4.1 miller bros qualifications - p3 virginia...duct and manhole installation . medium and high...

4.1 Miller Bros Qualifications

Page 208REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RESPONSES

Renewable Qualifications Statement

February 20, 2015

This electronic message is intended to be viewed only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is

privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is

strictly prohibited without our prior permission. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or employee or agent responsible

for delivering the message to the intended recipient, or if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by

return email and delete the original message and any copies of it from your computer system. Miller Bros at 301 Alan Wood Road,

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428.

09REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RESPONSES

Electric Utility On-Call Emergency/Disaster Response Aerial and Underground Construction

Duct and Manhole Installation Medium and High Voltage

Transmission and Distribution Installations up to 500kV

Substation and Switchyard OPGW, ADSS, ACSR

Transit Services Fiber Optic Installation

Catenary Column & Cable Installation Rail Relay and Switching

Railway Signalization Caisson Installation

Traction Power Bonding

Heavy & Highway Traffic Signal Construction & Maintenance

Intelligent Traffic Systems Highway Lighting

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Vertical Coring & Conventional Bores

Commercial Interior & Exterior Power Distribution

Fire Alarm/ Security/ Data/ BAU SCADA/Smart Grid Lighting Solutions

Generators, UPS’s, VFD’s Operations & Maintenance

TEGG Infrared Testing

Power System Studies Arc Flash Hazard Analysis Preventive Maintenance

Breaker Testing Upgrade, Reconditioning

& Retrofit Projects 24/7 Technical Support

Renewable Energy Solar, Wind, Co-Gen, CHP Full Project Development

Complete Project Financing Full EPC

Operations & Maintenance Monitoring & Data Collection

Natural Gas Utility Main and Service Installation and Repairs

Low Pressure to High Pressure Riser Replacement and Meter Sets

Integrity/Corrosion Inspections & Repairs Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

Vacuum Excavation Operator Qualifications(OQ):NGA, ITS & MEA

Telecommunications Underground and Aerial Installations

ADSS and OPGW Inside and Outside Plant Construction

Fusion Splicing & Testing Duct and Manhole Installation

3/2/2015 1

24/7 EMERGENCY SERVICE


Table of Contents

Company Overview Table of Contents General Information Financial, Insurance, Safety & Bonding Information Key Personnel Resumes Project Management Plan Solar Project Experience Equipment Appendix A: Health & Safety Documentation Appendix B: Quality Management Plan Appendix C: Solar Project Case Studies Appendix D: NJ Licenses & Certificates Appendix E: Insurance


General Information

Facilities

Physical Address: 301 Alan Wood Road, Conshohocken, PA 19428 Main Telephone Number: 610‐832‐1000 Main Fax Number: 610‐832‐1005 Website: www.millerbros.us Corporate Information

General Date Company Originated: 1937 Date of Incorporation: 1989 State of Incorporation: Pennsylvania Management Harry B. Miller III President and Chief Executive Officer Michael T. Miller Executive Vice President Gerard deLisser Vice President, Project Development Douglas Stoneback Vice President, Operations

Regional Offices

Pennsylvania

Physical Address: 301 Alan Wood Road, Conshohocken, PA 19428 Main Telephone Number: 610‐832‐1000 Main Fax Number: 610‐832‐1005


Corporate Financial, Insurance and Bonding Information

Financial Statement

A statement of Miller Bros financial condition including our latest year end audited financial statements can be provided upon request. Insurance, Health & Safety

Insurance Agency Agent: The Safeguard Group, Inc. 100 Granite Drive, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063 Contact: Apurva Upadhyay, CRIS Phone: 973‐921‐8201 Policies: General Liability, Workman’s Compensation, Automobile, Umbrella Liability,

Inland Marine Insurance Coverage General Liability: $1,000,000.00 Each Occurrence Automotive: $1,000,000.00 Each Occurrence Umbrella: $10,000,000.00 Each Occurrence Inland Marine: $2,341,208 Blanket Experience Modification Rates 2014 .684 2013 .808 2012 1.06 2011 .985 2010 .985 Corporate Safety Programs Comprehensive written safety and hazardous communications programs are currently in place, which address all of the procedures relative to the electrical construction industry. A copy of the safety manual is available upon request along with additional other safety statistics. Bonding Information Bonding Company: Willis of Massachusetts, Inc. 185 Asylum Street, 25th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103 Contact: Danielle M. Bechard, Senior Client Manager Phone: 860‐241‐4438 Bonding Capacity: $100,000,000+


Home Office Key Personnel – The Miller Bros. Team

Corporate Operations Harry B. Miller III President Michael T. Miller Vice President

Gerard deLisser Vice President, Project Development

Douglas Stoneback Vice President, Operations Scott Rhea Vice President, Utility Services Steve Johnson Director, Utility Services Rick Rizzardi Director, Gas Services Estimating & Project Mgmt John Irving Chief Estimator & Senior Project Manager Joe Marrone Estimator & Senior Project Manager Matthew Williams Senior Project Manager Tyson Mandell Project Manager Anthony Barbetto Project Engineer Asset Mgmt. / O&M Ryan Hoffman Director of Asset Management Financial Operations Danielle Mazza, CPA, CGMA Controller Health & Safety Lisa Rancitelli Health & Safety Director


Safety Plans

Miller Brothers is dedicated to maintaining the safety and health of our employees. Our company has an OSHA compliant internal safety program and staff members dedicated to maintaining the plan and training of new staff. Miller Bothers has qualified and successfully worked under numerous federal and corporate safety programs and requirements. This historical concern for the well being of our employees results in a strong company emphasis on health and safety in all aspects of the construction business. The nature of the electrical construction industry requires strict attention to construction safety protocols. We are committed to meeting the stringent health and safety controls that are necessary to protect the health of workers and the public. Our health and safety program is designed to address both the risks of heavy civil construction and electrical installation. Successful implementation of our health and safety program on complex projects has been a significant part of the Miller Brothers experience. The Project Manager always retains overall responsibility for the projects safety performance. His foremost concern is protecting the safety and health of both the on‐site workers and the public at large, while executing site activities in strict accordance with the approved safety program, project plans and regulatory requirements. Through aggressive management oversight, the Project Manager and the Superintendant properly coordinate with our Safety & Health Manager to implement the most current Miller Brothers safety program procedures and the approved Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP). Cost Controls

Cost control is a constant focus for Miller Brothers project team. It begins with the estimating process and continues with project execution and closeout. Throughout this process, our Project Managers utilize a variety of tools to keep focused on controlling and managing cost. Our belief is that efficiencies are found and errors are avoided through regular detailed analysis of productions, man‐hour costs, material costs, equipment costs and subcontractor costs in addition to assessing risk. Miller Brothers executes the same stringent level of cost control and procedures for fixed price projects as we do for cost reimbursable projects. For us, each of our procedures makes good business sense and we follow them because they provide for tight project management control and cost effective results on all projects. Cost control begins during the project planning stage in our estimating process with a clear definition of the project scope and performance activities, specific task analysis, time, crew size and composition and equipment. Miller Brothers estimating methodology uses build‐up, bottoms‐up approach to cost estimating, identifying and reviewing specific activities and then incorporation each into a cost estimate. Our system allows us to efficiently execute our preferred estimating methods by enabling the separation and segregation of pricing for each work activity, as well as summarizing or “rolling up” categories for total estimate cost calculations. The granularity that comes with this approach helps ensure that once operations begin, there are no significant cost swings. Miller Bothers identifies major subcontractor activities early on in the bid process and develops comprehensive scopes of work as the basis for soliciting subcontractor quotes. We solicit multiple quotes for materials, subcontracts and equipment rentals with the support of our Procurement Manager. We require firm written quotes indicating prices, quantities, availability and delivery constraints as well as terms and conditions. The Project Management Team reviews the cost proposal. We also evaluate value engineering opportunities and alternatives that offer cost savings and incorporate them into the proposal as deemed appropriate.


Cost Tracking

Our Superintendant and Foreman review actual productions daily at the end of the shift to make real‐time adjustments preceding continued operations to ensure the project meets budgeted productions. Weekly operations meetings huddles provide our project staff an opportunity to review the resource utilization and rental reports, in addition to commitments and purchasing. Productivity and cost per unit of production are tracked against budget for both self‐performed and subcontracted tasks. Balancing resources is an essential element of our approach to effectively control costs, both direct and indirect on our projects and as a company. It is also a major influence on all of our areas of operation (continuity of personnel, process/procedure familiarity and client knowledge). Accurate manpower projections, timely acquisition of materials and services and proper scheduling/ deployment of equipment and subcontractors are critical to successful performance and effective cost control. Change Management

To effectively and efficiently manage change orders and additional scope items and to ensure that the client is aware of costs as work is occurring, our Project Manager coordinates closely with the client about each item not only prior to work beginning but during the entire design and construction process to minimize change orders as a result of additional work. Our primary objective is to deliver a quality project safely, on‐time and within budget. We recognize the value of continuously sharing up‐to‐date information to avoid errors, quality concerns or interferences on the project. Miller Brothers manages multidirectional communication between the engineers, subcontractors and clients in the event that Request For Information (RFI) responses provided result in a change of price or schedule. Similarly, Miller Brothers manages the change order process to limit impact to Miller Brothers and the owner’s budget as well as any detrimental impact to the project schedule. To do so, our Project Manager has constant communication within the project team and keeps detailed knowledge of the scope of work for each subcontractor.


Schedules

Miller Brothers has established standard planning and scheduling methodologies and procedures that we utilize during the estimating process, upon award (during job start up), and throughout the projects duration. We use several industry standard systems and tolls in the planning process. In addition, our project delivery team extensively uses internal manuals, procedures, forms and checklists. Miller Brothers offers our clients a thoroughly coordinated approach to integrate planning, design development, permitting, procurement, construction, inspections and commissioning. Our plans are driven by the major milestones and critical paths shown in our project schedule. We sequence activities in parallel to fast‐track the project schedule in order to meet the required completion date. This process is the same for all design/build projects. The on‐time execution of this project of this project is reliant on full client involvement, including early, rapid and continuous participation for design reviews and approvals as well as efficient permitting from local authorities. The final stages of the project require careful and diligent coordination of multiple calendars in order to obtain required inspections and utility interconnection. The most critical client coordination points are as follows:

Fast tracked design development process so we can quickly produce 100% design documents.

Regular involvement and support during the construction process to avoid delays.

Communication and coordination during inspections, utility interconnection, commissioning and project close‐out.

With this level of client support, Miller Brothers will deliver a successful, safe project that meets the required completion date on schedule and within budget. Quality Management System

Miller Brothers defines “quality” as meeting standards, requirements and expectations of both internal and external customers. The QMS provides the structure to achieve the quality management goals necessary to obtain world‐class standards of performance and quality in all areas of operations. The purpose of the QMS is to ensure the quality of products and services provided to customers. The QMS is a framework that provides structures for organizational level and project‐specific quality planning, implementation and performance assessment. The QMS consists of the following components:

Corporate Position on Quality – Describes the corporate policy on quality.

Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) – Defines the elements of the QMS and the roles and responsibilities of the corporate and quality control organizations. Provides details for implementation of each element of the QWS. The QAPP is the basis for program‐focused and project‐focused Quality Control Project Plans (QCPs).

Quality Control Project Plans (QCPs)‐Detailed QA/QC documents designed for specific programs or individual projects. Requirements are tailored to particular contracts, customer expectations, specific scopes of services and site conditions.

Quality Control Manual (QCM)‐ Document specifying who shall apply what procedures and when to a specific product, process and/ or service.

Standard Operating Practices (SOP’s) – Company‐adopted QA procedures and repetitive process operations referenced by the QAPP and contained in the quality control manual.


Quality Assurance

Quality assurance involves our system of activities and procedures that ensures that a process, product or service meets the needs and expectations of the customer. QA is an integral part of the QMS. The organizational and project‐specific quality elements of the QMS are used to define QA practices.

Quality elements at the organizational level regulate activities that support common or standardized functions such as employee qualifications and training, document control, billing, cost reporting and material procurement.

Quality elements at the project level address the definition and implementation of customer requirements to produce the desired type and quality of product service.

Some specific examples of organizational quality elements in the QMS are:

QAPP and quality procedures implementing the plan.

The QAM who oversees, assesses and maintains the quality system.

Management assessments which provide feedback to corporate management on the effectiveness of the QMS.

Independent review of design prior to release to customers.

The use of SOPs to provide standardization of repetitive activities.

Procurement policies and standard procedures used to achieve necessary and sufficient quality standards in procurement of items and services subcontracts.

Document control procedures to that guide the use of correct versions of reviewed and distributed documents in addition to the proper disposition of quality documents.

Quality improvement processes to improve service, process and product quality.

Computer hardware and software control to verify that appropriate results are obtained. Some specific examples of project‐level quality elements in the QMS are:

Project planning for all projects, regardless of size: planning based on contract requirements, the use of customer communications, work plans and project instructions.

Preparation and implementation of construction QC Plans with procedures that specify how to carry out activities and define inspection to ensure equality.

QCP’s that document the data collection planning process, describe specific procedures for data collection.

Quality assessments and audits used as follow‐up.

Document and design reviews by qualified technical personnel and senior reviewers to reduce errors and ensure consistency.

Technical assessments for the technical adequacy of items, activities and documents.’

Quality implementation of work processes (i.e. follow only planned, reviewed and approved procedures.)

Generation of QC records stating quality results achieved or providing evidence of activities performed.


The quality program is applicable to all Miller Brothers projects. The quality elements and procedures are applied to specific activities being performed to the appropriate degree based on the importance of each activity in achieving technical and quality objectives. This is a graded approach to quality designed to achieve the following:

Uncompromised adherence to project safety and safe work practices.

Conformance and compliance with contract requirements.

Use of necessary and documented methods to obtain reported data.

Reported data are valid and of known quality.

Reported observations, analyses are accurate and within known limits.

Designed facilities will meet design objectives and function satisfactorily.

Controls in place to perform work safely with protection of project personnel in compliance with applicable federal and state health and safety rules.

Maintenance of appropriate project records. Quality Assurance Plan

The QAPP describes the QMS describes the QMS. It is applicable to all Miller Brothers operations and provides direction to all administrative and technical areas. The QAPP takes precedence over internal policy matters and all other quality related documents. Quality Control Project Plans

Contracts or large programs sometimes require quality elements that are more specific than Miller Brothers QAPP. To address these elements, program‐specific QCP’s will be prepared and implemented. The requirements documented in a QCP take precedence over the QAPP for the program. The QCP’s will be tailored to meet the specific needs of the program to which they apply.

Construction Quality Control Plan

The Construction Quality Control Plan (CQCP) is developed to ensure the following:

To achieve a quality product on time and in compliance with the terms of the contract.

To establish and utilize a construction quality program of the scope and character necessary to achieve the quality of construction outlined in the contract.

To produce and maintain acceptable records of its quality control activities.

The CQCP defines the QMS for a construction project as dictated by customer requirements. The QMS consists of the plans, procedures and organization necessary to construct the facility in accordance with the contract and design specifications. The CQCP covers all construction operations, both on‐site and off‐site as well as work performed by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers and purchasing agents.


The CQCP is used to verify that the construction activities are performed in a timely manner, reliable, meet their intended purpose and are of the specified quality. The CQCP includes the processes used to verify construction quality in the work processes, materials of construction and construction services. Components of a CQCP include:

QC organization, including lines of authority and communication.

Qualifications of QC personnel.

Definable feature of work (DFW)

Procedures for scheduling and managing submittals.

Surveillance

Inspection

Acceptance of testing procedures.

Testing methods.

Documentation procedures. Implementation of the CQCP is the responsibility of all personnel providing services for the construction. The Construction Quality Systems Manager (CQSM) verifies he implementation of a CQCP. Three‐Phase Quality Control Process

Each phase of the control process presents the programmatic requirements for ensuring that the work is completed in a coordinated and efficient manner with the highest level of integrity and quality. The Preparatory Phase is executed prior to initiating a DWF. The CQSM will conduct a preparatory phase meeting to ensure that all necessary pre‐construction activities have been completed including:

Permit requirements and approvals

Notifications

Submittal Approvals

Materials Management

Specifications and drawings review

The preparatory Phase also establishes equipment and manpower requirements and defines personnel roles and responsibilities. Safety and health requirements are also identified and discussed during the Preparatory Phase of quality control. The Internal Phase of the quality control process ensures that the requirements and methods identified during the Preparatory Phase are implemented appropriately. This phase establishes the minimum quality requirements, workmanship and methods for execution of the DFW or task. It is implemented during the DFW inception prior to significant work completion. The Follow‐Up Phase of the quality control process is completed during the DFW execution to ensure that the minimum quality requirements established during the Initial Phase are being met. This phase covers all work completed from the end of the initial Phase through the completion of the DFW. The Follow‐Up Phase includes all required testing and inspections. Meetings and Inspections

QC meetings and inspections will be conducted and documented to ensure that the QC process is working. This phased system of quality control will be implemented for each DFW as previously defined or as defined by the CQCO or CQSM. All inspections will be documented and attached to the Daily Quality Control Report (DQCR).


Craft Worker Statement

Miller Brothers employs full‐time craft workers from all trades. Our workforce of trained and experienced line workers, electricians, laborers, equipment operators, mechanical workers and iron workers means that we can successfully handle any task related to the project in‐house. Our workforce is dedicated to delivering the highest quality product for our valued clients and customers. Submittals and Documentation

The CQSM will be responsible for review and management of all submittals prior to transmittal. Submittals will be reviewed to ensure that they are accurate and completed in conformance with all applicable specifications. Items identified for “Client Approval” in the project contract specifications will be submitted to the appropriate client reviewers in the quantities specified in the contract. Copies of data for items listed as “For Information Only” in the specifications will be submitted in the quantities specified in the contract. Submittals requiring client approval will be stamped and dated by the approving agency. Once the submittal has been reviewed and coded, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the reviewers comments, approval or re‐submittal requirements. A submittal register will be maintained will for the project duration by the CQSM and will be revised weekly to update submittal status. The updated register will be maintained on‐site (accessible to all project personnel) and an updated copy will be provided weekly to the client. Field Logbooks and Daily Record Keeping

The CQSM will maintain a daily field CQC logbook of construction activities. The intent of the CQC logbook is to consolidate field notations for all construction quality control related project activities and will be the core document used to generate the DQCR’s. The logbook will be used as the primary source to document used to generate the DQCR’s. The logbook will be used as the primary source to document quality control information and CQC research. Construction Daily Quality Control Reports

Miller Brothers will maintain daily records and submit daily reports on all construction quality control activities. The reports will be factual records containing all construction related numerical data (i.e. test results) and quality control logs. The construction DCQR will contain the daily record of inspections for all work accomplished subsequent to previous day’s work. The DCQR will consolidate and summarize all reports and logs for the day and copies of these documents will be attached to the DCQR. Deficiency Management

This section describes the procedures for controlling items that are noncompliant with the specified design requirements. A tracking system (i.e. electronic spreadsheet) will be implemented to identify such nonconforming items and monitor them through resolution by corrective action. Deficiencies may be identified during all of the three‐phases of the quality control process. Defects and deficiencies identified will be documented in the DQCR. Once identified, defects and deficiencies will be added to the tracking system and will be monitored closely until the appropriate corrective action (re‐work, repair, replacement or acceptance0 is completed. The client will be informed of all identified deficiencies the prescribed corrective action(s) and the status of the corrective action through completion. Once the corrective action(s) for an identified item has been completed, the item will be closed‐out by removing it from the active corrective action request log and finalizing the non‐conformance report. Stop work authority can be used whenever continued work will either compromise


the quality of the project or jeopardize the health and safety of the workers. All stop work actions must be documented including identification of the person(s) involved, persons notified of the action, tasks being performed and the deficient act or material that justifies the stop work action. Work related to the deficiency will not be allowed to continue until the appropriately prescribed actions have been implemented and documented. Field Work Variances

All variances from the contract specifications or drawings will be documented. This report will identify the variance, proposed change, technical justification, cost and schedule impact (to be determined by the PM as applicable). All field work variance reports must be reviewed, approved and signed by the client prior to implementation. Punch List

Punch‐lists are a tool for identifying remaining items to be addressed and are associated with a DFW or a specific work tasks. A project construction punch list will be generated by the CQSM for each major portion of work. These punch lists will identify all outstanding items to be completed prior to approval and release of final payment. Construction punch lists will identify the item to be addressed, the date of notice, the individual identifying the problem, the person responsible for addressing the item, the method by which the item is addressed and the date the item is addressed and accepted by. Testing

All tests and inspections will be performed in accordance with the procedures contained within the project contract documents. The QCSM will be responsible for the tracking, verification and documentation of all contract documents. The QCSM will be responsible for the tracking, verification and documentation of all test and inspection activities and data. The contractor will perform specified or required tests to verify that control measures are adequate to provide a product that conforms to contract requirements. Project Closeout Procedures

Project Closeout Procedures are established to identify the requirements for the final project acceptance and ensure that Miller Brothers and its subcontractors and vendors have satisfactorily met all obligations as defined in the contract documents and all changes or modifications as identified in the project documentation. Final Inspection

Once all items on the punch list are addressed to the client’s satisfaction, a final inspection will be conducted. The final inspection will ensure that all outstanding items, including noted deficiencies and punch list items have been corrected and/ or addressed. Pre‐Operation and Sequence Verification

POSV, as appropriate, will be completed prior to system start up. All operating systems will be “tagged‐out” until the POSV is completed under witness by the CQSM and the client. All system components will be tested for proper placement and/or operation prior to start‐up. Upon completion of the POSV, the responsible technician or engineer and the CQSM will prepare and sign a POSV checklist (system specific) that identifies each tested component and the date and time of POSV. Additionally, the technician or engineer and the CQSM will initial each component as having witnessed their proper operation.


System Start‐Up

Upon completion of the POSV process, the system will be approved for start‐up. Final system adjustments will be made during the start‐up process to ensure that all components are functioning within the specified range(s) of operation. Communication during Construction

To efficiently execute construction work, an effective communications network must be established to resolve nonconference issues that may arise. Open lines of communication are essential to maintain strong working relationships and provide a quality‐constructed facility. To facilitate communication, a set of forms is used to document many of the projects activities. Forms currently available and useful to a project are presented in appropriate SOPs. Additional communication forms and documentation are developed as deemed necessary on a project‐specific basis. Construction Reports

The following construction reports or others as identified in a project specification are issued to communicate progress of the progress of the project to the customer:

Analytical data reports

Daily quality controls reports

Quality control summary reports

Records arising from the disposal of potentially hazardous construction waste Quality Assurance & Acceptance Testing

Miller Brothers will conduct a full System Quality Control Audit upon completion of system assembly. This QC Audit will include a full site visit and inspection upon completion of the project by our designated Engineering team auditor.


Recent Solar Projects

Toys R’ Us, Inc., Rooftop Array, Flanders, New Jersey 5.4MW Constellation Energy, John Gummel, Project Manager, 215.390.2048

Interconnection, Substation, AC/DC Wiring, Testing & Commissioning. Q4 2011

Benjamin Moore Paints, Inc., Ground Array, Flanders, New Jersey 1.9MW

Constellation Energy, John Gummel, Project Manager, 215.390.2048 Interconnection, Substation, AC/DC Wiring, Testing & Commissioning.

Q4 2010

Hess Corporation, Ground Tracker Array, Woodbridge, New Jersey 1.1MW Sunpower Corporation, Eric Dietl, Senior Project Manager, 609.964.8900

Installation of Ground Mount Tracker System, Interconnection, Substation, AC/DC Wiring, Testing & Commissioning.

Q1 2012

Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis Center, Rooftop Array, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 330kW Arthur Ashe Tennis Center 215.487.3477

Interconnection, Substation, AC/DC Wiring, Testing & Commissioning. Q3 2011

Vineland Solar Plant, Ground Array, Vineland, New Jersey 6.5MW

Constellation Energy, John Gummel, Project Manager, 215.390.2048 High Voltage Installation, AC/DC Terminations & Final Commissioning.

Q2 2011

Maryland Port Authority Cruise Terminal, Rooftop Array Baltimore, Maryland 750kW Pepco Holdings, Inc

Q4 2011

Frenchtown I, Ground Array, Frenchtown, New Jersey 3.5MW RMT Energy, 608.831.4444

High Voltage Installation, Re-commissioning, Final Commissioning. Q2 2011



Frenchtown II, Ground Array, Frenchtown, New Jersey 3.5MW RMT Energy, 608.831.4444

High Voltage Installation, Re-commissioning, Final Commissioning. Q2 2011

Flemington Solar, Flemington, New Jersey 9MW

RMT Energy, 608.831.4444 High Voltage Installation, Re-commissioning, Final Commissioning.

Q2 2011

Lebanon Solar, Ground Array, Lebanon, New Jersey 2.3MW High Voltage Installation, Re-commissioning, Final Commissioning.

RMT Energy, 608.831.4444 Q2 2011

Citizens Energy, Devens, Massachusetts 3MW

Toshiba Corporation, John Gummel, Project Manager 866.810.9758 Installation of Ground Mount System, Interconnection, High Voltage, AC/DC Wiring, Testing,

Commissioning Q3 2012

Mountain Creek, KDC Development Corporation, Ground Mount Arrays 7MW

Interconnection, High Voltage, AC/DC Wiring, Testing, Commissioning Sebastian M. Marano, SVP Engineering 908.212.3625

Q3 2013

ImClone, KDC Development Corporation, Ground Mount Arrays 10MW Interconnection, High Voltage, AC/DC Wiring, Testing, Commissioning

Sebastian M. Marano, SVP Engineering 908.212.3625 Q3 2013



Chelmsford Public Schools, Roof Arrays, Chelmsford, MA 2.3MW Johnson Controls Inc., Purchasing, 781-224-5525

Full EPC, in construction Q3 2014

Pittsgrove Solar Project, South Jersey Industries, Ground Mount Array 2.3MW

S.J.I., Inc. 609-568-9028, Full EPC Q4 2013

Newark International Airport, Borrego Solar, Roof Mount Array 600kW

Borrego Operations (888) 898-6273 Complete mechanical and electrical construction

Q1 2014

Brickyard Solar Project, South Jersey Industries, Ground Mount Array 2.3MW S.J.I., Inc. 609-568-9028 Full EPC, in construction

Q4 2014

J&J Mc Neil, Conergy, Ground Mount Array 500kW Conergy Projects Group 888-396-6611

Complete mechanical and electrical construction Q3 2014

Holland Solar Project, South Jersey Industries, Ground Mount Array 3.4MW

S.J.I., Inc. 609-568-9028 Full EPC, in construction

Q4 2014

Frankford Solar Project, South Jersey Industries, Ground Mount Array 10 MW

S.J.I., Inc. 609-568-9028 Full EPC, in construction

Q4 2014

Ogdensburg Solar Project, NYSERDA, Ground Array 2.7 MW

NYSERDA 518-862-1090 Full EPC, in construction

Q2 2015


NextEra Energy Resources, Acquisitions, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 www.NextEraEnergyResources.com

Request for Information Solar Energy Development Project Presented to Virginia Public - Private Partnerships March 13, 2015


VIRGINIA PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT March 13, 2015

The contents of this document are non-binding. Page | 2

General Information

1. What relevant qualifications and experience does the respondent have in developing and delivering large (>100kW) solar energy projects?

Company Overview

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra) is one of the largest wholesale generators of clean power in the U.S. Our parent company, NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE), is a publicly traded Fortune 200 company with approximately $74 billion in total assets that has been in business since 1925. In 2014, NextEra Energy, Inc. recorded consolidated revenues of approximately $17 billion, and as of year-end, owned 44,900 MW of generating capacity in operation. Additionally, NextEra Energy, Inc. employs nearly 14,000 employees in 26 states and Canada.

As an unregulated, competitive energy business, NextEra’s primary business objective is the development, construction and operation of power plants. The company has been generating clean energy for more than 25 years and is the largest generator of wind and solar power in North America, with more than 11,000 MW of wind and 1,200 MW of solar commercially operating in its portfolio. Of the 19,500 MW of generating assets we own in operation, approximately 95% are generating electricity from clean or renewable sources.

Solar Experience

NextEra has greater than 1,000 MW of solar operating, in construction, or in development with a PPA across the United States. The following is a list of NextEra’s currently operating utility-scale solar facilities:

Facility Location Size Description NextEra Role

Genesis Solar Blythe, California 250 MW Solar thermal generation facilities commenced commercial operation in April 2014. PG&E is the energy buyer.

Construct, own and operate

Desert Sunlight Riverside County, CA

550 MW Photovoltaic generation facilities commenced commercial operation in 2013 and 2014. SCE and PG&E are the energy buyers.

Managing partner and 50% owner

Solar Electric Generating Station (SEGS)

Kramer Junction and Harper Lake, California

310 MW SEGS is currently the largest solar project in the United States, using solar thermal technology. Commercial operation dates for the different units range from 1986 to 1990 and SCE is the energy buyer.

Own and operate

Paradise Solar West Deptford, New Jersey

5 MW Photovoltaic solar generation in facility commenced operation in 2010 and the energy is sold into the PJM market.





Facility Location Size Description NextEra Role

Hatch Solar Hatch, New Mexico

5 MW Concentrating photovoltaic solar generation facility commenced commercial operation in 2011 and El Paso Electric is the energy buyer.


St. Clair Solar Lambton County, Ontario, Canada

40 MW Photovoltaic solar generation of two projects of 20 MW each. Commenced commercial operation in February 2012 and Ontario Power Authority is the energy buyer


Mountain View Solar

North Las Vegas, Nevada

20 MW Photovoltaic solar generation facility commenced commercial operation in January 2014. NV Energy is the energy buyer.


Planta Termosolar I & II

Madrigalejo, Caceres, Spain

100 MW Solar thermal generation including 7 hours molten salt storage. Commenced commercial operation in 2013


The following is a list of solar facilities either under construction or contracted and scheduled to begin construction soon:

250 MW of photovoltaic generation near Blythe, California. Facility scheduled to commence commercial operation in 2016 (McCoy Solar). Southern California Edison is the energy buyer. NextEra will construct, own and operate.

27 MW of photovoltaic generation in Adelanto, California. Facility scheduled to commence commercial operation in 2015. Southern California Edison is the energy buyer. NextEra will construct, own and operate.

20 MW of photovoltaic generation in Shafter, California. Facility scheduled to commence commercial operation in 2015. Pacific Gas & Electric is the energy buyer. NextEra will construct, own and operate.

Distributed Generation Business

We are an energy company that builds and operates large, complex projects, with the flexibility to execute smaller, distributed projects as well. NextEra’s Distributed Generation (DG) business is a premier provider of solar power solutions serving commercial, institutional, utility, and public power customers across the country.

The DG business has transacted on more than 105 MW of distributed scale (below 20 MW in capacity) solar projects across eight states in the past several years. The projects below have been executed with a variety of customers (PPA off-takers), including public and private schools and universities, municipalities, commercial entities, investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and electric cooperatives.




Project Date Installed

Size (MW)

Loca- tion Type Operational NextEra’s Role

Ancillae Assumption Academy 2012 0.1 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing Bald Eagle Area Middle/High School 2012 0.5 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing

Bellefonte High School 2012 0.5 PA Roof Yes Development and Financing

Bevans Point 2014 2.6 OR Ground Yes Development and Financing

Big Y (Multiple Stores) 2011- 2012 3.1 MA Ground/Roof Yes Development and

Financing

BMW USA 2014 1.2 NJ Roof Yes Development , Financing Long term owner and operator

Calverton 2015 4 NY Ground No Acquisition

Campbell Soup 2012 2.2 CA Ground Yes Development and Financing

Central Regional School District 2011 1.5 NJ Ground Yes Development and

Financing

City of Yuma 2014 1.2 AZ Ground/ Carport Yes Development and

Financing

Crane School District 2012-2013 2.5 AZ Ground/ Carport Yes Development and

Financing

DEEM 2014 0.6 IN Roof No Development and Financing

Delaware Valley Friends School 2012 0.1 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing

Eastman Companies 2012 500 NJ Roof Yes Development and Financing

Gettysburg College 2012 0.4 PA Roof Yes Development and Financing

Grinnell Enterprises 2012 0.8 NJ Ground Yes Development and Financing

Grocer’s Supply 2014 1.0 IN Roof No Development and Financing

Heywood Hospital 2015 1.0 MA Carport No Development , Financing Long term owner and operator

Houghton College 2014 2.6 NY Ground Yes Development and Financing

Livingstone Associates 2013 0.5 NJ Roof and Ground Yes Development and

Financing Marion Walker Elementary School 2012 0.1 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing Middle Township School District (Mult. Sites) 2012 1.5 NJ Roof Yes Development and

Financing Monmouth County (Mult. Sites) 2012 1.6 NJ Ground/

Carport Yes Development and Financing

Moravian Academy 2012 1.3 PA Ground Yes Development and Financing

Oneida County 2015 5.2 NY Ground No Development, Financing, Long-




Project Date Installed

Size (MW)

Loca- tion Type Operational NextEra’s Role

Term owner and operator

Outback Solar 2012 5.7 OR Ground Yes Development and Financing

Pleasant Gap Elementary School 2012 0.05 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing Sacramento Municipal Utility District – Boessow

2011 3.7 CA Ground Yes Financing

Sacramento Municipal Utility District – Bruceville


Sacramento Municipal Utility District – Kost 2011 3.7 CA Ground Yes Financing

Sacramento Municipal Utility District - Point Pleasant


Springside Academy 2012 0.1 PA Roof Yes Development and Financing

Stockton Unified School District 2014 6.6 CA Carport Yes Development and

Financing The School at Church Farm 2012 1.0 PA Ground Yes Development and

Financing

Tompkins Cortland Community College 2015 2.6 NY Ground No

Development , Financing, Long term owner and operator

Town of Prescott Valley (Multiple Sites) 2013 1.5 AZ Ground Yes Development and

Financing Union Beach Memorial Elementary School 2012 0.5 NJ Parking/Roof Yes Development and

Financing

U. of Maryland Medical 2013 3.8 MD Ground Yes Development and Financing

Wingate Elementary School 2012 0.3 PA Roof Yes Development and

Financing

2. What specific experience does the respondent have in third-party financing of solar energy projects completed or underway on publicly-owned property, especially ROW property? Please provide contact information for the public agencies for which these projects were developed.

We have constructed many ground and carport structures on public, government-owned property and, in some cases, school district property that is publicly owned. Some examples are below:

Monmouth County, NJ – Human Services Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

500 kW Carport 300 Kozloski Rd. Freehold, NJ




Monmouth County, NJ – Agricultural Services Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

1.1 MW Carport 4000 Kozloski Rd. Freehold, NJ

Monmouth County, NJ – County Courthouse Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

175 kW Carport 71 Monument Rd. Freehold, NJ

Central Regional School District, NJ – Middle School Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

500 kW Ground mount 509 Forest Hills Parkway, Bayville NJ Kevin O’Shea 732.269.1100 ext. 207 [email protected]

Central Regional School District, NJ – High School Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

1 MW Ground mount 509 Forest Hills Parkway, Bayville NJ Kevin O’Shea 732.269.1100 ext. 207 [email protected]

Union Beach, NJ – Memorial Elementary School Project Size: Type: Contact Information:

500 kW Carport 221 Morningside Ave., Union Beach, NJ

Town of Prescott Valley – Sewage Treatment Facilities Project Size: Type: Contact Information of Reference:

1.5 MW Ground-mount Kimberly Moon Town of Prescott Valley (928) 759-3100 [email protected]

City of Yuma Project Size: Type: Contact Information of Reference:

1.2 MW Ground-mount Brian Webb City of Yuma, Sustainability Coordinator (585) 567-9315




3. Are there any particular concerns with any of the information that has been provided in this RFI? Please explain those concerns and provide proposed solutions or mitigations to address those concerns.

The idea of installing a lot of distributed solar on park and rides, small government buildings and alongside a freeway may be a cost issue. Nextera Energy has significant experience installing rooftop, ground mounts and carport structures around the country. It has been our experience that it is difficult to install the smaller systems cost effectively, and therefore the PPA rates would be higher than the existing costs of power. One way to mitigate that risk is to develop bigger projects or include additional incentives via legislation in VA to allow for these smaller projects to be included in the development efforts. Another way to mitigate the risk is to consolidate many smaller projects in a given geographical area into a single large portfolio. In this way they can be treated as one project with many locations.

4. Do you foresee state or federal legislative issues that would hinder the feasibility of the Project? If so, then what are they and how could they be resolved?

Solar energy projects that achieve commercial operation by Dec. 31, 2016 will receive the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) on eligible installed cost and this value is passed through to the customer in our pricing. NextEra’s current view is that the ITC will be reduced from 30% to 10% after 2016 when the current law expires. We believe future equipment prices will continue to trend downward but will not make up for this 20% difference in installed cost in the near future. This creates a window of opportunity to take advantage of the higher ITC and capture the long-term, fixed price, peak coincident, hedge value of solar against power and fuel price volatility.

Project Structure and Development

Delivery Method

5. What delivery methods are available for this Project? What are the advantages of each delivery method? What are the disadvantages of each delivery method? Which delivery method does the respondent prefer and why?

Nextera Energy has more than 44,000 MW of electrical generating facilities around the US. Many of these systems are tied directly to the utility grid and others are connected behind the meter, reducing the load of an existing facility. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods vary depending on a given State’s interconnection and net-metering rules.

As a general rule of thumb, the most cost -effective delivery method is to interconnect behind the meter and offset an existing load, as there typically is not going to be an interconnection cost from the utility. Behind-the-meter projects are often smaller in size than remote projects; therefore installation costs are typically higher, which ultimately increases the solar power rate. Often, we recommend looking for a piece of land upon which to install a ground-mounted solar array in close proximity to a current load that we can offset with a behind-the-meter interconnection.




The next consideration is offsetting of the power rates. With the existing net-metering rules, most sites will be able to offset the entire kwh rate structure if interconnected behind the meter. This would include the delivery, supply and applicable taxes and surcharges, since the site would be supplying the power themselves on site, rather than taking it from the utility. Offsetting the on-site power can make a deal more affordable than if it were off-site. In some situations, off-site power would be at a lower rate but would only offset the supply portion of the utility bill.

There is a delicate balance when it comes to installing solar power and offsetting the current cost of electricity. NextEra Energy is very well positioned to assist customers with the evaluation of these various options. NextEra Energy also is one of the few solar companies that can provide wholesale power and retail power sales.

6. What are the key success factors facilitating and barriers impeding success that would make delivering a solar energy project more or less likely in Virginia?

As we mentioned in question 5 above, there are several success factors and barriers when it comes to installing a solar facility. As one of the largest providers of renewable energy in the U.S.; we are familiar with these factors and have implemented the necessary strategies for success. Please review a summary of the success factors and barriers below:

Success factors:

Ease of Site Control - land vs. rooftops

In general, site control is imperative, and having limited costs for a land or roof lease will make the economics of the transaction work and the power costs more beneficial to the power purchaser.

If we are using land for a ground-mount system, we would like to understand who owns the land, what easements and site leases are required, costs of the site, property tax requirements, and term of the use permit and site lease.

If we are using rooftops, we would need to know the age of the roof, type of structural support below the surface of the roof, size of the roof, usable space and electrical service in the building.

Interconnection Capabilities & Cost - A low cost of interconnection or no interconnection cost would help the economics of the transaction.

Cost of current power - The higher cost of power can be offset to increase savings.

Installation price vs buying wholesale/retail power - The cost of the installation may vary based on the type of installation. Roof, carport systems, or ground mounts will have different economics based on the technology selected and the installation methodology.

Barriers:




Lack of state incentives – Some states will introduce local incentives in an effort to drive solar energy installations. However, a small number of states have done actually done this, and in many cases the cost to purchase utility power is lower than the cost of buying solar energy. A lack of incentives may limit the amount of installations that will be economical.

Site restraints - The sites need to be evaluated for feasibility and economics of a solar installation. Old rooftops, heavily wooded ground mounts, and certain carport systems may be difficult to install in a cost-effective manner.

7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of one large singular site versus multiple sites packaged together into one project?

In order to provide the most economical solution our typical structure applies to systems larger them 1MW. Based on current net metering laws, system sizes are limited to 500 kw. It would be most beneficial to aggregate several 500 kw systems to achieve the most cost-effective PPA rate.

Project Site

8. If multiple sites were packaged together, then what are the possible packaging options? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option? Which option does your firm prefer? Some possible packaging options may include:

Total project capacity as single award - This option would be NextEra’s preference. However, it may be a disadvantage to some organizations to get one award depending on the services offered.

Bidding blocks (e.g., with each respondent proposing a minimum of 1MW) - This packaging option would work as well. If Nextera Energy was awarded only 1MW at a time, this may not be the most aggressive pricing offered to the power purchaser.

Allow bidders to “cherry pick” the list - This option would be fine if the goal is to find the lowest cost PPA. The IPP could eliminate the more expensive installations.

Quote each facility/site separately - Quoting each site separately would cost more than having a bundled cost. This is the most difficult and time consuming and would be our least preferred methodology.

Group into blocks by system types and sizes, by building types & sizes, by financing mechanism, by geography, etc. - This would be fine as well, assuming that the sizes were 1MW minimum system sizes.

Include a minimum system size (e.g., 100 kW or 250kW) - The minimum size for any one site should be 200kw and total aggregate of at least 1MW

9. Based upon the information provided in this RFI, what type of site defined by location, size and other relevant characteristics presents the best opportunity for placement of a solar energy project in Virginia and why?




While sites would need to be reviewed, the most effective proposal would utilize two or more ground mounted solar arrays averaging 500 kw or greater in size.

10. What type of site offers the best opportunity for replication on other sites in Virginia? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this type of site?

In order to replicate the above mentioned system parameters, it would be beneficial to review 2-3 acre plots of flat cleared land. The benefits to a cleared and graded location can be seen through cost savings that would allow NextEra to offer the most cost-effective solution via a PPA.

11. How should sites be pre-qualified for bid without the time and expense of detailed engineering at each site? What site assessment tools or qualifiers should be utilized?

While engineering site screenings are necessary, NextEra utilizes several tools to pre-qualify locations based on a checklist of items. These tools include the employment of satellite imagery software, topographic charting software, and weather pattern mapping software. These items used in combination allow us to efficiently identify any red flags.

12. What information would a private developer require in order to facilitate project development?

In order move forward with the project, NextEra would conduct a Critical Issues Analysis (CIA) to identify the following:

Site location with respect to surrounding features Topographic information including slope of site Soils and geology Ecoregion and vegetative communities Special status plants and plant species of concern Special status wildlife and wildlife species of concern, including avian species

and bats Wetlands and other jurisdictional waters Floodplains Archaeological, cultural and historical resources Project constraints, including state land/parks, conservation easements,

wildlife management areas, critical habitat, airports, highways etc. Project land use and zoning Noise (state or local regulations) Visual (state or local regulations) Federal, state and/or local permits that will be required




Commercial and Financial Structure

13. Based upon the delivery methods identified above, who would own the assets, equipment and capital plant in each delivery method? What are the essential terms of the contract for these delivery methods, including the optimal concession period?

NextEra will form a dedicated project LLC, which will become sole and exclusive owner of the Project assets. NextEra reserves the right to pursue tax, lending, and other financing strategies which may amend the ownership structure after commercial operation. It is NextEra’s goal to own these solar assets long term.

14. What financing structure is the most feasible and would provide the best value for Virginia?

There are multiple ways to finance solar systems. The three most typical financing solutions are:

i. Standard Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) - A third party operating companies owns and maintains the system and sells power to VA.

ii. Cash purchase where the system is owed by VA.

iii. Operating Lease- where the bank owns the system and leases the system back to VA.

The best option for VA is to use a PPA structure, since they are not able to take advantage of the ITC. We would recommend that VA also look at combining a solar PPA with either a wholesale power purchase agreement or retail power purchase agreement depending on the solar system parameters and the usage metrics provided.

15. Do you anticipate public or utility (other than adopted tariffs) funding or incentives being available for the Project? If so, then what would be the anticipated source of these funds or incentives and how do they add value to the Project?

In structuring a PPA, NextEra would be able to utilize the ITC, which would pass the savings on to VA. This would reduce the CAPEX by 30%, therefore delivery of power will be reduced. We are not aware of any local incentives that will be used for this project. If there is any local incentive that VA would provide, it would be valuable to outline these in the RPF so each of the respondents can prepare the PPA terms and be on a level playing field.

16. Is a solar energy project installation and operation possible without a public subsidy, and if not, what specific subsidies would be required, from whom and why?

In the case of large ground mounts, the ITC is the only required incentive to maintain the pricing structure offered in a PPA. In the case of smaller rooftop and carport systems, a local incentive may be required to drive the cost of the PPA down below existing tariffs in Virginia.




17. What threshold financial arrangements would be necessary or other critical factors resolved to successfully complete the Project? Please outline in order of relative importance.

The power purchaser must: be willing to make a 15- to 25-year commitment to buy the solar energy; be willing to give the system owner site control for the duration of the PPA; agree to buy all the power produced by the solar system.

Project Schedule and Solicitation

Schedule

18. What major steps are needed from Notice of Award for the Project to full operation of the Project? What are the approximate elapsed times associated with these identified steps? What are the key decision points in the process (including go/no go decisions) and why?

Environmental Studies, Geotechnical Engineering, Surveys, Site Plan Preparation (3-5 weeks)

Land Use / Planning (2-16 weeks, depending on locations) Design Phase (Electrical, Structural, Civil, Racking (4 weeks) Permitting (4 weeks) Construction Start Procurement Milestones (modules, racking, inverters) Construction Phase (10-18 weeks, depending on system size and location) Interconnection Tie In / Mechanical Completion Start Up and Testing (2 weeks) COD (Provisional Acceptance) Final Acceptance

19. What are the critical path items for the procurement for this Project and why?

NextEra enjoys relationships with all of the top global suppliers and we are typically in a major procurement phase for one or more projects at any given time. Combined with NextEra’s balance sheet financing and performance leadership in the renewable energy space, NextEra is in position to design, procure and construct the project to the highest standards. Only nationally known and experienced companies are used in all of NextEra’s power plants.

With the continuing changes in module technology (efficiencies), racking, and inverter technologies, the timing of a selected supplier depends on when the power plant is to be constructed.

Modules With pricing for mono and poly crystalline 72 cell modules changing rapidly, the current selection may not be the best selection 6-9




months from now. A full re-evaluation of suppliers will take place once firm construction dates are established. Efficiencies and cost are key considerations, but only nationally established suppliers will be considered.

Inverters Due to ongoing changes with string and micro inverter technologies, an evaluation of the current pricing and technology will take place once firm construction dates are established. An example of these changes is that one year ago central inverters were the only economically viable choice. With the development of the cost and efficiencies of string inventers, smaller ground-mount systems (under 1 MW) are now becoming economically viable.

Racking systems Currently, AET is the racking system of choice, but once a firm construction date is known, the system will be re-evaluated.

20. The currently available federal incentives require an expedited time frame due to expiration December 31, 2016. Does this constraint pose a threat to utilizing these incentives for the Project?

Yes, we would need to have a decision and complete NTP by the end of 2015 to hold the pricing offered.

Solicitation

21. Looking ahead, would the respondent be interested in submitting a committed proposal for the development of the Project? Are there any particular concerns that may prevent the respondent from engaging in the project development? How might those concerns be resolved?

NextEra Energy is considered a top developer in the industry and has invested millions of dollars in the pre-development efforts of multiple megawatts of solar projects throughout the country. We typically do not consider a need for a binding bid or bid bond to be included in an RFP response. We would however, be willing to provide a commitment to the development of the project, if we know the project economics are strong and mutual terms can be agreed upon.

22. What are the key elements of a RFQ for a solar energy project? Please provide references to other RFQs that have effectively elicited innovative proposals for solar energy projects on publicly-owned property and resulted in successfully completed projects.

The key elements of an RFQ are as follows:

An overview describing the highlights of the responses and summarizing how the responding firm will meet the goals of the Virginia Public-Private Partnerships.




Project Development Experience, i.e., total number of megawatts of PV the firm has constructed and types of customers the firm has worked with in the past (for example, residential, commercial nonprofit, or government).

Project Financing Experience, creditworthiness, demonstration of capital available to fund the proposed project

Operations and Maintenance experience, including a description of monitoring systems

Experience taking advantage of rebates and incentives Experience of key personnel Evidence of insurance References and project examples

23. What is the minimum amount of time that your firm requires for developing and submitting a Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ”) for the Project after issuance of a potential RFQ?

NextEra Energy has a proposal writing team that can prepare and deliver an SOQ response in five business days.

24. What are the key elements of a RFP for a solar energy project? Please provide references to other RFPs that have effectively elicited innovative proposals for solar energy projects on publicly-owned property and resulted in successfully completed projects.

The key elements of an RFP are as follows:

Method to Accomplish Scope of Work -- an outline of both the technical and administrative approach to accomplishing the Scope of Work.

System Equipment -- detailed information on the system equipment to be used Basic System Design – including layouts depicting the solar installation at the

site(s) proposed for the project. Project Plans, Milestones, Schedule of Work and Completion Dates – provide

detailed project plans, listing major milestones and anticipated completion dates.

System Monitoring and Performance Plan -- include a detailed plan for ongoing monitoring of system performance.

Operations and Maintenance Plan -- provide a plan for ongoing operations and maintenance requirements, either directly or through contract with another party that will handle these responsibilities.

Financial Capability -- demonstrate capacity to cover design, engineering and installation costs, administrative or other costs associated with development, and any costs associated with recurring responsibilities, such as operations and maintenance.




Pricing-- total “all-in” pricing for the proposed system and the power generated by the system.

Project Staffing, including biographies for primary staff to be assigned to the project. Include subcontractor staff if an EPC partner is used.

References -- at least three (3) references demonstrating past performance, including contact person, address, telephone, and subject of work performed.

Minimum Qualifications - demonstrate past experience in satisfactorily designing, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining PV solar system configurations similar in type and scale to the project described in the RFP.

25. What is the minimum amount of time required by the respondent for developing and submitting a committed detailed proposal for the Project after issuance of a potential RFP?

Four weeks is sufficient time for NextEra to prepare a thorough proposal involving up to 20 sites. We would need additional time to prepare engineering layouts and pricing for projects involving more than 20 sites.

Additional Considerations

26. Please provide any comments on other creative project scope ideas, procurement options, technical considerations, etc. that VAP3 should take into account.

NextEra is confident that it will exceed our customers’ expectations in delivering a renewable energy solution. We are one of the only organizations in this space that has the unique ability to provide more than a solar solution. Through our individual business units we are prepared to meet your renewable goals whether through onsite/offsite solar, wind, ESCO services, and wholesale and retail power supply.

27. What are the top risks for successful delivery of this Project and why? What potential impact could the identified risks have? What potential mitigation strategies could be employed to decrease the identified risks?

Environmental – We engage the top environmental companies to evaluate the risks for the project.

Permitting – We have extensive experience researching and evaluating the permitting risks. In lieu of our own staff, we sometime hire local civil engineering firms to work with local and state officials since they have the professional relationships with many of the key personnel.

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction – In most cases we procure the major equipment directly because of our leverage with large-scale utility project procurement. Our extensive evaluation of our third-party EPCs’ credit worthiness, experience, years in business, etc., gives us confidence that the construction cycle will be managed to agreed-upon timelines.




28. In the respondent’s experience, what type of public benefit and economic development could a large solar energy project (>100kW) foster in terms of new businesses and job creation?

We have seen some levels of economic development incentives to help generate funds to make projects more economically feasible. However, these usually take a long time to put in place and with the ITC pending expiration; we would not recommend this action. Governor McAuliffe recently endorsed legislation creating a 400MW solar goal for the state by 2020, and also in the works is passage of legislation to create a Virginia Solar Development Authority. While details of this legislation are still pending, they do have the potential to positively impact business and job creation in Virginia.

As an example, since breaking ground on a 500 MW NextEra project in Riverside County, California, the project employed an average of 440 construction workers who logged more than 3.6 million man-hours of work. In addition, more than 40 California businesses contributed to the project through services ranging from materials, equipment, utilities, labor, housing, and food and beverage.

29. What challenges related to communication with local officials, communities and business does the respondent foresee and what strategies are suggested to be employed to maintain open and transparent relationships?

We do not foresee much challenge for a project of this type as the current sentiment tends to be pro-solar. We find that most local officials, communities and businesses understand the economic and environmental benefits of such a project.

With that said, NextEra has extensive experience with public outreach and we pride ourselves on our ability to develop relationships in the communities in which we conduct business. In some cases, it has been important to build working relationships with legislative and regulatory bodies to ensure all questions and concerns were addressed in a prompt manner. We have held open houses and public meetings to provide residents and officials the opportunity to learn about a project, view the renderings and voice any concerns. When needed, ongoing public outreach can take the form of a newsletter to stakeholders, updating them on the status of project development.

30. Other than the answers already provided, what information would help the respondent make the business decision to engage in the development of the Project?

The following information would help in the decision to engage in development of the project: An understanding of the current load Current tariff and avoided costs Expected duration of PPA term Whether the Power Purchaser is a wholesale buyer of power or a retail buyer

of energy Whether there is an SREC or solar obligation


CONFIDENTIAL

Response to Request for Information Regarding

Solar Energy Development Projects

March 13, 2015

Submitted to

Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships Alexandra Lauzon [email protected] www.ProjectNavigator.com | www.PVNavigator.com | www.SafetyMoment.org

VIRGINIA PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Submitted by

Project Navigator, Ltd. 1 Pointe Drive, Suite 320 Brea, CA 92821 714.388.1800


March 13, 2015 Response to Request for Information Regarding Solar Energy Development Projects

PREFACE FIGURE A

Summary of Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Proposed Developments

Who

• A development team anchored by Project Navigator, Ltd. (PNL) as

the project integrator.

• PNL specializes in developing small scale distributed solar facilities

on landfill and brownfield sites.

• Permitting and environmental tasks to be performed by PNL.

What

• A PV solar development located on top of closed

landfill and brownfield sites

• Fixed-tilt, rack-mounted, self-ballasting.

• Occupies acres of otherwise unusable land.

• Racks are specifically designed for landfill/brownfield installations.

• No long-term cap damage.

When

• All permitting and design completed within 18 months after lease

agreement is signed.

How

• PNL to perform a feasibility study on the project at no cost to the

Landfill owner.

• If project is determined feasible, PVN and the landfill owner enter

into a Land Lease and/or Power Purchase Agreement which

includes ability to use the land for 20-25 years.

• Project will be financed via a combination of debt and equity.

• PNL has excellent fund raising track record with major East and

West Coast renewable energy funds.

• System economics will meet favorable IRR criterion.

Develop a 2 to 12 MW photovoltaic solar array from approximately 700 to 4,000 fixed tilt, rack mounted arrays.


Response to Request for Information

Regarding Solar Energy Development

Projects

March 13, 2015

Submitted to

Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships Alexandra Lauzon [email protected]

Submitted by

Project Navigator, Ltd.

1 Pointe Drive, Suite 320 Brea, CA 92821 T 714.388.1800 F 714.388.1839

www.PVNavigator.com

www.ProjectNavigator.com

www.SafetyMoment.org


http://www.pvnavigator.com/

http://www.projectnavigator.com/

http://www.safetymoment.org/

Response to Request for Information Regarding Solar Energy Development Projects March 13, 2015

iii

Table of Contents

Company Information ............................................................................... 1

Experience ................................................................................................ 2

Qualifications ............................................................................................ 4

Project Approach ...................................................................................... 5

Schedule .................................................................................................... 7

References ................................................................................................ 7

Conclusions .............................................................................................. 7

List of Figures

PREFACE FIGURE A

Summary of Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Proposed Developments

FIGURE 1 Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Landfill and Superfund Experience: Major Projects FIGURE 2 Project Navigator, Ltd. is Expert in Implementing Resource Recovery Projects at Closed

Landfills FIGURE 3 Project Navigator, Ltd. Is Developing a Nationwide Portfolio of Solar PV on Landfills

Projects FIGURE 4 Possible Layout of PV Solar Units on a Landfill Site FIGURE 5 Landfill Based, Solar Power Systems Must be Designed and Operated to Not Interfere

with the Primary Functions of the Landfill FIGURE 6 Project Navigator, Ltd.'s Landfill Solar Systems are Compatible with the Design

Functionalities of the Landfill FIGURE 7 Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Use of the Rack Mounted, Self-Ballasting Arrays Will Simplify

and Speed Up Construction

FIGURE 8 Solar Array Specifically Designed for Use at Landfills and Brownfields



iv

FIGURE 9 PVN Uses a Fixed-Tilt, Racked, Solar Array Specifically Designed for Use at Landfills

and Brownfields List of Tables

TABLE 1 PNL & PVN’s Solar on Landfill Experience: Project Details and Client References

TABLE 2 Sample Landfill Solar Project Schedule

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A Resumes



1

Company Information

Project Navigator, Ltd., via our solar power development subsidiary PVNavigator, LLC, submits this response to the Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships (VAP3) request for information titled “Solar Energy Development Project”. Our project approach and niche area of development, in summary, can be found in Preface Figure A.

Project Navigator, Ltd. (PNL) (see: www.PVNavigator.com and www.ProjectNavigator.com) is a Brea, California-based, with offices located in Houston, TX and Ossining, NY, leading, privately held certified small business, with an annual average gross revenue over the past three years of $4MM, engineering firm that has specialty expertise in managing landfill closures, and then subsequently developing solar projects on the closed waste prisms. A map showing projects where PNL is currently working on Landfill and Superfund sites is shown in Figure 1. Since 1997, PNL has developed an extensive track record of designing and implementing innovative solutions for clients at complex landfill closures, nationwide. Currently, many of these projects now include the placement of PV solar racking systems on the landfills’ caps for power generation. PNL’s engineers and scientists formulate and implement green, sustainable site remediation and OM&M strategies on how to maximize the long-term value of landfills which are in their O&M phases. In the past, landfills were considered a local liability; however, with an attitude change in their long-term management, the perceived liability can be shifted to become an asset. Our most prominent application of landfill site reuse is in the solar power arena, where PNL’s wholly owned subsidiary, PVNavigator, LLC (PVN) develops MW-scale PV installations on closed landfill sites. This is PVN’s sole business focus, wherein the landfill skills of PNL and the solar power capabilities of PVN, are combined and leveraged.

Technically, our power and landfill geotechnical engineers have combined decades of experience in the design and permitting, specifically, of landfill-located PV installations. Our systems are all “above grade,” and are sized and engineered to not impact the required environmental performance of the landfill cap (viz; no cap penetration and storm water management equivalence.) We have day-to-day experience of managing all aspects of the offtaker utility feasibility and interconnect process.

Experience-wise our Team has been consulting and developing, landfill-cap-located, utility scale, PV installations for about 5 years. At present we have more than 30 MW of PV on landfill system capacity, at projects in California and New Jersey undergoing design and permitting. We provide solar consulting expertise to municipalities and major corporations such as Chevron, Coeur D’Alene Mines and Union Pacific Rail Road. We have completed working under a grant from the California Energy Commission to pilot a PV system on a landfill cap in Los Angeles, and developed design guidance.

Financial Capabilities are excellent. Our Team is backed by the financial resources of several private equity funds that specialize in the ownership of long term renewable energy assets such as solar facilities.

PNL’s and PVN’s combined skills in landfill solar power development and landfill sites closure and maintenance operations make our partnership unique in this business area. Our preferred locations for the development of solar facilities would be on top of closed capped landfill or brownfield sites. This is


http://www.pvnavigator.com/

https://mail.projectnavigator.com/exchange/rpotter/Inbox/BUENA%20VISTA%20TEXT.EML/rpotter/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK92/BKK%20Solar%20Landfill%20Proposal/text/www.ProjectNavigator.com


2

PVN’s specialty and niche area of the business space. By putting the solar facility on top of a closed capped landfill, turns a piece of otherwise unusable land into a productive use. An illustration of the landfill “uplift” service areas where PNL works is shown in Figure 2.

Experience

Project Navigator, Ltd. has extensive experience in all phases of landfill design and remediation, as well as 10’s of man-years of experience in the redevelopment of landfills as PV solar power installations. Some of PNL’s landfill projects, which include solar siting initiatives, are shown in Figure 3 and Table 1. PNL and PVN’s relevant solar development and landfill remediation projects, which integrate the placement of solar power on landfills or brownfield sites include:

Milliken Landfill, San Bernardino County, CA – PNL was selected in 2010 by the County of San Bernardino to Design, Finance, Construct, and Operate a 3MW solar facility located at the Milliken Sanitary Landfill in Ontario, CA. PVN has secured an interconnect agreement with the local utility and also secured a long term Power Purchase Agreement and is currently in the process of selecting an EPC contractor for the construction of the project. The project commercial online date is expected to be December 2015.

Owens Corning Landfill, Gloucester, New Jersey – PNL was selected by Gloucester Township to Design, Finance, Construct, and Operate a 3MW facility at the former Owens Corning Landfill. Approximately 25% of the power produced from the plant will be sold to a nearby Elementary school via a power purchase agreement. PVN has entered into an Option to Lease agreement with the Township, secured a favorable interconnect agreement with PSE&G, a wholesale market participation agreement with PJM, secured post closure approval by NJDEP and subsection (t) approval by NJBPU, and is currently negotiating a long term SREC contract with PSE&G. The project commercial online date is expected to also be December 2015.

Fort Irwin National Training Center, California – PVN has won a contract from the U.S. Army to assess the viability of using solar power to run remote electrical equipment at Fort Irwin, California. Fort Irwin is a major training area for the U.S. Military, and is located in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. Facilities currently powered by generators, in training and containment areas, will be reviewed. The first phase of work includes the preparation of a work plan, site visits, modeling computations and recommendations.

California Energy Commission (CEC), Sacramento, CA – PNL was selected by the CEC to pilot a highly instrumented, rack mounted, PV installation, test system on a closed Los Angeles, former Superfund site, hazardous waste landfill. The work lasted for 18 months. The program’s objective was to ultimately understand any impacts a PV facility could have on a closed landfill’s cover system, and define design criteria. The work was consistent with California’s goal of promoting the development of distributed renewable power systems on otherwise unusable land, thereby preserving green-space. The final report can be found at the following link: http://www.pvnavigator.com/downloads/2014-03-11-PIER-CA-Landfill-Based-Solar-Projects-CEC-500-10-061-Final-Report.pdf


http://www.pvnavigator.com/downloads/2014-03-11-PIER-CA-Landfill-Based-Solar-Projects-CEC-500-10-061-Final-Report.pdf



3

Chevron Corporation, San Ramon, CA – PNL has performed a range of solar power development assignments for Chevron and its operating companies. Some include:

Prepared a design for a planned solar panel array at Chevron’s former chemical plant in Richmond, California. The facility is planned to generate about 8MW and cover approximately 70 acres.

Screened and ranked more than 500 US-located surplus Chevron properties for their ability to host solar power installations.

Developed PV system designs and offtake plans for PV installations at two overseas operating facilities.

Coeur D’Alene Mines, Rochester, NV – PNL is performing an engineering evaluation of the potential of covering the mines heap leach piles with a novel PV laminate cap which would eliminate infiltration (a BLM requirement) while simultaneously generating power for the mine’s operations.

Mojave Sun Power, LLC, Cambridge, MA – PNL performed numerous solar facilities siting analyses, subsequently delivering a 4,000 acre land parcel to the client to be used for the Hualapai Valley Solar plant in Mohave County, Arizona. Mojave Sun Power is a privately financed solar power developer. The proposed 340-megawatt solar plant would create 1,500 construction jobs and more than 100 permanent jobs. The project would bring in about $4 million in property taxes, $30 million in construction income and more than $5.5 million in personal income to the county. The plant could be in operation by late 2016 and last for about 30 years. PNL represented Mohave Sun Power in land purchase negotiations and due diligence with the seller. PNL assisted Mohave Sun Power in permitting meetings with local, state, and federal regulators.

Ascon Landfill Site (Huntington Beach, CA) – is a closed 38 acre former oil field waste landfill site. The site still requires final closure. PNL is working for the Responsible Parties and DTSC to design the final remedial solution and development configuration. One facet of both the interim and long-term solutions is the inclusion of a small 1 MW sized PV solar facility. PNL has performed a conceptual design and cash flow calculations. Project financing is being pursued.

BKK Class I Landfill (West Covina, CA) – PNL is currently managing the final closure project on the Class I landfill for the BKK Responsible Parties. The project is about to embark on an EE/CA remedy selection work phase.

A long-term “renewable alternative” which PNL has proposed to the City of West Covina is the development of a solar into the cap system to generate power to run onsite systems. The solar system could be optimized so that its power generation works in tandem with the existing landfill gas to power system. At time of writing, PNL has learned of the City’s general acceptance of PNL’s proposed plan to develop an 8 MW solar facility on the landfill’s 50-acre top deck.

Waste Disposal, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, CA) – is a 40-acre landfill Superfund site contaminated with metals, PAHs and VOCs. PNL designed and managed the cap construction about 4 years ago and is presently responsible for managing the site’s operations, maintenance and monitoring including gas venting and groundwater extraction systems. PNL has recently designed a, 4MW, 25 acre solar array for placement on the cap. Negotiations are presently ongoing with the site



4

landowners for a lease arrangement, and the City of Santa Fe Springs, U.S. EPA and the Responsible Parties regarding deal structure.

Operating Industries Inc. Landfill Site (Monterey Park, CA) – is a 190-acre landfill site generating 6 million cubic feet/ day of methane and 20,000 gal/day of leachate; from 1997 to 2007 PNL managed all aspects of the site closure for the Responsible Parties. The $120MM work effort included the construction of a cap and gas collection system. PNL is presently working on two separate solar initiatives at OII. In 2008 PNL developed and installed a solar-powered WiFi system used to monitor waste subsurface temperatures. The system also acts as a backbone for wireless cameras and other remote monitoring systems. (e.g. settlement). Today PNL is evaluating the feasibility of financing and placing a 20-acre PV solar system on the landfill’s top deck. The system would use SunPods arrays and generate up to 4MW, which makes the project economically viable over a 10 year timeframe when power sales to SCE and the onsite systems are combined. PNL and partners are in negotiations to secure project financing.

Landfills at other locations in the U.S. where PNL is presently working and investigating

the installation of solar power systems include:

Malone Superfund Site (Texas City, Texas) – 150 acre petroleum waste and chemical reclamation disposal facility; PNL conducted project management for remedial investigation and feasibility study. Site remedy is contemplated to include limited redevelopment as environmental reserve. PNL is assessing the placement of a 1MW solar facility which would deliver green power to adjacent refineries.

PAB Oil and Chemical Service, Inc – 9.4 acres of oil field waste disposal area; PNL responsible for operation and maintenance, groundwater sampling, capping and site perimeter maintenance. PNL is assessing the sites long-term use as a solar facility. The site’s land can be delivered into the project at zero cost which makes the economics favorable. Power would be sold to the adjacent oil fields for running the oil well pump motors.

Tex Tin Superfund Site, Texas City, Texas – 130 acre former smelter facility. From 2000 to present PNL managed the remediation of soils, slag, groundwater impacted with acid, metals and radioactive materials in 7 ponds using a variety of remedial measures such as soil stabilization, acid water treatment, pond closure, cap and cover of impacted soils and installation of evapo-transpiration systems. PNL in association with an equity partner acquired the site in 2005. Presently the partnership has prepared designs for a 40 acre PV solar facility. Power would be sold directly to the adjacent BP refinery.

Specific client references can be found in Table 1.

Qualifications

Specific project personnel include: Ian A. Webster, Sc.D. (PNL)

Ian Webster, Sc.D., is the President of Project Navigator, Ltd. Ian had a 15-year career in major projects development with Unocal Corporation before founding PNL in 1997. He will participate in overall project



5

strategy development and in meetings with the VAP3 as requested. He will also assure that the appropriate PNL resources are dedicated to the project in a cost-effective manner, conduct technical reviews at key junctures, assist as needed in the coordination between PNL, and communicate with the VAP3 to assure that the VAP3’s expectations are being satisfied. Ian has 30 years of project development experience. Ian will also be key in devising a project financial structure which maximizes returns for all stakeholders.

Robert Potter, B.S. (PVN)

As the Project Manager (PM), Robert Potter, will be the primary point of contact with the VAP3 and will manage all aspects of the project work and coordinate between PNL, PVN, Utilities, and the VAP3. Robert has an extensive and unique background of Science, Politics, Mathematics and Real Estate. Robert is intimately involved in all PNL and PVN solar projects, and coordinates the company’s solar development initiatives. Robert was responsible for the siting, acquisition, permitting, and securing interconnect agreements and power purchase agreements for both the Milliken and Owens Corning Landfill Projects. Robert was also responsible for the siting, acquisition, and permitting of the 340-megawatt Hualapai Valley Solar Project for Mohave Sun Power. Robert is currently working with Brightfields Development in securing financing and a PPA for the development of a solar project on a Los Angeles brownfield site. His expertise in working with utilities and landowners for the development of solar projects will be a key asset to the success and implementation of the landfill solar project initiative.

Halil Kavak, Ph.D. (PNL)

Halil is PNL’s surveying and GIS Database manager. GIS capabilities will be used in the layout and design of the solar field footprint so as not to interfere with any existing roads or landfill closure components. Halil will also analyze (as required, once we have a better understanding of the closure engineering specifications and subsequent operating performance of the site’s closure) landfill settlement data. Halil will perform geotechnical calculations to advise on the best positioning for the solar system. Halil has over 20 years of experience.

Detailed resumes can be found in Appendix A.

Project Approach

The construction and operation of a photovoltaic generation system on a closed landfill presents certain unique challenges. However the integrated skills of our multi-talented solar/landfill team will cost-effectively deliver a proposed feasibility study and system design, which could then be translated into a working system within eighteen months. This is done at no cost to the landfill owner. PVN as the developer will bear all costs for the feasibility, permitting, design and construction of the solar facility and in turn pay the landfill owner a lease payment for the use of the landfill. A project schedule indicating major project milestones and durations can be found in Table 2. Technical issues such as landfill settlement, long-term waste prism geotechnical stability, and landfill cap load-bearing requirements will be taken into account during the feasibility, siting, sizing and design of the proposed PV systems. PVN's project integrator leadership role will include formulating and coordinating all aspects of the design and installation of the solar electric generation system. We will insure that the system does not interfere (or more importantly, compromise) with the overall environmental functions of the existing cover system



6

(i.e. especially eliminating waste exposure, eliminating storm water infiltration and managing water runoff.) . During detailed design PNL will also use surveying, GIS and other programs to: 1) develop a solar panel installation footprint that maximizes and further optimizes the usable top deck space of the landfill and 2) prepare artists renderings and other compelling visuals that will assist all stakeholders (citizens, planners, regulators, agencies, public meetings, etc.) to conceptualize the proposed development. Figures 4 to 7 conceptually show aspects of a solar on landfill system, highlighting design issues which are specific to the development of a solar on landfill project. Figures 5 and 6 show how the design will address and manage any Department of Environmental Protection potential concerns regarding cap integrity and storm water flow. At this preliminary stage we are proposing to use a racking system (Figure 8). The PV units are self-ballasting (i.e. no tie downs.) The rack systems, on large, adjustable spread-footings, will be configured to impart a load of less than 300 pounds per square foot. The system will be designed to not penetrate

the cap. Our system will use polycrystalline solar modules, which are connected to SMA inverters. Another positive feature of the self-ballasted racking system from a landfill owner’s perspective is that the modules are assembled off the cap, and then simply driven and lowered into position. As shown in Figure

6, this has the advantages of not having large construction crews work on the cap, (which could result in cap damage), and drives a faster onsite installation schedule versus mounting on shallow piers. The end state vision of a 20-year lifespan, PV solar farm located on a landfill is depicted in Figure 4. We believe that our Team provides unique synergies and capabilities – financial, solar-developmental and landfill-environmental – that are crucial to the successful implementation of solar on landfill projects. Our capabilities would seem to be unmatched by any other single developer in the current PV development business-space. We are quite confident in our ability to deliver this vision to the VAP3. To maximize the educational benefits of any solar project, PVN installs a web based reporting system. A public website would give access to the system’s solar performance, display the landfill owner as being instrumental in driving the project’s vision, and demonstrate stewardship of the environment. System parameters that are remotely monitored around the clock on a 15-minute interval basis include:

Inverter kW output Inverter kWh output Inverter fault codes Global irradiation Direct Normal irradiation Wind Speed Wind direction PV reference cell temperature Ambient temperature Perimeter security violations

PVN will be the overall manager of the project (a.k.a. “project integrator,” using the terminology of the solar power delivery business) and will oversee all activities.



7

Schedule A sample project schedule can be found on Table 2. Please note that once an option to lease or MOU is signed, a typical project can be up and running within 18 months.

References Detailed project description of three current projects and contact information of references can be found on Table 1.

Conclusions

1. A Project Navigator, Ltd. led and managed team has an interest to evaluate the feasibility, permit, finance, design/build, then own and operate solar PV facilities located on top of closed landfill or brownfield sites located throughout the state of Virginia with a lifespan of 20 to 25 years. (PNL’s solar experience is shown in Figure 3.)

2. At time of writing, our proposal is for the VAP3 or VDMME to allow PNL to conduct a feasibility study of landfill or brownfield sites (including mine tailings) at no cost and then if proven feasible, enter into a 20 year Power Purchase and/or lease agreement with an option to extend for five years and in return receive access and lease rights to the land, and for the Team to own the project. The Team is however flexible. If this response leads to a formal proposal and is

successful and leads to negotiations, we can also describe a sliding scale of business

arrangements where there can be low-medium-high ownership involvement.

3. PNL commonly works with local sub-contractor in order for municipalities and utility clients to help meet their M/WBE goals. PNL will use local M/WBE for permitting assistance, environmental document review, and construction as necessary.

4. General project schedule forecasting has been performed at this proposal stage. We believe the project could be permitted and operational (weather and policy permitting and in conformance with landfill construction season) within 18 months after a lease arrangement is signed.


FIGURES



FIGURE 1

Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Landfill and Superfund Experience: Major Projects Patrick Bayou Superfund Site

Deer Park, TX • PNL is the project coordinator for a multi-

party PRP Group. • Initial efforts were to assist in AOC/SOW

negotiations for the RI/FS and in selecting the RI/FS contractor.

• PNL provides oversight of the RI/FS and various specialty sediment, hydrodynamic, and risk evaluation contractors for the project.

• PNL is the primary interface with EPA, TCEQ and other stakeholders.

• The project utilizes Adaptive Management Strategies to rapidly respond to new information on site conditions.

Ascon Landfill Site

Huntington Beach, CA • PNL serves as group project coordinator. • Complex remedy selection process with DTSC. • Perform group administration and technical

management services; responsible for all project submittals.

• Manage consulting resources and all field programs.

• Managed multi-million dollar Emergency Action. • Instituted a “safety-first working atmosphere”.

Malone Superfund Site

Texas City, TX • PNL is the project coordinator and is currently

managing all aspects of the RI/FS at this complex site.

• In particular we are overseeing the collection of appropriate data to perform a focused risk assessment. Our responsibilities also include the management of all associated workplans.

Cox Road Landfill Site Liberty County, TX • PNL is working to coordinate closure of the

site under the State Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) and move the project forward to closure.

• PNL plans and manages all site assessment work.

• The approach is to build consensus with the State and Responsible Parties for site closure using the risk-based Texas Risk Reduction Protocol.

Newark Bay Study Area

Newark, New Jersey PNA is the Group Coordinator for some major industrial parties.

• PNA is currently performing a data analysis and geospatial plotting of key COPCs to assess the nature and extent of contamination.

• Extensive GIS analysis. • We are also responsible for

budget control and Group fund management.

Confidential Site

Hawaii • PNL is working to create an

allocation methodology that fairly and accurately assigns environmental liability while maintaining a high level of legal defensibility.

• Initial efforts include data analysis, review of work products and project visualizations.

Purity Oil Sales

Fresno, CA • PNL acts as the project

coordinator and Engineer in Responsible Charge for both Operable Units, including the Remedial Action conducted from 2006 through 2008.

• Responsible for control of all site documents.

• PNL performs field oversight of the Remedial Action.

• Field oversight includes review of construction and quality control activities, and H&S for all site contractors.

Waste Disposal, Inc.

Santa Fe Springs, CA • PNL has been the project coordinator since 1997

through entire remedial closure process. • Turn-key PRP group coordination services. • PNL strategies avoided expensive excavation

remedies. • Excellent safety record.

Operating Industries, Inc.

Monterey Park, CA • PNL staffed lead site management

position from 1997 to 2000, and 2005 to 2006.

• Supervised all aspects of $100MM CD3 landfill closure work.

• Cap and gas collection system design and construction.

• Developed a landfill construction to O&M compliance strategy.

McColl Superfund Site

Fullerton, CA • Participate in complex EPA negotiations. • Managed complex cap and cut off wall closure. • PNL staff member helped manage design. • Community relations assistance. • Site now in reuse as part of golf course.

SEMOU

South El

Monte, CA • Assessed

remediation costs for PRP group.

Rialto Site

Rialto, CA • PNL was hired to provide expert advice to an

individual property owner on how to minimize liability.

BKK Landfill Site

West Covina, CA • PNL is working on all the sites technical

issues including landfill gas control, cap maintenance, compliance and

managing City relationships.

Cal Compact

Landfill Site

Carson, CA • Ian Webster was Bingham’s

landfill dynamics and degradation expert.

• Report capitalized on PNL’s expertise in landfill science, and remediation.

• Use of PNL graphical and visualization capabilities.

Cranbury Brickyard

New Jersey • PNA is retained by the

successor of the former owner of a facility that produced munitions for the United States during WWII and the Korean War.

• Our role is to monitor site activities to help ensure that clean up goals are achieved and that our client’s liability is ultimately eliminated.

MAR Services Oilfield Site

Cankton, LA • Devised a risk-based remedy for PRPs. • Worked diligently with DNR to limit

remediation to 3 feet depth for salts and most metals.

• $10MM+ in cost savings and reduced the project schedule by 24 months.

• Managed design and construction.

PAB Oil & Chemical

Abbeville, LA • PNL was the project coordinator at this former

CERCLA oilfield waste facility. • Successfully challenged EPA’s initial ROD remedy

resulting in an “ESD remedy change”. • Managed all design and construction activities.

Tex Tin Superfund Site

Texas City, TX • PNL is the project coordinator.

PNL developed a fast-track, streamlined Design/Build approach that saved $10MM and reduced the project schedule by 5 months.

• Worked to build excellent relationship with City and EPA.

• Tailored an area by area remedy, where solution matched long-term development goals.

Omega Superfund Site

Whittier, CA • PNL staff member was the project

coordinator for drum removal action. • Currently PNL is project coordinator for a

PRP group who has characterized the off site groundwater plume.

Confidential Site New Jersey • PNA is working on behalf of the former owner

of this CERCLA site to develop a credible and defensible allocation of remedial costs between our client and subsequent users of the site.

• Extensive fingerprinting analysis of NAPL impacts.

Chapin Road Landfill

Montebello, CA • Phase II Brownfields

Environmental Site Assessment and Analysis.

Hookston Station

Pleasant Hill, CA • PNL provides administrative

oversight on this water board-ordered remediation site.

• PNL manages the remediation bank account, reviews project invoices, coordinates group meetings, monitors for compliance with the Order, provides technical peer review, and distributes project funds.

Sherwin Williams

Facility

Emeryville, CA • Compliance reporting to

RWQCB, Oakland • PNL assessed paint

manufacturing facility compliance issues for Sherwin-Williams, and worked on cleanup plan formulation.

San Diego Sediment Site

San Diego, CA • PNL is providing web-based technical support

services for the PRP Group response to RWQCB Clean Up and Abatement Order.

• PNL has created a secure third-party website and searchable record index.



FIGURE 2

Project Navigator, Ltd. is Expert in Implementing Resource Recovery Projects

at Closed Landfills



FIGURE 3

Project Navigator, Ltd. Is Developing a Nationwide Portfolio of Solar PV on Landfills

Projects

11 10

10. Buena Vista Landfill: 1MW 11. Delaware City: 4MW 12. Ocean Township: 10MW 13. Owens Corning Landfill 3MW

East Coast

1

2

3 4 5 6 8

7

CA

NV

OR

AZ

ID 1. Avon Refinery: 10 MW 2. Purity Landfill: 1MW 3. OII Landfill: 4MW 4. BKK Landfill: 10MW 5. WDI Landfill: 4MW 6. Big Bear Landfill: 2MW 7. Gemcor Site (Chevron Landfill): 10MW 8. Milliken Landfill: 3MW 9. Barstow Landfill: 10MW

West Coast

MA

VT NH

NY

CT

RI

NJ

PA

DE MD

OII Landfill: 4MW

BKK Landfill: 10MW

Avon Refinery: 10MW

Buena Vista Landfill: 1MW

12 13

9



FIGURE 4

Possible Layout of PV Solar Units on a Landfill Site

Before

CONCEPTUAL PLAN

Installation of 700 to 4,000

solar units (each unit is 10’x20’)

Enough for a 2 to 12 MW

(AC) Facility (each unit can generate 3.0 kW)

Solar Power Plan



FIGURE 5

Landfill Based, Solar Power Systems Must be Designed and Operated to Not

Interfere with the Primary Functions of the Landfill

The solar facilities’ components are designed to be compatible and integrated with the landfill’s gas, leachate and stormwater management systems.

LEGEND 1. Security Systems 2. Supervision Systems 3. Solar Panels 4. DC Junction Boxes 5. LV DC Protection 6. DC/AC Inverter 7. LV AC Protection 8. Metering Systems 9. LV/MV Substation



PNL Team’s design considerations

include eliminating cap penetration,

continued functionality of the cap,

storm water management, wind

design and insuring protectiveness

during an earthquake event.

Design of PV Array will take into

consideration:

1. Settlement

• Total • Differential

2. Panel placement on cap

• Spread footings • Anchors

3. Continued performance of

vegetative cap

• Infiltration minimization • Vegetative growth

4. Stormwater management

• No standing water • Runoff management

5. Other

Settlement monument

Electrical lines in above-ground, lightweight, flexible steel conduit

2

1

3

4

Vegetative cover

Drainage swale

SunPods solar array with adjustable

footing

Pre-cast concrete footing SunPods adjustable footing Ballasted racking

Types of footings for rigid glass solar panels

Swale cross-section

design

Landfill ET cap designs

FIGURE 6

Project Navigator, Ltd.'s Landfill Solar Systems are Compatible

with the Design Functionalities of the Landfill



Conventional Ground-Mounted Installation

Self Ballasted Racking Installation

Time: 1 to 2 weeks

Time: 1 to 2 hours

Connect Deliver

Grade Dig Form Concrete Posts Barrier

Gravel Racking Modules Wiring Test Connect

FIGURE 7

Project Navigator, Ltd.’s Use of the Rack Mounted, Self Ballasting Arrays Will

Simplify and Speed Up Construction



FIGURE 8

Solar Array Specifically Designed for

Use at Landfills and Brownfields

Features of Landfill PV Solar

Unit

3.0 kW per array

(as shown) Arrives prefabricated

• Minimal onsite assembly 20 ft X 10 ft arrays

Weighs 3,100 lbs, supported on a

self leveling support system

• Eliminates landfill cap penetration

• Systems load on the landfill is less than 300 lbs./ft2

10 Gauge steel frame

Rated to 120+ mph wind speed

Ready to connect

Minimal maintenance



FIGURE 9

PVN Uses a Fixed-Tilt, Racked, Solar Array Specifically Designed for Use at

Landfills and Brownfields

Conceptual array on a closed landfill site.


TABLES



TABLE 1

PNL & PVN’s Solar on Landfill Experience:

Project Details and Client References

PNL’s Landfill Closure and O&M Experience Regarding the Future Siting of PV Solar on Landfills

Project

Ft. Irwin Nat’l Training Center

Ft. Irwin, CA

Milliken Landfill

Ontario, CA

79-acre landfill

Owens Corning Landfill

Gloucester, NJ

12-Acre Top Deck

California Energy Commission

Sacramento, CA

Solar on Landfill Research Grant

Description

In 2010 PNL won a contract from the

U.S. Army to assess the viability of

using solar power to run remote

electrical equipment at Fort Irwin,

California. Fort Irwin is a major training

area for the U.S. Military, and is located

in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino

County. Facilities currently powered by

generators, in training and containment

areas, will be reviewed. The first phase

of work includes the preparation of a

work plan, site visits, modeling

computations and recommendations.

PNL was selected in 2010 by the County of San Bernardino to Design, Finance, Construct, and Operate a 3MW solar facility located at the Milliken Sanitary Landfill in Ontario, CA. PVN has secured an interconnect agreement with the local utility and also secured a long term Power Purchase Agreement and is currently in the process of selecting an EPC contractor for the construction of the project. The project commercial online date is expected to be December 2015.

PNL was selected by Gloucester Township to Design, Finance, Construct, and Operate a 3MW facility at the former Owens Corning Landfill. Approximately 25% of the power produced from the plant will be sold to a nearby Elementary school via a power purchase agreement. PVN has entered into an Option to Lease agreement with the Township, secured a favorable interconnect agreement with PSE&G, a wholesale market participation agreement with PJM, secured post closure approval by NJDEP and subsection (t) approval by NJBPU, and is currently negotiating a long term SREC contract with PSE&G. The project commercial online date is expected to also be December 2015.

PNL was selected by the CEC to pilot a highly instrumented, rack mounted, PV installation, test system on a closed Los Angeles, former Superfund site, hazardous waste landfill. The work lasted for 18 months. The program’s objective was to ultimately understand any impacts a PV facility could have on a closed landfill’s cover system, and define design criteria. The work was consistent with California’s goal of promoting the development of distributed renewable power systems on otherwise unusable land, thereby preserving green-space. The final report can be found at the following link: http://www.pvnavigator.com/downloads/2014-03-11-PIER-CA-Landfill-Based-Solar-Projects-CEC-500-10-061-Final-Report.pdf

Reference

Mark Burns

Directorate of Public Works

(760) 380-3737

Fred Cole

County of San Bernardino Solid Waste

Management

(909) 382-3239

Matthew Stanger

Blue Sky Power

(856) 479-9095

Marla Mueller

California Energy Commission

(916) 327-1716

































TABLE 2

Sample Solar Project Schedule


APPENDIX A

RESUMES


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RESPONSES

March 13, 2015 Virginia Office of Public‐Private Partnerships 600 E. Main Street, Suite 2120 Richmond, VA 23219

Prospect Solar, LLC www.prospectsolar.com

Nextility www.nextility.com

Attn: Alexandra Lauzon Re: Virginia Public‐Private Partnerships

Request for Information – Solar Energy Development Project Dear Ms. Lauzon: Prospect Solar and Nextility would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide input toward the eventual success of this extremely important project toward the securement of Virginia’s energy future. Prospect Solar is a solar EPC contractor operating in Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia and Nextility is a financing partner located in the District of Columbia. Prospect Solar is also a sister company to Prospect Waterproofing, the DC metropolitan area’s premier commercial roofing contractor. The following is our narrative answering the questions posed in the above referenced RFI. If after your review you would like to speak with our team directly to discuss options that should be employed to give this project the best opportunity for success, please feel free to contact Jon Hillis with Prospect Solar or Mike Healy with Nextility. 1. What relevant qualifications and experience does the respondent have in developing and delivering large

(>100kW) solar energy projects? While Prospect Solar has installed the largest commercial solar generation facilities in Loudoun (42 kW) and Fairfax Counties (56 kW) and we are also considered as one of the premier residential installers in Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia, to date we have not installed any projects over 100 kW. It should be noted that as of the end of 2014 there were only seven net metered projects located in Virginia that were over 100 kW and four of these were installed by contractors not located in or actively doing business in Virginia. We do have a number of projects under contract that are over 100 kW but are not yet complete. Nextility has over 5 years of experience in small and medium sized commercial solar including over 250 solar water heating systems and has deployed over $30 million on small and medium sized solar projects throughout the United States. Nextility Solar PV projects range from 17kW ‐ 250kW in nameplate size. Nextility employs over 40 people in the District of Columbia and has offices in California and San Juan Puerto Rico. Nextility has worked with several major universities including American University, and George Washington University along with Affordable Housing Authorities, Non‐Profits. Currently Nextility has solar systems operating in Hawaii, California, Maryland, Washington ‐ DC, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

2. What specific experience does the respondent have in third‐party financing of solar energy projects completed or underway on publicly‐owned property, especially ROW property? Please provide contact information for the public agencies for which these projects were developed. In partnership with Nextility Inc., Prospect Solar would work exclusively with Nextility Inc. as a third‐party financier. Nextility’s first institutional investor was Washington Gas (now known as WGL) which gave it an initial commitment of $30 million for solar project financing. Projects are under construction


March 13, 2015 Virginia Office of Public‐Private Partnerships Request for Information – Solar Energy Development Project Page 2 of 8



in Massachusetts, New York, and Puerto Rico. Nextility has experience working with over 50 different installation companies and in 25 different jurisdictions.

3. Are there any particular concerns with any of the information that has been provided in this RFI? Please explain those concerns and provide proposed solutions or mitigations to address those concerns. Please see Attachment A – Comments to the High Level Screening Recommendation for the Solar Energy Development Project.

4. Do you foresee state or federal legislative issues that would hinder the feasibility of the Project? If so, then what are they and how could they be resolved? As a Power Purchased Agreement financial model would most likely be required to monetize the available federal tax incentives, an expansion of the existing PPA pilot program, or a codification of the Act that created the pilot with an increase of the 50 MW cap, may be required to achieve the energy production stated in Figure 7 of the High Level Screening Recommendation for the Solar Energy Development Project.

5. What delivery methods are available for this Project? What are the advantages of each delivery method? What are the disadvantages of each delivery method? Which delivery method does the respondent prefer and why? Nextility can offer two types of financing methods. Nextility offers a proprietary Price‐Index‐Energy (PIE) offering and can also offer a long term power purchase agreement. Both options would be owned, managed, maintained, insured, monitored, and financed by Nextility. PIE offers a unique PPA agreement that guarantees a fixed % discount to the end users rate for the term of the contract. It allows the energy users solar rate to fluctuate with their current energy rates. If electricity rates go down, the consumer is not stuck with a solar rate that is higher than market energy rates. They are always guaranteed to save money. A standard Power Purchase agreement can lock in rates for the long term and hedge against energy inflation in a more predictable manner to the user. At the end of the contract, the end user can opt to buy the system from Nextility or extend the contract length. Nextility does have the flexibility to enter into a lease agreement, but the former options are much more standard in the marketplace.

6. What are the key success factors facilitating and barriers impeding success that would make delivering a solar energy project more or less likely in Virginia? The legality of PPAs would need to be expanded to all utility service territories and the program cap would need to be substantially increased. A viable and predictable SREC market would be required to attract tax equity investors if it is anticipated that SREC sales will be used to finance the installation of projects. Other options would be utility sponsored feed in tariffs or performance based incentives. Since it is likely that we will also want to take advantage of net energy metering, systems sizes would be limited to 500 kW (or 1 MW assuming recent legislation is signed into law) and other restrictions associated with the net energy metering code and associated rules and regulations established by the State Corporation Commission. Municipal aggregate net metering would also allow the state and municipalities to aggregate meters and install larger systems and offset loads from several meters but such legislation has not been successful in the General Assembly.





7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of one large singular site versus multiple sites packaged

together into one project? Economies of scale will always reduce costs for a larger project compared to multiple projects. O&M costs will also be substantially reduced. Smaller sites and rooftop arrays may be more desirable in suburban or urban locations where real estate is a premium and rooftop space is limited.

8. If multiple sites were packaged together, then what are the possible packaging options? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option? Which option does your firm prefer? Some possible packaging options may include: ● Total project capacity as single award ● Bidding blocks (e.g., with each respondent proposing a minimum of 1MW) ● Allow bidders to “cherry pick” the list ● Quote each facility/site separately ● Group into blocks by system types and sizes, by building types & sizes, by financing mechanism, by

geography, etc. ● Include a minimum system size (e.g., 100 kW or 250kW) We would recommend packaging options that group projects or blocks according to geographic location, size, and type of installation. This will cater directly to the solar EPC firms performing the work as opposed to the financing companies. We would not suggest award the entire package as a single award, individual projects, or packaging options grouped by financing mechanism as each respondent will likely be able to provide pricing for a variety of mechanisms through their financing partners. Here is a suggested grouping which does not take into account geographic location: • Ground mount arrays < 250 kW • Ground mount arrays between 250 kW and 1 MW • Ground mount arrays over 1 MW • Parking canopy arrays < 250 kW • Parking canopy arrays between 250 kW and 1 MW • Parking canopy arrays over 1 MW • Rooftop arrays < 250 kW • Rooftop arrays between 250 kW and 1 MW • Rooftop arrays over 1 MW

9. Based upon the information provided in this RFI, what type of site defined by location, size and other relevant characteristics presents the best opportunity for placement of a solar energy project in Virginia and why? Without performing a thorough review of the almost 1,400 sites provided in the RFI we would provide a general statement that smaller systems could be installed on rooftops to create proximity to load and larger ground mounted systems could be installed on acreage that is not likely to be developed on for 30 years. While parking canopies do provide other benefits these systems typically come at a premium installation price and should not be seen as the immediate opportunity. Open, unshaded, nearly new roofs are the ideal candidates that serve as low hanging fruit and best value.





• Location – Ideally large scale solar generation facilities would be located near existing natural gas

generation facilities or near a load with a profile similar in size and peak time to that of the generation facility.

• Size – To capitalize on economies of scale we would recommend system sizes of at least 100 kW and up to 5 MW.

• Type of Installation – Ground mounted installations are typically the most cost effective methods for systems greater than 250 kW in size provided the cost of the real estate is not prohibitive. Systems less than 250 kW in size should be roof mounted, either with penetrating or ballasted racking systems, depending on roof considerations.

10. What type of site offers the best opportunity for replication on other sites in Virginia? What are the

advantages and disadvantages of this type of site? There are many variables to consider when determining an optimum scenario for a site for solar arrays. A 1 MW ground mounted array with proximity to a similar load may be optimal in a rural setting whereas a 250 kW rooftop installation may be more appropriate for a suburban or urban location. Larger ground mounted arrays require more real estate and conditions of existing roof need to be considered for rooftop installation.

11. How should sites be pre‐qualified for bid without the time and expense of detailed engineering at each site? What site assessment tools or qualifiers should be utilized? Given the volume and complexity of possible sites we would recommend that these be assessed by an authority with expertise in solar development to qualify each site for location, installation method and size. An experienced NABCEP certified technical sales engineer could be contracted for much less than an engineer. The NABCEP certified TSE could be consulted to determine the likelihood of specific buildings being suitable. Typically, available satellite data can provide the level of information needed for this analysis. To supplement this for specific sites we would recommend Pictometry which provides various types and increased levels of imagery for assessing sites.

12. What information would a private developer require in order to facilitate project development? A private developer would require project location, project size or load to be offset, financing method preferred (PPA assumed), ownership of SRECs and/or proposed purchase agreement for SRECs, and revenue to be paid through Land Lease Agreement (if any).

13. Based upon the delivery methods identified above, who would own the assets, equipment and capital plant

in each delivery method? What are the essential terms of the contract for these delivery methods, including the optimal concession period? See response to question 5 above.

14. What financing structure is the most feasible and would provide the best value for Virginia? We would recommend the Price‐Index‐Energy (PIE) offering described in response to question 5 above.





15. Do you anticipate public or utility (other than adopted tariffs) funding or incentives being available for the Project? If so, then what would be the anticipated source of these funds or incentives and how do they add value to the Project? We would suggest some sort of requirement to comply with newly stated public interests that creates an SREC market in Virginia. See response to question 16 below.

16. Is a solar energy project installation and operation possible without a public subsidy, and if not, what specific subsidies would be required, from whom and why? If the state is to own the facility and all the energy and non‐energy attributes produced (SRECs) then installation and operation would not require any other public subsidy as the state would purchase, own, and maintain the asset. If the project is to be developed, owned, and operated by a third party in order to monetize all possible federal tax incentives then the state would likely need to purchase the non‐energy attributes (SRECs) in addition to the energy produced in order to secure project financing. However, we would not consider this a public subsidy since there is a value associated with SRECs as this mechanism provides compliance with a stated public interest and there is inherent value in the non‐energy attributes of solar. Other methods as mentioned above could be utility sponsored feed in tariffs or performance based incentives to comply with newly stated public interests.

17. What threshold financial arrangements would be necessary or other critical factors resolved to successfully complete the Project? Please outline in order of relative importance. ● Allowance of power purchased agreements with a program cap of 250 MW within all service

territories. Project could commence with current limitation to Dominion service territory with a cap of 50 MW but this would need to be addressed. This is required to monetize all federal tax incentives.

● Requirement for state agency to purchase SRECs or utility to provide feed in tariff or performance based incentive program. This will bring tax equity investment to Virginia to develop projects.

18. What major steps are needed from Notice of Award for the Project to full operation of the Project? What

are the approximate elapsed times associated with these identified steps? What are the key decision points in the process (including go/no go decisions) and why? Since there are no specific parameters provided for the project size other than the proposed 193 million kWh per year capacity installed at the Park and Ride sites we will assume multiple large scale ground mounted arrays (1 MW to 5 MW) will be incorporated into the project. Since these sized arrays involve the most planning, design, permitting, and site work requirements we will evaluate based on the timeline for such a project. These projects can take 2 years from initial site selection process to completion, but with sites identified, expedited procurement, design, and permitting it could be possible to have a number of these projects completed by the end of 2016. Rooftop arrays are less involved and can be operational in four to six months from NOA. The below timeline assumes the following steps have been completed: Site identification, lease negotiation, preliminary engineering, feasibility study submitted to PJM, impact study submitted to PJM, and issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) if required. This is very simplified and is a listing of the critical path activities only and does not include activities falling under categories such as preconstruction activities, general conditions, and logistics since these run concurrent with the activities listed below.





Major Schedule Components and Estimated Durations • Design/Permitting ‐ 150 days • Equipment Procurement ‐ 60 days • Site Work and Construction ‐ 60 days

19. What are the critical path items for the procurement for this Project and why? Major critical path activities are 100% design completion, permitting, and equipment procurement.

20. The currently available federal incentives require an expedited time frame due to expiration December 31, 2016. Does this constraint pose a threat to utilizing these incentives for the Project? With an assumed project size to meet the power generation as per Figure 7 this will require an expedited procurement schedule for facilities to be operational prior to the December 31, 2016 date. We would suggest that the Solar Energy Development Authority would be utilized for this purpose once this is established.

21. Looking ahead, would the respondent be interested in submitting a committed proposal for the development of the Project? Are there any particular concerns that may prevent the respondent from engaging in the project development? How might those concerns be resolved? Yes, we intend to submit a proposal. Our concerns and proposed resolutions regarding project financing are related in response to question 17. Our concerns and proposed resolutions regarding information provided in an RFP are related in responses to questions 9‐12, and 24. Additionally, care should be taken to not include bidder requirements that would exclude Virginia contractors/developers. There should be a stated preference for Virginia firms to comply with recently passed legislation.

22. What are the key elements of an RFQ for a solar energy project? Please provide references to other RFQs that have effectively elicited innovative proposals for solar energy projects on publicly‐owned property and resulted in successfully completed projects. RFQ is assumed to mean “Request for Qualifications”. • Mission Statement • Company Profile • Key Personnel and Resumes • Scope and Geography of Operations • Experience • Quality Control and Safety Plan Specifics • Business Partners • References

23. What is the minimum amount of time that your firm requires for developing and submitting a Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ”) for the Project after issuance of a potential RFQ? This could be provided in two weeks.





24. What are the key elements of a RFP for a solar energy project? Please provide references to other RFPs

that have effectively elicited innovative proposals for solar energy projects on publicly‐owned property and resulted in successfully completed projects. RFP should allow for creative financing mechanisms and development of specific sites to performance based criteria. • Executive Summary of RFP • Scope of Work to be Provided • Award Criteria • Required Organization of Response • Bidding Procedures • Attachments

o Site Information o Pricing and Estimated Energy Production o Qualifications o Project Team o Disclosures o Exception and Qualifications

References to other RFPs The District of Columbia Department of General Services DCAM‐14‐CS‐0123 Army Corps of Engineers Renewable Energy MATOC

25. What is the minimum amount of time required by the respondent for developing and submitting a committed detailed proposal for the Project after issuance of a potential RFP? This could be provided in six weeks.

26. Please provide any comments on other creative project scope ideas, procurement options, technical considerations, etc. that VAP3 should take into account. ● Development of community solar projects through willing utilities. ● Inclusion of properties managed by other state agencies.

27. What are the top risks for successful delivery of this Project and why? What potential impact could the identified risks have? What potential mitigation strategies could be employed to decrease the identified risks? Delivery of operational facilities after December 31, 2016 would increase required PPA rate substantially with the current scheduled reduction of the federal ITC. Expedited procurement schedule managed by the Solar Energy Development Authority is recommended.

28. In the respondent’s experience, what type of public benefit and economic development could a large solar energy project (>100kW) foster in terms of new businesses and job creation? 1 MW of solar installed will employ the equivalent of approximately 15 workers for one year and create approximately $2.5 million in business revenue. We would estimate that this project, if completed in the scope required to meet the energy production goals in Figure 7 by the end of 2016, would create





1000 new jobs in the solar industry in Virginia and 30 to 50 new businesses, provided the procurement is managed to develop businesses located in Virginia. Furthermore, it should be assumed that the energy savings captured by organizations powered by solar will lead to further job creation within their respective industries and workers in the solar field that are working locally will also spend money locally creating additional demand for goods and services. Job creation should also lessen the burden on local government unemployment programs and subsidies.

29. What challenges related to communication with local officials, communities and business does the respondent foresee and what strategies are suggested to be employed to maintain open and transparent relationships? It is likely that there will be a portion of the public that will protest the use of public funds for renewable energy generation. It may be wise to anticipate this and quickly react with public listening sessions to answer concerns.

30. Other than the answers already provided, what information would help the respondent make the business decision to engage in the development of the Project? Together with Nextility, we believe that solar is not only a way to engage in good corporate environmental stewardship, but it is a path towards creating jobs; spurring economic development within communities; hedging against future energy increases; educating our youth about energy independence; and creating value for business and property owners. The price of solar has dropped dramatically in the past few years to a point where we are seeing a bottom. While other states and regions have helped drive down the costs with their own respective solar subsidies, Virginia sits on an opportunity to make a big impression while spending less money than other states and regions before it. We would also encourage that respondents work with qualified solar developers and installers versus adding layers of General Contracting firms that add minimal value in order to maintain lower pricing for the end users of the solar energy.

Sincerely, Sincerely, Prospect Solar, LLC Nextility

Mike Healy

Jon F. Hillis Mike Healy Vice President Market Development & Policy




Attachment A Comments to the High Level Screening Recommendation for the

Solar Energy Development Project


Summary of Comments on Comments to High Level Project Screening.pdfThis page contains no comments


This page contains no comments


Page: 3Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 2:23:22 PM These are not "models" but are specific financial arrangements that could individually be incorporated into different models. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:39:42 AM These states all have a mandatory RPS which creates a market and associated quantifiable value for the SREC revenue. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:40:29 AM A project of this small size would not realize cost savings through economies of scale. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:42:33 AM VDOT has no requirement to offset its carbon footprint so purchasing these RECs would be done voluntarily and would probably not be allowed unless there was a requirement created. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:45:40 AM It should be noted that parking canopy installations can add 25% to 40% to project costs compared to a standard ground mounted array, potentially offsetting much of the federal ITC and accelerated depreciation benefits.


Page: 4

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:54:05 AM A solar parking canopy installation is a not a requirement for the installation of charging stations. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:56:10 AM There is nor viable SREC market in Virginia that will create any substantial revenue from their sale.


Page: 5

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 11:57:28 AM This suggests developing these projects through the Solar Energy Development Authority. Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 12:10:10 PM To generate the production at the Park and Ride sites as stated in Figure 7, a total of approximately 150 MW of solar generating capacity would need to be installed. If the installation of these facilities is completed prior to the end of 2016, given the current schedule reduction of the ITC from 30% to 10%, a saving of approximately $100 million could be achieved.


Page: 6

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 2:08:35 PM New legislation states that the construction or purchase by an investor owned incumbent utility of up to 500 MWs of solar is in the public interest. Also allowed are power purchased agreements between the utility and private investors prior to purchasing the generation facility. Additionally, the utility may propose a rate adjustment clause based on a market index in lieu of a cost of service model for such facility. Further, the Solar Development Authority (not yet signed into law by the Governor) shall assist investor-owned utilities in the planned deployment of at least 400 megawatts of solar energy projects in the Commonwealth by 2020.


Page: 7

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 2:14:48 PM While this may be the case this does not preclude Dominion, or any other investor owned utility, from allowing third party PPAs. Regardless, an expansion of the pilot, or a codification of the Act that created the pilot with an increase of the 50 MW cap, would be required to achieve the energy production stated in Figure 7.


Page: 8

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 3:11:09 PM In light of new legislation it is possible that funding could be provided through a utility performance based incentive program or feed in tariff. Also possible is an SREC market driven by a separate public load requirement to assist in meeting the stated 400 MW goal in the Governor's Executive Directive 3. The public agency (VDOT) could purchase SRECs from the developer to satisfy an established carbon offset requirement.


Page: 9

Author: hillisj Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/12/2015 2:21:55 PM It is doubtful that the value of these RECs generated in Virginia with a voluntary RPS would attract the investment required.


4.1 miller bros qualifications - p3 virginia...duct and manhole installation . medium and high...

Documents