| 1. Amenities | Does NCDOT require that all NEVI-required amenities be delivered via permanent, fixed facilities, or can amenities provided through non-fixed but reliably available on-site services satisfy program requirements if they meet accessibility and uptime expectations?
| Not enough information has been provided to answer the question. NCDOT would need to consider the safety of any non-fixed facilities during extreme weather events.
|
2. Applications
| Can NCDOT clarify how it distinguishes between the “Operations & Maintenance (O&M) approach” evaluated under the team qualifications section and the “site operations approach” evaluated under the site-specific criteria? Specifically, what elements are expected to be addressed in each section, and how should proposers avoid duplicative content while ensuring alignment with evaluation expectations? | Attachment 3, Questions 3.1 and 3.2 deal with O&M of the EVSE and Attachment 4, 5.1 deals with O&M for the site.
|
3. Scoring
| Can NCDOT clarify how “ownership” of the site is evaluated when the property is held by an affiliated entity under common ownership or shared executive leadership, and the applicant maintains long-term site control through a formal lease or similar agreement? In this structure, would the site be considered “owned” for scoring purposes, or evaluated based on the applicant’s level of control and operational responsibility?
| NCDOT requires the entity signing the Site Host Owner Letter of Intent to provide proof of ownership of the property. The primary Applicant is required to sign the contract with NCDOT. If these two entities are the same, then it would be considered "ownership" under the scoring criteria. If there is common ownership entity that encompasses both the site host and the proposed primary applicant, the common entity should become the primary applicant and sign the contract.
The proposed approach described in the question would require NCDOT to set a uniform standard for the applicant's level of control and operational responsibility over the site that applies to all applicants. This is beyond the scope of this funding opportunity. |
4. BESS
| Can NCDOT clarify how on-site energy storage systems are treated from a cost and reimbursement perspective? Specifically: (1) whether such systems are considered eligible project costs, (2) whether they are reimbursable under NEVI funding, and (3) whether their costs are included in the total project cost subject to any program cost caps or funding limits.
| Yes, per RFP Section 4.4.1 battery energy storage systems are eligible storage expenses and are eligible for reimbursement under NEVI. There are no program cost caps or funding limits. On-site energy storage is included in the project capital costs. NCDOT is providing 8 points in site scoring for these systems.
|
5. Letter of Credit
| Can NCDOT please clarify the Letter of Credit requirement for NC NEVI Round 3. Details that would be helpful are: Is an LoC required at the time of submission? Should the dollar amount covered by the LoC be the total project amount or just the federal share?
| Addendum 1 adds language about the Letter of Credit to the RFP. Please see Attachment 8, Project Agreement, Section 5.1.7 for the language that was added.
|
6. Scoring
| When evaluating sites that provide a higher-powered charger then the 150kW, is there a scale to account for different levels of output? I.E is there a different way you evaluate a 200kW vs a 300kW charger or is it just if it exceeds the 150kW requirement?
| Table 4.7 of the RFP states the scoring criteria for sites. Section 4.2 of this table gives specific points for higher DC power EVSE. Points awarded are based on the concurrent operating capacity of the four required ports. NCDOT will give 1 point for each port capable of operating concurrently at ≥ 200 kW and 2 points for each port capable of operating concurrently at ≥ 300 kW. The maximum number of points that can be given is 8.
|
7. Non-NEVI port requirements
| For sites that provide 8 plugs to a site, do all chargers need to be supply simultaneous 150kW? Can we have 4 priority chargers (marked accordingly) that will always get 150kW while the other chargers will function similarly but will only be able to provide 150kW if there is available power via dynamic power allocation from a centralized rectification.
Priority charging allows for more users to get a charge while everyone is sharing the available power, while still maintaining the 150kW to the required ports.
| All NEVI charging ports must be able to provide 150 kW simultaneously. Section 2.10, NEVI Port Power Sharing, in Attachment 1 address situations where there are additional non-NEVI ports at the site. The described equipment configuration is allowable, and the cost of the utility infrastructure would be an eligible expense for reimbursement.
The cost of the 4 NEVI dispensers would also be an eligible expense. The cost of the rectification unit would be eligible based on the proportion of the total power that can be delivered to the NEVI ports simultaneously. The cost of the 4 non-NEVI dispensers would not be an eligible expense.
For example, the cost of the rectifier for a 600-kW rectifier with 4 NEVI ports that support a maximum of 150 kW each would be 100% reimbursable, even if the power is shared with additional non-NEVI ports. An 800-kW rectifier in the same scenario would be 75% reimbursable. An 800-kW rectifier with 4 NEVI ports that support a maximum of 200 kW each would be 100% reimbursable. |
8. Scoring
| Why is integrating batteries allowing a site to score higher when they're not necessarily beneficial? Demand Fees are not that high in Duke service territory to justify the added cost and complexity of BESS integration. BESS drastically increases the failure points and likelihood of reduced speeds for drivers. It also reduces the ongoing OpEx, the applicants responsibility, and increases the CapEx that the NEVI funds then subsidize which is not in the best interest of the state and funds being allocated. The utility is better off deploying BESS at the utility level rather than a charging operator at a charging site. Suggesting this be considered and preference in scoring be removed. | NCDOT considered the benefits associated with the use of BESS at NEVI-funded stations in regards to both capital and operating costs. No changes to scoring will be made with regards to incorporation of BESS. Please see Attachment 1: Technical Requirements, Section 2.9 for more information on the use of BESS with NEVI-funded EVSE.
|
9. Site Host Letters of Intent
| We are seeking clarification on the execution of the Site Host Owner Letter of Intent (Attachment 7, Template A – Applicant Not Owner) in situations where property ownership is expected to transfer prior to project implementation. For certain proposed sites, the current property owner has executed, or is in the process of executing, a purchase agreement or letter of intent with a prospective acquiring entity. Upon award, the acquiring entity would take title to the property and has a pre-established agreement to lease the site to the Applicant for the duration of the project term (approximately 5–7 years). Given that Attachment 7 requires the Site Host Owner to demonstrate title ownership or site control for the duration of the project, please clarify the acceptable approach in this scenario: Should the current property owner execute the Site Host Owner Letter of Intent, despite the anticipated transfer of ownership prior to project execution? Would execution by the prospective acquiring entity be acceptable if accompanied by a fully executed purchase agreement or binding letter of intent demonstrating anticipated site control? If neither approach is acceptable, is there an alternative documentation method recommended by NCDOT to satisfy Attachment 7 requirements for sites with pending ownership transitions? | Addendum 1 addresses this ownership model.
|
10. Utility Form
| For Attachment 12, I am observing that several input fields appear to be linked. When text is entered in the field for “Do you have a detailed site plan or preliminary design developed? If so, please submit a drawing or rendering with this document.”, it automatically populates other fields within the form. Can you confirm whether this behavior is intentional, or if each field is expected to be completed independently? If the fields should not be linked, please advise on the preferred approach for completing the form.
| Attachment 12 has been corrected . Addendum 1 addresses this revision.
|