PV PPA RFO April 23, 2012 Q&A
Q1: Are the PV RFO TOD factors correct at a Super Peak of 2.20 compared to the recent RPS TOD RFO factors with a Super Peak of 2.38?
A1: The TOD factors are correct. They are based on a prior version of an RPS PPA. We anticipate updatingthe factorsin the next round of the PV PPA RFO.
__
Q2: What was the average and lowest accepted pre-TOD price that was accepted for the 2011 PV PPA RFO?
A2: The contract prices are confidential. All were below the Market Price Referent adopted in 2009 for projects beginning operation in 2013 (~$109/MWh), and the market continues to be competitive.
__
Q3: Do you have to apply for full capacity deliverability status if you are connecting at the distribution line level and have passed the Fast Track process?
A3: If you are interconnecting via the Fast Track process, you must apply for deliverability through the annual deliverability process.
__
Q4: I want to confirm that if your project initially applied for an energy only interconnection through the SGIP process and then applied for the one-time deliverability option through the QC4 process, received Phase I results and then did NOT post the security to continue through the deliverability study process to Phase II, that the project is still eligible for the PG&E PV PPA RFO program. And, if chosen through the PG&E PV PPA RFO, the project must pursue deliverability through the annual deliverability process.Is this correct?
A4: Yes, this is correct.
__
Q5: Our company is women-owned and CPUC-certified. Can we participate in the RFO just to deliver material only? Can you send me the names and e mails of companies who are participating in the RFO so that we can partner with them?
A5: We encourage you to participate. You can submit an offer if you meet the eligibility criteria, including Seller experience, site control, interconnection and online date. You can also partner with others for materials procurement.
The webinar participant list will be posted with individual and company names. You may also want to utilize the contacts listed on slide 32 of the webinar presentation.
__
Q6: How many MWs from last years' RFO got built? How many fell out completely?
A6: All of the projects accepted in the 2011 RFO are currently under development.
__
Q7: If you are possibly allowing for escalating prices in the next year RFO 2013 – would this trigger a re-negotiation for this year’s executed PPAs?
A7: No, this will not trigger re-negotiation.
__
Q8: If the site owner already has a net-metered system on site that is behind their consumption but also wants to lease land for this RFO PPA, does this create a conflict according to your rules and regulations?
A8: The project on the leased land will be eligible if the project is a separate and distinct project from the existing net-metered project, and is separately metered.
__
Q9: Could you please provide the size of the projects that were awarded a PPA in the 2011 RFO?
A9: The project sizes are 20 MW, 18 MW, and 12 MW.
__
Q10: Regarding developer experience – is it necessary that the solar PV experience of the developer be in the United States? Is it acceptable that the developer has completed projects in Europe, for instance?
A10: Developer experience outside of the United States is acceptable.
__
Q11: Regarding submission history – is it necessary to disclose information regarding a project that may have been submitted by a different developer in the past? Specifically, if the project has been acquired there may be a submission history that is not fully known.
A11: If you have the information, then please provide the details. This information will assist us in providing data to the CPUC.
__
Q12: Could you please clarify the Prevailing Wage Provision in the Terms? For instance, why is the electrician classification the only classification mentioned? Should contractors be advised to pay prevailing wages for other classifications of workers used in the construction process?
A12: Please refer to the CPUC Decision, 10-04-052, which discusses this issue.
__
Q13: Where will this PG&E webinar’s audio and slide presentation be posted?
A13: They are posted on the 2012 PV PPA RFO website:
__
Q14: If a company is a new solar developer that is founded by ex-utility employees having built 5MW of solar projects elsewhere in the US, will that be qualify for the 500 kW experience prerequisite for this RFO?
A14: If those ex-utility employees are part of your development team, their experience should qualify for the experience prerequisite.
__
Q15: To be eligible to participate in PG&E's 2012 Photovoltaic Program Power Purchase Agreements RFO, per CPUC Resolution E-4368, the bidding company and/or member of the project development team must have either completed or begun construction of a solar project that is at least 500 kW in size.
Would "begun construction" be at all flexible? Our project is into the design phase, but will not likely have turned dirt by May 3 - only 3 weeks away!
A15: We consider the beginning of construction to be the issuance of a Notice to Proceed to the project’s EPC contractor, or an equivalent event.
__
Q16: The RFO states that “Participants whose Offers have been selected will be required to accept by July 9, 2012 their selection and continued Participation in this RFO.” It goes on to further state “By 5:00 P.M. PPT on July 16, 2012, Participants with accepted Offers must submit a signed PPA.” I’m not clear what the distinction is between these two nominations. Can one accept their selection and continued participation on July 9, 2012 and then chose not to sign the PPA on July 16? If so, what’s the point of requiring a Participant to nominate continued participation a week before there is any actual binding requirements (i.e. the signed PPA)?
A16: The July 9 date is the date by which Participants with selected offers provide PG&E initial feedback (a simple yes or no) as to whether they accept their selection as either a Primary or Backup offer. There is no commitment required at that point to proceed to an executed PPA. We ask for this notification so that we can proceed with the steps necessary to get to final PPAs in the solicitation.
4/23/2012 Updates
Q 17: If a project requires a new Switching Station that is expected to be built by April 2014, will the project continue to be considered for a contract?
A 17: Yes, the project will be considered for a contract because the 18 month COD deadline is expected to occur in April 2014. Note that all of the necessary interconnection facilities and reliability network upgrades, and not just the switching station, should be complete within 18 months.
__
Q 18: What happens to Cluster 3&4 projects that will get revised Phase II deliverability studies? The upgrades identified, and timeframes could be significantly reduced in Phase II.
A 18: Because you do not yet have Phase II study results, there may be insufficient information to conclude that you cannot complete the interconnection process within the 18 month period following CPUC approval of any PPA you may be awarded. However, if you enter into a PPA you will be subject to the 18 month deadline and will be at risk if the interconnection process extends beyond that deadline.
__
Q 19: In our Cluster 4, Phase I interconnection study results (received Jan 3, 2012), the estimated timeframe for interconnection facilities is 12-24 monthsand reliability upgrades are 36 months. Will our project be deemed ineligible during the screening process?
A 19: As described above, there may be insufficient information to determine whether your project will complete the interconnection process within the 18 month period following CPUC approval of any PPA you may be awarded. For that reason your project would likely not be eliminated from consideration. However, if you enter into a PPA you will be subject to the 18 month deadline and will be at risk if the interconnection process extends beyond that deadline.
__
Q 20: How would PG&E value deliverability in the solicitation? According to the evaluation methodology, it would appear not at all.
A 20: PG&E expects all Sellers to be pursuing deliverability. Given the similarity in the generation profiles of the PV projects in PG&E territory, PG&E does not expect to see wide variations in RA value for PV projects that are deliverable. An Offer’s price should reflect all costs associated with pursuing full capacity deliverability, if applicable.
__
Q 21: How did some of last year’s solicitation participants specifically “trip up” on the interconnection deadlines that are in the RFO?
A 22: Not all participants in the 2011 solicitation met the RFO interconnection deadlines. Participants in the 2012 solicitation should be aware of,and comply with, the interconnection deadlinesspelled out in the RFO schedule.
__
Q 23: How did this program specifically treat the process and issues of Resource Adequacy for the first round of solicitation winners? Are there any changes this year on lesson learned last year?
A 23: Both the 2011 process and the 2012 process require Sellers to demonstrate the timely pursuit of resource adequacy. However, due to differences in timing of the interconnection process, Sellers in the 2012 PV RFO may demonstrate pursuit of RA in a different manner than in 2011. During the first PV RFO, Sellers were required to demonstrate pursuit of RA by showing a completed deliverability study request. Now that the CAISO process is further along, Sellers may demonstrate their pursuit of RA by demonstrating that they are in Phase II of the deliverability assessment process. For Sellers that are precluded from doing so, PG&E is requiring sellers to demonstrate pursuit of an annual deliverability finding.
__
Q 24: Are we eligible to submit our proposal into the PG&E PV RFO as Energy Only? We have full deliverability assessment completed but not sure if we would want to proceed in this manner.
A 24: No. Projects that can pursue full deliverability must do so to remain eligible in the PV PPA RFO.
__