Agenda item

Purpose of report:

To propose how Surrey County Council (SCC) can support the transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Surrey; to explain the procurement options for an EV public chargepoint roll-out; and to gain feedback on the preferred option of procuring a long term sole supplier agreement for the installation and operation of a pubic chargepoint network across Surrey.

Witnesses:

Matthew Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure

Katie Stewart, Executive Director – Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

Jonathon James, Electric Vehicle Project Manager

Lee Parker, Director – Infrastructure Planning and Major Projects

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. An Officer gave a brief presentation on the background to the report explaining that since 2015 there were ten times more electric vehicles on Surrey’s roads and during November 2021 more electric vehicles were sold than diesel. The proposal for a single supplier concession for chargepoints to shoulder the financial risk and responsibility for delivering on-street public chargepoints across Surrey was reinforced by a research report in 2020 by KPMG. Discussions had taken place with dozens of local authorities to learn from their experiences and 14 chargepoint operating companies had been consulted in wide ranging research. Forums with the districts and boroughs had taken place to explore progress and share best practice with a view to building partnerships. Research had shown that until recently, all pioneer authorities that had delivered chargepoint projects had almost all received significant grant funding, such funding was time limited and authorities needed to look to alternative means of delivery. The market had responded over the last 12 months by accessing investor funding to support fully funded installations where these can be secured by an extended period to achieve a reasonable financial return. The model for recommendation was principally private sector funded but also enabled the opportunity for part funding by public sources where this was available and justifiable.

2. On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman expressed concern at the lack of detail included in the report and said that the Committee sought reassurances on the programme as a whole.

3. The Chairman noted that the site selection of chargepoints could be controversial for residents. An Officer agreed that this topic divided opinion and whilst it was widely acknowledged as necessary, the opinions of residents and councillors was dependent of their personal and moral positions. Some residents might be against any change at this point but the Service had to reflect these advancements and improve the way that they were communicated to residents to improve the proportion of acceptability.

4. A Member said that the report in its current format was confusing and did not provide enough information. An Officer said that whilst the exact numbers of chargepoints required were not currently known and would, by necessity, evolve, that should not stop the County Council making progress to procure an Electric Vehicle (EV) chargepoint partner that could scale delivery to the required demand over time
5. A Member asked if the boroughs and districts would have the final say on Electric Vehicle (EV) chargepoints in their car parks. A Member confirmed that the districts and boroughs had been invited to be part of the process. In response it was noted that it was their choice to sign up but in any event they would control their own carparks.
6. A Member asked if Surrey County Council knew how many houses did not have enough street parking and what was the total requirement of on-street EV chargepoints. An officer said a significant commitment of time, money and resource was going into planning the network delivery and exactly where chargepoints were required. This planning would take into account many datasets and the chargepoint operators would make the selections.
7. An Officer, in relation to the Chairman’s comments concerning a lack of reported detail, apologised to Members that the session originally planned to brief them before this Select Committee, had been cancelled. The Officer pointed out that the report proposal responded to the Committee’s recommendations in October that EV infrastructure was critical to ensure the success of our climate change delivery plan, highlighting the need to scale up the programme to implement the right processes and procedures. 

8. An Officer noted that without acting now to apply these mechanisms Surrey County Council would not meet its climate change targets, something the Committee had requested regular reassurances on and with a good reason. This mechanism would help to meet the ambitious target of a 16 per cent to 31 per cent carbon reduction in transport emissions by 2025 and mitigates the risk to the authority in respect of changing technology, allowing flexibility to move with demand. To wait for perfect information would cause delays and threaten timely delivery.
9. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure accepted the concerns raised regarding the sensitive issue of chargepoint sites locations and said that EV cars also required parking spaces and so there would not be a reduction in parking spaces. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure asked Members to consider the information they would find helpful and the criteria that could be provided to aid their decision regarding a single provider to deliver this programme in Surrey.

10. A Member said they were concerned about adopting a private sector business model due to previous unsuccessful experiences with the sector. An Officer said that their understanding of the market was that the fundamental driver to opt for a fully funded private sector concession was the ability to incorporate part funding solutions at any time. There was no alternative practical option to deliver the numbers of chargepoints that were required, other than through a chiefly private sector option.
11. A Member said that inviting the districts and boroughs to join a partnership when the business model had been agreed was not in the spirit of partnership, should the districts and boroughs not be involved in the decision-making process. An Officer said that the Surrey EV Forum had been formed in April 2021 and consisted of Officers from all of the districts and broughs. The official policy backing was given for all of the districts and boroughs to pursue. Work had been ongoing during the last 12 months to grow these partnerships and that part of the rationale for recommending the model proposed was that it enabled districts and boroughs to join in the concession if they wished

12. A member asked what proportion of the 10,000 Chargepoints target would be located on-street and in car parks. An Officer said that this information was not yet available. The target of the first year was to define a network plan through broad consultation that would be presented to the Committee for feedback.

13. A Member asked if it was appropriate to consider fast chargers and if future technologies were being considered. An Officer explained that the concession contract would allow for changes in the provision and deal with the flexibility of new technology. At this stage, many on-street chargers would suit fast charging, however slow chargers that would be appropriate for overnight charging, had not been discounted

14. A Member suggested that chargepoints could be installed at Surrey County Council car parks located to serve parks and greens. This could reduce the number of on-street chargepoints and whilst more expensive, may be a more acceptable solution. An Officer said that these were the types of locations that would be included in the network plan. Cost implications would depend on distances from power connections, however, it was generally more economical to install chargepoints in car parks than on- street and the fact that traffic regulation orders would not be required made these locations less contentious and high priority.

15. A Member queried if, in relation to the Surrey EV Forum, there were minutes, targets or action plans available to support development. An Officer said that minutes of the forum were circulated amongst forum officers, they were not shared but were available on request. The programme is driven by the Climate Change Delivery Plan with a blueprint to develop a specific action plan proposed. This would be the first action within the concession contract. The network plan would be 12 months from the start of the contract with the agreed action plan to run parallel to that. If the contract were agreed, procurement would be in place by September 2022, after this point a long-term action plan would be available.

16. A Member asked what risks were involved in committing to a 15- year contract. An officer said that the private sector organisation had to commit in terms of return on investment. To agree to make and fully fund the scheme would only be possible with exclusivity for chargepoint installation over a sufficient period of time. Any non-performance would be covered by break points in the contract, including a five-year break point in any event to allow for review and evaluation. Suppliers often refresh technology after seven years which would allow joint consideration of available technologies.

17. A Member asked if Surrey County Council would be at risk of being monopolised by a single supplier and did it risk missing the opportunity to raise revenues. An Officer explained that this was a competitive element of the tender. It was hoped there would be revenue return which would be used to manage the process, assist in developing the process and reinvest in further chargepoints.

18. A Member asked if the equipment was transferable, enabling a switch to a different supplier at the end of the contract. An Officer confirmed that this had been considered in the plans. If the choice was to decommission at the end of the contract, all underground cabling would be in place resulting in more economical replacement of the equipment. There may also be an option to take the equipment into the ownership off SCC. If a supplier were to cease trading during the contract, there would be a contractual provision to make the equipment suitable for instant transfer to another operator with the required software compatibility.

19. A Member asked if Officers could give insight into what a contract that might look like and asked why the report refers to being at the procurement options stage. Could the process be paused to enable the Committee the opportunity to consider the detail and contribute constructive comments and recommendations. An Officer said that they were very open to further engaging the Committee but there would be concerns regarding any delays caused. As the Committee was aware that there is a perception that the County Council was already acting too late to tackle carbon emissions and had difficult targets to meet. The Cabinet Member for Highways & Infrastructure suggested that the Highways Reference Group could scrutinise the detail in place of a new reference group.

20. A Member asked if the Long-Term Network Plan could be developed by a separate entity to the those supplying the equipment to avoid a conflict of interest. An Officer said that decisions would be based on the quality of the competition, however it was recognised that companies had a deep vested interest in using their own data driven software to produce a plan to best deliver a return on their investment.

21. A Member asked how many chargepoints were being considered in less contentious and top priority locations. An Officer explained that plans would be considered with the districts and boroughs. Some districts and Boroughs had committed to house exemplar car parks as part of the process and currently every parking review was being looked at in a sequential manner to ensure that the more acceptable locations were considered first, resulting in approximately 200 – 300 chargepoint locations including carparks.

22. A Member asked if there were plans to charge electricity to the grid to sell back at a more profitable time and also questioned whether electric bike (e-Bike) charging had been considered. An Officer advised that vehicle to grid charging was not currently an option but would be taken into account during the life of the concession at the point of the technology review at five years, also providing an opportunity to consider e-bike charging. 

23. A Member asked if there would be disabled access to chargepoints. An Officer advised that disabled access to Electric Vehicle (EV) charge points was easier to take into account in car parks where there was space and would continue to be part of ongoing consideration. National advice was expected which would inform a way to integrate disabled access and charge across the programme.

24. A Member asked what the provision for the maintenance of chargepoints be. An Officer confirmed that the supplier would be responsible for maintenance which would be governed by Key Performance Indicators (KPI) resulting in penalties for poor performance. Demonstration of that capability would form part of the contract.

25. A Member asked if the Service was aware of the number of chargepoints being installed by supermarkets. An Officer explained that private sector were moving fast in installing chargepoints with 630 chargepoints across Surrey, more than two thirds being located in private car parks such as supermarkets and retail parks. It was not possible to include the private sector in the County Councils arrangements because the contractual capability was only available to the public sector. The plans and forecasts of the of the private sector were very relevant to the concession and important to avoid doubling up.

26. The Chairman reiterated the Select Committee’s strong concerns regarding the paper and the unsatisfactory timescale given to decide upon a business model. The paper was missing the reasons why models two, three and four were not appropriate for Surrey County Council. Points raised by Committee Members concerning the districts and boroughs appeared to be a good starting point for the Highways Reference Group to begin scrutiny of the paper along with the concerns raised by the Select Committee today.

Resolved:

The Select Committee: 

1. Asks Cabinet Member to consider postponement of the 25 January Cabinet report titled ‘Surrey Public Electric Vehicle Chargepoint Procurement Plan’ so that issues raised by the Members of the Select Committee can be considered and reflected in the final report presented to Cabinet.

2. Requests a further information update report be presented to the Select Committee meeting at its special meeting on 7 February 2022.

[Following the Select Committee meeting, the wording of the Cabinet report had been revised such that the Chair and Vice Chairs believe it now addresses the concerns raised by the Select Committee and a further information update report will be presented to the Select Committee on 7 February, as requested.]