General

GEN 00001
Published On: 05/16/2018

Question: My asset is greater than 600 MW. Can I bid in this RFP?

Answer: Yes. NIPSCO will consider assets that are larger than 600 MW.

GEN 00002
Published On: 05/16/2018

Question: The minimum PPA term defined in the RFP is 5 years. Is there a maximum term?

Answer: No.  NIPSCO will consider longer-term PPA.

GEN 00003
Published On: 05/16/2018

Question: I would prefer to bid an asset into the RFP with an acquisition date prior to 2023, but I can also bid under an anticipated 2023 closing. Does the RFP consider this optionality?

Answer: This can be done by submitting two separate bid proposals for the asset under alternative acquisition pricing assumptions.  Mutually exclusive bids are acceptable.

GEN 00004
Published On: 05/16/2018

Question: Will NIPSCO provide the details of assumptions and scenarios included in the IRP modeling?

Answer: IRP materials are available on the IRP website at https://www.nipsco.com/about-us/integrated-resource-plan

GEN 00005
Published On: 05/16/2018

Question: I have an asset that will not be in service until after 2023. Can I bid in this RFP?

Answer:

Yes.  NIPSCO will consider alternative timelines.

GEN 00006
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO have a stated preference between asset acquisition and a PPA or between different asset classes or fuel sources?

Answer: No.  All bids will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and IRP modeling.

GEN 00007
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Is it possible that the 2018 IRP update results in a NIPSCO capacity need of greater than or less than 600 MW?

Answer: Yes.

GEN 00008
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: How will the RFP consider different scenarios on retirements across the NIPSCO fleet of generating assets?

Answer: Retirement scenarios are outside of the scope of the RFP. Retirement scenarios will be handled through the IRP process.

GEN 00009
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: If power is delivered to a non-NIPSCO node, how will NIPSCO account for any basis difference between this point and the NIPSCO load zone?

Answer: The valuation of energy associated with each bid will consider market price differentials associated with each asset’s delivery location.

GEN 00010
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO settle against its own load zone, or another zone or hub?

Answer:

NIPSCO settles against its own load zone.

GEN 00011
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO plan to go through revisions in the near future as suggested by FERC 841 implementation?

Answer: NIPSCO is monitoring MISO’s implementation of Order 841 and will operate consistently with any MISO revisions, once implemented.

GEN 00012
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Will NIPSCO be able to provide a model tariff for a typical industrial or commercial load customer?

Answer: Rate and tariff information is available on the NIPSCO Website at https://www.nipsco.com/about-us/rates-tariffs

GEN 00013
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO have locational preferences for new generation assets beyond the stated deliverability requirements included in the RFP?

Answer: NIPSCO will consider congestion costs in the analysis but there is no specific preference for asset location other than the location requirements included in the RFP document.

GEN 00014
Published On: 05/17/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO plan to differentially value energy based on time of delivery? If so, can your team provide more details as to how they intend to do that?

Answer: Energy values will be derived from IRP market modeling and market prices will vary over time, location and peak/off-peak periods.

GEN 00015
Published On: 05/18/2018

Question: What percentage of the Rider 775 Interruptible program is currently subscribed? Is additional capacity available for any of the rider options? Also, do you have any historical information about interruptions, the date and duration of each event, by option? And finally, during an interruptible event in what order are the options called?

Answer: The program is fully subscribed from a available dollars perspective.  Within NIPSCO's Fuel Tracker filings (FAC IURC Cause No. 38706-FAC-XXX) there is a brief Q/A that describes the use of Rider 775 in each quarterly period.  Since its inception (as Rider 675 in the past) there has not been any curtailments of physical load.  There has only been economic interruptions which have a "buy-through" option.  Rider 775 participants are considering Load Modifying Resource (LMR) in MISO.







GEN 00016
Published On: 05/18/2018

Question: NIPSCO has identified a need is roughly 600MW of capacity. Is there a time of day that the capacity shortfall is expected? This could impact the potential fuel type (ie: solar) and the need to pair the system with storage.

Answer: MISO capacity requirements are not intra-day.  There is no specific time of day for the capacity need.

GEN 00017
Published On: 05/25/2018

Question: Can MISO NRIS resources outside of LRZ6 with the ability to deliver to LRZ6 participate and qualify in this RFP?

Answer: Yes, facilities must have firm physical delivery to LRZ6 and be qualified to receive Zonal Resource Credits in or delivered to MISO Local Resource Zone 6 consistent with MISO’s Module E or successor.

GEN 00018
Published On: 05/29/2018

Question: Per Section 4.1.1.2 of the RFP. "The Proposal should also include nodal economic analyses (2023, 2028, and 2033) under base case (n-1) and outage scenarios (n-1-1) showing expected unit economic metrics (including congestion impacts on: capacity factor, produced energy, and generation revenue) and specify the point of injection into MISO." We have looked at nodal studies up to 7 years out, but not more. Can NIPSCO recommend what electrical model they would like customers to use for the distant future projections? Is there a MISO model NIPSCO has in mind?

Answer:

NIPSCO recommends using the MISO MTEP18 CFC Future PROMOD models, though the use of PROMOD is not required. 

GEN 00019
Published On: 05/29/2018

Question: Will NIPSCO consider a long term PPA where the supplier provides the Zonal Resource Credits but the energy is from the market?

Answer: Yes.  NIPSCO is open to all potential PPA structures.

GEN 00020
Published On: 05/29/2018

Question: My firm already has an ISDA with Power Annex in place with NIPSCO. For the purposes of our RFP response, can we use the existing ISDA with Power Annex rather than marking up the EEI that was provided as part of the RFP?

Answer: Yes.  The RFP Manager can consider bids supported by the existing agreement.  Please submit a copy of the agreement along with the Proposal for review and evaluation.

GEN 00021
Published On: 05/29/2018

Question: We have a project with a 2020 commercial online date (COD). If a definitive agreement is reached on 12/31/2018, what is the approximate timeline for regulatory approvals? We will not be able to execute on our schedule for a 2020 COD project without full regulatory approval prior to the Spring of 2019. Included in the 2020 COD is the availability of Production Tax Credits (PTCs) and without the full use of the assumed PTC value, we will not be able to hold the price as bid into the RFP.

Answer: The overall regulatory timeline could vary as there is no statutory obligation set forth within the state of Indiana.  There are recent examples of approvals with 6-9 months.  Proposals should clearly state the assumptions associated within the price offered, such as timeline, etc. Respondents may also choose to offer prices considering alternative delivery dates (i.e. 2020 vs. 2023).

GEN 00022
Published On: 06/01/2018

Question: What dates does NIPSCO consider summer and winter for the net operating capacity as discussed in section 4.1.1?

Answer: Summer Capability Period:  May through October 
Winter Capability Period: November through April

GEN 00023
Published On: 06/06/2018

Question: Question to clarify the language in Section 1.2 of the RFP Instruction: Please clarify the technology configuration and contract type NIPSCO will consider for stand alone energy storage; ie: will NIPSCO accept offers for third party owned, stand alone energy storage; or is NIPSCO only interested in the acquisition of an energy storage resource, or only energy storage paired with renewable generators?

Answer: NIPSCO does not have a preferred arrangement for storage.  All proposals must have firm deliverability into MISO Load Resource Zone 6 and be of sufficient scale to  qualify to receive Zonal Resource Credits for Zone 6 consistent with MISO’s Module E or successor.  

GEN 00024
Published On: 06/12/2018

Question: In regards to Site Control Documents I was only able to find the following in the RFP: Description of the facility site and Respondent’s rights (i.e., whether owned, leased, under option) to such site. Please indicate whether additional land rights are necessary for the development, construction, and/or operation of the facility. Are there any specific requirements that need to be in place prior to submitting the proposal?

Answer: Respondents should describe and document the development plan and the project's progress versus that plan.  There is no specific limitation with respect to the project's development status.  Bidders should review Section 4.1.8 of the RFP document and the Development Risk section of the Appendix G - Evaluation Criteria.  

GEN 00025
Published On: 06/13/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO have the ability to efficiently utilize tax benefits associated with renewable projects?

Answer: Currently, NIPSCO has a net operating loss that limits its direct ability to immediately monetize the renewable tax benefits. However, if NIPSCO selects renewables through the RFP, it we will work the selected RFP respondent to ensure that the customers receive the economic benefits of tax incentives either through an asset ownership structure or through a purchase power agreement.

GEN 00026
Published On: 06/15/2018

Question: If a generator wishes to propose both a sale of the generator and a PPA, constituting two proposals, can the submittal be in a single document to avoid duplication of a majority of the information? Or do NIPSCO/CRA prefer two completely separate submittals?

Answer: A single submission would be acceptable as long as it clearly defines the separate terms and conditions of each deal structure.

GEN 00027
Published On: 06/18/2018

Question: MISO is still in the process of developing new regulations for storage in compliance with FERC order 841. The UCAP for storage projects is defined as UCAP = ICAP x (1-XEFORd), where XEFORd is forced outage rate. How will the XEFORd will be calculated for storage project if it has 95% availability? Please refer to slide 6: https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20180606%20Order%20841%20Joint%20Meeting%20Item%2010%20Capacity%20and%20Resource%20Adequacy212834.pdf

Answer:

In the example cited and based on the MISO material, the implied XEFORd would be 0.05 or 5%.  MISO is still determining its compliance rules associated with FERC order 841and is early in the process.  Proposals should clearly state the assumptions associated with capacity (UCAP) offered.  Proposals should also include the dispatch and charging profile of the asset.

 

GEN 00028
Published On: 06/18/2018

Question: Section 5.1.8 states "respondents must provide the same information requested in Section 4 for facilities in development." Can you confirm whether this is referring back to section 4.1.8 "Additional Items Specific to New Facilities" or to each subsection of 4 which has a reference to a new facility?

Answer: Yes.  The cited language from 5.1.8 refers back to section 4.1.8 "Additional Items Specific to New Facilities".

GEN 00029
Published On: 06/18/2018

Question: The evaluation criteria states that a facility that does not "currently meet (n-1-1) and that does not include estimates of the cost upgrade to (n-1-1) will be eliminated from consideration in the RFP." However, Section 4.1.8 of the RFP doc lists four MISO interconnection items (including the nodal economic analysis) and states that if they are not available for new facilities, the Respondent must explain why and include a timeline to achieve these items. Because of the varying language in the RFP and the evaluation criteria, can you confirm whether or not a completed nodal economic analysis is required for new facilities or if an explanation and timeline to obtain a nodal economic analysis are sufficient?

Answer: If a completed nodal economic analysis is unavailable for new facilities, bidders may submit an explanation and timeline associated with obtaining a nodal economic analysis.

GEN 00030
Published On: 06/19/2018

Question: Section 4.1.1.2 of the RFP requires Proposals to include nodal economic analyses under base case (n-1) and outage (n-1-1) scenarios. We are aware of modeling n-1-1 for reliability analyses but not for economic analyses given the uncertain nature of timing, location and duration of outages. Does NIPSCO have guidance on what outage assumptions to use to model economics under an n-1-1 scenario?

Answer: NIPSCO advises to model an additional high capacity transmission outage one bus away or reasonably near the unit's electrical location for the entire year in a "new" base case (n-1 with existing outage) to further stress the system to reveal any additional congestion impact to the unit from seasonal n-1 constraints (n-1 without existing outage).

GEN 00031
Published On: 06/20/2018

Question: The RFP instructions don't make explicit mention of $/MWh PPA pricing or generation forecasts as part of the proposals. Will this information be requested after a preliminary evaluation by NIPSCO?

Answer: The RFP does not pre-suppose any specific PPA structure or resource type.  Bidders should submit sufficient detail on the structure and economics of the bid to facilitate an economic evaluation of the bid.  PPA bids will be evaluated consistent with NIPSCO modeling of the market.

GEN 00032
Published On: 06/20/2018

Question: Section 6.5 (Generator Proposal Evaluation Fee) states that "Respondents may submit up to three (3) Proposals at no cost in response to this RFP." It then goes on to state that "Respondents submitting more than three (3) responses will incur a Generation Proposal Evaluation Fee for each additional Proposal submitted. The non-refundable fee for evaluating each Proposal for a generation facility is $5,000. Respondents must pay a separate fee for each additional Proposal submitted." Can you please confirm our understanding that (1) if one Respondent submits three proposals, then there is no fee; (2) if the Respondent submits four proposals, there would be a $5,000 fee, if the Respondent submits 5 proposals, a $10,000 fee, etc.? Thank you.

Answer: That is correct.  Bidders may submit up to 3 proposals at no fee.  Each incremental proposal will be assessed a non-refundable fee of $5,000 per proposal.

GEN 00033
Published On: 06/25/2018

Question: Does NIPSCO have a preferred calculation method for producing predicted UCAP for solar facilities currently under development? We have limited forecast production data based on historical solar irradiance for our proposed sites. But based on our analyses of MISO’s UCAP information the calculations they use are not available and it is unclear if what we have available is sufficeint to replicate their calculation. Specifically, the language we are looking at from MISO is as follows: “MISO uses operational data for hours ending 15, 16 & 17 during the months of June, July & August over a 3 year period. MISO also calculates the UCAP from the data.” Any guidance for producing UCAP forecasts from NIPSCO is appreciated.

Answer: MISO uses a 50% rule for new solar absent actual performance data.

Solar Capacity Credit - A class-average solar capacity credit of 50 percent was established for the 2017-2018 planning year by estimating the peak period contribution from historical solar irradiance simulation data. New resources without summer operating history will receive this class average capacity credit until at least 30 consecutive days of summer performance data are available, at which time the resource’s individual capacity credit will be based on its own operating history.

https://old.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/MTEP/MTEP17/MTEP17%20Book%202%20Resource%20Adequacy.pdf




GEN 00034
Published On: 06/26/2018

Question: For PPA projects, can one proposal for one Capacity Asset contain a matrix of pricing options based on PPA term and escalator or would that constitute multiple proposals? Ex: If we have a single 100 MW facility and would like to offer pricing options at 15 year and 20 year terms with either a 0% or 2% escalator, would that constitute 1 proposal or 4 proposals?

Answer: The PPA as described would constitute 1 proposal.

GEN 00035
Published On: 06/26/2018

Question: Is there a list of zip codes that fall within NIPSCO Zone 6 for reference?

Answer:

Please refer to the link below.  The orange indicates NIPSCO's electric service territory within Indiana.

https://www.nipsco.com/docs/default-source/about-nipsco-docs/serviceterritorymap-sept-2011.pdf

This covers zip code areas, but is possible some zip codes do not reside entirely within NIPSCO's territory.

46303, 46304, 46307, 46311, 46312, 46319, 46320, 46321, 46322, 46323, 46324, 46327, 46340, 46341, 46342, 46346, 46347, 46348, 46350, 46360, 46365, 46368, 46371, 46373, 46375, 46382, 46383, 46385, 46390, 46391, 46402, 46403, 46404, 46405, 46406, 46407, 46408, 46409, 46410, 46531, 46532, 46534, 46554, 46574



MISO Local Resource Zone 6 is comprised largely of the state of Indiana plus the northern portion of Kentucky.  Please refer to the link below for the BPM covering MISO Resource Adequacy.  There is map contained within that shows MISO Zonal boundaries.

https://cdn.misoenergy.org/BPM%20011%20-%20Resource%20Adequacy110405.zip

 

GEN 00036
Published On: 06/27/2018

Question: Will NIPSCO rely on the third-party wind report commissioned by the bidder for a proposed wind project or does NIPSCO ultimately plan to commission its own report? If the latter, does NIPSCO have particular IEs they are open to or prefer to commission?

Answer: At this stage of the RFP process, a third-party report is sufficient.  NIPSCO may retain outside expertise if the project advances to the Definitive Agreement stage.