Common use of PRINCIPLES USED TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROCESS Clause in Contracts

PRINCIPLES USED TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROCESS. The Energy Division has provided a set of principles proposed to guide IEs in determining whether an IOU’s evaluation and selection process was fair: • Were all bids treated the same regardless of the identity of the bidder? • Were bidder questions answered fairly and consistently and the answers made available to all bidders? • Did the utility ask for “clarifications” that provided one bidder an advantage over others? • Was the economic evaluation of the bids fair and consistent? • Was there a reasonable justification for any fixed parameters that were a part of the IOU’s LCBF methodology (e.g., RMR values; debt equivalence parameters)? • What qualitative and quantitative factors were used to evaluate bids? Some other considerations appear relevant to reviewing PG&E’s methodology. The application of subjective judgment in bringing multiple non-valuation criteria to bear on decision-making, rather than a mathematical, objective means of doing so, implies an opportunity to test the fairness of the administration of the process using additional principles: • Were the decisions to reject higher-valued contracts from the short list because of low scores in criteria other than valuation or PG&E’s preferences applied consistently across all contracts? • Were the decisions to accept lower-valued contracts into the short list based on superior scores in criteria other than valuation, despite lower values of those specific contracts, applied consistently across all contracts? • Were the judgments used to create the short list based on stated evaluation criteria or preferences that were publicly made available to potential counterparties prior to proposal submittal through the Solicitation Protocol?

PRINCIPLES USED TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROCESS. The Energy Division has provided suggested a set of principles proposed to guide IEs in determining whether if an IOU’s administration of its evaluation and selection process was fair: • Were all bids offers treated the same regardless of the identity of the bidder? • Were bidder participant questions answered fairly and consistently and the answers made available to all biddersparticipants? • Did the utility ask for “clarifications” that provided one bidder participant an advantage over others? • Was the economic evaluation of the bids offers fair and consistent? • Was there a reasonable justification for any fixed parameters that were a part of the IOU’s LCBF methodology (e.g., RMR values; debt equivalence parameters)? • What qualitative and quantitative factors were used to evaluate bidsoffers? Some other considerations appear relevant to reviewing PG&E’s administration of its methodology. The application use of subjective business judgment in bringing multiple non-valuation criteria to bear on decision-making, rather than a mathematical, objective means of doing so, implies an opportunity to test the fairness of the administration of the process using additional principles: • Were the decisions to reject higher-valued contracts Offers from the short list because of low scores in criteria other than valuation or PG&E’s preferences applied consistently across all contractsOffers? • Were the decisions to accept select lower-valued contracts into Offers in preference to higher-valued ones because of their superior attributes in non-valuation criteria made consistently, or were the higher-valued proposals skipped over unfairly? • If PG&E did not select the projects for the short list that provide the best overall value while meeting the needs of PG&E’s three compliance periods, what factors prevented those projects from being selected? Was their rejection based on superior scores factors that were communicated transparently to Participants in criteria other than valuation, despite lower values the solicitation protocol? • Does the resulting short list conform to the needs of those specific contracts, applied consistently across all contractsPG&E’s portfolio? • Were the judgments used to create the short list based on stated evaluation criteria or and preferences that were publicly made available disseminated in the solicitation protocol to potential counterparties Participants prior to proposal submittal through the Solicitation ProtocolOffer submittal?

PRINCIPLES USED TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROCESS. The Energy Division has provided suggested a set of principles proposed to guide IEs in determining whether if an IOU’s administration of its evaluation and selection process was fair: • Were all bids treated the same regardless of the identity of the bidder? • Were bidder questions answered fairly and consistently and the answers made available to all bidders? • Did the utility ask for “clarifications” that provided one bidder an advantage over others? • Was the economic evaluation of the bids fair and consistent? • Was there a reasonable justification for any fixed parameters that were a part of the IOU’s LCBF methodology (e.g., RMR values; debt equivalence parameters)? • What qualitative and quantitative factors were used to evaluate bids? Some other considerations appear relevant to reviewing PG&E’s administration of its methodology. The application use of subjective business judgment in bringing multiple non-valuation criteria to bear on decision-making, rather than a mathematical, objective means of doing so, implies an opportunity to test the fairness of the administration of the process using additional principles: • Were the decisions to reject higher-valued contracts Offers from the short list because of low scores in criteria other than valuation or PG&E’s preferences applied consistently across all contractsOffers? • Were If PG&E did not select the decisions to accept lower-valued contracts into projects for the short list that provide the best overall value while meeting the needs of PG&E’s three compliance periods, what factors prevented those projects from being selected? Was their rejection based on superior scores factors that were communicated transparently to Participants in criteria other than valuation, despite lower values the solicitation protocol? • Does the resulting short list conform to the needs of those specific contracts, applied consistently across all contractsPG&E’s portfolio? • Were the judgments used to create the short list based on stated evaluation criteria or and preferences that were publicly made available in the solicitation protocol to potential counterparties Participants prior to proposal submittal through the Solicitation ProtocolOffer submittal?

PRINCIPLES USED TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROCESS. The Energy Division has provided a set of principles proposed to guide IEs in determining whether an IOU’s evaluation and selection process was fair: • Were all bids treated the same regardless of the identity of the bidder? • Were bidder questions answered fairly and consistently and the answers made available to all bidders? • Did the utility ask for “clarifications” that provided one bidder an advantage over others? • Was the economic evaluation of the bids fair and consistent? • Was there a reasonable justification for any fixed parameters that were a part of the IOU’s LCBF methodology (e.g., RMR values; debt equivalence parameters)? • What qualitative and quantitative factors were used to evaluate bids? Some other considerations appear relevant to reviewing PG&E’s administration of its methodology. The application of subjective business judgment in bringing multiple non-non- valuation criteria to bear on decision-making, rather than a mathematical, objective means of doing so, implies an opportunity to test the fairness of the administration of the process using additional principles: • Were the decisions to reject higher-valued contracts Offers from the short list because of low scores in criteria other than valuation or PG&E’s preferences applied consistently across all contractsOffers? • Were the decisions to accept lower-valued contracts Offers into the short list based on superior scores in criteria other than valuation, despite lower values of those specific contractsOffers, applied consistently across all contractsOffers? • Were the judgments used to create the short list based on stated evaluation criteria or and preferences that were publicly made available in the solicitation protocol to potential counterparties Participants prior to proposal submittal through the Solicitation ProtocolOffer submittal?