Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft fleet conversion and countywide EV charging plans show big climate gains carry higher near‑term costs
Summary
Consultants told the Environmental Sustainability Board that a cap policy tied to the Climate Action Plan could electrify about 86% of the county fleet by 2050 and cut cumulative emissions far more than the current 2‑vehicles‑per‑year policy, but it would raise capital costs by about 25% and require substantial charger infrastructure and power upgrades.
Consultants presented a draft fleet conversion plan and a communitywide EV charging plan to the Environmental Sustainability Board on Dec. 18, outlining two scenarios for county vehicle procurement and public charging deployment. Annalie Castillo, the project manager, said the county fleet totals "about 229 vehicles" and identified 33 specialized vehicles — roughly 14% of the fleet — that likely would be exempt from electrification because of their operational roles.
The consultants compared an EV policy that continues the county practice of purchasing two new electric vehicles a year with a more aggressive "cap" policy aligned to the Los Alamos Climate Action Plan. "That achieves about 86% of the fleet by 2050," Castillo said of the cap scenario. The cap policy would require more vehicle procurement and infrastructure and, the consultants said, carries higher near‑term capital costs.
On cost, the team used a total‑cost‑of‑ownership analysis including procurement, maintenance, facility modifications and charging equipment. They reported that the cap scenario increases capital outlays by about 25% compared with the less ambitious EV‑policy case because of higher vehicle acquisition and infrastructure needs. Consultants stressed the analysis spans the transition to 2050 and assumes continued use of internal‑combustion vehicles during the multi‑decade conversion.
The environmental tradeoffs were central to the presentation. Castillo said the less aggressive EV policy produces roughly 9% cumulative emissions savings through 2050 compared with an ICE‑only baseline and about an 18% annual reduction thereafter; the cap policy yields roughly three times the accumulated savings. The consultants quantified the transition benefit as an avoided 12,000 metric tons of CO2 during the implementation period, which they compared to familiar quantities to aid understanding.
On charging infrastructure, Josh Schacht described a suitability model that ranks sites by demand, land use and equity considerations and produces four scenarios: home charging, county‑owned publicly accessible Level 2 chargers, privately owned shared Level 2 chargers and corridor fast charging. Schacht noted the plan currently lists two Level 3 fast chargers at Smith's Marketplace in Los Alamos and earlier candidate fast chargers at the Justice Center for county‑owned locations. He said the draft plan phases deployments across priority sites and that public comments — especially requests for more chargers in White Rock — will be incorporated into the final recommendations.
Board members pressed the consultants on timing, funding and supply‑chain risks. David Hampton asked whether the consultants had modeled the time to reach 86% without adopting the cap policy; Castillo replied they had not modeled that alternative for the 2‑vehicle‑per‑year case. Eric Rochelle asked whether federal and state incentives might expire; consultants cited NEVI and competitive transit grants as funding sources that have slowed in some places but remain options. Consultants also warned of equipment lead times, especially transformer upgrades, and said planning assumes 12–18 months for major electrical work.
The consultants said they will process the public comments received during the draft public‑review period, refine site recommendations and return with a final plan in February. The presentation and Q&A highlighted the implementation requirements (capital, power upgrades and permitting) the county must address before wider adoption can proceed.
The board received the presentation; no formal endorsement or vote on the plan was recorded in the meeting minutes. The consultants will present a final plan to the board in February.
