Recognizing that Commission Rule (515-3-4-.04(3)(b)(1)) requires the identification of the amount (i.e., megawatts (“MW”)) of needed capacity to be procured to serve customers, should biomass bidders be required to submit a bid that meets a set minimum and/or maximum MW facility size or limit on facility output? Please describe what additional flexibility could be added to the RFP that could be beneficial to your project.
Please describe what steps can be taken to help shorten the timeline for awarding the PPA. This response should also include steps that can be taken by the bidder to help shorten the timeline.
The prior biomass RFP sought “woody” biomass. Should additional fuel options be considered? Please provide a definition of biomass, any desired supplemental fuels to be included, and the rationale for the inclusion of any supplemental fuel options.
Do you believe a biomass project needs additional time to execute the PPA? If yes, please explain the need for the delay, the proposed timeline after the PPA award, and the potential impacts this delay could have on the RFP and other bidders.
In the prior Biomass PPA, a PPA bidder could submit a bid with the energy payment escalated at a fixed percentage not to exceed two- and one-half percent (2.5%) in any year. The minimum yearly escalation for the energy payment was limited to zero percent (0%). Would you like to see a change in how the price escalator currently operates? If yes, please explain.
Please describe changes, if any, that you would suggest regarding the assessment of Performance Security, and the calculation of liquidated delay and termination damages prior to Commercial Operation, and actual termination damages after Commercial Operation.
Please share any other comments you have below:
Submit