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