Project 150 Evaluation Working Group

1

• Round 3 Proposal Evaluation
• Steering Committee Review

Project 150 Evaluation Working Group
September 5, 2008
2
Presentation Overview

• Project Evaluation Results
• Overview of Recommended Projects
• Recommendations
• Recommended
• On the fence
• Not recommended

• Evaluation Process
• Evaluation Committee
• Steps Minimum Requirements
• Evaluation Metrics
• Project-based
• Sensitivity of Results to Key Variables

• Proposal Summary Statistics
• Projects MW by Technology
• Strength of the field
• CCEF Funds Requested
• Ratepayer Cost Impacts
• SW CT Benefits

• Agreement on Proposal Recommendations to CCEF
  Board
• Next Steps Timing

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
3
Evaluation ProcessEvaluation Committee
Affiliation Core Expertise
Dale Hedman Director Project Development, CCEF Project Development
Patrick O'Neill P.E. Project Mgr., CCEF Power Engineering
James Dunn Energy Technology Consultants Hydrogen/Fuel Cell
David Nickerson Mystic River Energy Group LLC Project Development / Wholesale Power Supply
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
4
Evaluation ProcessKey Steps

• Review and refine evaluation methods Scoring
  Weights
• Review proposals for Minimum Bid Eligibility
  Requirements
• Review proposals as submitted
• Face-to-face project interviews to clarify
  proposals address questions
• Written project responses to specific questions
• Individual evaluators score each project on
  non-price evaluation criteria
• Consultants calculate net ratepayer impact
• Two day evaluator meeting to review net ratepayer
  impact analysis, discuss projects, finalize
  scores, consider key sensitivities, and rank
  projects

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
5
Proposals Not Meeting Minimum Bid Requirements

• Versailles Renewable Energy
• Landfill-methane-by pipeline at CHP plant
• Ineligible pricing option (as determined by
  DPUC), no alternative offered
• Elemental Power Quad
• Fuel cell in CHP configuration
• Site control not secured

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
6
Evaluation Metrics (Points out of 100)
Key Scoring metric determined by quantitative
analysis of proposal Evaluator subjective metric

• Cost to Ratepayers
• NPV Ratepayer Impact (55)
• Note Higher score means lower net ratepayer
  costs

• Ratepayer Benefits
• Increased access to RE w/ min. env. Impact (2)
• CT econ. dev. Benefits (2)
• Output reliability at system peak (1.5)
• Long term price suppression (1)
• Innovative use of technology (1)
• TD reliability (1)
• Project Diversity tech., fuel source, location
  size (0.5)
• Timing (1)

• Financial Viability
• Sound financial expectations assumptions (3.75)
• Financing experience (2.25)
• Financial strength of developer (3)
• Realistic financing structure (1.5)
• Capital Risk (2.25)
• Equity participation (2.25)

• Feasibility
• Team experience (3)
• Permitting status (3)
• Public acceptance (2)
• Site issues (2)
• Reasonableness of schedule (1)
• Design status (2)
• Technology risk (2)
• Interconnection analysis (2)
• Quality of operating plan (1)
• Quality of resource/ fuel plan (2)

20
55
10
15
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
7
Consideration ofPortfolio Characteristics

• Limited variety of technologies among proposals
  meeting minimum threshold review
• All natural gas fuel cells manufactured in CT
• Why?
• Biomass potential largely tapped
• Limited indigenous wind hydro resources, none
  sufficiently advanced for this solicitation
• Solar unable to beat the price cap
• LFG-by-pipe project selected ineligible price
  option

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
8
Proposal Summary Statistics
45.1 MW Total
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
9
Proposal Summary StatisticsStrength of the Field

• Reasonably competitive
• Proposals 3x target MW before threshold review
• Final evaluation pool 2x target MW
• Not a diverse mix
• All proposals same fuel base technology and
  manufacturer
• Variety of stages of development
• Many have strong financial partners and/or
  proponent equity
• 3 of final 7 projects requested additional CCEF
  funding
• Scoring tightly clustered ?all scores between
  67.3 71.0 of 100

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
10
Proposal Summary Statistics CCEF Requested

• Binary distribution of funding requests
• 4 requested no additional
• 3 requests between. 1.5 3 million
• Total requested (7 proj.) 7.75 million

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
11
Proposal Summary Statistics Ratepayer Cost
Impacts

• Net NPV cost impact to ratepayers of payments to
  projects
• Evaluated on a consistent basis
• After taking credit for the market value to
  ratepayers of expected energy generated,
  locational forward capacity and RECs provided
  and CCEF

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
12
Proposal Summary Statistics SW CT Benefits
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
13
Project EvaluationOverview of Recommended
Projects
Number of Projects Total MW Claimed Capability Avg. Ratepayer Impact (NPV /kwh)
Recommended 4 24.06 2.53 /kwh
On the Fence 1 3.24 2.58 /kwh
Not Recommended 2 17.77 2.95 /kwh
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
14
Project EvaluationSummary of Recommended
Projects
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
15
Pricing Options Selected

• Option 6 50 of Wholesale Market Energy Cost
  Plus Project Cost of Natural Gas As The Primary
  Fuel (Not Subject To Price Cap).
• 4 Proposals
• Option 6a 50 of Wholesale Market Energy Cost
  Plus Project Cost of Natural Gas As The Primary
  Fuel (Not Subject To Price Cap), adjusted
  downward by proposer-defined price modifier.
• 3 Proposals
• This is a new pricing option introduced by CCEF
  in Round 3
• One response had variable downward adjustment
  tied to market REC prices

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
16

• Discussion of Recommendations

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
17
Scoring Summary Recommended
Project No. (Score) Developer Location Type Seasonal Adjusted Claimed Capability (kW) NPV Ratepayer Impact (/kwh) Pricing Option Selected Additional CCEF Funds gt 50k ( millions)
008 (71.0) Fuel Cell Energy Bloomfield Fuel Cell ERG 3,367 2.36 6 0
005 (71.0) Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park, LLC Bridgeport Fuel Cell ORC 14,294 2.84 6a 1.5
009 (70.9) Fuel Cell Energy Trumbull Fuel Cell ERG 3,200 2.47 6 0
007 (70.2) Fuel Cell Energy Glastonbury Fuel Cell ERG 3,200 2.47 6 0
Secondary SW CT, Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
18
Scoring Summary On the Fence
Project No. (Score) Developer Location Type Seasonal Adjusted Claimed Capability (kW) NPV Ratepayer Impact (/kwh) Pricing Option Selected Additional CCEF Funds gt 50k ( millions)
001 (68.3) EPG Fuel Cell, LLC (Cube) Danbury Fuel Cell Brayton cycle turbine 3,238 2.58 6a 2.95

• Pro provides technology developer diversity
• Con request of 3m for a 3MW project

Secondary SW CT, Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
19
Scoring Summary Not Recommended
Project No. (Score) Developer Location Type Seasonal Adjusted Claimed Capability (kW) NPV Ratepayer Impact (/kwh) Pricing Option Selected Additional CCEF Funds gt 50k ( millions)
006 (67.9) TEN Companies Hartford Fuel Cell Heat Recovery 2,710 2.99 6 0
002 (67.3) EPG Fuel Cell, LLC (Triangle) Danbury Fuel Cell ORC 15,057 2.91 6a 2.95
Secondary SW CT, Primary SW CT
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
20
Levelized Contract Prices
EWG Rank Project Name () Levelized Contract Price (/kWh)
1 Bloomfield (008) 18.79
2 Bridgeport (005) 17.63
3 Trumbull (009) 19.65
4 Glastonbury (007) 18.55
5 Cube (001) 17.80
6 Hartford (006) 19.85
7 Triangle (002) 19.66
21
Alternative Proposalswithout ITC/PTC extension
Status if no ITC/PTC extension of Proposals of MW
Withdrawn 4 (s 001,002,005,006) 35.3 (14.294 of recommended)
No change 3 (s 007,008,009) 9.8
22
Sensitivity of Resultsto Key Variables

• Evaluated the impact of
• Future electricity/natural gas price trajectories
• (base, low, high)
• Future REC price trajectories
• (base, low, high)
• ? Some reordering within short list, and
  not-recommended group, but no shifts between
  groups
• For perspective, also calculated
• Ranking w/o CCEF funding
• ? Cube Project would jump from 5th to
  top-ranked
• Approximate utility ranking on ratepayer cost
  only w/o CCEF funding
• Cube Project would jump from 5th to top-ranked,
  BFCP straddled the cutoff

? The recommended results are resilient!
Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
23
Base Case Results
24
Sensitivity Analysis High Electricity Natural
Gas Prices
25
Sensitivity Analysis Low Electricity Natural
Gas Prices
26
Sensitivity Analysis High REC Prices
27
Sensitivity Analysis Low REC Prices
28
Sensitivity Analysis CCEF Funding Not Included
29
Sensitivity Analysis Rate Impact Ranking
without CCEF
Approximates Expected Utility Rankings
30

• Project Proposal Summaries

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
31
Project 008
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Bloomfield

• Location
• Bloomfield, CT (outside SWCT)
• At CNG pressure letdown/gate station
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo expander
  Energy Recovery Generator
• Turbo expander captures energy lost in a gate
  station pressure reducing valve
• Eliminates need for gas-fired heaters
• 3.367 MW total (850 kW from ERG)
• Team Experience
• Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer
• Enbridge Inc. A major fuel supplier N.
  America energy player, as developer
• Energy East/CNG Fuel supplier, holds title to
  the land and access to the pressure let down
  station
• BOC Cryostar, Inc. world leader in radial
  inflow turbine technology.

• Project Status
• Interconnection prelim. CLP discussions
• Permit applications pending
• Site control established host on the team
• Design Conceptual engineering completed
• Requested additional CCEF 0
• Contract Term 20 years
• NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF
• Total 12.0 million
• Per MWh 23.57
• Other 50 RECs retained

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
32
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 008
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Bloomfield

• Strengths
• Innovative use of technologies
• Strong project team
• Limited technology risk
• Highly efficient use of thermal output
• Local support for project
• No additional CCEF requested
• Least expensive fuel cell project

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
• Limited development progress

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
33
Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park
Fuel Cell w/ ORC
Project 005

• Project Status
• Interconnection UI feasibility study complete
  SIS FS outstanding
• Permit applications Approved by Siting Council.
  Preliminary permitting review completed, no major
  issues identified
• Site control estab. - Signed lease option
• Design Preliminary design completed
• Requested additional CCEF 1.5M
• Contract Term 15 years
• Rate Impact
• Total 49.6 million
• Per MWh 28.35
• RECs
• 100 RECs retained
• REC value gt 10 reduces price

• Location
• Bridgeport, CT (Primary SWCT)
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
• Organic Rankine bottoming cycle
• 14.3 MW total ( 930 kW from ORC)
• Team Experience
• Fuel Cell Energy Manufacturer and co-developer
• PurePower, LLC A firm specializing in
  developing large scale fuel cell projects in CT
• PinPoint Power, LLC Develops, owns and manages
  power generating and DSM equipment in the
  Northeast

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
34
Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park
Project 005
Fuel Cell w/ ORC

• Strengths
• Redevelopment of a brownfield site
• Advanced permitting and development status
• Strong city support
• Strong project team
• Improved recovery of waste heat in ORC
• Creative price modifier returns REC value in
  excess of 10/MWh to ratepayers

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8MW units
• Of recommended projects, most expensive ratepayer
  impact per MWh

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
35
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 009
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Trumbull

• Project Status
• Interconnection prelim. UI discussions
• Permit applications pending
• Site control established host on the team
• Design Conceptual engineering completed
• Requested additional CCEF 0
• Contract Term 20 years
• NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF
• Total 11.9 million
• Per MWh 24.66
• Other 50 RECs retained

• Location
• Trumbull, CT (primary SWCT)
• At SCG pressure letdown/gate station
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo expander
  Energy Recovery Generator
• Turbo expander captures energy lost in a gate
  station pressure reducing valve
• Eliminates need to run gas-fired heaters
• 3.200 MW total (600 kW from ERG)
• Team Experience
• Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer
• Enbridge Inc. A major fuel supplier and N.
  America energy player, as the developer
• Energy East/CNG Fuel supplier, holds title to
  land access to pressure let down
• BOC Cryostar, Inc. world leader in radial
  inflow turbine technology.

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
36
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 009
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Trumbull

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
• Limited development progress

• Strengths
• Innovative use of technologies
• Strong project team
• Limited technology risk
• Highly efficient use of thermal output
• Local support for project
• No additional CCEF requested

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
37
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 007
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Glastonbury

• Project Status
• Interconnection prelim. CLP discussions
• Permit applications pending
• Site control established host on the team
• Design Conceptual engineering completed
• Requested additional CCEF 0
• Contract Term 20 years
• NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF
• Total 12.1 million
• Per MWh 24.73
• Other
• 50 RECs retained

• Location
• Glastonbury, CT (outside SWCT)
• At CNG pressure letdown/gate station
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with turbo expander
  Energy Recovery Generator
• Turbo expander captures energy otherwise lost in
  a gate station pressure reducing valve
• Eliminates need to run gas-fired heaters
• 3.200 MW total (600 kW from ERG)
• Team Experience
• Fuel Cell Energy - Manufacturer
• Enbridge Inc. A major fuel supplier and N.
  America energy player serv. as developer
• Energy East/CNG Fuel supplier, holds title to
  land access to pressure let down station
• BOC Cryostar, Inc. world leader in radial
  inflow turbine technology.

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
38
Fuel Cell with turbo expander
Project 007
Fuel Cell Energy DFC-ERG Glastonbury

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
• Limited development progress

• Strengths
• Innovative use of technologies
• Strong project team
• Limited technology risk
• Highly efficient use of thermal output
• Local support for project
• No additional CCEF requested

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
39
Elemental Power Cube Project
Fuel Cell with Unfired Combustion Turbine
Project 001

• Project Status
• Interconnection Application submitted to CLP
• Permit applications prepared for filing
• Site control established affiliate has lease
• Design conceptual design complete
• Requested additional CCEF 3 M
• Contract Term 20 years
• Rate Impact
• Total 13.5 million
• Per MWh 25.78
• Other 50 RECs retained

• Location
• Danbury, CT (Secondary SWCT)
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
• Waste heat drives an un-fired combustion turbine
  generator in a Brayton cycle
• 3.2 MW total ( 500 kW from turbine)
• Team Experience
• EPG Fuel Cell Subsidiary of Elemental Power
  Group, a company formed to develop own and
  operate clean renewable energy projects
• Catamount Energy - financier
• Fuel Cell Energy Manufacturer

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
40
Elemental Power Cube Project
Fuel Cell with Unfired Combustion Turbine
Project 001

• Strengths
• Efficient configuration low heat rate
• Local zoning changes already made to accommodate
  projects i.e. strong town support
• Strong development team
• Innovative combination of existing technologies
• Load reducer treatment gives more immediate FCM
  value

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8MW units
• Technology is scale-up of a pilot
• Highest request from CCEF, by far

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
41
Project 006
Fuel Cell CHP
Ten Companies Inc. Hartford Fuel Cell

• Location
• Hartford, CT (outside SWCT)
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
• CHP with heat recovery for district steam
• 2.700 MW total
• Team Experience
• Energy East (utility owner of both gas supplier
  and steam company)

• Project Status
• Interconnection prelim. CLP discussion
• Permit applications scoped
• Site control established own site
• Design Conceptual engineering completed
• Requested additional CCEF 0
• Contract Term 15 years
• NPV Rate Impact incl. CCEF
• Total 9.8 million
• Per MWh 29.88
• Other 50 RECs retained

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
42
Fuel Cell CHP
Project 006
Ten Companies Inc. Hartford Fuel Cell

• Strengths
• Self-financing
• Ease of integration with site uses (other
  generation, steam plants)
• Limited technology risk
• CHP Efficient use of thermal output
• No additional CCEF requested

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8MW units
• Limited development progress
• Highest ratepayer impact metric

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
43
Elemental Power Triangle Project
Fuel Cell with ORC
Project 002

• Location
• Danbury, CT (Secondary SWCT)
• Description
• Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
• Organic Rankine bottoming cycle
• 15.1 total MW ( 950 kWh from ORC)
• Team Experience
• EPG Fuel Cell Subsidiary of Elemental Power
  Group, a company formed to develop own and
  operate clean renewable energy projects
• Catamount Energy - financier
• Fuel Cell Energy Manufacturer

• Project Status
• Interconnection Application submitted to
  ISO-NE, directed to submit a distn . level
  interconnect, CLP feasibility study in process
• Permit applications Near completed
• Site control established under lease
• Design conceptual design complete
• Requested additional CCEF 3M
• Contract Term 15 years
• Rate Impact
• Total 53.4 million
• Per MWh 29.14
• Other 50 RECs retained

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
44
Elemental Power Triangle Project
Fuel Cell with ORC
Project 002

• Weaknesses
• Limited operating experience with 2.8 MW units
• Large CCEF request
• High ratepayer impact metric

• Strengths
• Straightforward interconnection
• Local zoning changes already made to accommodate
  projects i.e. strong town support
• Strong development team
• Using Organic Rankine Cycle to maximize
  efficiency (replicable technology improvement)

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes
45
Process Timing

• Next Steps
• Select proposals to recommend to the CCEF Board
• CCEF Board Meeting
• Monday, Sept. 15, 2008
• Recommendations submitted to DPUC and Utilities
• Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008
• Written testimony in support of CCEF
  recommendations
• Scheduled October 6, 2008
• Hearings scheduled Oct. 22-24, 2008
• Draft decision scheduled Dec. 16, 2008
• Final decision scheduled Jan. 7, 2009

Internal Working Document For Discussion
Purposes