20220429Hackett Direct - Redacted.pdf

BEFORE TTIE IDAHO PUBLTC UTIIITIES COMMISSION
IN TI{E MATTER OT IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENXENCE
AND NECESSITY TO ACQUIR,E
RESOURCES TO BE ONIINE BY 2023 TA
SECURE ADEQUATE AND RELTABLE
SERVICE TO IT.S CUSTOMERS.
rDAHO POI{ER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
ERIC HACKETT
CASE NO. TPC-E-22-L3
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
O. Please state your name and business address.
A. My name is Eric Hackett. My business address
is L221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702.
O. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
Power" or "Company") as the Projects and Design Senior
Manager.
o Please describe your
2003
educational background.
I graduated in from Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho, recej-ving a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Civil Engineering. I am a registered
professional engineer in the state of fdaho. In 20L0, I
earned a Master of Business Administration from Boise State
University.
O. Please describe your work experience with
Idaho Power.
A. From 2005 to 2007, f was employed as an
engineer in Idaho Power's Transmission Engineering
group. In 2007, I became a Project Manager leading
transmission and distribution line and station
infrastructure projects. fn 20L2 I was promoted to
Engineering Leader where I managed the Cost and Controls
group supporting project management. In 20L5, I changed
leadership roles and managed the Stations Engineering and
Design group as an Engineering Leader. In 2018, I was
A
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L6
1,7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
1
Company
25
1 promoted to Senior Manager of Projects overseeing Project
2 Management and Cost and Controls, which later became my
3 current role of Senior Manager of Projects and Design in
4 202L, adding Power Production Design and Project
5 Management. In addition, I am currently leading a team of
6 internal employees and consultants in devel-opment and
7 evaluation of Idaho Power's Request for Proposals for Peak
B Capacity and Energy Resources.
9 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
10 proceedj-ng?
l-l- A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide an
L2 overview of the resource acquisition process undertaken to
13 meet Idaho Power's identified capacity deficiency in 2023.
1,4 First, I will provide an overview of the Request for
15 Proposals ("REP") process used to evaluate the various
16 resources that competed to provide a capacity resource to
1,7 help meet Idaho Power's peak electric energy needs in 2023.
18 I will then explain how the resulting least-cost, least-
19 risk capaci-ty resources were selected through the fair and
20 competitive RFP process.
2L A. Have you prepared any exhibits?
22 A. Yes. Exhibit No. 1 is Idaho Power's 2021 A11
23 Source Request for Proposals (RFP) for Peak Capacity
24 Resources issued on June 30, 2021. Exhibit No. 2 details
25 the Key Product Specifications required for project
HACKETT, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
submittals
proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Confidential-
Exhibit No.3 presents
evaluation.
I. TEE
the results of the project
DET ELOPMEIIE OE. EEE RE'P
A. Why did Idaho Power ini-tiate a competitive
request for proposals or RFP process to acquire the 2023
peak capacity resource?
A. As explained in the direct testimony of
Company witness Mr. Jared Ellsworth, in the spring of 202L,
the Company first identified a capacity deficj-t of
approximately 78 megawatts (\rMW") beginning in 2023
following modifications to assumptions used in the load and
resource balance being prepared as part of the Valmy Unit 2
exit analysis, as directed by Commission Order No. 34349,
subsequently increasing to 101 MW during development of the
202L IRP. In order to meet its obligation to reliably serve
customer load in a least-cost, least-risk manner, a
competitive solicitation for the acquisition of resources
was conducted through an RFP.
The competitive RFP process alIows the Company to
access the broader peak capacity market to obtain the best
resources for Idaho Power's customers, allowing for access
to a spectrum of potential resources and developers. Use of
a formal RFP process provides customers and regulatory
agencies with the assurance that the resource selection
10
11
1,2
13
L4
l_5
l_6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
HACKETT, D]
Idaho Power
3
Company
25
1- process was competitive, all potential developers had an
2 equal opportunity to participate, and that the best
3 resource alternative was selected.
4 Q. Did ldaho Power engage a third-party to assist
5 the Company with the RFP and bid eval-uation process?
6 A. Yes. On May 12, 2021, Idaho Power executed a
7 contract with Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC
B ("B1ack & Veatch"), to receive full-service comprehensive
9 owner's engineering and oversite services to coordinate
10 resource procurement efforts pertaining to the RFP as well
11 as the preparation and issuance of the REP. The Company
1,2 utilized Black & Veatch's consulting expertise in
13 developing the RFP requirements and reguests, its exhibits
1,4 and the issuance of the RFP, and Black & Veatch's
15 experience in designing and administering the RFP
16 evaluatlon processes. B1ack & Veatch provided scheduling,
1,7 editing, process development, and the tool-s to conduct
18 evaluations. Black & Veatch further assi-sted Idaho Power in
19 the consolidation and integration of final evaluations
20 prepared by Idaho Power subject matter experts, and overall
2L weighting of individual factors and key categories that
22 influence both quantitative and qualitative evaluation.
23 Finally, Black & Veatch administered the bid
24 eval-uation process, incl-uding proposaL data processing,
25 evaluation traj-ning, rating collection, score compilatj-on,
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
4
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
proposal ranking, and other necessary summary and reporting
tasks. As part of this work, Black & Veatch supported
responding to bidders' questions regarding the REP content
and ldaho Power evaluators' questions regarding evaluation
processes, factors and criteria.
O. What was the extent of Idaho Power personnel's
involvement in the development of the RFP and the bid
evaluation process?
A. Upon recognizing the urgency of the capacity
deficit, the Company assembled an interdisciplinary team to
develop and process the RFP for 2023 peak capacity
resources ("RFP evaluation team"). Bl-ack & Veatch was
engaged to assist the REP evaluation team, providing
guidance and support of the RFP process. The RFP evaluation
team, in consultation with Bl-ack & Veatch, developed
detailed crj-teria and a methodology for evaluating both
price and qualitative attrj-butes of a proposed resource
incl-uding the 37 factors which were identified in Exhibit A
to the RFP and the Proposal Entry Form during the
qualitative evaluation process. Subject matter experts
within the REP evaluation team, as weII as independent
subject matter experts within ldaho Power, were assigned
those specific evaluation factors and criteria related to
their knowledge of the factor subject matter.
HACKETT, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
10
11
1,2
13
1,4
15
1,6
1-1
18
1,9
20
21,
22
23
24
25
1 Q. How was the detailed criteria and a
2 methodology for evaluating both price and qualitative
3 criteria determined?
4 A. The RFP evaluation team first examined other
5 recent REPs of similar size or recent RFPs of neighboring
6 utilities, relied on Black & Veatch's consultation and
7 experience, and identified those characteristics of the
8 products needed incl-uding technology type, ownership
9 structure, term, first delivery date, resource status,
10 design lj-fe, capacity, interconnection and point of
11- delivery. In addition, the team identified the breadth and
L2 depth of the evaluations needed to support decision-making
13 for large power supply commitments, including quantitative
t4 analysis through production cost simulation, and evaluation
15 of qualitative aspects identifying the detailed qualitative
1,6 factors that comprise Project Eeasibility, Project
l7 Capability, Counterparty Profile, and Community
18 Stewardship.
19 O. Did the Company notify the public of the
20 intent to issue a formal RFP?
21, A. Yes. On May 20, 2021,, Idaho Power released a
22 public Notice of Intent to industry developers and medj-a
23 outlets noticing the Company's intent to release the RFP,
24 which was also posted on Idaho Power's website. The Noti-ce
25 of Intent was also directly emailed to approximately 80
HACKETT, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
l- developers, comprised of developers currently in the
2 Company's Generation Interconnection Queue as well as
3 potential developers identified through market research.
4 Q. When were developer responses due?
5 A. Interested developers responded with an Intent
6 to Bid by June L1-, 2A2L. During the RFP solicitation,
7 Idaho Power received 25 questions from developers and
B responded accordingly. Ultimately, thirty-eight developers
9 responded to the Notice of Intent identifying approximately
10 seventy separate potential proposals and requesting to
l-1 receive the REP directly when released.
1.2 rr. EEE REgITEStr llOR PROPOSAT.S
13 O. Please describe the issuance of the RFP.
A. On June 30, 202t, the REP evaluation team
j-ssued a formal request for competitive proposals focused
on the acquisition of resources up to 80 MVil to meet the
2023 capacity deficien"y "rrd required commercial operation
by June 2023. The RFP, included as Exhibit No. 1 to my
testimony, set forth the process and procedure utilized to
solicit and evaluate the proposals.
The REP solicitation identified the purpose, key
product specifications, proposal format, qualitative and
quantitative evaluation criteria, template draft form term
sheet, technical specifications, and additional
requirements necessary to submit a qualifying proposal.
L4
15
L6
L7
1B
1,9
20
23
2L
22
24
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
7
Company
25
1- The submittal requirements provided the key information to
2 assess both price and non-price attributes. Most
3 importantly, the RFP solicitation focused on the importance
4 of having a project in-service by June 2023. The REP was
5 sent directly to the 38 developers, through the Power
6 Advocate portal, who responded to the Notice of Intent.
1 Q. Please describe the products solicited
8 through the RFP.
9 A. The products identified as havi-ng the most
l-0 real-istic potential to be in-service by June 2023 were
11 energy storage projects, solar photovoltaic (*PV")
L2 projects, solar PV plus storage projects, wind projects,
13 and wind plus storage projects. Idaho Power required that
1,4 projects that included a Power Purchase Agreement (*PPA")
15 for wind and solar also include the transfer of ownership
16 for the storage resource.
1,7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
products
the RFP.
if they met the
Exhibit No. 2
Idaho Power also accepted other
functionality criteria outlined in
to my testimony includes the key
product specifications for each of the eligible products,
includj-ng the ownership structure, resource status, tlpe of
agreement necessary, design life, first delivery date,
capaci-ty requirement, j-nterconnection options, deli-very
point, storage duration and cycles, and pricing, as
outlined in the RFP.
HACKETT, DI
fdaho Power
8
Company
24
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
O. lrihy did the Company focus its solicj-tation
on wind, so1ar, energy storage, or some combination of
these resources?
A. Due to the short timeline for projects to be
constructed to meet the 2023 identified capacity deficit,
Idaho Power assumed wind, soIar, and energy storage
solutions were the most 1ike1y projects to be submitted in
response to the REP.
a. The Company's capacity deficiency has been
10 identified as first occurring in surnmer 2023. Did Idaho
the timing of the resource
L2 availability when recommending accepted products?
13 A Yes. The Company indicated in the RFP that
L4 respondents were encouraged to configure resources to
15 maximize energy delj-vered during hours that are most
1,6 valuable to Idaho Power. Exhibit D to the REP provided as
related to the most
r.8 valuable hours.
O. Were potential respondents informed of the
eval-uation process used by the Company?
A. Yes. Section 7 of the RFP discussed the
evaluation process Idaho Power used to rank proposals
received. Exhibit A to the RFP included as Exhibit No. 1
to my testimony, summarized the information required for
t-9
20
2L
23
HACKETT, DI 9
Idaho Power Company
11 Power's RFP consider
L7 Exhibit No. 1 included information
22
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Idaho Power's qualitative evaluation of the projects and
Exhibit B to the REP summarized the information for the
quantitative evaluatj-on. The portal for which respondents
submitted proposals included the tlpe of information and
1eve1 of detail the Company required for complete
evaluation.
a. Did the Company perform any additional
outreach to potential respondents regarding the RFP?
A. Yes. rdaho Power prepared a pre-bid
presentation and, on July 12, 2021, sent the recording to
all prospective respondents via the Power Advocate portal.
The presentation detailed product requirements,
interconnection, the most valuable hours, evaluation fees
and proposals, the portal overview, evaluation criteria and
a schedule for respondents.
IIT. EVAEUAIIIOII OF IIEE RESPOIIDEIIE PROPOSATS
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L6
L7
r-8
20
a
A
a
When were responses to the RFP due?
Respondent proposal-s were due to Idaho Power
L9 via the Power Advocate portal on August LL, 202L.
include a benchmark resourceDid Idaho Power
2L in the RFP?
22 A.No, not explicitly. Because of time
23 constraints in developing a benchmark resource, the Company
24 did not include such an option as part of the REP.
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
10
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
Instead, the Company relied on developers to propose
potential projects that would meet the criteria outlined to
determine the least-cost, least-risk option. Additionally,
in parallel to the issuance of the RFP, Idaho Power
investigated different configurations and locations of
Company-owned and constructed battery storage systems.
This evaluation was driven by concern that Idaho Power may
not recelve bids with a June 2023 in-service date or
10
proj ects
demand;
the June
with sufficient capacity to meet peak srulmer
several developers expressed apprehension achieving
2023 in-service date given supply chain
The evaluation also allowed for the
11
1"2 constraints.
13 evaluation of price and project reasonableness of the self-
1,4 build options against bids submitted through RFP responses.
15 0. How many proposals were received?
t6 A. Idaho Power received 14 proposals on August
l7 11, 202L, from eleven different developers spanning a
18 variety of product types.
19 O. Did all 14 proposals meet the criteria of the
20 RFP?
21, A. No. Six of the proposals were screened during
22 the initial threshold screen as either incomplete or not
23 meeting the solicj-tation crj-teria.
24 O. Please provide an overview of the evaluation
25 process.
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
11
Company
1 A. Confidential Exhibit No. 3 presents the
2 evaluation process of the project submittals. Each project
3 is identified as Project No. 1 through B in Table l- of the
4 exhibit. Once the threshold screen was completed, the
5 qualitative and quantitative evaluations, which I will
6 explain in more detail, were performed iteratively. The
7 qualitative evaluation ranked the proposals based on
B feasibility, capability, counterparty profile, and
9 community stewardship while the quantitative evaluation
10 ranked the proposals by cost.
11 O. Vflhen did eva]-uation of the proposals begin?
12 A. Idaho Power began qualitative evaluation of
13 the eight proposals that made up the inltial short list in
L4 September 2021 using an objective scoring methodology to
15 reasonably evaluate the attributes of each bid. The
1,6 qualitative evaluation used the thirty-seven uni-que factors
l7 mentioned earlier in my testimony for scoring, for which
l-8 the rating cri-teria of each factor was determined before
19 proposals were received and not changed thereafter. The
20 Idaho Power subject matter expert performing the
2L qualitative evaluation of all shortlist proposals performed
22 their respective evaluation independent of price inputs.
23 O. What is meant by reasonably eval-uate?
24 A. With respect to qualitative evaluation,
25 reasonably evaluate means that the method of allowing
HACKETT, DI T2
Idaho Power Company
1 qualitative evafuators to independently utilize their
2 subject matter expertise while being constrained to follow
3 the rating criteria guidance and be subject to calibration
4 resulted in a reasonable balance between individual
5 expertise and group consensus, therefore yielding
6 reasonable evaluation results.
7 Q. Why would the subject matter experts perform
8 the qualitative evaluation independent of the quantitative
9 evaluation?
10 A. The independent qualitative evaluation of all
11- shortl-ist proposals by subject matter experts ensures
12 avoidance of a situation in which the qualitative evaluator
13 becomes biased for or against a particular proposal due to
L4 its evaluated cost. Instead, the quantitative production
15 cost model analysis was performed after the qualitative
L6 evaluation.
L7 O. Once the qualitative evaluations were
18 completed by the subject matter experts, was this scori-ng
1,9 used to exclusively select the winning proposals?
20 A. No. Upon completion of the initial
21, qualitative evaluation, the scores were reviewed to ensure
22 consistent application of scores and rating criteria. Next,
23 developers were questioned further about specifics of their
24 project allowj-ng respondents the opportunity to provide
25 additional information to Idaho Power if they desired to
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
13
Company
1 clarify or support their proposal. This information was
2 used to re-score and calibrate the proposal rankings
3 resulting in the final short list of proposals. A review
4 of the relative pricing of the various proposals was also
5 performed at this time. The Company believes this internal
6 evaluation with prescrj-bed criteria serves the objective of
7 identifying proposals that fit the needs specified in the
8 RFP.
9 Q. $ihat were the results of the final short list?
l-0 A. Once additional information was provided and
l-1 the qualitative evaluation rankings finalized, two project
t2 proposals remained, Project Nos. 7 and B listed in Table 1
l-3 of Confidential Exhibit No. 3.
1,4 O. Please describe the elimination of Project
15 Nos. 1- through 6 in Table 1 of Confidential Exhibit No. 3
1,6 f rom the short Iist.
17 A. Further investigation into Project No. 1-
18 revealed an uncertain path Lo 2023 capacity and was
19 therefore removed from the short list. A1so, comparing the
20 relative price components of all eight proposals determined
2L that Project Nos. 2 through 6 had a higher battery storage
22 price, and therefore did not move forward in the evaluation
23 process. rn addition to price, it was determined that
24 Project Nos. 2 through 5 had an j-nterconnection point
25 outside of Idaho Power's system and the Company had
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
1,4
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
concerns about the corresponding timeline to coordinate
interconnection processes with the adjacent utility.
Einal1y, in addition to higher prices, Project No. 6
provided unclear contractual terms for energy storage
ownership. The two remaining projects, Project Nos. 7 and
8, advanced to quantitative evaluation.
O. PLease describe the quantitative evaluation.
A. The quantitative evaluation ranked the
proposals by cost, using a consistent common evaluatj-on
tool, the use of AURORA, and consistent common assumptions
in that too1, for reasonable eval-uation results.
O. What were the results of the quantitative
evaluation?
A. The quantitative evaluation concluded the two
remaining projects were competitively priced and provided a
cost-effective resource. However, fol-lowing completion of
the quantitative analysis, the RFP evaluation team
contacted the developer for Project No. 7 to inquire about
the status of their generator interconnection application
and associated interconnection costs due to concerns of
timing and cost estimates. After multiple inquiries with
no response and no ability for the REP evaluation team to
determine a clear path for meeting the 2023 capacity
deficit, Project No. 7 was removed from the short list due
to lack of capability to meet the commercial operation
HACKETT, D]
Idaho Power
10
l_1
L2
r-3
L4
l_5
L6
1,7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
15
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
date.Only one project remained, Project No. B.
PROi'ECT NECESSERY |[O E'ILI, 2023 CAPACTTY DEI'IEIICII\I
a. Please describe Project No. 8.
A. The single remaining shortlj-st project able to
meet the requlred commercial operation of ,June 2023
consisted of a 40 MW solar PV plus 40 MW energy storage
project. The project envisioned a 20-year PPA associated
with a 40 MW solar PV facility that supplies energy to an
Idaho Power-owned energy storage facility, 40 MW of battery
storage.
O. Will the 40 MW sol-ar PV plus 40 MW energy
storage project be sufficient to meet ldaho Power's
capacity need in 2023?
A. No. The standalone 40 MV{ solar PV plus 40 MW
energy storage project will not be sufficient to fu1Iy meet
l}:e 2023 capacity need identified during the 2021, IRP
process. The Company also identified an additional energy
storage resource through the investigation into different
configurations of Company-owned and constructed Battery
Energy Storage Systems (*BESS') performed in paral1e1 to
the RFP process.
O. Why did the Company perform a paraIleI
investigation into different configurations of Company-
owned and constructed BESS?
A. At the time of the initial investigation and
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
L6
Company
10
11
L2
13
1,4
15
L6
L7
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
evaluation of a potential sel-f-build option, fdaho Power
was unclear what RFP proposals would be received. Based on
conversations with developers, the Company had concerns
about whether any project submittals wou1d have the ability
to meet the necessary capacity deficit and in-service date.
Through this investigatj-on and evaluation, Idaho Power
identlfied a feasible self-build option that could be
commercially operable by June 2023, dD B0 MW battery
storage facility.
O. What lndication did the Company have that a
self-build option provided for a lower-cost, lower-risk
al-ternative?
A. As part of its investigation, Idaho Power sent
a request for quotes (*REQ") to eight different battery
manufacturers. The indicative pricing received from these
suppliers was comparative to the lowest-cost proposals for
similar battery storage projects submitted through the REP
process. The combined two projects, the 40 MVil solar PV
plus 40 MW energy storage and the 80 MW battery storage
facility, would provide the resources necessary to fill the
2023 capacity deficiency.
O. You indicated the one project resulting from
the REP, Project No. 8, conslsted of a 2O-year PPA
associated with a 40 MW solar PV facility combined with an
Idaho Power-owned energy storage facility, 40 MW of battery
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
77
Company
10
1l-
12
l-3
L4
15
1,6
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
storage.
A.
Has the Company executed the PPA?
Yes. On Eebruary 16, 2022, Idaho Power and
Black Mesa Energy, LLC ("B1ack Mesa") executed a 20-year
Power Purchase Agreement (*PPA"). Under the terms of the
PPA, Black Mesa will build, own, operate and maintain a 40
MW solar PV faci-lity, supplying the output to Idaho Power's
system.
0. Has Idaho Power executed a contract for the
energy storage component of the project?
A. Yes. The Company moved forward with the
direct procurement of the battery system and on February
28, 2022, executed a contract with Powin Energy Corporation
("Powin"), for the purchase of a BESS to provide for a
minimum capacity of 40 MW.
O. Where will the 40 MW energy storage project be
located?
A. The 40 MW energy storage facility is currently
envisioned to be co-located with the Black Mesa 40 MW solar
PV facility. However, the Company does have flexibility to
locate the 40 MW of battery storage to a more appropriate
location, should one be identified. Idaho Power will-
continue to evaluate other potential sites suitable for the
40 MW of energy storage, those that will provide the most
benefit to Idaho Power and its customers.
a. Will there be any additional contracts
HACKETT, Dr 18
Idaho Power Company
10
11
t2
1_3
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
requj-red
proj ect?
A
for the 40 MW solar PV plus 40 MW energy storage
Yes. In addition to the PPA and energy
storage project?
Yes. The Company has
10
storage contracts, a variety of design and engineering
contracts and construction contracts to complete the
installation work will be required. Contract negotiatj-ons
are underway and expected to be executed in the near
future. Idaho Power will also enter into a Long-Term
Services Agreement ("LTSA") for O&M services performed for
the energy storage project following commercial operati-on
of the project. The LTSA j-s expected to be executed in May
2022 as well.
A. Please describe the second project, the B0 MW
energy storage project.
A. The Idaho Power-owned 80 MW energy storage
project consists of 80 MVfl of battery storage, which will be
served by system energy. A contract executed with Powin on
Eebruary 28, 2022, includes a BESS necessary to meet the
minimum capacity of 80 MW.
o.
80 MW energy
A.
Has Idaho Power identified a location for the
identified the Hemingway
substation as a viable location for the 80 MW energy
storage project. However, as wlth the 40 MW storage
facility, the Company will continue to eval-uate other
1l_
t2
13
t4
15
L6
l7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
t9
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,2
t_3
L4
l_5
t6
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
potential sites suitable for the 80 M[tI of energy storage,
those that will provide the most benefit to Idaho Power and
its customers.
O. Did the Company evaluate pricing of any
additional energy storage projects?
A. Yes. As part of the RFQ process I mentioned
ear11er, in an effort to proactively identify self-build
storage opportunitj-es, Idaho Power sent an RFQ to eight
different battery manufacturers to procure the most
economical solution for a storage project. Powin was
selected through this process as the most viable option for
meeting the Company's energy storage needs.
A. Will any additional contracts be required for
the 80 MW energy storage project?
A. Yes. An LTSA will include O&M servi-ces
following commercial operation of the 80 MW energy storage
project as we1l. In addition, the Company has executed a
contract with Black & Veatch to perform the design and
engineering of the 80 MVI energy storage facility and a
variety of construction contracts to complete the
install-ation work will be required.
a. Company witness Mr. Tatum indicated Idaho
Power was not requesting bindinq ratemaking treatment for
investments in the 120 MW battery storage facilities in
this case. Does the Company have an estimate of the costs
HACKETT, DI 20
Idaho Power Company
L associated with the energy storage projects?
2 A. As Mr. Tatum described in his direct
3 testimony, Idaho Power is in the process of negotiating a
4 number of agreements necessary for the construction,
5 installation, and maintenance of both projects and
6 therefore does not have a total project cost estimate.
7 However, the majority of the costs of the project are
8 associated with the procurement of the BESS. Because Idaho
9 Power has executed a contract with Powin, the Company is
10 ab1e to provide an estimate of those costs. The total cost
11 of the 1-20 MW of BESS, including sales tax and Allowance
12 for Funds Used During Construction (*AEUDC"), is
13 anticipated to be approximately
1,4 O. Does Idaho Power believe the procurement
process has determined the least-cost, least-risk resources
to meet the 2023 capacity deficiency?
A. Yes. While only one project proposal
submitted through the RFP process ultimately resulted from
the RFP evaluation, through the para1lel investigation into
different configurations of Company-owned and constructed
battery storage systems, Idaho Power was abl-e to obtain
competitive pricing to ensure the procurement process
resulted in the acquisition of least-cost, least-risk
resources. These projects are necessary and required to
timely meet the Company's resource needs and contj-nue to
15
1,6
L7
18
L9
23
20
2L
22
24
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
21
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
provide reliable and adequate service to Idaho Power's
customers starti-ng in the summer of 2023 and into the
future.
v. coltcLusrotl
A. Please summarize your testimony.
A. Idaho Power initiated an RFP process to
provide a capacity resource to help meet the Company's peak
electric energy needs Ln 2023, including an objective
scoring methodology used to reasonably evaluate various
competing resources. The capacity resources selected
through the fair and competitive procurement process
resulted j-n a 40 MW solar PV plus 40 MW energy storage
project, consisting of a 2O-year PPA associated with a 40
MW solar PV facility that supplies energy to the Company's
system combj-ned with an ldaho Power-owned 40 MW battery
storage facility. The Company's parallel investigation into
different configurations of Company-owned and constructed
BESS identified a second capacity resource: an Idaho Power-
owned 80 MW battery storage facility. The combined projects
provide for the least-cost and least-risk resources
necessary for meeting the Company's 2023 capacity
deficiency.
O. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes.
10
11
L2
l_3
L4
l_5
16
L7
18
L9
20
21,
22
23
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
22
Company
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DECI,ARCIION OF ERIC EACKEtrE
I, Eric Hackett, declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the state of Idaho:
1. My name is Eric Hackett. I am employed by
Idaho Power Company as the Projects and Design Senior
Manager.
2. On behalf of Idaho Power, I present this
pre-fi1ed direct testimony and Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 and
Confidential Exhibit No. 3 in this matter.
3. To the best of my knowledge, my pre-filed
direct testimony and exhibits are true and accurate.
I hereby declare that the above statement is true to
the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand
it is made for use as evidence before the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission and is subject to penalty for perjury.
SIGNED this 29th day of April 2022, dt Boise, Idaho.
Signed:
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
15
L7
18
L9 d* tlilt
HACKETT, DI
Idaho Power
23
Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
cAsE NO. IPC-E-22-13
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
HACKETT, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 1
#ffif;*' :,\l J'I*it't' ii; i-i:;e;uir|"ii"Iilcl'
; ;Jga; ;jel";.r:$ f", * it |-i I r, s 6, ?* :i: I i
,q$Jllal.qt*t ,!3 t
. I : '...'-i.isrgffiBm
:r .:i+ _.r::l
Page 'l of 39
Table of Contents
-3
?J2. Purpose
2.1,.
2.2. The Solicitatlon 5
2.1, Regulatory Context 6
2.4. Gonfidentiality 6
2.5. SolicitationPortalandRestrictiononCommunlcations 6
2.6. Schedule 7
2.7. Pre-bid Presentation and Recordint 8
3. Produd Speclftcotlons S
3.1. KeyProductSpeciftcations 8
3.2. Additlonal Product Speclfications 9
4, Eledrlc lnterconnectlon 70
4.1. Cost
4.2. lnterconnection Studies
-11
5. AddftionolRequirements 72
5.1. Data and qTber security ,1,
5.2. Purchasing restrictions/prohibited technology 13
5.3. Small Eusiness and Small Dlsadvantaged Business Program t2
6. Proposol Formot ond Submlttol 73
6.1. Submisslon of Proposals le
6.2. Bid Fees 14
6.3. Proposal Naming
6.4. Proposal Written Documents .,^
6.5. Proposal Submission Requlrements
6.6. Firm Proposal IE
6.7.Taxes 15
6.8. lnsurance
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-z2-lt3
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 2 of 39
6.9. Financial and Credit
IE
6.10. Exceptions to the Draft Form Term Sheet te
6.11. ExceptionstoTheTechnicalSpecifications ,to
6.L2.ExceptionstotheDraftFormletterofcredit19
6.13. Clarification of Proposals 19
6.14. Addendato RFP lo
7. Proposol Evoluation, Negotiation ond
7.1.. Evaluation Process
Approval T9
7.2. AdditionalRights
7.3. Acceptance and Rejection of Proposals
7.4. AgreementNegotiations
Proiect Feasibility
Project Capability
EXHIBIT E - Draft Form Term Sheet
33
34
35
36
37
to
tn
tn
trt
7.5. Exclusivity 2l
7.6. Publicity
7.7. CommissionApproval
7.8. Entire RFP
EXHIBIT A- lnlormation Ior Quolitative Evaluation 22
)a
Counterparty Profile
Community Stewardship
EXHIBIT B- lnformotion for Quontitotive Evaluotion 27
EXHIBIT C- lnformation on Preterred Locations 2g
EXHIB|T D- lnformotion on MostValuable Hours _30
31
EXH,B,T F - BESS Technical Specilicotions 32
EXHIB,T G - Solar Technicol Specifications
EXHIBIT H -Wind Technical Specifications
EXHIBTT I - Mutuol Non-Disclosure Agreement
EXHIBIT t - Counterporty Finonciol Questionnaire
EXHIB,T K- Draft Form Letter of Credit
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 3 of 39
1. Disclaimer
The information contained in this Request for Proposals (RFP) is presented to assist interested parties in deciding
whether or not to submit a proposal. ldaho Power Company (lPC), an operating company subsidiary of IDACORP,
lnc., is issuing this RFP to solicit formal proposals from qualified companies (each a Respondent) and does not
represent this information to be comprehensive or to contain all of the information that a Respondent may need
to consider in order to submit a proposal. None of lPC, its affiliates, or their respective employees,
directors, officers, customers, agents and consultants makes, or will be deemed to have made, any current or
future representation, promise or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of
the information contained herein, or in any document or information made available to a Respondent,
whether or not the aforementioned parties knew or should have known of any errors or omissions, or were
responsible for their inclusion in, or omission from, this RFP.
No part of this RFP and no part of any subsequent correspondence by lPC, its affiliates, or their respective
employees, directors, officers, customers, agents or consultants shall be taken as providing legal, financial or
other advice or as establishing a contract or contractual obligation. IPC reserves the right to request from
Respondent information that is not explicitly detailed in this document, obtain clarification from Respondents
concerning proposals, conduct contract development discussions with selected Respondents, conduct discussions
with members of the evaluation team and other support resources as described in this RFP. The requirements
specified in this RFP reflect those presently known. IPC reservices the right to vary, in detail, the requirements
andlor to issue addenda to the RFP. ln the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, addenda will
be provided to Respondents included in the current and applicable stage of the RFP.
IPC will, in its sole discretion and without limitation, evaluate proposals and proceed in the manner IPC deems
appropriate. IPC reserves the right to reject any and all, or portions of any proposal submitted by Respondents for
failure to meet any criteria set forth in this RFP or otherwise and to accept proposals other than the lowest
cost proposal.
This RFP has been prepared solely to solicit proposals and is not a contract offer. This RFP is not binding on lPC.
The only document that will be binding on IPC is an agreement duly executed by IPC and the successful
Respondent (if any) after the completion of the evaluation process and the award and negotiation of an
agreement. IPC reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted by Respondents. The issuance of this
RFP does not obligate IPC to purchase any product or services offered by Respondent or any other entity.
Furthermore, IPC may choose, at its sole discretion, to abandon the RFP process in its entirety.
Respondents agree that they submit proposals without recourse against lPC, IDACORP lnc., any of IDACORP lnc.'s
affiliates, or any of their respective employees, agents, officers, or directors for failure to accept an offer for any
reason. IPC also may decline to enter into any agreement with any Respondent, terminate negotiations with any
Respondent or abandon the RFP process in its entirety at any time, for any reason and without notice thereof.
Respondents that submit proposals agree to do so without legal recourse against lPC, its affiliates, or their
respective employees, directors, officers, customers, agents or consultants for rejection of their proposals or for
failure to execute an agreement for any reason. IPC and its affiliates shall not be liable to any Respondent or other
party in law or equity for any reason whatsoever for any acts or omissions arising out of or in connection with this
RFP. Respondent shall conform in all material respects to all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations
and nothing in this RFP shall be construed to require IPC or Respondent to act in a manner contrary to law. Except
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 4 of 39
Page 3 of 39
as otherwise provided in the rules and orders of the state of ldaho and Oregon Public Utilities Commissions
(the Commission or Commission's), by submitting its proposal, a Respondent waives any right to challenge any
valuation by IPC of its proposal. Respondent whose proposal may be selected in response to this RFP
acknowledges that it assumes full legal responsibility for the accuracy, validity, and legality of the work provided
in conformance with this RFP. By submitting its proposal, a Respondent waives any right to challenge any
determination of IPC to select or reject its proposal. IPC reserves the right to accept the proposal in whole or in
part, and to award to more than one Respondent. Furthermore, Respondent understands that any "award" by IPC
does not obligate IPC in any way. IPC will not be obligated to any part unless and until IPC executes a definitive
agreement between the parties.
Respondent will absorb all costs incurred in responding to this RFP, including without limitation, costs related to
the preparation and presentation of its response. All materials submitted by the Respondent immediately become
the property of lPC. Any exception will require written agreement by both parties prior to the time of submission.
ln responding to this RFP, Respondent shall adhere to best business and ethical practices. Respondent shall
adhere to IPC's Supplier Code of Conducf available at www.idahopower.com
Respondent is specifically notified that failure to comply with any part of this RFP may result in disqualification of
the proposal, at IPC's sole discretion.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-'13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 5 of 39
Page 4 of 39
2. Purpose
2.L. BACKGROUND
ldaho Power Company, an operating company subsidiary of IDACORP lnc., is issuing this RFP to solicit formal
proposals from Respondents for electric capacity resources (Products) to help meet lPCs peak electric energy
needs in 2023.
IDACORP, lnc. is a holding company formed in 1998. Comprised of regulated and non-regulated businesses,
its origins lie with ldaho Power, a regulated electric utility that began operations in 1916. Today, IPC is the largest
regulated electric utility in the state of ldaho and IDACORP's chief subsidiary. IPC serves over 590,000 residential,
business, agricultural, and industrial customers, The company's service area covers approximately 24,000 square
miles, including portions of eastern Oregon. Learn more about ldaho Power at www.idahopower.com.
IPC currently serves its customers by supplying low-cost, reliable, and clean energy. Affordable, clean hydropower
is the largest source of energy for customers. Power generation comes from a diverse set of resources that
continues to meet a growing demand. For a more detailed description of current generation resources,
please visit: www.idahopower.com/energv-environment/energy/energv-sources/.
IPC's service territory continues to experience customer growth and an increasing peak demand (load)
for electricity. IPC anticipates sustained load growth that will require the procurement of new resources to meet
peak summer demand and maintain system reliability. Additionally, recent changes in the regional transmission
markets have constrained the transmission system external to the IPC service territory and impacted the ability to
import energy from western market hubs for delivery to IPC's system. The addition of new resources to meet
peak demand is critical to ensure IPC can continue to reliably meet the growing demands on its electrical system
and serve its customers.
The need for additional capacity resources has been identified as early as Summer 2023 at approximately
80 megawatts (MW). Please refer to EXHIBIT D - lnformation on Most Valuable Hours for a more detailed
description of the capacity need.
2.2. THE SOUCITATION
IPC intends to enter into agreement(s) to purchase Products for up to 80 MW of electric generating capacity
delivered from resources that employ certain qualifying technologies under certain ownership arrangements,
The eligible types of Products are described further in Section 3 of this RFP. Details on the proposal submission
process and the proposal evaluation process are also described further in this RFP. Demand side measures are
being evaluated outside of this RFP.
The process of issuing and responding to this RFP, evaluation and selection of proposals, and the negotiation and
approval of the agreement(s) is known as the Solicitation. Respondents who are interested in participating in the
Solicitation and submitting a proposal must first register via the third-party solicitation portal, PowerAdvocate,
further described in Section 2.5 of this RFP. This RFP sets forth the terms and conditions by which IPC will perform
the Solicitation. Respondent agrees to be bound by all the terms, conditions, and other provisions of this RFP and
any addenda to it that may be issued by lPC. This RFP governs the Solicitation and supersedes any other written
or oral form of communication between Respondents and IPC concerning the Solicitation.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 6 of 39
Page 5 of 39
2.3. REGUI.ATORY CONTEXT
Execution of any purchase agreement will ultimately be subject to the Commission's approval. This could include,
but is not limited to, approval of a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) application from lPC.
IPC reserves the right to: 1) inform the Commission that IPC could not reach agreement with the Respondent of a
selected resource; 2) request Commission approval of any agreements it enters into with successful Respondents
(e.g., CPCN applications); and 3) to terminate any agreement if IPC fails to receive Commission approval of
submitted agreements or applications. Respondent shall provide any and all information and documentation
reasonably requested by IPC to support such applications and requests.
2.4. CONFIDENTIALIW
Respondent acknowledges and agrees that all information obtained or produced in relation to this RFP is the sole
property of IPC and shall not be released or disclosed to any person or entity for any purpose other than
providing a proposal to IPC without the express written consent of lPC. Respondent agrees not to make any public
comments or disclosures, including statements made for advertising purposes, regarding this RFP to the media or
any other party without prior written consent of lPC. ln the event Respondent receives any inquiries regarding
this RFP from the media or any other party, said inquiries shall be forwarded to lPC.
Respondents shall specifically designate and clearly label any and all material(s) or portions thereol contained in
their proposals, that they deem to contain proprietary information as "CONFIDENTIAL". Nonetheless, IPC reserves
the right to release all proposals to its affiliates and such affiliates' agents, advisors, and consultants, for purposes
of proposal evaluation. IPC will, to the extent required by law, advise each agent, advisor, or consultant that
receives such claimed confidential information of its obligations to protect such information. ln addition,
all information, regardless of its confidential or proprietary nature, will be subject to review by the Commission
and other governmental authorities and courts with jurisdiction, and may be subject to legal discovery. lt is not
IPC's intent to enter into any separate confidentiality, non-disclosure, or similar agreements as a condition to
receiving a Respondent's proposal, However, if and when a proposal is advanced to the lnitial Short List,
the Respondent must execute a Mutual Nondisclosure & Confidentiality Agreement (Confidentiality Agreement)
with IPC in advance of further discussions with and evaluation of the proposal by lPC. Respondents are directed to
EXHIBIT I - Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement for more detailed information.
2.5. SOLICITATION PORTAL AND RESTRICTION ON COMMUNICATIONS
IPC has opened a web-based portal hosted on the PowerAdvocate sourcing platform (the Portal). All information
exchanged between the Respondent and IPC concerning the Solicitation must only be via the Portal from the time
the Portal is open until it is closed by lPC. The Portal allows a Respondent to see only its own information and not
the information of other Respondents.
IPC has the ability to communicate with Respondents through the Portal. Other than written communication
through the Portal, Respondents are prohibited from communicating with IPC employees, representatives, staff,
or Board Members regarding the Solicitation during the period in which the Portal is open.
Restricted communication includes, but is not limited to, "thank you" letters, phone calls, emails, and any contact
that results in the direct or indirect discussion of the Solicitation and/or submitted proposals. Violation of this
provision by Respondents or their agents may lead to disqualification.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackeft, IPC
Page 7 of 39
Page 6 of 39
The web link to the Portal hosted by PowerAdvocate is
www. poweradvocate.com
Respondent is responsible for ensuring it has registered for, and posts documents to, the correct portal hosted by
PowerAdvocate. The Respondent registering for access to the Portal must be a representative of the Respondent
and counterparty with which IPC will engage in any future negotiations, and not consultants or attorneys for the
Respondent.
Respondents who have completed the registration process and submitted the public Notice of lntent Form found
at www.idahopower.com/about-us/doing-business-with-us/request-for-resources shall receive an email invitation
from PowerAdvocate containing a link to the event.
Respondent must not disclose its participation in this Solicitation (other than by attendance at any meeting held
by IPC with respect to the Solicitation) or collaborate on, or discuss with any other Respondent or potential
Respondent bidding strategies or the substance of any proposal(s), including without limitation the price or any
other terms or conditions of any proposal(s).
Questions regarding the Portal should be directed to:
PowerAdvocate Support
support@ poweradvocate.com
+001.857.453.5800
2,6. SCHEDULE
The key milestones for the Solicitation and their currently scheduled dates are provided in Table 1 below
Table 1 - Key Milestones for the Solicitation
Milestone Date
Portal opened for interested party registration and communication
RFP and other Solicitation documents posted to the Portal
Respondent lntent to Bid Due
Pre-Bid Presentation Recording posted to the Portal
Deadline for Submittal of Questions, after which IPC may not respond
Deadline for Proposal Submittal - Portal closed to further posting by
Respondents, evaluation begins
June 30, 2021
June 30, 2021
July 7,2027
July \2,202L
July 28, 2O2tby 4 p.m.
Mountain Time
August 77,2027 by 4 p.m.
Mountain Time
This schedule and documents associated with the Solicitation are subject to change at IPC's sole discretion at any
time and for any reason. IPC will endeavor to notify Respondents of any changes to the Solicitation but shall not
be liable for any costs or liability incurred by Respondents or any other party due to a change or for failing to
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 8 of 39
Page 7 of 39
provide notice or acceptable notice of any change. Respondents should factor this schedule and any changes
thereto into their project development timelines and proposals.
Respondents should carefully review this RFP for questions, clarifications, defects, and questionable or
objectionable materials. Comments and questions concerning clarifications, defects, and questionable or
objectionable material must be submitted through the Portaland must be submitted on or before the date and
time specified in the above schedule. IPC may not respond to questions submitted after this date. All questions
and their applicable responses will be provided to Respondents via the Portal.
2.7. PRE.BID PRESENTATION AND RECORDING
IPC will not host an in-person live pre-bid meeting or webcast regarding the Solicitation due to concerns over
potential technical difficulties in live hosting such a large event and fairness to Respondents from distant time
zones. lnstead, IPC will prepare a video recording concerning the RFP and the overall Solicitation process.
The recording will include video of a presentation deck and audio of the speakers presenting the deck.
The recording will be posted to the Portal on or before the date identified in the Schedule provided in Section 2.5
of this RFP. Viewing of the recording is not mandatory for Respondents.
3. Product Specifications
3.1. KEY PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
The key specifications for a subset of the Products eligible to be proposed in response to the RFP are presented in
Table 2 below.
Table 2 - Key Product Specifications
53142
Product Energy
Storage
Project
("s")
Solar PV plus
Storage Project
("PVS")
Wind plus
Storage Project
("ws")
Energy Storage
Component of a
Solar PV plus
Storage Project
Energy Storage
Component of a
Wind plus Storage
Project ("S-WNS")
Product Partial Asset Purchase
Ownersh IPC com nt on
Resource Status Existing, or proposed new with preference for projects in late stage development with
nd LGIA or SGIA
Agreement Existing resources under an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), proposed new resources
under a Build Transfer
Design Life
First De June 2023
c Min:1MW Max:80 MW
20
lnterconnection Transmission 10MW-80 or Distribution 1MW- 10 M m of IPC
Within the boundary of the IPC Balancing Authority Area (BA), or outside with all necessary
transmission
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 9 of 39
Asset Purchase
tPc
20 30 40 20
Delivery Point
Page 8 of 39
to the BA
54321
Product Solar PV plus
Storage Project
("PVS")
Wind plus
Storage Project
('ws')
Energy
Storage
Project
("s")
Energy Storage
Component of a
Solar PV plus
Storage PCIect
Energy Storage
Component of a
Wind plus Storage
Project ("S-WNS")
Storage
Duration
les Minimum 1
Pricing S 000s on acquisition date, $ 000s per month under a construction completion management
agreement (CCMA), S000s per year under an operation and maintenance services
ent ene
Price Escalation None
Other Storage must be chargeable from the grid by IPC after expiration of the tax benefit
3.2. ADDITIONAL PRODUCT SPEC!FICATIONS
IPC may also accept other Products that meet the ownership and electrical functionality criteria outlined in
Table 2. Respondents who propose a product not specifically identified in Table 2 must provide applicable
information, specifications, terms, etc. for evaluation purposes. Products that are not eligible include, but are not
limited to; energy or capacity that is not electrical (for example, thermal energy storage without conversion to
electric energy), energy or capacity that is not provided from a specific resource (a System Sale),
renewable energy credits without the associated energy (Unbundled RECs), and financial instruments used to
mitigate variable cost exposure without associated energy or capacity (Financial Firming).
Respondents whose proposals include Solar PV and/or Wind technologies are encouraged to configure the Solar
PV and/or Wind resources to maximize energy delivery during hours that are most valuable to lPC.
lnformation concerning the hours that are most valuable to IPC is provided in EXHIBIT D - lnformation on Most
Valuable Hours attached hereto.
Proposals for new resources (a Project) to be owned by IPC must assume the parties will execute a build-transfer
agreement (BTA), a construction completion management agreement (CCMA) and an operation and maintenance
services agreement (OMA) for implementation of the Project. Under a BTA, the Respondent is responsible for all
aspects of the development and construction of the Project, including but not limited to permitting,
design, development, engineerinB, procurement, construction, interconnection, and all related costs up to
achieving the to-be-agreed upon milestone which will not be earlier than mechanical completion or later than the
date the Project is placed into service for tax purposes. After reaching the milestone, the Respondent will transfer
ownership of the Project assets to IPC in exchange for a purchase price. Proposals that contemplate the transfer
of t00%o equity interests in a single member LLC are acceptable. After purchase, the Respondent will remain
responsible for the completion of the Project pursuant to a CCMA. After the Project achieves commercial
operation, the Respondent will perform operations and maintenance services under the OMA. Beginning at
execution of the BTA and related agreements, the Respondent must post cash collateral or a letter of credit in the
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 10 of 39
Minimum 4 hours
Page 9 of 39
amounts specified in the BTA to secure its performance (Performance Security). The amount of Performance
Security increases and decreases over the term of the Project development, construction, and operation phases.
Proposals for existing resources (a Plant) to be owned by IPC must assume parties will execute an asset purchase
agreement (APA)and an OMA.
IPC will accept Project proposals that include a PPA for wind and solar, provided the proposal includes a BTA for
the storage resource.
Respondents are directed to EXHIBIT E - Draft Form Term Sheet for more detailed information concerning the key
terms and conditions of the BTA, CCMA and OMA agreements. Respondents are required to submit a redline of
the Draft Form Term Sheet with their proposals. Respondents are also directed to EXHIBIT K - Draft Form Letter
of Credit for reference. ln such cases that the Respondent is successful, Respondent shall be responsible for
furnishing a letter of credit in a format substantially similar to these forms included in this RFP. These forms shall
be subject to review and acceptance by IPC in its reasonable discretion. Respondent shall deliver the required
letter of credit no later than 30 days following any such notice of award of the Project.
4. Electric I nterconnection
4.L. COST ESTIMATING
Respondent is responsible for understanding the electric transmission and distribution interconnection processes
of IPC or other transmission providers, considering the durations and costs of those processes in its proposals,
and successfully executing those processes to achieve coordination with IPC and delivery of the proposed
Products to IPC on or before the dates identified in its proposed schedule for the resource.
Electric interconnection facilities consist of multiple components as defined below
a) lnterconnection Customer/s lnterconnection Facilities (lClF) are all facilities and equipment (including the
gen tie line) located between the resource and the Point of Change of Ownership. Respondent must
submit resource-specific cost estimates of lClF as part of its proposal and consider the cost of lClF in
its pricing.
b) Transmission Provider lnterconnection Facilities (TPIF) connect the lnterconnection Custome/s
lnterconnection Facilities and facilitate the metering, relay and communications, etc. TPIF are all facilities
owned, controlled or operated by the transmission Provider from the Point of Change of Ownership to
the Point of lnterconnection. These are facilities that IPC will own, and the Respondent will fund.
Respondent must submit resource-specific cost estimates of TPIF as part of its proposal and consider the
cost of TPIF in its pricing. To aid in consideration of the cost, an estimated cost for TPIF based on
interconnection voltage level is provided below. lf an interconnection study has been performed by the
Transmission Provider that includes an estimate of TPIF, then the costs from that study should be used in
lieu of these estimates.
Voltage TPIF Estimated Cost (2021 $ 000s)
59 kV
138 kV
s1,ooo
s1,250
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 11 of39
Page 10 of 39
Voltage TPIF Estimated Cost (2021 S 00Os)
230 kv
345 kV
s1,900
s2,5oo
c) Station Network Upgrades (SNU) are either new switchyards or additions to existing switchyards or
substations that are built to interconnect the generator to IPC transmission or distribution system.
SNUs become a component of the integrated IPC transmission or distribution system and are
incorporated into IPC tariffs. Respondents are not required to provide cost estimates of SNUs.
d) Delivery Network Upgrades (DNU) are upgrades to IPC's transmission or distribution network that will be
required for individual resources and groups of resources. These upgrades will be incorporated into IPC's
transmission or distribution tariffs. Respondents are not required to provide cost estimates of DNUs.
lf a Respondent has an active interconnection request, the Respondent must provide the interconnection request
identifier(s)(the "queue position")associated with its resource in its proposal.lf the resource identified in the
proposal was in the queue but has since withdrawn, the Respondent should provide that queue position even
though it is no longer active. For Respondents that submit a generation interconnection request or transmission
service request pursuant to lPCs Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) intending to receive interconnection or
transmission service cost estimates for purposes of responding to this RFP, there may not be sufficient time to
have studies performed and completed prior to bid selection.
Based on information available from the interconnection request (if any) and/or studies and estimates performed
by the Transmission Provider separate and apart from the RFP evaluation team (if available), the RFP evaluation
team will determine Proposal-specific SNUs and DNUs and associated costs to include in the evaluation of a
proposal or estimate the SNUs and DNUs if unavailable from the Transmission Provider. Proposals involving
existing generation resources from which IPC currently purchases capacity and energy will not be burdened
during proposal evaluation with any incremental electric interconnection or network delivery costs provided that
IPC currently has sufficient transmission and distribution capacity to deliver the proposed energy to its load.
Existing generation resources that IPC determines to have inadequate transmission or distribution capacity to
deliver will be burdened with the estimated cost of purchasing additional transmission rights and/or SNUs
and DNUs.
4.2. INTERCONNECTION STUDIES
The Transmission Provider function within lPC, separate and apart from the RFP evaluation team, and performs
studies for Large Generation lnterconnection Application (LGIA) requests (over 20 MW) and Small Generation
lnterconnection Application (SGIA) requests (under 20 MW). The studies are performed to determine the
feasibility, cost, time to construct, and injection capability for the interconnection of an electric generating
resource. lnformation concerning generator interconnection can be found at IPC's website 1 including information
on PURPA Qualifying Facility (QF) lnterconnections, Non-PURPA QF lnterconnections, and Facility Connection
Requirements. IPC posts the results of these studies on its OASIS website.2
l www.idahopower.com/about-us/doinq-business'with-us/generator-interconnection/
2 www.oasis.oati.com/ipco/.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 12of39
Page 11 of 39
The transmission and distribution systems are interrelated and generation injection at one point on the systems
may change the injection capability at other points. The generation injection capability assumed by the
Respondent for purposes of a proposal may change when the Transmission Provider performs specific resource
and resource portfolio interconnection studies. For purposes of aiding Respondents in determining points of
interconnection and delivery, IPC has identified areas on the IPC system that may have relatively high injection
capability and relatively low cost and time to construct if studied by the Transmission Provider. These areas are
identified in EXHIBIT C - lnformation on Preferred Locations of this RFP.
lf and when a proposal is selected for the lnitial Short List and it is for a new resource that will be interconnected
to the IPC BA, it may be studied by IPC per IPC's generation interconnection process. Respondents will be notified
if their proposed resource will be studied and the Respondents must provide the site control, monetary deposits
and other information required under the IPC generator interconnection process. When the study process
reaches the Facilities Study phase, the Respondent will be responsible for continued compliance to bring the
resource through the balance of the IPC interconnection process and execute an interconnection agreement.
Upon completion of the Facilities Study, the estimated costs of the SNU and DNU resulting from the study (if any)
will be used by IPC in further evaluation of the proposal and determination if the Respondent will be selected for
the Final Short List and invited to negotiate an agreement with lPC.
For Final Short List resources that will be owned in full or in part by lPC, IPC anticipates that it will declare them as
Network Resources of IPC and that IPC will bear the cost of any network transmission service on IPC's system
(whether or not procured under the OATT) for a resource that is ultimately contracted and achieves
commercial operation.
5. Additional Requirements
5.1. DATA AND CYBER SECURIW
A proposal must comply with the provisions of Presidential Executive Order 13920 (E.O. 13920) issued
May 1, 2020, titled Securing the United Stotes Bulk-Power System (BPS) which (among other things) prohibits any
acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation of BPS electric equipment by any person or with respect to any
property to which a foreign adversary or an associated national thereof has any interest, that poses an undue risk
to the BPS, the security or resiliency of U.S. critical infrastructure or the U.S. economy, or U.S. national security.
All design and implementation details must follow electrical industry best practices for cyber security as well as all
applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the security of electric system assets. ln response to EXHIBIT A -
lnformation for Qualitative Evaluation of this RFP, Respondents must generally describe their cyber security
requirements, practices, and policies. Any additional IPC specific requirements will be addressed during the RFP
review and contracting process, pursuant to EXHIBIT I - Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement, Respondent must
state that any and all equipment utilized in the proposed resource will not be procured through an Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designed entity or otherwise be comprised of equipment prohibited for use by
electric utilities in the United States.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 13of39
Page L2 of 39
5.2. PURCHASINGRESTRTCTTONS/PROHTBTTEDTECHNOLOGY
Pursuant to Section 489(aX1XB) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,
a Respondent must be able to represent in its agreement with IPC that the Respondent does not and/or will not
use any telecommunications equipment, system, or service (or as a substantial or essential component of any
system or as or critical technology of any system) made by any of the following companies, or any subsidiary or
affiliate thereof (including companies with the same principal word in the name, e.g., Huawei or Hytera: Huawei
Technologies Company; ZTE Corporation; Hytera Communications Corporation; Hangzhou Hikvision Digital
Technology Company; or, Dahua Technology Company (collectively, Prohibited Technology).
Prohibited Technology may include, but is not limited to, video/monitoring surveillance equipment/services,
public switching and transmission equipment, private switches, cables, local area networks, modems, mobile
phones, wireless devices, landline telephones, laptops, desktop computers, answering machines, teleprinters,
fax machines, and routers. Prohibited Technology does not include telecommunications equipment that cannot
route or redirect user data traffic or permit visibility into any user data or packets that the equipment transmits
or handles.
5.3. SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAM
IPC is committed to the implementation of a Small and Disadvantaged Business Program. lt is the intent of IPC
that small business concerns and small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts awarded by lPC.
Consequently, we request that you indicate your eligibility as a small business based upon the regulations in
Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 121. lf in doubt, consult the Small Business Administration Office in
your area.
6. Proposal Format and Submittal
6.1. SUBMTSSION OF PROPOSAIS
A proposal is considered the aggregate of the information uploaded by a Respondent to the Portal (lnformation)
The lnformation is in the form of data entered directly into cells in a spreadsheet located on the Portal
(Proposal Entry Form or PEF) and subsequently uploaded to the Portal by the Respondent, and other written
documents that are uploaded to the Portal. The Portal is designed to accept the majority of the lnformation as
data entered into the PEF with data entry restricted to only certain eligible types and values. The purpose is to
ensure lnformation is entered consistently across all Respondents and proposals such that IPC can consistently,
fairly and quickly organize the lnformation and evaluate the proposals and minimize the amount of written
(e.g., PDF, DOC) documents that IPC must review and interpret.
Respondents are strongly advised to carefully review Exhibit E - Draft Form Term Sheet and the Technical
Specifications (Exhibit F - BESS Technical Specification, Exhibit G - Solar Technical Specification, and Exhibit H -
Wind Technical Specification) relevant to their proposed products prior to uploading information to the Portal.
lf and when a Respondent is selected for negotiation of an agreement, IPC will utilize the lnformation submitted
to populate the relevant portions of the agreements for that Respondent. Respondents should upload
information with the understanding that it will ultimately result in binding contract terms.
Exhibit No. 'l
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 14 of 39
Page 13 of 39
6.2.BID FEES
A Respondent is required to submit to IPC a non-refundable fee of S10,000 with each proposal submitted
(Evaluation Fee). The purpose of the Evaluation Fee is to encourage submission of well-developed and viable
proposals and to offset the cost to IPC for evaluation of proposals. For the purpose of assessing an Evaluation Fee,
a proposal is generally defined as follows.
A single capacity construction phase of a resource at one site = one proposal
Different capacity, initial delivery year or price from the same site = different proposal
Different technology from the same site = different proposal
Different Product from same site = different proposal
Different site = different proposal
IPC may deem a proposal that does not satisfy the requirements for a single proposal as multiple proposals each
of which would require a separate Evaluation Fee. lf IPC deems a Respondent's proposal to be multiple proposals,
IPC will notify the Respondent and allow it to elect to pay the incremental Evaluation Fee or to revise its proposal
to comply with IPC's requirements for a single proposal.
A Respondent that has its proposal selected for the Final Short List and is invited to begin negotiation of an
agreement must submit an additional fee in an amount equal to Sf/fW of proposed resource capacity
(a Supplemental Fee) to IPC prior to commencement of negotiations. For example, a proposal for a resource with
a proposed capacity of 80 MW would pay a Supplemental Fee of $80,000 (e.g., 80 MW Project
't S1/kW = 580,000). The purpose of the Supplemental Fee is to ensure good faith submissions and negotiations
by the Respondent and to offset the costs that IPC will incur while reviewing proposals and negotiating an
agreement. The Supplemental Fee will not be refundable.
6.3. PROPOSAL NAMING
A Respondent must generate a unique name for each of its proposals (Proposal Code) by selecting and entering
into the PEF where indicated the Product Type, Proposal Name, Delivery Level and whether the facility is new or
existing. The resulting Proposal Code must thereafter be used by the Respondent when referring to the proposal
and must be inserted into the file name of each document for the proposal uploaded by the Respondent.
The purpose of the Proposal Code is to allow IPC to more easily identify and differentiate among proposals and
documents particularly if the volume of proposals received is relatively large.
6.4. PROPOSAL WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
Written documents must be text-searchable PDF (portable document format, non-zipped) and must contain
documents reproduced directly from the native document (i.e., Word, Excel, MicroStation, AutoCAD).
Scanned images and documents will be considered irregular and may be rejected.
6.5. PROPOSAL SUBMTSSTON REqUTREMENTS
Exhibits to this RFP summarize the lnformation that must be uploaded by Respondents to the Portal.
These include EXHIBIT A - lnformation for Qualitative Evaluation and EXHIBIT B - lnformation for Quantitative
Evaluation attached hereto. Respondents are directed to the individual tabs in the Portal to ensure Respondent
reviews all of the information and the specific type and level of detail that must be provided.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hacketl, IPC
Page 15 of 39
a
a
a
a
a
Page 14 of 39
5.5. FIRM PROPOSAL
Each proposal shall be firm, not subject to price escalation, and binding for one hundred eighty (180) days from
the date the proposals are due under this RFP.
6.7. TAXES
Respondents are responsible for the payment of all sales, conveyance, transfer, excise, real estate transfer,
business and occupation, and similar taxes assessed with respect to or imposed on either party in connection with
a proposed agreement.
6.8. INSURANCE
The insurance requirements that must be met by Respondent are summarized below. This summary is provided
for information only. Respondent is directed to the EXHIBIT E - Draft Form Term Sheet for details concerning the
specific requirements. lf a conflict arises between this summary, the requirements in the Draft Form Term Sheet,
or executed agreement between Respondent and lPC, the executed agreement shall govern.
This summary is for information only. At its sole cost and expense, Respondent shall maintain (and cause each of
its agents, independent contractors, and Subcontractors at any tier performing any services on the project to
maintain) the following insurance, including but not limited to:
a
a
Workers' Compensation lnsurance with limits of not less than those required by applicable statutes.
Employer's Liability lnsurance. When permitted by law, the insurance policies required shall contain
waivers of the insure/s subrogation rights against lPC. Respondent shall reimburse IPC for any costs
(including self-insured tax audit assessments) incurred in the event Respondent maintains an
uninsured status within the state of ldaho.
Business Automobile Liability lnsurance.
Commercial General Liability lnsurance applicable to all premises and operations, including without
limitation: (i) bodily injury, (ii) property damage, (iii) contractual liability coverage covering its
obligations of indemnity and defense, (iv) products and completed operations, (v) independent
contractors, and (vi) personal and advertising injury. Such insurance shall provide for
occurrence-based coverage and shall have such other terms, conditions, and endorsements of
coverage as are deemed prudent by IPC from time to time.
Professional Liability lnsurance or Errors and Omissions lnsurance, including without limitation,
coverage for claims of financial loss due to error, act, or omission of Respondent or Respondents
employees, officers, equity owners, subcontractors at any tier, or agents. Professional Liability
lnsurance shall be maintained for a minimum of two-years beyond the date of expiration of and
executed or the agreement otherwise terminated.
lP (lntellectual Property/Patent) lnsurance covering infringement of copyrights, trademarks,
and patents, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
Fidelity lnsurance naming IPC as Loss Payee, for losses arising out of, or in connection with,
any fraudulent or dishonest acts, including without limitation computer fraud, committed by
Respondent or Respondent's employees, officers, equity owners, Subcontractors at any tier,
or agents, acting alone or with others, including losses of property and funds in their care,
custody, or control.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 16 of 39
a
a
a
a
Page 15 of 39
a Contractor's Pollution Liability lnsurance. Respondent, and Respondent subcontractors or their
respective agents or employees are performing services under an executed agreement with
environmental hazards maintains a "Claims Made" policy under this such insurance or its
replacement insurance shall have a retroactive date of no later than the effective date of the
agreement. Such insurance policy or its replacement policy shall provide either a minimum of
two-years extended reporting period coverage after completion of all services, or a period equal to
the maximum time under the State of ldaho statute of limitations existing on the effective date for
potential claims under such insurance, whichever is longer. The policy must also provide
the following:
o Coverage for defense, reimbursement, and indemnity obligations assumed by Respondent under
the and executed agreement related to claims, damages, liabilities, losses, demands, expenses,
suits, judgments, penalties, fines and costs, including without limitation, investigative costs,
settlement costs, court costs at all levels, and attorneys' and expert witness fees and expenses;
o Coverage for any demands for environmental cleanup costs related to Respondents services
under the executed agreemenU
o Coverage for the presence, discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes,
acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or
pollutants, silt or sediment into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of
water (Pollution Conditions) emanating from or affecting any location, whether or not owned,
leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by lPC, to the extent such Pollution Conditions are
caused by Respondent, its employees, and agents;
o Coverage for bodily injury, sickness, disease, mental anguish or shock sustained by any person,
including death, and medical monitoring;
. Coverage for physical injury to, or destruction of tangible property of, parties other than the
insured including the resulting loss of use and diminution in value thereof; loss of use, but not
diminution in value, of tangible property of parties other than that belonging to the insured that
has not been physically injured or destroyed;
. Coverage for transportation and non-owned disposal site (with no sunset clause/restricted
coverage term) (if applicable);
o Property damage to include natural resources damage; and
o No exclusions for asbestos, lead paint, silica or mold/fungus.
Coverage shall apply to sudden and non-sudden Pollution Conditions, provided such conditions are not naturally
present in the environment in the concentration or amounts discovered, unless such natural condition(s) are
released or dispersed as a result of the performance of covered operations. Respondent additionally agrees to
name IPC as an additional insured and to provide waiver of subrogation against IPC an to furnish insurance
certificates, showing Respondents compliance.
Cyber Liability, Network Security, Data Breach Protection and/or Similar Privacy Liability lnsurance.
ln the event that Respondent will have access to any restricted information of lPC, its clients,
customers, employees, prospective employees, or other third parties, whether protected or not by any
local, statutory, federal or other governing legislation(s) or regulation(s), Respondent shall maintain
cyber liability, network liability, data breach or similar privacy liability insurance covering actual and/or
alleged acts, errors or omissions committed by Respondent, its employees, contractors or agents. For
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 17 of 39
Page 16 of 39
purposes of this RFP, "Restricted lnformation" means any confidential or personal information that is
protected by law or policy and that requires the highest level of access control and security protection,
whether in storage or in transit, including without limitation, personal identity information (Pll),
protected health information (PHl), electronic protected health information (ePHl) protected by
Federal Health lnsurance Portability and Accountability Act legislation, credit card data regulated by
the Payment Card lndustry (PCl), passport numbers, passwords providing access to restricted data or
resources, information relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, court-ordered settlement
agreements requiring non-disclosure, information specifically identified by contract as restricted, and
other information for which the degree of adverse affect that may result from unauthorized access or
disclosure is high. Such insurance shall expressly provide coverage for the following perils up to the full
limit of coverage with no sublimit:
o Unauthorized use/access of a computer system or database;
o Defense of any regulatory or governmental action involving a breach of privacy or similar rights;
o Failure to protect from disclosure Restricted lnformation;
o Notification and remedial action costs (such as credit monitoring) in the event of an actual or
perceived computer security or privacy breach; and
o Denial of electronic access, electronic infection, and electronic information damage, whether or
not required by law.
Such insurance shall extend to cover damages arising out of any actual or alleged act(s), error(s) or omission(s) of
any individual when acting under Respondent's supervision, direction, or control. Such insurance shall provide
coverage on a worldwide basis. Respondent and its insurer(s) shall waive rights of recovery against IPC for any
benefits under Respondents cyber-risk, data breach protection or similar privacy liability insurance.
a
a
Cargo and Property lnsurance. lf Respondent, Subcontractor at any tier, or their respective agents or
employees are transporting and/or storing IPC materials or equipment, Contractor shall provide Cargo
lnsurance and/or Property lnsurance (as applicable) covering physical loss or damage, naming IPC as
Loss Payee, arising out of, or in connection with, any loss associated with transportation or storage of
IPC equipment or material while in the care, custody, or control of Contractor (or its Subcontractors at
all tiers). The declared value of the Cargo and/or Property lnsurance shall be based on the replacement
value of the property in question.
lnsurance required shall be primary and non-contributory and:
o Be issued on a U.S. policy by one or more carriers acceptable to IPC and licensed to do business in
the state where services are rendered;
o Except as to Workers' Compensation lnsurance, Employer Liability lnsurance, and Professional
Liability lnsurance, name IPC as an additional insured or losspayees, as its interests may appear;
o Not be able to be canceled or materially changed unless IPC is given written notice of such
cancellation or change at least thirty (30) days in advance;
o Provide for severability of interests;
o Waive all right of subrogation against additional insureds and lPC, its members, officers,
employees, agents, and the successors in interest of the foregoing; and
o Shall not be limited to "ongoing" operations. Respondent shall pay for all deductibles.
lf approved in advance by IPC in writing, Respondent may use a combination of Umbrella/Excess and
Primary limits of insurance to provide coverage up to the required amount.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 18 of 39
a
Page 17 of 39
a Upon execution of an agreement, Contractor shall provide IPC with a certificate of insurance indicating
all coverages required hereunder, and copies of all policies if requested by lPC.
Respondent agrees to carry and keep insurance in full force during the term of any agreements sufficient to fully
protect IPC from all damages, claims, suits and/or judgments including, but not limited to, errors, omissions,
violations, fees and penalties caused or claimed to have been caused by, or in connection with the performance
or failure to perform under the agreements by Respondent, Respondent's agents or employees, a Respondent's
Subcontractor(s), or its agents or employees. Should the Minimum lnsurance Requirements of IPC change, the
Respondent shall be notified in writing and Respondent shall have sixty (60) days to meet the new requirements.
Should the new requirements add materially to Respondent's cost, Respondent may notify IPC and request
adjustment in Respondent's compensation commensurate with the increase or decrease in Respondent's cost to
achieve the new requirements.
6.9. FINANCIAL AND CREDIT INFORMATION
Respondent must provide a written response and associated documents in response to the Counterparty
Financial Questionnaire. Details are further described in EXHIBIT J - Counterparty Financial Questionnaire of
this RFP.
5.10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE DRAFT FORM TERM SHEET
Respondents must provide proposals and pricing that are consistent and compliant with EXHIBIT E - Draft Form
Term Sheet for the proposed resource type. To the extent that the validity of a Respondent's proposal and/or the
Respondent's ability to execute an agreement is contingent upon material changes to the language in EXHIBIT E -
Draft Form Term Sheet, the Respondent should specifically identify the terms they propose to change in the form
of a redline markup and submit the redline with its proposal. To the extent that a Respondent wishes to propose
changes the Draft Form Term Sheet that, if accepted by lPC, would reduce the Respondent's proposed pricing the
proposal should specifically identify in the redline such changes and the associated price reduction. To the extent
practicable, Respondents should develop exhibits, schedules, attachments and other supplemental documents
required by the Draft Form Term Sheet in the redline. Respondents proposing to sell existing generation facilities
should propose in the redline changes to Exhibit E of this RFP for the proposed resource type reflecting the terms
and conditions on which their proposal is based.
The proposed changes must be specific and include a detailed explanation and supporting rationale for each.
General comments, drafting notes and footnotes such as "parties to discuss" will be disregarded and not
negotiated. Exceptions to the EXHIBIT E - Draft Form Term Sheet requested by a Respondent will be reviewed as
part of IPC's qualitative evaluation of the proposal.
6.11. EXCEPTIONS TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Respondents that propose a resource for IPC ownership must provide proposals and pricing that are consistent
and compliant with the applicable technical specifications provided as Exhibits to this RFP ("Technical
Specifications"). To the extent that the validity of a Respondent's proposal and/or the Respondent's ability to
execute an agreement is contingent upon material changes to the language in the Technical Specifications, the
Respondent must specifically identify the specifications it proposes to change in the form of a redline markup to
the Technical Specification and submit the redline with its proposal. To the extent that a Respondent wishes to
Exhibit No. I
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 19of39
Page 18 of 39
propose changes to the Technical Specification that, if accepted by lPC, would reduce the Respondent's proposed
pricing the Respondent should specifically identify in the redline such changes and the associated price reduction.
To the extent practicable, Respondents should develop exhibits, schedules, attachments and other supplemental
documents required by the Technical Specification in the redline.
The proposed changes must be specific and include a detailed explanation and supporting rationale for each.
General comments, drafting notes and footnotes such as "parties to discuss" will be disregarded and not
negotiated. Exceptions to the Technical Specifications requested by a Respondent will be reviewed as part of IPC's
qualitative evaluation of the proposal.
6,L2. EXCEPTIONS TO THE DRAFT FORM LETTER OF CREDIT
Respondents that propose a resource for IPC ownership must provide proposals and pricing that are consistent
and compliant with the EXHIBIT K - Draft Form Letter of Credit. To the extent that the validity of a Respondent's
proposal and/or the Respondent's ability to execute an agreement is contingent upon material changes to the
language in the Draft Form Letter of Credit, the Respondent should specifically identify the terms they propose to
change in the form of a redline markup to EXHIBIT K - Draft Form Letter of Credit and submit the redline with its
proposal. To the extent that a Respondent wishes to propose changes to the Draft Form Letter of Credit that,
if accepted by IPC would reduce the Respondent's proposed pricing the proposal should specifically identify in
the redline such changes and the associated price reduction.
The proposed changes must be specific and include a detailed explanation and supporting rationale for each.
General comments, drafting notes and footnotes such as "parties to discuss" will be disregarded and not
negotiated. Exceptions requested by a Respondent will be reviewed as part of IPC's qualitative evaluation of
the proposal.
6.13. CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSALS
While evaluating a proposal, IPC may request clarification or additional information from the Respondent about
any item in its proposal. Such requests will be sent via the Portal by IPC and the Respondent must provide a
response via the Portal back to IPC within five (5) business days, or IPC may deem the Respondent to be
non-responsive and either suspend or terminate further evaluation of its proposal. Respondents are encouraged
to provide an alternate point of contact to ensure a timely response to clarification requests.
6.14. ADDENDA TO RFP
Any additional responses required from Respondents as a result of an Addendum to this RFP shall become part of
each proposal. Respondents must acknowledge receipt of and list all Addenda where indicated in the PEF.
7. Proposal Evaluation, Negotiation and Approval
7.L. EVATUATION PROCESS
The proposal evaluation process will include both qualitative and quantitative components.
The evaluation process begins with a screen to identify and remove from further evaluation proposals that are
incomplete or do not comply with the basic requirements of the Solicitation (Threshold Screen). Examples of
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 20 of 39
Page 19 of 39
situations where a proposalfails the Threshold Screen include, but are not limited to, 1)the proposed product is
not compliant with the Product definitions, 2) a substantial number of data fields in the PEF are incomplete,
3) key lnformation necessary to complete a comprehensive evaluation have not been uploaded.
Proposals that pass the Threshold Screen will then enter a detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
ln evaluating proposals, lPC, in its sole discretion, will give weight and importance to the evaluation criteria
listed below:
Project Feasibility;
Project Capability;
Counterpafi Profile;
Com m unity Stewardshi p;
Price and Overall Cost to IPC; and
Any other factors deemed appropriate by lPC.
7.2. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS
IPC may, in its sole discretion, at any time during the Solicitation:
Appoint evaluation committees to review proposals, seek the assistance of outside technical experts
and consultants in proposal evaluation, and seek or obtain data from any source that has the
potential to improve the understanding and evaluation of the responses to this RFP.
Revise and modify, at any time before the Deadline for Proposal Submittal, the factors it will consider
in evaluating proposals and to otherwise revise or expand its evaluation methodology.
Hold interviews and meetings to conduct discussions and exchange correspondence with either all
Respondents or only those with proposals that IPC elects to select for detailed discussions
(lnitial Short Listed Proposals) in order to seek an improved understanding and evaluation of an
individual Respondent's proposal.
lssue a new RFP.
Cancel or withdraw the entire RFP or any part thereof.
7.3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF PROPOSAIS
IPC may or may not award an agreement after analysis and evaluation of the proposals. IPC reserves the right to
reject any and all proposals, to waive minor formalities and irregularities, and to evaluate the proposals to
determine which, in IPC's sole judgment, represents the best value for the Products requested.
7.4. AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
ln anticipation of an award, there will be a period of negotiations to finalize the agreement(s) between the
parties. An agreement, including all terms, conditions, exhibits, and attachments must be executed by both IPC
and the successful Respondent in order to create a binding enforceable agreement between IPC and the
successful Respondent.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page21 of39
a
a
a
a
a
a
t.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page 20 of 39
7.5. EXCLUSIVIW
lf and when a proposal is selected for the Final Short List, from that date through the date of execution by both
Parties of an agreement, the Respondent andlor its affiliates shall not execute an agreement with any other party
for the sale of the proposed Product(s) such that the Respondent would no longer be able to provide the Products
proposed in the proposal.
7.6. PUBLICIW
The Parties intend to issue joint public announcements, in the form of press releases, case studies, and/or other
materials, containing content mutually agreed to by the Parties, upon execution of the agreements. Neither party
shall use the name, logo, or any other indicia of the other party in any public statement, press release,
other public relations or marketing materials, the identity of the other party, or any underlying information with
respect to the agreement(s) at any time without the prior written consent of the other party, which it may
withhold in such other party's sole discretion. Prior to making any such permitted use, each party shall provide for
the other party's review and approval any publicity materials. Any and all goodwill from use of IPC's name,
logo, or indicia will inure to lPCs sole and exclusive benefit.
7.7. COMMISSION APPROVAL
As stated previously in Section 2.3, execution of an agreement will ultimately be subject to Commission approval.
7.8. ENTIRE RFP
This RFP and all Exhibits, Attachments, Datasheets, Forms, and Addenda within the Portal event are incorporated
herein by this reference and represent the final expression of this RFP. Only information supplied by IPC in writing
through the parties listed herein or by this reference made in the submittal of this RFP shall be used as the basis
for the preparation of Respondents proposals.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 22 of 39
Page 21 of 39
EXHIBIT A - Information for Qualitative Evaluation
A summary of the information that must be uploaded to the Portal by Respondents for purposes of the
qualitative evaluation is provided below. The required information differs among the product types.
This is provided for information only. Respondents are directed to the Portal to review all of the
information and the specific type and level of detail that must be provided for each product type.
That level of detail is not provided in this Exhibit. ln the case of conflict between this summary and the
detail identified in the Portal, the detail identified in the Portal shall govern.
PROJECT FEASIBITITY
Proposals must describe the resource technology including a description of key aspects,
features, benefits, drawbacks, and history of its development and current status of
deployment for utility scale operations.
Proposals must include a description of L) status of major equipment procurement for the
solar, wind and storage components, where applicable, 2) engineering, procurement,
and construction bids and awards, 3) project/asset useful life, and 4) defect and performance
warranty terms of solar and/or storage systems.
Proposals must state a point of delivery which meets the requirements for the proposed
Product as specified in the Technical Specification section of the RFP.
Proposals for transmission connected resources must include documentation showing that
the resource is on track to achieve interconnection by the date indicated in Respondent's
project schedule. Proposals must also include documentation that the Respondent has
estimated and included the costs for lnterconnection Custome/s lnterconnection Facilities
and Transmission Provider lnterconnection Facilities in its proposed pricing.
Proposals for distribution connected resources must include documentation showing that the
resource is on track to achieve interconnection by the date indicated in the Respondent's
project schedule. Proposals must also include documentation that the Respondent has
estimated and included the costs for lnterconnection Custome/s lnterconnection Facilities
and Transmission Provider lnterconnection Facilities in its proposed pricing.
Proposals involving wind resources must include nodal economic analyses or curtailment
analysis under base case (n-1) and outage scenarios (n-x) showing expected unit economic
metrics (including congestion impacts on: capacity factor, produced energy, and generation
revenue) for the project at the proposed delivery points.
Proposals must include proof of site control satisfactory to lPC. Proof of site control includes
copies of title, lease, option to lease documents proving control is/can be established per the
date specified in the Respondent's project schedule.
Proposals involving existing resources must describe any major current and/or historical
operational issues, root causes and mitigation and any capital improvements that are
necessary to ensure reliability.
Proposals must include a realistic and attainable project plan and schedule considering all
permits and approvals, supply chain, site acquisition, interconnection, and transmission.
The project plan must describe Respondent's approach for completing the project.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 23 of 39
1.
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
T4,
Proposals must include the Exhibit E - Draft Form Term Sheet relevant to the product being
proposed with changes requested by Respondent (if any) shown in redline consistent with
the Exceptions to Exhibit E - Draft Form Term Sheet requirements stated in the RFP.
Proposals must include the Exhibit K - Draft Form Letter of Credit relevant to the product
being proposed with changes requested by Respondent (if any) shown in redline consistent
with the Exceptions to Exhibit E - Draft Form Term Sheet requirements stated in the RFP.
Proposals must include the Technical Specifications relevant to the product being proposed
with changes requested by Respondent (if any) shown in redline strikeout consistent with the
Exceptions to Technical Specifications requirements stated in the RFP.
Proposals must include the Attachment A and/or Appendix A of the applicable Technical
Specifications relevant to the product being proposed with Preferred Vendors of the major
equipment suppliers of the Respondent's project marked or specified.
A proposal must state whether or not it is contingent on any other proposal submitted by the
Respondent. For example, a proposal for implementation of a solar plus storage resource at a
site and a separate proposal for implementation of a wind plus storage resource at the same
site are contingent on one another (implementation of one precludes implementation of
the other).
Proposals must include a financing plan for the proposed resource. Respondent will be
scored on the credibility of its plan to raise all tranches of capital needed to successfully close
on both construction and permanent financing, which may include the following:
debt, tax equity related to accelerated tax deprecation (5 year MACRS); tax equity for the ITC
and/or application for the Treasury's Grant-in-lieu of ITC Program (if applicable),
and Respondent's own equity.
Proposals for solar plus storage or wind plus storage resources must provide documentation
that the energy storage system is integrally connected to the functioning of the associated
solar or wind generation facility and that the energy storage system will be exclusively
charged with energy from the associated solar or wind generation facility for the first five (5)
or more years of operation. Documentation must also be provided that the current
"beginning of construction" IRS guidance will be met such that the resource will qualify for
the greatest potential investment tax credit under federal tax law. Documentation must also
be provided that if and to the extent that future federal tax law changes result in increased
tax advantages to the resource that a share of such advantages will be quantified and passed
through to lPC.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 24 of 39
15
16.
PROJECT CAPAB!LIW
17. Proposals for solar plus storage resources must include a forecast of the expected annual
energy output of the resource performed using PVSyst or equivalent, and a guaranteed
annual output as a percentage offorecast. Resources will be subject to annual review of
metered output to determine compliance with guarantee.
18. Proposals for wind plus storage resources must include a forecast of the expected annual
energy output of the resource performed. Proposals must include expected (p50, p90 and
p99) capacity factors, including hourly shapes (actual or based on weather data) including at
least one output file for the performed analysis.
Page 23 of 39
19.
20.
2t.
22.
Proposals involving storage must state a maximum storage duration.
Proposals involving storage must state the allowed storage cycles per day.
Proposals involving storage must state the round-trip efficiency.
Proposals involving storage must state the annual baseline degradation and variable
degradation per cycle.
Proposals involving storage must state the time required to charge the resource from
minimum to maximum state of charge.
Proposals involving storage must include a Capacity Guarantee. Resources will be subject to
annual test with test results adjusted to guarantee conditions to determine compliance with
guarantee.
Proposals involving storage must include both a guaranteed equivalent forced outage rate
(EFOR) and a guaranteed equivalent availability factor (EAF).
Proposals must state the ability of the resource to provide ancillary services
(regulation, spinning reserves, non-spinning reserves, load following, black start).
Proposals for existing resources must include documentation of all Notice of Violation (NOV)
issued by the ldaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and documentation of
corrective action, settlement and penalty.
COUNTERPARTY PROFILE
Respondents must provide information below and answer all questions in the Proposal Entry Form for
this RFP. Additionally, Respondents shall provide further supporting documentation as requested
by IPC
28.Proposals must provide safety information for the most recent three (3) years including,
but not limited to, an annual statement of worke/s compensation Experience Modification
Rating (EMR), the OSHA Recordable lnjury Rates (RlR), and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) SIC Code RIR > 1.0, the OSHA citation history, Lost Time Accidents (LTA), number of
OSHA-Recordable Cases, and employee hours worked.
Respondent must provide an electronic copy of its safety manual. Respondents with safety
manuals that have not been updated to meet current OSHA standards within the last twelve
(12) months may be disqualified. Respondent must also provide a statement of Respondent's
ability to provide an individual that has completed the OSHA thirty (30) hour outreach
training course; will be committed and available to support the Services to be performed
under the proposal; and will be responsive in a timely manner to IPC's request for
participation in safety events, analysis and/or sessions.
Proposals must include a list of any citations, notices of violation, legal proceedings,
fines, or project terminations that any Federal, State, local regulatory agency or department,
corporation, or individual has issued to or against Respondent, or any employee of
Respondent while that employee was working for Respondent (Citations). For each Citation,
state the nature of the Citation and the date of its resolution, together with the contact
person for Respondent who could address any questions about the matter. lf there are no
Citations, Respondent shall provide such a statement.
29.
30.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 25 of 39
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Page 24 of 39
32
31.
33
Respondent must complete and submit the Counterpafi Financial Questionnaire and upload
a current organizational chart displaying all organizational relationships including parent
company, holding company, subsidiaries, sister companies, associates, or other related
entities as applicable.
Proposals must include a description of Respondent's experience developing resources
similar to that proposed. Additional review of Respondent's direct development experience,
positive or negative third-party references, and industry reputation may result in the
Respondent receiving a higher or lower score than application of the above criteria would
otherwise indicate.
Proposals must include a general description of the cyber security requirements, practices,
and policies of the Respondent. Respondent must state that any and all equipment utilized in
the proposed resource will not be procured through an Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) designed entity or otherwise be comprised of equipment prohibited for use by
electric utilities in the United States.
COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP
Proposals must state the number of full-time, permanent jobs that will be created in IPC's
service territory, details regarding the types of jobs (i.e., rolesfunctions/titles) and the
number of positions for each respectively by year. A full-time, permanent job means
2,080 straight-time paid hours in a fiscal year with benefits.
Proposals must provide details and dollar value of permanent capital investment that
company intends on making in IPC's service territory (i.e., office lease, warehouse lease,
land purchase, etc.) and any timeline associated with these investments.
Each proposal must state whether an owner, equity holder, partner, member, or principal of
Respondent is a manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or provider (Provider) of
technology-related systems, equipment, components, parts, technologies and/or services.
lf so, the proposal must state the name, address and state of organization of such Provider,
describe the nature of the Provide/s business, and a description of where the Resource
supplies and materials will be sourced from, as well as the percentage, if any,
of such sourcing:
Outside the USA (provide name and location)
ln the USA, but outside the State of ldaho and Oregon (provide name and location)
ln the state of ldaho and Oregon, but outside IPC's service territory
Within IPC's service territory (provide name and location)
By subcontractors of Respondent, if available
A commitment to offer subcontracting opportunities to industry-leading small,
local a nd/or diverse/minority-owned busi nesses.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 26 of 39
34
35
35
a
a
a
Page 25 of 39
37 Respondent must provide information concerning any environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) initiatives and any supplier programs, including but not limited to: 1) Risk Rating score it
has received from Sustainalytics, an established ESG rating agency, or scores from other ESG
rating agencies may be substituted in place of Sustainalytics ratings if they are substantially
similar. in rating methodology and quality; 2) and any other supplier programs
(Small Business And Small Disadvantaged Buslness Programs, mentoring programs,
and academic opportunities).
ErdtlHtNo.'l
Casei,lo. lPC-F.n-l!
E Hadcfi, PeWen olSS
Page 25 of 39
EXHIBIT B - Information for Quantitative Evaluation
A summary of the information that must be uploaded by the Respondent to the Portal for purposes of the
quantitative evaluation is provided below. This is provided for information only. Respondents are directed
to the tabs in the Portal to review all of the information and the specific type and level of detail that must
be provided. That level of detail is not provided in this Exhibit. In the case of conflict between this
summary and the detail identified in the Portal, the detail identified in the Portal shall govern.
Storase Technologles
r Battery age (if existing) (cycles)
r Technology
e ln Service Date
o BatteU life (years)
o Battery life (cycles)
o Number of units
o Age of plant (if existing)
o Technical Life
o Storage Capacity (MWh)
o Battery capacity at peak hour (MW)
o Nameplate Capacity (MW)
o Auxiliary Load (MW)
o Duration (hours)
o Average daily capacity
o Charge efficiency (%)
o Discharge efficiency (%)
o Annual capacity degradation (% of MW
per year)
o Capacity degradation per cycle (% of
MW per cycle)
o Annual Energy degradation (% of MWh
per year)
Wind Technologies
o ln Service Date
o Number of units
o Age of plant (if existing)
o Technical Life
o 8760 shape of generation output
o Storage Capacity (MWh)
o BatteU capacity at peak hour (MW)
. Energy degradation per cycle (% of
MWh per cycle)
o Minimum state of charge (%)
o Maximum state of charge (%)
o Round trip charging losses (%)
o Maximum number of cycles allowed per
day (cycles)
o Maximum number of cycles allowed per
month (cycles)
o Maximum number of cycles allowed per
week (cycles)
o Maximum number of cycles allowed per
year (cycles)
o Maximum time battery can output at
maximum generating capacity (hours)
o Maximum generation capacity at IPC
peak hours (%)
o Maintenance outages per year (number)
o Forced outage rate (%)
r Mean planned repair time (hours)
o Mean forced repair time (hours)
o Overnight installed cost (S/kW, S/kWh,
s)
Nameplate Capacity (MW)
Auxiliary Load (MW)
Average daily capacity
Minimum guaranteed energy level
Annual capacity degradation (% of MW
per year)
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 28 of 39
a
a
a
a
Page27 of 39
a
. Maximum time battery can output at
maximum generating capacity (hours)
o Maximum generation capacity at IPC
peak hours (%)
o Maintenance outages per year (number)
o Forced outage rate (%)
Solar Technologies
r ln Service Date
r Number of units
o Age of plant (if existing)
o Technical Life
o 8760 shape ofgeneration output
. Storage Capacity (MWh)
o Battery capacity at peak hour (MW)
o Nameplate Capacity (MW)
o Auxiliary Load (MW)
o Average daily capacity
o Minimum guaranteed energy level
o Annual capacity degradation (% of MW
per year)
r Maximum time battery can output at
maximum generating capacity (hours)
r Maximum generation capacity at IPC
peak hours (%)
o Maintenance outages per year (number)
o Forced outage rate (%)
o Mean planned repair time (hours)
o Mean forced repair time (hours)
Overnight installed cost (S/kW, S/kWh,
$)
o Mean planned repair time (hours)
o Mean forced repair time (hours)
o Overnight installed cost (S/kW, S/kWh,
s)
Exhibit No. 'l
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 29 of 39
Page 28 of 39
EXHIBIT C - lnformation on Preferred Locations
The following diagram summarizes the preferred locations and points of delivery for Products proposed in response to this RFP. Thls ls provlded
for lnfonnation only. Respondents are directed to the Portalforthe mo6t Ecent vErsion of this lnformation, ln the case of conflict betrreen this
information and the information provided ln the Portal thc furm prwifu ln the Portalshallgwern.
I Preferred
[,- -F,ffi Less Preferred
I LeastPreferred
. Subrtedo lbt tn lactrdcd for ntcre; rhey rn rct lnt nd.d to .Gp..xnt . @ripl.ts lBt 't Pnfrnd bcrdoq brrd o prodnrey to b.d md @-d htsdGrbn/rm.mk bn ltrc
Page 29 of 39
Exhibit No. 1
Cas€ No. IPC-E-22-'13
E. Had(ett, IPC
PagE 30 of 39
East Oregon/West W
MI
t ttLmt
O.n*|tr
lanna(t
lrogntlln
ttubbrd
H.rF \tlLry!cb.hr.h
Lrrnat
Hmlntw.f
ldrClildd.
Mldpclit
Ad.Lld.lluitIthhll.
Magrc Valley
Eors€ Area
Fast ldahoB
Silir
EXHIBIT D - lnformation on Most Valuable Hours
The following table illustrates the hourc during whhh capacity and energy are most valuable to IPC for a typical day in each month for the year
2023. Proposals that can help meet 2023 peak capacity needs during critical hours while reducing surpluses off-peak will benefit in lPCs analysis.
Ihls b provldcd for lnfonnatbn only. Rcspondcm ryc dlrrstcd to thc Portal fur thr most rcccnt rrrlon of thb lnbnnilbn. ln thc casc of onfllct
bctncen tfib lnformatbn and thc lnform.tlon fovlded ln thc Portal, thc form Wwlded ln thc Fottrl shellgovrrn.
Sumrcr2O23
ldentified Capaclty (Deficitl in MW
(approximate)
(80)
Most Valuable Hours
= Critical Hours: These are the critical need hours for ldaho Power's capacity deficit
= Valuable Hours: These are in addition to the critical hours; lPCs analysis will favor resources that can meet both the crit'rcal
hours and the valuable hours
Page 30 of 39
Exhibit No. 'l
Case No. IPC€-22-13
E. Hd(ett, IPC
PagB 31 of 30
IffiH*
0 1 2 3 1 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 xl 13 1{15 16 t7 u t9 m 2l x2 73
Jililrlry
F.bru.ru
fr.rdr
ADrll
Mn
Juna
Juh
AurlEt
ScetGmbcr
Otuber
ffov.mbcr
lreccmbcr
EXHIBIT E' Draft Form Term Sheet
Rsrpondefr$ arr {h.ectad b $c Fortil for the Dnft Fsrilr TGnn ShGGil thet,mtrt be ndtnod md uplodcd to
thc Portel.
ErmbitNo.l
Caee No. IPGE-22-13
E. Hadcfr, IFC
PagE 8A of30
Page 31 of39
EXHIBIT F - BESS Technical Specifications
RupondcnB are ffied to the Portrl for the BESS TGdtnbl Spcclficaflons thet must br mct fur e BE50 proFcr
fu for IFC omershlp.
Ertrl!fi No. I
Case tlo. Pe€-22-t3
E. l{adcil, IPC
Pagts 33 ol30
Pagc 32 of39
EXHIBIT G - Solar Technical Specifications
ncenofffrncilE dr.ctulto$! hrtrtfur$c Sobr+StongcTcdtdcd Spcdnmm&.tnil6tbe rctfora
Solar + Stor4a p,ryFct dM for IFC wnerhlp.
B0IHINo.1
Gass l!lo. lP&E U-13
E Flaffi,lPC
Pegp 34 ofSo
Page 33 of 39
EXHIBIT H - Wind Technical Specifications
Responden8 are dlrected to the Portalfurthe Wnd Tedrnkal Specfficatlons that mr,rst be met for a Wnd +
Storage profect offercd for IPC ownershlp.
EO*HI No. I
CaseNo. IPCE-22-13
E. Hadctt IPC
Page 35 of39
Page 34 of 39
EXHIBIT I - Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement
Respon&nr arc dhecEd to $e Portel fur thc dr.ft funn Mutul ilon0lsdoeure ngrecment Srat mwt be
aa@ted fiorto dlscu$bn of lPgspecmc cybersccurlty rcqdrumcnts.
Efilbr'l No. I
CsssNo.IPG€-?2-10
E. Hack€fi, lPC
Pegp 300f39
Page 35 of39
EXHIBIT J - Counterparty Financial Questionnaire
Respondene are dlrected to the Portalfurthe Counbrparty Flnrrrlal Questlonnelre documcntforwhldt a
response must be lnduded ln any propoeal.
E,dllbftNo,1
Cas€ No. IFGE 22-13
E. Had<ert, IFC
FegE 87 0f3g
Page 35 of39
EXHIBIT K - Draft Form Letter of Credit
napondents rtt drccted to th€ Portal for thc Drrft Fomn lrtter'sf Credtt $.t murt br rcdlncd and ar6rnlthd ar
part ofa propoed
Eddbft No. 1
CaseNo. IFGE 22-13
E. tlede[,IPG
Pago 38 of39
Page 37 of39
End of Document
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Hackett, IPC
Page 39 of 39
Page 38 of 39
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES GOMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-22-13
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
HACKETT, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.2
2021 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAIS. KEY PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
Enersy Storare
Proiect ("S")
Solar PV plus Storase
Proiect ("PVS"l
Wind olus Storage
Proiect (nVS")
EnerPv StoraEe Comoonent
of a Solar PV plus Storase
Proiect ("S-PVS")
EnerEv Storage Comoonent
of a Wind olus Storase
EI9IgE-(:LW)
Asset Purchase Partial Asset Purchase
tPc IPC (Storage component only)
Existing, or proposed new with preference for projects in late-stage development with pending LGIA or SGIA
Existing resources under an Asset Purchase ASreement ("APA'), proposed new resources under a Build Transfer
Aereement ("BTA")
20 30 40 20 20
JuneL,2023
Min: 1MW, Max:80 MW
Transmission (10 MW - 80 MW) or Distribution (1 MW - 10 MW) system of IPC
Within the boundary of the IPC Balancing Authority Area (BA), or outside with all necessary transmission rights to the BA
Minimum 4 hours
Minimum l cycle per day
S 000s on acquisition date, S 000s per month under a construction completion management agreement ("CCMA"),
$000s per year under an operation and maintenance services agreement ("OMA"), S/MWh charging energy price
None
Storage must be chargeable from the grid by IPC after expiration of the tax benefit recapture period.
P rod uct
1 2 4 5
Price Escalation
Other
Product Type
Ownership
Resource Status
Agreenrent
Design tife (Years)
First Delivery
Ca pa ci ty
lnterconnection
Delivery Point
Storage Duration
Storage Cycles
Pricing
Exhibit No. 2
Caso No. IPC-E-22-13
E. Had(6tt, IPC
Page 1 of I
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-22-13
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
HACKETT, DI
TESTIMONY
CONFIDENTIAL
EXHIBIT NO. 3