the cost of maintaining spare parts, and increases the
flexibility and robustness of the system (due to having more charging alternatives and charger
reserves) and reduces the investment required for training and capacity building.
The 100 new BEBs are estimated to replace 75 old Euro II diesel buses and 25 old trolleybuses. For the
financial analysis the base is the municipal trolleybus operator (BTC).
5.2. Recommended Bus and Charging System
The following table features the main characteristics of the recommended e-bus.
Table 10: Main Features of Recommended e-Bus System
Parameter E-Bus
Bus type 12m standard urban bus with AC/heating, low-level entry; 100 units
Battery system Fast-charged batteries capable of receiving at minimum a 300 kW charge with a battery
set of 230 kWh (battery lifespan of 8 years at 80% SOC); charge ports at both sides of
the bus
Operational 16 years equal to 1.12 million km (1x replacement of batteries)
lifespan bus
Average 1.1 kWh/km; the electricity consumption will be higher in winter (1.3-1.6 kWh/km
electricity usage depending on usage of heating) and lower during spring and autumn (0.8 kWh/km)
CAPEX bus 230,000 USD per bus; replacement cost of batteries in 8 years estimated at 30,000 USD
Charging At night during 6 hours with 40-50 kW; during the day on average 20 minutes of re-
method charging at 300 kW; around 60% of electricity required is charged during the night (10
PM to 5 AM) and 40% during the day (between 12 AM and 4 PM)
Chargers For 100 buses the number of chargers required is 20 fast chargers of 300 kW (with 2
connectors) and 35 chargers of 100 kW (with 2 connectors). 2 buses can always be
connected to 1 charger or both connections can be linked to the same bus increasing
the power charge to the bus and reducing thereby the charging time. The number of
chargers includes reserve power capacity of chargers as well as reserve chargers as not
all buses are operational (5% minimum reserve fleet).
5 chargers of 300 kW are positioned within the city for fast intermediate charging for
buses not returning to the bus depot – all other chargers are installed at the bus depots.

34
Charging system 3.8 MUSD for entire charging system. 50% of cost is due to chargers and 50% of cost is for
CAPEX the installation of chargers (includes electrical equipment such as conduits, conductors,
connection enclosure, transformer, protective devices, switching equipment, cabinet,
grounding, etc.; includes also cost of civil engineering work incl. excavation, concrete
base, and engineering; does not include land cost for chargers)
Standard buses 75 Euro II diesel buses of the same size with 48 l/100km diesel consumption and
replaced emissions based on EEA (2019) COPERT model with 15 km/h average operating speed,
0% gradient and 50% load factor and 25 old trolleybuses with an electricity
consumption of 1.9 kWh/km
Different options exist for charging systems and installation. Chargers can be equipped with 1-4
connectors for charging simultaneously 1-4 buses. Charging poles which can serve simultaneously
more than 1 bus have a lower installation cost and use less space whilst also having the advantage of
being able to distribute the load in different manners (e.g. priority for first bus connected, same load
for both buses etc). If the same charger is used only by 1 bus, they can also provide for a higher load
thus enabling faster charging. However, connectors from the charger to the bus should be as short as
possible, especially for high-powered chargers (the 300-400 kW chargers previewed) as latter are very
thick (due to cooling) and costly. Also, buses need to be able to be parked in a manner to receive
charging at the same time from 1 charger. Below graphs and photos show some charging options. The
final outline and number of chargers and their power will need to be decided with the layout of the
bus depot and the parking spaces and system. Also, it is considered as useful to install some chargers
close to sites where buses are parked or wait for renewal of service during off-peak times to avoid
having to drive back to the bus depot. However, this needs to be coordinated with the actual routes
to be electrified, their operations and the exact location of buses. The exact location of such chargers
also depends on the parking space available, space availability for the charger (2m2) and grid
conditions and connection possibilities. However, one unit of 300 kW should not pose any problem
for any sub-station.
Photo 1: Charging Systems for 2 Buses per Charger
Note: this parking site has the potential of charging 2 different buses with the same charger

35
Photo 2: Charging Areas in Bus Depots with Parking from Both Sides
Note: this parking site has the potential of charging 4 different buses with the same charger
Photo 3: On-Road Charging
Note: this parking site has the potential of charging 1 bus per charger
6. Grid Impact and Grid Upgrades
The overall impacts on the grid are summarized in the following table.
Table 11: Electricity Demand
Parameter E-Bus System
Annual electricity consumption of BEBs 7,700 MWh
Additional electricity consumption per annum44 4,400 MWh
Workday electricity consumption 18 – 32 MWh (with 95% of buses operating); difference
between spring/autumn and winter
Additional workday electricity consumption45 8 – 20 MWh (with 95% of buses operating); difference
between spring/autumn and winter
Installed power capacity of chargers at each 4 MW with 7-8 high-powered chargers of 300 kW and
depot with 50 buses per depot 16-18 low-powered chargers of 100 kW (all with 2
connectors)
Installed power capacity outside depot 5 high-powered chargers of 300 kW each located at
different sites
Charging times 10 PM to 5 AM and 12 PM to 4 PM
Total available and required capacity at night per Available installed capacity: 4 MW46
bus depot Required capacity: 1-1.5 MW47
44
This is lower than the consumption of 100 BEBs as 25 old trolleybuses are replaced
45
This is lower than the consumption of 100 BEBs as 25 old trolleybuses are replaced
46
Night capacity excludes chargers outside depots as only depot chargers are used during the night
47
Buses enter with SOC of 30% and thus require 160 kWh load during 7 hours of available time with 95% of
buses operational

36
Total available and required capacity during the Available installed capacity: 4 MW48
day per bus depot Required capacity: 1.-1.5 MW49
Total available and required capacity during the Available installed capacity: 1.5 MW50
day outside bus depots Required capacity: 1 MW aggregated required
generation capacity or 300 kW at 5 locations of capacity
in the distribution network51
The maximum power charge of bus depots can easily be limited, at least initially, to 2 MW. Fast
chargers are limited to 100 kW charge during the night as sufficient time is available thus reducing the
load on the grid and lower powered chargers are not used during the day. The surplus capacity of
chargers is required for redundancy of operations and due to using high-powered chargers during the
day.
The following graph shows the expected power demand per hour during a winter working day (with
high electricity consumption of buses) resulting from 100 fast-charged BEBs based on the projected
time and power of charging. The additional power demand in Bishkek would in reality be less as the
project would replace 25 old trolleybuses thus eliminating their power demand.
Figure 11: Projected Required Generation Capacity Bishkek for BEB Fleet (winter period, work day)
4.0
3.5
3.0
Power Demand MW
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hours
Note: Based on 95 of 100 buses operating during working day in winter with 1.3 kWh/km electricity
consumption
Notable is that zero electricity and power is consumed during peak power demand periods. Peak
power demands are between 6 AM and 10 AM and between 5 PM and 10 PM with the highest peak
from 6-8 PM. The figure above shows that electricity for BEBs is only required during off-peak periods.
Thus, this creates no additional stress on the transmission network during both summer and winter
times and does not require for additional peak generation capacity in winter. The impact on the local
distribution networks near to the 2 bus depots is considered separately. During off-peak times the
total power demand is maximum 3.5 MW which is well within the surplus power capacity of off-peak
periods in Bishkek also during winter. Off-peak consumption during winter (2,500 MW on average) is
48
Night capacity excludes chargers outside depots as only depot chargers are used during the night
49
Buses charge during the day 80-130 kWh (difference between spring/autumn and winter) during 4 hours of
available time with 95% of buses operational; ¼ of buses charged outside depots
50
5 chargers @ 300 kW located at different sites
51
50% of chargers are occupied during 4 hours

37
on average 650 MW lower than generation at peak (3,150 MW). The additional power demand from
e-buses of 3.5 MW during off-peak periods would only fill-up 0.5% of this difference. The following
graphs show the typical load curves of the integrated power system (IPS) during a summer and a
winter day.
Figure 12: Load Curve Integrated Power System August 5th 2019
Source: Energy Holding Company

38
Figure 13: Load Curve Integrated Power System November 28th 2019
Source: Energy Holding Company
Summarized the impact of a fleet of 100 BEBs on the power system of Bishkek even in winter is
marginal:
• Zero electricity is consumed during peak power demand. As old trolleybuses are replaced the
peak power demand from transport even decreases with the purchase of BEBs;
• Total power demand in winter months represents 0.5% of power capacity available during
winter for off-peak periods.
• Total additional electricity consumption per annum is marginal with 4.4 GWh (0.03% of
production level in 2017).

39
7. Environmental Impacts
7.1. Current Emissions of Bishkek Public Transport Fleet
The following table shows the current emissions and energy usage of the Bishkek municipality public
transport fleet. This includes only the buses operated by the Bishkek municipality, not however the
many medium and small buses managed by private operators. Emissions are calculated based on the
annual mileage per bus type (based on the number of operational units and the average annual
mileage per bus) and the emission factor per pollutant per kilometre for each bus category. The
emission factor is based on approach as described in the annex.
Table 12: Emissions of Public Transport Fleet Bishkek Municipality Buses (2019)
Parameter Euro II Diesel bus CNG EEV bus Trolleybuses total
Number of units 307 100 99 506
GHG emissions in tons 37,400 14,100 1,700 53,200
PM2.5 emissions in tons 5.80 0.09 0.00 5.90
NOx emissions in tons 317 34 0 350
Energy usage (litre / kg / MWh) 10,279,000 3,398,000 13,000
Energy efficiency 48 l/100km 49 kg/100km 1.9 kWh/km
Source: Number of units and annual mileage by Bishkek municipal bus operators (operational units); emissions
and energy usage calculated by Grutter Consulting; see Annex 1 for methodological approach and Annex 2 for
data details
7.2. Avoided Emissions with Project
The project has a significant positive environmental impact on air pollution, noise, and GHGs. The
following table quantifies the environmental benefits of the project against the baseline of replacing
75 diesel and 25 old trolleybuses.
Table 13: Environmental Impact of Project
Parameter Annual impact Lifetime impact
PM2.5 reduction 1.42 tons 23 tons
NOx reduction 77 tons 1,237 tons
SO2 reduction 0.06 tons 1 ton
Noise reduction e-buses have 50% lower noise emissions than diesel buses
GHG reduction 8,600 tons 138,000 tons
Diesel fuel savings 2.5 million litres 40 million litres
Additional electricity consumed 4.4 GWh 70 GWh
Source: Grutter Consulting based on baseline emissions for replaced diesel units (75 buses) and old
trolleybuses (25 units); see Annex 1 for methodological approach and Annex 2 for data details
Bishkek suffers from severe air pollution especially during winter months. PM2.5 average monthly
concentrations during winter months are between 60 and 100 μg/m3 whilst in summer months
concentrations drop to 10 μg/m3 or less (the average annual concentration in Bishkek in 2018 was 30
μg/m3 – this is 3x higher than the air quality guideline value of the WHO52)53. It is estimated that the
transport sector contributes to around 10 μg/m3 of pollution with the main source of PM2.5 during
winter being heating. 50% of transport related PM2.5 emissions of Bishkek are due to buses. Replacing
52
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
53
Bishkek air quality values from IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation); calculations of
contribution from transport and buses from Grutter Consulting, 2020

40
all urban buses with electric units could reduce the annual PM2.5 mean by around 5 μg/m3 which would
be sufficient to achieve during 6 months of the year PM2.5 levels below the WHO guideline.
Average monthly NO2 concentrations are around 0.06 mg/m3 with only small variations between
summer and winter. The guideline maximum annual mean of the WHO is 0.04 mg/m3 i.e. also for NO2
pollution levels of Bishkek clearly exceed recommended annual means. Transport emissions are
responsible for around 70% of total NOx emission levels (40% of which comes from buses). The
scenario with 100% e-buses could lower average annual NO2 levels by 0.02 mg/m3. NO2 concentrations
could thus be below the annual WHO maximum level for the entire year by replacing fossil buses.
The initial batch of 100 electric buses would be an important step towards a full electrification of the
bus fleet in the medium term and towards reducing air pollution in Bishkek.
7.3. Life-Cycle Emissions
The following graph shows the lifecycle (cradle to grave) Greenhouse Gas emissions of an e-bus versus
the diesel Euro II bus. This includes vehicle production and disposal as well as battery production
related emissions.
Table 14: Lifecycle GHG Emissions Diesel Euro II Bus and Fast-Charged BEB
2,500
2,000
1,500
tCO2e
-87%
1,000
500
0
Diesel Euro II BEB
Direct emissions energy TTW Indirect emissions energy WTT Black Carbon emissions
Vehicle production Battery manufacturing
Source: Grutter Consulting; see Annex for calculations
With a lifecycle perspective 87% of GHGs can be reduced. Direct combustion emissions are by far the
largest source of emissions during the lifetime of the vehicle followed by indirect energy related
emission. Black carbon emissions are also important for diesel buses. Vehicle production and battery
manufacturing emissions only play a minor role. Direct combustion emissions of 3 months of a diesel
bus are equivalent to the GHG emissions of a bus battery system as required by the proposed BEBs.
7.4. Energy Impact of Project
Using e-buses is an important step towards increased energy self-sufficiency. The usage of 100 BEBs
would save more than 2.5 million litres of diesel annually. The transport sector is the major consumer

41
of oil products in Kyrgyzstan. Oil as well as CNG needs to be imported by the country whilst Kyrgyzstan
had in 2017 a surplus electricity production with net electricity exports54 i.e. is self-sufficient (see also
graph below).
Figure 14: Energy Dependency of Kyrgyzstan
Source: IEA, https://www.eu4energy.iea.org/Documents/Kyrgyzstan-Info-FINAL.pdf
7.5. Battery Disposal
The risk of future battery disposal is considered as small as large bus batteries can be used without
major problems for a further decade as low-cost energy storage device. After ending the normal
lifespan, estimated at 8 years for batteries as used on e-buses, three options avail for the used
batteries:
• usage for energy storage;

• recycling;
• final disposition.
54
See https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-
tables?country=KYRGYZSTAN&energy=Electricity&year=2017

42
Figure 15: Battery Lifecycle
Source: McKinsey, 2019
The final disposal in illegal landfills or dumps is naturally the least desirable. This might occur in case
of lack of regulations concerning battery disposal or weak enforcement of regulations. In cases where
the battery pack is damaged by a collision, the final disposal of the battery will also have to be used.
The alternatives of recycling or energy storage currently still present some technical, regulatory and
financial challenges. In order for the batteries to be used stationary, they must first be adapted. The
lack of standards and regulations for the use of batteries in a stationary manner presents one of the
most important obstacles. There are no guarantees as to their quality of operation, safety, efficiency
etc. However, there are already manufacturers that are establishing alliances with energy companies
in order to secure their space in the emerging energy storage market. Lithium-ion batteries are made
of various materials whose value is high enough not to be lost in landfills. However, it will depend on
the costs of collection, transport, storage, sorting, dismantling etc., whether a use of the materials in
Kyrgyzstan will be profitable. Currently, there is very little information on the costs of this process,
and the prices of materials on the market also vary, so it is difficult to analyse the financial viability.
The battery recycling process as such is complex. Almost all dismantling occurs manually and there
are very few options for automating it55. In addition, the amount of materials in each battery is
different according to the model, which also makes it necessary for the processes to be manual. This
is why high volumes are required to be cost-effective.
Whilst batteries can pose an environmental hazard if not disposed of correctly, the re-usage for
stationary sources or recycling are considered as far more realistic pathways. Both could be profitable
business models with used batteries thus not being a problem but being an opportunity. Important is
also to consider that the issue of battery re-usage, recycling or disposal will only become an issue
around 8 years after buses were purchased as batteries are guaranteed a lifespan of 8 years (some
batteries might need to be disposed of early due to malfunction or accidents; it should be clarified in
55
Steward, 2019

43
tenders/contracts that the supplier will have to proof of appropriate disposal for batteries returned
during the warranty period).
8. Financial and Economic Analysis

8.1. Bishkek Trolleybus Administration
The following information is based on the independent auditors report of the 2017 financial
statements of the “Bishkek Trolleybus Administration.
The gross income or gross profit (pre-tax profit) is for 2017 95,000 USD and as average of 2016 and
2017 48,000 USD. This is equivalent to 3% of earnings or 1% of fixed assets. Total income is
approximatively equivalent to total expenses. The expenses do not include depreciation or
amortization of buses. The company receives the buses from the government for the provision of
agreed-upon services, which are not recognized as the operators fixed assets, but they decrease the
amount of deferred incomes. The following graphs show the main sources of income of the company.
Figure 16: Operational Income Sources Trolleybus Company, 2017 in USD
1,862,319
1,200,429
Revenues per annum city and republican budget

Revenues per annum fare collection
Source: Audited Financial Statements year 2017
Around 40% of revenues are from ticket sales and 60% payments from the city. The operational
revenue per kilometre is 0.44 USD/km. Non-operational income includes services or advertisement
and amounts to 260,000 USD in 2017. Operational and non-operational income amounts together to
0.48 USD/km.
The following graph shows main expenses of the company.

44
Figure 17: Operational Expenses Trolleybus Company, 2017 in USD
99,273
10,597
1,963,109
60,277
63,056
328,863
446,324
Other expenses
Bus depot, incl. vehicles
Labor costs
Maintenance and repair infrastructure trolleybuses
Tyre cost trolleybuses
Maintenance and repair trolleybuses
Energy cost trolleybuses
Source: Audited Financial Statements year 2017
The main operational expenses are labour (66%), followed by energy costs for trolleybuses (15%) and
maintenance & repair of trolleybuses56 (11%; 13% if trolleybus infrastructure is included). This results
in operational costs of 0.43 USD/km. Non-operational expenses are basically administration (270,000
USD in 2017). Total expenses therefore sum to 0.47 USD/km. As mentioned previously this does not
include the recovery of any investment in buses, trolleybus infrastructure or the bus depot.
Investments are all financed fully by the government.
In a snapshot fares cover roughly 40% of total operational expenditures without recovery of
investment in transport vehicles, depots or infrastructure. This is not uncommon in public transport
where operators only recover (part) of operational expenditures with fares and vehicles as well as
infrastructure (in the case of Bishkek the trolleybus infrastructure) provided by public monies.
56
Excluding tires

45
8.2. Profitability of E-Bus Operations
Two levels of profitability of the investment are differentiated for bus operations:
• Relative profitability or minimization of subsidies (losses) from the government perspective

(as financer of buses and related infrastructure);
• Operational profitability of buses from the perspective of the bus operator (excluding
investment in buses and related infrastructure).
8.2.1. Government Perspective
The government finances the buses and the infrastructure and also pays part of the operational
expenditures. The government is therefore interested in purchasing the bus technology which
provides the desired service level at the lowest cost. Revenues are not considered as these are the
same for all technologies. The following table compares Total Costs of different technologies.
Table 15: Total Life-Cycle Costs 100 New Buses (USD)
Parameter Diesel CNG 100 BEBs
CAPEX bus plus infrastructure 12,000,000 14,000,000 28,800,000
OPEX annual 4,627,000 4,333,000 2,883,000
Energy 1,954,000 1,563,000 203,000
Staff 1,987,000 1,987,000 1,987,000
Maintenance bus (incl. tyre) & infrastructure 414,000 484,000 312,000
Finance cost (incl. 30% grant for e-buses) 161,000 188,000 270,000
Other 111,000 111,000 111,000
Total cost 16 years (incl. 30% grant for e-buses) 87,749,000 85,324,000 69,047,000
Cost per km (incl. 30% grant for e-buses) 0.78 0.76 0.62
Cost per km (without grant) 0.78 0.76 0.71
Note: finance cost based on loan with 16-year term and 2.5% interest rate; equal monthly payments; see
Annex 2 for details
BEBs are with and without grant component the lowest cost option for the government. With grant
(without grant) the government saves 6-8 million USD (15-18 million) over the 16-year life period
(comparing electric buses with CNG and diesel buses). BEBs therefore result in lifetime cost savings of
20% with grant (7-10% without grant) for the government.
Sensitivity Analysis
The following table shows results of costs per km life-cycle with different scenarios.
Table 16: Sensitivity Scenarios (Life-Cycle Cost USD/km)
Base case 0.78 0.76 0.62
Scenario 1a fossil fuel price increase by 20% 0.84 0.81 0.62
Scenario 1b fossil fuel price decrease by 20% 0.73 0.72 0.62
Scenario 2a energy price57 increase by 20% 0.84 0.81 0.62
Scenario 2b energy price decrease by 20% 0.73 0.72 0.61
Scenario 3a CAPEX increase by 20% 0.80 0.79 0.67
Scenario 3b CAPEX decrease by 20% 0.76 0.74 0.57
57
Includes electricity

46
In all cases the scenario of purchasing 100 BEBs remains the lowest cost scenario. Fossil fuel prices
would need to decrease by 56% to have a comparable life-cycle cost of CNG buses to BEBs (without
decrease of electricity prices) or electricity prices would need to increase by 340% to achieve cost-
parity between BEBs and CNG buses (in this case with constant CNG prices). The CAPEX of BEBs would
need to increase by nearly 40% (with constant CNG bus prices) to make fossil buses cost comparative
to BEBs. These high variations show that results are robust and that BEBs, with a 30% grant
participation, are clearly the best financial option for the government of Kyrgyzstan58.
8.3.2. Impact on Operating Company
The bus operating company can reduce operational costs with the management of modern BEBs. The
following table compares annual operational expenditures of different bus technologies against the
current trolleybus operating costs (excluding finance costs).
Table 17: Comparison Operational Costs (USD)
Scenario (100 operating buses) operational expenses
with current trolleybuses 3,008,000
with 100 diesel units (excl. finance) 4,355,000
with 100 CNG units (excl. finance) 4,034,000
with 100 BEBs (excl. finance) 2,502,000
The operating company could save 0.5 MUSD per year on operational costs using modern BEBs instead
of the current trolleybuses. This is basically due to significantly lower electricity usage of such buses
(minus 47%). Compared to diesel or CNG buses operational savings in the order of 1.5-2 MUSD per
year are possible. Based on replacing 75 old diesel and 25 old trolleybuses the purchase of modern
BEBs saves 1.5 MUSD of operational costs (for 100 buses).
The reduced operational costs of modern electric buses results in a higher financial sustainability of
the operating companies and less necessity to receive operational transfer subsidies. Additionally, the
public transport operator is better protected against energy price increases as latter will only affect
marginally the costs. Overall, the financial sustainability and independence of municipal bus operators
can therefore be improved significantly.
8.3. Differential FIRR
The differential Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) compares the investment of a BEB against
investing in a fossil bus i.e. determines the profitability of investing in a new BEB instead of a diesel
bus based on differential CAPEX and OPEX. It determines basically the profitability of achieving
operational cost savings versus the incremental initial investment in BEBs.
Comparing the incremental costs (CAPEX and OPEX) of fossil versus fast-charged BEBs the FIRR without
grant component is 6-7% comparing BEBs to diesel/CNG buses. Including a grant share of 30% the FIRR
increases to 27-30% against fossil units.
58
No variation of staff costs is realized as staff and administration costs are independent of the technology
chosen; No variation of maintenance costs are made as these represent only 10% of OPEX i.e. even massive
changes of maintenance costs will not affect the relative position of technologies.

47
8.4. Economic Analysis
The following table shows the economic benefits of using BEBs instead of fossil units.
Table 18: Economic Benefits
Parameter Replacement of 75 diesel buses and 25 old trolleybuses
Diesel import savings per annum 2.5 million litres
Environmental savings (reduced air
430,000 USD
pollution, noise and GHG emissions)
The differential Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) i.e. the profitability of investing in BEBs
instead of fossil units is 12% without grants and 37-49% (diesel respectively CNG bus as comparison)
with grants.
8.5. Summary Financial and Economic Analysis
The following table summarizes the financial and economic analysis.

Table 19: Summary Financial and Economic Analysis
Parameter Result
Fast-charged BEBs are the lowest cost option with 0.62 USD/km
versus 0.78 USD/km of diesel buses (0.76 USD/km CNG buses), incl.
Life-Cycle cost per km
grants (excl. grants the BEBs are still the lowest life-cycle cost option
with 0.71 USD/km)
59
Differential FIRR without grant 6-7% compared to diesel/CNG buses
Differential FIRR with 30% grant 27-30% compared to diesel/CNG buses
Differential EIRR without grant 12% compared to diesel/CNG buses
Differential EIRR with 30% grant 37-49% compared to diesel/CNG buses
Annual operational savings of 0.5 MUSD (-17%) compared to current operational costs or 2 MUSD
municipal transport operator savings compared to purchasing 100 new diesel buses
Investing in BEBs instead of fossil buses is clearly financially profitable, more even if environmental
impacts are considered (EIRR) and if the project has a grant component.
Public bus transport operations itself are not profitable with BEBs and is also not profitable with any
other bus technology as revenues through ticket sales and subsidies do not allow to cover investments
in buses plus infrastructure. This investment is paid by government and forms part of the subsidy of
public transport. However, the investment in electric buses allows to reduce operational expenditures
significantly compared to current expenditures of the trolleybus company and more even compared
to operating costs of fossil buses. The reduction of operational costs increases the financial
sustainability of the municipal bus operators. Using electric buses also make them less prone to
external fossil fuel price shocks which quickly result in operational deficits which would need to be
covered either through increased tariffs or increased operational subsides.
59
Profitability of investing in BEBs instead of fossil buses

48
9. Social Impacts and Training & Capacity Building
The usage of electric buses has social impacts on the public in general and on employees of the bus
operators.
The social impact on the public in general is through a positive health impact and reduced spending
on health costs due to improved air quality as a resultant of electric buses. The air pollution levels of
Bishkek surpass WHO standards especially in winter. Reducing PM2.5 and NOx emissions is therefore
important. Children, the elderly and poorer people are particularly vulnerable. Harmful effects caused
by air pollution include premature mortality, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and breathing
difficulties. Poorer people are disproportionally affected by air pollution as they tend to be located
closer to its sources60. At the same time, they contribute less to the air pollution problem as they do
not own private cars. Studies have also revealed that women are affected more by poor air quality
than men61.
The impact on employees of bus operators are related basically to maintenance staff. Comparing BEBs
with electric trolleybuses no major changes will occur i.e. the same amount and qualifications of staff
will be required. Compared to fossil buses however less maintenance of diesel buses is required and
engine mechanics are not required. Regular as well as overhaul maintenance is significantly less of
electric buses. Also, qualification of engine mechanics will not match the required qualifications for
electric buses. To prevent negative social impacts of lay-off of workers various options exist:
• Gradual non-replacement of maintenance staff working on fossil engines taking advantage of

natural staff fluctuation through retirements or through job changes.
• Re-training of maintenance staff either to continue work in the maintenance department (this
might be difficult due to requiring different skill-sets) or re-training as bus drivers (this was
done by many large Chinese operators when shifting rapidly from fossil to electric buses).
• Offer a severance payment and eventually training to reposition oneself in the job market or
to get independent and open an own business.
As the first batch of electric buses is relatively small and will be operated basically by the trolleybus
company no lay-off of staff is envisaged. Natural fluctuations can be used to adjust slowly the
workforce required.
Capacity building and training are required primarily for following groups of people:
• Bus drivers: driving an electric bus is different from driving a fossil unit and also slightly
different from driving a trolleybus. The main difference compared to a fossil bus is the
regenerative braking part. Electricity consumption of BEBs reacts strongly to how braking is
realized. Drivers that don’t use regeneration because they push the brakes hard, and this
activates directly the mechanical brake, regenerate only 5%. But if the driver uses
regeneration he/she can achieve 35 to 40% per cent regeneration. Good and practical training
of the bus driver is imperative to achieve low energy consumption values, important not only
for financial reasons but even more for operational reasons as high electricity consumption
will result in having to re-charge the bus more frequently or for longer time periods. Another
60
Mitchell and Dorling, 2003
61
Clougherty, 2010

49
important aspect of driver training is in respect to heating of the bus. Heating should be made
at the lowest possible levels whilst still offering passenger convenience. The correct
functioning of the thermostat as well as swift door opening and closure are important. Electric
buses in winter can consume up to 50% of electricity due to heating. Therefore, an appropriate
control is important of this aspect. During winter drivers also need to take care to not park
the buses at exposed sites in the shade but rather at protected sunny sites. A chilled battery
will not only have a greatly reduced range but will also require longer charging times.
• Maintenance staff: Training of maintenance staff is required on adequate maintenance of the
BEBs as well as specific training and capacity building on the importance of the heating and
AC system. The heating as well as to a minor extent the AC system is a major energy user.
Appropriate maintenance of the heating system and a careful adjustment of the temperature
control are crucial to limit energy usage and drainage of batteries. Also, pre-heating of buses
(through electric heater at the depot or by heating the bus whilst it is connected to the charger
thus not draining the batteries) during winter prior to start of operations in the morning are
important to already have standard operational temperatures within the bus and warmed up
batteries to prevent early drainage of batteries thereby reducing useful driving range. Bus
cabin temperatures should be set as low as possible. The bus drivers in winter should keep on
their jackets whilst passengers anyway enter the bus with their coats. Bus temperatures could
thus be set at 16-180C.
• Training of maintenance staff for charging facilities. This involves regular scheduled
maintenance as well as repair of minor problems.
• Training of fire fighters and safety staff at bus depots as well as bus drivers on fires on electric
buses. If a mechanical fault occurs or the batteries over-heat, the flammable electrolyte of the
Li-ion battery may pose a risk. Li-ion fires have different characteristics and spread quickly in
comparison to normal fires which makes extinguishing very difficult. Battery fires require
different efforts of fire-fighting than with a fossil bus.

50
Annex 1: Methodological Approaches

A1.1. GHG Calculations
A1.1.1. GHG Levels
GHG emissions are differentiated in 3 levels:
• Direct emissions equivalent to combustion emissions or tank-to-wheel (TTW) emissions;

• Direct plus indirect emissions or well-to-wheel (WTW) emissions;
• Life-cycle emissions.
Figure 18: Tank-to-Wheel, Well-to-Tank, and Well-to-Wheels
Source: European Commission, 2016, Well-to-Wheels Analyses. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw
The GHGs included under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and trifluoride nitrogen (NF3). Relevant for the
transport sector are only CO2, CH4 and N2O. However, N2O emissions are marginal and therefore only
CO2 and CH4 emissions are included62.
An important recognized GHG is also Black Carbon (BC). Increased particle emissions result not only in
worsening air quality but also in higher BC emissions. A scientific assessment of BC emissions and
impacts found that these are second to CO2 in terms of climate forcing. BC is on average 2,700 times
more effective on a mass-equivalent basis than CO2 in causing climate impacts within 20 years, and
900 times more effective within 100 years.63 BC is part of particulate matter (PM) from fossil engines.
All Global Warming Potentials used are for a 100-year timespan (GWP100) as used by UNFCCC.
62
IPCC, 2006, chapter 3
63 See Bond et. al. 2013 or World Bank., 2014

51
A1.1.2. Direct Emissions (TTW)
Direct emissions are defined as combustion related emissions. This is equivalent also to the term TTW.
Emissions of CO2 are calculated on the basis of the amount and type of fuel combusted and its carbon
content. For annual emissions of the vehicle the distance travelled is multiplied with the specific
emission factor per unit of distance. This approach is used by IPCC (2006) and by approved CDM
methodologies for the transport sector of the UNFCCC.
𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑖,𝑇𝑇𝑊 = 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑖 × 𝑁𝐶𝑉𝑖 × 𝐸𝐹𝐶𝑂2,𝑖 (1)
Where:
EFkm,i,TTW Tank-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of bus using fuel type i (gCO2/km)
SFCi Specific fuel consumption of bus using fuel type i (kg/km)
NCVi Net Calorific Value of fuel type i (MJ/kg)
EFCO2,i CO2 Emission Factor of fuel type i (gCO2/MJ)
Direct emissions of diesel buses include only combustion related emissions. Black Carbon emissions
are included in the indirect emissions.
Direct emissions of CNG buses include combustion related emissions plus methane slip emissions
caused during combustion within the vehicle. Methane slip is caused within the vehicle in the
crankcase and the exhaust pipe64. Leakage of unburnt methane is important due to the high Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4. Methane slip emissions are calculated in the following manner:
𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑀𝑆𝑉 = 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝐶𝑁𝐺 × 𝑀𝑆𝑉 × 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 × 103 (2)
Where:
EFkm,MSV Emission factor per km of CNG bus due to methane slip within vehicle (gCO2e/km)
SFCCNG Specific fuel consumption of CNG bus (kg/km)
MSV Default factor for methane slip within vehicle (%)
GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential of CH4 (no unit)
Direct emissions of electric buses are 0.
A1.1.3. Direct plus Indirect Emissions (WTW)
Direct plus indirect emissions are defined as combustion plus upstream emissions. This is equivalent
also to the term well-to-wheel emissions.
For diesel buses WTW emissions are based on direct emissions multiplied with an upstream default
factor for the extraction, refinery and transport of diesel plus Black Carbon emissions.
𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙,𝑊𝑇𝑊 = 𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙,𝑇𝑇𝑊 × 𝑈𝐸𝐹𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 + 𝐵𝐶𝑧 (3)
Where:
EFkm,diesel,WTW Well-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of diesel bus (gCO2e/km)
EFkm,diesel,TTW Tank-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of diesel bus (gCO2/km)
UEFdiesel Upstream emission factor for diesel (no unit)
64
ICCT, 2015

52
BCz Black Carbon emission of bus category z (gCO2e/km)

z vehicle category of bus based on bus size and Euro emission standard (no unit)
Black Carbon emissions are based on the PM2.5 emissions (determined by the vehicle emission
standard of the vehicle), the BC fraction of PM2.5 for this specific vehicle category and emission
standard and the GWP of BC. This approach for calculating GHG emissions of BC emissions is used e.g.
by the European Environmental Agency EEA (2019).
𝐵𝐶𝑧 = 𝑃𝑀2.5,𝑧 × 𝐵𝐶𝐹2.5,𝑧 × 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐵𝐶 (4)
Where:
PM2.5,z PM2.5 emissions of bus category z (g/km)
BCF2.5,z Black Carbon fraction in PM2.5 emissions of bus category z (%)
GWPBC Global Warming Potential of Black Carbon (no unit)
For CNG buses WTW emissions are based on direct emissions multiplied with an upstream default
factor for the extraction, refinery and transport of CNG plus Black Carbon emissions plus methane
slip emissions in the vehicle and in the gas pumps and wells.
𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝐶𝑁𝐺,𝑊𝑇𝑊 = 𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝐶𝑁𝐺,𝑇𝑇𝑊 × 𝑈𝐸𝐹𝐶𝑁𝐺 + 𝐵𝐶𝑧 + 𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑀𝑆𝑇 (5)
Where:
EFkm,CNG,WTW Well-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of CNG bus (gCO2e/km)
EFkm,CNG,TTW Tank-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of CNG bus (gCO2/km)
UEFCNG Upstream emission factor for CNG (no unit)
EFkm,MST Emission factor per km of CNG bus due to total methane slip (gCO2e/km)
BC emissions are calculated idem to diesel buses (see equation 4). Methane slip emissions for the total
are calculated idem to vehicle internal methane slip emissions using the default factor for methane
slip for vehicle and gas pumps plus wells.
For electric buses WTW emissions include the emissions caused by electricity production, transmission
and losses.
𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐,𝑊𝑇𝑊 = 𝑆𝐸𝐶𝑘𝑚 × 𝐺𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 × 103 (6)
Where:
EFkm,elec,WTW Well-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of electric bus (gCO2e/km)
SECkm Specific electricity consumption per kilometre of electric bus (kWh/km)
GFelec Carbon grid factor of electric grid (kgCO2e/kWh)
Electric vehicles cause upstream emissions due to usage of electricity which has production related
emissions as well as transmission and distribution losses. The carbon emission factor of the grid is
calculated based on the net energy production (total domestic production minus energy losses) and

53
the total GHG emissions for electricity production i.e. the actual carbon factor of the countries grid65.
The latest available grid factor is used. An alternative would also be to use the projected future carbon
grid factor based on the projections concerning electricity production in the country. In general latter
will be lower due to increasing the share of renewables in the country. The actual grid factor is taken
and not the grid factor used by UNFCCC methodologies based primarily on the Combined Margin (CM).
The UNFCCC approach using the CM is not applied as former was designed primarily for renewable
energy projects trying to capture what type of electricity would be displaced from more GHG intensive
means66. It is a tool designed for energy supply and not energy demand projects. The CM does not
reflect actual GHG emissions of the electric grid and in some cases can be far off actual emissions due
(i) non-inclusion of low-cost/must-run (LCMR) resources defined as power plants with low marginal
generation costs or dispatched independently of the daily or seasonal load of the grid including
primarily hydro, geothermal, wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation and (ii) the non-
inclusion of CDM projects in the CM. Especially the non-inclusion of LCMR resources can result in
widely misleading results, especially in the case of Kyrgyzstan with a very high rate of hydropower
plants as all renewable plants are classified as LCMR. As example Costa Rica which produces 98% of
electricity with renewables has a CM of 0.25 kgCO2/kWh whilst the actual monitored carbon factor of
the entire electricity sector is less than 0.01 kgCO2/kWh. The non-inclusion of LCMR as well as of CDM
projects results in an erroneous perception of GHG emissions caused by the introduction of electric
vehicles.
A1.1.4. Life Cycle Emissions
Life-cycle emissions (cradle to grave) are defined in this context as bus-related life-cycle emissions
including vehicle manufacturing and disposal (including battery manufacturing). Life-cycle emissions
related to the associated infrastructure (chargers and other electric equipment for electric buses,
catenaries for trolleybuses, filling stations for fossil buses) and infrastructure for energy production
(fuel extraction, refineries, hydropower dams etc) are not considered. An important aspect for life-
cycle emissions are the commercial lifespan of the vehicle or of components (e.g. batteries). This is
technology specific.
𝐶 ×106 𝐵×𝐵𝑆𝑧 ×103
𝐿𝐶𝐴𝑧 = 𝐸𝐹𝑘𝑚,𝑊𝑇𝑊,𝑧 + 𝐿𝑆𝑧 ×𝐷𝐷 + 𝐿𝑆𝐵 ×𝐷𝐷𝑧
(7)
𝑧 𝑧
Where:
LCAz Life cycle emissions of bus type z (gCO2e/km)
EFkm,WTW,z Well-to-wheel emission factor per kilometre of bus type z (gCO2e/km)
Cz Vehicle manufacturing and disposal emissions bus type z (tCO2e)
LSz Lifespan of bus type z (years)
DDz Annual distance driven of bus type z (km/annum)
B Specific battery manufacturing emissions (kgCO2e/kWh)
BSz battery size on bus type z (kWh)
LSB Lifespan of batteries (years)
65
Exports and imports are not considered i.e. this is the grid factor of nationally produced electricity.
66
https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07-v6.pdf

A1.1.5. Data Sources
The following table shows parameters and sources used for GHG calculations.
Table 20: Data GHG Calculations
Parameter Value Unit Source
NCV of diesel 43 MJ/kg IPCC, 2006, table 1.2
CO2 emission factor of diesel 74.1 gCO2/MJ IPCC, 2006, table 1.4
Density of diesel 0.844 kg/l IEA, 2005
Well-to-tank mark-up factor diesel 23% UNFCCC, 2014, Table 3
NCV of CNG 48 MJ/kg IPCC, 2006, table 1.2
CO2 emission factor of CNG 56.1 gCO2/MJ IPCC, 2006, table 1.4
Well-to-tank mark-up factor CNG 18% UNFCCC, 2014, Table 3
GWP100 of CH4 28 IPCC, 2013, Table 8.A.
Methane slip as % of NG consumption TTW 1.1% Average low and high value of ICCT, 2015, table 4 for crankcase and tailpipe
Methane slip as % of NG consumption WTW 3.4% Average low/high value of ICCT, 2015, table 4 for well-to-pump and fuelling station plus TTW
GWP100 of BC 900 IPCC, 2013, Table 8.A.6
BC fraction Euro V HDVs 75% EEA, 2019, tabla 3-92
BC fraction Euro II HDVs 65% EEA, 2019, tabla 3-92
Carbon grid factor Kyrgyzstan 0.126 kgCO2/kWh OECD/IEA, 2018 for CO2 emissions and IEA for electricity production minus losses
Battery manufacturing emissions67 110 kgCO2/kWh ICCT, 2018, table 1 (per kWh battery set);
Distance driven per bus per annum 70,000 Km Bishkek trolleybus operator, 2019
Fuel usage Euro V diesel 44 l/100km
EEA, 2019, COPERT model Tier 3 with 15km/h average speed, 0% gradient and 50% load factor;
Fuel usage Euro II diesel 48 l/100km
average SCR and EGR for Euro V bus;
Fuel usage EEV CNG 49 kg/100km
Electricity usage current trolleybus 1.9 kWh/km Bishkek trolleybus operator, 2019
Electricity usage BEB fast-charged 1.1 kWh/km BEB incl. heating/AC based on data of PR China median value various operators; see ADB, 2018
Bus manufacturing emissions 64 tCO2e/bus mobitool, 2018 for diesel bus
67
average value not taking into account 2nd life usage of batteries
A1.2. Pollutants
A1.2.1. Pollutants Levels
Local pollutants included are PM2.5 and NOx. Historically vehicle emission regulations are related to air
pollutants. Poor air quality is detrimental to health with vehicle emissions being an important source
of pollutants. The most common air pollutants are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Ground-level
Ozone, Particulate Matter (PM), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)68. Ground-level
Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Lead and SO2
emissions are related to fossil fuel usage by vehicles and are controlled through the usage of unleaded
gasoline and through maximum sulphur levels in fuels, primarily diesel. Sulphur levels in diesel are
relatively low in Kyrgyzstan (50ppm) and therefore SO2 emissions are not very significant. The problem
of CO and hydrocarbon emissions, produced primarily by gasoline vehicles, has basically been resolved
with the introduction of catalytic converters combined with unleaded fuel. Therefore, the main
current problem of air pollution caused by transport is related to PM and NOx emissions.
Following levels of pollutants exist:
• Tailpipe (combustion emissions);

• Non-combustion direct emissions of the vehicle;
• Upstream emissions from energy production and transport.
The project includes for all calculations only tailpipe (combustion) emissions. However, a short
discussion of the other 2 levels is also made.
A1.2.2. Tailpipe Emissions
The local pollutants include only tailpipe (combustion) emissions. Pollutants are determined based on
the emission category of the vehicle using the latest version of the European Environmental Agency
emissions model COPERT with a Tier 3 approach i.e. the emissions are determined relative to the bus
type, the fuel used, the emission category, the average speed, the load factor and the road gradient.69
Electric buses have zero tailpipe or combustion emissions.
A1.2.3. Non-Combustion Emissions
Buses not only have combustion emissions but also PM emissions from brake, tire and particle re-
suspension. Measurements of PM10 in the city of Zurich, Switzerland in 2007 showed that 16% of PM
emissions from heavy duty vehicles in urban areas were brake, 53% re-suspension and only 31%
combustion related70. For brake emissions 40% of PM emissions are PM2.5 particles, and for tyres
70%71. The standard diesel bus to be replaced in Bishkek are Euro II units. For this emission standard
combustion emissions are still the dominant source of emissions, and far larger than non-combustion
emissions. Also, NOx emissions only result from combustion.
68
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants
69 EEA, 2016; Tier 2 approach (i.e., not considering speed, load factor, or gradient).
70
BAFU, 2009, Figure 1-5
71
TRL, 2014, p.10
56
E-buses with exception of overnight charged units should have lower non-combustion emissions than
fossil buses due to having regenerative braking and thus using less brake pads72.
A1.2.4. Indirect Emissions
Indirect emission is related to the energy production. CNG is imported with pipelines and therefore
no major additional emissions of PM2.5 and NOx resulting from energy production and distribution are
expected for CNG buses. For diesel buses the PM2.5 and NOx upstream emissions are related basically
to the refinery and the transport of fuels. Based on default emission data for refineries73 and on the
distance of the refinery from Bishkek74 for transport of fuels the upstream emissions estimated are:
• PM2.5 0.003 g/km of bus distance driven; 80% of emissions are due to the refinery and 20%
due to the transport of fuels; this is around 1% of direct combustion emissions i.e. irrelevant.
• NOx: 0.17 g/km of bus distance driven; 80% of emissions are due to the refinery and 20% due
to the transport of fuels; this is around 1% of direct combustion emissions i.e. irrelevant.
For electric buses the PM2.5 and NOx emissions of fossil power plants and their share in total generation
are considered. Next to hydro-power only coal-power is relevant for electricity generation in
Kyrgyzstan with a share of 7.5% of production of electricity in 2017 (IEA database). Based on default
emission factors for coal power plants75 the upstream emissions of a BEB are:
• PM2.5: 0.001 g/km: The upstream emissions for a BEB are lower than the upstream emissions
for a diesel bus and less than 0.5% of the combustion emissions of PM2.5 of a diesel Euro II bus
i.e. irrelevant.
• NOx: 0.06 g/km: The upstream emissions for a BEB are lower than the upstream emissions for
a diesel bus and less than 0.5% of the combustion emissions of NOx of a diesel Euro II bus i.e.
irrelevant.
72
Overnight charged e-buses use due to higher bus weight up to 20% more tires and thus have higher tire
emissions than conventional units; see also TRL, 2014
73
EEA, 2019; fugitive emissions oil: refining/storage, table 3-1
74
Kara Balta to Bishkek 62 km; total return trip incl. distribution at gas stations estimated at 140 km; 22,000
liters of diesel per truck; truck emissions Euro II 32t HDV based on EEA, 2019 COPERT model with 50 km/h
speed, 50% load and 0% gradient
75
EEA, 2019; energy industry, table 3-2

A1.2.5. Data Sources
The following table shows parameters and sources used for calculations.
Table 21: Data Pollutants Calculations
NOx emissions Euro V diesel 9.24 g/km
PM2.5 emissions Euro V diesel 0.05 g/km
NOx emissions Euro II diesel 14.73 g/km EEA, 2019, COPERT model Tier 3 with 15km/h average speed, 0% gradient and 50%
PM2.5 emissions Euro II diesel 0.27 g/km load factor; average SCR and EGR for Euro V bus; Standard <18t urban bus 12m
NOx emissions EEV CNG 4.84 g/km
PM2.5 emissions EEV CNG 0.01 g/km
Since 2016 (LDV) respectively 2-18 (HDVs) Euro 5/V vehicle emission standard
Sulfur contents of diesel 15 ppm
and thus Euro 5 fuel based on EAEU technical regulations
SO2 emissions per liter of diesel 0.03 gSO2/l Based on molecular weight of S against SO2
SO2 emissions diesel bus 0.01 gSO2/km Calculated; independent of Euro standard
PM2.5 emission factor refinery 0.005 g/l
EEA, 2019, table 3-1, fugitive emissions oil: refinery/storage chapter
NOx emission factor refinery 0.284 g/l
Quantity of fuel transported by fuel truck 22,000 l Normal 32t diesel truck for fuel transport
Distance driven (return) per load per fuel truck 149 km Distance Bishkek to refinery 62km 1-way
PM2.5 EF for fuel truck 0.18 g/km
EEA, 2019, based on 32t Euro II HDV, 50km/h, 50% load and 0% gradient
NOx EF for fuel truck 9.74 g/km
PM2.5 emission factor coal power plant 0.012 g/kWh
EEA, 2019, table 3-2, energy chapter
NOx emission factor coal power plant 0.752 g/kWh
Share of coal power of total electricity production 7.5% IEA, 2017
Annex 1.3. Economic Impacts
Overview
The financial evaluation is carried out from the perspective of the project, and considers incremental
cash flows (both revenues and costs) generated by the project. The economic analysis is carried out
from the perspective of the entire economy, with the purpose to assess whether a project is
economically viable for the country76.
The project has positive externalities, more specifically public goods (the goods are both non-
excludable and non-rivalrous i.e. individuals cannot be effectively excluded from its use, and use by
one individual does not reduce its availability to others). Following public goods are produced by the
project and their economic values are quantified:
• Improved air quality due to reduced emissions of local pollutants;

• Reduced noise levels;
• Reduced global warming due to reduced GHG emissions.
Economic Cost of Pollutants
The economic cost of emissions is calculated by assigning a monetary cost to emissions of PM2.5, NOx,
and SO2. The economic cost of air pollutants for Kyrgyzstan are taken from an IMF (International
Monetary Fund) publication77. All values are updated to USD of 2019 using a GDP deflator. The cost
of pollutants calculated by the IMF are based on local levels of pollution at the ground level and the
impact on health and costs caused by this type of pollution in Kyrgyzstan. This is based on the exposure
of the population to contamination and how increased pollution increases mortality risks using the
World Health Organization's dose response functions to concentration. The greater risk of mortality
or, more precisely, the value of premature death is valued economically on the basis of stated
preference studies performed by the OECD.
Global Warming Cost
The global warming externality cost is expressed through the social cost of carbon (SCC). Latter is an
estimate of the economic damages associated with an increase in CO2 emissions. Valuating the
economic damage of CO2 emissions is complex and very much dependent on discount rates. ADB
reports a unit value of USD 36 per ton of CO2e in 2016 prices for 2016 emissions, to be increased by
2% annually in real terms to allow for the potential of increasing marginal damage of global warming
over time78. Updated to 2019 real USD incl. the annual increase results in 40.7 USD per ton CO2e for
2019. The value of 40 USD is taken to be conservative.
Noise Pollution
Noise is measured using hedonic price surveys. This involves the effects of noise on residential
property values. The cost of noise pollution from a meta-study of the Victorian Transport Institute79.
76
See ADB, 2017
77
IMF, 2014
78
ADB, 2017 based on a review of empirical estimates of the global social cost of carbon reported by the IPCC
79
IMF, 2014 and VTPI, 2017, Table 5-11.7.1; the noise cost pollution is for Western Europe (WE) and North
America (NA); Figures are adjusted to Kyrgyzstan by calculating the relation between average cost of pollutants
WE/NA and Kyrgyzstan and applying this relation (1:20) to WE/NA noise costs.
59
This is not for bus passengers but for residents of the city. Average noise differences between e-buses
and diesel units are 50%80. The studies used by the VTPI are all based on Norther America (NA) and
Western Europe (WE). To adjust to costs in Kyrgyzstan the ration of economic cost of air pollutants
between Kyrgyzstan and NA/WE was applied to the NA/WE noise cost of the VTPI. The average
pollutant cost (PM2.5, NOx and SO2) of Kyrgyzstan versus the average cost in WE/NA is 5% (based on
IMF, 2014).
Data Sources
The following table shows parameters and sources used for calculations.
Table 22: Data Economic Calculations
Economic cost of SO2 760 USD/t
Economic cost of NOx 160 USD/t IMF, 2014, updated to USD 2019; values for Kyrgyzstan
Economic cost of PM2.5 22,099 USD/t
Economic cost of CO2 40 USD/t Global value, ADB 2017 updated to USD 2019
Noise cost diesel bus 0.050 USD/km USD of 2019; based on general non-country specific
estimates for NA and WE; VTPI, 2017, Table 5-11.7.1,
Noise cost e-bus 0.030 USD/km updated from USD 2007 to USD 2019
Noise cost savings e-bus Based on average cost of pollutants in Kyrgyzstan versus
0.001 USD/km
estimated for Kyrgyzstan North America (NA) and Western Europe (WE)
80
While diesel buses generate around 80 decibels (db) when the bus is standing, and 77db when the bus is
driving, e-buses only generate 63db (standing) and 69db (driving) (db is a log-scale: A 10dB increase represents
a doubling in noise level); see EEA, 2014

Annex 2: Data
General Parameters
Non-bus specific
NCV of diesel 43 MJ/kg IPCC, 2006, table 1.2
CO2 emission factor of diesel 74.1 gCO2/MJ IPCC, 2006, table 1.4
Density of diesel 0.844 kg/l IEA, 2005
Well-to-tank mark-up factor diesel 23% UNFCCC, 2014, Table 3
NCV of CNG 48 MJ/kg IPCC, 2006, table 1.2
CO2 emission factor of CNG 56.1 gCO2/MJ IPCC, 2006, table 1.4
Density of NG 0.714 kg/m3 IGU, 2012
Well-to-tank mark-up factor CNG 18% UNFCCC, 2014, Table 3
GWP100 of CH4 28 IPCC, 2013, Table 8.A.
Methane slip as % of NG consumption TTW 1.1% Average low and high value of ICCT, 2015, table 4 for crankcase and tailpipe
Methane slip as % of NG consumption WTW 3.4% Average low and high value of ICCT, 2015, table 4 for well-to-pump and fuelling station plus TTW slip
GWP100 of BC 900 Bond, 2013; see also IPCC, 2013, Table 8.A.6
BC fraction Euro V HDVs 75% EEA, 2019, tabla 3-92
BC fraction Euro II HDVs 65% EEA, 2019, tabla 3-92
Carbon grid factor Kygryzstan 0.126 kgCO2/kWh OECD/IEA (2018) for CO2 emissions and IEA for electricity production minus losses
nd
Battery manufacturing emissions 110 kgCO2/kWh ICCT, 2018, table 1 (per kWh battery set); average value not taking into account 2 life usage of batteries
Price diesel 0.64 USD/l 2020 march
Price gasoline 0.59 USD/l 2020 march
Price CNG 0.46 USD/kg https://books.google.ch/books?id=s5qxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=cng+price+bishkek+gas+stations&source=bl&ots=0_EPHCkdwo&sig=ACfU3U1VeiSN6SUb3MDRllelW8t9jOQMEw&h
Price electricity 0.03 USD/kWh MOE; commercial tariff
Exchange rate 85 Som per USD https://www1.oanda.com/lang/de/currency/converter/, April 2020
Sulfur contents of diesel 15 ppm Since 2016 (LDV) respectively 2-18 (HDVs) Euro 5/V vehicle emission standard and thus Euro 5 fuel based on EAEU technical regulations
SO2 emissions per liter of diesel 0.03 gSO2/l Based on molecular weight of S against SO2 with 15ppm sulfur diesel (Euro 5 diesel)
Battery cost 2018: 300 USD/kWh; US DOE projections, 2017 have a decrease of 12% per annum;
Battery cost 2025 onwards 120 USD/kWh
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/67089%20EERE%20LIB%20cost%20vs%20price%20metrics%20r9.pdf
Bus non-technology specific

Distance driven per bus per annum 70,000 km Bishkek trolleybus operator
Typical distance driven daily 235 km Average weighted distance 235km of non trolleybus operator (on route)
Discount value for NPV 4% WACC in general; assumed 50% above lending rate
61
Bus technology specific

BEB modern
Parameter Unit diesel CNG trolleybus current Hybrid trolleybus Source
fast-charged
Bishkek trolleybus operator based on 2019; Modern BEB incl. heating/AC based on
Electricity usage kWh/km 1.9 1.3 1.1 data of PR China median value various operators; hybrid trolleybus 20% higher
electricity consumption than BEB
Fuel usage Euro V diesel and EEV CNG l/100km or kg/100km 44 49
NOx emissions Euro V diesel EEV CNG g/km 9.24 4.84 0 0 0
PM2.5 emissions Euro V diesel, EEV CNG g/km 0.07 0.01 0 0 0
GHG TTW Euro V diesel, EEV CNG g/km 1,173 1,457 0 0 0 EEA, 2019, COPERT model Tier 3 with 15km/h average speed, 0% gradient and 50%
GHG WTW incl. BC Euro V diesel, EEV CNG g/km 1,492 2,014 241 167 139 load factor; average SCR and EGR for Euro V bus;
Fuel usage Euro II diesel l/100km 48 0 0 0
NOx emissions Euro II diesel g/km 14.73 0 0 0
PM2.5 emissions Euro II diesel g/km 0.27 0 0 0
GHG TTW Euro II diesel g/km 1,286
GHG WTW incl. BC Euro II diesel g/km 1,740
SO2 emissions diesel Euro V bus with current
g/km 0.01 0 0 0 The EAEU technical regulations are adopted by the Eurasian Economic Commission
diesel 0
(EEC). The currently valid vehicle emission standard is thereby since 2018 Euro V for
SO2 emissions diesel Euro II bus with current
g/km 0.01 heavy duty vehicles i.e. Euro 5 fuels
diesel
Diesel and CNG based on 1 million km; BEB and trolley 2 years more basd on less
Lifespan bus years 14 14 16 16 16
vibrations and moving parts
Maintenance cost diesel from Bishkek public transport company (4 Som/km); CNG
Maintenance bus engine excl. tyres USD/km 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 20% higher based on large fleets; BEBs 40% lower based on experience large fleets
PRC; Trolleybus maintenance from BTC
Environment
Comparison with Euro V or EEV new bus

per 12m bus
Parameter trolleybus BEB fast- Reduction against
Unit Diesel Euro V CNG EEV Diesel Euro II
current charged Diesel Euro II
GHG emissions per annum per bus WTW incl. BC tons 104 141 17 10 122 112
GHG emissions cumulative 100 buses tons 10,441 14,097 1,685 972 12,180 11,208
PM2.5 emissions annual 100 buses tons 0.50 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89
NOx emissions annual 100 buses tons 64.66 33.87 0.00 0.00 103 103
SO2 emissions annual 100 buses tons 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Energy usage 100 buses liters/kg/MWh 3,053,811 3,398,366 13,338 7,700 3,348,098

62
Emissions current bus fleet Bishkek Municipality (only 12m buses)

Parameter Euro II Diesel bus CNG EEV bus Trolleybuses total
Number of units 307 100 99 506
GHG emissions in tons 37,394 14,097 1,668 53,158
PM2.5 emissions in tons 5.80 0.09 0.00 5.90
NOx emissions in tons 317 33.9 0.0 350
Energy usage (liters / kg / MWh) 10,278,661 3,398,366 13,205
Replacement scenario diesel Euro II old trolleybuses total

Number of replaced old buses 75 25 100
Impact of replacement
Parameter Value p.a. Value lifetime Unit
GHG reduction 8,600 137,600 tons
PM2.5 reduction 1.42 23 tons
NOx reduction 77 1,237 tons
SO2 reduction 0.06 1.0 tons
Energy saving diesel 2,510,000 40,160,000 liters
Electricity increase 4,400 70,400 MWh
Economic air pollution savings 82,000 1,312,000 USD
Economic GHG savings 344,000 5,504,000 USD
Economic noise savings 5,000 80,000 USD
Total economic savings 431,000 6,896,000 MUSD

63
Cost per ton of emission (USD 2019) for Kyrgyzstan (based on IMF)
SO2 760
NOx 160
PM2.5 22,099
CO2 40
all local data based on country (see defaults; except CO2 for which a global value is taken)
CO2 based on ADB 2017 p.44 has 36.3 USD per tCO2 2016 USD with a real increase of 2% p.a.
Noise cost
diesel bus 0.050 USD/km USD of 2019; based on general non-country specific estimate VTPI, 2017, Table 5-11.7.1, updated from USD
e-bus 0.030 USD/km 2007 to USD 2019;
Noise cost savings e-bus versus diesel bus 0.020 USD/km USD of 2019; based on general non-country specific estimate VTPI, 2017, Table 5-11.7.1
Noise cost savings e-bus estimated for Kyrgyzstan as
0.001 USD/km
relative to North America plus West Europe Based on average cost of pollutants in Kyrgyzstan versus North America (NA) and Western Europe (WE)
Relative economic pollution costs average relation Kyrgyzstan

SO2 cost NA and WE 14,200 5%
NOx cost NA and WE 3,200 5%
PM2.5 cost NA and WE 401,000 6%
GHG Emissions Life Cycle 16 years (tons)

Parameter Diesel Euro II BEB
Direct emissions energy TTW 1,441 0
Indirect emissions energy WTT 331 156
Black Carbon emissions 177 0
Vehicle production 73 64
Battery manufacturing 0 51
Total lifecycle 2,022 270
GHG emissions per km life cycle gCO 2e /km 1,805 241
Note: lifespan diesel bus 14 years and BEB 16 years; replacement of batteries year 8
Vehicle production emissions based on mobitool for diesel bus; BEB less as 2 years longer

64
Refinery + transport emissions

PM2.5 emission factor refinery 0.005 g/l EEA, 2019, table 3-1
NOx emission factor refinery 0.284 g/l EEA, 2019, table 3-1
Quantity of fuel transported by fuel truck 22,000 l Normal 32t diesel truck for fuel transport
Distance driven (return) per load per fuel truck 149 km Distance Bishkek to refinery 62km 1-way
PM2.5. EF for fuel truck 0.18 g/km EEA, 2019, based on 32t Euro II HDV,
NOX EF for fuel truck 9.74 g/km 50km/h, 50% load and 0% gradient
Parameter PM2.5 NOx

Upstream emissions per liter of fuel in g/l 0.006 0.35
Upstream emissions in g/km of Euro II urban bus 0.003 0.17
Combustion emissions of urban bus Euro II 0.270 14.73

PM2.5 emission factor coal power plant 0.012 g/kWh
EEA, 2019, table 3-2
NOx emission factor coal power plant 0.752 g/kWh
Share of coal power plant on total electricity production 7.5% IEA, 2017
Parameter PM2.5 NOx

Upstream emissions per kWh of electricity in g/kWh 0.001 0.06
Upstream emissions in g/km of BEB 0.001 0.06
Combustion emissions of urban diesel bus Euro II 0.270 14.73

65
Bus Comparison / Differential Cost Analysis
OPEX Current Trolleybus

Parameter Diesel CNG Hybrid trolley Slow-charged BEB Fast-charged BEB Conventional Trolleybus
excl. infrastructure
CAPEX bus 120,000 140,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 150,000
CAPEX chargers 0 0 11,000 26,000 38,000 0
CAPEX trolleybus infrastructure 0 0 108,000 0 0 180,000
Replacement cost battery 0 0 6,000 57,600 27,600 0
Energy usage (l/100km, kg/100km or kWh/km) 44 49 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.9
Energy cost per annum 19,544 15,632 2,398 2,214 2,029 2,398 3,515
Maintenance cost bus engine per km (excl. tyres; excl. labor) 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05
Maintenance cost bus engine annum excl. labor 3,500 4,200 3,994 2,100 2,100 3,329 3,329
Maintenance infrastructure 0 0 2,107 260 380 2,570 2,570
Finance cost year 1 to 8 1,566 1,826 3,405 4,253 3,757 4,305
Average annual OPEX non-discounted 23,939 20,876 10,202 6,700 6,388 10,449 9,414
Net Present Cost with discount rate 363,000 348,000 448,876 409,862 350,931 396,581
TCO per km non discounted 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.37 0.41
Economic emission costs p.a. 4,464 5,765 467 424 389 467
TCO per km non discounted incl. economic costs 0.53 0.52 0.47 0.44 0.38 0.42
1. CAPEX diesel, CNG bus based on Euro V, low floor entry with AC; diesel average price for such buses and CNG 15% plus; diesel plus CAPEX from different sources e.g. Jakarta, Chinese cities, Costa Rica OECD (2019) assumes for
Bishkek for diesel Euro VI 126,000 USD and for CNG bus 145,000 USD; Hybrid trolleybus indications of Bishkek trolleybus company (50 kWh battery set) (OECD, 2019 assumes for Bishkek 290,000 USD); standard new trolleybus from
OECD, 2019
2. Hybrid trolleybuses 20% higher electricity consumption than BEBs; 20% higher maintenance costs than standard trolleybus
3. Standard new trolleybus could only work on existing infrastructure which would need expansion to accommodate more trolleybuses
4. Average non discounted OPEX existing trolleybus does not include finance costs
5. Trolleybus infrastructure for return line: 0.7 MUSD/km (based on Jinan, PR China; low cost estimate as other cities have up to 1.7 MUSD/km (e.g. Beijing); 40% of investments need replacement; 20 year lifespan; 218km single line
network in Bishkek with 19 substations which could support 170 trolleybuses
6. Trolleybus infrastructure maintenance and repair based on 2019 data per km of trolleybus operations as supplied by BTC

66
Company Finance
Trolleybus Company
Parameter Value Unit
Exchange rate end 2017 used for accounts 69 SOM per USD
Fare paying passengers per annum 10,650,645 passengers
Estimated fare exempted passengers per annum 16,062,500 passengers
Total estimated passengers per annum 26,713,145 passengers
Total estimated passenger per bus per day 739 pax per bus per day
Distance driven per annum 6,916,000 km
IPK (Passengers per bus km) 3.9 pax/bus-km
Number of buses (calculated based on distance) 99 buses
Tariff 2017 8 SOM
REVENUES
Revenues per annum fare collection 1,200,429 USD
Revenues per annum city and republican budget 1,862,319 USD
Total operational revenues 3,062,748 USD
Operational Revenue per km 0.44 USD/km
Revenue per bus per annum 30,937 USD/bus
Other income (services, advertisement) excl. EBRD related 231,041 USD
Other income per km 0.03 USD/km
Total income per km 0.48 USD/km
COSTS
Energy cost trolleybuses 446,324 USD
Maintenance and repair trolleybuses 328,863 USD
Tyre cost trolleybuses 63,056 USD
Maintenance and repair infrastructure trolleybuses 60,277 USD
Labor costs 1,963,109 USD
Bus depot, incl. vehicles 99,273 USD
Other expenses 10,597 USD
Energy cost trolleybus per km 0.06 USD/km
Maintenance cost trolleybus per km 0.05 USD/km
Maintenance infrastructure trolley per km bus 0.01 USD/km
Tyre per km 0.01 USD/km
Labor per km 0.28 USD/km
Other cost incl. depot per km 0.02 USD/km
Cost per km trolleybus operations 0.43 USD/km
Other costs except acquisition of fixed assets 3,288 USD
Administrative expenses 274,645 USD
Other + administrativ costs per km 0.04 USD/km
Cost per km trolleybus operations total 0.47 USD/km
Passenger number: Based on fee per ticket and ticket income: this excludes free passengers
(pensioners, children, disabled); season ticket cost per month 675 SOM i.e 85 rides normal ticket;
assumed 2x rides i.e. per season ticket of 675 170 rides or passengers; Subsidies are for exempted
passengers; Based on the subsidy and the fare the exempted passengers have been
estimated/calculated
Source: Audited financial statements 2017

67
Project Profitability
Assumptions
1. Revenues per km driven stay as in 2017 in USD
2. All constant USD of 2017
3. No change of energy prices or other prices except in sensitivity analysis
4. BEBs based on fast-charged BEBs
5. Grant only given to electric buses
General Parameters
Parameter Value Unit
Total number of buses 100 buses
Annual distance driven all buses 7,000,000 km
Number of hybrid trolleybuses 25 buses
Number of BEBs 75 buses
Grant share 30%
Interest rate loan ADB 2.5%
Term duration 16 years
75 BEBs & 25 Hybrid

Trolleybuses
CAPEX bus plus infrastructure 12,000,000 14,000,000 28,800,000 30,825,000
OPEX annual 4,627,162 4,332,762 2,882,947 3,001,694
Energy 1,954,439 1,563,249 202,918 212,141
Staff 1,986,953 1,986,953 1,986,953 1,986,953
Maintenance bus (incl. tyre) plus infrastructure 413,822 483,822 311,822 402,357
Finance cost (incl. grant for e-buses) 160,744 187,535 270,050 289,038
Other 111,205 111,205 111,205 111,205
Total Cost 16 years (incl. grant for e-buses) 87,748,882 85,324,199 69,047,149 71,284,604
Cost per km 0.78 0.76 0.62 0.64
Replacement investments include batteries in year 9 and new fossil buses in year 15 (annualized cost for 2 years) and
recovery of infrastructure trolleybuses (4 year remaining lifespan; linear depreciation)

68
Impact on Operational Costs (annual in USD)
operational savings against in

Scenario (100 operating buses)
expenses current percentage
with current trolleybuses 3,007,591
with 100 diesel units (excl. finance) 4,355,213 -1,347,623 -45%
with 100 CNG units (excl. finance) 4,034,023 -1,026,432 -34%
with 100 BEBs (excl. finance) 2,501,692 505,899 17%
with 75 BEBs and 25 hybrid trolleybuses (excl. finance) 2,601,451 406,139 14%
Operational cost savings against costs

if 100 BEBs are purchased replacing 75 old diesel and 25 old trolleybuses 1,516,616

69
Option Overnight Charging

Slow overnight charged only buses and fast-charged buses with intermediate charging are compared.
Opportunity charged is not included as routes are not defined.
Assumptions
1. No charging during peak hours between 7 and 9AM and from 6-9PM; chargers are blocked during these
times.
2. Operation hours working day: 5AM to 10PM; available charging hours average 11pm to 5 AM (1 hour
for washing, daily maintenance) i.e. 6 hours available charging time
Bus Characteristics 12m urban bus

Parameter Unit Value
Electricity usage with AC and heating kWh/km 1.2
Energy usage per year MWh 84
CAPEX bus USD 300,000
Maintenance cost per km USD/km 0.04
Annual maintenance infrastructure % 1%
Battery size on bus kWh 480
Cost battery 2020 (LMO or LFP batteries) USD/kWh 250
Base cost e-bus with 350 kWh battery USD 270,000
Source base cost: offers Golden Dragon (bus 2020, 350 kWh battery, includes 120 kW charger, low entry,
USD 265,000); Zhongtong (bus 2020, 240,000 USD incl. charger of 75kW, 320 kWh battery set, low entry);
Yutong (low floor entry, 320 kWh battery, 300,000 USD; Foton (320 kWh, 280,000 USD, incl. charger); excl.
charger (discounted)

70
Battery Size Determination

Daily range workday (max) km 235
Energy usage day kWh 282
Risk ratio (driver, AC, heating, higher energy consumption) 10%
Reserve ratio 20%
SOC loss year 8 20%
Battery size required year 8 kWh 480
Charging required at bus depot

Battery capacity kWh 480
Average daily consumption workday kWh 282
Time available at depot night hours 6
Charging power required (incl. 1h reserve for slower charging last 20%) kW 56
Charger power required if 2 buses per charger kW 113
Charger power rounded kW 110
Cost charger per kW power excl. installation USD/kW 200
Installation and connection charge plus design and planning as % of charger cost 120%
Chargers for 100 BEBs

Number of slow chargers 100 kW with 2 nozzles; 3 reserves chargers 53
Total installed power kW 5,830
Maximum power used during the night kW 5,500
Charging system cost for 100 BEBs excl. installation USD 1,166,000
Charging system cost for 100 BEBs incl. installation USD 2,565,200
Charging system cost incl. installation per BEB USD 26,000

71
Option Buses with Fast-Charging Capabilities

Fast charged buses would be basically re-charged at the bus depot during 1x in the day. Alternatively a charging
facility near the end of routes where buses wait could be established.
Assumptions
1. No charging during peak hours between 7 and 9AM and from 6-9PM; chargers are blocked during these times.
2. Operation hours working day: 5AM to 10PM; available charging hours average 11pm to 5 AM (1 hour for
washing, daily maintenance) i.e. 6 hours available charging time at night
3. During the day 30 minutes available for charging off-peak times e.g. at mid day
Bus Characteristics 12m urban bus

Electricity usage with AC and heating kWh/km 1.1
Energy usage per year MWh 77
CAPEX bus USD 250,000
Maintenance cost per km USD/km 0.04
Annual maintenance infrastructure % 1%
Battery size on bus kWh 230
Cost battery 2019 (LMO or LFP batteries) USD/kWh 250
Base cost e-bus with 150 kWh battery USD 230,000
Source base cost: Foton (150kWh battery, 245,000 incl. 1 fast charger per 5 buses)

72
Battery Size Determination

Daily range workday (max) km 235
Energy usage day kWh 259
Estimated percentage of hours operations 1st buses prior re-charging (5AM to 12) % 41%
Estimated distance driven prior re-charging km 97
Energy used prior re-charging kWh 106
Estimated SOC when re-charging (year 1, first buses to re-charge) % 54%
Energy re-charged (re-charge to 80% only to save time) kWh 85
Energy required for rest of day kWh 173
Risk ratio (driver, AC, higher energy consumption) 5%
Reserve ratio 20%
SOC loss is not accounted for as older buses can be re-charged 2x or used on shorter
0%
routes or re-charging is done later during the day (when SOC is 20%)
Battery size required kWh 230
Chargers required for fast charging

Electricity re-charged normal kWh 85
Electricity re-charged max based on 50% usage incl. risk kWh 136
Time available during day for re-charge minutes 30
Charging power required kW 270
Charger rounded power kW 300
Number of buses per fast charger buses 7
Charging required for slow-charging overnight bus depot

Battery capacity kWh 230
Assumed capacity minimum end of day kWh 46
Electricity to be charged during night maximum kWh 184
Time available at depot night hours 6
Charging power required (incl. 1h reserve for slower charging last 20%) kW 37
Charger rounded power with 2 nozzles for 2 buses plus reserve of 30% kW 100
Chargers for 100 BEBs

Number of fast chargers with 300 kW incl. 5 chargers outside depot chargers 20
Number of slow chargers chargers 35
Total installed power per depot (based on 50% of chargers) kW 4,000
Total installed power kW 9,500
Maximum power used during the day kW 6,000
Maximum power used during the night kW 5,500
Charging system cost for 100 BEBs excl. installation USD 1,900,000
Charging system cost for 100 BEBs incl. installation USD 3,800,000
Charging system cost incl. installation per BEB USD 38,000
During the night 300kW chargers are put at maximum 100 kW charge (50 kW per nozzle)

73
Emission Impact all Buses EVs

Source: EV City Model, Grutter Consulting, year 2018 (tons)
Vehicle category SO2 NOx PM2.5 CO2 TTW BC CO2 WTW incl. BC
Passenger cars 0 0 0 664,320 0 791,040
Taxis 0 0 0 259,500 0 309,000
Urban buses small 1.0 1,881 32.6 96,800 19,000 138,200
Urban buses 12m 0.3 350 5.9 37,840 3,394 53,158
Urban delivery trucks 1.5 1,913 36.5 155,040 21,600 255,360
Total 2.6 3,964 72 1,199,319 42,251 1,527,043
Annual mileage diesel buses 208 million km

Annual diesel fuel usage all buses 40 million liters
Annual CNG usage all buses 2.5 million kg
Impact 100% electric buses SO2 NOx PM2.5 GHG WTW

Absolute reduction in tons 1.3 2,231 38.5 171,318
% reduction transport emissions 49% 56% 53% 11%
Diesel fuel savings in million liters 40
CNG savings in million kg 2.5

74
Emission Impact all Vehicles EVs Bishkek

Source: EV City Model, Grutter Consulting, year 2018 (tons)
Passenger cars 0 0 0 664,320 0 791,040
Taxis 0 0 0 259,500 0 309,000
Urban buses small 1.0 1,881 32.6 96,800 19,000 138,200
Urban buses 12m 0.3 350 5.9 37,840 3,394 53,158
Urban delivery trucks 1.5 1,913 36.5 155,040 21,600 255,360
Total 2.6 3,964 72 1,199,319 42,251 1,527,043
Annual mileage all buses 208 million km

Annual diesel fuel usage all vehicles 98 million liters
Annual gasoline usage all vehicles 406 million liters
Annual CNG usage all vehicles 2 tsd tons
Impact 100% EVs SO2 NOx PM2.5 GHG WTW

Absolute reduction in tons 2.6 3,964 72 1,367,677
Diesel fuel savings in million liters 98
Gasoline savings in million liters 406
CNG savings in tsd tons 2

75
Emission Impact all Vehicles EVs Country

Source: EV National Model, Grutter Consulting, year 2018 (tons)
Vehicle category vehicles

Passenger cars 918,094
Taxis 12,385
Public and private urban minibuses 4,000
Public and private urban bus (12m) 400
Public and private inter-urban minibuses 36,000
Public and private inter-urban buses 9,489
Heavy trucks 35,015
Light trucks (pickups and vans) 147,664
total 1,163,047
Passenger cars 0 1,575 35 1,729,689 7,982 2,071,220
Taxis 0 123 2 133,758 418 159,767
Urban minibuses 1 221 14 63,800 9,747 88,200
Urban buses 12m 0 412 8 36,008 4,423 48,720
Inter-urban minibuses 5 1,702 121 558,720 87,091 774,720
Coach buses 7 7,790 143 693,646 83,483 936,564
Lorries, small trucks 12 13,621 234 1,227,088 136,974 1,647,930
Long-haul trucks 22 27,084 496 2,375,418 290,138 3,212,976
Total 47 52,530 1,052 6,818,126 620,255 8,940,098
Annual diesel fuel usage all vehicles 1,842 million liters

Annual gasoline usage all vehicles 817 million liters
Impact 100% EVs SO2 NOx PM2.5 GHG WTW

Absolute reduction in tons 46.6 52,530 1,052 7,428,188
Diesel fuel savings in million liters 1,842
Gasoline savings in million liters 817

References
ADB (2019), E-Mobility for Bishkek
ADB (2018), Low-Carbon Buses in the People’s Republic of China
ADB (2017), Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects
BAFU (2009), PM-10 Emissionsfaktoren von Abriebspartikeln des Strassenverkehrs (APART)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018), Electric Buses in Cities
Bond et. al. (2013), Bounding the Role of Black Carbon in the Climate System: A Scientific
Assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171
Chatrou (2020), CME solutions. Sustainable Bus, April 2020
Clougherty J. (2010), A Growing Role for Gender Analysis in Air Pollution Epidemiology,
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2010 Feb., 118(2), 167-176
EEA (2019), Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook update December 2019
EEA (2016), Road Vehicle Tyre and Brake Wear
Grutter Consulting (2018), E-Mobility Options for Developing Member Countries of ADB
Grutter Consulting (2015), CALAC Evaluation Report
ICCT (2018), Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
ICCT (2015), Assessment of Heavy Duty Natural Gas Vehicles Emissions: Implications and Policy
Recommendations
IEA (2005), Energy Statistics Manual
IMF (2014), Getting Prices Right
IPCC (2013), Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
IPCC (2006), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Kyrgyz Republic (2016), The Third National Communication of the Kyrgyz Republic under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Kyrgyz Republic (2015), Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
McKinsey (2019), Second-life EV batteries: The newest value pool in energy storage
Mitchell G. and Dorling D. (2003), An environmental justice analysis of British air quality,
Environment and Planning A 2003, vol. 35, 909-929
NREL (2014), Costs Associated with Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuelling Infrastructure
OECD (2019), Promoting Clean Urban Public Transportation and Green Investment in Kyrgyzstan
OECD/IEA (2018), CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, 2018

77
Steward D., et al. (2019). Economics and Challenges of Li-Ion Battery Recycling from End-of-Life
Vehicles, Procedia Manufacturing 33 (2019) 272-279
TRL (2014), Briefing paper on non-exhaust particulate emissions from road transport
UITP (2017), An Electric Solution for Urban Bus Networks, presentation by P. Bruge, 21/09/2017
UNFCCC (2014), CDM Methodological Tool: Upstream leakage emissions associated with fossil fuel
usage, Version 02.0
VTPI (2017), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Noise Costs
World Bank (2014), Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from Diesel Vehicles: Impacts, Control
Strategies, and Cost-Benefit Analysis

DPR E-Buses For Bishkek

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPR E-Buses For Bishkek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPR: E-Buses for Bishkek

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

7.3. Life-Cycle Emissions ................................................................................................................... 40

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

2. Overview Electric Buses

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

CNG LNG LPG BEB PHEV FCEV

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

3. Public Bus Transport in Bishkek

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

PART B: TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

4.2. Technology Options

Options which are not considered are:

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

4.2.2. Diesel Buses

4.2.3. CNG Buses

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

Based on NCV and EFCO2 of CNG and energy usage; direct

4.2.4. Conventional Trolleybuses

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

GHG emissions TTW 0 g/km No combustion (tailpipe) emissions

4.2.5. Hybrid Trolleybuses

Disconnection and especially connection to the catenary is often manual or semi-automatic.

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

20% higher than for conventional trolleybuses due to

4.2.6. Overnight Charged BEBs

• Average electricity consumption of slow-charged BEBs (1.2 kWh/km)29;

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

Source: Grutter Consulting

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

Battery replacement cost Based on expected decrease of battery costs (DOE

4.2.7. Fast-Charged BEBs

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

The following table summarizes the main features of a fast-charged BEB.

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

Battery replacement cost Based on expected decrease of battery costs (DOE

4.3. Comparison of Technologies

4.3.2. Comparison of Environmental Performance

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

4.3.3. Financial and Economic Comparison of Technologies

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

Source: Grütter Consulting, see Annex 2 for details

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

4.4. Conclusions Preferred Technology Option

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

4.4.2. Comparison of e-Bus Options

Conventional trolleybuses face as major problem a partially deteriorated trolleybus infrastructure

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

E-BUS REPORT BISHKEK GRUTTER CONSULTING

5. Description of Preferred Technology Option