Mr. Hammond
fyi-request-
-
c @requests.fyi.org.nz
October
Dear Mr. Hammond,
Re: Official Information Act Request: Reasoning behind LETF Round Funding Decisions
Thank you for your online request of October
, in which you requested information under the
Official Information Act
. You requested:
“In LETF round various different entities received funding for what seems to be the same outcome, "two
kW chargers with four ports ( CHADEMO, CCS)". https://www.eeca.govt.nz/assets/EECA-
Resources/Co-funding/LETF-files/Round- -Files/Rounds- -and- -approved-projects-list.docx
ChargeNet NZ Limited was awarded $
,
for each of these projects, while Jump Charging Limited was
awarded between $
,
and $
,
, and EV Infrastructure Partners was awarded between $
,
and $
,
. At first glance the reasoning does not appear to be due to location/site requirements, as all
ChargeNet funding is the same amount for all locations.
I request the reasoning for awarding more money for the same chargers to different entities, including any
correspondence relating to this.”
Response:
Reasoning for awarding more money for the same chargers to different entities…
While the outcome of installing two
kW chargers with four ports ( CHADEMO, CCS) is the same in
each of the ChargeNet NZ Ltd, Jump Charging Ltd and EV Infrastructure Partners projects you have
referenced, the electrical work and upgrades required vary significantly depending on supply availability in
each location.
In Round of the LETF, EECA identified major holiday journey routes with specific locations where
we determined a need for additional public EV charging infrastructure. We held an open Request for
Proposals process, where parties could apply for EECA co-funding to deliver charging infrastructure in one
or more of these locations. Applicants determined the amount of funding they requested based on their
view of competitiveness at the site, their estimates of total project costs, and their internal cost structures.
Across proposals received in Round , the estimated capital costs required to install charging infrastructure
ranged between $ ,
and $
,
. These costs were based on applicant estimates of power
availability, need for connection or transformer upgrades, and associated civil works – as well as the
Wellington Level 8 ∙ 44 The Terrace ∙ PO Box 388 ∙ Wellington 6140 ∙ New Zealand ∙ P +64 4 470 2200
Auckland Level 10 ∙ AIG Building ∙ 41 Shortland Street ∙ Auckland 1141 ∙ New Zealand
www.eeca.govt.nz ∙ 0800 358 676
number of chargers to be installed at each site. For example, in Geraldine the site civil works cost estimates
for the Jump Charging project were half that of another applicant’s proposal, and the electrical upgrade
cost estimates were under % of another applicant’s.
A moderation meeting was held on May
to consider applications and award funding. At this
meeting, the assessment panel scored each application based on the following four components:
Proposed solution ( % weighting)
Ability to deliver ( % weighting)
Speed of implementation ( % weighting)
Value for money ( % weighting)
Proposals from ChargeNet, NZ Ltd, Jump Charging Ltd and EV Infrastructure Partners were approved
based on their scores against these criteria. Applications were assessed location by location. For each of the
locations, the panel selected the application with the highest overall score.
We have released the LETF Panel Report ‘Round Holiday Journey Charging’, which outlines the final
funding allocated to Round projects as well as their moderated final average scores against the fund
criteria. This is attached as Appendix A. We have partially withheld information under s ( )(b)(ii), to
protect information where making available the information would unreasonably prejudice the commercial
position of the person who supplied or who is subject to the information. Redactions have been applied to
information we believe would compromise applicant confidence if shared in a highly competitive market,
potentially impacting their willingness to openly share commercial information with EECA in future.
…any correspondence relating to this.
Regarding the second aspect of your request, for all correspondence relating to the decision to award more
money for the same chargers to different entities, there is no internal or external correspondence that falls
within scope of this request. We are therefore refusing this aspect of your request under (e) of the OIA.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information
about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone
.
Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information requests where
possible. Our response to your request will be published shortly at https://www.eeca.govt.nz/about/news-
and-corporate/official-information/ with your personal information removed.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Marcos Pelenur
Chief Executive
2
