Colorado PUC E-Filings System

Public Service Company of Colorado

2016 Electric Resource Plan

2017 All Source Solicitation 30-Day Report
(Public Version)

(CPUC Proceeding No. 16A-0396E)
December 28, 2017

xcelenergy.com   © 2016 Xcel Energy Inc.   Xcel Energy is a registered trademark of Xcel Energy Inc.   16-03-416

 Page 1 of 11

Table of Contents
Section 1.

Regulatory Context and Introduction ............................................... 2

Section 2.

Response to the All-Source Solicitation........................................... 3

Section 3.

Proposals Claiming Section 123 Status........................................... 4

List of Attachments
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT A – Solicitation Responses by
Generation Technology
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT B – Potential Section 123 Resources
Opposed by the Company
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT C – Number of Bids by Bidder and
Generation Type

 Page 2 of 11

Section 1. Regulatory Context and Introduction
Public Service Company of Colorado (“Public Service” or the “Company”) files
this 2017 All-Source Solicitation 30-Day Report (the “Report”) in compliance with
Resource Planning Rule 3618(b)(I).
The 2017 All-Source Solicitation
(“Solicitation”) is the resource acquisition phase of the Company’s 2016 Electric
Resource Plan assigned Proceeding No. 16A-0396E. The Company issued its
All-Source Solicitation on August 30, 2017; bids were received by the Company
on November 28, 2017.
Rule 3618(b)(I) states:
Within 30 days after bids are received in response to the RFP(s),
the utility shall report: the identity of the bidders and the number of
bids received; the quantity of MW offered by bidders; a breakdown
of the number of bids and MW received by resource type; and, a
description of the prices of the resources offered.
In addition to the information required by Rule 3618(b)(I), the Company also
identifies bids claiming Section 123 status and provides its position on proposed
Section 123 claims. At the time of this report, the Company has determined bid
eligibility for all bids received and has begun initial rounds of due diligence.

 Page 3 of 11

Section 2. Response to the All-Source Solicitation
The response to this Solicitation is unprecedented with 430 total individual
proposals (238 total projects) received from bidders. Over 350 of these individual
proposals are renewable energy proposals or renewable energy with storage
proposals. For comparison, the Company received 55 bids in the 2013 AllSource Solicitation. Attachment A provides summary information of the bids
received organized by generation type. Many developers provided multiple bids
for a single project resulting in significantly more bids than projects. Differing bid
information such as different proposed in-service dates, different power purchase
agreements (“PPA”) terms (in years), and different ownership structures (PPA
versus Company ownership) can result in multiple bids from a single proposed
project (though each distinct bid has its own distinct bid pricing stream or
purchase price). The Company has redacted pricing information for those
generation types in which two or fewer bids were received, and a non-redacted
table is included in Highly Confidential Attachment A.
Of the 238 projects proposed, 99 projects included some level of Company
ownership. Such ownership can include, without limitation: (1) a self-build
proposal, (2) a build-own-transfer proposal, (3) a sale of an existing asset, or (4)
a joint PPA/Company-ownership proposal.
In describing the prices offered, the Company presents the median levelized
price of the bids received for each generation type, and this median value
represents the mid-point of the pricing such that 50% of the bids are lower priced
and 50% are higher priced. Levelized pricing for PPAs is based on information
presented by developers in their bids, while pricing for Company-ownership is a
preliminary calculation of the levelized cost of ownership.
Pricing is provided in $/kW-mo terms for those generation types that can be
viewed as dispatchable and likely to provide high levels of generation capacity
credit. Pricing is provided in $/MWh terms for those generation types or
resources that are non-dispatchable or that include a storage component with a
non-dispatchable base generation resource. Pricing is provided on an “as bid”
basis and does not include other costs such as resource integration costs,
additional transmission network upgrade costs for interconnection or
deliverability, or credits for items like quick-start capability; that is, these are not
based on “all in” costs. Bid ranking for purposes of computer-based modeling
will be conducted on all-in costs.
Finally, the Company has not yet sufficiently evaluated all of the proposals
represented in Attachment A to determine if any contain any “fatal flaws” such
that they are unlikely to achieve their proposed in-service dates. The Company’s
due diligence efforts to identify such issues are continuing. Bidder identity along
with the number of bids proposed by generation type is provided in Highly
Confidential Attachment C.

 Page 4 of 11

Section 3. Proposals Claiming Section 123 Status
In its Phase I Decision (Decision No. C17-0316) the Commission directed the
Company to process Section 123 claims consistent with the Phase I Decision in
the Company’s 2011 ERP (Decision No. C13-0094). The process has bidders
who claim Section 123 status indicate why the proposal qualifies as both “new”
and “clean”. The Company then states its opposition to any claims and provides
a copy of the disputed bids from which the Commission makes the final
determination.
Of the 238 individual projects included in Attachment A, 32 projects claim Section
123 status. These 32 project-level Section 123 claims represent 79 of the 430
individual proposals (18% of the total). Section 123 claims were received from
each generation type listed in Attachment A except for Combustion Turbines,
Combined Cycles, and Waste Heat.
The Section 123 process, per Phase I orders in the 2011 and 2016 ERPs,
requires that Section 123 resources be considered both “clean” and “new.” The
Commission’s definition of “new” can take two forms as described in paragraph
92 of Decision C13-0094:
For the purpose of bid evaluation at the start of Phase II of this
ERP, we further clarify that, per the statutory language, a Section
123 resource must be both new and clean. A new project shall
either: (1) incorporate one or more technologies, representing a
substantial portion of its overall installed cost, that have not been
regularly commercially demonstrated, up to the point in time that
the resource is formally bid, or if not bid, acquired; or (2) be a
project used to demonstrate the feasibility of a technology not
before implemented in its proposed configuration.
The Company provides in Highly Confidential Attachment B a list of Bid IDs and
a brief description of those projects that claim Section 123 status and which the
Company opposes. The Company provided the Highly Confidential bids from
those projects it opposes to the Commission. Below the Company provides a
brief overview of its position on Section 123 status claims based on the
generation technology types in Attachment A that claimed Section 123 status.
Overall, of the 79 bids claiming Section 123 status, the Company opposes 21. In
addition, regardless of whether a bid qualifies for Section 123 status or not, it will
still be evaluated in the Phase II bid evaluation process.
Compressed Air Energy Storage: Recommended for Section 123 Status
The Company received one compressed air energy storage proposal which
claimed Section 123 status. The Company believes that Compressed Air Energy

 Page 5 of 11

Storage (“CAES”) resources are not commercially demonstrated and should be
evaluated as Section 123 resources.
Biomass: Not Recommended for Section 123 Status
The Company received one biomass proposal which claimed Section 123 status.
The developer proposes to burn waste wood (e.g., beetle kill pine or scrap
lumber) in biomass generation units constructed in Colorado. The proposed
project is 8.5 MW while the biomass generator company’s website indicates a
total installation of 1.5 MW across four projects. The proposal contains
insufficient information for the Company to deem these commercially-available
generators as “new”. Based on this and the extremely high cost of the proposed
energy pricing, the Company opposes this project as a Section 123 resource.
IC Engine with Solar: Not Recommended for Section 123 Status
The Company received one internal combustion engine and solar proposal which
claimed Section 123 status. The project consists of a small photovoltaic field and
a small “off the shelf” internal combustion engine burning wellhead and/or
pipeline natural gas; approximately 60% of the annual energy would be solar and
40% would be gas-fired. Both the gas generation and the solar generation are
non-dispatchable and the total energy sold to the Company would be the simple
aggregate of the two non-connected generation resources. The Company
opposes the designation of this proposal as a Section 123 resource as it has not
identified any components of the project that qualify it as “new”.
Stand-alone Wind, Stand-alone Solar, and Wind/Solar Combination Bids: Not
Recommended for Section 123 Status
The Company received 253 stand-alone wind, stand-alone solar, and wind and
solar combination proposals with 7 of these claiming Section 123 status. Several
developers make Section 123 claims for stand-alone wind and solar projects
based solely on their unique definition of “new”. For example: 1) the project is
located in a wind resource zone with little existing wind generation, 2) the sheer
large size of the proposal (“largest in Colorado”), 3) a commercially-available
turbine that has not yet been installed in Colorado, 4) the fact that the Company
does not currently contract for both a wind and a solar project under a single
PPA, or 5) a proposal to bring floating PV panels to Colorado even though the
concept is commercially developed elsewhere in the country and the world.
Based on its review of the stand-alone wind and solar bids, the Company
opposes Section 123 status for any stand-alone wind, solar, or combination of
wind and solar proposal.
Stand-alone Battery Storage: Not Recommended for Section 123 Status
The Company received 28 stand-alone battery storage bids with 12 claiming
Section 123 status. The Company believes that sufficient battery installations

 Page 6 of 11

have occurred in the United States and in other countries that stand-alone
battery storage in the electric utility industry (especially lithium ion technology
which is the only battery storage technology proposed in this Solicitation) has
been regularly commercially demonstrated. 1 Therefore, the Company believes
stand-alone battery storage proposals do not satisfy the “new” component of the
requirement of the Commission’s Section 123 standard. 2 This does not mean
that stand-alone storage proposals will not be evaluated as part of the Phase II
bid evaluation process; the Company intends to evaluate such proposals
regardless of whether they are Section 123 resources or not.
Wind and Solar Bids with Storage: Conditionally Recommended for Section 123
Status
The Company received 105 wind and solar bids with integral battery storage with
52 of them claiming Section 123 status. These 52 bids represent 18 projects, and
the 52 bids are a substantial majority of the total 79 bids seeking Section 123
status. We note here that 53 bids from this same technology category did not
seek Section 123 status. Section 123 claims for the addition of battery storage
with wind and/or solar were made based on both forms of the definition of “new”
by various developers. In addition, many developers make the claim that “no
utility-scale storage embedded wind or solar projects exist in Colorado”.
While the Company believes stand-alone battery storage projects should not be
designated as Section 123 resources, wind and solar bids in combination with
integral battery storage may be represented as Section 123 resources in this
Solicitation. We reach this conclusion based on the Commission’s second
definition of “new” based on the absence of any utility-scale battery storage
projects embedded in a wind or solar facility on the Company’s system, and the
relatively small cost adder for wind and solar bids with storage as compared to
wind or solar only bids. For fairness in evaluation, the Company would move
forward all wind and solar bids with integral storage as Section 123 resources
whether the developer made a Section 123 claim or did not make such a claim or
specifically disavowed Section 123 status.
However, we do not believe the Section 123 designation for this category is clear
or definitive. Apart from the definition of Section 123, the Commission might
consider other factors in whether wind and solar bids with storage should be
deemed Section 123 resources. First, the large number of wind and solar with
storage bids suggests this technology combination might not be a “new”
technology application, though it is new to Colorado. Second, more than half of
1

The Energy Storage Association and gtmresearch report that ~620 MW of battery storage
projects were installed in the United States since the start of 2013; of this, 83% were installed
on the utility side of the meter. 94% of the 620 MW was lithium ion technology. The
researchers estimate that annual battery installations in the United States will exceed 1,000
MW by 2019.
2
Several developers who propose stand-alone storage projects specifically stated that standalone batteries are not Section 123 resources.

 Page 7 of 11

the bids in this category did not request Section 123 status. While we believe this
category of bids may meet the definition of Section 123 resources, the
Commission may also justifiably deem this category as not qualifying for Section
123 status. Accordingly, given the ambiguity regarding whether these
technologies satisfy the Commission standard for Section 123 resources,
coupled with the divergence of developers in designating (or not designating)
these bids as Section 123 – not to mention the sheer volume of these types of
bids – the Company offers this conditional recommendation and believes it may
be appropriate for the Commission to also weigh in on the appropriate
designation (i.e., Section 123 or not Section 123) for bids employing these
technologies.
Combustion Turbine with Battery Storage: Conditionally Recommended for
Section 123 Status
The Company received 7 combustion turbine with battery storage bids with 5
claiming Section 123 status. The primary proposed benefit of such a project is to
allow the combined turbine and storage project to qualify as a spinning reserve
resource without the turbine component actually spinning and synchronized with
the electrical grid. As long as the battery is fully charged, it can instantaneously
discharge to provide grid support while the combustion turbine begins its start
cycle and ramps to load. Consistent with the Company’s position regarding the
“newness” of battery storage embedded with wind and solar projects, the
Company believes that the inclusion of battery storage with a combustion turbine
may also qualify as a Section 123 resource for this solicitation. However, as with
wind and solar with storage, the Commission may also justifiably deem this
category as not qualifying for Section 123 status.
Section 123 Resource Evaluation Process
The process employed by the Commission in the 2013 All-Source Solicitation
would have the Company “present a group of resource portfolios in its 120-day
report where each portfolio is differentiated from the least-cost resource mix by
the inclusion of a single proposed Section 123 resource.”3 The Company
believes that for this Solicitation the Commission’s language in Rule 3613(d)
provides a more appropriate path forward given the unprecedented number of
Section 123 bids (and bids overall). 4 Specifically, the Company would present
select portfolios in its 120-Day report that include the most cost-effective
renewable and/or cost-effective Section 123 resources in increasing amounts.
3
4

Decision C13-0094, Paragraph 162.
Rule 3613(d) - “Within 120 days of the utility’s receipt of bids in its competitive acquisition
process, the utility shall file a report with the Commission describing the cost-effective
resource plans that conform to the range of scenarios for assessing the costs and benefits
from the potential acquisition of increasing amounts of renewable energy resources, demandside resources, or Section 123 resources as specified in the Commission’s decision approving
or rejecting the utility plan developed under rule 3604.”

 Page 8 of 11

This will give the Commission and parties the opportunity to review and evaluate
several different portfolios with differing levels of Section 123 resources.

 ATTACHMENT A - PUBLIC VERSION

Page 9 of 11

RFP Responses by Technology
# of
# of
Project
Bids Bid MW Projects MW
Generation Technology
Combustion Turbine/IC Engines
30
7,141
13 2,466
Combustion Turbine with Battery Storage
7
804
3
476
Gas-Fired Combined Cycles
2
451
2
451
Stand-alone Battery Storage
28
2,143
21 1,614
Compressed Air Energy Storage
1
317
1
317
Wind
96 42,278
42 17,380
Wind and Solar
5
2,612
4 2,162
Wind with Battery Storage
11
5,700
8 5,097
Solar (PV)
152 29,710
75 13,435
Wind and Solar and Battery Storage
7
4,048
7 4,048
Solar (PV) with Battery Storage
87 16,725
59 10,813
IC Engine with Solar
1
5
1
5
Waste Heat
2
21
1
11
Biomass
1
9
1
9
Total
430 111,963
238 58,283

Median Bid
Price or
Equivalent
$
4.80
6.20
6.70
11.30
14.60
$ 18.10
19.90
21.00
29.50
30.60
36.00
50.00
55.40
387.50

Pricing
Units
$/kW-mo
$/kW-mo
$/kW-mo
$/kW-mo
$/kW-mo
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh

 ATTACHMENT B - PUBLIC VERSION

Bid ID
E086
E211
E217
E625
E626
E627
E628
E629
E630
E631
E632
E633
B169
M089
S171
W087
W227
W228
Q620
Q621
Q622

Bidder Company
Tesla, Inc.
AEIF Battery Storage, LLC
Convergent
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
Primary Energy
Starlight Energy Corporation
Sharper Energy Technologies
Viridis Eolia LLC
Orion Renewables
Orion Renewables
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources
NextEra Energy Resources

Project Name

Generation Type
Forrest Lake
Stand-alone Battery Storage
ABS-Avondale
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Cameo Storage
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Event Horizon
Stand-alone Battery Storage
Gypsum Renewable Bioenergy Facility Biomass
Anderson Ranch
IC Engine with Solar
Thornton GL-1
Solar (PV)
Red Lake Wind
Wind
Springfield Wind
Wind
Springfield Wind
Wind
Las Animas + Thunder Wolf
Wind + Solar Hybrid
Thunder Wolf + Bronco Plains
Wind + Solar Hybrid
Thunder Wolf + Bronco Plains
Wind + Solar Hybrid

Page 10 of 11

Size Duration
(MW) (hours)
75
4
50
4
25
4
50
4
50
8
50
10
100
4
100
8
100
10
150
4
150
8
150
10
9
5
10
248
700
700
800
500
400

 ATTACHMENT C - PUBLIC VERSION

Bidder Name
174 Power Global
Able Grid Energy
Adani North America, Inc.
AEIF Battery Storage, LLC
AES Distributed Energy
Algonquin Power
Alliance Energy Group, LLC
Apex Clean Energy
Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage, LLC
Atlantic Power Corporation
Avangrid Renewables
BIV Genco
BrushPower
Clean Energy Development, LLC
Clear Creek Power
Clenera
Community Energy Solar / Adani JV
Community Energy Solar, LLC
Community Power Group
Convergent
Coronal Energy
Cypress Creek Renewables
E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC
Eagle Solar Group, LLC
EDF Renewable Energy
EDP Renewables
Enel Green Power
Enyo Renewable Energy
esVolta LP
First Solar Development, LLC
GCL New Energy
Geronimo Energy
Hecate Energy
ibV Energy Partners LLC
Infinity Renewables
Innovative Solar Systems
Intersect Power
Invenergy
Juwi
Leeward Renewable Energy, LLC
LendLease Energy Development LLC
Longroad Energy
Nereo GreenCapital
NextEra Energy Resources
Orion Renewables
Ormat
Owl Creek Renewables LLC
Pattern Energy Group
Primary Energy
Public Service Company
Recurrent Energy
RES
Saturn Power Corp
Sharper Energy Technologies
Solairedirect USA
Southwest Generation
sPower Development Company, LLC
Starlight Energy Corporation
SunPower Corporation
Terra-Gen, LLC
Tesla, Inc.
Tradewind Energy
Viridis Eolia LLC
Wartsilla

Page 11 of 11

30
7
2
28
1
96
11
5
152
7
87
1
2
1
Combustion
StandWind +
Turbines
Solar + Solar +
Wind + Wind +
CT + Combined alone
Waste
Cycles Battery CAES Wind Storage Solar Solar Storage Storage ICE + Solar Heat Biomass
IC Engines Storage
2
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
3
11
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
4
12
6
1
2
4
2
6
8
8
4
1
2
7
7
2
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
2
2
1
4
3
2
3
16
6
2
10
4
4
12
3
2
4
9
22
10
3
12
3
20
2
2
6
2
2
2
4
2
1
10
6
4
5
1
1
1
6
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
8
1
4
1
1
1