Common use of Developer’s Future Cost Responsibility Clause in Contracts

Developer’s Future Cost Responsibility. Once a Developer has accepted a Project Cost Allocation or Revised Project Cost Allocation, as the case may be, in the Final Decision Round and paid cash and posted Security or posted Security for that amount, then the accepted figure caps the Developer’s maximum potential responsibility for the cost of System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades required for its Project, except as discussed below. 25.8.6.1 If the portion of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrades required to make the Developer’s generator or Class Year Transmission Project deliverable is less than 90% of the total size of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade identified for the Developer’s Project, and the Developer elects to commit to pay for its proportionate share of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade by posting Security instead of paying cash, then the Developer’s allocated cost of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade will be increased during the period of construction deferral by application of a construction inflation adjustment, as discussed in Section 25.7.12.2 of these rules. When deferred construction of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade commences, the Developer will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount only when the excess results from changes to the operating characteristics of the Developer’s Project. If the portion of the System Deliverability Upgrades for a Highway System Deliverability Upgrade required to make one or more generators or Class Year Transmission Projects in a Class Year deliverable is ninety percent (90%) or more of the total size (measured in MW) of the System Deliverability Upgrades, construction is not deferred, and those Developers will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount in accordance with the rules in Sections 25.8.6.2-25.8.6.4 of this Attachment S. 25.8.6.2 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is less than the agreed-to and secured amount, the Developer is responsible only for the actual cost figure. 25.8.6.3 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades would be greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because other Projects have been expanded, accelerated, otherwise modified or terminated, including Transmission Projects evaluated pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT and their required upgrades, as identified pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT, then the Developer is responsible only for the agreed-to and secured amount for its Project. The additional cost is covered by the Developers of the modified Projects, in accordance with these cost allocation rules, or by the drawing on the cash that has been paid and the Security that has been posted for terminated Projects, depending on the factors that caused the additional cost. Forfeitable cash and Security will be drawn on only as needed for this purpose, and only to the extent that the terminated Project associated with that Security has caused additional cost. 25.8.6.4 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because of circumstances that are not within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example: (i) changes to the design or operating characteristics of the Project that impact the scope or cost of related System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades; (ii) any costs that were not within the scope of the Class Year Study or Additional SDU Study, as applicable, that subsequently become known as part of the final construction design, including costs related to detailed design studies such as electro-magnetic transient analyses and subsynchronous resonance analyses; or (iii) cost escalation of materials or labor, or changes in the commercial availability of physical components required for construction), the cost cap shall be adjusted by any such amount and the Developer or the Load Serving Entity will pay the additional costs to the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) as such costs are incurred by each of them. However, to the extent that some or all of the excess cost is due to factors within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example, additional construction man-hours due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) management, or correcting equipment scope deficiencies due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) oversights), then that portion of the excess cost will be borne by the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s). Disputes between the Developer and the Connecting Transmission Owner concerning costs in excess of the agreed-to and secured amount will be resolved by the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of their interconnection agreement. Disputes between the Developer and an Affected Transmission Owner will be resolved in accordance with Section 30.13.5 of the LFIP, or Section 32.4.2 of Attachment Z, as applicable.

Developer’s Future Cost Responsibility. Once a Developer has accepted a Project Cost Allocation or Revised Project Cost Allocation, as the case may be, in the Final Decision Round and paid cash and posted Security or posted Security for that amount, then the accepted figure caps the Developer’s maximum potential responsibility for the cost of System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades required for its Projectproject, except as discussed below. 25.8.6.1 If the portion of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrades required to make the Developer’s generator or Class Year Transmission Project merchant transmission facility deliverable is less than 90% of the total size of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade identified for the Developer’s Projectproject, and the Developer elects to commit to pay for its proportionate share of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade by posting Security instead of paying cash, then the Developer’s allocated cost of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade will be increased during the period of construction deferral by application of a construction inflation adjustment, as discussed in Section 25.7.12.2 of these rules. When deferred construction of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade commences, the Developer will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount only when the excess results from changes to the operating characteristics of the Developer’s Projectproject. If the portion of the System Deliverability Upgrades for a Highway System Deliverability Upgrade required to make one or more generators or Class Year Transmission Projects merchant transmission facilities in a Class Year deliverable is ninety percent (90%) or more of the total size (measured in MW) of the System Deliverability Upgrades, construction is not deferred, and those Developers will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount in accordance with the rules in Sections 25.8.6.2-25.8.6.4 of this Attachment S. 25.8.6.2 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is less than the agreed-to and secured amount, the Developer is responsible only for the actual cost figure. 25.8.6.3 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades would be greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because other Projects projects have been expanded, accelerated, otherwise modified or terminated, including Transmission Projects evaluated pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT and their required upgrades, as identified pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT, then the Developer is responsible only for the agreed-to and secured amount for its Projectproject. The additional cost is covered by the Developers of the modified Projectsprojects, in accordance with these cost allocation rules, or by the drawing on the cash that has been paid and the Security that has been posted for terminated Projectsprojects, depending on the factors that caused the additional cost. Forfeitable cash and Security will be drawn on only as needed for this purpose, and only to the extent that the terminated Project project associated with that Security has caused additional cost. 25.8.6.4 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because of circumstances that are not within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example: (i) changes to the design or operating characteristics of the Class Year Project that impact the scope or cost of related System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades; (ii) any costs that were not within the scope of the Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study or Additional SDU Study, as applicable, that subsequently become known as part of the final construction design, including costs related to detailed design studies such as electro-magnetic transient analyses and subsynchronous resonance analyses; or (iii) cost escalation of materials or labor, or changes in the commercial availability of physical components required for construction), the cost cap shall be adjusted by any such amount and the Developer or the Load Serving Entity will pay the additional costs to the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) as such costs are incurred by each of them. However, to the extent that some or all of the excess cost is due to factors within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example, additional construction man-hours due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) management, or correcting equipment scope deficiencies due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) oversights), then that portion of the excess cost will be borne by the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s). Disputes between the Developer and the Connecting Transmission Owner concerning costs in excess of the agreed-to and secured amount will be resolved by the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of their interconnection agreement. Disputes between the Developer and an Affected Transmission Owner will be resolved in accordance with Section 30.13.5 of the LFIP, or Section 32.4.2 of Attachment Z, as applicable.

Developer’s Future Cost Responsibility. Once a Developer has accepted a Project Cost Allocation or Revised Project Cost Allocation, as the case may be, in the Final Decision Round and paid cash and posted Security or posted Security for that amount, then the accepted figure caps the Developer’s maximum potential responsibility for the cost of System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades required for its Projectproject, except as discussed below. 25.8.6.1 If the portion of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrades required to make the Developer’s generator or Class Year Transmission Project merchant transmission facility deliverable is less than 90% of the total size of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade identified for the Developer’s Projectproject, and the Developer elects to commit to pay for its proportionate share of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade by posting Security instead of paying cash, then the Developer’s allocated cost of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade will be increased during the period of construction deferral by application of a construction inflation adjustment, as discussed in Section 25.7.12.2 of these rules. When deferred construction of the Highway System Deliverability Upgrade commences, the Developer will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount only when the excess results from changes to the operating characteristics of the Developer’s Projectproject. If the portion of the System Deliverability Upgrades for a Highway System Deliverability Upgrade required to make one or more generators or Class Year Transmission Projects merchant transmission facilities in a Class Year deliverable is ninety percent (90%) or more of the total size (measured in MW) of the System Deliverability Upgrades, construction is not deferred, and those Developers will be responsible for actual costs in excess of the secured amount in accordance with the rules in Sections 25.8.6.2-25.8.6.4 of this Attachment S. 25.8.6.2 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is less than the agreed-to and secured amount, the Developer is responsible only for the actual cost figure. 25.8.6.3 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades would be greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because other Projects projects have been expanded, accelerated, otherwise modified or terminated, including Transmission Projects evaluated pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT and their required upgrades, as identified pursuant to Attachment P to the OATT, then the Developer is responsible only for the agreed-to and secured amount for its Projectproject. The additional cost is covered by the Developers of the modified Projectsprojects, in accordance with these cost allocation rules, or by the drawing on the cash that has been paid and the Security that has been posted for terminated Projectsprojects, depending on the factors that caused the additional cost. Forfeitable cash and Security will be drawn on only as needed for this purpose, and only to the extent that the terminated Project project associated with that Security has caused additional cost. 25.8.6.4 If the actual cost of the Developer’s share of required System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is greater than the agreed-to and secured amount because of circumstances that are not within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example: (i) changes to the design or operating characteristics of the Class Year Project that impact the scope or cost of related System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades; (ii) any costs that were not within the scope of the Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study or Additional SDU Study, as applicable, that subsequently become known as part of the final construction design, including costs related to detailed design studies such as electro-magnetic transient analyses and subsynchronous resonance analyses; or (iii) cost escalation of materials or labor, or changes in the commercial availability of physical components required for construction), the cost cap shall be adjusted by any such amount and the Developer or the Load Serving Entity will pay the additional costs to the Connecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner(s) as such costs are incurred by each of them. However, to the extent that some or all of the excess cost is due to factors within the control of the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) (such as, for example, additional construction man-hours due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) management, or correcting equipment scope deficiencies due to Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s) oversights), then that portion of the excess cost will be borne by the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Affected Transmission Owner(s). Disputes between the Developer and the Connecting Transmission Owner concerning costs in excess of the agreed-to and secured amount will be resolved by the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of their interconnection agreement. Disputes between the Developer and an Affected Transmission Owner will be resolved in accordance with Section 30.13.5 of the LFIP, or Section 32.4.2 of Attachment Z, as applicable.