Addendum 3: Additional Site Info plus continuation of Q&A November 11, 2016

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Addendum 3: Additional Site Info plus continuation of Q&A November 11, 2016"

Transcription

1 Addendum 3: Additional Site Info plus continuation of Q&A November 11, 2016 RFP Modification New Info for Minetto The amperage of the service entrance was not previously available for the Minetto Water Pollution Control Plant (site MN1 in bundle 4). The main service panel is rated at 1200 amps. Since this is a relatively minor update, the corresponding Exhibit D documents will not be updated. Q&A UTILITY BILLS AND SAVINGS ANALYSIS Question 14: Can Exhibit D.1 Site Summary and Bundling Spreadsheet be updated to include the volumetric (kwh) and/or volumetric & demand (kwh & KW) savings for energy and capacity delivered for each respective tariff under column G? Answer 14: New York offers true net metering, so the $/kwh offset value of solar on the electric bill is equal to the full $/kwh usage charge (including the Electricity Supply Charge along with all other surcharges assessed on a $/kwh basis). There is not a set rate for the Electric Supply Charge. Customers can shop for alternative energy suppliers (in which case their rates will be contract dependent) or receive their supply directly from the utility, in which case they will pay the utility s Electric Supply Charge. The Electric Supply Charge is not fixed in advance, but rather floats based on market conditions. Historical pricing for the Electric Supply Charge for each rate tariff is available online on the respective utility website. Find related information in the answer to questions #2 and #3 of Addendum 2. Also note that remote net metering crediting is volumetric, so the $/kwh value of solar to satellite accounts will be based on the satellite account s rate tariff. INCENTIVES Question 15: Per pages 7-8 of the RFP, have site locations been registered for NYSERDA MW Block program or is this the responsibility of the developer? Answer 15: Incentive reservations have not been made. Find related information in the answer to questions #6 and #7 of Addendum 2. Page 1 of 6

2 CONTRACTUAL Question 16: Upon a selection determination, the RFP states that individual contracts will be negotiated with each of the 25 participating organizations. Do you see any path for increased efficiencies during this period to help to eliminate soft costs and streamline administration? Answer 16: A template PPA agreement has been provided in Exhibit F. This agreement has been reviewed by the RFP project team and a legal consultant. Significant time was invested in this document and it is the first step toward establishing a standard contract that can be utilized for each agency. Once awards are made, it is anticipated that the RFP project team will undergo additional contract negotiations with the Proposer (focused on any exceptions the Proposer has to the template PPA) on behalf of all participating agencies. While each agency will ultimately have to approve and sign individual contracts, and may have their own unique requirements, this preliminary negotiation should expedite the process with each individual agency. Question 17: Does the developer bear risk for non-performance on their bid in the event of a permitting or construction related fatal flaw arising during development? Answer 17: This will depend on the contract signed between the developer and the agency. The template PPA agreement in Exhibit F does allow for Mutual Rights to Termination based on unanticipated site conditions; see section 3.8(b) of the PPA. However, this is a template only and may be modified for each individual agency. Note also that Proposers are able to submit exceptions to the template PPA as part of their response. Question 18: Who bears the risk of system removal for landfill/roof maintenance? This information is needed to calculate the PPA rate. Answer 18: This will depend on the contract between the developer and the agency. This contingency is not addressed in the template PPA provided in Exhibit F. Question 19: Can you please clarify the projects required CODs? Answer 19: No deadline has been set for commercial operation date. INTERCONNECTION AND UTILITY ISSUES Question 20: There are a significant number of projects in both the NYSEG and National Grid DG queue with start dates that range from 2013 to Has CNY done any research as to how the current state of the queue may affect site locations included in the RFP? Answer 20: The RPDB cannot make any predictions about interconnection approval or costs for any of these sites. Page 2 of 6

3 For most participating agencies, several potential properties were considered and only the properties considered most viable (with consideration for ease of interconnection among other factors) were included in this RFP. While some municipalities have alternate sites available if the sites in this RFP prove difficult, this should not be relied upon. Find more information in the answer to question #12 in Addendum 2. Question 21: Since development of this RFP was in progress before the June 1, 2015 deadline for the monetary crediting, is it possible these projects will be grandfathered in? Answer 21: No, the preparation for issuance of this RFP is not considered a qualifying condition. Only the DeWitt landfill has potential for monetary crediting. Find more information in the answer to question #13 in Addendum 2. Question 22: Will developers have discretion on whether to net meter or remote net meter? Answer 22: Per rules of the remote net metering program, all usage on the host meter must first be offset before any credits are distributed to satellite accounts. Question 23: Does this proposal account for the Value of Distributed Energy Resources (aka NEM 2.0) case currently underway by the Department of Public Service? Answer 23: Not enough information is available to account for the DPS NEM 2.0 proceeding at this time. The project team has included no assumptions about NEM 2.0 in this RFP, and is assuming that these projects will proceed under current SIR and net metering rules. Question 24: For locations where there is currently no service designation (e.g. offsite RNM projects), what service classification would be assigned for the new meter? Answer 24: This is at utility discretion to some extent, though generally the rate tariff for the new account will be based on the anticipated load (typically minimal) at the site, without regard for the large PV installation. Keep in mind, under volumetric crediting the rate tariff of the host account does not impact the financials for the satellite accounts. SITE DETAILS Question 25: For each site please provide: a. The distribution voltage at POI b. Line characteristics and map of feeder the load is connected to c. Substation name, transformer size and minimum/maximum substation loading d. Definitions of Feeder Status colors Page 3 of 6

4 Answer 25: All utility grid information the project team has collected is provided in columns O through S of Exhibit D.1. Most of this information was obtained from the DG Interconnection Maps provided online by National Grid and NYSEG. These maps are still under development and not all information is available. Feeder Status color definitions have not been made publicly available by the utilities, beyond the fact that grey indicates a lower risk feeder. Question 26: We understand that a proposer may not utilize a driven pier for foundation purposes on closed landfill sites. Can we assume that all collection lines may be buried or do they need to be above ground when located on a landfill cap? Answer 26: This will be site specific. In general we anticipate it will not be okay to bury collection lines. Other landfill installations in the area have run conduits above ground on gravel beds. Question 27: Which projects sites can utilize an existing security fence for security purposes? Conversely, which ones require new security fencing? Answer 27: Very few sites have an existing security fence around the proposed array location. Though the security requirements will be contract specific, in general the Seller is responsible for all security measures associated with the array. The fencing requirement will also depend on the system voltage chosen by the developer. Sites which have a security fence in place around most or all of the proposed array location include the Brewerton WTP (bundle 1), Eastern Manlius (bundle 1), Salt Springs Tank (bundle 1), DeWitt landfill (bundles 2 and 4), Oswego Superfund Site (bundles 2 and 4), and the Salina Landfill (bundles 2 and 4). COMMUNITY SOLAR (CDG) Question 28: Can you please clarify the CNY RPDB s role in subscription process? Answer 28: See p.11 and p of the RFP for discussion of subscriber acquisition. RPDB resources (including contact info for interested offtakers from previous residential Solarize campaigns) may be leveraged, though this is ultimately the responsibility of the Proposer. Question 29: For the Community Solar sites, there is no mention of a proposed lease rate from the solar developer. Should we assume zero lease cost, or should we bake a certain assumption into our model for a fair $/acre on each community solar site? Answer 29: While a lease agreement will be necessary for the land where community solar projects will be developed, Proposers can assume zero lease cost. Municipalities have not committed to this, but most have expressed their vested interest in community solar is not to generate lease revenue but rather to serve as an anchor subscriber. Page 4 of 6

5 RFP PROCESS Question 30: Can purchasers select a unique developer per project, or will purchasers also be held to selecting a developer on a bundle by bundle basis? Answer 30: The Participating Organizations will enter contract negotiations with the successful Proposer for their respective bundle. There is a possibility of an individual Organization going with a separate Proposer from the rest of the bundle if acceptable contract terms are not reached, though this has been uncommon in previous procurements of this type. Question 31: Can you please clarify the CNYRPD RFP decision-making process? a. How many bidders do you anticipate? b. Do you have a preference for either complete bundle bids, or CSGs? c. Can you please confirm time line, and criteria for short-listing? d. Is there a shortlist per bundle? e. For project sites being considered both within an NM/RNM bundle and community solar, what happens is it pulled out of bundle? Answer 31: a. The number of bidders will not be known until all submissions are received. b. See section A.3 of the RFP for a discussion on how to respond to the bundles and the community solar sites. For the four bundles of NM and RNM projects, all sites in a given bundle must be bid. For the community solar bundle, this is not a requirement. Proposers are encouraged to bid on any combination of a single bundle, multiple bundles, and the community solar sites per their preference. c. See pages of the RFP for a discussion of the proposal evaluation process and page 29 of the RFP for the intended timeline. There is not a formal shortlisting process, though the Selection Committee will most likely conduct followup interviews with a selected group of Proposers. These are anticipated to occur in February d. Each bundle will be considered separately. It is possible that one Proposer will win multiple bundles, or each could be awarded to a distinct Proposer. e. Any project sites that decide to proceed with community solar will be pulled out of their respective NM/RNM bundle. After all Proposals are received, if it seems likely that any particular NM/RNM bundle will be significantly impacted by loss of sites to community solar, the Selection Committee may take this into consideration during clarification meetings with selected Proposers for that bundle, and may allow Proposers to submit revised pricing, if necessary. Page 5 of 6

6 Question 32: Paying a fee of $0.015/W at contract execution is risky for the developer since many critical factors will still be unknown at that time, including but not limited to interconnection costs, hidden site conditions and NYSERDA incentive level. Because any one of these factors could disqualify a project post-contract, could the fee payment milestone be adjusted to the construction start date at which point most of the major unknowns are known? Answer 32: Given the uncertainty, particularly around interconnection, the RPDB is amenable to moving payment of the $0.015/watt transaction fee back to Notice to Proceed or a similar construction-related checkpoint. Page 6 of 6