Norfolk County commissioners direct staff to refine donated EV charger proposals at eight sites

The Norfolk County Commission moved and seconded a motion to authorize County Director John Cronin to work with Port Energy and related vendors to refine proposals for electric vehicle charging stations at eight county properties and to return with updated site-level plans and pricing. The proposal as presented calls for 31 planned chargers across eight locations, most configured as dual-port stations that cover four parking spaces.

The proposal came from Nick Filore of East Coast Renewable Energy, who said the installations would largely be covered by the state Mass EVIP incentive and that any county cost could be limited through a performance-based revenue model. "So what we're offering is a legitimate no cost opportunity," Filore said during the meeting.

Why it matters: the county would own and operate the chargers, receive a share of net revenue and carry the electricity cost if it owns the hardware. Commissioners cited potential revenue for county facilities, an amenity for courthouse visitors and staff, and alignment with state incentives and local electric-vehicle adoption trends.

Details of the vendor proposal and how the program would be structured were discussed at length. Port Energy/East Coast Renewable and an installation affiliate, EVSE Solutions, proposed mostly Level 2 chargers (multi-hour charging, suited to court and municipal parking). The vendor said Mass EVIP would cover most equipment costs; the county would receive a percentage of the profit after a vendor performance fee. Rob, a company representative, and a county facilities representative clarified that industry terminology differs: the vendor counts individual plugs as "chargers," while the project team described a standard installation as dual-port stations (two ports per station), which yield four parking spaces per installation. The meeting record notes the aggregate proposal as 31 planned chargers across eight locations, which the vendors and staff interpreted as stations that together serve those sites.

Site-by-site notes discussed during the meeting: Brookline District Court was presented with three wall-mounted single-port chargers because of a tight parking configuration; other sites were shown as four-port groupings (two dual-port stations) that would provide four parking spaces each. Locations named in the discussion included Brookline District Court, Dedham District Court (including Old River Place and registry lots), Stoughton District Court, Wrentham (noted by staff as an area with existing chargers), the agricultural high school and the Wallace Recreational Facility (county golf course). Staff noted the agricultural high school would need some paving work to prep a site.

On pricing and ongoing costs, vendors described two models: a subscription model (listed in materials as about $35 per port per month) or a performance-based model in which roughly 10% of the customer fee goes to the cloud/network provider and there is no fixed annual fee to the county. As Rob explained about the subscription/performance distinction, "It's the subscription fee that you're either paying on an annual basis at $35 a month per port or to Nick's point and what most customers select is the performance based, where 10% of the driver fee..." County staff and commissioners emphasized they preferred the performance-based option to avoid fixed annual software fees.

Commissioners raised operational questions: placement so public-safety parking is not displaced at the registry/Denham sites; whether the county would be liable for electricity costs if it owns the stations (staff confirmed the county would pay electricity if it owns the chargers); warranty and maintenance coverage (vendors said chargers carry manufacturer warranty and the proposal includes warranty coverage); and technology obsolescence — vendors said incentives and technology change over time and described a possible "rip-and-replace" or replacement window around 2028 if the county opted to upgrade as new incentives or hardware arise.

Next steps agreed by the commission: staff was directed to work with Port Energy/East Coast Renewable/EVSE Solutions to produce revised proposals that specify the number of stations/ports by location, confirm parcel/street-address eligibility for the Mass EVIP incentives, provide detailed electrical-bill data required for incentive applications, and present performance-based pricing language and updated contract terms. Commissioner remarks and staff comments made clear a follow-up presentation will return to the commission; the transcript records that a motion to proceed was made and seconded but no roll-call vote tally appears in the provided transcript.

Ending: The county director said he will coordinate with the vendor, the facilities department and commissioners and return with updated site proposals and clearer performance-based contract language for future consideration.