Updated 11/5/2024
| No. | Question | Response |
| 1 | To request access to the NDA, what will be accepted as verification of site control and interconnection? | Acceptable forms of site control include the underlying form of lease agreements or evidence of such agreements. With respect to the interconnection status, please provide the most recent completed study. |
| 2 | Is AEP allowed to bid into the RFP? | Affiliates of AEP or I&M are not allowed to submit proposals into the RFP. |
| 3 | When does Kentucky Power plan to make a decision in the thermal RFP that was issued last fall? Resources that participated in that process are also eligible to participate here. | I&M cannot comment on the timing of decisions that will result from RFPs issued by affiliated operating companies. Projects that participated in the Kentucky Power RFP are eligible to participate in the 2024 I&M RFPs. |
| 4 | Thank you for hosting the Pre-RFP Stakeholder Meeting earlier today. I understand the definitions you provided for Development Stage Projects and Completed Projects in regard to PSAs, but could you please clarify the definition of Completed Projects in regards to a PPA where there is no sale contemplated? | PPA proposals will be considered for projects that are either Existing Projects or are currently in development and will reach commercial operation in time to be integrated into the Company’s generation portfolio for the 2029 Planning Year or earlier. The referenced language has been revised in the draft RFP for clarity. |
| 5 | It seems to me that the 2024 RFP is a bit geared towards those that already have projects in the works already, is that fair to say? | At this time, the key requirement is that projects must be at the interconnection status specified. To the extent you believe that a project could be integrated in time into the Company’s generation portfolio for the 2029 Planning Year or earlier absent this interconnection status requirement, please provide such comments regarding how this might be possible for potential consideration in the final RFP design. |
| 6 | Also, could you please assist me with the names of the local gas distribution companies that serve the territory? | To avoid potentially providing inaccurate information required for the development of your project, we request that you perform your own due diligence in this regard. |
| 7 | Would a [X] MW generator be considered if it is distribution-connected? I’m not sure if there is a maximum interconnect limit for the distribution system. | The RFP does not identify a maximum limit for distribution system interconnected projects. However, per the tariff, projects above 10 MW and 20 kVA are subject to additional study requirements. Please consult (Updated Link): https://qa.indianamichiganpower.com/lib/docs/business/builders/IMPCustomerGuideForInterconnection_20200202.pdf for further information. |
| 8 | What would the bid fee structure look like for this opportunity? | There is no bid fee proposed for the 2024 I&M RFPs. |
| 9 | Will I&M be looking for bids specific to the Rockport site? If so, can you shed some insight into that? | Use of the Rockport site for new generation is not under consideration in this RFP. |
| 10 | Does I&M have a PPA/BOT mix they are looking for? | There is no predetermined PPA/BOT mix for the RFP. |
| 11 | How do you measure total value and total cost? Maybe you will discuss later. | Total value will be measured by the equivalent projected market value of the products expected from the resource, which will include capacity, energy, RECs and ancillary services. The cost will be measured based on either the proposed cost if PPA, or, in the case of a PSA, both the proposed and expected costs for the operation and ownership of the facility. |
| 12 | When will I&M finalize their IRP? | The Company is targeting identification of the Preferred Portfolio in first quarter 2025. The IRP is targeted for submittal to the IURC in the first half in 2025. |
| 13 | Will this slide deck be provided? | The proposer’s conference slide presentation has been posted to www.IMAllSourceRFP.com |
| 14 | Will variations between this version and the final version after comments be clearly delineated? | To the extent possible, we will identify major changes to the RFP scope as presented in the proposer’s conference slide presentation in the final RFP documentation. |
| 15 | Is there a preferred distribution of the 4GW across the 4 RFPs? | No. The final distribution of resources selected from each of the RFPs will be informed by the Preferred Portfolio in the IRP and finalized by selection of applicable resources in the RFP. |
| 16 | Would you consider non-conforming bids without a Phase 1 study completed? Or is that a non-starter? | At this time, the Company requires projects that are able to be available by the 2029 Planning Year or earlier. In order to meet this timeline, I&M has determined that projects must be existing/in-service, have executed a GIA, be in the PJM fast lane, or have completed PJM’s Phase 1 study as of the date of submission. The Company is open to receiving comments regarding whether it is feasible to consider projects not meeting the above requirements to the extent they are able to be available by the 2029 Planning Year. |
| 17 | if you have executed an NDA for I&M’s previous RFP, is that still valid? | No. A new NDA is required for this RFP. |
| 18 | Would a PJM connected project in PA be considered? | No, PA is not within the geographic region considered under this RFP. |
| 19 | Can you please expand on the definition of Completed Projects for PPA Category? Does it mean that projects under development are not accepted? | We have clarified this further. Projects for the PPA category that are either Existing Projects or are currently in development and will reach commercial operation in time to be integrated into the Company’s generation portfolio for the 2029 Planning Year or earlier. The referenced language has been revised in the draft RFP for clarity. |
| 20 | Is the Supplemental capacity RFP open only for existing/completed resources or will new resources currently in the queue qualify as well? | We have clarified this further. Projects for RFP4-Supplemental Capacity are either Existing Projects or are currently in development and will reach commercial operation in time to be integrated into the Company’s generation portfolio for the 2029 Planning Year or earlier. The referenced language has been revised in the draft RFP for clarity. |
| 21 | Why are the PPAs limited to 15 years? | I&M is targeting resource options that will support a weighted average term length for I&M’s generation portfolio that reasonably reflects the proposed 20 year contract term length for new large load customers. By combining PPAs from a diversity of term lengths (from 3 years for capacity-only agreements, to 5 years for thermal resources, and 15 years or less for renewables) with owned project opportunities, the Company can support an overall portfolio that reaches that goal. In this way, the Company can: 1) better align new generation resources with the timing and scale of new customer load requirements, 2) reduce the risk of excess generation in the future, and 3) continue to provide long term resources that provide both operational flexibility and reduce exposure to future market pricing risks. The Company considers ownership as the best strategy for providing long term generation resources for its customers. Ownership provides the Company with the greatest operating flexibility in response to changes in market conditions that can and will likely occur over the life of an asset. Ownership allows the Company to update the operational strategy for the facility, enhance the facility with new technologies, or even repower the facility as opportunities arise that would benefit its customers. With ownership, the Company also controls, and the commission has oversight over, the ongoing maintenance and capital investments of the facility. This provides opportunities to enhance the Company’s compliance with Indiana’s Five Pillars of energy policy. These same benefits are not provided with a long term PPA obligation whereunder any change in facility operational strategy, enhancement, or repower of the facility comes with reopening the PPA and exposing the Company’s customers to future market conditions and pricing. |
| 22 | Why are only PSAs entertained for battery storage? | Battery energy storage systems are a highly versatile resources that can serve a range of different functions. Many of these functions provide value to the Company in ways that may not be fully realized at this time under the current market conditions or using current modeling strategies. With this in mind, the Company has determined that ownership provides the most flexibility to operate, enhance, or augment the battery in the future as market conditions and I&M’s system needs change and new use cases for battery energy storage materialize. |
| 23 | In addition to the message below, could you please confirm the discrepancy between the stakeholder feedback period of September 13th – 25th, listed on slide 16 of the Pre-RFP Meeting, and the note on the informational website for the 2024 RFP indicating “stakeholder comments are requested by Friday, September 20th”? Will you be accepting feedback until the September 25th date? | Yes, I&M will accept feedback until the September 25th date. |
| 24 | What discount rate does I&M use for the present value calculations under the economic evaluation process? | I&M uses the Regulatory Weighted Average Cost of Capital. Currently, the rate is 6.12%. |
| 25 | In reviewing the Pre-RFP Stakeholder Meeting slides, I just wanted to confirm the term length for the intermittent resource RFP. In years past, I&M was looking for 20 and 30-year fully bundled pricing and now they want a maximum term length of 15 years? Can you please confirm? | Confirmed. See response for 21 for further details. |
| 26 | Can you confirm the threshold requirements for distribution level bids? Specifically, do we need to include the IX impact study results with the bid, or can these be completed and provided later if shortlisted? What are the other eligibility requirements for D-level bids? | Distribution interconnection projects require a Distribution Impact Study. Aside from this interconnection status, other threshold requirements are still required regardless of whether the project is proposed to connect to distribution v. transmission. See section 9.1 for threshold requirements. |
| 27 | What is the definition of “emerging technology” (ET) in the RFP, and can you confirm that the cap for ETs at the D-level is 5 MW? | Emerging technologies are those that haven’t reached widescale use and distribution and for which the construction, operation, and maintenance is generally understood industry wide. See this document for the latest requirements and any distribution system limitations. |
| 28 | If we already operate a multi-MW fleet, would we still be considered an [Emerging Technology]? If not, can we bid on projects larger than 5 MW? | Please see answer to Question #27. As an emerging technology, you may bid under RFP 4 at quantities greater than 5 MW. |
| 29 | The draft RFP indicates on page 10 that PJM resources must have 1) An executed GIA or 2) A PJM interconnection queue position in the “Fast Lane” with a completed SIS, or 3) a PJM interconnection queue position with a completed phase 1 study. Could you please confirm if a PJM interconnection which has received an ISA and CSA will be eligible for the RFP? | Yes. Having an ISA and CSA would be equivalent to having a GIA in this context. |
| 30 | Can you please confirm what the preferred PPA term length is for solar, wind, and storage? | I&M does not have a preference. As noted in question 21, PPA term lengths are limited to a maximum of 15 years. Providing options up to the maximum term limit is encouraged. Please note that standalone Storage resources are not eligible to bid PPAs in this RFP; only PSAs for standalone storage will be evaluated. |
| 31 | I have a question in regards to the Stand Alone Storage portion of the RFP. Can you confirm the contract structure is only for PSA and not PPA? | Confirmed. See our response to question 22 above for further detail. |
| 32 | Section 2.7.1 says “Affiliates of AEP and I&M (Affiliate) are not permitted to participate in the RFPs.” As we’ve raised before, we continue to urge I&M to evaluate self-build proposals alongside third party proposals. We’ve heard no indication that I&M will not separately seek to construct self-build projects and as such those projects should be evaluated under the same criteria including with regard to project readiness and firm pricing. | AEP / I&M affiliates are not permitted to participate in this RFP. However, the RFP is open to Development Stage Projects which, if selected, are projects the Company would ultimately be responsible for building. The Development Stage Projects are evaluated under the same criteria as all other projects. |
| 33 | In addition, in order to achieve a fulsome consideration of resource types, all technology types should receive fair and equal consideration (when I&M makes a future decision as to which resources to acquire) for use of I&M’s existing interconnection rights regardless of whether renewable or storage projects utilizing I&M’s existing interconnection rights respond to this RFP. | I&M is not considering reuse of I&M’s existing interconnection rights under this RFP. |
| 34 | In Section 3.3.8, what is the preference for black start capable resources based on? Doesn’t the value of black start from a resource depend on that resource’s location? | Blackstart capability is an important capability for maintaining the reliability and resilience of the electric power system and is central to system restoration and recovery plans in the event of emergency. The overall value of a blackstart capable asset includes consideration for its location on the grid. However, upon further consideration, the language of the RFP requiring pricing for adding this capability to an asset has been removed. Instead, the value of blackstart or dual-fuel capability will be considered as part of the non-price evaluation and scoring. |
| 35 | In Section 9.4 on resource selection says that “I&M will select the Proposals from the ranking to create a diverse portfolio that meets the Company’s energy and capacity needs.” While this was alluded to in the RFP meeting, the RFP itself does not explicitly mention the IRP’s role in determining what I&M’s energy and capacity needs are and which resources go into that portfolio. Those steps should be made clear so the Commission and intervenors can evaluate how I&M proceeded through the process. | As noted in Section 2.4 of the RFP, I&M anticipates selecting resources from each of the RFPs in amounts that will be informed by the Company’s ongoing 2024 Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process. This parallel process will identify a Preferred Portfolio outlining the Company’s generation needs by early 2025. The Preferred Portfolio and ranking of proposals submitted into the RFPs will inform the final selection of resources. |
| 36 | I&M should require PSA proposals to include scope and pricing information associated with “future hydrogen and/or carbon capture” capabilities. I&M’s draft does not require that, other than a vague request for “information” (see PDF p. 15, § 3.3.8; PDF p. 20, §4.1.3). Because conversion to and/or installation of hydrogen or carbon capture technologies could have significant costs, I&M should include that information in its resource planning. | In the event proposals are received with more than just cursory assessments of either future hydrogen fuel capability or carbon capture implementation, I&M will request additional information concerning specific plans, designs, and pricing. However, given the lack of widespread commercial implementation and inherent variability that would come with such a request, we have chosen not to make this a requirement for all bidders. |
| 37 | I&M should make clear its intent to acquire significantly more intermittent resources and battery energy storage than the stated “Minimum Acceptable Project Size” of 20MWac (see PDF p. 11, § 3.2.4; PDF p. 17, § 3.4.4). It is important not just for bidders but for the Commissions and stakeholders to see intent reflected in the wording of this RFP. | The minimum size identified for a given RFP is not indicative of the Company’s expectations for total procured MW under that RFP, but rather, a stated threshold intended to avoid projects that are not typically constructed to standard utility scale operational specifications. As referenced in the stakeholder meeting, the Company anticipates selecting resources from each of the RFPs, the MW totals of which will be well above the minimum project sizes in order to reach an overall 4,000 MW target. |
| 38 | Sections 4.2.8 and 5.1.18 covering PPAs and PSAs (respectively) state that “prices must be firm.” We are concerned about the potential implications of requesting firm pricing for both PPAs and PSAs. If I&M were to self-build new capacity, we do not envision that it would ask for approval of a lump-sum turnkey contract, either. Potential respondents should not be treated differently merely because the origin of the potential project is from a different entity than AEP/I&M. | I&M seeks firm pricing to allow for reasonable and reliable price comparisons to support the selection process. I&M works with the Independent Monitor to assess the firmness of each bid in order to ensure a fair and reasonable comparison across bid types. |
| 39 | Regarding the procurement of environmental attributes from renewable generating facilities as suggested in section 3.2.5: would I&M allocate the RECs between Indiana and Michigan based on load share? How would I&M use the RECs allocated to Indiana? | This is an Indiana-only solicitation. RECs from Indiana resources will either be used for I&M customer programs or liquidated in the market with the proceeds being credited back to I&M’s customers to partially offset the cost of the new generation resources. |
| 40 | Section 3.2.6(b) says: “Under RFP 1, the Company and bidder will close on the PSA at either Substantial Completion or Mechanical Completion, depending on the Company’s Federal Tax Credit election.” Section 3.5.6(a) makes a similar statement. It is unclear to Commenters which federal tax credit election (presumably PTC or ITC) would go with which closing condition, or why the tax credit election matters in this way. | The Company evaluates each project individually with respect to which tax strategy would provide the most value to its customers. Election of the ITC requires the Company to take possession of the project before the project is placed in service to ensure tax credits flow to the Company, whereas election of the PTC allows the Company to take possession of the asset just before commercial operation begins. |
| 41 | Under RFP 4 described in section 3.5, it is unclear how an emerging technology is defined, or how the project sponsor can reliably estimate its accredited capacity value or projected energy output if it is indeed “emerging.” (We did not receive the “Emerging Tech Data Review Form.xls” contemplated in Appendix G, in case that might shed more light.) | Please see answer to Question #27. |
| 42 | In section 4.2.7, if the heading “Wind Projects, Gas Projects, and Other Non-ITC Qualifying Projects” is meant to encompass a category of projects not electing the ITC (in contrast to the projects under § 4.2.6), that should be stated more clearly. Also, a solar project could, in theory, elect the PTC under Section 45Y(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code. | Headings in Section 4.2.7 have been updated to clarify that this applies to projects that are not electing the ITC. We recognize that a Solar project could theoretically elect the PTC, therefore, we have made it clear that this decision is within the purview of the developer. |
| 43 | Appendix O should allow the applicant project to state whether it has been given pre-approval by the IRS for the Low-Income Communities tax credit bonus (in relation to the ITC only) under I.R.C. § 48E(h). | If bidders have obtained such pre-approval they may provide this information in their main proposal response. | 44 | Section 2.2 of the RFP states that all RFPs seek projects “with planned or existing interconnections in PJM;” however Section 3.1.5.ii indicates that resources may interconnect to MISO. Is I&M considering projects interconnected in MISO or only PJM? If in MISO, would the point of delivery be the project’s point of interconnection (in MISO)? | I&M is considering projects in MISO that have a firm transmission pathway to PJM. The interconnection status of both the project in MISO and firm transmission pathway to PJM must meet the criteria noted for MISO and PJM respectively: 1) PJM – GIA/ISA, PJM “Fast Lane” with SIS, or Phase 1 Study, 2) MISO – Phase 3 DPP study (w/ Firm Transmission to PJM meeting req. in #1) The POI, however, would be the point of delivery in PJM. |
| 45 | I was listening to the technical conference this morning regarding the RFP. I wanted to follow up with some questions around regulatory approvals of the PPAs, PSAs and CPAs. In terms of the timeline and process for these approvals do you have written resources and/or can you point me to examples of what the process would look like. I assume that AEP and the counter party to the agreement would file jointly to the IURC for approval. Any additional information and/or resource for getting more information would be greatly appreciated. | The regulatory process can vary depending on the project type and how that project is being filed as part of the broader portfolio. Because the portfolio is not known at this time, we cannot provide definitive details on regulatory timelines beyond the statement that the approval process can take between 4 and 10 months once filed. AEP intends to begin submitting filings to the IURC in early Q2 of 2025. AEP and the bidder will not file jointly for any of the filings, however, the bidder may be required to provide input/support for the filing through discovery requests, review filings for accuracy, and even provide testimony in rare instances. |
| 46 | The RFP states that PJM resources must have 1) An executed GIA or 2) A PJM interconnection queue position in the “Fast Lane” with a completed SIS, or 3) a PJM interconnection queue position with a completed phase 1 study. If we have an existing queue position but are planning to re-file a new queue position to increase the size of the project, would that be eligible to submit in the RFP. | We recognize that the assessment of PJM process steps can be a challenge in these situations. Please submit high level details of the project, its existing interconnection, and proposed modifications to the interconnection to CRA and AEP for review and discussion as to whether the project would qualify. |
| 47 | I am reaching out with a question specific to Capacity for a thermal resource in a PPA. The RFP draft states that the resource would be integrated into I&M’s FRR capacity plan for the relevant capacity year. Does this mean that I&M is looking for a setup in which we would remain a PJM capacity resource, and we would deliver to you via PJM’s systems? | Yes, please refer to the capacity contract that has been provided. Specifically, the EEI Capacity Confirmation Letter in Appendix N. |
| 48 | Is I&M Power providing a discount or matrix for required collateral from rated entities? | There is no discount at this time for rated entities. |
| 49 | If proposing a PPA structure, is it required to provide the information asked for in Appendix H and the Project Land Expense excel document? | Please provide this information for PSAs only. |
| 50 | Are you able to provide redlines for the Solar scope of work documents? | A redline of the scope of work document from the previous RFP is available upon request. |
| 51 | Is there a CPA term sheet available? | There is no CPA term sheet. The EEI agreement documentation is provided, including the capacity confirmation letter and the EEI cover letter referenced to the EEI Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement. |
| 52 | The Solar scope of work document references an “attachment 12”, but we are unable to find that in the ShareFile – will this be released soon? | Attachment 12 is provided by the bidder. There is no format we require bidders to follow. |
| 53 | If we are contemplating submitting a project for a Development Stage Project PSA, why is I&M requiring a build-out cost estimate? Is this build-out cost estimate binding? Would I&M procure equipment in this estimate? Can we submit a bid price without the build-out cost estimate or at least separate it from the NTP-closing price? | I&M requires a developer’s estimate for full build out of the project for comparison to other bids in the RFP. The Company will review and consider this estimate as compared to the Company’s own estimates and expectations for full build out. Please provide line-item estimates for major procurements, construction, and other major cost components necessary for completion of the project for reaching commercial operation. The Bidder’s pre-NTP closing price (Bid Price) should be identified clearly in the full build-out cost, inclusive of assumptions and narrative scope regarding key work streams that would be provided by the bidder towards reaching the pre-NTP closing date. |
| 54 | Thank you for providing these documents. We are looking through the requirements for Appendix N and are requesting clarification on the relevant forms to review. In the folder that was shared, it does not appear that the Solar or Wind PPA Term Sheets are included. Please let us know if they are listed under a different file name, or if they will be provided at a later date. | Term sheets are provided when a form PPA is not available for the technology or bid type. In this case, please see the REPA for Wind and Solar which contains the terms and conditions. |
| 55 | The Terms & Conditions documents indicate there will be no allowance for price adjustments. Can you please confirm this? We have concerns given the long evaluation period and recent market uncertainty. Our management will need to evaluate our participation based on the response. | The RFP selection process requires firm pricing to provide for fair and reasonable price comparisons across bids. In the event a price adjustment mechanism is proposed, it must be “firm” with defined terms, a defensible baseline, a narrow scope specific to a well-defined risk category. The Company will not accept open-ended pricing structures. Bidders will be required to “firm up” any open-ended provisions before economic modeling is conducted for the selection process. The Company further reserves the right to remove bids that remain unclear or result in unreasonable price risk to the Company and its customers. |
| 56 | For NERC Compliance you released revision 0, but if there is a revision 1 that exists, please let us know if you can supply this. | An updated NERC Compliance document has been provided. Indeed, the correct version is revision 1 as referenced in the RFP. |
| 57 | Can you please define and clarify the difference between “Awarded PJM Accredited Capacity (MW)” and “Expected PJM Accredited Capacity” in the Thermal Data Review Form. | To the extent PJM has awarded accredited capacity based on the BRA timeline for the applicable year, including prior years, we would expect the respondent to fill the Awarded PJM Accredited Capacity. To the extent that the accredited capacity has not been awarded for a future planning year, please indicate the expected amount of accredited capacity under the “Expected PJM Accredited Capacity” column. To be clear, only one column should have a value for a given year. |
| 58 | I&M team – the provided PPA/PSA term sheets & terms and conditions are build transfer/ development focused. Since we are submitting existing assets, do you have term sheets and/or terms and conditions specific to currently operating assets? If not, how should we proceed? | Please respond to the terms that would be relevant to your asset and proposed structure (asset sale or PPA). Where possible, the existing documents will be modified to facilitate the transaction. Note, I&M anticipates that proposals for existing asset sales will involve further requests for information and input from the bidder once the proposal and pricing is reviewed for reasonableness. |
| 59 | For our appendices submittal, would you prefer us to omit any sections not relevant to our proposal? This would be our preference given we are submitting an operating thermal asset. | Yes, please omit non-applicable sections in your submittal. |
| 60 | Since our assets are already operational, does the “Projects Completed of the Same Technology Type” apply to our submission? I’m assuming I can omit since the question is tailored towards development proposals. | Please provide your experience with either the development, ownership, and/or operation of the facility you are proposing (if completed) and/or of facilities similar to that which you are submitting. |
| 61 | Would I&M consider the technical requirements in Appendix M applicable, assuming the basis of a proposal is a thermal power plant in commercial operation and connected to AEP’s transmission system? On detailed review, it appears that the quality control plan, Geotech reports, exceptions to approved vendor lists, AEP Interconnection Requirements, EPC Spec for Combustion Turbine New Generation Project, etc. are not applicable to an existing power plant asset. Please advise. If Appendix M is required, would phrases such as “Not Applicable”, “Operating Power Plant”, etc. be acceptable responses to various requested documents? | If the appendix is not relevant to your asset, you may indicate that it is not applicable in your proposal and omit it. |
| 62 | In requesting certain technical information, for example in Appendix M where information regarding the relay protection at the point of interconnection and SCADA network one lines, including a description of cyber security features, is requested, I&M is seeking information which may be precluded from a Bidder’s disclosure due to Bidder’s implementation of CIP. Please confirm that it is acceptable for such Bidder to respond with “Access Only” or “Operating NERC CIP Facility” until such time that I&M personnel meets acceptable NERC CIP requirements. | Confirmed. You may respond with “Access only” or “Operating NERC CIP Facility.” |
| 63 | We would like to know more specifically what you are looking for under Appendix B question 1 A. “Wind, Solar, Battery, or Gas] Price Breakdown and Schedule (2 tabs to complete)” Can you please give an example of what information would go here; this would greatly help our team! | In terms of the Price Breakdown, we seek cost information attributed by component and line item to understand the makeup of the proposed price. On the Schedule tab, we are seeking information relating to the major project development milestones – as much information as possible to assess the schedule/proposed COD. |
| 64 | Do we need to provide a security deposit, LOC, or parent guaranty given these are not development projects? | Seller Credit Support is required for all agreements to secure Seller’s obligations under an agreement regardless if the agreement involves an existing asset or a project under development. |
| 65 | Our team is only interested in a PPA bid for the 2024 bid. If that’s the case is the is Appendix B-Project cost breakdown applicable to the PPA bid? | For PPAs, to the extent that the bidder provides firm pricing without any potential for adjustments, this Appendix B will not be evaluated or required. To the extent the bidder may adjust pricing to reflect material changes in assumed costs, the information provided in Appendix B would be required in order to allow for such adjustments to be negotiated. Please see the response to question X for further information regarding firm pricing requirements. |
| 66 | It is unclear to us whether the “Price Breakdown and Schedule” attachment is required for PPAs, or just for PSAs. Could you please advise whether this spreadsheet is a required form for PPA bids? | See answer to question 65. |
| 67 | Please explain how the Appendix B-Project cost breakdown information is going to be used in the evaluation process. Will providing subtotals only be sufficient for a PPA only bid? | See answer to question 65. |
| 68 | We had one additional question related to Section 3.3.6(a), is there a separate term sheet and Terms & Conditions for projects with a PSA at NTP. It seems that the PSA term sheet is focused on Build Transfer Projects. | There is no separate Terms and Conditions available for projects with a PSA at NTP. Please use the posted PSA and take exceptions, as necessary, to the applicable terms. For terms related to Build Transfer projects, please take exceptions to those terms as required if proposing an NTP transfer. See Appendix N, Item 3 further describes the requirements for development stage projects under a Form PSA. |