Common use of ADEQUACY OF OUTREACH Clause in Contracts

ADEQUACY OF OUTREACH. Here are some considerations used to evaluate whether PG&E performed successfully in reaching out to the community of renewable power developers: • How many individuals were contacted? To what extent were these contacts in companies that develop renewable power? • Was a diverse set of renewable technologies covered in the contacts, or was the outreach excessively focused on one or two technologies? • How widely was information about the solicitation disseminated? Was information about the solicitation readily available to the public? • To what extent did Participants appear well-informed about the details of the solicitation? By May 2011, PG&E had compiled a general contact list for use in publicizing its RFOs, totaling more than 1,600 individuals; this is a significant increase from the version of the list used in the 2009 RPS solicitation, with closer to 1,100 contacts. PG&E appears to have been actively compiling contacts for outreach, including a contact list for the biogas industry. When analyzed to attempt to assess which industries the contacts represented, the largest segment was made up of individuals active in the solar power sector, followed by wind power and biomass-based generation. Figure 1 displays the estimated shares by industry sector of these contacts. Note that this contact list is employed not just for renewable solicitations but for all-source RFOs as well. Inspection of the contact list reveals that many of the major developers of renewable energy in North America are included, particularly among solar, wind, and geothermal developers. About 60% of the individual contracts represented organizations that could develop renewable generation or sell from existing facilities. Other contacts were with entities that provide services to renewable energy developers, such as attorneys, financing providers, consultants, equipment vendors, and wholesale marketers; it is unclear whether these providers sought to be on PG&E’s RFO contact list in order to keep abreast of the solicitation or to develop business with renewable energy developers. PG&E did not issue a press release to announce the issuance of the 2011 RPS RFO. However, news of the solicitation was picked up and reported in the electric power trade press, including publications such as Global Power Report, Megawatt Daily, Power, Finance, and Risk, and ReCharge. In addition, the detailed solicitation protocol and its attachments, the schedule, and other informational items were posted on PG&E’s public website.

ADEQUACY OF OUTREACH. Here are some considerations used to evaluate whether PG&E performed successfully in reaching out to the community of renewable power developers: • How many individuals were contacted? • To what extent were these contacts in companies that develop and/or own renewable powerpower projects or market unbundled RECs? • Was a diverse set of renewable technologies covered in the contacts, or was the outreach excessively focused on one or two technologies? • How widely was information about the solicitation disseminated? • Was information about the solicitation readily available to the public? • To what extent did Participants appear well-informed about the details of the solicitation? By May 2011December 2012, PG&E had compiled a general contact list for use in publicizing its RFOs, totaling more than 1,600 1,900 individuals; this is a significant an increase from the version of the list used in the 2009 2011 RPS solicitation, with closer to 1,100 1,600 contacts. PG&E appears to have been actively compiling contacts for outreach, including a contact list sublists for the biogas industry, operators of combined heat and power facilities, and developers of smaller photovoltaic projects appropriate for the utility’s solar photovoltaic and RAM RFOs. When analyzed to attempt to assess which industries the contacts represented, the largest segment was made up of individuals active in the solar power sector, followed by wind power. The third largest segment of RFO contacts was composed of vendors, including equipment vendors and engineering and construction firms. The fourth largest segment was made up of individuals that Xxxxxx classified as “Other”, including regulators, municipal government staff, non-profit associations, transmission developers, and individuals and firms with no obvious direct connection to any specific sector of the renewable power and biomass-based generationgeneration industry, such as potato chip manufacturers. Figure 1 displays the estimated shares by industry sector of these contacts. Note that this contact list is employed not just for renewable solicitations but for all-source RFOs as well. Inspection of the contact list reveals that many of the major developers of renewable energy in North America are included, particularly among solar, wind, and geothermal developers. About 60% of the individual contracts contacts represented organizations that could develop renewable generation or sell from existing facilities, or market RECs. Other contacts were with entities that provide services to renewable energy developers, such as attorneys, financing providers, consultants, and equipment vendors, and wholesale marketers; it is unclear whether these providers sought to be inclusion on PG&E’s RFO contact list in order to keep abreast of the solicitation or to develop business with renewable energy developers. Figure 1. Composition of RFO contact list Breakdown of RFO contact list by sector 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2%1%1% Solar Wind Vendor Other Biomass Fossil Consultant Biogas Marketing Utility Real estate Financier Attorney Geothermal Hydro DSM Wave/Tidal 35% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 11% 12% PG&E did not issue a press release to announce the issuance of the 2011 2012 RPS RFO. However, news News of the solicitation was picked up and reported in the electric power trade press, including publications such as Global Power Report, Megawatt Daily, Power, Finance, and Risk, and ReCharge; journalistic reportage of the release of the RFO was less widespread than in prior years. In additionAlso, the detailed solicitation protocol and its attachments, the schedule, and other informational items were posted on PG&E’s public website. Xxxxxx notes that news of PG&E’s RPS RFO was publicized not only in the trade press but also on the public websites of law firms whose practices include a focus on renewable energy contract law, such as Xxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx. The news of the RFO was also disseminated by the Geothermal Resources Council and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Another indicator of the adequacy of outreach for the RFO was the response of attendees for the bidders’ conference. Figure 2 displays a count of organizations, by sector, with individuals who registered for the conference (some companies had several registrants). A turnout of 170 individual registrants and 167 actual attendees represents a strong response and expression of industry interest, though it is about one-third the number of registrations for the 2011 RPS RFO bidders’ conference. The largest share of attendees represented the solar and wind sectors. Xxxxxx estimates that out of the firms represented at the 2012 bidders’ conference, about three-quarters were companies directly involved with developing or owning and operating renewable energy generation. About 37% of these were firms that later submitted Offers. It appears to Xxxxxx that most of the companies that chose to participate in the 2012 RPS RFO took the solicitation seriously and endeavored to understand how the RFO would be conducted by attending the conference.

ADEQUACY OF OUTREACH. Here are some considerations used to evaluate whether PG&E performed successfully in reaching out to the community of renewable power developers: • How many individuals were contacted? • To what extent were these contacts in companies that develop and/or own renewable powerpower projects or market unbundled RECs? • Was a diverse set of renewable technologies covered in the contacts, or was the outreach excessively focused on one or two technologies? • How widely was information about the solicitation disseminated? • Was information about the solicitation readily available to the public? • To what extent did Participants appear well-informed about the details of the solicitation? By May 2011December 2012, PG&E had compiled a general contact list for use in publicizing its RFOs, totaling more than 1,600 1,900 individuals; this is a significant an increase from the version of the list used in the 2009 2011 RPS solicitation, with closer to 1,100 1,600 contacts. PG&E appears to have been actively compiling contacts for outreach, including a contact list sublists for the biogas industry, operators of combined heat and power facilities, and developers of smaller photovoltaic projects appropriate for the utility’s solar photovoltaic and RAM RFOs. When analyzed to attempt to assess which industries the contacts represented, the largest segment was made up of individuals active in the solar power sector, followed by wind power. The third largest segment of RFO contacts was composed of vendors, including equipment vendors and engineering and construction firms. The fourth largest segment was made up of individuals that Xxxxxx classified as “Other”, including regulators, municipal government staff, non-profit associations, transmission developers, and individuals and firms with no obvious direct connection to any specific sector of the renewable power and biomass-based generationgeneration industry, such as potato chip manufacturers. Figure 1 displays the estimated shares by industry sector of these contacts. Note that this contact list is employed not just for renewable solicitations but for all-source RFOs as well. Inspection of the contact list reveals that many of the major developers of renewable energy in North America are included, particularly among solar, wind, and geothermal developers. About 60% of the individual contracts contacts represented organizations that could develop renewable generation or sell from existing facilities, or market RECs. Other contacts were with entities that provide services to renewable energy developers, such as attorneys, financing providers, consultants, and equipment vendors, and wholesale marketers; it is unclear whether these providers sought to be inclusion on PG&E’s RFO contact list in order to keep abreast of the solicitation or to develop business with renewable energy developers. PG&E did not issue a press release to announce the issuance of the 2011 RPS RFO. However, news of the solicitation was picked up and reported in the electric power trade press, including publications such as Global Power Report, Megawatt Daily, Power, Finance, and Risk, and ReCharge. In addition, the detailed solicitation protocol and its attachments, the schedule, and other informational items were posted on PG&E’s public website.

ADEQUACY OF OUTREACH. Here are some considerations used to evaluate whether PG&E performed successfully in reaching out to the community of renewable power developers: •  How many individuals were contacted? To what extent were these contacts in companies that develop renewable power? •  Was a diverse set of renewable technologies covered in the contacts, or was the outreach excessively focused on one or two technologies? •  How widely was information about the solicitation disseminated? Was information about the solicitation readily available to the public? •  To what extent did Participants appear well-informed about the details of the solicitation? By May 2011, PG&E had compiled a general contact list for use in publicizing its RFOs, totaling more than 1,600 individuals; this is a significant increase from the version of the list used in the 2009 RPS solicitation, with closer to 1,100 contacts. PG&E appears to have been actively compiling contacts for outreach, including a contact list for the biogas industry. When analyzed to attempt to assess which industries the contacts represented, the largest segment was made up of individuals active in the solar power sector, followed by wind power and biomass-based generation. Figure 1 displays the estimated shares by industry sector of these contacts. Note that this contact list is employed not just for renewable solicitations but for all-source RFOs as well. Inspection of the contact list reveals that many of the major developers of renewable energy in North America are included, particularly among solar, wind, and geothermal developers. About 60% of the individual contracts represented organizations that could develop renewable generation or sell from existing facilities. Other contacts were with entities that provide services to renewable energy developers, such as attorneys, financing providers, consultants, equipment vendors, and wholesale marketers; it is unclear whether these providers sought to be on PG&E’s RFO contact list in order to keep abreast of the solicitation or to develop business with renewable energy developers. PG&E did not issue a press release to announce the issuance of the 2011 RPS RFO. However, news of the solicitation was picked up and reported in the electric power trade press, including publications such as Global Power Report, Megawatt Daily, Power, Finance, and Risk, and ReCharge. In addition, the detailed solicitation protocol and its attachments, the schedule, and other informational items were posted on PG&E’s public website.