The committee delved into the logistics of installing and managing EV charging stations in Shutesbury. Discussions included a potential partnership with ECR, a company that would own and manage the stations. The fire chief had shown some interest in placing charging stations behind the fire station, although his enthusiasm was limited. The committee discussed not pursuing a fleet grant option because it would require the town to own the site and incur annual maintenance fees of $1,200 per charging station. Alternative options, such as using a municipal credit card for payment by fleet users while keeping stations accessible to the public, were considered.

Long-term considerations were a focal point, with discussions on how EV technology and infrastructure might evolve over the next decade. Questions arose about the process and potential contractual obligations should the town decide to remove the stations. The committee underscored the importance of clarifying terms with ECR, especially as the town assesses the viability of limited real estate for such installations. Participants weighed the risks and benefits of town ownership versus ECR management, considering profit-sharing models where the town could receive 25% to 50% of profits without incurring maintenance costs, which would be covered by ECR.

The committee also noted the potential integration of multiple services, such as broadband and solar energy, through a municipal light plant (MLP). The need to present findings and proposals to the select board was emphasized, with urgency highlighted due to existing incentives that could change. A timeline for the next steps was discussed, taking into account the upcoming town meeting on April 26.

In preparation for an upcoming public forum and hearing, the committee focused on engaging the community with the Climate Leader Community program. They decided on a presentation structure that would first explain the program, then focus on a specialized opt-in code. The presentation’s goal is to clarify benefits like grant funding access to gain community buy-in. The committee acknowledged that although they could technically approve individual aspects of the program, a package deal was necessary for full participation.

Gail Fleischaker confirmed town announcements for the event, with plans to send a reminder closer to the date to boost turnout. The meeting format would be virtual, negating the need for physical handouts. The committee stressed the importance of accurately documenting public interactions during the hearing to avoid misrepresentation.

Another topic was the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. The public comment period for the plan concluded with no feedback received. The committee discussed the timeline for the plan’s approval process, which requires a select board vote. They debated whether this vote was necessary if the plan remained unchanged after public comments. Regardless, formal acceptance was deemed desirable.

The committee examined the timing of resident engagement on program options. They debated the number of options to present, ultimately leaning towards offering three or four diverse choices to reflect public interests.