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. This seems reasonable and appropriate, since it is not in ratepayers’ interest for the utility to own generating facilities that require specific skills PG&E lacks. The Project Viability Calculator was designed to be technology-neutral as well. However, the Calculator will return a lower score for a project that relies on a technology that is not well-commercialized, or that the developer lacks prior experience developing, owning, operating, or financing, all else being equal. The methodology will tend to discount projects based on emerging technologies or on those that have not been implemented broadly at utility scale, and will tend to promote projects that rely on technologies with widespread market acceptance and many examples of operating 100+ MW installations. It became evident from debriefing Participants that some developers were unaware that the Calculator’s design tends to disfavor emerging technologies, and that other competitive venues than the IOUs’ RPS RFOs that do not require the use of the Calculator might be more appropriate for projects that employ poorly-commercialized technologies. PG&E’s protocol for RFO Goals includes a provision allowing the utility to consider the non-quantitative factor of resource diversity benefits in the selection process; this is stated in Attachment K and supported by regulatory decisions. This feature allows the utility to consider such things as its resource need for baseload vs. peaking or intermittent generation in selecting Offers. To the extent some technologies are operated as baseload in the California market and there is a resource need for baseload resources this may tilt Offer selection towards those projects over technologies that provide intermittent or peaking generation. Similarly, the RFO Goals criterion accommodates the non-quantitative factor of continuing to meet the goal stated by Executive Order S-06-06 for biomass-fueled renewable energy, which could tilt Offer selection towards biomass or biogas-fueled generation. 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 pse...
OTHER STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. Participants’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses. Feedback from Participants provided some insight into other strengths of PG&E’s approach compared to other utilities’. • PG&E took the extra step this year of providing Participants information about how their Offers ranked in value by quartile; developers found this to be an improvement, as it gave some insight about what was needed to achieve competitiveness. There was however a common desire for even more specific feedback on pricing and on the composition of the short list. • Some Participants expressed an appreciation for the PG&E’s use of the project viability criterion as an evaluation criterion, stating a concern that other solicitations base selection strictly on low pricing regardless of viability, which in their view disadvantages more experienced developers who might have a firmer view of what the costs of developing a new project will be.
