HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor_v4Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor
with First Round of National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 2
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor
with First Round of National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds
Contents
Introduction and Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Solicitation Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Stakeholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RFA Priority Locations and Scoring Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Driver Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Electric Utility and Site Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Application Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A Qualified, Diverse Applicant Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Application Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
State Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Coverage Across the Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Ensuring Network Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Key Findings and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Achieving NEVI Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Acknowledgements:
NASEO appreciates the assistance and expertise of the Alaska Energy Authority in preparing
this case study which will benefit all State and Territory Energy Offices and their partners
engaged in creating alternative transportation corridors . We also thank Zachary Strauss
of Atlas Public Policy, the primary author, and Delaney Dixon of NASEO for their work in
preparing this case study .
Notice:
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government . Neither the United States Government no any agency thereof, or any
of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights . Reference herein to any specific commercial process, or service by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency
thereof . The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States Government or any agency thereof .
Sponsors:
The material is based upon work sponsored by the U .S . Department of Energy under Award
Number DE-EE0010189 . The contents are intended for informational purposes only . The
authors are solely responsible for errors and omissions .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 3
Introduction and Objective
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program is a $5 billion federal
program with a primary investment in Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs) along the
nation’s major highways and interstates . State Departments of Transportation (DOT) and State
Energy Offices that administer the NEVI formula funds are implementing the program by
soliciting project proposals, issuing contracts, monitoring the reliability and performance of
the chargers, and other responsibilities to ensure the success of the program .
As states announce awards and issue contracts for the first round of NEVI funds, there is an
opportunity for other states to learn from the successes and challenges of the NEVI program .
The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) partnered with Atlas Public Policy
to conduct a series of case studies with the first few states that have announced awards and
issued contracts to NEVI recipients . The case studies are intended to delve deeper into the
states’ solicitation design and stakeholder process; outline the scoring rubric and application
evaluation process; discuss the applicant pool variety and quality; highlight state, utility, and
site host coordination; and illustrate the successes and challenges of the program . These case
studies are part of a larger initiative led by NASEO and AASHTO to enhance coordination and
collaboration between State Energy Offices and State DOTs to ensure that NEVI and other EV
charger investments are made in a strategic, coordinated, efficient, and equitable manner .
OVERVIEW
On March 1, 2023, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Alaska Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) released the state’s official NEVI Request for
Applications (RFA) soliciting proposals for public fast charging projects along its singular
alternative fuel corridor (AFC) that runs from Anchorage to Fairbanks (AK-3) . As part of the
RFA, the state delineated 14 priority municipal areas where it sought charging proposals and
provided applicants with both the scoring rubric and proposal sections expected in each
application . Following a submittal process that ended on May 15, 2023, the agency evaluated
a total of 34 proposals from eight distinct applicants submitted across 13 of the 14 priority
corridor areas .
On September 25, 2023, AEA and DOT&PF announced a Notice of Intent to Award first-
round NEVI prospective grantees, a total of nine proposed projects submitted by four
distinct entities across nine priority locations (Table 1) . These prospective awards total $8
million in investment, with $6 .4 million in NEVI funds to be matched with $1 .6 million in cost
share provided by prospective grantees . One priority location (Clear) did not receive any
applications, while an additional four (Chugiak, Eagle River, Houston, Willow) did not see
prospective awards, either because they did not have any viable commercial site hosts or no
qualified project proposals were submitted .
Of the nine awards, four went to Tesla, three to eCAMION, and two to real estate developers
that will utilize FLO’s charging equipment and network . Nearly all of the awards went to large
established national electric vehicle service providers (ESVPs), while the site hosts chosen
reflected a diversity of locations, including hotels, convenience stores, gas stations, and
shopping centers (Table 1) .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 4
Following federal approval of three discretionary exceptions, AEA anticipates these initial nine
awards will be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for corridor buildout and will shift its focus
to community charging in subsequent NEVI funding rounds .
Table 1: Alaska NEVI Round 1 Prospective Awardees
Grantee Site & Priority
Location
Priority
Location
NEVI
Award
Port
Count
Max
Power
Level
Tesla Trapper Creek Three
Bears
Trapper
Creek $490,907 8 250kW
Tesla Jack River Properties Cantwell $490,907 8 250kW
Tesla Nenana Chevron Gas
Station Nenana $490,907 8 250kW
Tesla
Three Bears Gold
Hill Convenience and
Liquor Store
Ester $490,907 8 250kW
eCAMION USA Mt . McKinley Princess
Wilderness Lodge
Denali State
Park $875,951 4 150kW
eCAMION USA
Westmark Fairbanks
Hotel and Conference
Center
Fairbanks $875,951 4 150kW
eCAMION USA Denali Princess
Wilderness Lodge Healy $875,951 4 150kW
North Anchorage
Real Estate
Investors
Tikahtnu Commons Anchorage $1,039,746 4 320kW
Browman
Development
Company Wasilla
Cottonwood Creek Mall Wasilla $952,950 4 320kW
SOLICITATION DESIGN PROCESS
In designing its RFA, AEA engaged with relevant stakeholders to solicit input, identified
key priority areas for public charging, established specific requirements for site host and
utility coordination, and developed a scoring rubric and evaluation criteria . In the lead-up
to the solicitation release, the agency conducted outreach around the state to promote the
opportunity with prospective applicants, potential site hosts, and the general public . This
section will explore how AEA crafted and designed its RFA and the ways in which the agency
engaged with relevant stakeholders in the process .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 5
Stakeholder Engagement
In working closely with DOT&PF, AEA led the RFA development process, advertised the
solicitation to prospective applicants and site hosts, and convened the selection committee .
In 2022, Alaska’s governor designated AEA as the lead agency on NEVI due to its in-house
capacity, subject matter expertise, and experience with EV infrastructure planning through
managing public charging grant programs like the VW Settlement funds . That same year,
AEA and DOT&PF signed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing a Joint Office and
enumerating their respective roles and responsibilities for designing and managing the state
NEVI program . Likewise, AEA runs the state’s EV working group and maintains relationships
with organizations and stakeholders interested in electric mobility across Alaska .
Prior to the release of the RFA, AEA engaged prospective applicants and site hosts around
the state through an outreach process . In developing its NEVI solicitation, the agency
leveraged the state EV working group to gather input from Alaska EV drivers and local utilities
and to get the word out about the RFA . AEA organized a number of in-person and virtual
engagement sessions with many organizations around the state, giving presentations at
regional conferences and leading EV workshops in Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks, and Juneau .
RFA Priority Locations and Scoring Rubric
As part of the RFA, the agency enumerated 14 priority locations along the corridor where it
sought project proposals and provided an AFC map highlighting the target areas (Figure 1) . The
provided visuals also communicated the distance between priority locations, pinpointed existing
charging infrastructure, and overlayed relevant utility service territories .
Figure 1: AEA Priority Locations and Gap Distances as Provided in RFA
Number Priority Site
1 Anchorage
2 Eagle River
3 Chugiak
4 Wasilla
5 Houston
6 Willow
7 Trapper Creek
8 Denali State Park
9 Cantwell
10 Healy
11 Clear
12 Nenana
13 Ester
14 Fairbanks
ANCHORAGE
priority site 1
DENALI STATE PARK
priority site 8
EAGLE RIVER
priority site 2
CHUGIAK
priority site 1
WASILLA
priority site 4
HOUSTON
priority site 5
TRAPPER CREEK
priority site 7
HEALY
priority site 10
CLEAR
priority site 11
ESTER
priority site 13
NENANA
priority site 12
CANTWELL
priority site 9
FAIRBANKS
priority site 14
WILLOW
priority site 6
15 mi 6 mi 23 mi 16 mi 11 mi
20 mi 45 mi80 mi
34 mi 31 mi
25 mi
45 mi10 mi
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 6
To set expectations and demystify the application process, the RFA outlined all sections
required in each proposal, their page limits, and all necessary forms, such as a site host
agreement, utility assessment, and project budget (Figure 2) .
Figure 2: Required Application Components and Forms as Provided in the RFA
Section Application Component Form Page Limit
1 Administrative Application
1 .1 Signature Page and Certifications Attachment 2 N/A
2 Technical Application
2 .1 Understanding of Program and Project
Methodology Narrative 4
2 .2 Management Plan, Schedule, Development and
Operation Narrative 6
2 .3 Experience and Qualifications Narrative 3
2 .4 One-Page Resumes of Project Team 10
2 .5 Past EVSE Installations of Contractor 2
2 .6 Site Proposal Summary Form Attachment 3 N/A
2 .7 Utility Service Site Information Form Attachment 4 N/A
3 Pricing Application
3 .1 Site Pricing Application Form Attachment 5 N/A
3 .2 Site Pricing Application Budget Rationale 1
The agency also chose to provide applicants with a full scoring rubric in the RFA, which
delineated each section of the proposal, its point value, and the percentage of the total score it
comprised . The section-by-section percent values are as follows: Project Pricing (20 percent),
Program and Project Methodology (10 percent), Management Plan, Schedule, and Operation
(20 percent), Experience and Qualifications (30 percent), and Site Proposal (30 percent) .
Figure 3: Scoring Breakdown for Proposal Pricing and Technical Application as Provided in RFA
Pricing Scoring Element Max Points % of Total
Site Pricing Application Cost 100 10%
Site Pricing Application Narrative 100 10%
Maximum Site Pricing Application Score 200 20%
Technical Scoring Element Max Points % of Total
Understanding of Program and Project Methodology 100 10%
Management Plan, Schedule, Development and Operation 200 20%
Experience and Qualifications 200 20%
Site Proposal 300 30%
Maximum Technical Application Score 800 80%
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 7
For the site proposal in particular, the agency offered additional granularity on state priorities
and how they would be weighed, such as safety (20 points, 7 percent of site score), cost share
(60 points, 20 percent of site score), and utility engagement (80 points, 27 percent of site
score) . In terms of equity priorities, the state did not offer additional points to applicants who
identified as, or committed to working with, minority- or women-owned businesses . Rather,
AEA scored applications based on whether the proposed site was in a Justice40 community
(40 points, 13 percent of site proposal score) . AEA believes providing this level of overall
transparency in the RFA improved proposal quality because, from the outset, applicants knew
what the state expected and how it would be scored (Figure 4) .
Figure 4: Site Proposal Scoring Rubric as Provided in RFA
Criterion Max Points
Utility Service Site Information Form Evaluation
Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the
infrastructure need and utility improvement costs for the site?
Does the project schedule align with the demonstrated utility
infrastructure and utility needs?
80
Site is located within 1 mile of the highway
Within 1 mile: 60 points
1-3 miles: 30 points
3-5 miles: 15 points
Over 5 miles: 0 points
60
Site provides adequate lighting for security around the EVSE .20
Site has amenities for users to access while charging their vehicle .40
Site is located within a Justice40 boundary .40
Site match contribution:
20%: 20 points
25%: 40 points
30%: 60 points
80
Total Available Base Points 300
Bonus Considerations Max Points
Site offers pull through charging access .20
Site offers make-ready work for additional ports and increased speed
(e .g . 350 kW) in the future .20
Site offers additional plug standards to be inclusive of other drivers
(e .g . NACS and CHAdeMO) .10
In terms of the proposal submission procedure, applicants were asked to send the completed
package to a designated AEA email or to a physical address . However, the RFA did not specify
in detail the format in which the application was to be submitted, and the agency received
multiple different Microsoft Excel files and project narratives, with several proposals including
narratives relevant to multiple different sites . AEA suggests that, in the future, it will consider
requiring applicants to submit all documents relevant to a single proposal as one PDF to
streamline the evaluation process .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 8
The Driver Experience
In designing the RFA, AEA chose to include point preferences for elements relevant to the driver
experience . In the site proposal scoring rubric, AEA awarded applicants 40 points (5 percent
of the proposal score) for the quality of the amenities available at or near the site . In the RFA
documents, AEA listed several priority amenity examples to prompt applicants, including 24/7
access to restrooms, food options such as convenience stores or dine-in restaurants, canopies,
and Wi-Fi accessibility . However, several of the priority charging locations across the corridor
had few amenity options given the rural and remote nature of the state . In addition, AEA
carved out 20 points for “adequate lighting” in the site proposal rubric as a means to ensure
sites were designed with driver safety and physical well-being in mind (Figure 4) .
The agency also offered bonus points for sites that included additional connector types
(J3400 /CHAdeMO), utility future-proofing to accommodate additional ports and higher
power charging, sites with more than four charging ports above 150 kilowatts, and pull-
through parking (Figure 4) . In doing so, AEA encouraged applicants to design sites that would
support a range of different vehicle types and sizes, and that could serve a greater number
of drivers faster . In awarding Tesla nearly half of the NEVI sites in the state, AEA ensured that
many of their corridor charging locations will be outfitted with eight ports and 250-kilowatt
chargers, factors that will improve charging times and reduce congestion in the long term .
All Tesla sites in Alaska will include at least eight ports and be outfitted with the company’s
charging equipment (Tesla V4) that can output up to 250 kW per vehicle .
Electric Utility and Site Host Requirements
In order to apply, prospective grantees had to demonstrate engagement with the local electric
utility responsible for serving their project site . More specifically, applicants were required to
reach out to the utility and request they complete and sign an AEA utility site assessment form
for each address . This form includes information on the utility infrastructure improvements
required, the estimated costs to perform those upgrades, and any matching contribution to be
made by the utility . While the utility provided a site-specific cost estimate, the applicant was
responsible for putting together the project schedule, which was expected to align with the
utility infrastructure upgrade needs communicated on the site assessment form .
AEA provided applicants with contact information for the five local utilities operating
along the corridor . To help ensure that these utilities would be able to complete these site
assessment requests on time, AEA worked closely with them in the lead-up to the RFA
announcement to develop the form . In response to utility feedback during the submittal
window, AEA extended the application deadline by two weeks to allow them more time to
appropriately respond to incoming requests . Overall, this utility engagement requirement did
not appear to burden or slow down the application process; applicants were able to obtain
completed utility forms and submit them on time .
Applicants were also required to demonstrate engagement with site hosts, should they be
applying as lessees . As part of the proposal package, applicants were required to obtain a
signature from the site landowner . In signing the form, site hosts affirmed their commitment to
install the NEVI chargers on their property and keep them in the ground for a period of five years .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 9
APPLICATION EVALUATION
AEA opened a three-week Q&A period following the release of the RFA to allow applicants
and stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback, ask questions, and request RFA
modifications . In response to comments and inquiries received during the Q&A window, AEA
released four addenda and extended the submission deadline by two weeks . However, no
substantive changes were made to the RFA following its official release .
Upon closure of the RFA submission period, AEA reviewed the 34 bids they received across
their corridor priority locations . This section will address the diversity and quality of the
application pool, Alaska’s priorities in the review process, and the state’s success in filling gaps
across all geographies, including rural areas . Likewise, this section will identify ways in which
Alaska worked to establish a robust and reliable charging network across its singular AFC .
A Qualified, Diverse Applicant Pool
Given the low level of EV penetration in Alaska and the rural nature of the state, AEA was
initially concerned that it may not be able to attract qualified bids across its 14 priority areas .
According to Atlas EV Hub, fewer than 2,000 new light-duty electric vehicles (EVs) have been
sold in Alaska since 2019, and EVs have made up less than two percent of the total vehicle
market share over the past four years .
AEA received a diverse group of 34 proposals that exceeded agency expectations,
considering the limited number of potential site hosts and charging providers that could
realistically serve a project along the corridor . While one location did not receive any
proposals, overall, the NEVI funding proved a strong enough incentive to encourage eight
entities to submit applications and dozens of site hosts to commit to hosting chargers . AEA
received a diverse group of 34 proposals that exceeded agency expectations, considering the
limited number of potential site hosts and charging providers that could realistically serve a
project along the corridor . The eight distinct applicants included four large national EVSPs,
three property developers, and one Alaska Native Corporation (Table 2) .
Of the 34 total applications, more than half were submitted by a single applicant (Universal
Charging), which ultimately did not receive any awards . Nearly all the applications were
submitted by large national EVSPs, but these entities typically partnered with local or regional
Alaska businesses to serve as site hosts . While AEA would have liked to have seen more
local companies or site hosts apply as direct grantees, the agency acknowledged that more
established, national EVSPs are best equipped to reliably operate and maintain the NEVI
charging network . With regard to the site host landscape, applicants put forth an array of site
types in their proposals: convenience stores, conference centers, gas stations, hotels, lodges,
and shopping centers, with a diverse selection of sites ultimately receiving awards .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 10
Table 2: Applicants by Number of Applications and Awards
Applicant Applicant Type Number of
Applications Awards
Browman Development Company
Wasilla
Property Manger 1 1
ChargePoint EVSP 2 0
eCAMION America EVSP 6 3
Jack River Properties*Property Manager 1 0
North Anchorage Real Estate Investors Property Manager 1 1
Tanama Chiefs Conference Alaska Native
Corporation
1 0
Tesla EVSP 4 4
Universal Charging EVSP 18 0
* While Jack River Properties did not win a site award as a direct applicant, the company was selected as
a site host at Tesla’s Cantwell location.
Application Quality
Overall, AEA deemed the application pool high quality, providing staff with many factors
to consider in the review process . According to the agency, all applicants responded well
to the narrative portions of the RFA and were able to successfully relay their qualifications
and past fast-charging project experience . As part of the proposal, applicants were required
to demonstrate past performance and project competence to ensure that they could meet
uptime and performance standards and comply with federal NEVI guidance and statutory
requirements . The agency gave great consideration to applicants with a proven track record
of successful charging projects and the experience necessary to manage NEVI charging
sites . In doing their due diligence and ensuring quality control, the state checked applicant
references from past projects and cross-referenced historical uptime reported in proposals
with public data available on PlugShare, a mobile application that compiles user reviews of EV
charging experiences . As part of the evaluation, some applications were disqualified for being
non-responsive .
State Priorities
Notwithstanding the high quality of the applicant pool, a number of key AEA evaluation
priorities set selected prospective awardees apart . At 20 percent of the total score, project
cost served as a major factor in weighing applications against one other; applicants that
offered the state more for less were given priority consideration . For example, Tesla proposed
several eight-port sites for nearly half the cost ($613,00) of their closest competitor, ultimately
winning awards on all four applications it submitted (Table 2) . Likewise, while the Tanana
Chiefs Conference, an Alaska Native Corporation, put together a strong proposal that
included onsite renewables, the funding requested was nearly four times that of Tesla’s, which
ultimately rendered it uncompetitive (Table 1) . Likewise, according to AEA, the strongest
proposals came from those who homed in on Alaska-specific challenges: the cold weather
climate, shortened construction season, and higher construction costs associated with
building in rural and remote areas .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 11
Coverage Across the Corridor
While Alaska is a predominately rural state with low EV penetration, AEA did receive
applications across 13 of its 14 priority charging locations, including those in more remote
areas . The proposals were distributed relatively evenly across the corridor regardless of
urban or rural geography, and barring a few exceptions, applicants were able to find suitable
site hosts north to south along the AFC . While Anchorage did receive the highest number
of applications of any priority location (five), it tied with Nenana, a town of fewer than 500
people (Table 3) . AEA did not provide any additional incentives to encourage applicants to
submit projects in more rural areas, nor did it offer point preference in the scoring rubric for
sites in these locations . This full coverage success demonstrated to AEA that the interest and
business case exist for NEVI sites along the corridor .
Table 3: NEVI Priority Location by Number of Applications and Award Status
Priority Location Number of
Applications Site Awarded?
Anchorage 5 Yes
Eagle River 2 No
Chugiak 1 No
Wasilla 3 Yes
Houston 2 No
Willow 1 No
Trapper Creek 3 Yes
Denali State Park 1 Yes
Cantwell 3 Yes
Healy 3 Yes
Clear 0 No
Nenana 5 Yes
Ester 1 Yes
Fairbanks 4 Yes
Total 34 9 sites awarded
Ensuring Network Reliability
To ensure that grantees comply with federal NEVI uptime requirements (97 percent), AEA and
DOT&PF will retain a certain percentage of the total awarded amount, to be disbursed over
five years given satisfactory grantee performance . Likewise, the state employed prescriptive
selection criteria to ensure only serious applicants with the proper experience and qualifications
ultimately received awards . The outcome of doing so was selecting Tesla and eCAMION, two
established, national EVSPs, to manage and operate seven of the nine total NEVI sites in
Alaska . The two remaining sites will be equipped with FLO charging hardware and utilize FLO
networking services . Moreover, the state highly considered applications that addressed Alaska-
specific challenges, such as harsh winter weather and a shorter construction season, which
illustrated the applicants did due diligence and has a higher change of successfully completing
the project within the budget and proposed schedule .
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 12
KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED
In reviewing the first round of Alaska NEVI RFA, project proposals, and awards, in
addition to conducting an interview with AEA staff, the following lessons learned, and
key findings were identified by the authors.
• Following approval of three discretionary exceptions, AEA anticipates the nine
first-round NEVI awards will be sufficient to certify corridor buildout.
• NEVI funding proved a strong incentive to attract 34 bids from eight distinct
applicants and court a diverse array of site hosts.
• Despite low EV penetration in Alaska and the rural nature of the state, AEA
received bids across 13 of 14 priority areas and filled gaps across both urban and
rural geographies without providing additional targeted subsidies.
• Proposal pricing (cost) and demonstrated understanding of Alaska-specific
challenges were two of the strongest considerations in the evaluation process.
AEA also strongly weighed applicant qualifications and proven experience.
• AEA conferred with all relevant utilities in developing required utility cost estimate
forms, and this requirement did not hamper applicant submissions. To ensure they
could adequately respond to all requests, utilities sought a two-week deadline
extension.
• Seven of nine awards were issued to large, established electric vehicle service
providers (Tesla and eCAMION). Tesla offered eight-port bids at half the price of
the next competitor and was awarded all four sites for which it applied.
• Despite corridor coverage success, AEA noted that it could have conducted
additional outreach to court bids in areas that received few or no proposals.
• To streamline the submission process, AEA would like applicants to submit
site-specific proposal packages as a single PDF in future funding rounds.
• AEA suggests leveraging existing EV stakeholder groups in the state to gather
input and feedback during the solicitation design process.
• Including the scoring rubric in the RFA supports proposal quality; applicants know
what that state is looking for and how it will be evaluated. Providing the required
application components and page limits in the RFA helps ensure applicants can
submit quality bids with all of the necessary information.
Alaska Builds Out Alternative Fuel Corridor with First Round
of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Funds 13
ACHIEVING NEVI GOALS
NEVI Goal State Action
Engage with Relevant
Stakeholders in Program
Design
• Worked with utilities to develop application forms
• Gathered input from stakeholders to inform solicitation design
• Conducted outreach across state to promote solicitation
• Offered time-limited Q&A period during submission window
Ensure Positive Driver
Experience
• Scored amenities in site proposal rubric
• Provided examples of relevant amenities in application
• Scored safety/lighting in site proposal rubric
• Offered points to sites with additional connector types
• Offered points to sites with future proofing
Establish a Reliable Charging
Network
• Included percent retainage in contract
• Selected established EVSPs
• Strong consideration for candidate experience/qualifications
• Conducted due diligence and applicant quality control
Fill Gaps Across All
Geographies Including Rural
Areas
• Satisfied requirements for corridor buildout
• Received applications in rural areas without additional incentives
Prioritize Equity and
Disadvantaged Communities
• Provided extra points to sites in Justice40 communities