County study recommends treating electric vehicles as the default and targets chargers for fleet and public use

Chad Garrett, principal at energy research firm eSource, told Routt County commissioners on Sept. 15 that the county should treat electric vehicles (EVs) as the default replacement whenever county cars become eligible for turnover.

"You should be thinking about an electric vehicle as the default," Garrett said during a presentation of the county’s EV Readiness Plan, which modeled resident, visitor and corridor charging needs under low, medium and high adoption scenarios.

The plan found that Routt County trails some peer mountain counties in EV registrations but is on a path that could meet the county target for EV adoption by 2030 if current trends continue. Garrett said the county has an adequate number of level‑2 chargers in aggregate but lacks high‑speed (level‑3) chargers in a few strategic locations that support long trips, visitors and emergency operations.

Recommendations included: - Make EVs the default option for vehicle replacements and require a documented case explaining why a non‑EV is necessary. - Install one level‑3 (fast) charger under county control near the courthouse/jail area to support mission‑critical vehicles and provide quick top‑ups during emergencies. Other county needs were primarily level‑2 chargers at service yards and county facilities. - Adopt a formal charge‑from‑home policy for employees who take county vehicles home, with a one‑time stipend or similar benefit to offset installation costs (the presentation did not fix a final stipend amount). - Use data loggers to collect real‑world vehicle usage when duty cycles are unclear (Garrett noted this as especially important for sheriff’s vehicles and other high‑mileage units).

Jeff Amelius of Yampa Valley Electric (YVEA) and other utility representatives cautioned that grid capacity, transformer sizing and time‑of‑use demand will shape siting and the cost of chargers. "It's a significant load increase" for high‑power chargers, said a YVEA representative, who urged coordination on rate structures and siting to limit costly upgrades.

Garrett also urged practical pilot steps: run ride‑along observations with other rural departments that have electrified fleets, prioritize training for mechanics and drivers, and coordinate grant and rebate opportunities to offset upfront costs. Commissioners and staff discussed trade‑offs including towing, four‑wheel‑drive needs for some vehicles (for example council‑on‑aging buses and heavy road equipment), and how to reflect grants and maintenance savings in internal motor‑pool cost accounting.

The presentation did not recommend replacing large specialty buses now, citing vehicle availability and duty‑cycle constraints, but it identified the sheriff’s fleet as the single largest near‑term electrification opportunity if charging and vehicle selection questions can be resolved.

Next steps flagged in the presentation included staff engagement with the sheriff’s office, refined motor‑pool data collection, a prioritized charger installation timeline (level‑2 at yards and a single level‑3 for public safety), and pursuit of available DOT and state grant funding for charging infrastructure. The board did not take formal action; staff will return with implementation details and cost estimates.