The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090309Bokenkamp Direct.pdff";: l.!'i.,J j¡~ :'i 2009 MAR -6 PH~: 47 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AN NECESSITY FOR THE LAGLEY GULCH POWER PLAT. CASE NO. IPC-E-09-03 IDAHO POWER COMPAN DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KAL BOKENKAP 1 Q.Please state your name and business address. 2 A.My name is Karl Bokenkamp and my business 3 address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. 4 Q.By whom are you employed and in what 5 capacity. 6 A.I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the 7 General Manager of Power Supply Operations and Planning. 8 Q.Please describe your educational background. 9 A.I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in 10 Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois at 11 Urbana-Champaign in 1980. In 1995, I earned a Master of 12 Engineering Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the 13 University of Idaho. I am a registered Professional 14 Engineer in the state of Arizona, and I have attended the 15 Stone & Webster Utility Management Development Program and 16 the University of Idaho's Utility Executive Course. 17 Q.Please describe your work experience with 18 Idaho Power Company. 19 A.I became employed by Idaho Power in 1995 as 20 the Director, and then Manager, of Thermal Production. In 21 this position I was responsible for managing Idaho Power's 22 Thermal Production Department. Primary responsibilities of 23 the department included oversight and control of Idaho 24 Power's ownership shares in its three jointly-owned coal- BOKENKAP, DI 1 Idaho Power Company 1 fired generation resources, Bridger, Boardman, and Valmy, 2 and their associated fuel supplies. 3 In 2001, I accepted a new assignment as the Manager 4 of Power Supply Planning and was later promoted to General 5 Manager of Power Supply Planning. In this position, I was 6 responsible for building and managing Power Supply's 7 Planning Department. This department's responsibilities 8 included operational planning, load forecasting, stream 9 flow forecasting, integrated resource planning, 10 cogeneration and small power producer contract management, 11 water management/river operations, and gas and coal 12 contract management. 13 In 2006, I was promoted to my current position of 14 General Manager, Power Supply Operations and Planning. 15 This position adds operational responsibilities, which 16 include asset optimization, wholesale electricity, and 17 natural gas transactions from real-time through multi-year 18 deals as well as real-time operations and scheduling. 19 Q.Please outline the maj or topics you will 20 address in your testimony in this proceeding. 21 A. There are three major topics that comprise 22 my testimony. First, i will briefly review how the 23 addition of a baseload resource like the Langley Gulch 24 power plant ("Langley Gulch" or "Proj ect") is consistent BOKENKAP, DI 2 Idaho Power Company 1 with the Company's 2006 Integrated Resource Plan and 2008 2 Update. Second, I will provide an overview of the Request 3 for Proposal ("RFP") process used to evaluate the various 4 resources that competed to provide the base load resource. 5 Finally, I will explain why the Proj ect was selected as the 6 least-cost resource through the competitive RFP process. 7 Q.What drives the need for Idaho Power to 8 acquire additional resources? 9 A.Load growth wi thin Idaho Power's service 10 territory is primarily what drives the need for new 11 generating resources. In 1990, Idaho Power had 12 approximately 290,000 retail customers, and a firm peak- 13 hour load of less than 2,100 MW. Today, Idaho Power serves 14 over 480,000 retail customers in Idaho and Oregon, and firm 15 peak-hour load has grown to over 3,200 MW. Average firm 16 load has increased from approximately 1,200 aMW in 1990 to 17 over 1,800 aMW in 2008. 18 Q.What role does the Company's integrated 19 resource planning process play in determining the need for 20 the acquisition of a baseload resource? 21 A.The Company's integrated resource planning 22 process is the basis for establishing the Company's need 23 for the acquisition of additional resources. The IRP 24 considers supply-side resources (generators and market BOKENKAP, DI 3 Idaho Power Company 1 purchases), demand-side resources (energy efficiency or 2 demand response programs), and the transmission lines 3 necessary to integrate these resources. Because of the 4 Company's reliance on its hydroelectric generation, its 5 operations can be significantly affected by water 6 conditions. With this in mind, the Company's IRP utilizes 7 two planning criteria, one for average load or energy and 8 another for peak-hour load, and both are based on receiving 9 less than normal streamflows. For energy, Idaho Power 10 plans to be able to serve its average loads under 70th 11 percentile water and 70th percentile load conditions. For 12 peak-hour load, Idaho Power plans to serve its peak-hour 13 loads under 90th percentile water and 95th percentile load 14 conditions. 15 The preferred portfolio in the 2004 IRP included a 16 500 MW baseload coal-fired resource, with seasonal 17 ownership, in 2011. The preferred portfolio in the 2006 18 IRP refined this resource need to a 225 MW power purchase 19 facilitated from what we called a McNary to Boise 20 transmission upgrade in 2012, a 250 MW pulverized coal 21 baseload resource in 2013 and a 250 MW Regional IGCC (or 22 "clean coal") project in 2017. Since the 2006 IRP was 23 published, escalating concerns regarding climate change, CO2 24 emissions and the public's perception of coal-fired BOKENKAP, DI 4 Idaho Power Company 1 resources has made coal-fired resource development an 2 unrealistic alternative. These concerns coupled with the 3 possibility of new large loads locating in our service 4 territory and the anticipated shift of flow augmentation 5 releases of water from the federal dams on the Snake River 6 above Brownlee Dam from July and August to May and June, 7 have prompted the Company to (1) revise the 250 MW coal- 8 fired resource to a natural gas-fired baseload resource, 9 (2) increase the size of the baseload resource to 10 approximately 300 MW, and (3) accelerate the on-line date 11 of the base load resource to 2012. 12 Q.Why did the Company decide to utilize a 13 competi ti ve request for proposals or RFP process to acquire 14 the baseload resource previously described in your 15 testimony? 16 A.The competitive RFP process allows the 17 Company to access the broader power supply market to obtain 18 the best resource for our customers. It gives us access to 19 a spectrum of potential resources and resource developers. 20 Use of a formal RFP process provides customers and 21 regulatory agencies with the assurance that the resource 22 selection process was competitive, all potential suppliers 23 had an equal opportunity to participate, and that the best 24 resource alternative was selected. BOKENKAP, DI 5 Idaho Power Company 1 Q.Did the Company engage an independent third- 2 party to review the Company's RFP and bid evaluation 3 process? 4 A.Yes. The Company retained R. W. Beck, an 5 independent consulting company offering a complete range of 6 consulting and engineering services to the utility 7 industry, to assist us with the RFP process. Specifically, 8 R. W. Beck was retained to assist with preparation of the 9 RFP, the draft power purchase and tolling agreements, 10 development of the evaluation criteria and manual, and 11 evaluation of the proposals received in response to the 12 RFP, including the self-build alternative. Mr. Steven 13 Stein, R. W. Beck Principal & Executive Consultant, was R. 14 W. Beck's project manager and the principal consultant 15 involved in supporting our RFP process. 16 Q.Please describe the parameters the Company 17 set for the responses to the RFP. 18 A.The parameters set for this RFP can be 19 grouped into four categories; product, quantity, proposal 20 size, and term. The product was specified as dispatchable, 21 first call, non-recallable, physically delivered firm, or 22 unit contingent energy, commencing not later than June 1, 23 2012, that is dedicated solely to Idaho Power's use. The 24 RFP indicated that the product requirements could be met BOKENKAP, DI 6 Idaho Power Company 1 through Power Purchase Agreements ("PPA") or Tolling 2 Agreements ("TA"). The RFP also advised that the Company 3 would include in the bidding process a Company-developed 4 CCCT that would provide a benchmark resource for 5 consideration. Build-and-transfer proposals were not 6 considered in this RFP process. The quantity of 7 dispatchable firm or unit contingent energy requested was 8 initially specified as between approximately 250 MW and 600 9 MW. On June 25, 2008, the quantity was revised to 10 approximately 300 MW. The minimum and maximum proposal 11 sizes were initially specified as 50 MW and approximately 12 600 MW, respectively. When the quantity was revised to 13 approximately 300 MW, the maximum proposal size also was 14 adjusted to approximately 300 MW. Regarding term, each 15 respondent was required to submit one proposal with a term 16 of 15 years and 1 five-year renewal option. 17 Q.Why didn' t the Company allow build-and- 18 transfer proposals? 19 A.When the Company made the decision to pursue 20 a combined cycle project, Company employees visited a 21 number of combined cycle projects. During these site 22 visits, Company employees observed significant design 23 differences between similar sized proj ects. Simply put, 24 some designs were much better than others. BOKENKAP, DI 7 Idaho Power Company 1 If a build-and-transfer option was permitted, and 2 projects with significant design differences were proposed, 3 the evaluation process could become extremely complicated 4 and somewhat subjective. The Company concluded that the 5 best way to eliminate significant design differences 6 between the proposals and assure an effective evaluation 7 process was to prepare and issue a detailed specification 8 with the RFP to ensure uniform design criteria between 9 projects. 10 Given the decision to accelerate the on-line date to 11 2012, information obtained regarding critical equipment 12 manufacturing lead times, and the aforementioned 13 differences in proj ect design, in the Company's opinion, it 14 did not have enough time to prepare a detailed design 15 specification and release the RFP in time to meet the 2012 16 on-line date. 17 Q.Please describe the response the Company 18 received to the RFP. 19 A.The Company received six proposals. One 20 proposal was returned unopened because the bidder did not 21 submit a Notice of Intent to Bid as required by the RFP. 22 The five remaining valid proposals represented a total of 23 thirteen alternative resources. The alternatives included: BOKENKAP, DI 8 Idaho Power Company 1 one Power Purchase Agreement, nine TAs, two hybrid 2 proposals, and the Benchmark Resource. 3 The nine TAs offered included three different 4 technology classes; three TAs were for large frame simple 5 cycle CTs, two TAs were for advanced aeroderivative simple 6 cycle CTs, and five TAs were for 1 x 1 combined cycle CTs. 7 Q.Please describe the process the Company 8 followed to evaluate and rank the responses to the RFP. 9 A.The process the Company followed to evaluate 10 and rank the responses received in response to the RFP is 11 outlined in the Proposal Evaluation Manual prepared for the 12 2012 Baseload Generation RFP. The Proposal Evaluation 13 Manual was finalized before any of the proposals were 14 received. The evaluation process can be characterized as a 15 three stage screening process. 16 In stage 1 screening, proposals were checked against 17 the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP. This 18 screening involved checking proposals for completed forms, 19 minimum quantities, minimum term, addressing environmental 20 costs, an Interconnection Feasibility Study Report, and 21 signatures. 22 At the Stage 2 screening level, a busbar analysis 23 was used to determine the cost of each proposal. Levelized BOKENKAP, DI 9 Idaho Power Company 1 fixed, variable and total costs, and non-levelized total 2 costs at various capacity factors were calculated. 3 During Stage 3 screening, price and non-price 4 factors, or criteria, were scored for each proposal using a 5 weighted scoring system. The price factors received a 6 total of 60 points. Price factors were based on the net 7 present value ("NPV") of the estimated total revenue 8 requirement associated with each proposal. Each proposal 9 making it to Stage 3 screening was modeled and its impact 10 on Idaho Power's system costs was simulated using the 11 Aurora Electric Market Model. The results of the Aurora 12 analysis were used to determine the NPV of the revenue 13 requirements associated with adding that proj ect to Idaho 14 Power's portfolio of resources. Non-price factors 15 received a total of 40 points. Non-price criteria 16 included: project development, project characteristics, 17 product characteristics, proj ect location, environmental, 18 credit factors, and financial strength. A total of 40 19 points were distributed between these six non-price 20 criteria. Sensitivity analyses were run for high and low 21 gas price scenarios, but these results did not impact the 22 price and non-price scores. 23 Q.How did the Company address transmission 24 costs in the RFP process? BOKENKAP, DI 10 Idaho Power Company 1 A.One of the minimum requirements of the RFP 2 was that proposals relying on a new generating resource to 3 be developed in Idaho Power's service territory were 4 required to submit an Interconnection Feasibility Study 5 report prepared by Idaho Power's Delivery Planning group 6 with their proposal. The cost estimates provided by Idaho 7 Power's Delivery Planning group in the Interconnection 8 Feasibility Study Reports or, in one case, a System Impact 9 Study were used to set the transmission costs of each 10 proposal. 11 Q.What fuel cost assumptions were used in 12 evaluating the bids? 13 A.The same assumptions for the cost of fuel 14 delivery to the Northwest Pipeline mainline tap, in 15 $/MMBtu, were used to evaluate all proposals, including the 16 Benchmark Resource. Any costs from the main line tap to 17 the proposed resource locations were considered to be 18 proj ect specific. The natural gas price forecast used to 19 evaluate bids showed an increase from $9. 39/MMBtu in 2012 20 to $15. ss/MMBtu in 2036. This forecast is provided as 21 Exhibit No.1. 22 Q.How was the cost of AFUDC evaluated for the 23 Benchmark Resource? BOKENKAP, DI 11 Idaho Power Company 1 A.The benchmark proposal included an estimate 2 of AFUDC costs expected to be incurred during the 3 construction of the proj ect . The Benchmark Resource team's 4 AFUDC estimate was calculated by applying a 7 percent 5 annual capitalized interest charge to the funds spent on 6 construction of the proj ect. The estimated AFUDC costs 7 were added to the accumulated construction work in progress 8 balances each month. The total amount of AFUDC included in 9 the plant portion of the Benchmark Resource evaluation was 10 approximately $49 million. For the Benchmark Resource 11 proposal, this amount was included in the capitalized cost 12 of the proj ect, which was used to calculate the estimated 13 revenue requirement for the Benchmark Resource. 14 Q.How do the total costs of the selected 15 Langley Gulch Proj ect compare to the other bids received by 16 the Company in response to the RFP? 17 A.Exhibi t No. 2 shows the total revenue 18 requirement for each of the three short-listed CCCT 19 projects. The Benchmark Resource is Project D. Exhibit 20 No.3 shows the 20 year net present value ("NPV") of the 21 difference in revenue requirement between the short-listed 22 three CCCT proj ects. 23 Q.What does Exhibit No. 3 show? BOKENKAP, DI 12 Idaho Power Company 1 A.Exhibit No. 3 shows that the 20-year NPV of 2 the revenue requirements for the Langley Gulch Proj ect were 3 $108 million less than the next closest combined cycle 4 project on the short-list. To put the $108 million 5 difference in perspective, it is about 3.8 percent less 6 than the 20-year NPV of the revenue requirements of the 7 combined cycle proj ect finishing in second place. 8 Q.Do Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 reflect the 9 Company's Commitment Estimate amount? 10 A.No. The comparisons shown in these exhibi ts 11 are based on the final costs submitted by the short-listed 12 bidders. However, I do not believe use of the Commitment 13 Estimate in the comparison would change the ranking of the 14 bids. 15 Q.How did the non-price attributes compare 16 among the various responders to the RFP? 17 A.Al though each proj ect was unique, overall, 18 the non-price scoring for the short-listed projects was 19 actually quite close. Less than 3 points separated the 20 non-price scores for all of the short-listed projects and 21 less than 2 points separated the non-price scores of the 22 short-listed combined cycle projects. Out of a possible 40 23 non-price points, the scores for the short-listed combined BOKENKAP, DI 13 Idaho Power Company 1 cycle proj ects ranged from 30.1 to 2 S .6. In this RFP, the 2 non-price scores were not a significant differentiator. 3 Q.Why did the Company ultimately select the 4 Langley Gulch Project as the preferred bidder? 5 A.The Company's ultimate decision to select 6 the Langley Gulch Proj ect, based on the resul ts of the RFP, 7 was primarily dictated by its substantially lower price. S The differential between the 20 year NPV of the revenue 9 requirements of the Langley Gulch and the closest Tolling 10 Agreement for a combined cycle proj ect shows the second 11 place proj ect was approximately $10S million more 12 expensive, and the NPV analysis for the Tolling Agreement 13 for the third-place combined cycle project was $220 million 14 more expensive than the Langley Gulch Project. Exhibit No. 15 3 shows this differential graphically. 16 Q.Are there any unique issues associated with 17 a utility-owned resource? is A.There are certain risks and benefits 19 associated with selecting a traditional utility rate-based 20 project. By selecting the Langley Gulch Project and 21 providing a Commitment Estimate, the Company and its 22 shareholders take on proj ect development and construction 23 risk. Customers retain the risk of fuel cost increases 24 under either a tolling agreement or a utility-owned BOKENKAP, DI 14 Idaho Power Company 1 resource. However, with the utility-owned resource, any 2 savings resulting from the Project realizing a better than 3 expected heat rate will be shared with customers through 4 the PCA. That leaves the risk that the Company may not be 5 able to operate and maintain the Proj ect as efficiently as 6 another operator. While this is a possible risk, 7 conversely, if the Company is able to operate and maintain S the Project for less than its anticipated costs, customers 9 will have an opportunity to receive those savings. The 10 potential operating risk needs to be balanced against the 11 possible operating savings, plus the benefit of a projected 12 20 year NPV reduction in revenue requirement of $10S 13 million, plus the residual value associated with the 14 Langley Gulch Project at the end of 20 years. It is the 15 Company's conclusion that the above-described benefits to 16 customers outweigh the risks associated with developing and 17 operating a traditional utility rate-based project. is Q.The Company's 2006 IRP ten year resource 19 plan recommends that a baseload resource be on-line in 20 2012. What is the schedule for the Project's commercial 21 operation date? 22 A.Initially, the 2012 base load resource was 23 expected to be on-line in time to meet peak-hour loads 24 during the summer of 2012. However, given the current BOKENKAP, DI 15 Idaho Power Company 1 economic crisis, the Company anticipates difficulty 2 financing this project without receiving a Certificate of 3 Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") with specific 4 ratemaking or cost-recovery assurances. The Company 5 estimates that it may take up to 6 months to obtaining a 6 CPCN containing the needed regulatory assurances. 7 Acknowledging the IPUC's need to carefully consider the 8 Company's request, the Company has negotiated with the 9 Langley Gulch Proj ect' s EPC contractor to postpone 10 additional expenditures until a CPCN is received. 11 Unfortunately, postponing additional expenditures for 6 12 months is expected to delay the project's on-line date by 6 13 months. Assuming that a Notice to Proceed is issued on 14 September 1, 2009, the project is expected to be on-line in 15 October 2012, and in commercial operation on December 1, 16 2012. 17 Q.How is the fuel supply delivered to the 18 project? 19 A.Ideally, Idaho Power would like to have the 20 ability to access and deliver natural gas from both the 21 Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (British Columbia and 22 Alberta) and the U. S. Intermountain West, or Rockies 23 region. Idaho Power has transportation rights on Williams' 24 Northwest Pipeline from Sumas, Washington, to Elmore, BOKENKAP, DI 16 Idaho Power Company 1 Idaho. Idaho Power also has committed to acquire 2 additional transportation rights on Northwest Pipeline from 3 Stanfield, Oregon, to the Boise area and we are 4 investigating the acquisition of additional transportation 5 rights, also on Northwest Pipeline, from the Rockies region 6 to the Boise area. Idaho Power intends to deliver natural 7 gas to the Project site via Williams' Northwest Pipeline. 8 Northwest Pipeline will be tapped and a short lateral line, 9 approximately 1 mile in length, will be constructed to 10 connect the Proj ect to Northwest Pipeline. 11 Q.Were there other material considerations 12 that should be considered when reviewing the Company's bid 13 evaluation process? 14 A.Yes. There are two items that I would like 15 to stress. The first is imputed debt. The RFP evaluation 16 process did not assign any additional costs to the PPAs or 17 TAs to cover the costs Idaho Power would incur by issuing 18 additional equity to maintain its debt and equity ratios if 19 the rating agencies imputed additional debt on Idaho 20 Power's balance sheet as a result of entering into a long- 21 term PPA or TA. 22 The second item is treatment of the costs associated 23 with not selecting the Langley Gulch Benchmark Resource. 24 While the Company recognizes that there may be loss of BOKENKAP, DI 17 Idaho Power Company 1 equipment deposits, reservation fees, cancellation charges, 2 and other penalties or costs that Idaho Power would incur 3 if the Benchmark Resource was not selected, these potential 4 costs were not considered in the bid evaluation. If all 5 other things were equal, PPA or TA proposals would not have 6 had to win by more than Idaho Power's cancellation costs to 7 have been considered the winner. 8 Q.Did R. W. Beck provide a written assessment 9 of the Company RFP process? 10 A.Yes.A copy of their assessment is attached 11 as Exhibit No.4. 12 Q.What did R.W.Beck conclude concerning the 13 quality of the Company's RFP process? 14 A.R. W. concluded: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Finally, based on our work with the Idaho Power RFP EvaluationTeam as described above, we believe that the Idaho Power 2012 Baseload RFP process was conducted fairly and properly and that offers provided to Idaho Power as part of the RFP process, including the Benchmark Resource, weretreated obj ecti vely and consistently as set forth in Section 5.5 of the RFP. (R. W. Beck Report, p. 3.) 28 Q.Are there other attributes of the Langley 29 Gulch Project that you believe should be important to the 30 Commission's consideration? BOKENKAP, DI 18 Idaho Power Company 1 A.Yes. Although not directly evaluated in the 2 RFP process, there are several other benefits associated 3 with adding a combined cycle combustion turbine to Idaho 4 Power's generation resources. First, by using new, state 5 of the art technology, the Langley Gulch Proj ect will 6 benefit from technological advancements resulting in 7 improved efficiency which can be passed through to 8 customers in the form of reduced operating costs and 9 greater secondary sales revenues. Second, the improved 10 efficiency and the low variable operating costs of the 11 Langley Gulch Project will result in the unit being 12 dispatched more frequently. Having the unit on-line more 13 frequently gives Idaho Power another resource to assist 14 with integrating wind or other intermittent resources. 15 Third, the Langley Gulch Proj ect is expected to have a 16 residual value, and be available to serve customers at the 17 end of 20 years. Finally, adding a combined cycle proj ect 18 to Idaho Power's portfolio provides the Company with an 19 opportunity to shift generation from coal-fired resources 20 to a natural gas-fired combined cycle resource during 21 certain times of the year, reducing the Company's CO2 22 emissions from its coal-fired resources. BOKENKAP, DI 19 Idaho Power Company 1 Q.The Company is requesting that the 2 Commission expedite its review of the Application. Could 3 you explain why? 4 A.An expedited review of the Company's 5 application will enable the Company to proceed with the 6 proj ect reducing the amount of time that proj ect costs are 7 subject to escalation. Also, an expedited approval process 8 may enable the project to be on-line for the summer of 9 2012. 10 Q.Does that complete your testimony? 11 A.Yes. BOKENKAP, DI 20 Idaho Power Company BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION CASE NO. IPC.E.09.03 IDAHO POWER COMPANY BOKENKAMP,OI TESTIMONY EXHIBIT NO.1 R r. l'. i:.'1 \. f¡¡, ~ ..'10.,1 ¡; "t 1009 MAR -6 PH 4: 4 7 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 2008 Natural Gas Price Forecast $/MMBtu 2012 2032 20362024202820162020 -$/MMBtu Exhibit No. 1 Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 1 of 1 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CASE NO. IPC.E.09.03 IDAHO POWER COMPANY BOKENKAMP,OI TESTIMONY EXHIBIT NO.2 20 Year NPV of Revenue Requirement $ (Millons) 2,983 2,871 2,762 D B E3 Exhibit No. 2 Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 1 of 1 BEFORE THE Ri:f\¡: i, ;i..~./ ~". t 20U9 MAR -6 PH l,: 47 tOld-fa r'" (''', .....~. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSI(j~c'c~.~;,fiŠSIOtJ CASE NO. IPC.E.09.03 IDAHO POWER COMPANY BOKENKAMP, 01 TESTIMONY EXHIBIT NO.3 Differential in 20 Year NPV of Revenue Requirement $ (Milions) $220 D is baseline $108 D B E3 Exhibit NO.3 Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 1 of 1 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CASE NO. IPC.E.09.03 IDAHO POWER COMPANY BOKENKAMP, 01 TESTIMONY EXHIBIT NO.4 March 5, 2009 Mr. Karl E. Bokenkamp General Manager Power Supply Operations & Planning Idaho Power Company P. O. Box 70 (83707) 1221 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Subject:Letter Report of the Independent Consultant associated with the Idaho Power Com pany Req uest for Proposal, 2012 Baseload Generation Dear Karl: In accordance with your request, we are writing this letter to summarize our work related to services provided by R. W. Beck, Inc. ("R. W. Beck") to Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power") as the "Independent Consultant" for the Idaho Power Company's Request for Proposal, 2012 Baseload Generation ("RFP"). This letter summarizes our work up to the date of this letter. Changed conditions which occur or become known after such date could affect the results presented in the letter to the extent of such changes. As stated in Section 5.5 of the RFP, R. W. Beck was retained by Idaho Power to serve as the Independent Consultant to help ensure that the RFP process was conducted fairly and properly and that all offers were treated objectively and consistently. Section 5.5 of the RFP further stated that the Independent Consultant may: 1. "Consult with Idaho Power in preparing the RFP and evaluation criteria. 2. Consult with Idaho Power on evaluation of proposals. 3. Independently score all or a sample of the proposals to determine whether the selection of the short list is consistent with the scoring criteria. 4. Compare the result of the Independent Consultant's scoring with Idaho Power's scoring and work with Idaho Power to attempt to reconcile and resolve scoring differences. 5. Prepare reports as requested by Idaho Power including reports to the IPUC and OPUC as requested by Idaho Power." To date, Idaho Power has requested R. W. Beck to perform tasks 1, 2 and 5 described above. This included R. W. Beck consulting with and advising Idaho Power in preparing the RFP and evaluation criteria. R. W. Beck was not requested to perform tasks 3 and 4 described above. The decision not to have R. W. Beck independently score the proposals was made in consultation with Idaho Power considering the cost and likely value of duplicating the Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-Q9-03R:\Orlando\05-01466-1 01 0 1 RFP\PojectManagement\okenkampLtr.doc Mr. Karl E. Bokenkamp March 5, 2009 Page 2 evaluation process considering the advisor role R. W. Beck had played in setting up the scoring and evaluation process. As the Independent Consultant, R. W. Beck provided general advice and guidance to the Idaho Power RFP Evaluation Team in numerous ways. This work included attendance at eight meetings with the RFP Team in Boise and participation in numerous conference calls. R. W. Beck's work generally involved consultation and assistance provided to the Company for: 1. Development and execution of the overall RFP process; 2. Preparation of the RFP document; 3. Review of the Tollng Agreement and the Power Purchase Agreement available on the Idaho Power website; 4. Preparation of the Pre-Bid Meeting materials and attendance at the Pre-Bid Meeting; 5. Preparation of the evaluation criteria; 6. Preparation of responses to bidder questions; 7. Preparation of addendum; 8. Evaluation of the proposals; 9. Review of the bus bar spreadsheet (Stage 2 screening) for one proposal alternative; 10. Review of the Stage 2 screening summary results; 11. Review of the cost of service methodology (Stage 3 screening); 12. Review of the Stage 3 screening summary results; 13. The Company's conduct of the non-price scoring sessions; 14. The Company's conduct of one meeting and in conference calls during the proposal review and evaluation sessions; 15. Participation in conference call discussions concerning the selection of the short- listed bidders; 16. Participation in a conference call with the Oregon PUC staff to update the staff on the RFP process; and 17. Attendance at the face-to-face meeting with the short list bidders. Idaho Power received five proposals that included thirteen alternatives. One of the five proposals was submitted as the Benchmark Resource by an Idaho Power team. Based on my participation in the process, it is my opinion that Idaho Power's RFP evaluation team operated in good faith to maintain confidentiality and maintain independence from the Idaho Power team preparing the Benchmark Resource proposaL. Furthermore, based on our work on power supply RFPs, we believe that the RFP document and RFP process was conducted consistent with the practices used in the electric utility industry. R:\Orlando\05-0 1466-1 01 0 1 RFP\PojectManagement\BokenkampLtr.doc Exhibit No.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-Q3 Mr. Karl E. Bokenkamp March 5, 2009 Page 3 Finally, based on our work with the Idaho Power RFP Evaluation Team as described above, we believe that the Idaho Power 2012 Baseload RFP process was conducted fairly and properly and that offers provided to Idaho Power as part of the RFP process, including the Benchmark Resource, were treated objectively and consistently as set forth in Section 5.5 of the RFP. I have attached information regarding R. W. Beck's experience and professional expertise in assisting utilties in conducting RFP projects. Very truly yours, R. W. BECK, INC. ~~ Steven Stein Principal and Executive Consultant SS/ea Enclosure This letter report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the letter report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this letter report. Copyright 2009, R. W. Beck, Inc. All rights reserved. R:\Orlando\05-01466-1 01 0 1 RFP\Pojecangement\BokenkampLtr.doc Exhibit No. 4 Case No. IPC-E-09-Q3 ABOUT R. W. BECK At R. W. Beck, our goal is to advance the business of infrastrcture. Since our founding in 1942, R. W. Beck has grown to become a trsted advisor to industr leaders across the countr and around the world. Today, we are a group of technically-based business consultats who provide planing, business and engineering solutions to the energy, financial, water, wastewater and solid waste industres. We are unlike trditional engineering firms in that we provide a distinct blend of business insight, financial acumen and technical expertise to drive success for our clients - we advance their projects and business processes in a way that provides positive, lasting impacts to the communities they serve. To do this, we integrate the talents of our staff of more than 550 engineers, economists, analysts, and other professionals to develop solutions that are always prudent and often innovative. This approach has allowed us to develop a unique work environment fueled by dedicated and creative individuals who are trly passionate about delivering world-class solutions to improve the communities where we all live and work. We have consistently been included on the list of top engineering and design firms by industr trade publications such as Project Finance and Engineering News-Record. As a multifaceted organization, we provide the resources of a large interdisciplinar group of engineering, economic, management consulting, and environmenta talent, while retaining personal relationships with our clients. We have built our strong reputation for excellence by being committed to independence, listening to our clients, and continually expanding our capabilties to meet clients' changing needs and market conditions. Our core values, as ariculated by company founder Robert W. Beck 65 years ago, remain unchanged - scrupulous objectivity, first-class problem solving, and absolute commitment to our clients. OUR PEOPLE R. W. Beck has worked diligently to attract and maintain a staff of highly qualified, motivated professionals who enjoy working closely with our clients to solve the complex, challenging issues they face. Many of our staff members are skiled in more than one discipline and are accustomed to working closely with team members from other disciplines and industries. The result of this model is a staff whose dedication, 2-1 FIRM OVERVIEW IrW1ßÉtK Exhibit NO.4 ase No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 4 of 22 FIRM OVERVIEW flexibilty and cross-disciplinar natue is an added benefit that we pass along to our clients, and one of the reasons clients keep turning to R. W. Beck. The consistent growth of R. W. Beck is a testament to our abilty to bring value to our clients. As we look toward the future our mission will remain the same - to meet and surpass our clients' expectations with the collective experience, skils, and integrity of our most impressive resource: our people. OFFICE LOCATIONS Our culture and technical expertise extends from coast to coast, allowing our clients to call on a single, seamless organization to help meet their needs. MA CORPORATE MILESTONES Since the firm's founding in 1942, our accomplished staff has achieved many significant milestones across the energy, water, wastewater, and solid waste industres that allow us to mark our progress as a company. II Provided independent engineering reviews and financial feasibilty assessments associated with fuding over $ i 50 bilion in capital investment II Completed more than 150 appraisals and valuations totaling approximately $55 bilion in fair market value in the past 10 years II Performed due dilgence reviews and/or designed and engineered 400+ power-related projects worldwide (approximately 50,000 MW) II Permitted and licensed power plants, resources recovery, and industrial sites in 42 states and several U.S. territories II Conducted more than 600 hydropower projects ranging from 60 kW to 2,000 MW of installed capacity and encompassing studies ranging form site selection to project management II Worked on water and wastewater systems, including pipelines, pump stations, and treatment plants with capacities ranging from 5 to 200 milion gallons per day 2-2 Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-Q3 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 5 of 22 FIRM OVERVIEW · Completed more than 21 alternative delivery projects with a total capital investment of $1.2 bilion since 2000 · Completed more than 200 stormwater planing projects and 130 stormwater design projects · Conducted more than 100 solid waste management plans for countries, states, multi-jurisdictional entities, counties, and cities R. W. Beck, Inc. i JID'NO' Case No. IPG-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Pî~e 6 of 22 Mr. Stein joined R. W. Beck in 1977 and is a PrncipaL. He has directed the prepartion of power supply planing, financial and rate-related studies for individual electric utilties, joint action agencies, industrial clients and other large energy consumers. Thoughout his thirt plus year career in the utilty industr, he has helped clients develop energy strategies, evaluate power supply alternatives, and he has also represented clients in contract evaluation and negotiations to help achieve the most economical and reliable energy supply. Mr. Stein has presented testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as well as a number of state public service commissions, local district court and other regulatory bodies. Mr. Stein has focused his effort over the past few years on strategic power supply and transmission policy and related regulatory issues that affect capacity and energy markets, including those established by various Regional Transmission Organizations, utilties' joint formation and joint power supply acquisitions. He has also been involved in several new areas that include location based market price forecasting, enterprise risk management, portfolio resource analysis, generation dispatch and control area operational strategies, power pools, transmission ownership opportnities and energy resource acquisitions in light of an increasingly competitive utilty environment. These services have been provided in numerous market regions thoughout the United States including Entergy, FRCC, PJM, MISO, SPP and SERC. Mr. Stein has provided a combination of related power supply planing services, including the development of Request for Proposals (RFP); reviewing resource proposals; establishing evaluation criteria; performing technical reviews of power plant altematives; and negotiating contracts for the purchase of power and energy sales between electric utilties and large industrial customers. He has conducted training sessions regarding the acquisition of resources and the RFP process. With regard to the acquisition and/or development of generating resources, Mr. Stein has assisted with the development and review of contractual arangements, the development of pro forma projections of related costs and the required transmission and related services arrangements. Prior to joining R. W. Beck, Mr. Stein conducted generation and transmission planning studies for a large utility in the southeast. He paricipated in state and regional studies that addressed joint power pooling opportnities and transmission planing and reliabilty studies. Certin of the studies lead to the formation of the Florida Energy Broker among the electric generating utilties in Florida. Steven Stein, P.E. Florida Institue of Technology Master of Business Administration University of Central Florida M.S. in Industral Engineerg B.S. in Electcal Engineeng Registered Professional Engineer Alabama Florida Professional Honors and Recognitions UCF - Alumni Servce Award UCF - Charr President, College of Engieerig, Alumi Cha~er Herbert C. Westfall Leadership Award Robert E. Bathen Entrpreneural and Leadership Award KE EXERTISE :: Power Supply Arrangements :: Contract Negotiations :: Power Cost Projections :: Wholesale Marketing :: Transmission Services :: Procurement Services/Cogeneration :: Financial Planning and Analysis :: Mergers and Acquisitions IIWlijEíH Exhibit NO.4 ase No. IPC-E-Q9-Q3 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 7 of 22 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. Areas of Expertise Power Supply Arrangements Mr. Stein has directed the development of various power supply studies and analyses that have considered purchasing power alternatives; ownership interest in jointly-owned units; constrction of new power supply resources; refubishment of existing facilities considerig gas, oil, coal and wood fuels; cogeneration facilties and associated transmission facilities; and related trnsmission arangements. This work has included the paricipation in contract reviews, negotiations and discussions with electric utilties, developers and vendors, and also project coordination with other techncal experts and attomeys. Contract Negotiations Mr. Stein has assisted electric utilties with contract negotiations on power supply arangements. These negotiations have included discussions with other electric utilities, developers and equipment vendors concerning territorial and franchise arangements, interchange contracts, short and long-term power exchanges, sale of reserve capacity, interconnection facilities and jointly-owned cogeneration and coal and gas fueled facilties. Power Cost Projections Mr. Stein has directed the preparation of power cost projections for municipal, joint action agencies and investor-owned utilties. These projections have included utilties that range in size from 10 MW to 10,000 MW and have considered both retail cost of service concepts required by bond resolutions and state utilty commissions and wholesale cost of service concepts required by bond resolutions and the FERC. Wholesale Marketing Mr. Stein was responsible for conducting marketing studies for generation owners to identify potential purchasers of wholesale power in varous market regions around the United States. Different techniques were employed to identify and screen potential entities, identify the amount and timing and term for capacity and energy purchases, and also to identify the characteristics of the varous types of products. Transmission Services Mr. Stein has assisted clients with identifying and analyzing alternative transmission strategies. These strategies were used by electric load serving entities to obtain reliable firm and unit power products to serve retail and wholesale load and by generation entities interested in interconnecting into the grid and sellng various non-firm and firm wholesale power products. Procurement Services/Cogeneration Mr. Stein has been a lead team member or project manager on procurement or related services for the City of North Little Rock, Arkansas; City of Benton, Arkansas; Conway Corporation, Arkansas; City of Tallahassee, Florida; the Florida Municipal Power Agency; City of Hagerstown, Marland; Town of Front Royal, Virginia; Town of Thurmont, Marland; Town of Wiliamsport, Marland; Idaho Power Company, City of Mt. Dora, Florida, the Alabama Municipal Electrc Authority; the City of St. Cloud, .. Florida; Golden Spread Electrc Cooperative; PUD Number i of Snohomish County, Was~em. ¡~g~~~9~Ò~ K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 8 of 222 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. Kissimmee Utilty Authority, Florida; Orlando Utilties Commission, Florida; and Vineland, NJ. Mr. Stein was also retained by a multilateral fuding organization to paricipate in an intensive workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, on independent power and how to conduct a RFP process for increased capacity. Mr. Stein's presentation, "Acquiring Private Power Projects," covered competitive bidding, direct negotiations and competitive negotiations. Financial Planning and Analysis Mr. Stein has prepared numerous Consulting Engineer's reports, which were used to issue electric utilty revenue bonds. These report typically include a description of the system, purpose of the issuace and historical and projected operating results showing debt service coverage. He has prepared such report for the City of Tallahassee, Florida; City of Stake, Florida; and the Alabama Municipal Electric Authority. Mr. Stein's experience has enabled him to analyze the financial aspects of muncipal projects including bond indenture requirements, various financing methodologies, ta-exemption considerations, arbitrage and other financial related factors. Mergers and Acquisitions Mr. Stein directed the preparation of studies that considered the purchase of electric utilties' facilties by the City of Fernandina Beach, Florida, at the termination of its franchise agreement. The studies included an analysis of alternative wholesale power supply arrgements and development costs required to sta the new utilty system. Mr. Stein also assisted the City of Winter Park, Florida in several matters related to the acquisition and purchase ofthe electrc facilties for Progress Energy Florida. Relevant Project Experience Bulk Power Supply Arrangements Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (CMMPA), Utilities Plus (UP) Project Manager. Mr. Stein has directed the development of various strategic organizational issues relating to the relationship between CMMPA, UP and the Member utilties, contract drafting and various power supply studies and analyses. The studies and analysis have considered purchasing power alternatives, ownership interest in jointly-owned units, consideration of base load coal resources, pooling of energy resources and energy accounting, consideration of associated transmission facilties, load forecasting and needs determination before regulatory bodies. This work has included the paricipation in contract drafting and review, discussions with other electric utilties, coordination with other technical experts and attorneys, and presentations to the Members. Kentucky Municipal Power Agency (KMPA) Project Manager. Mr. Stein has directed the development of strategic organizational issues relating to the power supply contractual relationship between KMPA and the Member utilties. He was instrental in contract drafting of a power sales agreement for ownership in a jointly owned coal resource and is expected to be involved in other agreements required to implement this new organization including the disposition and accounting of energy resources among the members. R. W. Beck, Inc. , ExHibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenk~mp. IPC Pa~e 9 of 22 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. MEAG Power Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the initial discussions and studies that ultimately lead to the formation of a municipal pooling arangement in the southeast. The initial discussions and studies were underten by representatives of the Alabama Municipal Energy Authority, JEA, MEAG Power, Santee Cooper and City of Tallahassee. As a result of initial meetings and discussions among the utilities concerning potential benefits of sharng ideas, the utilties agreed to initiate a high level study concerning the potential mutual benefits of joint planing of future resources and a joint energy dispatch arrangement. The analysis included a preliminary energy dispatch for the load and resources for each ofthe utilties individually and a preliminar energy dispatch for the load and resources for the 5 utilties together for the Study Period. The projected total fuel cost sumed together for the 5 utilities individually was compared to the projected fuel cost for the dispatch for the load and resources for the 5 utilities together. This preliminary analysis show projected lower fuel costs for the 5 utilties together compared to the 5 utilties individually and potential benefits associated with a delay in certain ofthe planed generation resources when the capacity resources were used to meet the composite peak demand and capacity reserves for the 5 utilities. City of Tallahassee, Florida Project Manager. Mr. Stein has directed the development of various power supply studies and analyses that have considered purchasing power alternatives, ownership interest in jointly-owned units, constrction of new power supply resources operating on fossil fuels, refubishment of existing facilties considering gas and wood fuels, cogeneration facilties and associated transmission facilties. One of the projects included assisting the City in seeking DOE funding for a proposed clean coal technology CFB boiler. This work has included the paricipation in contract review, negotiations, and discussions with electric utilties, developers and vendors, and project coordination with other technical experts and attorneys. City of Starke, Florida Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the preparation of a report considerig the installation of a parallel-operated interconnection between the City and Florida Power & Light Co. The study considered an analysis of continued isolated operation vs. parallel operation, the power supply arangement and reliabilty criteria under each method of operation, the cost of power under each arangement, and a description of potential alternative facilty arangements under parallel operation. He also assisted in negotiating an interchange agreement between the City and Florida Power and Light Co. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the studies and analysis that lead to the initial power supply arangement undertaken in the formation of AMEA. The studies included analysis of the accounting and disposition among the 11 paricipants of the various capacity and energy resources. The initial and subsequent studies and reports have considered alternative power arangements, including unit and system purchases, prepaid purchased power arrangements, joint ownership in fossil and nuclear generation facilties and transmission facilties, hydroelectric facilties, peak power generation facilties, and peanut hull fueled generation facilties. This work has included the paricipation in discussions and negotiations with electrc utilties and developers and project coordination with other technical expert. He also assisted in negotiating a contemporary parial requirements agreement that reflects the "Peaker Method" for cost allocation and rate design and includes charges for load regulation, transmission interface, control center services, unit commitment services, reactive control, transactional evaluation and back-up of reserves. Exhibit NO.4Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 10 of224 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) Project Manager. R. W. Beck conducted a preliminary power supply analysis prior to proceeding with a reverse RFP. MEAG Power's existing coal fuel resources were allowed to compete with new combined cycle, combustion turbine and base, intermediate and peaking parial requirements power to obtain a least cost resource mix over the 20-year study period. Both fied (including debt service on existing units) and variable costs were considered. The computer softare model IRP Manager was used in the analysis. The study revealed that an optional mix of resources would include a short-term sale of certin ofMEAG Power's existing coal fuel resources. City of St. Cloud, Florida Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the analysis and preparation of a report to consider alternative power supply offers and arangements to meet the City's future requirements. The studies included a load forecast, review of transmission interface and diesel station capability, screening alternatives including purchases from others, ownership in diesel, combustion tubine, combined cycle and coal steam facilties, and preparng anual and cumulative and cumulative present worth projected power costs under the lowest projected power supply alternative. The study was concluded with a presentation of the results to the City Council, staff and members of a citizens committee. Bahamas Electricit Corporation Assistant Project Manager. Mr. Stein was part of the project team that conducted a long-rage power supply study for the Bahamas Electrcity Corp. This study included the preparation of a load forecast, financial model, identifying power supply alternatives, an operation and maintenance review of existing facilities and the development of a long-range plan. Certin portions of the analysis were prepared both in current and nominal dollars. Procurement Services/Cogeneration RFP and Procurement Services City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida Project Manager. R. W. Beck was selected by the Utilties Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach (UNCSB) to assist with the issuance of a RFP for renewable capacity and energy resources. R. W. Beck performed the following services: · Helped clarify/establish the purpose and intent ofthe RFP i · Identified how the proposed resources fit with the UCNSB other power supply resources in supplying I tDhe tOita1 SYdstthemRFnept energy requirements ........1 . eve ope e ~e§§~Î~~~:;::::~s ICity of Front Royal, Virginia ! Co-Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted in soliciting all-requirements power supply arangement to ! replace their existing contract for all requirements power. R. W. Beck provided RFP process services, i. . Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPG-E-Q9-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Pag~ 11 of22R. W. Beck, Inc. STEVEN STEIN, P.E. including RFP development; and a review of proposals. The work involved identifying, contacting and informing interested bidders about the RFP process. Request for Resource Proposals City of Vineland, NJ Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted the Vineland Municipal Electric Utilty (VMU) in conducting a solicitation for electric supply-side resources to meet its future power supply needs. VMU was interested in proposals for resources located in the City. VMEU requested R. W. Beck to assist in directing the RFP process, prepare and post the RFP and addendum on the R. W. Beck web site, identify potential proposers, conduct the pre-bid meeting, assist in responding to proposer's questions, and prepare the RFP evaluation process. The process was coordinated with the City purchasing deparent and legal representatives. The evaluation involved a process to evaluate both price and non-price issues. R. W. Beck prepared a status report to sumarize the stage one and two screening. Request for Power Florida Municipal Power Agency, JEA, Reedy Creek Improvement District and the City of Tallahassee, Florida Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted the four Utilties in conducting a solicitation for alternatives to a 750 MW solid fuels resource. R. W. Beck assisted in obtaining a common understanding and description of the individual Utilties' goals and objectives, preparng the RFP, identified a list of the potential responded, conducted the mandatory pre-bid meeting and performed an evaluation of the proposals. Request for Resource Proposals Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted Idaho Power in conducting a solicitation for electrc supply-side resources to meet its future power supply needs. Idaho Power requested R. W. Beck serve as an independent third pary advisor since Idaho Power had not previously issued a power supply RFP. In this role, R. W. Beck assisted in directing the RFP process, preparng the RFP and an evaluation manuaL. The evaluation process involved a process to evaluate both price and non-price issues. We also assisted in responding to questions from bidders, attending meetings with the public utilties commission and bidders, performing an evaluation of the proposals and helping to develop a short-list. Request for Resource Proposals Confidential Canadian Utilty Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted a confidential Canadian utility (Utilty) in its work with regulators to establish a methodology for a solicitation for electric supply-side resources to meet its future power supply needs. The Utility requested R. W. Beck serve the Utilty as an independent third par advisor since the Utilty had not previously issued a power supply RFP. In this role, R. W. Beck assisted in the review of a process that includes the preparation of a RFP, a pre-bid meeting and an evaluation process. The process wil provide procedures that wil fairly and imparially evaluate bids and options. The evaluation process is designed to considered both price and non-price issues. Request for Proposals for Power Supply Cities of North Little Rock and Benton, Arkansas Project Manager. R. W. Beck was requested to provide the City of North Little Rock, Arkansas assistance with conducting a RFP process to obtain a new power supply arangement when its existing contract for power supply terminates in 2002. The City stated that it selected R. W. Beck because of our Exhibit NO.4 reputation in power supply, experience with RFPs and reputation with municipal utilities. Imp1eamål IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 12 of 226 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. the new arrangement required the new supplier to fie for network transmission service under the Entergy Open Access Transmission Tariff as the City's agent and dynamically schedule the City's hourly load into a new control area. Resouræ Situation Analysis Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Project Manager. Mr. Stein, together with other Senior Consultants of R. W. Beck, prepared and conducted a one-day power supply situation analysis for Old Dominion. The situation analysis allowed an independent review and discussion of Old Dominion's current in-house derived plan for determining whether or not to proceed to build additional generation resources. International Power Production Seminar Multilateral Funding Organization, Nairobi and Kenya, Africa SpeakerlPresenter. R. W. Beck was retained by a multilateral funding organization to paricipate in an intensive workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, on independent power, and conducting a request-for-proposa1 process for increased capacity. Representatives from Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda attended the seminar, which was presented by a group of eight people from the United States and Great Britain. An engineer, an economist and an attorney from the funding organization made presentations, as did an attorney from Ashorst Morrs Crisp and a financial advisor from Chemical Ban. The other presenters were two Hunton & Wiliam attorneys and R. W. Beck, which focused on the technical aspects. Mr. Stein's presentation, "Acquiring Private Power Projects," covered competitive bidding, direct negotiations and competitive negotiations. Request for Proposal Evaluation PUD Number 1 of Snohomish County, Washington Project Manager. Mr. Stein provided a two-day consulting assignment to the District for preparng an evaluation process to ran responses to its RFP for Power Supply Resources. The evaluation process was designed to consider both price and non-price considerations. Ail Requirements Power Supply Procurement Kissimmee Utilty Authority (KUA) Project Manager. R. W. Beck was responsible for assisting KUA with the planing, wrting and evaluation of a power supply RFP for all requirements power supply services of a period of five years. The firm established the RFP on an Internet Web site that allowed bidders to: (1) review the RFP, (2) download the RFP, (3) identify themselves as a bidder, and 4) review addendum. Placing the RFP on the Web site reduced the amount of time and cost to KUA associated with distributing the RFP and addendum. All Requirements Power Supply Procurement ¡ City of Hagerstown, Maryland and the Towns of Front Royal, Thurmont and Wiliamsburg i Project Manager. R. W. Beck was responsible for assisting the utilities on two occasions with the I planning, writing and evaluation of a power supply RFP for all requirements power supply services of a ¡ period of five years. The firm established the RFP on an Internet Web site that allowed bidders to: (1) i review the RFP, (2) download the RFP, (3) identify themselves as a bidder, and (4) review addendum. Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-Q3 K. Bokenkamp, IPCR. W. Beck, Inc. Pa9r 13 of 22 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. Placing the RFP on the Web site reduced the amount of time and cost to the utilties associated with distributing the RFP and addendum. Cogeneration Feasibility Study City of Tallahassee, Florida Project Manager. This study presented the projected impact on both the City's electrc and gas utilties associated with the City's largest electric and gas customer proceeding with the constrction of a cogeneration facilty to provide a portion or all of its steam and electric requirements. The study included an economic comparison of the customer's project costs assuming the City continued to serve its requirements versus the change. Alternative gas supply arangements for both the electrc and gas systems were analyzed. A comparison was also presented to show the raning of the three bidders that submitted cogeneration facilities proposals to the customer. RFP Evaluation Orlando Utilties Commission (OUC), Florida Project Coordinator. Consulting services were provided with respect to the issuance of a RFP for a cogeneration project, the format of a pre-bid conference with potential respondents, the preparation of an evaluation manual to evaluate responses to the RFP, the evaluation of three responses to the RFP, and the testimony before the Florida Public Service Commission concerning the evaluation. The responses to the RFPs were evaluated, raned and compared to the ODC power supply alternative of constrcting a second 400 MW coal-fired unit at an existing power plant station. The evaluation showed that it was more economical to proceed with the second 400 MW unit. RFP Evaluation City of St. Cloud, Florida Project Manager. Consulting services were provided with respect to assisting the City with a RFP process for a long-range purchased power arangement. The services included: (1) preparing the RFP, (2) preparing the format of and faciltating the pre-bid conference with potential respondents, (3) the preparation of an evaluation manual to evaluate responses to the RFP, (4) the evaluation and raing of the responses to the RFP, and (5) the negotiation with the selected respondent(s). Procurement Services City of Tallahassee, Florida Co-Project Manager. R. W. Beck assisted the City in the development of a standard offer contrct, interconnection agreement and standards, and trsmission agreement for potential cogenerators in accordance with the Florida Public Service Commission cogeneration rules and regulations. The standard offer contracts provide terms and conditions for the purchase of avoided energy, avoided capacity and energy, and the sale of back-up capacity and energy. As part of the analysis, the City's short- and long-run avoided cost and avoided unit were identified and analyzed. RFP Evaluation Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Project Manager. Consulting services were provided with respect to writing a RFP, assisting in conducting the pre-bid conference, evaluating the responses and contract negotiations. The evaluation process included a multi-staged screening analysis considering the respondent's assumptions, common assumptions, technical and contractual aspects of each proposal, transmission and back-up services, as Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-Q9-Q3 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 14 of228 STEVEN STEIN, P.E well as the Authority's other contractual arrangements. Similar services were provided in 1990, 1993 and 1997. Cogeneration Feasibility Study Prudential Power Funding Associates (Prudential) Project Manager. R. W. Beck was employed to conduct an independent engineering review for Prudential to evaluate the technical, contrctual and financial merits of a cogeneration facility in Florida. The task involved the preparation of projected operating results over the life of a proposed cogeneration facilty. It also involved discussions with the underwiters, review of the electric and thermal power sales contracts and preparation of projected revenues and expenses over a fifteen-year period under basic assumptions and sensitivity case analysis. Demand- and Supply-Side RFP Process Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. Project Manager. Consulting services were provided with respect to assisting Golden Spread with the preparation of a demand- and supply-side RFP for peaking projects. The firm was also be responsible for distributing copies of the RFP upon receipt of a payment, answering questions from prospective respondents, assisting with the pre-bid conference, conducting an independent evaluation, negotiations and providing testimony before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT). The PUCT's fial order stated that the RFP evaluation criteria were reasonable and was fairly and consistently applied to all bidders. RFP Evaluation Process City of Tallahassee, Florida Project Manager. R. W. Beck provided advice and counsel as requested with respect to the City RFP process. Such services included preparing the evaluation process, and periodic high level reviews of the evaluation process. RFP Process Florida Municipal Power Agency Project Manager. R. W. Beck was responsible for assisting FMPA in two separte RFPs. The firm also assisted in identifying entities to notify about the RFPs and establishing the format for the pre-bid conference. R. W. Beck was requested to attend the pre-bid conference, assist in the design of a mu1ti- staged evaluation process and assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted to FMPA. The firm established the RFPs on an Internet Web site that allowed bidders to: (1) review the RFPs, (2) download the RFPs, (3) identify themselves as a bidder, and (4) review addendum. Similar services were provided in 1996 and 1997. Placing the RFPs on the Web site reduced the amount of time and cost associated with distributing the RFPs and addendum. ,Demand Side Management iCity of Tallahassee, Florida i Project Manager. This preliminary survey of commercial conservation program study included an ! identification, description, and status of other utilties' commercial conservation programs. A preliminar ! assessment of potential customer acceptance, limitations and constraints for certin progras was also i provided. The study included a presentation of a preliminar economic screening analysis (the net of ! avoided and program costs) of various conservation programs and identified a potential work plan and Exnibit No.4case-No.IP-.-E-09-Q3 K. Bokenk~mp, IPCR. W. Beck, Inc. Pa9rr 15 of 22 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. projected costs and manpower requirements for implementing a lighting retrofit, new building and cool storage commercial conservation programs as its initial goals. City of Tallahassee, Florida Co-Project Manager. This alternative residential load management electrc rate study included the development of alternative rates for residential load management service based on Tallahassee's cost and approved rates for similar service provided by other Florida utilties. The rates were strctued to provide an incentive to encourage customer paricipation in Tallahassee's load management program. Mr. Stein was responsible for preparing the projected avoided cost and benefits associated with the implementation of a load management system. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Project Manager. This preliminary analysis of load factor improvement study presented an evaluation of the potential benefits or avoided costs associated with load factor improvement (reducing peak demand). A surey and discussion of alternative programs used by other electric utilties for load factor improvement was also provided. The programs ranged from customer education to direct load i.ontro1 of customer appliances. The projected costs and benefits for implementing residential load management, commercial and industrial programs were provided. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Co-Project Manager. This preliminar engineering study of load management system alternatives study consisted of technical and economic analyses of implementing a load management system with central control in Montgomery and local load control at each of 11 individual member cities located in South and Central Alabama. The study reviewed both power-line carier and radio based systems, examining the economics over the life of the project. Both avoided costs and program implementation costs were considered. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the costlenefit analysis portion of the study. Expert Testimony Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Texas Expert Witness. Mr. Stein prepared written testimony before the Public Utilty Commission of Texas with regard to a consulting assignment with Golden Spread to serve as the Independent Evaluator in a RFP process. City of Tallahassee, Florida Expert Witness. Mr. Stein prepared written testimony before the Florida Public Service Commission in: (1) a territorial dispute with regard to projected power supply arrangements for both paries and (2) a needs hearing concerning a 230 kV trnsmission line interconnection between the City and Georgia Power Co. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Expert Witness. Mr. Stein prepared written testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concerning the cost related treatment and use of capacitors in planing a bulk power supply system. City of Starke, Florida Expert Witness. Mr. Stein served as an expert witness before a Florida circuit court in a bond validation hearing with respect to the economics of constrcting and operating a parallel operated interconnectionbetween the City and Florida Power & Light Company. Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 16 of 2210 i I j"'NO.' Case No. IPC-E-Q9-03 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Paaf 17 of 22 STEVEN STEIN, P.E. Rates City of Starke, Florida Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the preparation of a new monthly energy cost adjustment factor for its electric rates for recovering the changes in the monthly costs for fuel and purchased power. A similar rate was also prepared for the City's gas utilty system. City of Tallahassee, Florida Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the development of and periodic update of cost support schedules used to calculate rates for wholesale interchange transactions between the City and other generating electric utilties. City of Dothan, Alabama Co-Project Manager. Mr. Stein was responsible for directing the preparation of an interrptible electrc rate for industrial customers. This rate was designed to tae into consideration the City's existing large power rate and the City's cost of purchased power. Consulting Engineers Report - Financing City of Tallahassee, Florida Co-Project Coordinator. Mr. Stein was responsible for preparing the Consulting Engineer's report that was used by the City to issue approximately $93 milion in electric utilty revenue bonds. The report included a description of the system, purpose of the issuance and historical and projected operating results showing debt service coverage. The work also included the development of a new bond resolution. City of Starke, Florida Project Coordinator. Mr. Stein was responsible for preparing the Consulting Engineer's report that was used by the City to issue approximately $3 milion in electric utilty revenue bonds. The report included a description of the system, purpose of the issuance and historical and projected operating results showing debt service coverage. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Project Coordinator. Mr. Stein was responsible for preparing Consulting Engineer's reports or financing documents that were used by the Authority to issue approximately $350 milion in electrc utilty revenue bonds. The reports included a description of the system, purpose of the issuance and historical and projected operating results showing debt service coverage. Bonds were issued to fund the prepayment for purchased power arangements, load management facilties, rate stabilzation, and peaking power facilties. Periodic Reports Alabama Municipal Electric Authority Project Manager. Mr. Stein directed the preparation of the first two quinquennial (five-year) reports required pursuant to the Bond Resolution. The report included a description of the Authority's management, projects undertaken by the Authority, and a comparison of actual versus budgeted revenues and expenses. R. W. Beck, Inc. STEVEN STEIN, P.E. City of Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Stein was responsible for preparing a description of the existing power supply arangements and power supply alternatives that were under consideration by the City to meet its projected requirements for the City's biennial report. 12 Exhibit NO.4 Case No. IPC-E-09-Q3 K. Bokenkamp, IPC Page 18 of22 Re c o r d o f P o w e r S u p p l y R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s St e v e n S t e i n , P . E . Au g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 9 5 19 9 6 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y P u b l i c U t i l i t y D i s t r i c t ( W A ) e ( F L ) Ci t y o f S t . C l o u d ( F L ) th e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d h e l p e d w i t h c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r a " B a s e L o a d " p u r c h a s e . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d h e l p e d w i t h c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r " P e a k i n g " p u r c h a s e . _.. ' ' . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ' m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r a n A l l R e q u i r e m e n t P u r c h a s e . Tr a i n i n g o n C o n d u c t i n g a n R F P P r o c e s s . He l p e d p r e p a r e t h e R F P a n d h e l p e d c o n d u c t e v a l u a t i o n s . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . re d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t io n s f o r a n A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e w i t h s a l e o f e x c e s s c a p a c i t y . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . Co n d u c t e d H a n d - O n T r a i n i n g o n C o n d u c t i n g a n R F P . ~- - ~ - - - - Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d h e l p e d w i t h c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s . Ca p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y P u r c h a s e s . ._ - - ~ _ . - Ca p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y P u r c h a s e s . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . H _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . Ca p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y P u r c h a s e s . Di s p a t c h a b l e C a p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y . Oc t o b e r 1 9 9 1 Ap r i l 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 Ci t y o f S t . C l o u d ( F L ) Fe b r u a r y 1 9 9 6 -~ _ . . _ - - _ . ~ _ . _ - _ . . . _ . Ma r c h 1 , 1 9 9 6 Wo r l d B a n k - E a s t A f r i c a -- - - _ . . _ - - - - Al a b a m a M u n i c i p a l E l e c t r i c A u t h o r i t y Ma y 2 8 , 1 9 9 7 ,1 9 9 7 7 Ma y 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 Kis s i m m e e U t i l i t i e s A u t h o r i t y ( F L ) _H . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ Fl o r i d a M u n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y Fl o r i d a M u n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y Or l a n d o U t i l t i e s C o m m i s s i o n ( F L ) / F l o r i Ag e n c y / K i s s i m m e e U t i l i t i e s A u t h o r i t y ( F L ) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H IC i t y o f H a g e r s t o w n ( M D ) a n d T o w n s o f F r o n t R o y a l ( V A ) , . T h u r m o n t ( M D ) a n d W i l l a m s p o r t ( M D ) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . i I G o l d e n S p r e a d E l e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i v e ( T X ) Au g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 0 Id a h o P o w e r C o m p a n y Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e s i n t h e P J M m a r k e t . .. . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . He l p e d p r e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d h e l p e d w i t h co n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r a 4 0 0 M W G T P r o j e c t t h a t w a s r e v i s e d t o c o n s i d e r a CC P r o j e c t . IH ; ï ~ ; d . . ~ ~ ~ ~ a r e t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d a n i n d e p e n d e n t e v a l u a t i o n t è i R e l ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o j ¡c o n c e r n i n g a S u p p l y S i d e C C R e s o u r c e . K . B o k e n k a m p . I P C .P ä g ë 1 9 o f 2 2 Ju l y 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 Ju l y 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 ST E I N , S T E V E - R F P C L I E N T S Re c o r d o f P o w e r S u p p l y R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s St e v e n S t e i n , P . E . As s i s t e d C l i e n t D e v e l o p R F P P r o c e d u r e s f o r A p p r o v a l b y t h e E n e r g y B o a r d , Co d e o f E t h i c s a n d P r o c e d u r e . . . ._ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ , - _ . , _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ - - - , - - , - _ . . _ " - ~ " - - , - - , - - _ . _ - - - - _ . ~ - - - " - - - - Ap r i l 27 , 2 0 0 1 h L i t t l e R o c k & B e n t o n ( A R ) Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r A l l a n d P a r t i a l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e s . 'e p a r e d t h e R F P a n d c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s c o n c e r n i n g a U n i t we r P u r c h a s e s . ,F a l l 20 0 1 i I M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 2 1m ¡M a r c h 2 0 0 2 ¡. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ - - _ . - ¡M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 2 ... . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _ _ . _ . " . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ " . _ . _ w _ _ ¡A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 ¡C o n f i d e n t i a l C l i e n t ( O K ) J I Ci t y o f H a g e r s t o w n ( M D ) a n d T o w n s o f F r o n t R o y a l ( V A ) , Th u r m o n t ( M D ) a n d W i l l a m s p o r t ( M D ) Co n f i d e n t i a l C l i e n t ( C a n a d a ) -_ . _ - Th e E n e r g y A u t h o r i t y / N e b r a s k a P u b l i c P o w e r D i s t r i c t .. _ , . _ _ . , _ . . . , _ . - . . . _ " ' - _ . _ - _ . _ . _ . _ - - - - - - " ~ ~ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . " ' . _ _ . . _ - - - _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . Ci t y o f C o l u m b i a ( M O ) Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e s i n t h e P J M m a r k e t . ¡A s s i s t w i t h P o w e r S u p p l y R F P ( C o m b i n e d C y c l e ) . Sa l e o f E n e r g y a n d C a p a c i t y ( r e v e r s e R F P ) . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r a P u r c h a s e o f C a p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y ( S y s t e m ) i n t h e M I S O ma r k e t . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- - - - - - - - _ . _ _ . . - - I Fe b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 Co n w a y C o r p o r a t i o n ( A R ) Ii e n t ( C a n a d a ) Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P a n d c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s f o r a P a r t i a l Re q u i r e m e n t s C a p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y A r r a n g e m e n t . As s i s t w i t h D r a f t L a n g u a g e t o I m p l e m e n t C o g e n e r a t i o n R u l e s f o r a n R F P Pr o c e s s . Ap r i l 20 0 3 Fe b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 Id a h o P o w e r C o m p a n y He l p e d p r e p a r e d t h e R F P , h e l p e d w i t h e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d h e l p e d w i t h co n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r a 8 5 - 2 0 0 M W o f C a p a c i t y a n d E n e r g y d u r i n g J u n e , Ju l y , A u g u s t , N o v e m b e r a n d D e c e m b e r . Re v i e w e d R F P a n d P r o c e s s f o r A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P o w e r . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r A l l - R e q u i r e m e n t s , P a r t i a l R e q u i r e m e n t s , B l o c k P o w e r , a n d / o r Co n t r o l A r e a , T r a n s m i s s i o n & A n c i l l a r y S e r v i c e s . .. . . . . . ¡ ! D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 ~. - . . . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ - - _ . . ~ ~ , - - ~ . _ - - - - - - IJ u l y 6 , 2 0 0 4 Wi n t e r P a r k ( F L ) 17 A r k a n s a s U t i l t i e s I ... . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . Ex h i b i t N O . 4 Ca s e N o . I P C - E - 0 9 - 0 3 K. B o k e n k a m p , I P C Pa g e 2 0 o f 2 2 2 Re c o r d o f P o w e r S u p p l y R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s St e v e n S t e i n , P . E . ¡J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 ~r i 2 0 0 6 - T c i l a I M ! . D a ~ ( F l ) IJ ~ ~ ~ 2 6 6 7 I N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 j S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 ,S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5 ¡D ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ; 2 6 6 5 I Ma r c h 2 0 0 6 ¡J u n e 2 0 0 7 IJ ~ ~ ~ 2 6 0 7 ~e b r u r y 2 0 0 B Cit y o f H a g e r s t o w n ( M D ) a n d T o w n s o f F r o n t R o y a l ( V A ) , Th u r m o n t ( M D ) a n d W i l i a m s p o r t ( M D r Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e s i n t h e P J M m a r k e t . A n im p l e m e n t a t i o n a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f a u c t i o n r e v e n u e r i g h t s ( A A R ) an d f i r m t r a n s m i s s i o n r i g h t s ( F T R ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r i o r a n d n e w p r o v i d e r un d e r t h e c o n t r a c t . .. . _ . _ _ . . _ - - _ . _ - - _ . _ - _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ - . - . . . _ , , - - , , - - - - _ . . - - - . _ . . . _ - - ~ - . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . - - Fl o r i d a M u n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y , J a c k s o n v i l e E l e c t r i c P r e p a r e d t h e R F P a n d c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s f o r t h e U t i l t i e s s e e k i n g Au t h o r i t y ( F L ) , R e e d y C r e e k I m p r o v e m e n t D i s t r i c t ( F L ) & C i t y a l t e r n a t i v e s t o a 7 5 0 M W s o l i d f u e l s r e s o u r c e . of T a l l a h a s s e e ( F L ) ... . . . . . . . . f . . . . Mu n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y P e a k i n g P o w e r R F P . Ci t i e s o f N o r t h L i t t l e R o c k a n d B e n t o n ( A R ) a n d P a r t i a l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e s . Ci t y o f F r o n t R o y a l ( V A ) t h e R F P a n d c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s f o r A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s Pu r c h a s e s i n t h e P J M m a r k e t . Ce n t r a l M i n n e s o t a M u n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y ( C M M P A ) Ba s e a n d i n t e r m e d i a t e l o a d p a r t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s R F P f o r 1 2 m e m b e r s o f CM M P A i n t h e M I S O m a r k e t . ¡F i o r i d a M u n i c i p a l P o w e r A g e n c y Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n d u c t e d c o n t r a c t ne g o t i a t i o n s f o r a n A l l R e q u i r e m e n t s P u r c h a s e . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d t h e P r e - B i d M e e t i n g a n d w i l l c o n d u c t e v a l u a t i o n s pr o p o s a l s a n d c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r R e n e w a b l e R e s o u r c e s . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P , c o n d u c t e d t h e P r e - B i d M e e t i n g a n d w i l l c o n d u c t e v a l u a t i o n s of p r o p o s a l s a n d c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r R e n e w a b l e R e s o u r c e s . Pr e p a r e d t h e R F P a n d a s s i s t e d i n c o n d u c t i n g t h e P r e - B i d M e e t i n g , a l l f o r b a s e lo a d a n d i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s o u r c e s . j .. . . . . I . F I ~ ; i d ~ M ~ ~ i ~ i P ~ ï p ~ ~ ~ . ; . A 9 ~ ~ ~ Y . . . . IV i n e l a n d M u n i c i p a l E l e c t r i c U t i l t y ( N J ) Pr e p a r e d a n d p o s t e d t h e R F P , a s s i s t e d i n c o n d u c t i n g t h e P r e - B i d M e e t i n g , re s p o n d i n g t o p r o p o s e r ' s q u e s t i o n s , p r e p a r e d a d d e n d a , p r e p a r e d a n e v a l u a t i o n pr o c e s s , a n d p r e p a r e d a s t a g e o n e a n d t w o s c r e e n i n g r e p o r t . Ex h i b i t N O . 4 Ca s e N o . I P C - E - 0 9 - 0 3 K. B o k e n k a m p , I P C Pa g e 2 1 o f 2 2 3 Re c o r d o f P o w e r S u p p l y R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s St e v e n S t e i n , P . E . I A c t i n g a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t e n g i n e e r , a s s i s t e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e R F P f o r I :a 2 0 1 2 B a s e l o a d G e n e r a t i o n r e s o u r c e , a t t e n d a n d h e l p e d w r i t e t h e P r e - B i d 'M e e t i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n , a s s i s t e d i n r e s p o n d i n g t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s q u e s t i o n s a n d i a s s i s t e d i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o p o s a l s . i Ä ~ ~ i ~ t ~ d i ~ t h ~ P ~ ~ P ~ ; ~ t i ~ ~ ' ~ f ~ ~ R F P f ~ ; ~ I I ~ ~ q ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ p ~ ~ ~ ; : m i . ; R F P p r ~ c e s ~ f ~ . ; - a i l . r e q u i r e m e n t p o w e ; . - - - - - 1 .. . . . . . ! ¡M a y 2 0 0 8 Id a h o P o w e r C o m p a n y I,IJ a n u a r y 2 0 0 8 ¡ C i t y o f O s c e o l a ( A R ) t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ~ - - _ . - t . . _ . . - - _ . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . - - _ . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . - ¡O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 . . . 1 Co n w a y C o r p o r a t i o n ( A R ) a n d W e s t M e m p h i s ( A R ) Ex h i b i t N O . 4 Ca s e N o . I P C - E - 0 9 - 0 3 K. B o k e n k a m p , I P C Pa g e 2 2 o f 22 4