Common use of OTHER STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Clause in Contracts

OTHER STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. Evaluation of different technologies. PG&E’s protocol tends to avert selecting Offers for utility ownership for which the utility lacks particular core competencies, so there is a bias against purchasing projects that the company is less well-suited to own and operate. Out-of-state projects. One issue regarding both value and viability concerns Offers for out-of-state projects that propose not to actually deliver power to the CAISO but instead intend to be managed through a pseudo-tie or dynamic scheduling. There are only a very few projects to date where these have been implemented by the CAISO. Because such approaches require the assent of both the CAISO and the foreign balancing area authority to which the project will interconnect (and PTOs in between), it is difficult for PG&E to judge the likelihood of whether such arrangements will actually be achieved. It was evident from reviewing out-of-state Offers that several Participants do not comprehend how their projects will be treated by the CPUC for RPS compliance purposes, with several assuming that their PPAs will be treated as bundled in-state delivery of power, despite failing to specify how they will obtain dynamic scheduling by the CAISO. One hopes that more experience with dynamic scheduling will make it clearer what can and cannot be achieved with these arrangements and that future solicitation protocols can clarify how PG&E will assess them. Participants’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses. Feedback from Participants provided some insight into other strengths of PG&E’s approach compared to other utilities’.

OTHER STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. Evaluation of different technologies. PG&E’s protocol tends to avert selecting Offers for utility ownership for which the utility lacks particular core competencies, so there is a bias against purchasing projects that the company is less well-suited to own and operate. Out-of-state projects. One issue regarding both value and viability concerns Offers for out-of-state projects that propose not to actually deliver power to the CAISO but instead intend to be managed through a pseudo-tie or dynamic scheduling. There are only a very few projects to date where these have been implemented by the CAISO. Because such approaches require the assent of both the CAISO and the foreign balancing area authority to which the project will interconnect (and PTOs in between), it is difficult for PG&E to judge the likelihood of whether such arrangements will actually be achieved. It was evident from reviewing out-of-state Offers that several Participants do not comprehend how their projects will be treated by the CPUC for RPS compliance purposes, with several assuming that their PPAs will be treated as bundled in-state delivery of power, despite failing to specify how they will obtain dynamic scheduling by the CAISO. One hopes that more experience with dynamic scheduling will make it clearer what can and cannot be achieved with these arrangements and that future solicitation protocols can clarify how PG&E will assess them. Participants’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses. Feedback from Participants provided some insight into other strengths of PG&E’s approach compared to other utilities’.