© 2023 by Strategic Consulting. Proudly created with Wix.com

Overview

RFP Document

This 2017R Request for Proposals for renewable resources (2017R RFP) is seeking cost-competitive bids for up to 1,270 MW of new or repowered wind energy interconnecting with or delivering to PacifiCorp’s Wyoming system with the use of third-party firm transmission service and any additional wind energy located outside of Wyoming capable of delivering energy to PacifiCorp’s transmission system that will reduce system costs and provide net benefits for customers.

 

Proposals for new or repowered wind resources claiming PTC eligibility must demonstrate that projects will qualify for the federal PTC, if applicable and can achieve commercial operation on or before December 31, 2020. The minimum project size is 10.0 MW and the maximum size limit is not fixed, however the project must not compromise system reliability.

 

Bid Types: PacifiCorp will consider proposals for; a “Build-Transfer” transaction whereby the bidder develops the project, assumes responsibility for construction and ultimately transfers the operating asset to PacifiCorp, all in accordance with the terms of a build-transfer agreement (BTA) or, a power-purchase agreement (PPA) for up to a thirty (30) year term with exclusive ownership by PacifiCorp of any and all environmental attributes associated with all energy generated.

Question Submission

Please use the following form to submit questions related to this RFP. Include your organization, e-mail address, subject, and question. The questions will be anonymously submitted to Pacificorp and Pacificorp's answers will posted to the Q&A section below once received. The Q&As will also be posted on Pacificorp's 2017R RFP website: http://www.pacificorp.com/sup/rfps/2017-rfp.html.

Q&A

1. Q: For a PPA with flat and escalating pricing, is that considered a base bid and an                          alternative?

     A: Yes.

2. Q: A PPA with an extension option, and without an extension option, is that considered              two alternatives?

     A: PacifiCorp would consider this as a base bid (no extension) and an alternative of                    adding an extension, provided this is a 20 year term as the base bid.  If the base bid is            30 years then the PPA with and without an extension would be 2 alternatives to the                base bid of 30 years.

 

3. Q: If bidding one project as both a BTA and a PPA, would it be considered one Base and              one Alternative or two Base proposals?

     A: PacifiCorp would consider those as two separate base bids.

4. Q: Under a BTA is it expected that the seller provide O&M services for the life of the                    project?

     A: PacifiCorp expects that bidders will submit a minimum three (3) year O&M initial                     contract term with the option for PacifiCorp to extend the contract for two 1-year                   extensions or a total of five (5) years.  Please see Article 2 of Appendix K – General                   Services Contract – Operations & Maintenance Services For Project.  At the end of the             term, PacifiCorp would apply its own O&M cost projection. Bidders have the                             opportunity to provide a mark-up and comment on the pro forma O&M contract in                 Appendix K as part of bid.

5. Q: With respect to the division of responsibility matrix, what exactly should be provided?

     A: Appendix A-6 is for BTA projects and is for the bidder to identify who has responsibility          on specific tasks related to design, procurement, and construction.  If there are tasks              that PacifiCorp will be providing (transmission or otherwise) those should be                            identified.  The bulk of tasks are generally assigned to the bidder and its EPC                            contractor.

6. Q: Appendix A-6 is for BTA projects and is for the bidder to identify who has                                    responsibility on specific tasks related to design, procurement, and construction.  If                there are tasks that PacifiCorp will be providing (transmission or otherwise) those                    should be identified.  The bulk of tasks are generally assigned to the bidder and its                  EPC contractor.  Are we assigning responsibilities? 

     A: Yes, this is the bidder’s responsibility.

7. Q: Are we providing dates?

     A: Dates are not required in A-6, only responsible party.  Dates would be applicable in                 BTA Appendix B – Critical Path Schedule Requirements.

8. Q: Can you please provide insight about the royalty on the BTA pricing sheet?

     A: Some developers have negotiated as part of their site procurement, a royalty payment           to the landowner.  That payment stream should be identified and described on price,             payment schedule (monthly, quarterly, etc.) and term for the life of the asset.                           Including any escalation.  It is assumed that the royalty continues even if the project is           sold to PacifiCorp and PacifiCorp assumes the payment to the landowner.  If there is a           buy-out clause, that should be identified.

9. Q: Who is this royalty being paid to?

     A: Generally it is the landowner but the party receiving the royalty payment would need             to be identified by the bidder.

10. Q: Can you provide more clarity on the deliverables? There is some repetition on page 9             of the RFP. There are 4 USB copies, 1 electronic copy, and 1 hard copy if I am not                     mistaken. Which documents should be submitted in each?

       A: PacifiCorp would like one hard copy with an original signature on the hard copy from             the bidder.  The remaining copies would be provided on the 4 USB and the electronic             version submitted by email.  The content should be the same for all with the                             exception of the hard copy which would not have an electronic version of certain                     documents such as Appendix C, etc.  Those would be capture on the USB or                             electronic version.  Electronic versions should include any of the documents in                         original form.  In other words, the proposal should not be turned into a single PDF                 document or multiple PDF documents.  If the RFP included an excel spreadsheet, it                 should be returned in that same form along with a PDF if the bidder wants to supply             both.  This allows PacifiCorp and the IEs to utilize the spreadsheets for inputs to                       models. When you prepare the electronic version to our mailbox, please deliver in                   emails less than 25MB so it does not get rejected.

11. Q: What is the performance summary report?

       A: The performance summary report is the report prepared by an independent third                   party engineer or technical firm that utilizes collected wind data, location data, and                 turbine power curves to provide an estimate of energy generation for the wind farm               at different probability levels.  PacifiCorp is asking for the P50 level which is the                       average annual energy output you are most likely to achieve for your site. This is a                  minimum requirement under the RFP.  BTA proposals must supply 2 years of wind                   data and PPA proposals must supply one year of wind data that supports the                           generation profile.

12. Q: To the question directly above, is this in addition to the the energy analysis?

       A: The energy analysis is the same as the performance summary report.

13. Q: Assuming a special purpose LLC has a PacifiCorp queue position for a project with a               capacity of 300 MW, will PacifiCorp allow this project to be split in order to propose                 two separate projects using two separate special purpose LLCs? For example, one                   PPA bid for 150 MW and one BTA bid for the remaining 150 MW. To be clear, one bid               would be made under the original special purpose LLC and the second bid would be               made under a new special purpose LLC. Both bids would reference the original 300                 MW queue position.

 

      A: Yes, that would be allowed from a bid perspective to have both a 150 MW PPA and a               150 MW BTA.  Bidder should confirm with the transmission provider there are no                     issues on the shared interconnection or point of delivery that might affect the either               or both bids.  Note that the two bids would be considered separate and distinct bids,             each requiring a $10,000 bid fee or a total of $20,000.

14. Q: Do the Commitment forms (Letter of Credit and Guaranty) need to be submitted                      with the Intent to Bid?

       A: No – those are due with the bids only – Per Appendix D, page 4 2nd paragraph,                        commitment letters will be due if project is selected to the initial short list.

15. Q: The footnote on Appendix L indicates that PacifiCorp has the development rights for              Benchmark Projects #2, 3, and 4, but that does not preclude the owner of the                          projects or other developers from submitting separate market bids with the                              projects.  Will PacifiCorp make available the necessary information from Benchmark              Projects #2, 3, and 4 for other developers, not including PacifiCorp or the owner of                  the projects, to submit a complete bid?  Necessary information includes any                            information required of bidders for other projects, such as wind data, performance                summaries, O&M agreements, pro formas, etc.

  

        A: No, the development rights agreement between PacifiCorp and the owner does not               allow PacifiCorp to share any data.  Those arrangements would be made between                   the bidder and the owner of the projects.

 

16. Q: Industry publications indicated that an asset swap occurred in 2015 between Idaho                Power and PacifiCorp. According to the trade publications one of the assets moved                from Idaho Power to PacifiCorp was the transmission line between the Midpoint                      substation and the Borah substation in southeastern Idaho. A sample article is                        attached. Can you please confirm that the transmission line between the Midpoint                  substation and the Borah substation in southeastern Idaho is owned by PacifiCorp?

 

       A: There are two 345 kV line that run between the Borah and Midpoint substation in                    Idaho, they were both part of the purchase and sale between Idaho Power and                        PacifiCorp now in effect.  As part of this agreement PacifiCorp and Idaho Power                        jointly own the lines.  Under the agreement Idaho Power is the operator of the lines                and would be the initial contact for any inquiries about generation interconnection,                other interconnections such as a new line or substation.  If the request is for                            transmission service then those requests would be made to one or both of the                        owners separately.

 

 

17. Q: For alternative proposals, can they be included within the base bid document                            package or is a separate document package required for the alternative? For                            example, for a PPA bid with a base capacity of X MW, and an alternative with a                          capacity of X/2 MW, could this be all in one bid package, or two separate                                    independent document packages?

       A: They can be in the same base bid document package but the summary and relevant                sections throughout should clearly identify and mark the base bid component and                  the alternative bid component.

18. Q: Can the 2017R RFP Appendix B - Notice of Intent to Bid and Information Required in                Bid Proposals at the "Structure of Each Bid: BTA or PPA" field be replied as "PPA                        and/or BTA", meaning that we intend to offer on each Base bid and its alternatives,                the possibility of splitting each such Base bid or its alternatives into PPA options and              Build Transfer options?

        A: “Possibility of splitting” would be considered a separate alternative(s).  Appendix B                   should clearly identify all alternatives, including proposed alternatives marked as                     options or options (alternatives) from the alternatives.  For example, you have a 200               MW project your plan to submit as a PPA and as an alternative as a 200 MW BTA.                     Those would be considered two separate bids because of the differences between a               PPA bid and a BTA bid from an evaluation.  If you have a 200 MW project and you                     are submitting as a 100 MW PPA and a 100 MW BTA, those would be treated as two                 separate bids.

19. Q: Can a Base bid and its alternatives be combined, by dividing its total capacity in MW                within such bid group, to create a desirable solution to both the offtaker / buyer                      (PacifiCorp) and the developer / seller to allow a combination of both PPA                                  alternatives and Build Transfer alternatives within such bid group or bid Base                          proposal and its alternatives?

        A: The total capacity of a project proposal can be separated out into PPA portion(s) and               BTA portion(s).  Each portion would be evaluated as a separate bid proposal.  For                     example, if you have a 200 MW project and you are submitting as a 100 MW PPA                     and a 100 MW BTA, those would be treated as two separate bids.

20. Q: In a Notice of Intent to Bid and Information Required in Bid Proposals, at the                            "Number of Bids" field, the number to be supplied is for Base bids and its                                   alternatives. Questions: 1.- Can we submit more than 1 Base bid and 5 alternatives                 per each Notice of Intent to Bid ? 2.- Can the final Market bids or Build & Transfer                   bids have a different number of Base or Alternative bids that as depicted on its                       Notice of Intent to Bid?

         A: Yes.

21. Q: The PacifiCorp 2017R RFP only provides for the supply/installation of wind turbine                  generators of the following brands: GE Vestas and Siemens.  Is this limitation for                      both PPA and Build and Transfer bids?  Can a bidder provide safe harbored                              Goldwind or Gamesa turbines for a PPA bid?  Equally, can a bidder provide safe                        harbored Goldwind or Gamesa turbines for a BTA bid?  Please advise.

        A: PacifiCorp will accept for potential evaluation other turbine manufactures, PPA and                or BTA proposals, however for the BTA proposals which PacifiCorp would ultimately                own, the RFP Appendix A.3 Work Specification identifies General Electric, Vestas, and              Siemens as PacifiCorp approved turbines suppliers.

22. Q: If for example a larger project area of let's say 200 MW has a Net Capacity Factor                      (NCF) of 40 % and we intend to do a Base Bid and 4 alternative proposals, the                         question is: a.- Can the four alternatives be partial capacity sub projects (4 X 50 MW               for example), each one of which would have to have a different NCF as per each                       group of wind turbine generators selected ? b.- If this is true, then a Base Bid with                   five (5) Alternatives would have to carry six (6) separate third party Energy Production             Report or Energy Production Estimate reports ?

       A: Yes.  PacifiCorp expects separate sub projects to have unique capacity factors and                  would expect supporting documents for each NCF.

23. Q: Please clarify that no costs of D1 or D2 new PAC Gateway transmission segments will              be included in the evaluation of any of the bids.

        A: All bids will be evaluated individually for the initial shortlist evaluation based on the                 direct assigned interconnection costs and any third-party transmission costs                             associated with the specific interconnection, if so relied upon for delivery to a                           specified point of delivery, that were submitted in the bids.  Specific to the projects                 interconnecting with or delivering to PacifiCorp’s Wyoming system, as part of the                     final shortlist evaluation, PacifiCorp will include the deliverability aspect of the                         projects by calculating the present value revenue requirement differential (PVRR(d))               between the portfolio containing 2017R RFP wind resources with the Aeolus-to-                       Bridger/Anticline project, including the all transmission costs, and the portfolio                         without 2017R RFP wind resources and without incremental transmission costs.

24. Q: The current form of “RFP Appendix C Bid Summary.xlsx” form does not provide a                    mechanism and/or room to insert O&M costs on a year by year basis for the full life                of the asset under a BTA.

       A: For BTA bids submitting O&M costs beyond the five (5) year requirement, please                      submit as a separate tab (worksheet) on the specified form to represent additional                information you are providing that may not be allowed on the existing form.

25. Q: For contracts included in the RFP attachments, the PPA, BTA and O&M services                          contracts, the RFP document asks for a redline or issues list.  Please confirm: An                      issues list for each contract subject to further negotiations is acceptable for bid                        submissions.

        A: PacifiCorp would prefer a redline but will accept an issues list with explanation of                    each issue and possible alternatives.  With the aggressive schedule, PacifiCorp is                      interesting in understanding issues on its proforma agreements as early as possible              and determining if there are any significant ones to address.  All transaction                              documents are subject to final negotiation between parties.

26. Q: Regarding submission, The RFP states: One (1) electronic copy of the Appendix C –                  Bid Summary and Pricing Input Sheet in original Microsoft Excel format, and a hard                copy. With the hard copy of Appendix C, do you want a hard copy of the 8760, or is it              reasonable to assume that the 8760 should only be submitted electronically?

       A: PacifiCorp will accept the 8760 in electronic form only.

      A: