GALLOWAY LYNDALL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE LEWIS-MILLS HOUSE . 406 NORTH HILL STREET . GRIFFIN, GEORGIA 30223 VIA: Alternative Electronic Filing May 11, 2020 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (770)233-6230 FACSIMILE (770)233-6231 NEWTON M. GALLOWAY TERRI M. LYNDALL Re: In Re: Georgia Power Company?s Distributed Generation Customer?Connected Solar Program: Docket No. 43 107 Dear Mr. McAlister: On behalf of the Georgia Solar Energy Industries Association, Inc. enclosed please ?nd an original and sixteen (16) copies of its Comments on the Program Guidelines and Pro Forma Power Purchase Agreement in Georgia Power Company? Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Program in the above-styled docket for ?ling with the Commission. Please date-stamp the enclosed extra cepy of this ?ling and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. The Comments are also being ?led with the Commission by means of its Alternative Electronic Filing Procedures. Should you have any questions concerning this ?ling, please do not hesitate to contact the .. undersigned. Sincerely, GALLOWAY LYNDALL, LLP i, Newton M. Galloway NMG:dlrn Enclosures BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STATE OF GEORGIA IN RE: Georgia Power Company?s Distributed DOCKET 43107 Generation Customer-Connected Solar Program COMMENTS OF THE GEORGIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC. ON THE PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND PRO ORMA POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN GEORGIA POWER DISTRIBUTED GENERATION CUSTOMER-CONNECTED PROGRAM Comes now, the GEORGIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC. Intervenor in the above styled docket and ?les these Comments on the Program Guidelines (?Guidelines?) and Pro Forma Power Purchase Agreement proposed by Georgia Power Company (?Georgia Power? or the ??Company?) in its Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Program (?Customer Connected?). On April 15, 2020, the Company ?led its ?Application for Approval of Georgia Power Company?s Distributed Generation Customer?Connected Solar Program.?l Herein, GSEIA provides both general comments and comments on specific provisions therein. ?Application for Approval of Georgia Power Company?s Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Solar Program In re: Georgia Power Company Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Solar Program; Docket 43107 (April 15, 2020). GENERAL COMMENTS The Company?s Guidelines and PPA in Customer Connected purport to make its customers the program?s priority, offering them another means to deploy solar generation. By requiring the customer to be the PPA and Interconnection Agreement counterparty and with repeated references to the Company?s ?customer,? the Guidelines and PPA (at ?rst blush) seem to encourage solar deployment similar to behind the meter by which the customer deploys self-generation to directly reduce the cost of energy. The reality is quite different. The Guidelines and PPA saddle the customer with contractual obligations, technical complexities, interconnection requirements, costs/fees and trip wires for liquidated damages that may cause the customer?s performance to falter and risk breach. Few customers will want to ?nance, own, operate and maintain a commercial-scale solar facility. The Company?s suggested solutions a Solar Energy Purchase [Procurement] Agreement or lease with a third party -- will only increase the contractual complexities of the project and reduce its economic benefits to the customer. In short, the revisions to the Guidelines from prior customers-sited programs will not bene?t customers. They require customers to take on risks and costs they do not want to bear and will make ?nancing projects Virtually impossible. The Company seems to seek a redo on a contentious issue that was fully litigated in the 2019 Integrated Resources Plan3 elimination of a customer-sited program to follow 2 See: RNR-IO tariff. (?Georgia Power Company?s 2019 Rate Case Compliance Filing,? In re: Georgia Power Company ?3 20} 9 Rate Case; Docket 42516 (February 14, 2020), adopted ?Compliance Order;" (March 20, 2020)) (Subject to further revisions to implement netting). 3 The Company did not propose a customer sited program in its 2019 IRP. "Georgia Power Company?s Integrated Resource Plan;? In Re: Georgia Power Companyir 2019 Integrated Resource Plan and Applican?onfor Cerr?ica?on of Capacity from Plant Scherer Uni! 3 and Plant Goat Rock Units 9?12, Application for Decertf?ca?on of Plan! 2 comparable programs in its Advanced Solar Initiative Prime Group Prime Group or ?Group and Renewable Energy DevelOpment Initiative To discourage a customer sited program, the Company?s Application restates to which its witness panel testi?ed in the IRP: a. That a customer receives no bene?t from a customer?sited project if there is a third- party owner or PPA counterparty;6 and b. That solar generation compensated at Renewable Cost Bene?t Framework avoided cost is ?above-market pricing,? costing other customers more for electricity than if solicited through competitive bidding.T In the IRP, GSEIA urged the Commission to continue a customer?sited program. After being fully litigated, the Commission directed the Company to implement a customer-sited DG program8 to procure 50 MW of solar generation from projects one (1) to three (3) MW in size at RCB avoided cost In reSponse, the Company proposed a program that will almost certainly fail and that restricts the rights of its customers who must bear the brunt of Customer Connected?s complex Hammond Units 1-4. Plant McIntosh Unit 1, Plant Estatoa/t Unit 1, Plant Langdo/e Units 5-6 and Plant River-view Units 1-2; Docket 42310 (Generally, pp. 8-50 thru 8-58) and ?Testimony of Jeffrey R. Grubb, et Docket 42310 (January 3 l, 2019) (pp. 46-59). 4 ?Order Approving Final Program Guidelines and Power Purchase Agreements for the 2015/2016 Distributed Generation Program Solicitations;? In re: Georgia Power Company '5 Advanced Solar Initiative,? Docket 36325 (July 20, 2015). 5 ?Georgia Power Company?s Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer-Sited Distributed Generation Program Guidelines and Request for Applications For Solar Photovoltaic Generation;? In re: Georgia Power Company '5 Renewable Energy Development Initiative; Docket 40706 (October 5, 2017) and ?Order Approving Final Documents with Modi?cations;? Docket 40706 (October 23, 2017). 6 ?Rebuttal Testimony ofJeffrey R. Grubb, et Docket 42310 (May 30, 2019) (pp. 54:29?55: 1; 55:12-15; 55:18- 20); ?Application;? Docket 43107 3). 7 ?Rebuttal Testimony ofJeffrey R. Grubb, et Docket 423 10 (May 30, 2019) (pp. 5521-4, ?Application;? Docket 43107 3). 8 ?Order Adopting Stipulation as Amended;? Docket 42310 (July 29, 2019) (Paragraph 3, p. I 1). .3 Guidelines and PPA tenns which prohibit a third-party PPA and IA counterparty, increase already complex contractual obligations, increase economic risks (coupled with declining prices), reduce the customer?s ability to transfer their property, increase fees and impose liquidated damages as contract performance penalties. Finally, the rates the Company proposes to pay for electricity from these DG projects are almost 40% lower than rates offered in REDI, adding to the customer?s economic risk, deterring ?nancing, rendering the program unworkable and potentially jeopardizing future DG deployment in Georgia. When the Customer Connected Guidelines, PPA and pricing are fully and accurately explained to the customer, there will be little incentive to deploy. For these reasons, Customer Connected is unlikely to succeed, begging the question of whether an unsuccessful program is really a program at all. 11. COMMENTS ON THE BASIS FOR PROGRAM CHANGES A. Customers bene?t when a third-party executes the PPA. The Company claims that customers in ASI Prime Group and REDI received no bene?t from the solar facility when a third party executed the PPA. This is belied by the success of those programs and (as shown below) the Company?s own Guidelines and PPA terms which speci?cally allowed either the customer or a third party to own the solar facility and execute the PPA.9 Both programs were well received, and the SOMW available in REDI were oversubscribed. Further, the Company acknowledged the customer?s ability to negotiate the bene?t it wants to receive from third-party execution of the PPA, stating: 9 ?Georgia Power Company?s Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer Sited Distributed Generation Program Guidelines and Request for Applications For Solar Photovoltaic Generation;? Docket 40706 November I, 2017 (the CS DG Guidelines?), p. 3. 4 If the Customer is the Seller under the PPA, the Customer gets the economic bene?t resulting from selling solar generation to Georgia Power. If a solar farm is constructed on behalf of a Customer (Customer is not the Seller under the PPA). the bene?ts to the Customer are negotiated between the Customer and Seller.?0 (Emphasis added) Thus, the Company supported the right of its customer to freely negotiate the bene?ts they would receive with the third-party. It is beyond the Company?s purview to decide (for its customer) whether the Customer bene?tted or not. That said, the Company suggests in its Application that customers did not bene?t from the prior Customer Sited programs. 1' Every customer had its own reasons to participate in development of a solar facility in ASI Prime Group and REDI, as con?rmed through discussions with customers. Most customers desired to be involved with solar development, but they did not want to own the solar facility or be the PPA counterparty.12 Customers cited the following reasons for their position: a. The complexity of the contracts (Guidelines, PPA and IA) and transaction for an investment ancillary to their primary business or function; b. The technical complexity and engineering expertise required to operate the solar facility and con?rm compliance with the Guidelines, PPA and c. The length of the PPA exceeds the length of standard contractual arrangements; and '0 The Company?s response to a question posed to the Independent Monitor: ?What are the bene?ts that the customer receives?? Accion Group, LLC CS DG Website. question posted September 25, 2017 at 12:09pm; answer posted September 27, 2017 at 8:19pm (no longer available online). 11 ?Application;? Docket 43107 (April 15, 2020) (at p. 3, arguing that programmatic design changes were intended to ?ensur[e] the bene?ts appropriately and directly ?ow to participating customers?) '3 Two local government entities, the Pierce County Development Authority and the Town of Trion documented their preference that third parties take the contractual responsibilities and economic risks in letters to the Commission. (Letter from Mr. Matt Carter to Commissioner Shaw; Letter from Mayor Larry Stansell to Chairman Eaton (Exhibits and respectively, attached hereto). 5 d. The rate of return (which is only experienced over the full term of the PPA and at the price set by the PPA) is less than preferred for the investment. Despite these obstacles, the customers still want to participate in renewable energy deployment and attain their objectives through means other than ownership, such as land lease payments, tax base enhancements for the bene?t of the community, public support for the environmental bene?ts from renewable energy deployment, satisfaction of sustainability goals for themselves and the purchasers of their products and other negotiated bene?ts with the third party. Whatever their reasons, customers willingly and voluntarily participated in ASI Prime Group and REDI based on their Speci?c interests, business goals, energy requirements and sustainability priorities. The customer had the ability to determine whether it would own the solar facility or develop the solar facility in conjunction with a third party in a contractual arrangement which included meaningful negotiations on the speci?c terms and conditions. That ASI Prime Group and REDI allowed third-parties to own the projects, execute the PPAs and 1A3 and conclude successfully speaks volumes about the customer?s ability to decide for itself how it bene?ts from these programs. B. Compensating solar generation at RCB avoided cost is not ?above-market pricing.? The Company claims that because generation from a customer-sited DG solar facility is compensated at RCB avoided cost, it is overpaying. It characterizes the RCB avoided cost ?xed price as ?above-market? because it is not competitively bid. This is not accurate because RCB avoided cost pricing is a Commission-approved pricing structure for solar energy that is intended to set the price of solar to re?ect the true value that solar energy generates for the Company and ratepayers. By opposing compensation for solar generation, the Company seeks to purchase electricity therefrom at a price below its true and fair value to the Company. Competitive bidding is not appropriate for a customer sited program such as Customer Connected. In each Customer sited program, the Guidelines limit project size to 125% of the customer?s peak load. If customer-sited projects were competitively bid, only customers with the largest loads that could support the largest projects would prevail. Customers with smaller electric loads would be effectively excluded, unable to compete against the economies of scale that advantage larger customers. Customer sited projects must be located adjacent to the customer often on more valuable industrial or commercial tracts than a green?eld project in undeveIOped areas. More expensive land increases development costs for a customer sited project. These cannot compete with rural projects that may bid into an RFP. Further, the Company admits in its Application that ?locating {1 DG resource near the customer ?5 load? is a ?tangible bene?t? of the program. [3 This locational value of DG resources supports higher compensation under RCB avoided cost. But, the Company?s RCB Framework does not account for the geographic, locational bene?ts of distributed generation despite repeated requests for its inclusion. As a result, RCB avoided cost compensation undermines these solar resources located adjacent to load. In reality, the Company pays less than its actual fair market value without including this tangible bene?t. ?3 ?Application;? Docket 43107 (April IS, 2020) 2) (Emphasis added). 7 COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND PPA TERMS comments on speci?c Guidelines and PPA terms are organized by topic, with all topical provisions addressed simultaneously, as follows: A. Requirements that the Customer be the PPA counterparty and that the Customer?s ability to contract with a third party be limited to a SEPA. Applicable Provisions: Guidelines. (C E), p. 2 ustomer?Connected Facility Ownership/Lease: SEPA Guidelines, Attachment A, p. 1 de?nition of ?customer Guidelines, Attachment A, p. 2 de?nition of "Georgia Power Customer Account Guidelines, Attachment A, p. 4 de?nition of ?person Guidelines, Attachment A, p. 4 definition of ?premises PPA. 1. p. 1 -- same description ofownership as in Guidelines PPA. p. 6 same "customer through contract term In Customer Connected, a third-party cannot sign the PPA. The customer must be the Company?s counterparty. This transfers all contractual obligations and economic risks to the customer. d. 1. This change: Alters the precedent, procedure and methodology of the Company?s preceding customer-sited programs; Substantially increases the contractual compliance complexity imposed on the customer; Constrains the customer?s ability to assign the PPA and transfer property at the risk of stranding bene?cial, energy producing assets; and Reduces the customer?s economic benefit from energy generated by the solar array. In Group and REDI, a third-party counterparty was the ?seller? under the PPA. In ASI Prime Group and REDI, a third-party, as counterparty to the PPA, was identi?ed 8 as the ?seller? of electricity generated by the solar facility, not the customer. Group Guidelines provided (in pertinent part):14 Group Applicants must meet all of the following criteria, as further described herein: Customer-sited projects may be owned by the customer or a third party. (Emphasis added) Group guidelines de?ned ?seller,? as follows: ?Seller? ?means the counterparty to this Agreement and system owner, and includes any entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common ownership or control with Seller, including any subsidialy, related member in a limited liability company or other pass-through entity, or Spouse or family member of Seller. 15 The REDI guidelines16 were more express, stating: Customer?Sited Facilities may be owned by the Customer or by a third party who will be the Seller under the PPA. If the Customer?Sited Facility will be owned by a third party who will be the Seller under the PPA, the Customer must provide written consent via the Customer Consent Form included in Attachment F. If applicable, the completed Customer Consent Form must be included in Part 2 of the Application, described in Section (Emphasis added) In REDI, ?seller? was de?ned as: ?the counterparty to Georgia Power in this The customer also had to provide written consent allowing the third?party to apply into the program using the customer?s account. The ?nal report on Group identi?ed ?fty (50) projects, only ?ve (5) of which appear to have a customer PPA counterparty,19 and thirty-three (33) projects in REDI, ?4 ?Georgia Power Company?s 2015-2016 Advanced Solar Initiative Distributed Generation Program/Request for Proposals and Applications for Solar Photovoltaic Generation;? Docket 36325 (July 20, 2015), pp. 26-27. ?5 ?Final Approved Group Pro Forma Agreement? Docket 36325 (July 20, 2015), De?nitions 14(q), p. 18. [6 ?Order Approving inal Documents with Modi?cationsf? In re: Georgia Power Company ?5 Renewable Energy Development Initiative; Docket 40706 (October 23, 2017). '7 ?Georgia Power Company?s Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer-Sited Distributed Generation Program Guidelines and Request for Applications For Solar Photovoltaic Generation;" Docket 40706 (October 5, 2017). 18 ?Pro Forma REDI CS DG Docket 40706 (October 5, 2017), De?nitions 18011), p. 19. ?9 ?Letter from Judith H. Fuller, Attachment Docket 36325 (March 1, 2018) (Exhibit attached hereto). Two (2) Group projects were terminated, one appears to have been customer?owned. The identification of numerous projects was redacted. 9 of which only two (2) or three (3) have a customer counterparty to the PPA.20 There is no evidence in the IRP that REDI Guidelines were violated.21 Obviously, most customers opted to allow a third-party to own the system and be the PPA counterparty, though nothing prevented them from owning the system or signing the PPA if they chose. Having a third?party PPA signatory in the customer-sited programs has always been the rule, not the exception. In Customer Connected, the ?Customer? must be the counterparty to the PPA.22 The customer must remain the counterparty for the term of the PPA.23 If the customer formed a limited liability company (with the customer as sole member) to own the solar facility, this provision is breached. The Company fundamentally restricts the customer?s ability to structure ownership of the solar facility as the customer sees ?t which undermines the program. These restrictions were not imposed in Group or REDI. 2. The Guidelines and PPA impose signi?cant contractual performance risks on the customer. Now as counterparty to both the PPA and IA, the customer ?nds itself burdened with the following obligations: a. If the customer is not creditworthy, the ?customer? must maintain performance security (PPA, 5, b. The customer must execute the Interconnection Agreement (PPA, p. c. The customer must pay for meter installation (PPA, p. d. The customer must pay for delay damages for failure to meet Required Mechanical Completion Date (PPA, p. 2? ?Letter from Judith H. Fuller, Attachment In re: Georgia Power Company ?5 Renewabie Energy Development Initiative Customer?Sifted Distribution Generation Program; Docket 41941 (October 8. 2019) (Exhibit attached hereto). Identi?cation of numerous projects was redacted. ?Hearing Testimony of Jeffrey R. Grubb1 et Docket 42310 (May 13-15, 2019) (T. ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar Docket 43 107 (April 15, 2020), Section 18(k), p. 16. 3 ?Pro Fonna DG Customer-Connected Solar Docket 43107 (April 15, 2020), Section 12(c), p. 6. 10 la b) The customer must submit the Initial Request (PPA, p. The customer must pay delay damages for failure to timely request Initial (PPA, . The customer must supply, manage, control, operate and maintain the facility and the Interconnection Agreement (PPA, p. . The customer must adjust or repair the facility if the Annual Capacity Factor is less than the Minimum Capacity Factor. (PPA, 10(a), p. If the customer fails to manage the generation output of the facility such that the Annual Capacity Factor exceeds the Maximum Capacity Factor over a yearly period, the customer must pay for the Company to conduct additional witness testing as required by the Interconnection Agreement (PPA, 10(b), The customer must maintain and provide the Company with suf?cient information to allow it to substantiate, account for and track the quantity of environmental attributes, including RECs (PPA, 11(a), p. The customer must monitor the bills and raise a diSpute, if required, in twelve (12) months (PPA 12(b), p. The customer must establish a separate Georgia Power Customer Account for billing and payment, and the customer ?must be, and remain for the Term the same Person as the Customer? (PPA 12(0), p. . The customer may not assign the PPA except to a preposed ?new Customer? without the Company?s written consent and a $5000 payment (PPA 14(b), p. . The customer is in default if it fails to meet RMCD and pay liquidated delay damages (PPA p- . The customer is in default if it fails to submit the Initial request by the required date and pay liquidated delay damages (PPA l6(a)(ii); . The customer is in default if it fails to achieve Successful Witness Testing within 120 days of Initial (PPA p. 10; The customer is in breach if the Annual Capacity Factor is less than the Minimum Capacity Factor for two (2) consecutive years (PPA p. 10); ll r. The customer is in default if the facility?s output exceeds the Interconnection Limit 16mm), p. 10); s. If the Company declares the PPA in default, the customer must pay Termination Liquidated Damages and the net present value of all metering charges for the remainder of the contract term, even though a successor customer might acquire the facility with a similar electric load or the meter is shut down because the customer is no longer in business (PPA l6(b)(ii), p. 11); t. If the Company declares the PPA in default, the customer must also pay the net present value of all metering charges for the remainder of the contract term, even though a successor customer might acquire the facility with a similar electric load or the meter is shut down because the customer is no longer in business (PPA p. 11); and u. The customer may not make a public statement about the solar facility without the Company?s permission (PPA 17(b), p. 12).24 Additional obligations are imposed on the customer under the Guidelines (which are incorporated into the such as: The customer must certify the facility as a Qualifying Facility under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Guidelines p. 11). The complexity of the contractual obligations imposed on the customer is evidenced in the following PPA terms that the customer must understand: a. PPA, ll 10(a, 4 (the customer must understand the definitions of Annual Capacity Factor,27 Minimum Capacity Factor and Maximum Capacity Factor and the calculations thereof to avoid default under the b. PPA, 1i 15(i) (the customer must understand and comprehend the impact of a possible assignment of the PPA to a Variable Interest Entity); c. PPA, 1] 15(g) (the customer must understand how environmental attributes under the PPA are governed and make express warranties of such understanding); This list is illustrative, not exhaustive. ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar 17(b), p. 12, supra. 16 U.S.C. e_t stag; (1978). Annual Capacity Factor is not de?ned in the Guidelines or the PPA. 12 d. PPA, 1i 16(a)(v) (the customer is responsible for avoiding default under the PPA for capacity factor infractions) Under the Customer Connected PPA, the customer must understand what these terms mean and the obligations they impose.28 If the customer cannot, it risks default and incurs the obligation to pay liquidated damages to the Company. Without assistance from engineering, operational and legal experts, the customer will likely falter. The Guidelines and PPA impose substantial contractual obligations on the customer that are so complex that even sophisticated business customers that monitor energy usage and pursue sustainability goals are likely to forego this program. Obviously, this shift of contractual and economic risks will contribute to a customer?s reluctance to deploy a solar facility in Customer Connected. That is the reason customers turned to developers and investors to assume these responsibilities and risks in the ?rst place. 3. The Guidelines and PPA limit the customer?s ability to assign the PPA and transfer the property which risks stranding valuable electricity generation assets. In Group and REDI, PPAs were assigned regularly and as a matter of course with the Company?s consent. In IRP testimony, the Company acknowledged that once the project was generating, the customer could transfer the PPA, subject only to approval of the change in control by the Commission.29 In Customer Connected, the customer?s right to assign the PPA is restricted. PPA, Section 14(b) only allows the customer to assign the PPA to ?an entity purchasing Customer or Customer?s business at the Premises that will remain a retail electric customer of Georgia Power at the Premises.?30 The purchaser becomes the ?new customer? that must continue the customer?s business and remain a Company customer.31 Though not expressly enumerated as an event of 33 ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar Generailys 18, pp. 15-19, supra. 39 ?Hearing Testimony ofJeffrey R. Grubb, et Docket 423 10 (May 13-15, 2019) (T. 3090: 16-309 1 3" ?Pro Fonna DG Customer-Connected Solar 14(b), p. 7, supra. 3' It is unclear whether the ?new customer? must maintain a comparable electric demand to the original customer. l3 default, the Company appears to have authority to declare default should the ?customer? go out of business and cease being a retail customer of Georgia Power at the ?Premises.?32 Cessation of the original customer?s business at the Premises will likely terminate its customer relationship with Georgia Power -- the foundation of the Guidelines and PPA. The PPA is silent on ownership of the solar generation facility or compensation for electric generation in that event. This alone renders ?nancing unfeasible. The restrictions on the customer?s right to assign the PPA, in turn, limits the customer?s ability to sell its property. Unless the customer can ?nd a purchaser of the business or a similarly situated ?new customer? with a comparable metered electric load, the solar facility and its PPA become a signi?cant detriment in marketing the property. The new customer must be willing to agree to the PPA terms and assume the contractual responsibilities. Otherwise, the prOSpective new customer/purchaser will simply ?nd another tract. As a result, the customer?s universe of prospective purchasers is severely limited, the resale value of the property is reduced and the sales effort becomes prohibitively complex. If a purchaser is interested in the property, but not the solar facility, or if the customer just goes out of business, the economic asset of the solar generation facility may become stranded. Because the ?seller? was the PPA signatory in Group and REDI, the customer could sell the property to anyone, without concerns about PPA assignment. Irrespective of a change in ownership of the property, the solar facility continued to operate under the PPA without impact. If the seller defaulted under the PPA, the customer?s electric service was not impacted. If the 33 ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar p. 1, supra. 14 customer had a claim against the seller, the customer?s remedy was based on the contract between them, not the PPA between the seller and the Company. B. Third party ownership options will not work. From the results of A81 Prime Group and REDI, it is obvious that most customers prefer to contract with energy professionals who know and understand the technology and economics of a solar facility to participate in the program. But in Customer Connected, the Company precludes that Option. Instead, the Company suggests that the customers can contract with a third party through a SEPA or lease to accomplish a similar arrangement to Group or REDI. However, neither option is unworkable because the customer is subjected to yet another complicated long term SEPA or lease agreement to buy power, and the customer will be compensated for the sale of electricity generated at only a fraction of its retail rate. Third parties will not take the risk of constructing, ?nancing and owning a multi?million solar facility under these arrangements. In Georgia, SEPAS33 were authorized by the Solar Power Free Market Financing Act of 2015, O.C.G.A. 46-3-60, e_t (the ?Solar Finance Act?) to permit customers to contract with a third party to own, ?nance or lease a solar array tied to the customer?s meter without being in violation of the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act, O.C.G.A. 46-3-1, e_t s_eq_. (the ?Territorial Act?). In a SEPA, the customer uses the energy generated from the facility to directly 33 The Environmental Protection Agency de?nes a SEPA as ?nancial arrangement in which a third?party developer owns, operates, and maintains the photovoltaic (PV) system, and a host customer agrees to site the system on its property and purchases the system's electric output from the solar services provider for a predetermined period. This ?nancial arrangement allows the host customer to receive stable and often low-cost electricity, while the solar services provider or another party acquires valuable ?nancial bene?ts, such as tax credits and income generated from the sale of electricity. With this business model, the host customer buys the sewices produced by the PV system rather than the PV system itself. SPPAs typically range from 10 to 25 years. The developer remains responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system for the term. See also: 15 reduce the customer?s electric costs. A SEPA facilitates BTM solar deployment, allowing the customer to obtain cheaper electricity to reduce the amount of its electricity purchased at retail from the Company. Any excess generation can be sold to an electric service provider, like Georgia Power. A diagram of a SEPA contractual arrangement consistent with the Solar Finance Act is shown on Exhibit attached hereto. 1. A SEPA and third-party lease deny the customer the full market value of its solar generation when used in coniunction with a buy all/sell all PPA. Both a SEPA and lease deny the customer the full market value of its solar generation when used in conjunction with a PPA. The Customer Connected PPA (like those in Group and REDI) requires the customer to sell 100% of the Solar Output generated and delivered from the solar facility}4 preventing the customer from using the electricity generated to offset its retail electric bill. Simultaneously, the customer must continue to purchase all of its electricity from the Company at the tariffed retail rate. A diagram of the SEPA contractual arrangement proposed by the Company is shown on Exhibit attached hereto. In the PPA, the customer is compensated for the solar facility?s generation at RCB avoided cost which is substantially less than the customer?s retail rate. If the customer?s tariffed retail rate is $.12 per kWh, a traditional SEPA would allow the customer to reduce its electric costs by the ?cost? of electricity that it no longer has to purchase from the Company at the retail rate. In Customer Connected, the customer is compensated for energy generation by the amount of electricity delivered to Georgia Power at RCB -- $.03 per in the PPA. Under the traditional 3? ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar 3, p. l6 SEPA, the customer saves Under Customer Connected, the customer is only paid 15.03136, reducing the customer?s economic bene?t of solar deployment by nearly 75%. 2. A third-party will not accept this economic risk. Third parties will not accept the economic risk from either a SEPA or lease arrangement used in conjunction with a PPA. Third parties will receive a wholesale rate of return while taking the risk of contracting with the Company?s retail customer. The third party risks a double default because either the customer or Georgia Power may default under the PPA, and the customer may default under the SEPA or lease. The third party is not a party to the PPA or IA and therefore could not continue to operate the solar facility if the customer defaulted. Finally, the third party?s risk is impacted if the customer tries to assign the PPA or sell the property. The third-party has no incentive to execute a SEPA with the customer. 3. A SEPA makes a complex transaction more complex. With both a PPA and SEPA, the project becomes even more complex for the customer who must understand and comply with both contracts. A properly drafted SEPA addresses the sale of energy from the third party to the customer in the same manner as the PPA governs the sale of energy to the Company. A SEPA is also highly technical, and it can be The customer must now navigate between two (2) complex contracts and understand the terms of both, yet another deterrent to the customer?s deployment. 4. A SEPA will violate the PPA requirement that the IA be signed by the customer. Under the PPA, the customer must execute the IA36 and remain the signatory for the term 35 An example of a SEPA used in a multi?family housing development can be reviewed at: 3?5 ?Pro Forma DG Customer-Connected Solar p. 2, supra. 7 of the PPA.37 Under a SEPA, the solar facility is usually owned by a third?party. As owner, the third-party is responsible for interconnection and execution of the IA. Here, the customer is required to be the party to the IA to interconnect a solar facility which is subject of a SEPA that the customer may not own. This is another reason that a SEPA does not work in conjunction with a PPA. For all of these reasons, a SEPA will not bene?t the customer in Customer Connected. C. The purchase price paid for generation is not supportable. Given all of the contractual obligations that the Guidelines and PPA impose on the customer, nothing impacts the customer?s interest and project feasibility more than the price paid by the Company for generation from the solar facility. Compensation in Group started at $0618 in 2016 and rose to $248938 in 2050. In Customer Connected, it will start at $03136 and rise to $010678 in 2050.39 Pricing is based on RCB which builds on PURPA avoided cost. Pricing history in the Company?s programs is shown in the chart below: 37 ?Georgia Power Company?s Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Solar Program Guidelines;? Docket 43107 (April 15, 2020), Section P- 3.. 3? 35 year PPA. 3" ?Pro Fonna DG Customer-Connected Solar Appendix B, supra. (30 year PPA) 13 5.3.1? ?n Lu 15 L11 Escalating 30 year PPA Prices, by Program - .aSl-Prin?e a 102.0 - In. a act-s As shown, the price (which is based on declines in RCB avoided cost) has declined an average of almost 40% just since projects were selected in REDI, much more since Group B. A price comparison is shown on Exhibit attached hereto. This is troubling since the Company?s rates have not similarly declined, and the Company sought signi?cant rate increases requested in its 2019 Rate Case.40 Also perplexing, the Company recently reported that its solar avoided cost (RCB?Modi?ed) is (all hours/total system), one-half dollar less than its PURPA avoided cost at 4' If nothing else, this contradicts the Company?s contention that it over pays for electricity at RCB avoided cost. 4? See generally: In re: Georgia Power Company 2019 Base Rate Case; Docket 42516 (June 28, 2019). ?Georgia Power?s 2019 Avoided Cost and Solar Avoided Cost Projections;? apacior and Energy Payments to C0- generators under Docket 4822 (December 19, 2019). 19 Because of these declines and inconsistencies, RCB should also be reviewed in the Commission?s upcoming docket on the Company?s avoided cost. IRP testimony showed that the Company considered no value for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) in RCB42 even though it sells them for $01 eachkah a price 1/3 of the amount it proposes to pay per for solar generation in Customer Connected. And again, the Company failed to calculate geographic value from the placement of DG resources to include in the RCB Framework,43 while simultaneously acknowledging the tangible bene?ts of ?locating a DO resource near the customer?s load.?44 However, the Company did not hesitate to propose review of RCB components of its choosing,45 but only with Staff. Excluded from those discussions, the industry had to wait to review the Company?s report on RCB modi?cations when discussions with Staff concluded.46 Based thereon, issues related to RCB remain unresolved. To calculate RCB accurately, the Commission should include review of RCB in the upcoming avoided cost docket, rather than wait for the next IRP in which these issues will be dwarfed in the context of a massive filing. D. Additional Fees Success Fee Guidelines, p. 7 ($250?atfee on residential; $5/kW non-residential) PPA Amendment PPA, p. 6-7 ($2500fee) Customer Name Change requires PPA Amendment, PPA 14(6), p. 8 PPA Assignment PPA, 59 p. 7 ($5000fee) Eligible Collateral Change ?Application;" Docket 43 107, p. 2. 5 ?Stipulation;? Docket 42310 (June?6, 2019) (Stipulation, 116). 4" ?Compliance Filingf? Docket 42310 (January 21, 2020). 20 .L. Guidelines, WG), p. 10 ($2500fee) The Staff?s report included a list of fees and charges imposed on the customer in Customer Connected. Staff included the Success Fee, identi?ed above, but not the additional fees shown below. While the Company states that its fees cover its program administrative costs, it does not provide math or method to support them. At a minimum, this information should be provided and become part of Staff?s review. Below is an analysis of the costs and fees that standard 1 and 3 MW projects will incur in Customer Connected: Guaranteed PPA Charges Rate 1MW 3 MW Annihanon Fee 55310 For non-residential. '5 5,050 5.00:] Stud; Fee 510,003 azer application 3 2301-33: 5 10.000 5 2000 Success Fee 3 1.5.32 De?crmence Security.r ?3013 SliSfa-sr {El-01;? 3. 030 ?35 interconnec?on Admin Fee :30 yr 53 i75rm m: up to 5250* no 5. as 000 90.00: 'P-te'val art-ice Charge (3032' 320 - 320 Total 5 229,320 556.320 Potential Additional PPA Charges .?vfechanical Ce-nplen?cn L-?quiclatee Damages 37' cr- max 590,030 5. 90.003 90 3 Eridai Lieuidatecl Damages er? or 53.000503}: max550,003 60 :00 50 Ane- 1:.r1ent ElC-l? ECO 2 50? EPA SE Domesta' 5 000 5,00.) REDlauz'T ?nt Barr's. mam-e Secur SE 500 2 530 2 532-0 Total 5 160,000 160,000 Interconnection Charges Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars 21 IV. CONTRACT ISSUES LIMITING THE RIGHTS As with other programs, the Guidelines and PPA contain provisions that allow the Company to exercise unilateral discretion, limit the customer?s rights and impose penalties on the customer. Set forth here only in bullet point format, objections to these (or similar provisions) have been raised in comments, testimony or briefs before. They are reasserted here to preclude a future argument that they were waived. 0 Company?s unilateral discretion to reiect proiects/Companv?s authority to reiect PPA in con?ict with Company business policies. Applicable Provisions: Guidelines, (5), p. 5 the Company ?may reject any Application if?it'fails to comply with the requirements of these Program Guidelines, and reserves the right, without qualification and in its sole discretion, to decline to execute a PPA with any Person. Guidelines, [11(3) (5) p. 6: "An Application may be rejected if'an Applicant requests that the Company take any action that would con?ict with Georgia Power?s business policies and procedures. - ?Gag rules? prohibiting customer comments. Applicable Provisions: Guidelines, p. 6: environmental qualities of_ facility Guidelines, p. 9 Guidelines, V61), p. 11 PPA, 1] p. 5 environmental attributes, same as Guidelines. PPA, 17(1), p. 12?13. a Liquidated Damages Delay and Termination) as a penalty under Georgia law. Applicable Provisions: Delay Damages: Guidelines, WC), p. 9 (damagesforfailure to complete Interconnection facilities; customer failure to meet its own construction schedule 22 Guidelines, p. 10 (damages for failure to achieve RMCD, failure to request Initial by Notice Date PPA, 1 p. 2-3 (Grid sets damagesforfailure to meet due in 5 days; if not paid Eligible Collateral increased $9/kW up to $90,000; tied to payment of delay damages) PPA, 16(a) p. 9 (Default kicks in delay damages) PPA, Attachment 2, de?nition of ?delay damages Termination Damages: Termination damages due to customer default, as shown in Appendix A, non?residential only Guidelines, PPA. ?16(b)(ii) CONCLUSION Based on the above and foregoing, GSEIA requests that the Commission: a. Reject the Company?s Program Guidelines and pro forma PPA, as ?led; b. Direct the Company to implement the Program Guidelines and pro forma PPA used in the REDI Customer Sited Distributed Generation program, with two exceptions: 1. That Applications in the program be accepted as set forth in the Customer Connected Program Guidelines, Section and 2. That the Company will retire the Renewable Energy Credits associated with the Solar Output for the bene?t of the Customer, as set forth in Customer Connected Program Guidelines, Section This 11?" day of May, 2020. GALLOWAY LYNDALL, LLP Counsel for Georgia Solar Energy Industries Association, Inc. Newton Galloway Georgia Bar No: 283069 Terri M. Lyndall Georgia Bar No.: 462235 The Lewis Mills House 406 North Hill Street Grif?n, GA 30223 (770) 233-6230 telephone (770) 233-6231 facsimile 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing COMMENTS OF THE GEORGIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC. ON THE PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND PRO FORMA POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN GEORGIA POWER DISTRIBUTED GENERATION CUSTOMER-CONNECTED PROGRAM upon the following persons by causing electronic copies of the same to be transmitted to each interested party that has supplied a valid email address, and all other parties to be served via ?rst class mail with adequate postage af?xed thereon and deposited in the United States Mail addressed as follows: Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 reecem??psc.state.ga.tis Ms. Jamie Barber Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 iamieb@psc.state.ga.us Mr. Blair Fink Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 Mr. Robert Trokey Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 rtrokev?f?psc.state.ga.us 25 Mr. Tom Newsome Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 Mr. Brandon Marzo Mr. Steve Hewitson Ms. Allison W. Pryor Troutman Sanders, LLP Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 brandon.111arzo?trouhnancom a1lisonprvort?ltroutman.com Counsel for Georgia Power Companv Mr. Marc Vinson Regulatory Affairs, Bin 10230 Georgia Power Company 24] Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 mvinson@southernco.com Mr. Dargan Scott Cole, Sr. Hall Booth Smith 191 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1775 scolet?c?hallbothsmith.com This 111h clay of May, 2020. Counsel for Georgia Solar Ener Industries Association, Inc. 26 EXHIBIT . . {LI.- 'y t" ., .51EORGIA A) faw?gr PIERCE COUNTY, April 24, 2020 PSC Commissioner Jason Shaw Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street SW Atlanta. GA 30334-9052 RE: Georgia Power Company?s Distributed Generation Customer-Connected Solar Proqram; Docket 431 07 Dear PSC Commissioner Jason Shaw: As Executive Director of the Pierce County Industrial Development and Building Authority (PCIDBA), my role is to promote Pierce County and simulate economic activity with the community. Over the last ?ve years, PCIDBA participated in several of Georgia Power Company?s renewable energy programs, including the REDI Customer Sited and ASI programs. We have participated both as a landlord, leasing and selling land for solar projects, and have connected solar developers with local Georgia Power customers that ?t the program. In total, we have supported the development of three projects in the County. These projects have been great for Pierce County because they produce revenue without being a drain on local services. We are writing to encourage the support of third-party solar developments. Our local industries further support our view; however, their goals are to focus on greater returns or investments that directly benefit their company. We have identified several companies that are currently interested in acting as a host under the same terms as previous programs, but we do not expect any of those companies would participate if they had to own the systems, particularly under the current economic conditions. PCIDBA respectfully ask Georgia Public Service Commission to reconsider the requirements for the bid program. It?s extremely dif?cult to recruit industry in Southeast Georgia. Sincerely, .2 14222;; 0?4 .w . Matt Carter, Executive Director Pierce County Industrial Development and Building Authority CC: Chuck Eaton, PSC Chairman Tim Echols, PSC Vice-Chairman Lauren ?Bubba? McDonald, PSC Commissioner Tricia Pridemore, PSC Commissioner 200 5. CENTRAL Avmu: R0. Box 47 Gzoncm 3t516 TELEPHONE (912) 807-7432 Fax: (912) 449-7045 EXHIBIT Town of Trion P10. Box 850 Trion, GA 30753 Larry E. Stansell, Mayor Tel. 706-734-2332 Fax 706?734-7727 May 7, 2020 Hon. Chuck Eaton Chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30344 Dear Chairman Eaton: I currently serve as Mayor of the Town of Trion, Georgia. Our Town participated in the Georgia Power Company Renewable Energy Development Initiative customer-sited program. We leased a parcel of land approximately 12.9 acres in size located in our industrial park for construction of a 1.8 MW solar generation facility. Our industrial park was developed with the assistance of a One Georgia grant, and it consists of 10 tracts and 107 useable acres. The solar generation facility is constructed on property in the park that has development challenges and is less desirable for traditional commercial or industrial development. Before deciding to lease the property for the solar array, we considered several options, including direct ownership. We determined that the current lease arrangement was our best option. We decided not to own the solar generation facility for a number of reasons. The Town was not ?nancially able to incur the cost of construction and ownership. We were not willing to incur debt for the project. Under the current arrangement, the Town receives reasonable rental income, and the solar generation facility is a welcome addition to the ad valorem tax bases of both Chattooga County and the Town of Trion. Without imposing a ?nancial obligation on our citizens, our Town is learning about the operation and maintenance of a solar generation facility. From this experience, we may pursue more solar generation deployment, and we are gaining valuable knowledge and experience with solar generation to determine the role it may play in the future to help our Town control its electricity costs. Our Town is pleased with the results of our decision. Sincerely, Larry Stansell, Mayor EXHIBIT LLP z. 60%uPneZEhtr:re gtrfeet NE, Suite 5200 5:ng Ema? ll Atlanta. GA 30308-2216 sa nders troutman.com Judith H. Fuller judith.fuller@troutman.com March 1, 2018 Mr. Reece McAIister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street, SW. Atlanta, GA 30334 Re: Georgia Power Company?s 2015/2016 Advanced Solar Initiative-Prime Distributed Generation Program; Docket No. 36325 Dear Mr. McAlister: Pursuant to the ?nal Program Guidelines for Georgia Power Company's (?Georgia Power") 2015 Advanced Solar Initiative-Prime Distributed Generation Program (?ASI-Prime DG Program?), approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission (the ?Commission") on July 16, 2015, and pursuant to the Plan for Deployment of Remaining Unsubscribed Megawatts (the ?Existing Solar Customer Program") approved by the Commission on April 20, 2017, Georgia Power hereby submits a ?nal list of all the executed Power Purchase Agreements between Georgia Power and the selected participants in both programs. Georgia Power is also submitting a list of PPAs that were executed but then terminated pursuant to the early termination provisions in such PPAs. Between March 9, 2016 and April 26, 2017', Georgia Power submitted twenty-four (24) requests for Commission approval of certain PPAs it entered with participants in the ASl?Prime DG Program. Between April 24, 2017 and November 9. 2017, Georgia Power submitted ?ve (5) requests for Commission approval of certain PPAs it entered with participants in the Existing Solar Customer Program. All 29 requests for approval ?led by Georgia Power included a spreadsheet providing specific information for each PPA counterparty and facility. Pursuant to the Commission-approved program guidelines for both programs, after the Commission approved the PPA, yet prior to Georgia Power?s execution, each participant had to pay all required program fees. If the participant failed to pay such fees, Georgia Power disquali?ed such projects from the programs. Therefore, all the PPAs submitted for Commission approval did not result in fully executed PPAs. Furthermore, after Georgia Power executed certain deemed certi?ed PPAs, some Sellers took advantage of the early termination provisions and terminated the PPA. Georgia Power now desires to provide a final list to the Commission of all the fully executed PPAs that subscribe these DG solar programs. LLP gtrseet NE, Suite 5200 trou tman '1 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 sa nders troutman.com Judith H. Fuller judith.fuller@troutman.com Accordingly, Georgia Power has attached hereto, as Attachment 1, a spreadsheet that includes project speci?c information for all the fully executed PPAs, including the identifying data of the counterparties and facilities that the Commission has deemed certified. In addition, Georgia Power has attached hereto, as Attachment 2, a list that includes the project speci?c information for all fully executed PPAs that have now been terminated. Identifying data related to customers who have ?opted out" pursuant to the Commission's Order in this docket dated March 21, 2014 has been redacted in both Attachments 1 and 2. Such identifying data is considered trade secret under the Commission's trade secret rules. A Trade Secret version of Attachments 1 and 2, which includes all identifying information, has been provided to Staff. Finally, at the close of the Existing Customer Solar Program, 11.62 megawatts of unsubscribed program capacity remained. Georgia Power has added these roll over MW to the Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer?Shed Distributed Generation Program currently underway. Please contact me at (404) 885-3243 if you have any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely, Judith H. Fuller 1 Group B-CS B-CS B-CS Bid ID redacted redacted 445?05 redacted redacted redacted 445-01 redacted 445-04 redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted 445?09 445-07 redacted redacted redacted redacted 235-01 redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted 215-21 364-09 216-22 Public Disclosure Seller redacted redacted IGS ORX Solar l, LLC redacted redacted redacted IGS ORX Solar I, LLC redacted IGS ORX Solar l, LLC redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted ORIX Solar I, LLC IGS ORIX Solar I, LLC redacted redacted redacted redacted Boviet Old Road Alabama, LLC redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted Coley Gin Fertilizer Company WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC Contract Capacity [kW] 1000 594 792 1100 1100 1100 1584 1600 1215 1100 1560 972 2300 750 1250 1600 792 810 2178 1600 1000 1100 1296 1100 3000 1914 594 999.68 222.3 330.24 899.84 Term Location redacted redacted Valdosta redacted redacted redacted Moultrie redacted Valdosta redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted Dublin Swainsboro redacted redacted redacted redacted Woodland redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted Vienna Thomson Rome B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS 359-06 216?26 364-05 215-31 359-12 359?02 redacted 215?34 215-29 redacted 359-09 364-04 364?06 redacted 308-03 359-10 redacted redacted 216-23 364-11 359-11 216-13 359-15 redacted 215?36 364?08 redacted redacted 364-12 216-06 364-13 redacted redacted 215?26 364?07 Public Disclosure WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC IGS Solar ORIX I, LLC WGL Energy Systems, Inc WG Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted Epic LXXVI, Inc. IGS ORIX SOLAR I, LLC redacted WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Energy Systems, Inc WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted MBC PROPERTIES LP WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted redacted WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC Inman Solar, incorporated WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributor, Inc. WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted redacted WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC Inman Solar, Incorporated WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted redacted IGS ORX Solar I, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC 358.08 999.75 752.64 998.4 159.68 999.68 999.68 154.375 998.4 389.12 999.68 999.68 485.76 999.495 682.24 394.32 299 1000 998.4 999.68 159.96 999.68 656.64 999.495 204.6 276.48 999.495 999.495 397.12 320.85 195.12 994.95 1000 377.9 158.Thomaston Rockmart GA Blackshear Boston Buena Vista Thomaston redacted Atlanta Valdosta redacted Dublin Lincolnton Blackshear redacted Cartersyilie Franklin redacted redacted Conyers Hoboken Franklin Cedartown Milledgeviile redacted Dublin Thomson redacted redacted Thomson Cedartown Thomson redacted redacted Valdosta Thomson B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-CS B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF 215?35 redacted 216-16 redacted 216?12 redacted 215?09 redacted 359-13 redacted 215?17 184-01 184-02 184-03 redacted 206-02 201?01 206-01 204-01 redacted redacted redacted redacted 359?22 redacted redacted 215-49 215-52 215?39 2 15-50 215-47 215-56 215-53 redacted 215-41 Public Disclosure Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributor, redacted lnman Solar, Incorporated redacted lnman Solar Holdings, LLC redacted IGS ORIX Solar I, LLC redacted lnman Solar Holdings LLC redacted Birdsong Corporation Mascot Pecan Shelling Co Mascot Pecan Shelling Co Mascot Pecan Shelling Co redacted Wiregrass Solar LLC David Glenn Heard Wiregrss Solar LLC City of Millen redacted redacted redacted redacted lnman Solar Holdings LLC redacted redacted Spring Creek Solar, LLC Cedar Head, LLC IGS ORIX Solar I, LLC Kelly Cann Solar LLC IGS ORIX Solar l, LLC Solar, LLC Cedar Head, LLC redacted No Swat, LLC 331.08 999.495 270 994.95 998.865 1000 999.375 1000 952.56 999 999.375 469.76 309.12 309.12 100.8 105 101.49 105 398 101 492.48 494.46 494.46 499 497.7 494.46 499.2 499.2 499.2 499.2 499.2 499.2 499.2 499.2 100Dublin redacted Bremen redacted Cedartown redacted Lumber City redacted Ochlocknee redacted Colquitt Glennville Glennville Glennville redacted Valdosta Bainbridge Valdosta Millen redacted redacted redacted redacted Lincolnton redacted redacted Climax Colquitt Valdosta Metter Lyons Lyerly Colquitt redacted Newton B-GF B-GF B-GF B-GF B-G B-GF B-GF redacted 359?23 359-18 359-27 redacted redacted 359?25 359?19 redacted redacted 303-02 222-01 267-06 201-58 201?44 201-32 315?01 201-31 201-35 201-49 257?09 redacted 201-19 redacted 219-01 284-01 redacted 267-07 267?04 201-33 201-11 201-43 redacted 201-27 201-12 Public Disclosure redacted lnman Solar Holdings LLC lnman Solar Holdings LLC Inman Solar Holdings LLC redacted redacted Inman Solar Holdings LLC lnman Solar Holdings LLC redacted redacted Georgia Infirmary Non-Profit Housing Corporation Southern Cablevision, Inc. WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America Deep South Farm Center, LLC Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributor, Inc. Edgemont Properties LLC 430 Plasters, LLC Kevin York Gene Waldron WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC redacted Emory Goalz, LLC redacted Bud Fiske Raymond Bulldog Movers, Inc. redacted WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributor, Inc. Patrick Investment Corporation PJR Properties, LLC redacted ArmourJunction, LLC Patrick Investments Corporation 497.7 499.41 498.8 499.41 494.46 494.46 498.8 499.41 494.46 497.7 87.5 36.95 99.84 99.465 35.84 52.08 86.13 14.625 19.5 99.84 99.51 95.76 93.6 20 5.08 53.46 6.84 99.84 72.96 65.1 99.45 49.6 99.2 44.2 99.redacted Lincolnton Metter Warrenton redacted redacted Blackshear STATESBORO redacted redacted Savannah Dawson Thomson Newnan Alma Dublin Tifton Atlanta Athens Pearson Valdosta redacted Atlanta redacted Doraville redacted Thomson Thomson Dublin Abbeville Savannah redacted Atlanta Unadilla Public Disclosure 201-48 Gene Waldron 99.84 35 Pearson 267?05 WG Georgia Project Group, LLC 99.84 25 Thomson 201-08 Vic Fleet 62.4 25 Colquitt 201-51 Probus Partners, LLC 70.4 35 Perry redacted redacted 99.2 30 redacted 201-50 Gene Waldron 99.84 35 Pearson 201-47 Kite First Baptist Church, Inc. 13.44 35 Kite redacted redacted 99.2 30 redacted 267-08 WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC 99.51 25 Valdosta 201-45 Deep South Peanut, Inc. 53.76 35 Alma 201-26 Armour Junction, LLC 70.2 35 Atlanta 238-01 Stephen O'Shea 7.075 35 Comer 239-01 Marcus Poultry Farm, Inc 71.3 35 pelham 266-01 Wiregrass Solar, LLC 32 20 Valdosta 282-01 Mark Williams 2.8 15 Atlanta 257-01 Nadine Woods 13.5 20 Rising Fawn 257-03 Nadine Woods 13.5 20 Rising Fawn 237?01 Martha K. Halder 10.56 15 Cumming 193-01 James Henry Roberts 4.032 15 Statesboro 262?02 Southeast Energy, LLC 61 15 Pembroke 230-01 Parker's Crispen, LLC 28.6 15 Brunswick C-E 270-01 John Fowler 3.88 15 Roswell redacted redacted 98.83 15 redacted C-E 225-01 Damaste Real Estate, LLC 25.38 15 Macon C-E 261?01 I Cox Enterprises, Inc. 93 15 Atlanta C-E 250?01 Waynesboro Estates, LP 33.6 15 Waynesboro C-E 213-01 Cox Communications Georgia, LLC 80 15 Macon 250-02 Waynesboro Estates, LP 26 15 Waynesboro C-E 196?01 McCollum Solar Energy LLC 86.4 35 kennesaw C-E 196-02 McCollum Solar Energy LLC 83.52 35 kennesaw C-E 215?01 Shamrock Renewable Properties LLC 24.96 35 Arlington 215-02 Shamrock Renewable Properties LLC 24.96 35 Arlington C-E 215-04 Shamrock Renewable Properties LLC 24.96 35 Arlington 215-03 Shamrock Renewable Properties LLC 24.96 35 Arlington 189-01 Basil James Campbell 3.4 20 Athens LIJ C-E C-E C-E C-E 214?01 233-01 redacted redacted 260-01 217-01 217-02 240?01 248-01 210-01 278-01 redacted 268-01 241-01 206-01 229-01 208-01 197-01 268-02 259-01 Public Disclosure Darren Leslie Davis William W. Satcher redacted redacted East Decatur Station LLC Jimmy Carter Warehouse LLC Jimmy Carter Warehouse LLC Q.T. Contracting INC Warren Mekler Paul Wolff Cody Clinton Johnston redacted Sidney Smith MD PC Sowega Cotton Gin 8: Warehouse, LLC Raymond Martinez Glen Franklin Bankston Tiffany Anderson Mehul Patel Sidney Smith MD PC Adam Weiss 3.7 11.52 1.5 4.14 8.58 96.72 78 40.32 2.76 5.52 3.04 8.28 58.56 98.82 4.08 9.36 12 16 87.84 2.Rome Appling redacted redacted Decatur Peachtree Corners Peachtree Corners Peachtree City SAVANNAH tybee island Roswell redacted Pembroke Bainbridge Atlanta Moultrie Tifton Arlington Pembroke Atlanta ATTACHMENT 2 34188710 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Group Bid ID Seller Contract Capacity Term Orientation redacted redacted EARLY TERMINATION 30 redacted redacted redacted EARLYTERMINATION 30 redacted B-CS 308?02 New Energy Equity LLC EARLY TERMINATION 30 Fixed B-CS 205-01 General Electric Co. EARLY TERMINATION 30 Fixed 267-03 Inman Solar, Incorporated EARLY TERMINATION 25 Fixed 267-02 Inman Solar, Incorporated EARLY TERMINATION 25 Fixed 286?04 Radiance Solar, LLC EARLY TERMINATION 25 Fixed 286?03 Radiance Solar, LLC EARLY TERMINATION 25 Fixed EXHIBIT LLP gtfeet NE, Suite 3000 tr'OU 7 18? ll Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 sanders troutman.com Judith H. Futler judith.fuller@troutman.com October 8, 2019 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334 Re: Georgia Power Company?s Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer- Sited Distributed Generation Program; Docket No. 41941 Dear Mr. McAlister: Pursuant to the ?nal Program Guidelines for Georgia Power Company's (?Georgia Power") Renewable Energy Development Initiative Customer-Sited Distributed Generation Program CS DG Program"), approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission (the "Commission") on October 23, 2017, Georgia Power hereby submits a final list of all the executed Power Purchase Agreements between Georgia Power and the selected participants in the program. In accordance with the Commission?s Final Order approving Georgia Power?s 2016 Integrated Resource Plan issued in Docket No. 40161, the REDI CS DG Program sought to ful?ll a 50-megawatt portfolio of DG solar resources, which was combined with the remaining 11.62 MW (which ultimately became 11.91 MW) of unsubscribed MW from the previous Advanced Solar Initiative Prime distributed generation solicitation. Continuing Georgia Power's and the Commission's measured and collaborative approach to renewable procurement, the REDI CS DG Program built upon many successes of past programs and advanced the growth of one of the largest voluntary solar programs in this country. Georgia Power capitalized on program enhancements and ef?ciencies that allowed it to quickly and effectively review all the applications submitted for consideration. Georgia Power fully evaluated over 80 MW of projects in order to fill the ?nal 61.91 MW portfolio, however, because developers withdrew their projects from the program for a variety of reasons, even after the PPAs had been executed and certified by the Commission, the REDI CS DG Program?s ?nal portfolio of executed PPAs consists of approximately 47.5 MW (33 projects). The un?lled MWs rolled over to the REDI Distributed Generation Request for Proposals to be ?lled. Between April 25, 2018 and October 4, 2018, Georgia Power submitted seven requests to the Commission, seeking certi?cation of the PPAs it executed with participants in the REDI CS DG Program. Each request included a spreadsheet that provided speci?c project and troutmariF sanders counterparty information. As a summary of the program, Georgia Power has attached hereto, as Attachment 1, a spreadsheet that includes this project-speci?c information for all the executed PPAs, including the identifying data of the counterparties and facilities that the Commission has deemed certi?ed. identifying data related to Sellers who have ?opted out" pursuant to the Commission's Order in Docket No. 36325, dated March 21, 2014, has been redacted in Attachment 1. Such identifying data is considered trade secret under the Commission?s trade secret rules. A Trade Secret version of Attachment 1, which includes all identifying information, has been provided to Staff. Please contact me at (404) 885-3243 if you have any questions regarding this summary program ?ling for the certi?ed PPAs in the REDI DG CS Program. Sincerely, Judith H. Fuller 39828971 000000Public Disclosure01 +000 Attachment 1 Application Seller Name DC Capacity Number [kW] Term [yrs] Location redacted redacted 332.64 30 redacted 184?03 OSD 1 LLC 910.86 30 Turner redacted redacted 1814.31 35 redacted redacted redacted 1329.00 35 redacted redacted redacted 1254.42 35 redacted redacted redacted 1807.11 35 redacted redacted redacted 2272.86 35 redacted redacted redacted 2758.00 35 redacted redacted redacted 3000.00 35 redacted redacted redacted 3000.00 35 redacted redacted redacted 1441.00 35 redacted redacted redacted 1117.80 35 redacted redacted redacted 831.92 30 redacted 225?10 BAINBRIDGE SOLAR, LLC 1254.24 25 Decatur 225?12 LEESBURG SOLAR, LLC 1140.48 35 Lee 228-01 UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF COUNTY 620.10 20 Clarke 232-02 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 1133.64 35 BuHoch 232-04 SOUTH BOUND SOLAR, LLC 707.03 35 Jasper 232-05 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 461.63 35 Lincoln 232-06 SOUTHBOUND SOLAR, LLC 595.63 35 Wilkinson 232-07 INMAN SOLAR HOLDINGS LLC 940.68 35 Pierce 232-12 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 1133.64 35 Warren 232?13 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 1899.70 35 Thomas redacted redacted 2995.64 30 redacted redacted redacted 1261.40 35 redacted 322-10 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 1108.80 35 Atkinson 322-26 WESTBOUND SOLAR, LLC 2508.00 35 Terrell redacted redacted 2346.69 30 redacted redacted redacted 428.51 35 redacted redacted redacted 1025.24 25 redacted 396-12 CHERRY STREET CAPITAL FUND LLC 1005.55 30 397?01 MILLER ZELL INC 999.81 25 Fulton redacted redacted 2067.93 35 redacted EXHIBIT STANDARD SEPA Solar generation facility with 3rd party Owner/Lessor SELLS . electricity to Customer/Host pursuant to SEPA ?p Customer/Host BUYS cheaper electricity from 3rd party pursuant to SEPA Company SELLS electricity at retail tariff to Customer Exhibit EXHIBIT CUSTOMER CONNECTED SEPA Solar generation facility with 3rd party Owner/Lessor SENDS 100% . of Solar Output to Customer/Host pursuant to SEPA Customer SENDS 100% of all Solar Output from SEPA to Company Company PAYS Customer RCB price set in PPA for gig 100% Solar Output SEPA - Power Company SELLS 100% of Customer' 3 Electricity Demand pursuant to Retail Tariff Exhibit EXHIBIT .. 2018! 2019; 2020; 2021. 2022; 2023;' zoz4?_ 2025i 2026i 2027" 2023i 20293' 2030i? 2031.. 2032?? 2033i 2034. 2035;_ 2036.? 2037i zaasg' 2035: 204a[: 2041;_ 2042; 2043i? 2044:: 2045__ 2046; 2047Ff 204a; 2049_ zusoL 2051i? 2052.? 205325Yr 30 Yr 35 Yr 4.507 4.419 4.397 4.360 4.330 4.835 4.740 4.717 4.677 4.645 5.255 5.152 5.127 5.083 5.048 5.601 5.492 5.465 5.418 5.381 5.812 5.699 5.671 5.623 5.584 6.276 6.153 6.123 6.071 6.029 6.611 6.482 6.450 6.396 6.351 6.939 6.803 6.770 6.712 6.666 7.169 7.029 6.995 6.935 6.887 7.609 7.460 7.424 7.360 7.309 7.929 7.774 7.736 7.670 7.617 8.384 8.220 8.180 8.110 8.054 8.505 8.338 8.298 8.227 8.170 8.753 8.582 8.540 8.467 8.408 9.090 8.912 8.868 8-793 8.732 9.665 9.476 9.430 9.350 9.285 9.939 9.891 9.807 9.739 10.359 10.308 10.220 10.150 11.012 10.958 10.865 10.790 11.426 11.370 11.273 11.195 11.977 11.918 11.817 11.735 12.362 12.256 12.172 12.887 12.777 12.688 13.530 13.415 13.322 13.823 13.705 13.610 14.370 14.243 14.149 14.749 14.647 15.147 15.042 15.693 15.584 16.259 16.147 16.834 16.718 17.325 17 .950 18.598 19.257 19.964 2017 REDI CS DG vs. 2020 CUSTOMER CONNECT E)(lilE3rT PPA RATES Term 20 Yr 25 Yr 30 Yr 3.208 3.187 3.195 3.335 3.314 3.322 3.468 3.446 3.454 3.606 3.583 3.591 3.749 3.725 3.734 3.898 3.873 3.883 4.053 4.027 4.037 4.912 4.881 4.893 5.118 5.056 5.061 5.333 5.238 5.235 5.557 5.426 5.414 5.790 5.620 5.600 6.032 5.822 5.792 6.285 6.031 5.991 6.549 6.247 6.197 6.823 6.471 6.409 6.703 6.629 6.944 6.857 7.193 7.092 7.451 7.335 7.718 7.587 7.848 8.117 8.396 8.684 8.982 Yr? 42.7% 42.0% 41.5% -411% 42.6% 41.8% 41.4% 42.0% 44.7% 44.0% 43.6% 44.2% 45.5% 44.7% 44.3% 46.0% 45.2% 44.8% 45.4% 45.6% 44.9% 44.5% 45.0% 46.7% 46.0% 45.6% 46.2% -38. 1% -37.2% -36.8% 37.4% -39.0% 68.5% -38.1% 38.7% -37.3% -37.2% -36.9% -3 7. 5% -36.5% -36.8% -36.6% -37.2% -36.3% -36.9% 66.9% -37.4% -3 7. 6% 38.6% -38.6% -39.1% 39.3% -39.4% 69.9% -39.7% -39.9% 40.3% 41.2% 41.5% 41.9% 41.7% 42.1% 42.0% 42.5% 42.8% 42.6% 43.0% 43.1% 43 43 -44296'_ 43.2% 43.5% 43.5% 43.8% 43.8% 43.4% 43.5% 43.5% 43.6% 35 Yr EXHIBIT PPA RATES 2017 REDI CS DG vs. 2020 CUSTOMER CONNECT 15 Yr Term 20 Yr 25V: 30 Yr 35 Yr 4.349 4.280 4.271 4.226 4.202 4.680 4.606 4.597 4.548 4.522 5.083 5.003 4.992 4.940 4.912 5.409 5.324 5.313 5.257 5.227 5.611 5.523 5.511 5.453 5.422 6.076 5.980 5.967 5.904 5.871 6.392 6.291 6.278 6.211 6.176 6.704 6.598 6.585 6.515 6.478 6.930 6.821 6.807 6.735 6.697 7.345 7.229 7.214 7.138 7.098 7.659 7.538 7.522 7.443 7.401 8.099 7.972 7.955 7.871 7.827 8.199 8.070 8.053 7.968 7.923 8.451 8.318 8.301 8.213 8.167 8.796 8.658 8.640 8.548 8.500 9.301 9.154 9.135 9.039 8.988 9.624 9.604 9.502 9.449 10.022 10.001 9.895 9.840 10.636 10.614 10.501 10.442 11.051 11.028 10.911 10.850 11.562 11.538 11.416 11.351 11.955 11.828 11.762 12.487 12.355 12.285 13.103 12.964 12.891 13.415 13.273 13.198 13.935 13.788 13.710 14.272 14.192 14.646 14.563 15.173 15.088 15.720 15.631 16.276 16.184 16.775 17.380 18.006 18.643 19.327 Term 20 Yr i?_25_Yr 30 Yr 3.332 3.226 3.216 3.240 3.467 3.356 3.347 3.371 3.604 3.489 3.479 3.505 3.747 3.627 3.617 3.643 _35 Yr_ 3.895 3.770 3.759 3.787 4.049 3.919 3.908 3.937 4.209 4.074 4.063 4.092 5.228 5.061 5.046 5.083 5.428 5.273 5.228 5.258 5.637 5.494 5.416 5.438 5.853 5.723 5.610 5.625 5.963 5.812 5.818 6.213 6.020 6.017 6.473 6.237 6.223 6. 744 6.461 6.437 7.026 6.693 6.658 6.933 6.886 7.182 7.122 7.441 7.366 7.708 7.619 7.985 7.880 8.151 8.430 8.719 9.018 9.328 15_Yr Term 20 Yr 25 Yr 35 Yr 40.4% 89.6% 39.0% -40.2% 69.4% -38.8% -42.6% -41.8% -41.3% -43.3% ?42.5% -42.0% 43.8% 43.0% -42.5% -43.4% -42.7% -42.2% -44.5% 43.8% 43.3% -33.9% -33.1% 32.4% -34.9% 44.4% -33.9% -33.0% 32.9% -32.5% 2031'" -32.3% -32.6% -32.2% -32.2% 32.9% 62.7% -33.2% -34.2% -34.1% 65.2% -35.2% -35.5% -35.6% 87.1% 67.3% -37.3% -37.6% -37.9% 58.3% 68.4% -39.0% -39.9% -39.2% -39.5%