Environmental Sustainability Board unanimously recommends fleet conversion and countywide EV charging plans to county council
Loading...
Summary
After a final presentation by consultant Stantec, the Environmental Sustainability Board voted unanimously to recommend the county council accept a fleet conversion plan and a communitywide electric vehicle (EV) charging plan, while directing staff to refine language in section 5.3.0.2 with Community Development to avoid conflicts with development code.
The Environmental Sustainability Board voted unanimously to recommend the county council accept two final documents — a fleet conversion plan and a communitywide electric‑vehicle charging plan — following a presentation by consultants from Stantec and focused discussion of costs, equity and implementation details.
Stantec told the board the plans reflect nearly a year of work and public input. "We received about 13 comments that were either live or through the in person meeting," consultant Anna Ale Castillo said during her presentation. The consultants said boards, councils and staff provided about 41 comments and edits overall before the reports reached final form.
The fleet conversion analysis compared two approaches. Under the current EV policy (roughly two new EVs procured per year), Stantec estimated the county fleet would reach about 31% electrification by 2050. Under a more ambitious "cap" policy aligned with the climate action plan, consultants estimated roughly 86% of the fleet could potentially convert by 2050, excluding specialized vehicles that are presently infeasible to electrify. Stantec cautioned the cap policy would increase total cost of ownership; in presentation slides they said the cap policy is "about 25% higher in cost than the EV policy," primarily because of greater vehicle procurement and charging infrastructure needs.
Board members pressed consultants on the financials after one member noted the report shows negative net present values for some illustrative scenarios. "On page 73 of your report, you're actually showing negative NPVs on this," a board member said, adding concern that those examples could undercut the plan's credibility. Stantec responded that the negative NPV examples are illustrative outputs from a live financial tool designed for site‑by‑site analysis and sensitivity testing, not a blanket determination of infeasibility. "This is presented as an example for…a live tool that the county will have access to to use for the evaluation of return of investment for each individual site," Stantec said.
On the communitywide charging plan, Stantec presented four charging scenarios (at‑home charging, county‑owned public charging, privately owned publicly accessible charging and DC fast charging) and described a suitability model that incorporated land use, environmental constraints and community feedback. Consultants said the final plan added more charging in residential areas, added locations in White Rock (including Smith's Marketplace), and clarified how multifamily housing was prioritized to address equity for residents without access to at‑home charging.
Board members also discussed section 5.3.0.2 of the charging plan, language related to parking minimums and incentives. Staff noted the county already has development‑code incentives in Chapter 16 (Table 30) that can count electric charging stations toward required parking. To avoid conflict with a pending comprehensive plan update and to ensure consistency with existing code, the board debated whether to remove or revise section 5.3.0.2 before forwarding the plans.
After debate, a board member moved that the Environmental Sustainability Board support both plans and recommend forwarding them to county council as presented; another member seconded the motion. The board voted and the motion passed unanimously. The consultants said they will work with staff to adjust presentation language and clarify the methodology before the council review. Stantec noted the plan is scheduled to go to county council on March 17 and to the Board of Public Utilities on April 15.
What it means next: the board’s recommendation sends the finalized plans and the consultant methodology to county council for consideration; staff and consultants will refine language on parking and development‑code alignment and proceed with site‑by‑site evaluation of charging installations in coordination with utilities. The motion carries the board’s endorsement of the methodology and recommendations while leaving technical, financial and code alignment details to staff and future site analyses.
