PROJECT VIABILITY. To assist DEF in assessing the RF/QF's financial and technical viability, the RF/QF shall provide the information and documents requested in Appendix C or substantially similar documents, to the extent the documents apply to the type of Facility covered by this Contract and to the extent the documents are available. All documents to be considered by DEF must be submitted at the time this Contract is presented to DEF. Failure to provide the following such documents may result in a determination of non-viability by DEF.
PROJECT VIABILITY. The likelihood that the facility subject to the PPA will generate renewable power as described in the PPA is evaluated in Confidential Appendix E, “Project Viability.” Because project-specific information needed to demonstrate viability is commercially sensitive, proprietary business information, only certain viability criteria are discussed in the public portion of this Advice Letter.
PROJECT VIABILITY. Overall, PG&E followed the methodology stated in its solicitation protocol: “PG&E will evaluate the project viability of each offer using the June 2, 2011 CPUC adopted version of the PVC. Participants are requested to self-score each of their offers using the PVC…PG&E will review all submissions and adjust self-scores as appropriate.” The PG&E team used the Project Viability Calculator to score the projects considered for selection as well as some others; PG&E did not score every single Offer variant for project viability, and left the self-scores intact for lower-valued Offers that were rejected based on lower value. PG&E’s decision that its team would not score the project viability of each and every Offer did not affect selection of a short list. All the shortlisted Offers were scored by the team,
PROJECT VIABILITY. Project viability is based on three categories: 1) Company / Development Team, 2) Technology, and 3) Development Milestones. It is assessed by the CPUC developed Project Viability Calculator (“PVC”). The PVC is a tool for IOUs to evaluate the viability of a renewable energy project, relative to all other projects that bid into the California utilities' RPS solicitations. The PVC uses standardized categories and criteria to quantify a project's strengths and weaknesses in key areas of renewable project development. PG&E’s analysis of Project Viability and PVC score are confidential and can be found in Confidential Appendix A.
PROJECT VIABILITY. As an existing generation facility that has operated reliably with production levels above the annual contract quantity of the 2011 amendment on average, the project viability of the Wheelabrator Shasta facility ranks quite high. Xxxxxx assigns it a score of 100 using the Energy Division’s project viability calculator.
PROJECT VIABILITY. In Xxxxxx’x opinion, the physical project viability of the ERP facility is quite high. The project has operated for decades to provide PG&E customers with renewable energy. An existing, currently operating project is more viable, in a physical sense, than any proposed as- yet-unbuilt generator. The ERP contract amendment would advance PG&E and the state towards the goal stated in Executive Order S-06-06 of providing at least 20% of the state’s renewable power needs from biomass-based generation. Xxxxxx believes that PG&E currently exceeds that target, but over time there is some risk that biomass as a portion of PG&E’s portfolio will drop below 20% because of impending rapid growth in other sources of renewable generation. Xxxxxx believes that approval of the contract amendment will significantly increase the likelihood that ERP will continue to provide PG&E customers with generation over the term of the amendment, as opposed to seasonally curtailing or ceasing its production under the pricing of the existing contract, though there is no guarantee that the price relief in the executed amendment will fully assure continued operation. Additionally, the legislative findings stated in Senate Bill 1078 that established the RPS program included a view that increasing the use of renewable energy sources may create employment opportunities. The CPUC’s Decision 00-00-000 included benefits to low- income communities as a qualitative attribute that could be taken into consideration by utilities in evaluating competitive offers for new renewable generation. In the absence of a contract amendment there is greater risk to ERP’s employment base. The project is sited in a location with higher incidence of poverty and lower median household income than the state as a whole.
PROJECT VIABILITY. It is likely that the Project will be completed as required by the PPA and will be available to deliver energy by the guaranteed commercial operation date. PG&E has reviewed the credit-related information provided by Hatchet Ridge and is satisfied that it possesses the necessary credit and experience to perform as required by the PPA. Hatchet Ridge’s obligation to meet milestones is supported by significant performance assurance securities.
PROJECT VIABILITY. As an existing generation facility that has operated reliably, Xxxxxx assesses the project viability of the Shiloh Wind Project 2 facility as ranking quite high, despite the fact that the wind farm has consistently underperformed against its contract quantity.
PROJECT VIABILITY. Overall, PG&E followed the methodology stated in its solicitation protocol: “PG&E will evaluate the project viability of each offer using the June 2, 2011 CPUC adopted version of the PVC. Participants are requested to self-score each of their offers using the PVC…PG&E will review all submissions and adjust self-scores as appropriate.” The PG&E team used the Project Viability Calculator to score the projects considered for selection as well as some others; 18. PG&E did not score every single Offer variant for project viability, and left the self-scores intact for lower-valued Offers that were rejected based on lower value. PG&E’s decision that its team would not score the project viability of each and every Offer did not affect 18 The PVC scores for different Offer variants can differ because variants proposing larger MW capacity may score lower in development experience, ownership and O&M experience, etc. than smaller-sized variants. selection of a short list. All the shortlisted Offers were scored by the team, '
PROJECT VIABILITY. Xxxxxx has scored the RE Astoria project using the Energy Division’s Project Viability Calculator, which lists several attributes of projects on which viability may be measured. Under its feed-in tariff program, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) awarded contracts for four of Recurrent Energy’s projects, reported by SMUD to total 69.4 MW and by Recurrent to total 88 MWp.8 The contracts are reported by the California Energy '' Commission to have an average price of $111/MWh9. These projects began operation in 2012: • RE Bruceville, a 15-MW facility constructed in three phases of 5 MW each, about 2 miles south of Elk Grove; • RE Xxxxxxxx, a 15-MW facility also constructed in three phases of 5 MW each, half a mile south of Elk Grove; • RE Xxxxxxx Road, a 9.4-MW facility about 1 miles south of Sloughhouse; • RE XxXxxxxx, a 30-MW facility constructed in six phases of 5 MW each, about 4 miles north of Galt. Ownership shares of all these Sacramento county projects were sold in 2011 to Google Inc. and to a subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis Xxxxxxx & Co., with Recurrent Energy retaining a minority equity share. Recurrent has also brought six solar photovoltaic projects totaling about 51 MW of capacity into operation in 2013 in Ontario, three near Smiths Falls southwest of Ottawa, three near Waubaushene north of Toronto. Four of these facilities have 10-MW capacities. All are contracted with the Ontario Power Authority. Recurrent is expected to bring several additional OPA-contracted projects into operation in 2014, all 10 MW or less in capacity. Recurrent has entered into an agreement to sell majority ownership of a portfolio that includes the operating plants to Mitsubishi Corporation and Osaka Gas Company, with Recurrent retaining about 10% ownership. PG&E awarded a contract from its 2011 Photovoltaic Program solicitation to Recurrent Energy’s 20-MW RE Kansas South facility in Kings County. Recurrent developed the project then sold it to a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., and the facility entered commercial operation in July 2013.10 NRG Energy operates and maintains this project. Recurrent has contracted with SCE for its proposed 20-MW RE Xxxxxx Xxxxxx 1 project near Adelanto and 5-MW RE Rio Grande project near Mojave, with expected on-line dates at the end of 2013. Its proposed 45-MW RE Columbia solar project is contracted with the California Department of Water Resources and is expected to come on-line at a site near Mojave by mid-2015. The nearby 10-MW RE...
