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?
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 NIPSCO-RFPManager@crai.com 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.