General Deal Structure. Describe general characteristics of contract, for example:
General Deal Structure. The Project is a 163.2 MW wind facility. The Project will interconnect to the CAISO controlled transmission system. PG&E will be the scheduling coordinator. There is no firming and shaping associated with this PPA. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: North Sky Tehachapi, CA Expected to produce up to 597 GWh average per year over contract term
General Deal Structure. The Project is a 66 MW contract executed as a result of PG&E’s 2007 RPS Solicitation. As discussed above, Alpine Suntower is a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG. The PPA involves the development of a new solar PV facility located near Lancaster, California, within the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) control area. PG&E or its agent will serve as the scheduling coordinator (“SC”) throughout the delivery term of the PPA. There is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. A diagram of the delivery structure is included below: Diagram of Delivery Structure for Alpine Suntower RPS Transaction RPS Seller: Alpine Suntower Lancaster, CA Expected to produce 145 GWh average per year over contract term PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy E. RPS Statutory Goals Senate Bill (“SB”) 1078 established the California RPS Program, requiring an electrical corporation to increase its use of eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent of total retail sales no later than December 31, 2017. The legislature subsequently accelerated the RPS goal to reach 20 percent by the end of 2010. In addition, California is actively considering increasing its renewable goals beyond the current 20 percent renewable energy target. Governor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx’x Executive Order issued in November 2008 describes a new target for California of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, and his executive order issued in September 2009 directs the California Air Resources Board to adopt a regulation consistent with this 33 percent target by July 31, 2010. Finally, the California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2008, identifies an increase in the renewables target to 33 percent by 2020 as a key measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting California’s climate change goals. The Project is scheduled to become operational in March 2012. The PPA will contribute to maintaining PG&E’s 20 percent RPS goal, with flexible compliance, and will also contribute to California’s potentially higher renewable energy goals (i.e., 33%) in the years beyond 2010.
General Deal Structure. The PPA is for 60 MW with an option for PG&E to increase the capacity to 100 MW (for additional details, see Confidential Appendix D). The PPA arose from bilateral negotiations between enXco and PG&E. The Project will interconnect to the CAISO. PG&E will be the scheduling coordinator. There is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: Shiloh III Wind Birds Landing, CA Expected to produce 205 GWh per year over the contract term for a 60 MW project and 345 GWh per year over the contract term for a 100 MW project
General Deal Structure. The PPA was executed as a result of bilateral negotiations. PG&E will be receiving the full output from this Project. As discussed above, the Project’s first point of interconnection will be with the CAISO, or the energy will be dynamically transferred to the CAISO. SGS will be the scheduling coordinator and deliver RPS-eligible energy to PG&E. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: SGS SGS Expected to produce 305 GWh average per year over the contract term
General Deal Structure. The Project consists of 22 wind turbines, 3 MW each for a total combined capacity of 66 MW and a total annual production of approximately 175,000 MWhs. The original agreement was executed on September 15, 2009, as a result of bilateral negotiations and amended on April 18, 2011. Under the PSA, PG&E is purchasing all RECs associated with the Project’s generation. TransAlta is operating its newly completed Summerview 2 wind facility in Alberta, Canada (the “Facility”). TransAlta is delivering energy generated from the Facility into the Alberta Power Pool using a California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”)- approved meter. TransAlta’s generation is being recorded in Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (“WREGIS”) with its CEC-issued RPS identifier and one REC will be created in TransAlta’s account for each MWh of metered generation. Delivery occurs when TransAlta transfers RECs from its account to PG&E’s WREGIS account. As discussed below in Section II.E., current CEC delivery requirements do not appear to apply to REC-only transactions, and SBX1 2 has eliminated delivery requirements for RECs. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in the transition period until implementation of SBX1 2, PG&E will associate these RECs with energy that it imports into California at the rate of one REC per MWh. The CEC verification process will ensure that the number of RECs generated and sold to PG&E corresponds to meter data at the Facility generating facility and that the same RECs are not sold to any other entity. XxxxxXxxx informed PG&E that it has already committed to sell the brown energy associated with the RECs that PG&E is purchasing under the PSA. Figure 1: PSA Delivery Structure RPS Seller: TransAlta Corporation Summerview2, Alberta, Canada Expected to produce 175,000 RECs average per year over the contract term PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible RECs from Summerview2 wind facility
General Deal Structure. The Project is a 60 MW solar PV project. The Project will interconnect to the CAISO. PG&E will be the scheduling coordinator. There is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: North Star Solar, LLC Mendota, CA Expected to produce 119 GWh average per year over the contract term
General Deal Structure. The Project consists of a 150 MW solar PV facility. The Project will interconnect to the CAISO controlled transmission system, or will be dynamically transferred to the CAISO via a pseudo-tie. Sempra will be the scheduling coordinator and there is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. Further details are contained in Confidential Appendix A. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: Copper Mountain Solar 2 Boulder City, NV Expected to produce 303 GWh average per year over contract term
General Deal Structure. The Project is the 50.5 MW contract executed as a result of PG&E’s 2005 RPS Solicitation. Bottle Rock Power LLC is owned by USRG and Riverstone Holdings. As discussed above, the Project is already interconnected to the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”). PG&E will become the scheduling coordinator. There is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. The figure below depicts the delivery structure of the Bottle Rock transaction: Figure 1: Amended and Restated PPA Delivery Structure PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy RPS Seller: Bottle Rock Power LLC Cobb, CA Expected to produce 420 GWh average per year over contract term
General Deal Structure. The 250 MW PPA was executed as a result of the 2007 RPS Solicitation. The Project will interconnect to the CAISO at the Xxxxxx Substation 220 kV bus until the Transmission Network Upgrades are placed into service, at which time the Project will interconnect to the CAISO at the Water Valley Substation (formerly referred to as the Xxxxxx Lake Substation or the Xxxxxxxx Substation) located at the Project site. PG&E will be the scheduling coordinator for the Project and there is no firming and shaping associated with this deal. Figure 1: PPA Delivery Structure Seller: Mojave Solar San Bernardino County, CA Expected to produce approximately 617 GWh average per year over contract term Buyer: PG&E Purchases RPS-eligible energy 2 The PPA was executed over 18 months from the close of PG&E’s 2007 RPS Solicitation. Consistent with Resolution E-4199, PG&E used the 2009 MPR established in Resolution E-4298 and the XXX factors associated with that solicitation year for comparison. Further details are included in the AMF calculations in Confidential Appendix D for further details.
