Draft fleet conversion and county EV charging plan outlines options, trade-offs; board presses Stantec on cost assumptions and equity

The Board of Public Utilities reviewed a draft county fleet-conversion plan and community EV charging study prepared by Stantec that presents two implementation strategies and four public‑charging scenarios.

Stantec deputy project leads described the project purpose as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding EV charging and engaging partners. The firm compared the county's current EV procurement policy (buying two EVs per year) with a more aggressive climate action plan (CAP) approach aimed at aligning with county climate goals. The CAP strategy would permit roughly 86% of the county fleet to be electrified by 2050 after accounting for 33 vehicles identified as potential exemptions because they serve specialized functions, the presenters said.

The study models four charging scenarios: home charging, county‑owned public charging, shared privately owned Level 2 charging and DC fast charging. Stantec said it prioritized sites using three criteria — demand, site suitability and equity — then layered cost and power‑impact calculations; the team showed feeder‑level power impacts under high/medium/low adoption scenarios.

Panelists presented a total cumulative emissions reduction of about 12,000 metric tons between now and 2050 under the CAP approach and clarified that the figure is cumulative over the transition period, not an annual savings. The presenters also reported that the CAP policy increases greenhouse‑gas reductions but raises near‑term fleet procurement and charging infrastructure costs.

Board members pressed several technical points. Member Matt noted the study used a roughly 9–10% maintenance‑cost reduction for EVs compared with internal combustion vehicles and cited DOE and consumer‑report studies showing higher fleet maintenance savings; he asked Stantec to provide the fleet‑specific references and to run sensitivity cases. Stantec responded that their number was conservative and based on local fleet data, warranty considerations, specialized labor needs and the county's current low maintenance costs, and they agreed to add footnotes and sensitivity analyses.

Other questions flagged (and Stantec agreed to address) included a missing Level 3 charger listed by a board member at the municipal building, how the analysis treats vehicle‑to‑grid capabilities (Stantec said that V2G is outside current scope but may be included later), and the study's weighting that produced denser charger placement downtown rather than more even distribution into White Rock and residential areas. Stantec told the board it will incorporate the board and public comments, add some White Rock locations based on feedback and correct any missing charger counts before finalizing the plan.

The draft comment period was left open through Dec. 17; board members and staff were encouraged to send written comments and supporting details (e.g., local charger counts or V2G examples) to the project team.