HomeMy WebLinkAbout040724 email - PUBLIC COMMENT re Item 5_ EV Chargers_ consent agenda for April 7_ 2024ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
I have a number of concerns about the contract proposed in Item 5 on your consent agenda for April 7, 2024 regarding EV Chargers.
“AGREEMENT re: Construction, operation and maintenance of electric vehicle charging infrastructure; Revenue amount of $0.05/kWh; Auditor’s Office/Central Services; EV Charging Solutions,
Inc.”
Please pull this item from Consent and hold approval of the contract until you have consulted with Jefferson PUD and all issues have been addressed.
Here’s my list, which I have also sent to Jefferson PUD.
Thank you,
Tom Thiersch
- - - - - - - - -
County:
Was this project put out for competitive bids?
Technical deficiencies of proposed chargers:
Level 2 charger should be at least 9 kW, preferably 19 kW, not 7 kW as proposed.
Level 3 charger should be at least 350 kW, not 150 as proposed.
Level 3 charger is using the wrong connector. CHAdeMO (and CCS2) are both obsolete. The North American Charging Standard (NACS), a.k.a. SAE J3400, will be the only connector needed and
will be the only connector used by essentially every brand of auto maker starting with model year 2025.
Proposed cable length of 4 meters is barely sufficient. It should be as long as permissible under the National Electric Code.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements
Contract terms:
3o. Easement clause seems unworkable; granting power of attorney to a private entity seems highly questionable.
4b. There is no cap on the rate that can be charged to users.
4c. $.05 (and $.03) rebate to Jefferson county can be seen as “rent”. This will obviously increase the cost to be paid be users be at least that same amount. Why? What public purpose
does that serve?
The rate should be capped at no more than 20% over the actual cost as billed by Jefferson PUD. These chargers should be viewed as a public facility, with an operating license issued
to the company providing and operating the equipment.
Note that the contract has no guarantees of availability or repair response time. It is common for chargers to be vandalized or simply fail.
Recently, Commissioner Kate Dean found that all 14 of the chargers she tried to use near the state capitol in Olympia were out of service.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1139711_feds-tackle-ev-charger-reliability-in-us-infrastructure-buildout
Reliability is a core facet of the final rule laying out the charging infrastructure. It includes the requirement that each individual charging port must have an average annual uptime
greater than 97%,
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140533_study-1-in-5-ev-charging-attempts-fails
The study found that 20%of EV drivers who visited a charging station did not charge their vehicles. Reasons for this ranged from chargers being inoperable to long lines, according to
J.D. Power.
4e. Meter ownership likely violates JPUD terms.
11. Signage clause likely violates local ordinance.