City presents fleet electrification study; staff seeks direction on funding and priorities

Salt Lake City staff presented an electrified‑fleet infrastructure study and a separate community electrified-transportation study at the Oct. 7 work session, describing site designs, phased construction plans and funding needs to support the city's fleet electrification goals.

Sustainability staff said the city currently operates 63 electric vehicles and 17 charging stations but is at capacity for additional EVs without new infrastructure. The fleet infrastructure study assessed all city vehicles for suitability to be replaced with electric alternatives and concluded that roughly 31% of the fleet (about 416 vehicles by staff count in the study) would be suitable for electrification with today's vehicle technology and operational patterns.

Site plans were developed for each city facility where fleet vehicles park. The study produced 30% designs, cost estimates and a phased-construction approach: Phase 1 would include the heavy civil work (trenching, electrical capacity upgrades and transformers), and later phases would add chargers once electrical infrastructure is in place. Public Services staff said the high cost driver is electrical upgrades to buildings and distribution capacity; the chargers themselves were a smaller portion of the total.

Staff presented an initial funding proposal that phases investments across fiscal years; the largest near-term costs reflect trenching and transformer work at multiple sites. The city has submitted two CIP applications for FY26 and partially funded a Public Safety Building (PSB) charger project; staff asked for council direction about long-term funding approaches (grants, bonds, CIP allocations or a hybrid approach). Staff also said grant opportunities exist (including DAQ grants that can cover chargers but not always the full electrical infrastructure) and that direct-pay tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act were pursued for recent years. Staff also noted that certain classes of vehicles — notably patrol vehicles that do not park at fixed locations — are not included in the “immediately suitable” 31% because of operational constraints; those patrol vehicles are being purchased as hybrids under current replacement plans.

Council members asked about charger levels (fast chargers vs. lower-level chargers), whether vehicle take-home policies would affect charging needs, whether the proposed deployment schedule could be smoothed across fiscal years, and whether fuel and maintenance savings were calculated against capital and ongoing costs. Staff said they will provide more detailed comparative analysis on fuel/maintenance savings and continue to pursue grant funding and tax-credit opportunities to lower upfront costs.

No formal council action was taken; staff requested direction on funding priorities and offered to return with additional cost-benefit detail and grant-tracking information.