GEN 00001
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: What COD do you prefer?

Answer: The preferred COD depends on the RFP. For the Bridge Resource RFP, NIPSCO is looking for solutions within 18-36 months of issue. For other RFP, NIPSCO is looking for solutions in 3 to 5 years. Outside of that guidance, NIPSCO does not have a stated in-service preference.

GEN 00002
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Will resources submitted for RFP3 be automatically considered for RFP2 (and vise versa) or will we need to submit a resource twice if it satisfies the criteria of both RFPs?

Answer: Yes. Any bid submitted for RFP3 that meets RFP2 requirements will be considered for both. Bidders that want to be considered for both RFP should note that in the Executive Summary.

GEN 00003
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Given MISO's proposed reforms to capacity accreditation (especially the large reduction in renewable ELCC), what level of interconnection service does NIPSCO require for intermittent renewable resources?

Answer: Bidders should describe their interconnection status (MW NRIS, MW ERIS). NIPSCO has a strong preference for NRIS but bids will be evaluated based on their merits.

GEN 00004
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: With respect to BTA submissions, will NIPSCO be open to projects outside their service territory, but within LRZ6?

Answer: Yes.

GEN 00005
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Will NIPSCO consider projects that are planning to be submitted to the MISO queue later this year?

Answer: All Proposals for new generation facilities must have a MISO generator interconnection queue position and a well-defined and credible development plan for the Respondent to complete the development, construction, and commissioning of the facility on their proposed development timeline.

GEN 00006
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: What is the tentative schedule of milestone dates (shortlisting, contract negotiation, contract execution, Regulatory approval, etc.) after the RFP submission?

Answer: For RFP 1-3, bids are due on June 7th. There is a Stakeholder session in late June where summary information related to RFP responses is expected to be shared. Final bid review has a tentative completion date in Q3 of 2024, with contract execution targeted for Q4.

GEN 00007
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Which Appendix H form should we use for a hybrid asset (PV+BESS) PPA + toll?

Answer: The Solar PPA form has an option for hybrid information. The file name has been updated to reflect this.

GEN 00008
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: At what point in the process will operating collateral be required to be posted?

Answer: After RFP shortlisting and during the negotiation of the definitive agreement, CRA and NIPSCO will determine the required form of DA Collateral a Respondent must satisfy at the execution of the definitive agreement (development security or maintenance security). Please note DA Collateral is separate from any required proposal evaluation fees (outlined in section 5.5 of the RFP Document), which are due with proposals on June 7th.

GEN 00009
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Is there a preference for escalating or flat price?

Answer: There is no preference.

GEN 00010
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Is there a preference for PPAs or BTAs?

Answer: There is no preference.

GEN 00011
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: The RFP states that “Respondents may submit up to three (3) for project sites at no cost in response to each RFP”. Would submissions of (i) PV, (ii) BESS, and (iii) PV+BESS, at the same site be considered 1 or 3?

Answer: This would be considered three separate proposals as it would require separate evaluations.

GEN 00012
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: How is the RFP for Bridge Capacity Solutions (RFP3) different from the non-intermittent RFO fir LRZ6 resources (RFP2) other than the stipulation that resources “be available within 18-36 months” for RFP3?

Answer: The Bridge Resource RFP is targeting resources that will be available in 18-36 months. RFP1 and RFP 2 allow for longer lead times. The Bridge Capacity RFP also allows for shorter duration bids. Bridge capacity RFP Bidders can propose longer term options, but we will consider shorter term solutions as well. In addition, there may be more latitude on deliverability for Bridge Resources.

GEN 00013
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: With respect to RFP2: For NIPSCO site specific storage solutions, is BTA the only structure that will conform to NIPSCO’s desire to own the asset?

Answer: Consistent with the MISO generator replacement protocols, bids for the Schahfer and Michigan City and other NIPSCO sites must be for NIPSCO asset ownership. Asset transfer agreements other than a BTA can be considered.

GEN 00014
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Is there any more information available on the sites/interconnection offered for the Schahfer and Michigan City station, like the land available for building a new asset? Will respondents to that particular solicitation within RFP 2 fill in all the same forms, despite the differences in respondent scope?

Answer: NIPSCO is considering options at Schahfer, Michigan City, Dunns Bridge I and II, Cavalry, Gibson and Fairbanks. NIPSCO would suggest bidders interested in development opportunities at an existing site, express interest, identify site of interest and request access to Appendix G.

GEN 00015
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: For NIPSCO site specific storage solutions, will the developer have to negotiate a land lease to construct on the NIPSCO site?

Answer: CRA recommends that developers proposing site specific solutions request access to RFP Appendix G.

GEN 00016 (revised 05/08/2024)
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Would NIPSCO consider thermal resources (versus storage) at Schahfer or Michigan City?

Answer: At this time, it is anticipated that NIPSCO would only consider storage at the Schahfer and Michigan City sites.

GEN 00017
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Is there some minimum ratio of NRIS/ ERIS to be eligible?

Answer: NIPSCO has not established a minimum NRIS ratio but NRIS is preferable.

GEN 00018
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Would a project be eligible under the RFP if submitted with less NRIS capacity than ERIS capacity?

Answer: NRIS is preferred but NIPSCO would encourage bidders provide transmission details as part of their bid submission.

GEN 00019
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: How strict is the <400 MW size requirement for intermittent submissions? How much room is there for flexibility, if any?

Answer: 400 MW is the total size for the RFP based on current estimates and may be subject to change based on resource planning analysis. 400 MW is not a requirement for individual projects. If a project is larger than 400 MW, and the total need is 400 MW, then the project would be too large. However, smaller projects are acceptable subject to meeting other RFP requirements. Projects larger than 400MW could meet the requirements of RFP 3.

GEN 00020
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: Will there be a breakdown for proposal evaluation criteria with respect to how each category will be weighted?

Answer: Yes. The Appendix F: Evaluation Criteria document includes a breakdown of possible points for each category.

GEN 00021
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: With respect to "Utilization of MISO Generator Interconnection Replacement at Schahfer station, Michigan City station, or existing or surplus interconnection other various NIPSCO sites" in RFP2: For this type of proposal, we are wondering if NIPSCO is envisioning a BTA to ultimately take ownership of the facility at Substantial Completion, or if there is another commercial construct that is preferred/expected for NIPSCO ownership when generator replacement is proposed. In Appendix H, we notice that "BTA" and "Utilization of MISO Generator Interconnection..." are separate proposal categories.

Answer: NIPSCO anticipates using generator replacement at Schahfer and Michigan City. As a result, both would require NIPSCO asset ownership of storage assets and ownership structures other than a BTA are acceptable. For other sites, NIPSCO would use surplus interconnection service and while not technically required, NIPSCO would have a strong preference for ownership bids.

GEN 00022
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: What other information can you provide about the sites so that battery developers can understand the risks associated with developing battery projects at the sites? We are concerned about the lack of site details, and that it will result in no responses or very few responses to this RFP, or that there will be high cost proposals because of the assignment of a premium for risk.

Answer: Technical specifications for development at the NIPSCO sites are available in Appendix G. All interested parties must first sign the Appendix B - Bilateral Confidentiality agreement and send it to in order to view the Appendix G.

GEN 00023
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: Regarding the RFP #4 for a 10 MW DER/DG resource, is this referring to a total capacity of 10 Mwac, or individual projects with a maximum capacity of up to 10 MWac each?

Answer: 10 MW represents the approximate size of the full opportunity.  It is not an individual project figure.

GEN 00024
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: Can you please further explain how NIPSCO intends to perform an “evaluation based on Merits” with respect to NIRS using an example? If Accreditation (ELCC) is generally forecast by MISO to be below 20% for solar at any point after 2027, would there be any “Merit” to having more than 20% NRIS?

Answer: NIPSCO has a preference for NRIS over ERIS.  The evaluation based on merits depends on the level of NRIS and the resource technology in question.

GEN 00025
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: For NIPSCO BOTs and asset transfers, can you confirm that NIPSCO does not have technical specifications for solar and storage on project sites? I want to make sure we can price asset transfers that confirm to our internal specifications, otherwise, we might not be able to meet the timeline needed to price assets conforming to NIPSCO technical specifications.

Answer: There are no specific technical specifications.  

GEN 00026
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: On page 6, the All-source (RFP 2) specifically mentions thermal, standalone storage. Would LFP batteries be considered under “Other… capacity resources”?

Answer: Yes.  LFP batteries would be considered.

GEN 00027
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: Would the NIPSCO RFP accept partial NRIS in RFP 1 for renewable resources? Is there a preference for full (100% NRIS) over partial NRIS? Lastly, does the example used in the RFP "(e.g. 50 MW NRIS and 25 MW ERIS)" indicate that partial NRIS is acceptable, if so, to what percentage of the total project proposed? The transmission service (50 NRIS/25 ERIS) requirement is stated under the Asset Sales and Build Transfer Proposals (Section 3), but it is not explicitly stated under the PPA Proposal Section (Section 4). Is the transmission service (50 NRIS/25 ERIS) applicable to PPAs or project sales only?

Answer: NIPSCO has a preference for full NRIS but partial service is acceptable.  The ratio of NRIS/ERIS will be considered as part of the overall project evaluation.  There is no specific ratio requirement as the range of technologies being considered is wide.

GEN 00028
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: Respondents may submit up to three (3) for project sites at no cost in response to each RFP”. Would submissions of PV, BESS, and PV+BESS of the same project, at the same site with identical permitting, point of interconnection, and COD require three separate fees, or could those be submitted under the same $5,000 fee?

Answer: PV, BESS and PV+BESS at the same site would be considered 3 separate proposals as they would require separate evaluations.

GEN 00029
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: How will bidders know what size of resources it wants at the sites referenced in Question GEN 00014? These were not mentioned in the original RFP. Will additional time be allotted given this missing information?

Answer: In addition to the information in Appendix G, NIPSCO can provide indicative resource sizes at specific project sites as requested.

GEN 00030
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: Does NIPSCO have preferred technical specs (i.e., approved vendors, design requirements, etc.) for Solar Development projects, or are we free to propose designs based on our preferred equipment / design specs?

Answer: There are no preferred specifications or approved vendors defined in the RFP, however bidders should expect specifications and vendors to be part of definitive agreement negotiations. 

GEN 00031
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: For RFP 1 or RFP 2, will NIPSCO consider products that contain Energy and RECs, however, NIPSCO would have to file NITS in order to get capacity? We have a number of products that only have NRIS deliverability and NIPSCO would have to file NITS in order to get capacity deliverability. - related to 2.C in page 8 of RFP.

Answer: NIPSCO has a preference for projects that are NRIS and qualify for capacity accreditation but projects without full NRIS will be considered.

GEN 00032
Published On: 05/14/2024

Question: RFP 3 is looking for options between 600-1,000 MW. Would projects less than 600 MW be considered for it if they meet the ideal 18–36-month COD?

Answer: The 600-1,000 MW guidance for the Bridge Resource RFP is an aggregate target.  Individual projects do not need to fall within that MW target.  Through the RFP NIPSCO is targeting transmission interconnected, supply-side resources that can meet the in-service requirements.  

GEN 00033
Published On: 05/14/2024

Question: What is the minimum project size (MW)? and the preferred project duration (hours)? Who would cover the station service - NIPSCO or the Developer?

Answer: There is no specific minimum storage size in MW but the company prefers 4 hour storage.  Bidders should assume developers cover station service.

GEN 00034
Published On: 05/14/2024

Question: Will the utility offer a site visit for interested bidders to take a look and ask questions?

Answer: NIPSCO may offer site visits to shortlisted bidders following the RFP, however, they do not anticipate scheduling visits for prospective bidders.

GEN 00035
Published On: 05/14/2024

Question: For RFP2 it mentions NIPSCO is looking for development partners/EPCs to build on NIPSCO sites. If NIPSCO were to partner with an EPC would this have to be in a build transfer structure, or under a more traditional EPC agreement with LNTPs/FNTP and milestone or progress payments throughout execution?

Answer: NIPSCO is open to a range of bid structures.

GEN 00036
Published On: 05/20/2024

Question: Could you please provide details on the tenor of the PPA in RFP 3 Bridge Capacity Solutions?

Answer: Bridge resource should be for 3 to 5 years in duration. NIPSCO is open to longer-term options as well.

GEN 00037
Published On: 05/20/2024

Question: Just clarifying, do the technical specifications apply to all projects interconnecting into NIPSCO or just the Schafer site?

Answer: Technical specifications apply to the Schafer site.

GEN 00038
Published On: 05/20/2024

Question: RFP 3 asks for capacity and energy resources that could be available within 18 to 36 months. Is that 18 to 36 months from the issuance of the RFP or from contract execution?

Answer: 18 to 36 months is an approximate range based on RFP issuance. NIPSCO would have interest in seeing bids with near-term availability even if it falls slightly outside the stated range.

GEN 00039
Published On: 05/21/2024

Question: The RFP states that proposals for RFPs 1-3 must have a MISO generator IC queue position, could you please clarify what the corresponding interconnection requirement is for RFP 4 proposals? Are interconnection agreements required, and if not what interconnection documentation is required for RFP 4 proposals?

Answer: RFP4 allows for distribution level projects and, as a result, does not require a MISO queue position.  Transmission level projects that qualify under other RFP4 requirements are also allowed to bid.  For such projects, while a MISO queue position would be considered in scoring it is not required.  All Bidders bidding into RFP4 should provide information on their interconnection timeline and progress.

GEN 00040
Published On: 05/21/2024

Question: We are interested in submitting a proposal to be NIPSCO’s development partner at the two NIPSCO project sites. What does NIPSCO want us to submit for this feature of the RFP? For example: do they want a simple project packet? Will they just use information from other projects we submit to decide their development partner? Or is it this language from the RFP doc the content they are looking for? “Bidders proposing a standalone storage solution or storage integrated with already committed NIPSCO renewable installation should include the following information in support or their bids: • Economic life assumption • MW and MWh parameters (storage capacity and duration) • Anticipated UCAP for summer and winter MISO seasons • Round-trip efficiency • Charge and discharge limits 25 • Limits on the count of cycles per day or year • Degradation assumptions if ongoing costs do not maintain performance”

Answer: NIPSCO is looking for a specific proposal related to a project site.  This would include siting information, project cost, performance information and the development timeline.

GEN 00041
Published On: 05/21/2024

Question: If circumstances change after a respondent bids into the NIPSCO RFP, what is the process for a respondent to withdraw or meaningfully change a Project, and what are the consequences to the respondent in the event of such withdrawal or change?

Answer: Bidders can withdraw projects from the RFP.  In fairness to all process bidders, however, CRA cannot accept substantial changes to bids after the bid deadline.  Bidders, however, can provide minor updates or corrections if necessary.

GEN 00042
Published On: 05/30/2024

Question: How does NIPSCO intend to use the Dispatchable Intermittent Resource information/distinction for hybrid projects?

Answer: Curtailment information may be used in the levelized cost calculation.


There are no FAQs in this category at this time.


AGR 00001
Published On: 05/09/2024

Question: Are you able to share any guidance as to deliverables that would be helpful for NIPSCO in identifying EPC/Development Partners to construct storage resources at Schahfer and Michigan City? Does NIPSCO expect submission of any of the documents listed in the RFP Documents section, and which, if any of the RFP proposal contents would NIPSCO expect potential storage development partners to submit?

Answer: Bidders would need to submit the Appendix H: Information Addendum for standalone storage. Bidders should also fill out any applicable fields in the two PDF Forms: Questionnaire for Facilities in Development Technical and Reliability Questionnaire for All Facilities. To the extent there are assumptions and uncertainties associated with the bid, they should be described in the RFP narrative.

RFP Rules

RUL 00001
Published On: 05/08/2024

Question: What exactly is binding upon the Respondent upon the RFP submission on June 7 (noting that commercial terms would be yet to be negotiated)?

Answer: The RFP evaluation is based on the bids as they are submitted. If a short-listed bid proposes significant changes to facility configuration and pricing during final contract negotiation, that bid may be disqualified. NIPSCO is requesting a reasonable, good faith estimate of a PPA/AT costs at the time of bid submission. Key Commercial Terms have been posted to provide an example of the type and nature of Agreement that NIPSCO would anticipate negotiating with a short-listed Respondent and to provide guidance to Respondents in the preparation of bids. The short-listed Respondent and NIPSCO will negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to govern any commercial relationship established by the parties.

RUL 00002
Published On: 05/09/2024

Question: 1) Page 27 of the RFP states each project must have a MISO generator IC queue position. Is this applicable to the RFP DER project bids as well? 2) If a bidder has multiple operating projects that exceed 3MW together, are they allowed to bid an aggregation to meet the 3MW threshold? Or must each facility be at least 3MW DC?

Answer: DER bids that intend to connect to NIPSCO's distribution system do not need a MISO queue number. Individual projects should meet the minimum MW threshold. The size threshold is in place to minimize costs associated with management of a portfolio of small-scale projects.

RUL 00003
Published On: 05/09/2024

Question: Would a 400 MW portion of a larger-sized project be considered conforming, if metered separately?

Answer: Yes

RUL 00004
Published On: 05/10/2024

Question: We are looking to submit to the NIPSCO RFP and were wondering what about the proposals NIPSCO desires to be ‘binding’. While we are in the queue process, we do not have our final costs and are hesitant to hold out firm pricing or a binding proposal for 6+ months. Any more information you could provide would be helpful. Would a non-binding proposal be accepted or dismissed out of hand?

Answer: Bids should reflect best estimates on interconnection costs.  Bids should be good faith estimates of project costs, however some price movement may occur during final negotiation.