R.11-05-005: RPS Procurement Reform Commissioner Mark Ferron Paul Douglas Jason Simon Lewis Bichkoff January 22, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 CLIENT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT. 2 Negotiations Types of Consulting Contracts Standard Form of Contract Form of Contract General Conditions Special Conditions.
Advertisements

Getting the most out of your contracts Gary Traynor 11 th July 2013 Performance Monitoring Contractor.
1 Making Contract Opportunities and Awards More Transparent Ahmet Arif Sezgin Public Procurement Authority of Turkey Rabat 03 April 2008.
September 2013 ASTM Officers Training Workshop September 2013 ASTM Officers Training Workshop Strategic Planning & New Activity Development September 2013.
Lottery Method in BPA’s Simultaneous Submission Windows and Potential Application to the Simultaneous Defender Matching Process NAESB Meeting 05/01/13.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Proposed Transportation Funding Policy Changes Fairfax County Department of Transportation March.
Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan Update June 22, 2011.
1 Contracts, Competitive Bids 2004 USAC E-rate for Beginners 2004 USAC E-rate from the Service Provider Perspective FCC Orders.
Clinical Management for Behavioral Health Services (CMBHS) Mental Health Implementation Project Update Presented October 9th and 16th, 2012.
1 Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R): FY 13 Contract Renewal Proposal Summary Presentation January 2012.
1 Analysis of the use of Multipliers as a substitute for Set-Asides December 6, 2007 Presentation at FPSC Staff Workshop on RPS Bob McGee, Marketing Services.
1 Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) OCIIO Office of Oversight Office of Insurance Programs Office of Consumer Support Office.
MyFloridaMarketPlace Roundtable June 3, 2003 MyFloridaMarketPlace.
State Agency Contracts Considerations for Performance Reviews
Regulations Governing the Conduct of Open Seasons for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission February 9, 2005.
1 PENDING FERC ISSUES RELATING TO THE ALASKA NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Presentation by Karol Lyn Newman Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP November.
1 Equity in School Lunch Pricing (Section 205) Howard Leikert Supervisor School Nutrition Programs March 22, 2011.
POLICY AND OVERSIGHT DIVISION (POD) February 2014 Documentation of Evaluation for Award 1.
Behind the Fence and Contract Change Stakeholder Update September 18, 2012.
Procurement and Resource Adequacy Briefing August 2, 2006 Molly Sterkel, California Public Utilities Commission.
LAWA Living Wage Q & A Session OFFICE OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE.
RPS Compliance Reporting Working Group: Portfolio Content Category Classification Energy Division Staff: Robert Blackney and Sean Simon September 19, 2013.
New EU Rules on Derivatives Trading The EMIR Reporting Technical Standards Victoria Cooley OTC Derivatives & Post Trade Policy Financial Conduct Authority.
Development of an Illinois Energy Efficiency Policy Manual A Proposed Process and Approval Plan Presented by: Karen Lusson Illinois Attorney General’s.
UNDP Sudan Individual Contract (IC) Business Process
“Commonwealth Choice” & the Health Connector Exchange: Design Issues & Lessons Learned Kevin Counihan Chief Marketing Officer MA Conference on National.
1 TOWARDS A CLEARER INTERACTION BETWEEN THE STATE AID RULES AND THE RULES ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT Global Competition Law Centre, Bruges, 30 Sept 2011 Klaus.
HIPSSA Cost model training workshop: Session 11: The regulatory process for cost accounting and cost modeling – what is involved and how should it to be.
HIPSSA Cost model training workshop: Session 12: Common pitfalls in regulatory cost modeling – regional and international case study examples EXPERT LEVEL.
Commercial Items – Pre-Award and Award – FAR Part 12 (Commercial Items Requirements above the micro-threshold) Map 1 of 3 Review Market Research (FAR
Presented by Joe Gordon. WORKSHOP OUTLINE: Introduction Program Fundamentals State Level 4 Areas Rebate Amount.
OCTOBER 8, 2014 Bob Laurita INTERNAL MARKET MONITORING New Import Capacity Resource FCM Market Power Mitigation Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing.
1 Follow Up Items  What are Unbalanced Bids?  What are Best Value Contracts?  Analysis of Contract Approval Limits.
Multi-Stage Bidding.
Resource Adequacy, Reliability, Risks and Markets October 9, 2006 Sean Gallagher California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division, Director.
New Procurement Rules Training Purchases Greater Than $25,000.
Legislative Rule-Making Process. Three Different Processes Higher Education 29A-3A-1 et seq State Board of Education 29A-3B-1 et seq All other state agencies.
OVERVIEW OF RPS CALCULATOR FUNCTIONALITY 1. Model Specification Model developed to provide plausible portfolios to CPUC LTPP and CAISO TPP to facilitate.
Renewable Net Short.
IOU LEAST COST-BEST FIT (LCBF): ALIGN WITH RPS CALCULATOR? 1.
1 Purchasing and Procurement Processes Module Four Revision Date: 2/06/2015.
Containing the Cost of California’s RPS Yuliya Shmidt, Senior Analyst February 2, 2012.
Collaborating with Others? If so, why and how? OSP AWARENESS MARCH 5, 2015 OSP.SYR.EDU
Implementing one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country California’s Renewable Energy Programs Implementing one of the most ambitious.
File & Suspend Rate Cases Water & Wastewater Reference Manual1.
PROCUREMENT POST REVIEW OF WORLD BANK FINANCED PROJECTS IN INDIA October 11, 2007.
Post 2012 Energy Efficiency Planning Schedule: Options and Implications February 16, am - 5 pm CPUC Auditorium.
California’s Renewable Energy Credits (REC) Market Update
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SM Local Capacity Requirements (LCR) RFO for New Resources and Other SCE Solicitations Stu Hemphill September 26, 2013.
HAFA Overview Training- Agenda Overview & Benefits of HAFA 2 HAFA Process 3 HAFA Policies What is HAFA? 1 1.
California Energy Commission Options for Developing Contingency Mitigation Measures 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report UC Irvine Campus, Irvine, California.
Rabbanai T. Morgan Current as of 26 January 2006 Protests.
1 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Settlement Overview Power Association of Northern California Luncheon, November 9, 2010 Frank Lindh General Counsel California.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SM Southern California Edison Company’s Proposal to Participate in Convergence Bidding August 23, 2010.
1 California Energy Commission April 27, 2015 Valerie Winn Chief, State Agency Relations Contingency Planning and Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENT February 6, PROGRAM OVERVIEW In 2002, just 1% (141,026 MWh) of SDG&E’s portfolio was from renewables. In 2002, SDG&E.
CSO Observer Member of the Evaluation Committee. Civil Society Organization May have representation in the Evaluation Committee As a member of the Evaluation.
Project Budget Review _ Control Developed by: Daniel J. Renna 3/16/20161.
Cogeneration and EAP II Ensuring Reliability or Broken Promises Michael Alcantar on behalf of the Cogeneration Association of California April 24, 2006.
Renewables Portfolio Standard Status Report California Public Utilities Commission February 26 th, 2008.
Introduction to Procurement for Public Housing Authorities Procurement Planning: Choosing a Contracting Method Unit 2.
CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH THE TOWN OF MIAMI LAKES Construction Services October 28, 2013.
Joint Energy Auction Implementation Proposal of PG&E, SCE and SDG&E California Public Utilities Commission Workshop – November 1, 2006.
CPUC Supply-side Procurement Processes
How to Write a Proposal.
12.2 Conduct Procurements The process of obtaining seller responses, selecting a seller and awarding the contract The team applies selection criteria.
Ex Ante Review Overview
Gearing Up for EGTRRA Restatements
Combined Heat and Power Program Settlement
Presentation transcript:

R : RPS Procurement Reform Commissioner Mark Ferron Paul Douglas Jason Simon Lewis Bichkoff January 22, 2013

Housekeeping 1.Workshop Logistics 2.Overview of Agenda 3.In-scope vs. out-of-scope 4.Objectives for Workshop 5.Next Steps 2

Agenda 9:30-10:00Housekeeping Opening Comments by Commissioner Ferron Importance of RPS Procurement Reform 10:00-11:00Standards of Review for Shortlist 11:00-11:30Timeline for Submission of Contracts 11:30-12:00Expedited Review of Purchase and Sale Contracts 1:00-2:00Standards of Review for Amended PPAs 2:00-3:00Standards of Review for Bilateral PPAs 3:00-4:00Standards of Review for PPAs Beyond the Scope of the Advice Letter Process 4:00-4:30Wrap-up and Closing Comments

RPS Procurement Continuum

Standards of Review for Shortlist Summary: – File IOU shortlist as a Tier 3 Advice Letter. This will put more emphasis on the review of the shortlist and expedite the contract review process. Rationale: – Ensure that shortlisting process results in potential contracts that reflect authorized need and appropriate value and viability Issues Raised by Parties: – Timeline must be established for Commission approval of shortlist – More projects may be shortlisted than are needed for RPS compliance 5

Standards of Review for Shortlist Agenda Items: Merits of escalating shortlist to a Tier 3 Advice Letter Merits of limiting shortlist to a ratio of annualized need 6

Timeline for Submission of Contracts Summary: – Contracts must be executed within one year after the approval of an IOU’s shortlist – Contracts must be filed with the Commission for approval within one month from the execution date of the contract. Rationale: – Ensure that shortlisted projects and executed contracts reflect current market value and IOU portfolio need Issues Raised by Parties: – Does not account for extraneous circumstances that may cause delay – 30 day requirement for submission of executed PPAs is too short 7

Timeline for Submission of Contracts 8 Agenda Items: Importance of limiting the timing of contract negotiations Parameters to allow an extension of the contract execution deadline

Expedited Review of Purchase and Sale Contracts Summary: – (Purchase and Sale) Contracts < 5 years are eligible to file T1 Advice Letters instead of T3 Advice Letters given SOR are met – (Purchase Only) Contracts > 5 years that use commercially proven technology can file T2 Advice Letters instead of T3 Advice Letters given SOR are met Rationale: – Streamlines the procurement review process for certain types of projects through the use of a standard non-modifiable contract Issues Raised by Parties: – Doesn’t include existing resources, repowers and expansions for expedited review – Doesn’t allow for slight modifications that provide ratepayer benefits that might not be captured with a pro forma contracts – Some SORs are hard to obtain for contracts with later CODs 9

Expedited Review of Purchase and Sale Contracts 10 Agenda Items: Allowing non-material modifications for standard offer contracts greater than five years in length. Adding a 5-year RPS procurement product in the list of pre- authorized LTPP bundled procurement products for IOUs. Relaxing the requirement for short-term contracts to come online within one year. The adequacy of the proposed viability hurdles for expedited review of contracts greater than 5-years in length - Are they presumptive? A good starting point? Acceptable?

SOR for Amended Contracts Summary: – PPAs that change technology must be re-bid into next solicitation. Other material contract amendments need to meet SORs and be filed as a Tier 3 Advice Letter. – Non-material changes do not require rebidding or a T3 advice letter Rationale: – Projects requiring material modifications must re-bid into a solicitation to ensure that it remains competitive. – Deters speculative approach to solicitations. Issues Raised by Parties: – Modifications that provide ratepayer, developer, and IOU benefit should be allowed to file a T3 Advice Letter – Need clarification on what is a non-material change, i.e., modification that does not require a T3 advice letter 11

SOR for Amended Contracts 12 Agenda Items: What “changes in technology” require projects to be re-bid into the next solicitation? What “substantial changes” require projects to be re-submitted via a Tier 3 advice letter. What constitutes a “minimal change?” Should modifications that offer ratepayer benefit be submitted via a Tier 3 advice letter? Should an amended PPA be required to show better ratepayer value than the original PPA in order to be filed as a T3 advice letter?

SOR for Bilateral PPAs Summary: – Bilaterals are held to a higher standard of review and must meet minimum project development milestones in order to be considered for CPUC approval. Rationale: – Discourages bilateral contracts that circumvent the competitive solicitation process and ensures that bilateral contracts reflect authorized need and value/viability Issues Raised by Parties: – Doesn’t define the process/requirements for IOUs to justify execution of a bilateral contract that could provide substantial benefits. 13

SOR for Bilateral PPAs 14 Agenda Items: Defining the parameters that constitute a legitimate need for bilateral contracts. The merits of disallowing the execution of a bilateral contract without an annual RPS solicitation.

SOR for PPAs Beyond the Scope of the Advice Letter Process Summary: – Contracts greater than 1% of bundled sales and contracts not comparable on value, price, viability, or using a non-commercial technology must be filed via application. Contract, including price, is made public Rationale: – T3 advice letter is not appropriate for contracts that do not meet SORs. Application process is more appropriate when dealing with disputed value/need or policy. Issues Raised by Parties: – Proposal is too permissive – reject all amendments – “Non-commercial technology” is not clearly defined – 1% threshold is arbitrary and does not accurately mitigate risk associated with larger projects – Public price discovery breaches confidentiality rules 15

SOR for PPAs Beyond the Scope of the Advice Letter Process 16 Agenda Items: Why shouldn’t there be a higher standard of review for contracts that don’t align with SORs for need or value? Note: long-term fossil procurement is done via the application process. Is it appropriate to only use the advice letter approval process for technologies whose value/need has been quantified in a commission proceeding? Strengths and weaknesses of price discovery and associated changes to the PUC’s confidentiality matrix?

Wrap-up and Next Steps