Questions and Responses

Print
Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option

1. Is there a centralized resource listing City properties and their addresses?  Is there any resource showing open land or similar locations owned by the City?

Click here to view a listing of the requested City properties with APNs and legal descriptions (The previous list posted without APNs and descriptions can be found here). Properties may be subject to easements, covenants, or other factors that may impact development. Proposer is responsible for determining the suitability of any site(s) for potential development.


2. Does the square footage on the City-owned property list indicate the total size of the property, or the square footage available for development?

Only the total size of the properties is indicated of the City-owned property list. 


3. Is there a preference for an earlier COD or is the preference a Q1 2021 COD?

An earlier COD is fine or even preferred.


4. Would Glendale allow third party ownership of projects on Glendale sites?

Glendale is not interested in third party owned projects on Glendale owned sites.


5. Does Glendale prefer a project that starts at lower duration and then increase to 4 hours by 2025, or a project that remains at 4 hour duration throughout?

It would be beneficial that the City receive the full 4 hours sooner rather than later. The objective is to maintain reliability during the deconstruction of the existing facility and the construction of a replacement.


6. Will there be any charging restrictions? Does Glendale need in-City generation to charge the batteries or do you have enough tie-line capacity for charging?

The charging issue would be dependent on ownership of the project. If the City owns the facility, there would be a need to study the charging requirement which will include capacity and hours of charge. In the event that the City purchases energy from a vendor, it would be the responsibility of the vendor to procure the needed energy from charging.


7. Are there any preferences for using local Glendale businesses in the evaluation criteria?

While Glendale welcomes the use of local businesses, this is not an evaluation factor.


8. Are there any preferences for using small or W/MBE enterprises in the evaluation criteria?

While Glendale welcomes proposals that use small or W/MBE enterprises, the use of small and W/MBE enterprises are not evaluation criteria. 


9. For solar generation projects, is there a desired PPA term that GWP prefers?

GWP desires a minimum PPA term of 10 years.


10. Are there any current electrical transformer specifications desired?

It will be the responsibility of the bidders to adequately size any transformers to the City's distribution system.


11. Is there a current qualified bidders list that can be provided for this project?

The City has not published a list of qualified bidders at this time.


12. Are firm or estimated prices required?

The City seeks firm pricing for the proposals.


13. Is the City of Glendale making City-owned undeveloped land available to developers?

Proposers may propose a project on any City-owned land, subject to the following conditions:

  • The location of any project will be subject to City Council approval.
  • The ability to develop on any site (whether developed or undeveloped) will depend upon the parcel. Development of certain parcels may be restricted by title documents (grant deeds, covenants, easements, or otherwise). For example, certain open space parcels in Glendale may be subject to a covenant prohibiting development. It is incumbent upon the proposer to investigate this.
  • Any project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and City land use requirements.
  • The proposed project must not disrupt, displace, or interfere with any other City program or facility.

14. Will projects with a COD of later than April 2021 be considered?

Projects that do not meet the state April 2021 COD deadline will not be considered as part of this RFP.


15. Which transmission lines bring in power from the Southwest to GWP? What is the available transmission on each line?

Southwest AC transmission bottlenecks at the Victorville - Los Angeles transmission path (Vict-LA). This line is wholly owned by LADWP and is comprised of three 500KV and two 287KV lines. The City has TSAs that make up the 100MW import capability from the Southwest. If remote projects are offered it is mandatory to deliver all power to the Glendale side of Air Way Receiving Station.


16. What are the locations of GWP substations and is there available space to add a battery energy storage system within their yard? What is the location of the Grayson Power Plant and is it possible to add battery storage to this site prior to its anticipated retirement? Is there any utility-owned land where battery storage may be constructed and interconnected to GWP’s system?

GWP has not identified any utility-owned facilities that could house a battery project other than the Grayson Power Plant site. Substation sites are very congested. GWP has proposed a 50MW-200MWh battery facility as part of the proposed repowering. It is anticipated that a potential battery storage facility would be integrated into the Grayson Power Plant site at the time the current plant is retired/reconfigured/repowered.


17. What is the assessor parcel number (APN) for Vacated Air Way (1.15 acres) listed on page 12, and for Vacant Lot (0.88 acres) listed on page 11?

For the Vacated Air Way parcel, the APN is: 5627-025-908.

For the Vacant Lot, there is no APN or address listed, but the following is the legal description: THAT PART OUTSIDE GLENDALE CITY TAX DIST NO 1 - CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF LOTS 6, 7, 19 AND 20 BLK 14 GLENDALE BLVD TR AND LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 TR NO 491 DAF LOT COM AT INTERSECTION OF W LINE OF LOUISE ST WITH NE LINE OF VERDUGO WASH


18. Is there a map of all substation locations within the City of Glendale?

Substation locations are confidential as they are critical infrastructure of the City.


19. Is aggregate load data available in a format and granularity that is conductive to quantitative analysis?

Click here to download an Excel file of the aggregate load data from 2013 - 2017.


20. Are the  McCullough 500 or Mead 230 acceptable points of delivery?

MCC5 or MD230 are not acceptable delivery locations for this RFP. Delivery must be to the Glendale side of Air Way. This transmission must be purchased from LDWP using their OASIS site. Transmission and delivery must be firm and for the same duration as the long-term asset. 


21. Is a geotechnical report available for Grayson?

A geotechnical report is available to proposers upon request. Geology and soils technical reports are also included in Appendix E to the Final EIR for the proposed repowering project, available at graysonrepowering.com. For any proposer that wants a copy of attachment 13.2, please sign an acknowledgement regarding the geotechnical report and email it to CleanEnergyRFP@glendaleca.gov


22. Is GWP updating its 2015 IRP? If so, when is it expected to be final and published? If not, when do you expect  to launch the next update?

The RFP is being updated in compliance with SB 350 and will be submitted to the CEC on January 1, 2019 and a final adopted on April 30, 2019. We are hoping to roll this project into the IRP.


23. Is it fair to assume that bidders will be able to receive capacity credit for the full metered output of BTM storage resources?

Yes.


24. Can GWP please provide more information regarding metering, telemetry and/or measurement and verification requirements for participating resources?

LADWP as the balancing authority is required to test their meters and validate those on a yearly basis. LADWP works with GWP to do similar sort of testing on our interchange meters. GWP does not currently have any regulatory requirements about those measurements.


25. Can GWP provide a map of the eligible geography in which eligible resources can interconnect?

GWP recommends that proposers use Google Maps to identify eligible geography.  Resources coming from outside of Glendale must be delivered to the Glendale side of the Airway delivery point.


26. To confirm, for storage bids, do we read correctly that resources must provide bid duration increments of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 hours in 2021?

Proposers may provide a proposal for one or more of the requested bid increments: 0.5, 1, 2 and/or 4 hours. It is up to the proposer to determine if it will respond to all of the bid increments or not and to determine what option(s) will be the most economic. For capacity, ½ an hour will not be sufficient.


27. Do these same increment requirements apply to non-storage generation and/or load modification?

Yes, one-half a megawatt is the minimum size. Given that Glendale needs an additional 234 MW of local capacity, larger sized projects are preferred.


28. What is the desired length of PPA? For solar generation, Q&A responses indicate 10 years is preferable. Are other contract lengths acceptable? What about for resources other than solar generation?

Ten years is the minimum PPA term for any resource (including solar generation).  Longer contract lengths are acceptable.


29. It looks like GWP may select several different generation options from different bidders, including both in-city and out-of-basin resources. Is it required that a bidder proposing an out-of-basin renewable project incorporate new transmission capacity even if, in combination with other new in-city generation from a separate proposal from a different bidder, the existing GWP transmission capacity would be adequate? 

Yes. Any proposed resources coming from out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Airway. If the proposed Project is out of Glendale the proposal must include transmission. Glendale does not have excess transmission available.


30. Regarding potential for Energy Efficiency, has an EE Potential study been completed for GWP?

Yes. This information is available here.


31. The RFP shows 211 Industrial accounts. How much of the total load of GWP is represented by these 211 Industrial accounts?

Approximately 1/3 of GWP’s total load is represented by industrial accounts. See the chart below:


32. Will Customer information be available (e.g. addresses) if an NDA is executed?

No. Based on California law GWP cannot provide customer information unless the customer gives us permission to do so.


33. Will EE require M&V (measured capacity/energy? and are there any limitations on Estimated Useful Life for EE measures?

Yes, M&V will be required for EE. The basis for such is the 2017 CMUA Savings Estimation POU Technical Reference Manual which can be found here.

At a minimum, GWP will need annual regular reporting of energy and demand savings, both first year and life of measure so that we can include such in our annual reporting to the CEC. Annual reporting should follow 2017 California Public Owned Utility Energy Efficiency Reporting Guidelines which can be found here.

Reporting should be in a format compatible with GWP’s annual reporting to the CEC. GWP uses the Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) designed Energy Efficiency (EE) Reporting Tool to analyze and report on the energy savings results from energy efficiency programs.


34. Will specific accounts/locations be required for responding to EE opportunity, or will we be able to bid an overall delivery that might be made up of multiple sites TBD?

While specific accounts/locations are not required for responding to an EE opportunity, the Proposer must demonstrate that the program will be successful in achieving the City’s goals as stated in the RFP.  For example, the Proposal must include estimates of program effectiveness and penetration, with references to similar programs at other California utilities.

Additionally, proposers must provide calculations for the proposed program under the following tests:

  1. Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC). Measures the effect of the conservation measure on the administrating utility’s revenue requirement. The utility’s costs of implementing energy efficiency measures include direct installation costs incurred by the utility (as opposed to the participant), incentives and rebates, administration, overhead and marketing expenses. Benefits are the utility’s avoided cost of purchasing or generating energy.  This test does not consider the effect on utility revenues and the rates charged to its retail customers.
  2. Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Measures the cost and benefits of an efficiency measure as a resource option based on the total cost of the measure to the utility’s service territory, including both participant and utility costs. Costs include the cost incurred by the participant to purchase, install and maintain the more efficient equipment and by the utility to market and administer the efficiency program. Any direct installation costs incurred by the utility are also included. Incentives and rebates are not included as they are not a resource cost; instead, they are transfers from the utility to the customer.  That is, a rebate increases the utility’s cost and decreases the participant’s cost by the same amount, with a net effect of zero.
  3. Participant Cost Test (PCT). Measures the quantifiable costs and benefits to the customer from participating in an energy efficiency program. Participant costs include purchase and installation costs for the efficiency measure, less any incentive or rebate received from the utility. Benefits are the participant’s bill savings due to reduced energy consumption.
  4. Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIM). Measures the net impact on average rates for the utility. This test compares the cost savings to the revenue losses resulting from each measure. The cost savings are the same as those for the Program Administrator Cost Test, while revenue losses are the program implementation costs (utility incentive, direct install costs and marketing, overhead and administration) plus lost revenue from reduced energy sales to the member utilities. If the marginal cost of electricity to the utility is higher that the rates charged to member utilities, the avoided costs will more than offset the revenue losses, leading to a positive RIM test (a ratio greater than 1).
  5. Social Cost Test (SCT). Measures the cost and benefits of an efficiency measure as a resource option based on the total cost of the measure to society as a whole. Similar to the TRC test with the addition of societal costs and benefits.  Societal benefits include positive environmental externalities such as reduced emissions. Other non-energy benefits include improved health, increased productivity and reduced late bill payments or shutoff notices.


35. If we have a pending interconnection request with LADWP, how would we use that capacity to serve GWP?

A pending interconnection request with LADWP would not be sufficient to ensure that the resource can be delivered to GWP customers. Resources out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Air Way.


36. Is there a place where we can find out what existing grid-scale distributed resources are owned by the city?

Information regarding the City’s existing distributed resources is found in the EIR for the Grayson Repowering Project, found at www.graysonrepowering.com.


37. Can you provide detailed information on the existing interconnection equipment for Grayson? Information that can help us determine the capacity that can handle. Transformers, etc.

The current Air Way transformers can accommodate more than the City’s historical peak load. Through a contract with LADWP, the transformers are owned, operated, and maintained by LADWP. Additional details can be provided as requested.


38. Will the interconnection process or scope be part of the Grayson battery supplier’s responsibility?

Yes. The City expects that if you propose a battery at Grayson, you include the engineering and interconnection. We are not looking for proposers to simply deliver a battery and ask the City if we know how to connect it.


39. Would permitting and study work be part of the proposer’s scope or GWP’s?

Permitting and studies would be part of the Proposer’s scope of work.


40. Are there values that you can talk about besides generation that the city needs that could offset some of the costs of battery storage? Is there any historical data you can provide us on this?

The highest value in this context is the capacity. Battery storage would also be used for ancillary services. We do not have historical data.


41. Is GWP planning to join the EIM?

GWP is not currently looking at being in the EIM. However, if your proposal contemplates GWP joining the EIM, please specify that in your proposal.


42. Can you provide basic details on the public facilities such as basic electrical interconnections,  reservoir caps, and structural capacity?

If you have a request about a specific facility, please let us know and we will provide that information.


43. Does GWP have a preferred ownership structure or preference how the asset will be conveyed?

Proposers should make a proposal for the City’s consideration.


44. Is there any distribution level data or hotspots within the city that may be more beneficial to the grid and to Glendale by locating capacity there vs other locations in the city?

The location and severity of the so-called “hot spots” vary from season to season, depending upon the level of distributed generation, temperature, duration of high temperature, and the current state of the distribution network. The current GWP network was designed with the Grayson power plant as the “source” of energy, so placing large amounts of distributed generation (e.g., batteries) throughout the distribution system will require further study to determine the impacts on the distribution network. Additional details can be provided as requested.


45. Is GWP part of SCPPA?

Yes.


46. Do we have to have a submit a price bid to SCPPA for this RFP?

No.


47. Is there a distribution model that you’re using to look at to determine any overload on the current distribution system?

Yes.


48. What software do you use for this? [refer to q47]. 

We use GE Energy’s “PSLF” for our transmission-level studies and GL Noble Denton’s “SynerGEE” for our distribution-level studies.


49. Will the site see leasing to Glendale?

We will consider it. The RFP states: “The City will consider ownership of storage projects that are not located on City property, in addition to lease or power purchase agreement options, but will not assume development risks.” The RFP also says: “For resource options that are to be placed on City property with a physical foot print, such as solar panels, batteries, or chillers, the City prefers to own these resources from the outset.”


50. Are your 200 MW of transmission rights fully utilized?

Yes.


51. Are you able to acquire more transmission rights on the IPP Project transmission?

There may be a possibility of a small amount of transmission available on the STS line, which interconnects with LADWP's transmission line, but this is not certain and should not be assumed for purposes submitting a proposal. Any proposed resources coming from out of City limits must be interconnected on the Glendale side of Airway.


52. Does Glendale have a balancing requirement within the distribution system? If so, what is the response time to balance the power?

There is no “balancing requirement” within the distribution system. We address imbalances as they occur as a cooperative effort among Dispatch, Engineering, and the field crews. Dispatch monitors the phases on a real-time basis and engages Engineering and the field when they identify potential problems.


53. With regard to the table in the RFP with the Battery Storage options, should Proposers submit a proposal for every option?

You should determine what the best value is based upon the current state of battery modules and propose what you believe to be the best option or options.


54. Is there a preference for a portfolio solution even if it is not the best option financially or if it is priced higher? And, given the market, do you have a sense of what the portfolio balance should be?

Price is a factor, but GWP also values diversity. In the RFP we said in many places "projects" with an "s." We can integrate multiple projects into our portfolio if it works for us. We have not done an analysis of the best portfolio mix. With regard to storage, presently we have a 2 MW BESS, and when that BESS size is compared to the size of GWP's overall system, that puts GWP in the top five of the nation. We have proposed a 50 MW battery system. We believe that 50 MW of battery storage in the portfolio is about as much as we can recommend in the portfolio.


55. Once you recommend a portfolio and proposers get notified that their proposal looks good, what are the next steps?

We will review the proposals all of August and all of September. We would like to get the proposals incorporated into the IRP filing in January 2019. As we develop a tentative portfolio, we are likely to schedule interviews with the firms to talk about more specifics to fine tune the review process.

Environmental review of the proposed solution(s) will also need to be considered. This could affect the schedule.


56. What date are you looking at to get contracts in place?

Summer of 2019. We don’t want to push it out any longer. At the moment we only have 2 units at the power plant that are operational, we are expecting a warm summer, and LA has already told us that they will not be able to help us. We are not trying to delay.


57. Will you accept a COD before April 2021?

Yes.


58. What is your current per KWH pricing? What are you expecting to get with this RFP?

We are looking for the cheapest you can give us. We want to have the lowest rate impact possible.


59. What is the preferred maintenance arrangement for a BESS?

You would maintain it for a period of time (e.g. 20 years) after the system goes live. For maintenance, some utilities will have their own staff maintain the batteries. We would like to outsource the maintenance as it is easier and GWP has not yet developed the experience. We may transition to in-house maintenance in the future.


60. It looks like Glendale is looking at proposals that add up to less than the total capacity that you need, and you’ll be collecting multiple proposals?

Correct.


61. Several of the properties on the City’s property list are over 200 acres. Did you conclude that none of those properties are suitable for any type of renewable development?

No, we have not reached that conclusion. We ask that the proposer evaluate the properties and determine whether they would be suitable. Many of the parcels that are labeled as open space parcels may be subject to limits or restrictions on development, but it would be necessary to review the title documents for the parcel in question. We have evaluated the landfill as a possible site, but the landfill is active and will continue to be active for another 12 years or so. Fill areas change regularly. Because of the active nature of the site it’s very difficult to develop there.


62. The bidder must indicate that they have prior experience over the last 5 years with a project of similar size and type. For storage, 50 MW will be the largest in the US. If you’re bidding for that type of project, how do you meet that qualification?

We are aware of this. What we’ve heard from people about storage (not just batteries) is that they have a project of a certain size, much smaller than 50 MW, that they have completed as an R&D project and then show the results. A 2 MW project translated to a 50 MW project is doable with batteries, but we need to determine how we’re going to manage it. We’re willing to listen to what you’ve done before.

We are looking for relevant utility-scale experience and demonstrated success in managing and completing large, complex projects.


63. On the battery storage solution, what are you expecting for guaranteed performance duration? Battery long term guarantees can be pretty costly. What’s the city’s thought about taking some of that risk themselves? What do you expect from the bidders for this?

The City is not looking to take on risk. We understand, especially with batteries, we have to talk about replacement. We would like for proposers to give us options. For example, propose 10/20/30 year guarantee options for our consideration, then we can look at the price and then look at the risk we want to take in each scenario.


64. There’s a section on the RFP that talks about the performance bond. If you’re doing an EPC project, would the performance bond carry over to guarantee period?

Generally no. With regards to the maintenance period we typically require a maintenance bond. It's usually 5-10%.


65. Can the Proposer submit a letter of credit in lieu of the bonds?

An irrevocable letter of credit cannot be submitted in of the required forms of proposal security, but a letter of credit may be acceptable in lieu of a performance bond, on a case by case basis, depending upon the nature of the project and the City’s evaluation of the risk. The form and terms of the letter of credit would need to be approved by the City Attorney and the letter of credit would need to be issued by from an issuing bank approved by the City’s Director of Finance.


66. Have you done any study for potential CAISO interconnection at the Eagle Rock station for Edison?   

Yes. We have looked at that, but it is not a favorable proposition for us. The cost impacts alone would be tremendous and it would benefit us from a capacity basis. It’s not just the cost to get in, but also the costs keep going up once you’re in.


67. For the battery guarantee, you don’t have much appetite for balancing services. Is it safe to assume when we’re modeling those guarantees we should assume a power factor of 1?

Not necessarily. Our main trust here is to meet load but we need to address voltage support issues as well. To the extent that we have the flexibility to do more than push out megawatts, we definitely want to look at that as well.


68. Can you provide interconnection capacities or rough line capacities for some of these other properties so we could know how big of a system will be proposed?

We can do that. For each substation we can give you the transformer & equipment capacities. We will need some time to have this information available. It will be updated soon.


69. Do you have a diagram available for the GWP Transmission & Distribution system?

We do have diagrams, but providing them raises a security issue. If you have a specific question about an area, we can zero in on that.


70. Does our proposed system need to be integrated into any other resources or should it be standalone? Is there anything else that they need to be integrated into?

We have some existing contracts such as shares in IPP and Magnolia. To the extent that those resources are still available, they will be an obligation for us to take. We certainly need to continue those. The system would also need to be integrated with Grayson Unit 9. All control systems for discreet generation and/or storage systems should be integrated into a single control system, providing a consistent, single-vendor user interface to operators and dispatchers.  If there is a Grayson plant controller, the non-Grayson control systems should integrate with the Grayson control system to provide a consistent, single-vendor user interface to operators and dispatchers. However, alternatives to this approach will be considered.


71. How much space do we have available at the Grayson site for battery storage?

The available area is less than 50% of the total yard. The remaining site is in operations that will not change or go anywhere.


72. Do you know the timing to get an interconnection approved? If we’re coming in with battery storage you want us to do the permitting and interconnection, but what time frame is typical for this?

If the interconnection is to Glendale’s system only, we can work with you to help expedite this.


74. Would interconnection be with LADWP?

It could be, if your proposal goes further than just our transmission and distribution system.


75. Do both the Fire Department and City have jurisdiction over your land? Do we have to get permits from both?

Yes. For a battery energy storage system, we envisioned housing batteries in a building with fire suppression and temperature control. This was preferred over stacking containers for instance.


76. For any battery that is proposed at Grayson, would you consider that to be an addition the 50MW/200MWh that you are planning, or as part of that 50/200?

 We are looking for the best portfolio for the City. The proposals should assume we are taking the proposed Grayson Repowering Project off the table, except for unit 9. Proposers should not look at what we’ve proposed; rather, proposers should assume you’re starting from scratch. With a 50 MW we’re venturing far out there. We’re concerned about going more than that, but we are not saying you shouldn’t propose more. We will take a look at it.


77. If there is a scenario that storage would be capped at 50 MW, would the City go with some level of repowering with gas as well?

It is a possibility. This will be a decision for the City Council.


78. If we are proposing an alternative beyond say 50MW of battery energy storage in the existing area, we would include deconstruction & demolition costs of existing old units?

No. You should assume that you get a clean site.


79. Do you guys connect to the 66 line at all?

No. GWP’s only interconnection points are at Western and Airway.  All resources from outside of Glendale must be delivered to the Glendale side of Airway.


80. Is a geotechnical report available for Grayson?

A geotechnical report is available to proposers upon request. Geology and soils technical reports are also included in Appendix E to the Final EIR for the proposed repowering project, available at graysonrepowering.com.


81. Are the McCullough 500 or Mead 230 acceptable points of delivery?

No, McCullough 500 or Mead 230 are not acceptable delivery locations for this RFP. Delivery must be to the Glendale side of Air Way. This transmission must be purchased from LADWP using their OASIS site. Transmission and delivery must be firm and for the same duration as the long-term asset.


82. Would the City of Glendale consider accepting a Parent Company Guarantee in lieu of a proposal bond and performance bond?

If the proposer is proposing construction of a public work or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, then the proposer must provide a proposal security as required by Section 20170 of the California Public Contract Code, in one of the forms specified in the RFP (cash, cashier’s check, certified check, or proposal bond). 

If the proposer is proposing a power purchase agreement or another arrangement that does not constitute the construction of a public project or the supply of materials for a public project to be paid for by the City, the proposer may provide a letter of credit or a parent guarantee.  Acceptance of a letter of credit or parent guarantee in lieu of the forms of proposal security specified in the RFP is subject to the following conditions:

  • The form and terms of the proposed letter of credit / parent guarantee is subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
  • The issuing bank/entity must be approved by the City’s Director of Finance.
  • The proposed letter of credit / parent guarantee should be submitted to the City for review no later than 10 business days before the Proposal Deadline for review.
  • A letter of credit or parent guarantee may be accepted in lieu of the performance bond on a case by case basis (depending upon the nature of the Project and the City’s evaluation of the risk). The Letter of Credit or Parent Guarantee and the issuing bank / entity would be subject to the approval of the City.
  • A payment bond is required.



83. Would stand-alone proposals for out-of-basin renewable projects – i.e., without added transmission to Air Way -- be acceptable, recognizing that such projects would have to be selected in combination with separate proposals for generation in city to meet reliability requirements?

No. Out of basin renewable projects need to include delivery to the Glendale side of Air Way.