Selling Power to the Utility

Questions & Answers

We believe that one of the main drivers of success of the competitive bidding process is to ensure transparency in that process. We believe that seeking the input of stakeholders and working collaboratively with such stakeholders to refine and improve the process will lead to successful RFPs.

We hope that the following answers to stakeholder questions will be helpful to potential Proposers and others interested in our RFPs. In order to ensure that information provided by the Company is shared fairly with all Proposers, we are utilizing this page as a repository for questions and answers. While we aim to provide answers to all questions asked, it may not be feasible to respond directly to each question or comment submitted. Instead, similar questions may be consolidated so as to provide more helpful information. Questions specific to a particular project that might give a competitive advantage or contain confidential information may not be answered here or may be reframed in such a way as to be made available to the general public. Questions not relevant to these RFPs or questions received late in the process which do not allow for the Company to provide an adequate answer may also not be answered here.

RFP Changes

Update (December 23, 2019)

R1: Change in Requirements for Diagrams Required on Proposal Due Date

Since the proposal submission period includes the busy holiday season, to reduce the burden on Proposers the requirements for the diagrams required in Appendix B, Section 2.10.1 have changed. As detailed below, the Company will no longer be requiring three-line diagrams, or diagrams to have a stamped approval by a Professional Electrical Engineer at the time of proposal submission.

Proposal submissions must include a single-line diagram, relay list, trip scheme and settings of the generating facility, which identifies the Point of Interconnection, circuit breakers, relays, switches, synchronizing by the Proposal Due Date. Such diagrams are not required to have a stamped approval by a Professional Electrical Engineer registered in the State of Hawaii.

A three-line diagram which shows the Point of Interconnection, potential transformer (PT) and current transformer (CT) ratios, and details of the generating facility configuration, including relays, meters, and test switches is no longer required on the Proposal Due Date.

However, Proposers whose Projects are selected to the Final Award Group are required to submit single-line and three-line diagrams as described above, that have been approved by a Professional Electrical Engineer registered in the State of Hawaii. SUCH DIAGRAMS ONLY ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER FINAL AWARD GROUP SELECTION. THE COMPLETE PACKAGE OF IRS DATA REQUEST WORKSHEETS, MODELS FOR EQUIPMENT AND CONTROLS, LIST(S) AND COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION AND INSTRUCTION SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RFP SECTION 5.1.

Q&A

R1:

Will an executed NDA from the Maui Stage 2 RFP be sufficient for the Molokai and/or Lanai RFP?

A:

No, a separate NDA must be executed for each RFP, including separate NDA's for Molokai and Lanai RFPs.

R2:

Does the response to the PPA Contract Term limit need to be 25 years, or could a Proposer respond with a different term limit?

A:

The Proposal Contract Term will be determined by the Proposer, and shall be indicated in the Proposer's response to Item 8 in the Proposal Summary Table shown in Section 2.0 of Appendix B. Variations of a Proposer's base variation Proposal may include a different Proposal Contract Term length in accordance with RFP Section 1.8.3. As set forth in Section 12.1 of the Model PPA (Appendix K and L of the Molokai RFP), any proposed extension of the term of the PPA will require PUC approval and, as such, will need to be negotiated between the parties and submitted to the PUC no later than one year prior to the expiration of the initial term of the PPA. In addition, it is the Company's expectation that the pricing for any extended term will be reduced in recognition that Seller will have recovered its capital and financing costs.

R3:

Could you please confirm whether the Molokai voltage is 12.0 kV, or actually 12.47 kV as typical?

A:

The Palaau Power Station Switchgear is 12.47 kV. Appendix H of the Molokai RFP provided interconnection details and costs. All references to 12 kV in Appendix H are in fact 12.47 kV. Please note there is one line section on Molokai at 34.5 kV.

R4:

What is the MW capacity at the Palaau Station bus?

A:

The Company does not anticipate any problems interconnecting a renewable project capable of producing 8500 MWh (as required by the scope of this RFP) at Palaau Switchyard. The hosting capacities for the distribution circuits have been established, but not the remaining capacity at the Palaau Station bus. If a project is selected for inclusion in the Final Award Group, the remaining capacity at the Palaau Station bus will be analyzed as part of the IRS.

R5:

Will an alternative technology (other than wind or PV) be considered in the Molokai RFP?

A:

No, per RFP Section 1.2.1 which states, "The Company will only accept Proposals that utilize PV or wind (100 kW per turbine or less) generation technologies, and all Proposals must be paired with energy storage," alternative technologies will not be allowed.

On August 6, 2019, the Companies filed their proposed Draft Request for Proposals for Variable Renewable Dispatchable Generation Paired with Energy Storage for the islands of Molokai and Lanai. The Company explained in its transmittal letter that unlike the Oahu, Maui and Hawaii RFPs, which allow Proposals for any type of renewable generation, the types of generating technology allowed for the Draft Renewable RFPs for Molokai and Lanai are limited and based primarily on proven technologies believed to be available and economical at the scales being sought and could be placed into service quickly. The Draft Renewable RFP for Molokai is limited to Proposals for PV paired with storage or small wind, specified as 100 kW or less turbines, paired with storage. In addition to being proven technologies that can be economical at smaller scales, the limitation for Molokai was also based in large part on the Companies' outreach efforts since 2017 on the island of Molokai. Through the Companies' community meetings and polling, the residents of Molokai identified PV as their top choice technology, with small wind being the second preferred option.