FAI R N E S S OF P ROJ. E C T- S PEC I FI C NEGO T I AT I O N S This chapter gives an independent review of the extent to which PG&E’s bilateral negotiations with Iberdrola Renewables, LLC for a REC-only purchase and sale agreement were conducted fairly. PG&E appears to have approached Iberdrola in May or June of 2013 after selecting for its short list in the 2012 RPS RFO. Based on broker quotes, PG&E believed that better prices for a ten-year REC-only transaction might be available in the market than and proceeded to explore possible bilateral contracts. 23 Xxxxxx telephonically observed four negotiation sessions between PG&E and the Iberdrola team over the course of two months. Xxxxxx was also able to review multiple draft versions of the contract in order to identify specific proposals and counterproposals the parties made in the course of discussions. The original starting point for the negotiations was a version of PG&E’s RPS REC-only Form Agreement that PG&E provided to Iberdrola in mid-July 2013, that had been modified from a prior December 2012 version published as part of PG&E’s 2012 RPS RFO. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s negotiations with Iberdrola were conducted in a manner fair to competitors. Concessions that Iberdrola requested and PG&E granted affected the project viability ranking of the agreement (a criterion for ratepayer benefit) when using the evaluation criterion for viability specified in PG&E’s 2012 RPS solicitation protocol.
FAI R N E S S OF P ROJ. E C T- S PEC I FI C NEGO T I AT I O N S This chapter provides an independent review of the extent to which PG&E’s negotiations with Wheelabrator Shasta for a pricing amendment and a new contract were conducted fairly with respect to competitors and to ratepayers. Discussions between PG&E and Wheelabrator Shasta’s commercial team began in mid- October 2016. Xxxxxx had previously been engaged to serve as Independent Evaluator for PG&E’s BioRAM solicitation, and telephonically observed six negotiation sessions between the parties. Xxxxxx also observed discussions between the parties in the spring of 2016 prior to the opening of the BioRAM RFO. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s bilateral negotiations with Wheelabrator Shasta were conducted in a manner that was, overall, fair to competitors. The next chapter further addresses whether the contract amendment and new contract are fair to PG&E’s ratepayers.
FAI R N E S S OF P ROJ. E C T- S PEC I FI C NEGO T I AT I O N S This chapter provides an independent review of the extent to which PG&E’s negotiations with Diablo Winds, LLC for a power purchase agreement were conducted fairly with respect to competitors and to ratepayers. PG&E notified XXXX that its Offer for Diablo Winds had been shortlisted in mid-April 2013. The parties began negotiations in early June 2013. Xxxxxx telephonically observed two negotiation sessions between PG&E and the XXXX team (many of the discussions took place through e-mail exchanges). Xxxxxx was also able to review multiple draft versions of the contract in order to identify specific proposals and counterproposals the parties made in the course of discussions. The original starting point for the negotiations was PG&E’s 2012 RPS Form Agreement published with the 2012 RPS solicitation protocol in December 2012. PG&E revised and updated some subsections of its Form Agreement (changes that applied to draft PPAs with all shortlisted parties) during the course of negotiations.4 Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s negotiations with the XXXX commercial team for the Diablo Winds contract were conducted in a manner that was less than fully fair to ratepayers and competitors in one narrow respect, based on findings described in the following sections.
FAI R N E S S OF P ROJ. E C T- S PEC I FI C NEGO T I AT I O N S This chapter provides an independent review of the extent to which PG&E’s negotiations with 8minute Renewables and Gestamp Asetym Solar North America (“GASNA”, the parent company of GASNA 15, LLC that holds a partial ownership share in the project company) for a power purchase agreement for 83WI 8ME, LLC were conducted fairly with respect to competitors and to ratepayers. PG&E notified the project owners that their Offer for the output of the Midway Solar Farm I project had been shortlisted in mid-April 2013. The parties began negotiations in early June 2013. Xxxxxx telephonically observed more than two dozen negotiation sessions between PG&E and the team of 8minutenergy Renewables and GASNA (many of the discussions took place through e-mail exchanges; the large number of sessions bespeaks the challenges of the negotiation). Xxxxxx was also able to review multiple draft versions of the contract in order to identify specific proposals and counterproposals the parties made in the course of discussions. The original starting point for the negotiations was PG&E’s 2012 RPS Form Agreement published with the 2012 RPS solicitation protocol in December 2012. PG&E later revised and updated some subsections of its Form Agreement (changes that applied to draft PPAs with all shortlisted parties) during the course of negotiations.7 Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s negotiations with the 8minutenergy Renewables and GASNA commercial team for the 83WI 8ME contract were conducted in a manner that was fair to ratepayers and competitors.
FAI R N E S S OF P ROJ. E C T- S PEC I FI C NEGO T I AT I O N S This chapter provides an independent review of the extent to which PG&E’s negotiations with Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC for an amended and restated contract were conducted fairly with respect to competitors and to ratepayers. Discussions between PG&E and EDF RE’s commercial team began in the spring of 2014. Xxxxxx was engaged to serve as Independent Evaluator for the amended contract, and telephonically observed more than a dozen discussions between PG&E and EDF RE in the ensuing years. The original starting point for the text of the amended contract was PG&E’s 2013 RPS Form Agreement published in December 2013; this was the utility’s approved standard RPS contract when discussions began. The document was subsequently revised to incorporate updated terms and definitions from later versions of PG&E’s form agreement.
