Shneps - & some of the many reasons you have no credibility Shneps again takes selective and incomplete documents and turns them into one sided spin rather than posting ALL the public filings available to him on Google. If he chose to post all of the engineering and financial facts on the public record and understand why folks like Jeff Siegel from Green Chips makes the comments Mr. Siegel does (and Jeff Siegel checks all the records and does all of his homework) Shneps may actually have and earn some small smigeon of cred. Instead he leaves out full public documents that address all the issues Jeff Siegel spoke about but used only two sentences.
Shneps leaves out major public filings like the one below and as a result leaves out the reason to newbies why we have made it this far.
GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO
PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATORY BOARD
PUERTO RICO ENERGY BUREAU
PBJL ENERGY CORPORATION
Petitioner
v.
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY
Respondent CASE NO.: NEPR-QR-2021-0026
SUBJECT:
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE PUERTO RICO ENERGY BUREAU:
COMES NOW, Petitioner PBJL Energy Corporation (“PBJL”), represented by and though the undersigned counsel respectfully alleges states and prays as follows:
I.
The Parties
1. Petitioner PBJL is a for-profit corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, duly authorized by the Department of State to conduct business in Puerto Rico. Petitioner's current business address is: 9 Landport, Newport Beach, California 92660 and its telephone number is: (949) 903-5906.
2. Petitioner PBJL is a corporation dedicated to the international development of facilities for renewable energy projects.
3. Respondent Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ("PREPA"), is a public corporation, affiliated but separate and independent from the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, created by Puerto Rico Public Law No. 83 of May 2, 1941. PREPA is a legal monopoly electric power company dedicated to the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric power within the territorial area of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
4. Petitioner PBJL hereby includes Xzerta Tec Solar LLC (“Xzerta”) and CIRO One Salinas LLC (“CIRO”), as additional respondent parties, inasmuch as their rights, awards, designations and/o approvals, mistaken or not, are questioned and could be affected in this case as a results of petitioner PBJL’s claims. Thus, Xzerta and CIRO could be considered indispensable parties, with the right to defend and/or state their position herein.
II.
Introduction and Claims
5. Prior to the filing of the voluntary petition under PROMESA , PREPA had entered into renewable energy power purchase and operating agreements ("PPOAs") with different renewable energy producers (the Non-Operating PPOA’s), among them PBJL. After the entry of the Order for Relief under PROMESA, PREPA renegotiated the agreements with sixteen (16) of renewable energy producers, including PBJL’s.
6. In June of 2020 PREPA submitted all the proposed Amended Non-Operating PPOA’s to the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau of the Public Service Regulatory Board (“PREB”) for evaluation and approval. The PREB approved all the Amended Non-Operating PPOAs, but the Puerto Rico Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) determined that, to comply with the 2020 Fiscal Plan, the total renewable energy producers’ projects to be authorized and developed through the renegotiated PPOAs could not exceed 150 MW. PREPA then withdrew the request for approval of all the Amended Non-Operating PPOA’s with the consent of the Energy Bureau. Furthermore, the FOMB requested from PREPA a ranking of the renewable energy producers (Legacy Projects) to select the best suited to fill the requested 150 MW benchmark.
7. Accordingly, PREPA commissioned a report from New Energy Partners, Inc. (NEP), with the objective of performing an assessment and to receive recommendations on the 16 selected PPOA’s. NEP rendered a report entitled “Review of Legacy Solar PPOA’s and Recommendations for Ranking and Negotiations Final Report Amended per FOMB dated January 26, 2021. The NEP Report was used to rank the PPOA companies (Legacy Projects) based on the requirements of FOMB and costs to ratepayers.
8. After evaluating PREPA’s recommendations and ranking of Legacy Projects, the FOMB approved only 2 of the 16 PPOA’s, that is, Xzerta’s and CIRO’s, to satisfy the earmarked 150 MW output. On March 15, 2021 PREPA submitted the selected PPOA’s to the PREB for its consideration and approval. Until recently, no approval has been rendered .
9. PBJL has had a Legacy Project among the referred 16 PPOA’s all along; that is, PBJL’s Montalva Solar Farm.
10. PBJL contends that PREPA, using misleading and incorrect information as well as manipulated data and flawed methodology, failed to evaluate PBJL’s Montalva Solar Farm Project properly and fairly against the other Legacy Projects for endorsement and recommendation (ranking) purposes, as required by the FOMB. PBJL claims a correct PREPA evaluation would have placed its project within the first two ranked projects, allowing for an estimated $175,000,000 in savings to PREPA and its consumers (ratepayers) above those savings of the two projects recommended by PREPA and approved by FOMB. The $175 million in savings are in addition to those savings identified by PREB in its approval of Montalva as being $250 million which would represent a total of $425 million in savings for ratepayers as compared to the original PPOAs. Stated differently, selection of Montalva would result in $175 million in lower costs to ratepayers as compared to the selection of Xzerta and CIRO.
11. Moreover, PBJL claims PREPA incurred additional mistakes in its evaluation of petitioner’s Montalva Solar Farm Project, despite having all accurate information available, including the ones pertaining to reduced rates and interconnection costs, savings for providing high DC/AC ratio and battery storage, steady energy output and other advantages PBJL’s project would provide and were not properly communicate to NEP for inclusion or correction of NEP’s evaluation and ranking.
12. PBJL holds a 100 MW Master Power Purchase and Operating Agreement (PPOA) with PREPA, executed on December 20, 2011, and amended on March 16, 2012. On September 5, 2013, PBJL submitted its Montalva Solar Farm Project to PREPA under the terms of its PPOA and requested an interconnection evaluation in accordance with the terms therein. The referred PPOA was to be substituted, at the request of PREPA’s Governing Board and the PREB, with what was identified as Legacy Project replacement agreements, also applicable to several other companies with similar agreements and predicament (“the Legacy Projects”). But after much effort and expense, the FOMB issued the referred last-minute rejection of such approvals for replacement agreements, thus requesting instead the evaluation and ranking of those projects by PREPA to select only two that could satisfy a limited 150 MW demand.
13. PREPA’s mistaken evaluation led to the selection of two other PBJL competitors with lessened merits (Xzerta and CIRO), neither one with equal or better qualifications, pricing, and savings than those accurately presented by PBJL to PREPA. Following such flawed analysis and evaluation, PREPA submitted to FOMB a ranking list that endorsed Xzerta and CIRO as the two top ranked Legacy Projects to fully satisfy the 150 MW demand; thus, for immediate approval of their replacement renewable energy agreements without a competitive RFP process or requests for lower pricing, with no further room for PBJL and the remaining proponents .
14. In doing so, PREPA failed to salvage the best interests of its ratepayers and the people of Puerto Rico. It also deviated from FOMB’s adopted Fiscal Plan for Puerto Rico and intended savings to allow for repayment of substantial indebtedness to bondholders by the Government of Puerto Rico and its public corporations, particularly PREPA. This highly suspect and erratic course of action has led PREPA into a collision path with the very standards and purposes the PREB was created, among them to sustain public policy on energy of the Government of Puerto Rico, as stated in the “Ley de Poltica Pblica Energtica de Puerto Rico”. Accordingly, the original complaint filed by PBJL in the captioned case sought remedies for PREPA’s noncompliance with the Puerto Rico Public Policy on Energy. This Amended Complaint echoes such claims and remedies, seeking to safeguard the best interests of Puerto Rico.
III.
Jurisdiction
15. The PREB has the authority to review PREPA’s decisions and undertakings, particularly the ones highlighted in this case. Also, The PREB has the power to issue an order directed at PREPA to stay all ongoing proceedings, including Xzerta’s and CIRO’s selection for replacement renewable energy agreements without a competitive RFP process or repricing of the Legacy Projects, as well as the execution of applicable contracts thereof. The latter will be addressed by PBJL in a separate motion, to be filed simultaneously with this Amended Complaint.
16. Under applicable law the PREB is empowered to and has been granted primary and exclusive jurisdiction to undertake “(6) Cases and disputes regarding agreements between PREPA and independent power producers, and cases and disputes between independent power producers. This includes, but shall not be limited to, power purchase agreements whereby an independent power producer agrees to provide electric power to PREPA to be distributed by the latter, and over cases in which the reasonableness of the interconnection charges or the terms and conditions of a power purchase agreement are questioned.” See, “Ley de Transformacin y Alivio Energtico” Law 57-2014, as amended, at Art. 6.4(a)(6).
17. Likewise, the PREB has been empowered to “…issue orders, make or issue any kind of legal remedy that may be necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of this Law [Law 57-2014] and obtain compliance with its rules, rulings, orders, and determinations.” See, Law 57-2014, as amended, at Art. 6.3(pp). The latter also extends to “Ordering the cease of activities or actions in violation of any provision of this Law [Law 57-2014], of PREB’s rulings, or of any other proviso of the law which is under the jurisdiction of the PREB for interpretation and compliance.” See, Law 57-2014, as amended, at Art. 6.3 (pp) (2).
18. Moreover, PREB’s jurisdiction and empowerment, as ample and liberal as it is, has expanded authority to borrow from other sources of law “…The provisions of this Law shall be interpreted liberally to accomplish its purposes and wherever any specific power or authority has been given to PREB, its enumeration will not be interpreted as excluding or preventing any other source of power or authority conferred herein. The PREB herein created will have, in addition to the powers numbered in this Law, all the additional powers implied and incidental that are necessary and appropriate to make and carry out, perform and exercise all the powers mentioned before to accomplish the purposes of this Law”. See, Law 57-2014, as amended, at Art. 6.3 (rr).
19. In its original Complaint filed on March 15, 2021 in this case, PBJL included a detailed narrative of the events, participants, dates and timeline, undertakings and failures to act, documents and directives, terms and conditions, rights and obligations, resulting and expected consequences, explaining and supporting specific claims. PBJL hereby repeats, realleges and adopts its March 15, 2021 Complaint, particularly its section “SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT”, as well as the LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS included therein. More so, to support the expanded allegations and claims of this Amended Complaint, PBJL includes two statements (unsworn statements under penalty of perjury ) issued by PBJL’s president Cliff M. Webb, showing detailed analysis of the situation and substantiation for the applicable remedies requested and confirming the applicable facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the referred statements, together with applicable verification of this Amended Complaint, evidence PBJL’s compliance with Law 57-2014, as amended, at Art. 6.4(c)(2). Likewise, the referred statements also support the Motion for an Order to Stay in Aid Jurisdiction, filed together with this Amended Complaint. Altogether, the statements, the motion in aid of jurisdiction and this Amended Complaint propound and demonstrable how PREPA submitted to FOMB false and misleading information with regards to the data that was submitted by petitioner PBJL to PREPA, as well as petitioner’s right to question the evaluation, ranking and selection used by PREPA, resulting in PBJL’s Montalva Project exclusion. Not only does petitioner have a right that its Montalva Project be re-evaluated using the correct data that was submitted by it to PREPA, but, FOMB also has a right to receive a proper report and recommendation by PREPA that is free of false and misleading data regarding partitioner’s Montalva Project.
IV.
Detailed Facts and Circumstances
20. PBJL Energy Corporation is a Puerto Rican corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Greenbriar Capital Corp, a publicly traded Canadian corporation traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. PBJL holds a 100 MW Master Power Purchase and Operating Agreement (PPOA) with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and in accordance with that agreement submitted its Montalva Solar Farm Project (“Montalva”) with PREPA on September 5, 2013. Montalva has since been designated as a Legacy Project and in accordance with the IRP, has been negotiating a revised PPOA and new price with PREPA for subsequent approval by PREB and FOMB. The PREPA Governing Board approved the Legacy Project replacement agreements including Montalva on May 28, 2020, and submitted the replacement agreements to PREB on June 19, 2020, for its approval. PREB approved the Montalva agreement on August 8, 2020. However, FOMB failed to approve any of the revised Legacy Project agreements and requested that no more than 150 MW be approved without a competitive RFP process and that the selection of the 150 MW be based on an evaluation and ranking of the Legacy Projects considering the technical and financial qualifications of the sponsors. PBJL responded to this request on September 10, 2020.
21. PBJL calls the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau’s attention to the Financial Oversight and Management Board’s 25th public meeting held on February 26th, 2021, wherein FOMB approved two renewable energy agreements totally 150 MW as recommended and endorsed by (PREPA) for the selection of those projects satisfying FOMB’s limitation of approving no more than 150 MW of the Legacy Projects without an open and competitive RFP.
22. PBJL filed this complaint against PREPA for using misleading and incorrect information for Montalva together with data manipulation and a flawed methodology in its evaluation, ranking, recommendation and endorsement of the top ranked legacy projects, for and as approved by FOMB, and disputes the selection of Xzerta and CIRO as being the top ranked project offering the least cost impact to ratepayer as compared to the adopted Fiscal Plan. If PREPA had used the correct project and financial data for Montalva, the latter would have been the top ranked project qualifying for approval by FOMB and resulting in over $175 million of additional saving for PREPA ratepayers as compared to the projects recommended and endorsed by PREPA. However, PREPA’s recommendation and endorsement of the selected projects were based on an imperfect and deficient evaluation of Montalva, including misrepresentation of Montalva’s offered base price of $0.0884 per kwh as opposed to the evaluation price used by PREPA of $0.0985 per kwh and using interconnection costs of $15.7 million and not using the true interconnections costs of Montalva being $3.8 million; all in order to support an outcome that clearly goes against the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico and significantly increases PREPA’s cost to ratepayers.
23. Based on the facts available to PBJL, PBJL believes that Montalva is the superior project in all areas when compared to the approved projects and would provide significantly increased reliability, safety and cost savings to PREPA and PREPA’s ratepayers over the selected projects, both in price and in providing high DC/AC ratio, steady near baseload energy output, reduced need for costly and expensive ancillary services, afterhours delivery of energy incorporating energy storage and microgrid support. PBJL believes these savings are more than $175 million over the life of the PPOA when compared to the selected projects dwarfing any possible issues with disputed interconnection costs or with payments by PREPA for curtailments of Montalva during extreme grid events. Montalva also offered to build its own interconnection line to Guanica TC at no cost to PREPA with PREPA only paying for upgrades within Guanica TC. This would have been the lowest cost interconnection scenario for ratepayers.
24. It is also possible that when properly accounting for Montalva’s offer price and its additional savings to ratepayers for high DC/AC ratio and battery storage, Montalva’s evaluated costs would be less than those costs reflected in the Fiscal Plan and would represent a net savings to ratepayers over those costs. PBJL cannot verify the evaluated cost numbers for Montalva versus the Fiscal Plan as FOMB has not disclosed the methodology and financial assumptions it has used in its calculations or that of its consultant. No consultant reports or evaluations regarding FOMB’s claims regarding the Fiscal Plan have been made available to the public.
25. Notwithstanding, even if PREPA had “not” accounted for Montalva’s reduction in base price from $0.0985 to $0.0884 nor given Montalva any credit for its savings to ratepayers for high DC/AC ratio and battery storage, Montalva would have been the second ranking project ahead of CIRO when using Montalva’s correct interconnection costs of $3.8 million.
26. Concerning the interconnection costs, Montalva is the only project that has an existing PREPA 115 kV transmission line traversing the project site with sufficient capacity in either direction to carry the entire output of Montalva and offering a low-cost on-site interconnection without a requirement for any interconnection tie line to be constructed to an existing substation transmission center. However, PREPA has inflated this cost in its evaluation to include an additional $11.9 million for replacement, and doubling of its capacity with high cost aluminum poles, of a secondary transmission line needing repair or replacement (as claimed by PREPA without basis or facts) and not providing any additional benefit or any additional interconnection capacity for Montalva. In any case, replacement or repair of this line already represents a cost to PREPA with or without Montalva being constructed and is not a new cost introduced by Montalva and should not have been included as a new cost created by Montalva in the evaluation and ranking. PBJL pointed this out to PREPA on numerous occasions and was ignored. It was PBJL’s understanding that the line rebuild was being included with the construction of Montalva so that the reliability of the grid could be improved in the area and constructed at the same time as interconnection of Montalva, thereby minimizing interruptions of power to customers.
27. In summary, PBJL requests that the correct Montalva data for price and interconnection costs plus the economic advantages of Montalva’s high DC/AC ratio and battery storage be properly incorporated into PREPA’s evaluation and that PREPA submit a revised ranking including the above corrections to both FOMB and to PREB for their review and approval. Even if only the price was corrected, the savings dwarfs any dispute of the interconnection cost numbers or possible payments by PREPA for curtailment of Montalva during grid events.
28. Additionally, there appears no basis for PREPA to have eliminated Montalva as not meeting the minimum requirements of the six pass/fail criteria listed for qualification for evaluation to Stage 2. In fact, applying only a minimum pass/fail assessment of the competing projects does not translate to the best outcome since certain projects have superior access to capital, financing and equipment delivery schedules not to mention superior expertise and technical qualifications. Without consideration of these factors there could be significant delays in the financing and construction schedules of the selected projects delaying jobs, economic stimulus and immediate cost savings to ratepayers for the replacement of expensive and inefficient oil-fired generation. PBJL and Greenbriar Capital Corp offer significant experience and qualifications in these areas as well.
29. Further, PBJL requests that PREB order PREPA suspend and delay execution of any PPOA’s with Xzerta and CIRO until a corrected and revised evaluation can be agreed upon and resubmitted to FOMB and PREB for their review and approval.
V.
Summary of Issues and Answers
As noted in PREPA’s presentation, PREPA applied six pass/fail criteria to ensure projects meet minimum requirements. The published criteria used by PREPA for Stage 1 were:
a. Compliance with legal FOMB, PREB, and PREPA requirements.
b. Adequate financial strength.
c. Compliance with interconnection criteria.
d. Net financial benefits to ratepayers.
e. Project in late to mid stage development.
f. Developer experience equal to 10x the project scale.
PBJL and Montalva clearly met and exceeded all the above criteria, and PBJL provided detail project information to PREPA on numerous occasions including Montalva’s interconnection options, Montalva’s numerous attributes, progress of development, PBJL’s financial strength as a 100% owned subsidiary of a publicly traded entity, the experience of the project team and PBJL’s access to capital and financing thereby addressing all the listed criteria for Stage 1. This information was provided in detail to PREPA in (i) PBJL’s project proposal to PREPA on September 5, 2013, and again on May 30, 2019 (Doc. 16) , and (ii) further in its specific response letter to PREPA on September 10, 2020 (Doc. 15) , therein providing technical and financial qualifications and other project information in response to PREPA’s letter of September 2, 2020. PREPA’s claim that Montalva failed compliance with the interconnection criteria because of line outages created by the outage of a step-down transformer at Guanica TC, and the uncertainty of its schedule for repair, leading to possible curtailments of Montalva in excess of those allowed by the PPOA are without merit and again these concerns not only being extreme are dwarfed by the price reduction cost savings alone.
Why did PREPA not use in its evaluation and ranking the current Montalva offered base price of $0.0884 per kwh instead of the listed evaluation base price for Montalva of $0.0985 per kwh which comparison in price represents a savings to ratepayers, as compared to the price offered by the second rank project of greater than $75 million?
Montalva lowered its price to $0.0895 in an email to PREPA dated November 23, 2020 (Doc. 8) , which email was acknowledged by return email from PREPA, and a second price reduction to $0.0884 on December 23, 2020 (Doc. 10) .
Why did PREPA not use in its evaluation and ranking the actual interconnection costs of Montalva of $3.8 million as determined by PREPA’s transmission consultant Sargent & Lundy, but instead added in an additional $11.9 million of reimbursable costs based on Montalva’s agreement to rebuild an incidental transmission line in need of repair and doubling its existing capacity with aluminum poles, a cost already needing to be incurred by PREPA for such repair and not part of or contributing to any increase in the interconnection capacity for Montalva?
PBJL addressed this issue of PREPA’s misrepresentation of Montalva’s interconnection costs on several occasion including in an email on that subject to PREPA on November 24, 2020 (Doc. 9) , and in detail on December 2, 2020 (Doc. 12) , noting that rebuilding the subject line had no direct benefit for the interconnection of Montalva and that the additional $11.9 million of reimbursable costs for the rebuilding of that line should not apply or be included toward the interconnection costs for Montalva in any evaluation or ranking, and again addressed PREPA on that subject in its letter to PREPA regarding evaluation criteria on February 16, 2021 (Doc. 11) . PBJL received no response from PREPA despite numerous attempts to set the record straight for the correct numbers for any comparative ranking of the projects so that any selection would be based on a fair and impartial evaluation and ranking to determine the most favorable outcome for PREPA’s ratepayers.
Why did PREPA not include in its evaluation and ranking the economic value and savings to ratepayers over PREPA’s conventional generation of the additional generation provided by Montalva, and the savings of transmission capacity and ancillary services, for Montalva being constructed with a DC/AC ratio of greater that 2 to 1 or providing 162 MW DC for a 80 MW AC interconnection?
These advantages and savings to ratepayers were detailed to PREPA in PBJL’s letter to PREPA of September 10, 2020 (Doc. 15) , and again in PBJL’s letter to PREPA on February 16, 2021 (Doc. 11) .
Why did PREPA not include in its evaluation and ranking the economic value and savings to ratepayers over PREPA’s conventional generation, and the savings of transmission capacity and ancillary services, for the four hours of 36 MW of battery storage providing steady output, afterhours delivery of energy and microgrid support?
As before, these additional advantages of Montalva and savings to ratepayers were detailed to PREPA in PBJL’s letter of September 10, 2020 (Doc. 15) , and again in PBJL’s letter to PREPA on February 16, 2020 (Doc. 11) . As far as we know, Montalva is the only project offering commercial level battery storage as part of its project with all being included in Montalva’s base price. Montalva is offering a high DC/AC ratio solar field in excess of 2:1 and four hours of 36 MW of battery storage. PBJL has not seen any evaluation study by its consultant that would have considered these attributes offered by Montalva in its analyses as a benefit and savings to ratepayers. The savings alone with high utilization of the given transmission capacity for Montalva is significant alone. Montalva with high DC/AC ratio and battery storage will deliver 150% of energy to PREPA with the same interconnection capacity as a standard solar plant without these attributes.
Why was Xzerta allowed to change their cap price from 14.1 cents to 12.6 and its escalation rate to 1% and be accepted into the FOMB’s Feb. 26 board meeting, and yet the Xzerta agreement as approved by the PREPA Governing Board for submission for approval to the PREB and FOMB was with a 14.1 cent cap price and a 2% escalation rate?
If Xzerta is allowed to make their price change, then the same standard applies to all other projects and to Montalva for lowering its price to 8.84 cents. Changes were also allowed for increasing Xzerta’s original capacity from 20 MW to 60 MW and CIRO One from 55 MW to 90 MW. Notwithstanding, even without lowering Montalva’s price, Montalva represents more ratepayer savings than CIRO One, or less incremental cost over the Fiscal Plan, with its lower original price than CIRO One ($0.0989 for CIRO versus $0.0985 for Montalva) and lower interconnection costs at $3.8 million than CIRO at $8.1 million plus significant additional ratepayer savings over CIRO One for battery storage, microgrid support and high DC/AC ratio.
VI.
List of Supporting Documents
1. PBJL Letter to PREPA dated March 8, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking submitted to FOMB on February 26, 2021, and requesting clarification of the data and methodology used by PREPA to eliminate Montalva from consideration and placing on hold any execution of PPOA’s approved by FOMB subject to the PREPA ranking.
2. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Cliff Webb to PREPA dated March 8, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking submitted to FOMB on February 26, 2021, and requesting clarification of the data and methodology used by PREPA to eliminate Montalva from consideration.
3. PREPA’s Ranking List submitted to FOMB dated February 25, 2021, selecting Xzerta-Tec and Ciro One as the top ranked projects for approval by FOMB.
4. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Jeff Ciachurski to PREPA, PREPA Board and FOMB dated February 26, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking and subsequent approval of higher cost projects by FOMB on February 26, 2021.
5. PBJL Letter to FOMB dated March 2, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking submitted to FOMB on February 26, 2021, and appealing the approval by FOMB of the selected projects recommended by PREPA and that FOMB demand documents from PREPA justifying its evaluation and ranking of Montalva.
6. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Cliff Webb to FOMB dated March 2, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking submitted to FOMB on February 26, 2021, and appealing the approval by FOMB of the selected projects recommended by PREPA, rescind its approval and that FOMB demand documents from PREPA justifying its evaluation and ranking of Montalva.
7. CHCG Letter to FOMB Chairman with copies to PREPA and PREPA Governing Board dated March 1, 2021, addressing the misrepresentation of Montalva in PREPA’s ranking submitted to FOMB on February 26, 2021, and requesting that FOMB rescind its approval and demand documents from PREPA justifying its evaluation and ranking of Montalva.
8. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Cliff Webb to PREPA dated November 23, 2020, updating its PPOA base price from $0.0985 to $0.0895 and acknowledgement by return email from PREPA.
9. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Jeff Ciachurski to PREPA dated November 24, 2020, specifying the Montalva base price and interconnection costs to be used in any evaluation and ranking of Montalva and noting incorrect interconnection cost being reported by PREPA to FOMB and requesting correction for any ranking of projects.
10. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Jeff Ciachurski to PREPA dated December 23, 2020, updating its PPOA base price from $0.0895 to $0.0884.
11. PBJL Letter to FOMB dated February 16, 2021, addressing the evaluation criteria and attributes of Montalva in response to PREPA’s filing of an undisclosed list of projects to FOMB and PREB from which to select the top ranked 150 MW of legacy projects for approval by FOMB.
12. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Cliff Webb to PREPA dated December 2, 2020, discussing in detail the erroneous interconnection cost information being reported by PREPA for Montalva including $11.7 million of extra costs not associated with the interconnection of Montalva that should not be included and a cost already to be incurred by PREPA for repairs of an existing line and restating the correct Montalva cost data for ranking purposes.
13. Sargent and Lundy Interconnection Study Report entitled Renewable Energy PPOA Interconnection Summary Report dated June 19, 2020, prepared for PREPA.
14. Puerto Rico Energy Bureau’s Resolution dated August 17, 2020, approving the Montalva Solar Farm Project and addressing the interconnection costs listed for repairs to an existing line in its resolution.
15. PBJL Letter to PREPA dated September 10, 2020, addressing the evaluation criteria and attributes of Montalva in response to PREPA’s letter of September 2, 2020, requesting a response to FOMB’s letter of August 17, 2020, regarding an objective assessment of each proponent’s technical and financial qualifications and use of the McKinsey matrix for the selection of no more than 150 MW of legacy projects for approval by FOMB.
16. Greenbriar Capital Corp’s Formal Proposal to PREPA for the Montalva Solar Farm Project submitted on May 30, 2019, as requested by PREPA’s consultant Filsinger Energy Consultants increasing Montalva’s available capacity up to 165 MW and detailing PBJL’s and Greenbriar Capital Corp’s technical and financial qualifications.
17. Greenbriar Capital Corp email by Jeff Ciachurski to PREPA dated May 30, 2019, transmitting the updated and formal Montalva Solar Farm Project proposal to PREPA and PREPA’s consultant Filsinger Energy Consultants.
18. PBJL Letter to PREPA dated March 21, 2021, addressing the New Energy Partners’ evaluation and ranking report and study provided under order by PREB wherein New Energy Partners eliminated Montalva from consideration on the basis of concerns raised by PREPA Operations.
VII.
Conclusion and Remedies
WHEREFORE, Petitioner PBJL respectfully request from this Honorable Board to enter an Order directed to PREPA to re-evaluated Montalva’ s Project using the correct data stated hereinbefore, free of false and misleading information regarding petitioner’s Montalva Solar Farm Project, including Montalva's price and interconnection costs together with the economic advantages of Montalva's high DC/AC ratio and energy storage be incorporated into PREPA's evaluation and that PREPA submit a revised ranking to FOMB and to PREB for its review and approval. PBJL also requests that PREB order PREPA to suspend and delay execution of any PPOA with Xzerta and CIRO until a corrected and revised evaluation and ranking can be agreed upon and resubmitted to FOMB and PREB for their review and approval.
LEX SERVICES PSC
1612 Ponce de Len Ave., 1st Floor
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00909
Tel.: (787) 993-1905; Fax: (787) 993-1812
Cel.: (787) 346-5475
lexservicespsc@gmail.com
s/Ivn Daz Lpez
Ivn Daz-Lpez, Esq.
TSPR (RUA) No. 7753
USDC-PR No. 201405
CARLOS R. SOSA PADRO LAW OFFICE
PO Box 191682
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-1682
Tel.: (787) 250-0081; Tel/Fax: (787) 250-0078
csosalaw@gmail.com
s/Carlos R. Sosa Padr
Carlos R. Sosa-Padr, Esq.
TSPR (RUA) No. 6370
USDC-PR No. 205112
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau using the designated electronic filing system, having also notified a copy to respondent’s counsel Katiuska Bolaos-Lugo (kbolanos@diazvaz.law) and Joannely Marrero-Cruz (imarrero@diazvaz.law), as well as to petitioner’s representative Cliff M. Webb (cliff.m.webb@gmail.com).
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of May 2021.
s/Carlos R. Sosa Padr
Carlos R. Sosa-Pa