Q&A

Submit a Question

Please login or register to submit a question.

Once a file has been uploaded, there appears to be no upload button (or other buttons). Is there another way to replace a file that has already been uploaded?

There was a technical issue with the website, but this functionality has returned. Bidders should see a replace button/link next to an already uploaded file.

Once the bid form is complete, how does a bidder actually 'submit' the completed bid? There doesn't seem to be a submit button.

Bids will lock at 12pm PST on January 18, 2022 and are not able to be modified after that time. Bidders should ensure that all bid materials are complete and have been uploaded to the RFP website, but there is no need to “submit” the entire completed bid. Rather, the bid will reflect what has been uploaded as of noon PST on Tuesday January 18.

Where can one find routing information for transferring the bid fees for submission?

PGE will send an invoice after bid submission to the payment contact that was provided by the bidder. The invoice will have instruction on how to complete the payment.

Is there a way to upload a new file to replace an existing file in the RFP submission tab? Bidder is unable to delete and replace files. Thank you.

There is no delete button. To replace an already uploaded file just press the upload button again and select the new file.

Are there any additional details available for the Hillsboro land that is being made available to bidders for a BESS project, referenced in Appendix P?

The 4 acres of land made available through Appendix P is part of a larger parcel of land. That larger parcel of land is located at 3953 NE Constable St., Hillsboro, OR 97124. The Asessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) associated with this property are 1N2210001501 and R659889. There is an active project on the site, the Evergreen Substation, a Type II Land Use.

Given that Monday January 17th is a federal holiday for MLK Day, could PGE extend the proposal submission deadline to at least Tuesday January 18th?

PGE has extended the submission deadline to Tuesday, January 18. An announcement from the RFP website was sent out earlier today (1/10/2022).

Regarding the GFI portion of the RFP, do we need to submit a separate bid for the 100MW of solar that is designated to be part of this solicitation? or can we incorporate it into a larger bid and designate 100MW of capacity for GFI? For example: We submit a bid variant that includes 300MW of solar, and specify that 100MW is intended for GFI VS. We submit a bid variant for 200MW solar for the regular RFP and another variant for 100MW solar for the GFI portion.

As part of PGE’s renewable resource procurement, PGE is looking to procure 150 MWa. Following the renewable resource procurement on behalf of PGE’s cost of service customers, PGE will look to procure 100 MW of renewable resources in support of PGE’s Green Energy Affinity Rider (GEAR) program’s PGE supply option. Any bidder indication that a bid includes a portion for GFI is welcome.

Under a PPA structure, is it required to include costs to deliver to one of the Points of Delivery listed in the RFP with price? If yes, where in the bid form does PGE want this cost?

Tab 4 “Offer Details” allows bidders to detail the price for up to three different PPAs. As noted on the tab, If the facility is off system, the price should include all associated costs with delivering the energy to PGE’s system, except integration costs which will be considered separately.

Does a renewable resource need to be a new-build project only, or can an operational project be offered for a 15 year+ PPA or offered as an "as-is" project sale?

A renewable resource can be either an existing or new build.

An additional question - When we go to upload a single file for the deliverables, we now get an error message that says: "Benchmark bid submissions are now locked as of 5:00 PM PDT on June 8, 2018." None of the attachments upload and we lose the ability to try to add anything else. Is the system as a whole experiencing issues at the time or is this only happening on our end and if so can we work with someone on IT issues? Thank you.

This was a system issue, but it has since been resolved.

For the proposal uploads that are large files, PGE recommended that we zip the files and then upload as one single attachment. However, this is not working for my team and I. We are being prompted to only upload individual documents. Is there another way to submit these large files or perhaps someone can assist us in this process? Thank you in advance!

Bidders can only attach one document per upload file. To attach mulitple documents, please zip the files into one file and attach that. This was just re-tested on the website and it worked without issue. Please try again and if the problem persists please reach out to rfp@pgn.com.

Can PGE please clarify if the forecast required on tab 11 should have both real and inflation assumed in its values? Should row 70 include only the real escalators, or both real and inflation escalators?

The operating cost forecasts should be provided in nominal values. The assumed cost escalator (row 70) should include both real and inflation escalators.

Regarding the resource assessment description in a question below: We use a Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) for our energy estimates, which is based on a long term data source but isn't the full ~20 years of irradiance data. Can you confirm if PGE wants the long-term dataset or the TMY?

PGE requires both TMY data and long-term datasets. Tab 6a-c Part I, Part II, and Part III should rely on TMY estimates. PGE also requires at least three years of long-term historical production data. For wind resources this data must be from a historical on site met tower, and from solar resources it must be from historical irradiance data. Long term datasets should be included in Tab 6a-c Part IV.

Could PGE provide a W9 so that our company may wire the bid fee?

PGE will issue an invoice after bid submission with instructions on how to make the payment electronically.

Can PGE clarify whether questions 11-14 (on the Proposal Content Checklist) are intended to (i) confirm bidder’s credit eligibility thresholds to participate in the RFP or if (ii) PGE is seeking detail on bidder’s plans to satisfy PGE’s credit requirements under the definitive agreement (to the extent executed). For item (i), is it sufficient to provide audited financials for PGE to make that determination? If PGE is seeking detail on item (ii), is PGE looking for bidder to provide documentation on the LC support issuer?

Questions 11-14 on the Proposal Content Checklist are intended to provide preliminary information necessary to meet the minimum bidding qualification that a bidder must have a reasonable plan to obtain project financing. More detail on the requirement can be found in Appendix K. Creditworthiness should be demonstrated via a rating of long-term, senior unsecured debt of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor’s or Fitch, BBB (low) or higher by DBRS, or Baa3 or higher by Moody’s Investor Services, Inc. As to question (ii), non-investment grade bidders should provide any available documentation on the letter of credit support issuer (in the form of a comprehensive statement of Guarantor’s total outstanding credit support), and a guaranty or letter of credit commitment is due prior to the initial shortlist.

On Slide 6 of the post-issuance bidder's conference presentation, what is the basis for the Nameplate (MW) and Capacity Contribution (MW) values in the table for each resource type? The Capacity Contribution (MW) values on Slide 6 do not match the approximate capacity contribution in the capacity contribution calculator for most of the resource types.

The capacity contribution values depend on PGE’s existing resource portfolio, which changes over time. Bidders should use the ELCC calculator, provided on the website, to see the latest public information.

Could PGE make a recording of the Dec 17th post-issuance bidder's conference available for bidders that were unable to attend?

The December 17th post-issuance bidder’s conference was not recorded. However, all questions received during that presentation have been made available as part of this website’s Q&A section.

For alternate bids, are bidders expected to submit only the documents that have changed from the base bid? Or should the entire bid package be submitted, including the identical/redundant documents already included in the base bid?

Alternate bids should be able to standalone in the bidding process. Therefore, it is requested that alternate bids provide all relevant documents, even if they may have been provided with another bid. PGE recommends that bidders provide a cover page for documents that are used for multiple bids and indicate which bids that document applies to.

Will PGE's ELCC calculations lead to double counting of renewable and dispatchable bids?

No. PGE will calculate unique capacity contributions for all bids. PGE’s methodology will distinguish dispatchable resources from renewable resources and will not double count capacity contributions.

How will commercial differences related to COD between be scored?

COD differences will impact bid scores in several ways. Price scoring will account for the changes in project cost and value related to online dates. For dispatchable resources, non-price scoring will directly score COD differences (dispatchable resources that have a COD of 2023 will receive the full 88 points, a COD of 2024 will receive 70.4 points, and a COD after 2024 will receive 0 points). For renewable resources, non-price scoring will not directly score differences related to COD. All bidders that provide redlines to commercial terms and conditions impacting COD risk provisions (ex. Delay damages, guaranteed COD) will also be scored consistent with the commercial performance risk rubric contained in Appendix N.

A question regarding the stated credit requirements, specifically bidder credit eligibility thresholds: Can PGE confirm that during the bidding period, we (the bidder) need to meet your eligibility requirements (which PGE will confirm when we submit the requisite financial deliverables being quested in the RFP materials), but during the PPA period, credit requirements will be established by the governing documents?

Bidders must meet the credit eligibility thresholds, see Appendix K for full details, to participate in the RFP. If the bidder is ultimately selected and a definitive agreement is executed then that agreement will contain the terms and conditions to effectuate PGE’s credit requirements.

Does PGE want bidders to speculate on tax policy when submitting bids?

No, submitted bids should reflect only currently enacted legislation. If there is Federal tax policy change then PGE will work with the IE and Staff to modify the RFP schedule to allow all bidders additional time to incorporate new legislation.

Could PGE confirm that not all requirements (in the minimum bid requirements) are necessary at the time of bid?

Not all minimum bid requirements are required at the time of the bid. However, the latest any of the requirements are due is prior to the final shortlist. Please review the documents posted on PGE’s 2021 RFP website for the exact requirements and timing.

Would PGE like bidders to describe in their permitting narratives how risks to PGE’s customers are limited?

Yes. Any deviation from the permitting matrix provided in Appendix N should include a narrative description of how the project will diverge from the permitting matrix and how timeline and risk parameters will be managed. PGE views the permits and associated timeline as key to reducing risk as part of the RFP process and retains the discretion – to be discussed with the IE – to determine whether the explanation provided has merit.

1. Can you briefly explain what the benchmark bids will used for? 2. When is the bid fee due?

1) The benchmark bids are outlined in Appendix P and will look to meet both the renewable energy and non-emitting resource needs of the 2021 RFP.

2) Bid fees will be due 10 days after receipt of invoice from PGE.

Where do you want the excel bid form uploaded in the portal?

The website has been fixed and the first upload field is for the bid form.

Is PGE requiring full capacity firm PTP transmission for VERs?

For renewable resources, a Bidder must have an achievable plan for long-term transmission service for 80% of the interconnection limit of the facility. Short term firm services may be used for the remaining 20% of the facility’s interconnection limit.

As it relates to BTA bids, if equipment chosen is not on PGE's list in their tech spec, but are redlined with justification will scoring be affected because of such a choice or modification? Along those lines, what about solar inverter and/or modules that aren't on your list?

Bidders proposing a utility owned commercial structure are asked to note any exceptions to the PGE provided technical specifications at the time of best and final offers. A tech exception template is provided as Tab 14 within the bid form. PGE will review the noted items and determine if the changes are acceptable.

On the bid fees, given the process described (that bidders will be invoiced after their bid is submitted) is it fair to assume that bidders do not need to have paid the bid fees prior to the RFP submittal due date?

Bidders will receive invoices after bid submittal and must pay within 10 days of receipt.

Which appendix has the permitting matrix available?

Please see Appendix N, Exhibit A for the permitting matrix.

Will projects with a COD in 2025 be disqualified as they do not meet the minimum requirement?

Projects need a COD no later than 2024 with the exception of pumped hydro projects (or other eligible long-lead time technologies), which must have a COD no later than 2027.

Will PGE accept BTA proposals only?

Please see the RFP main document, starting at the bottom of page 19, which outlines all the accepted Contract Terms and Conditions for both utility owned commercial structures and third party owned commercial structures.

For further clarification, will any information about PGE's different offer permutations be made publicly available (e.g. term, storage capacity duration, etc.)?

No additional public information regarding bids received will be publicly disclosed prior to information contained in the final shortlist filings made before the OPUC.

Can PGE provide more information on what they would want to see in the executive summary (item #3 on the proposal content checklist)? Is PGE open to additional narrative/attachments as a part of this executive summary or the larger RFP bid?

An executive summary should at minimum address the proposed project included in the bid. A bidder may provide additional information at their discretion.

Bid Form Tab 4, question 24 requests the "...total transaction price (inclusive of APA, APA & EPC, or BOT) including any energy storage related costs...". For standalone storage projects are you expecting this to be just the total transaction price? It is unclear on if or how this should differ from what is provided in Tab 12

The total transaction prices, with and without energy storage related costs, for questions 23 and 24 on Tab 4 should be equal to the total costs on Tab 12 for “no storage” and “with storage”, respectively.

Bid Form Tab 4, question 23 requests the "...total transaction price (inclusive of APA, APA & EPC, or BOT) excluding any energy storage related costs...". For standalone storage projects all costs could be considered "energy storage related costs", are you expecting this to be the total transaction price minus the BESS equipment costs or something else?

If a project is a standalone storage project then the total transaction price for Bid Form Tab 4, question 23 would be zero. All the costs would be reflected in Bid Form Tab 4, question 24.

What information is required in the resource energy assessment?

Provide any assessment reports that have been prepared for the project that utilize historical  energy production data to forecast energy production for the remaining project life. Please include long-term reference data used in the assessment report to forecast energy production.

For wind resources, please provide the a detailed assessment report including the analysis used to estimate the net annual and monthly energy output of the wind project (long-term average P50, P75, P90 and P10 annual NCF projection for the project). All sources of losses should be listed and individually quantified, along with the basis for quantification. Please include detailed Met Tower information, all available historical wind speed data (raw and cleaned), and data validation procedures. Consideration of existing or proposed external wind farms waking effects should be specifically addressed. Please provide wake model used in the analysis.

Regarding transmission for dispatchable resources on page 18 of the final RFP document, PGE states: “To qualify for this RFP as a dispatchable resource, a bidder must have Long-Term Firm transmission service for 100 percent of the facility’s interconnection limit.” The RFP then goes on to state, in footnote 15, “PGE appreciates that timelines for obtaining such transmission can be strenuous and lengthy and invites bidders to include narrative clear and executable paths to procuring transmission service (including study process milestones and reference to public study results for similar projects) that provide a clear and executable path to procuring transmission service. Any clear and executable plan must meet the transmission product and quantity requirements specified in this section.” As a dispatchable, long-lead time resource, we would request clarification on whether PGE is requiring firm transmission OR an executable transmission plan to qualify for the RFP.

A transmission plan must meet the transmission product and quantity requirements specified in the RFP Main Document. PGE will consider alternative transmission plans provided bidders that provide a clear and executable path to procuring transmission service. Such plans would necessarily include study process milestones and reference to public study results for similar projects. In addition alternative transmission plan must meet the transmission product and quantity requirements specified in the RFP Main Document.

Can a bidder, hoping to site a project near an existing PGE wind farm, use both the existing site control and transmissions rights to meet the 2021 RFP requirements?

At this point in time, PGE is looking for incremental resources all of which the developer needs to demonstrate the minimum requirements in the RFP and not rely on PGE owned assets (i.e. land, interconnection and transmission rights). Developers still need to request interconnection as well as long term transmission service. Bidders cannot presume to rely upon existing interconnection and transmission rights currently held by PGE.

The RFP online Bid Form requires multiple attachment uploads as part of the submission process. There does not appear to be a mechanism (i.e. an upload button or "search for file" text box) to initiate this process for any of the required attachments. We have tried submitting a partially executed NDA through the submission portal Bid Form tab using Microsoft Edge and Firefox browsers without success. Is there an additional required step to "unlock" this form? Is a specific browser required? Or is there a coding issue for all browsers? Thank you for addressing.

There was a technical issue with the website, however it has been resolved. Also, if bidders would like PGE to countersign the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement then please email a signed copy to rfp@pgn.com prior to December 13th 2021, so that it can be countersigned and returned to the bidder before January 4th 2021.

On the bid form, tab 6, question 25, references "energy storage efficiency losses", however the remainder of the bid form implies that all information related to storage should be on tab 7. Please clarify if any impact of storage at a hybrid site needs to be modeled in its generation profile. Please also clarify if the intent of this question is to tie to Part 2 of tabs 6a, 6b and 6c.

Tab 6 question 25 should include an estimate of energy storage operation and efficiency losses.

Energy storage operation and efficiency losses should not be included in part 2 of tab 6a, 6b, 6c. PGE will independently model the operation of energy storage and associated losses and intends to rely upon the bidder’s answer to tab 6 question 25 for validation purposes.

On the bid form - tab 13 for Milestone Schedules has columns D and E locked that I believe are intended to be edited. Please provide guidance on if an update will be issued, or if you would like a separate schedule attached to the bid.

PGE will provide an update to the bid form so that the cells referenced on Tab 13 can be edited.

In the 2021-All-Source-RFP-Main-Document under the Third Party Owned Commercial Structures heading (Page 20), PGE requests that "AT THE TIME OF BID SUBMISSION, BIDDERS ARE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY, THROUGH REDLINES, EXCEPTIONS TO ANY TERM OR CONDITION IN THE TERM SHEET." While not specifically mentioned in this section, can you please confirm that PGE would like proposed markups to both the Term Sheet (Appendix A, B, or C) and in the Form PPA/Capacity Agreement (Appendix E, or F) corresponding to a bidder's specific technology? For example, a third party wind farm proposer would markup Appendix A and E for PGE's consideration, not just Appendix A? Thank you for clarifying.

Bidders are requested to redline term sheets (Appendices A-D), but are not expected to mark up any of the form agreements (Appendices E-I).

COD Language in RFP: “All resources participating in this solicitation must be online by 12/31/2024”. We have similar concerns as the other bidder who suggested that PGE broaden this eligibility requirement to encourage increased competition. Figure 1: Feasible Procurement Pathway Timeline suggests that the next PGE RFP could be as late as Q4 2024. This proposed timeline will likely make projects with a 2025 COD unavailable to PGE, as these projects likely will need to be contracted in 2023 or early 2024 at the latest in order to achieve a 2025 COD. PGE has stated, "Per Commission order number 21-320, all resources are to have a COD of 2024 to meet PGE’s identified system needs with an exception for long-lead time resources, which can have a COD of 2027." Is there sufficient flexibility around this order to consider projects with 2025 CODs that meet all other eligibility requirements (i.e. System Impact Study received)? We are considering submitting an offer for a large project with a 2025 COD, but between the bid fee and strict 2024 COD deadline, it is unclear if such an opportunity would be reviewed.

The minimum requirement for both renewable and non-emitting dispatchable resources is a COD no later than 2024, with the exception being 2027 for pumped storage. A 2025 COD would not meet this requirement.

Should Congressional action extend tax credits, PGE may consider adding flexibility for resource CODs and will notify bidders in the event of that additional flexibility.

Within the bid form, tab 6 gives space for three technologies, what if you have more than three for a single bid? What is PGE's preferred approach for submission of the data?

If a bidder has more than three technologies in a single bid, PGE asks that the bidder fill out a second bid form to include the additional technologies.

The turbine being proposed for this bid is a new variant of a well proven and largely deployed turbine platform from a Tier 1 Turbine Supplier and will be in accordance with PGE Specifications. Does PGE consider this a “wind turbine that is commercially approved and deployed at large scales”?

If a technology is derived from something that is commercially approved and deployed at large scales then it would most likely be an acceptable resource. PGE reserves the right to review all technologies provided by bidders and determine whether they meet the standard of “commercially proven and deployed at large scales.”

Will PGE post Word document versions for Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F? The PDF versions do not cleanly convert to Word docx format.

Yes, all the term sheet and agreement files have been made available online in Word docx format.

Regarding bid variants, the RFP states "The alternatives may consist of a different technology, volume, contract term, in-service date, and/or pricing structure for the same resource at the same location." Given the locational benefit of dispatchable resources, would PGE consider bids for dispatchable resources at various locations within a single bid if it provides value to PGE's system and potential benefit to PGE customers?

PGE views a proposed resource at a location different than another proposed resource will result in two distinct and separate bids, and not two variants of one bid.

Appendix M4 – Energy Storage Technical Documents, Section 3.2.9 Renewables Smoothing has a required response time of 700ms. Can more information be provided about the signal type and desired response to determine if this is achievable for a proposed system?

Section 3.2.9 of the tech specs has been updated to provide more information regarding the signal type and desired response. This update can be found in the final issuance of Appendix M, which is available on the website.

Appendix M4 – Energy Storage Technical Documents, Section 3.2.4 Frequency Response ends in what appears to be a uncompleted sentence: "Frequency response will be dispatched up to 50 times per year, potentially multiple times within". It is also unclear how long a frequency response event will last which will be needed to determine the cycling requirements of the system.

Section 2.4 of the tech specs has been corrected to read “Frequency response will be dispatched up to 50 times per year, potentially multiple times within the same 8-hour period.” This correction can be found in the final issuance of Appendix M, which is available on the website.

Can PGE share the time and the registration / call-in information for the bidder's conference next Friday?

The Post-Issuance Bidder Workshop will be held December 17, 2021, 9AM-10:30AM PST. Interested parties can participate via TEAMS. The link for this can be found on the RFP website’s Announcement page.

1. Regarding Appendix N, Section 1.3.2 Price Scoring, Energy Value Determination: “To calculate the energy value, PGE will forecast resource production and utilize the reference case market price forecast from the 2019 IRP Update, inclusive of available natural gas price forecast updates. The production value will be based on bidder provided generation information, and in the instance of storage resources, PGE will simulate resource dispatch using the Aurora production cost simulation tools deployed in the IRP.” A) Could PGE provide and updated Energy Value table, as was provided in the original 2019 IRP? The 2019 IRP Update has an updated reference case and range of market price futures which would impact the values originally provided in 2019 IRP Section 6.2.1 Energy Value, Table 6-4. B) Could PGE provide the basis for how PGE intends to forecast the energy value of storage resources? The mentioned “reference case market price forecast from the 2019 IRP Update” appears to be used to scale forward energy prices for other resources, but it is unclear how energy value (arbitrage value) will be forecasted for storage resources. 2. Regarding Appendix N, Section 1.3.2 Price Scoring, Capacity Value Determination: “Individual capacity contributions will be calculated using Sequoia. Sequoia is a loss--of--load probability model that assesses both capacity need and capacity contribution of potential incremental resources.” A) Could PGE provide forecasted ELCC curves (ELCC % vs year) for various technologies for the reference case B) Could PGE make Sequoia publicly accessible or available for use by the bidders?

1A) PGE will provide an updated Energy Value table with the latest information. This report will be made available on the website within a few weeks.

1B) PGE will forecast the energy value of storage resources by utilizing a security constrained economic dispatch model.

2A) A capacity contribution calculator has been made available on the website and includes ELCC curves by technology type.

2B) Sequoia will not be made publicly available or available for use by bidders.

Bid Form, Tab 1, Question 37 states, "Concurrent with supplying the Best and Final offer, all bids that contemplate a utility ownership structure must provide redlines to PGE's tech specs. Tab 14, (Tech Exception Log) states that, "Bidders proposing utility owned structures will be required to provide redlines to the tech specs to be considered for the final shortlist." Are all tech spec exceptions required to be submitted prior to the final shortlist or concurrent with the best and final offer as stated on Tab 1?

Tech spec redlines should be submitted concurrently with the best and final offer as stated on Tab 1. The bid form’s Tech Exception Log Tab will be updated to be consistent with this requirement.

Bid Form, Tab 1, Question 9, "PGE will accept bids for resource technologies that are commercially proven and deployed at large scales...." Please confirm that this only applies to new "technologies" and not a new wind turbine model by a Tier 1 Turbine Supplier since wind turbines are clearly well proven and deployed at very large scales by the Tier 1 Turbine Suppliers in the US.

Wind turbines that are commercially proven and/or deployed at large scales will be accepted.

The RFP contemplates contracting with an Engineering Procurement Construction Agreement (“EPC”), with PGE acting as the “Owner” and directly contracting to obtain certain work, such as the procurement, installation, construction and other services for the project. The RFP also contemplates contracting with an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with PGE purchasing the project and project assets from the Seller. This agreement is contemplates the Seller already owning the Project and having all right, title and interest in the Project Assets (see first Whereas). A variation to these agreements is a Build Transfer Agreement under which the developer obtains all land rights, permits, interconnection rights and project contracts. When the project is “shovel ready,” the developer (or its contractor) builds the project for the utility. The utility typically takes ownership when the project has been tested and commissioned and, for solar and wind projects, just before the project is placed in service. Construction risk is maintained with the developer, but the agreement contemplates a number of conditions precedent, deliverables and closing conditions that must be met for the project to close and the asset to transfer. If a Build Transfer Agreement structure is being contemplated, what is the best way to redline the EPC / APA term sheet in Appendix D?

PGE asks that for Build Transfer Agreements (BTA) proposals, the Bidder should mark up the APA/EPC form term sheet (Appendix D) in addition to adding additional principal terms to describe the requested structure. Most of the principal terms within the APA/EPC form term sheet are relevant to a BTA agreement and should be reviewed and modified if necesseary. The non-relevant terms can be deleted. For example, for the EPC, the defined term “Owner” could be modified to reflect the Bidder who will be the counterparty under the EPC rather than PGE.

Are the feeder relays (SEL-351S) adequate for feeder metering? "Meters shall be installed on each medium-voltage collection system circuit feeder, although to the extent that the communications system can register production by feeder, a separate physical meter for each feeder is not required" Pg 564/938 (2021 specs)

PGE will not accept a metering function in the protective relay (SEL-351). The bidder will need to – as noted in the tech spec – have revenue quality meters.

“A revenue meter shall be installed at the project substation. The revenue meter shall be high accuracy and shall comply with the requirements as defined in Owner specifications, the interconnection agreement, and power purchase agreements.” Pg 564/938 (2021 specs)

Transformer specification states two 480VAC sources with a transfer switch are needed for auxiliary power. Is this a hard requirement?

PGE will accept proposed modifications for its technical specifications, but asks bidders to justify the modifications and how performance consequences would be minimized.

Comments on Appendix M – Technical Specifications We want to comment on the fact that the selected BOP contractor usually requires the ability to review and propose additional vendors they prefer. Many of the procurements included in the approved vendors list are within the scope of the BOP contractor. We propose that a process is established to allow for the BOP contractor, once chosen for the project, to easily propose amendments to this list. The below comments are suggestions of vendors and suppliers that our company has worked with and with which we have vetted best practices through our thorough vendor prequalification form. We think that expanding the approved vendors to include those that have successfully worked with the bidding entities, adhere to the highest labor standards, and offer competitive prices will help PGE achieve their goal of providing low-cost renewable energy to their customers. • Generator Step-up Transformer (MPT) – ABB Brazil. • Historian – Bazefield • SF6 Circuit Breakers –Eaton • Substation Capacitors - NEPSI, ABB and Eaton • SCADA/Substation RTU/HMI/Metering – Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL) • Collection System Design – NEI, RRC, Westwood and Ulteig • Collection System Install – Wanzek, Kiewit, Mortenson and Rosendin, and IEA White • Communication System Design – NEI, RRC, Ulteig and POWER Engineers • Earthwork and Roads – Sanderfoot, Blattner, Wanzek, Kiewit and Mortenson and IEA White • Electrical Contractors – Wanzek, Kiewit, RES and Mortenson and IEA White • Geotechnical Engineering – Westwood • O&M Building – MBA • Overhead Transmission Line – Wanzek, RES, Mortenson, Blattner, Kiewit, AEI and High Country Line Construction • Substation Design – NEI, Ulteig, RRC • Survey and Civil Engineering – RRC and Ulteig • Transmission Engineering Design – RRC, NEI, Ulteig, Commonwealth • Transportation – TLG Transport

The provided approved vendors and service suppliers list was developed based on PGE’s experience with different providers and cannot be amended at this time. The contractor will have a chance to deviate from this list if awarded the contract, but may do so only with prior written owner approval.

Shortlist Requirements Projects should not be denied shortlisting due to lack of a final land use permit. This could unnecessarily eliminate high quality projects from the shortlist process while such projects are still very much viable for achieving online dates that meet PGE’s needs. Rather, we suggest rephrasing this language to allow projects that have applied for state and local permits by the proposal date remain eligible for shortlisting.

PGE declines to change its permitting requirements. However, PGE will allow bidders to submit a narrative explanation if they are unable to meet the permitting matrix requirements included in the RFP. PGE views the permits and associated timeline as key to reducing risk as part of the RFP process and retains the discretion – to be discussed with the IE – to determine whether the explanation provided has merit.

COD Language in RFP: “All resources participating in this solicitation must be online by 12/31/2024” We suggest that PGE eliminate scheduling requirements that will limit the pool of quality projects that can help PGE achieve its goal of affordable and reliable system decarbonization within the desired timeframe. The current 12/31/2024 COD deadline does not take into account the potential for some projects to utilize PTCs beyond 2024 through continuous efforts qualification criteria, nor does it allow for the possibility of a longer-term PTC qualification timeframe that could be approved by congress. An alternative to consider could be framing this as a minimum PTC requirement rather than a strict COD cutoff. Another alternative could be to alter the RFP such that PGE maintains the flexibility to fill its near-term needs by 12/31/2024, while also potentially choosing projects that can deliver attractive benefits in a slightly longer timeframe.

Per Commission order number 21-320, all resources are to have a COD of 2024 to meet PGE’s identified system needs with an exception for long-lead time resources, which can have a COD of 2027.

Transmission – Renewable Resources Language in RFP: “Bidders relying on BPA for transmission service are required to [have] either previously been granted eligible transmission service, or have an eligible and active OASIS status Transmission Service Request (TSR) participating in the BPA TSR Study and Expansion Process (TSEP)…“ We recommend relaxing this provision, as we understand there are multiple feasible pathways to achieving eligible transmission service by end-of-year 2024 that would not be captured by PGE’s proposed requirement. In particular, projects in the current TSEP with non-PGE points of delivery do not meet the strict language PGE has proposed but could likely redirect any resulting transmission service to PGE’s required points of delivery on PGE’s required timeline. Maintaining PGE’s requirement as written would likely disqualify quality projects that could reasonably be expected to fit PGE’s needs -- including its required online date -- on a least-cost, least-risk basis.

PGE maintains that for all resources, particularly dispatchable resources, long-term transmission rights are essential to ensure that the resources deliver capacity to maintain necessary reliability on behalf of customers. Transmission availability plays a key role in project viability and economics, and PGE does not foresee a path to accurately scoring a project and its associated risk in absence of concrete steps to procure transmission rights. Should federal tax credit policy continue to incentivize 2023 COD projects, PGE will need to ensure that all projects have a viable and achievable plan to secure transmission rights. PGE maintains that this circumstance will continue to require bidders to provide evidence of participation and progress in transmission study processes as is required in the 2021 All-Source RFP.

However, PGE recognizes that certain circumstances could arise within the bid evaluation process that may require PGE to reevaluate the timing of PGE’s transmission requirements. For example, should Congressional action extend the availability of federal tax credits, PGE will work with the IE to consider how additional time made available for tax credit qualification could allow for broader bidder satisfaction of PGE’s transmission requirements. PGE appreciates that timelines for obtaining such transmission can be strenuous and lengthy, and as such, will consider alternative transmission plans provided bidders provide a clear and executable path to procuring transmission service. Such plans would necessarily include study process milestones and reference to public study results for similar projects. For the avoidance of doubt, any clear and executable plan to procure transmission service must meet the transmission product and quantity requirements specified in the 2021 All-Source RFP. PGE’s review of transmission plan viability will focus on the assurance that required transmission service would be awarded in time to support project COD and any effective date of signed definitive agreements. Any transmission plan that does not meet PGE’s 2021 All-Source RFP requirements will be reviewed by PGE and the IE to assess its viability prior to any disqualification decision.

RFP Schedule Language in RFP: “June 2022 – Final contracts executed with winning Bidders as applicable.” Comment: Though it specifies that “these dates are subject to change,” we would request a further extension on the expected date of PPA execution to accommodate projects being permitted at the state level that may be experiencing unanticipated delays in their permitting process.

PGE declines to change its permitting requirements. However, PGE will allow bidders to submit a narrative explanation if they are unable to meet the permitting matrix requirements included in the RFP. PGE views the permits and associated timeline as key to reducing risk as part of the RFP process and retains the discretion – to be discussed with the IE – to determine whether the explanation provided has merit.

Appendix O: General comment – in the 2018 bid form, it was very apparent which questions PGE was requesting supporting documentation, consider adding something similar to make the requested documentation more apparent.

Thank you for your input and PGE will endeavor to make the final bid form more apparent.

Appendix N/Appendix C/Page 21: It appears there are 7 categories each with a maximum of 35 points in each category, which equals 245 points. Text indicates a total of 212 points will be allocated to commercial performance risk non-price scoring matrix.

There are 6 categories with scoring. 1 category, related to output guarantee, has a question either for PPA or Utility Owned bids. Each of the categories is worth 35.33 points.

Appendix N/Section 1.4/Page 15: There appears to be a discrepancy in the number of points stated in the text versus provided in the example (25 versus 29).

Thank you for identifying that inconsistency. The text will be updated to reflect the intended 29 points.

Appendix N/Appendix A/Page 19: Please consider specifying what the acceptable form of documentation is for supplying evidence of cultural resource surveys started, and tribal coordination initiated (e.g. email communication, memo, etc.).

Any relevant documentation (e.g. studies, memos, emails, etc.) will help support the evidence of a cultural resource survey.

Appendix N/Appendix A/Page 19: 1) Many, if not all, of the state and local permitting agencies are struggling with a backlog of work due to COVID-19 and the resulting limited staff to review and approve permits. As a result, PGE should consider the deadlines for these permits be extended to be more in-line with actual processing time, but not jeopardize Project requirements. 2) Standalone storage does not require a site certificate (however combined wind plus storage, solar plus storage, and wind plus solar plus storage do require site certificate in Oregon). Requiring a local jurisdictional siting permit or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at final shortlist is too early in the process for a standalone energy storage project with a COD of 12/31/2024. These permits will typically have timing requirements for start of construction that could expire if they are granted too early. The shorter development timeline for a standalone storage project as compared to a renewable project, such as wind or solar, makes this requirement for energy storage projects overly restrictive. PGE should consider extending this deadline to be more in-line with development timelines, but not jeopardize Project requirements.

PGE declines to change its permitting requirements. However, PGE will allow bidders to submit a narrative explanation if they are unable to meet the permitting matrix requirements included in the RFP. PGE views the permits and associated timeline as key to reducing risk as part of the RFP process and retains the discretion – to be discussed with the IE – to determine whether the explanation provided has merit.

Main RFP/Labor/Page 17: "Union labor must be utilized for major construction activities related to the resource and must include a Project Labor Agreement..." Please clarify if this requirement only applies to projects in the State of Oregon or does it apply to other projects located in other states (Washington, Montana, etc.)?

The minimum requirements outlined for labor in the RFP Main Document apply to all bids regardless of location.

Main RFP/Transmission – Dispatchable Resources: Please clarify transmission requirements for on-system dispatchable resources.

On-system dispatchable resources can meet PGE’s transmission requirements by requesting NRIS interconnection service, such that PGE-M is able to request the resource to be added as a Designated Network Resource under its Network Integration Transmission Agreement. Alternatively, on-system resources can request firm point-to-point transmission rights from PGE-T to ensure firm delivery to load.

Main RFP/Transmission – Renewable Resources/Page 16: "Bidders relying on BPA for transmission service are required to have either previously been granted eligible transmission service or have an eligible and active OASIS status Transmission Service Request (TSR) participating in the BPA TSR Study and Expansion Process (TSEP)." 1) With commercial operation dates (COD) accepted until 12/31/2024, PGE should consider participation in the 2023 TSEP as an acceptable plan to obtain transmission. This timing aligns with the same requirement as needing to be in the current 2022 TSEP with a 12/31/2023 COD. 2) PGE should consider disclosing how bids received from Montana will be treated with respect to transmission requirements and deliverability

PGE maintains that for all resources, particularly dispatchable resources, long-term transmission rights are essential to ensure that the resources deliver capacity to maintain necessary reliability on behalf of customers. Transmission availability plays a key role in project viability and economics, and PGE does not foresee a path to accurately scoring a project and its associated risk in absence of concrete steps to procure transmission rights. Should federal tax credit policy continue to incentivize 2023 COD projects, PGE will need to ensure that all projects have a viable and achievable plan to secure transmission rights. PGE maintains that this circumstance will continue to require bidders to provide evidence of participation and progress in transmission study processes as is required in the 2021 All-Source RFP.

However, PGE recognizes that certain circumstances could arise within the bid evaluation process that may require PGE to reevaluate the timing of PGE’s transmission requirements. For example, should Congressional action extend the availability of federal tax credits, PGE will work with the IE to consider how additional time made available for tax credit qualification could allow for broader bidder satisfaction of PGE’s transmission requirements. PGE appreciates that timelines for obtaining such transmission can be strenuous and lengthy, and as such, will consider alternative transmission plans provided bidders provide a clear and executable path to procuring transmission service. Such plans would necessarily include study process milestones and reference to public study results for similar projects. For the avoidance of doubt, any clear and executable plan to procure transmission service must meet the transmission product and quantity requirements specified in the 2021 All-Source RFP. PGE’s review of transmission plan viability will focus on the assurance that required transmission service would be awarded in time to support project COD and any effective date of signed definitive agreements. Any transmission plan that does not meet PGE’s 2021 All-Source RFP requirements will be reviewed by PGE and the IE to assess its viability prior to any disqualification decision.

Bid Form Exhibit O/Tab ‘Proposal Content Checklist’/Row 35 required All Bids to submit an energy assessment and meteorology report - Please clarify if standalone Battery Energy Storage projects (not paired with any renewables) are required to submit these. If so, what is the expected content of each?

Standalone energy storage projects will not be required to provide an energy assessment or meteorology report. The bid form will be updated to reflect this change.

Bidder is considering proposing a solar site in Oregon that will be sited on land currently controlled by one of Bidder's operating wind energy projects. 100% of the necessary site control has been secured under long-term lease agreement; however, Bidder will need to pursue an administrative process to allow for solar technology under the lease(s). As this process may not be complete prior to RFP response or shortlist, Bidder would like to confirm that PGE would view the site control requirement as having been met in this situation.

PGE declines to change its site control requirements. However, PGE will allow bidders to submit a narrative explanation if they are unable to meet the requirements included in the RFP. PGE views the site control requirement as key to reducing risk as part of the RFP process and retains the discretion – to be discussed with the IE – to determine whether the explanation provided has merit.

RE Bid Form. Tab 8, Question #10 – Please clarify if “charged” should be “discharged”? If not, how is the question different than #6?

In the final version of the bid form, Tab 8 Question 10 will read: ‘What is the highest MW level that the facility can be discharged at’.

RE Bid Form. Tab 7, Question #12 – Please clarify if “charged” should be “discharged”? If not, how is the question different than #8?

In the final version of the bid form, Tab 7 Question 12 will read: ‘What is the highest MW level that the facility can be discharged at’.

RE Bid Form. Tab 6a, Historical Production Data at the Plant for Renewable Resource – Please clarify instruction #4 “..(preferably 2020 through 2019)”. Should this time period be for years 2018, 2019, and 2020, preferably?

The final version of the bid form will read:

4) Please provide at least three years of data (preferably 2020 through 2018) of valid measurement data required at minimum. Five years of valid data strongly preferred

RE Bid Form. Tab 6a, Historical Production Data at the Plant for Renewable Resource – Please clarify instruction #3 “…should not have any clipped energy”. Please define clipped energy; is this again instructing the bidder to provide DC power and ignore any inverter clipped energy? Explain how this table is to be populated for wind resources.

Entries in Part 3 should not include ‘Clipped Energy.’ Therefore, entries in Part 3 should not include energy that could be produced by available DC or AC generation capacity but could not be generated due to inverter capacity limitations or other balance of system limitations up to the point of interconnection.

Entries in Part 3 should not include facility level curtailments associated with point of interconnection limits. Instead, entries in Part 3 should reflect available historical generation for each component renewable resource.  Therefore, entries in Part three should not be adjusted to reflect combined component resource capacity interconnection limits.

RE Bid Form, Tab 6a, Historical Production Data at the Plant for Renewable Resource – Please clarify instruction #1 “…, measured as input to the inverter”. Please clarify if this table is required for AC generating resource. While this table could be produced for all solar resources, explain how this table is to be populated for wind resources.

For Tabs 6a, 6b, and 6c – Responses to Part 1: DC resources should include a DC profile before inverter and AC profile at the point of interconnect. AC resources should only include an AC profile at the point of interconnect.

RE: Bid Form, Tab 6a, DC Generation Profile Before Inverter – Please clarify if this table is required for AC generating resource. While this table could be produced for all solar resources, explain how this table is to be populated for wind resources.

For Tabs 6a, 6b, and 6c – Responses to Part 1: DC resources should include a DC profile before inverter and AC profile at the point of interconnect. AC resources should only include an AC profile at the point of interconnect.

We noticed the footnote listed on page 11 of the RFP that states: “PGE will also consider other long-lead time technologies that satisfy the remainder of PGE’s eligibility requirements, have been commercially proven, and can be shown to require additional construction time beyond what is possible by 2024." Could you provide what information needs to be shown to demonstrate that the "additional construction time" is "required"?

In order to qualify as a long-lead time resource, a bidder must demonstrate that their project meets all permitting, transmission, interconnection and other RFP eligibility criteria required of all bidders.  In addition, the bidder must demonstrate a technology specific construction milestone schedule that would prevent a resource from reaching a 2024 COD date following receipt of a notice to proceed in July 2022.

Will biomass resources, specifically generation projects that use liquid biofuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, or ethanol be considered an eligible resource in this RFP?

Biomass resources must demonstrate physical and commercial access to fuel supplies and fuel transportation for the term of the contract proposed in the bid. PGE will not accept Bids for biomass or biogas projects that pass fuel obligations to PGE.

PGE will require biomass bidders to provide all available emissions and air permit information to allow PGE to determine whether the resource meets Oregon’s defined non-emitting standards.  Specifically, PGE is relying upon Oregon’s HB 2021 definition of non-emitting electricity to evaluate whether bids qualify.

Questions received at October 11th workshop:

Q: Will PGE give feedback to bidders on their evaluated ELCC?

A: As stated within the 2021 All-Source RFP Main Document, “Upon request, PGE will offer feedback to unsuccessful Bidders on the competitiveness of their proposals. PGE will make available this feedback after executing all agreements with successful Bidders, or after announcing the termination of the solicitation. PGE will not disclose any third-party confidential information through this voluntary feedback process. PGE will identify the relative performance of their bid by identifying a bid’s quartile performance in price, non-price and total score. Furthermore, as appropriate, PGE will identify all minimum thresholds the bid did not achieve.”

Q: Any prohibitions for qualifying facility bidders engaged in litigation with PGE?

A: PGE will not prohibit qualifying facility bidders engaged in litigation with PGE. PGE will welcome the participation of QF projects in this RFP because of the potential of their bids to provide lower prices for our customers than reflected in current avoided costs prices. PGE is willing to let such developers bid into the RFP but, in doing so, makes no commitment as to whether it would be willing to mutually terminate an existing Schedule 202 contract. PGE will make that determination on a case-by-case basis in the best interest of our customers.

Q: Will PGE make GFI needs and preferences be public prior to bid?

A: PGE conducted a survey in the fall of 2021 with customers interested in GFI. The results about technology and location preference are as follows:

Renewable Technology:     72% No preference, 11% Solar + Storage, 11% No Response, 6% Wind

Location Preference:          44% Oregon, 28% No Response, 17% Oregon or Washington, 11% Anyone in the West that can deliver the energy

Q: What are the interconnection requirements for bid eligibility? By when are System Impact Study results required?

A: As stated within Appendix N of the 2021 RFP, the following interconnection requirements are needed for the bid to qualify for the initial short list:

  • An active generation interconnection request in the transmission provider’s interconnection queue
  • A completed system impact study
  • If interconnection involves a 3rd party other than the transmission provider, the bid must also include an interconnection request to the 3rd party and all associated studies.
  • To qualify for the final short list, it must have a completed facilities study.
  • Resources located on PGE’s system must be studied as Network Resource Interconnection Service.
  • Resources located off-system can be studied as Energy Resource Interconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service.

To further clarify, Bidders are required to submit a completed system impact study prior to bidder notification of the initial shortlist results.