GSRP RFP Resp.Rev. Comment Memorandum

M E M O R A N D U M To: K. Shea From: RFP Response Analysis Team Re: Responses to GSRP/MMP RFP Date: January 30, 2009 I. Analysis of Proposed Alternatives’ Non-Compliance With Qualifications for Consideration RFP responses must “identify and purport at a minimum to meet statutory and regulatory standards applicable to such proposals.” (Preferential Criteria, at 1) One of these statutory criteria is that they propose “alternative solutions to the need that will be addressed by the proposed facility in [the Siting Council] application.” (Conn. Gen. Stats. Sec. 16a-7c). Accordingly, the RFP advised potential responders that the CEAB would consider: only proposals that address “the electric system issues” that the GSRP and MMP seek to address. (RFP, at 6) None of the responses to the RFP “purports” to meet the need addressed by GSRP. The “reliability” benefits of competing projects are measured by “national and regional reliability criteria applicable to the regional bulk power grid, as determined in consultation with the regional independent system operator…” Conn. Gen. Stats. Sec.16a-7c(f); 16-7(a)(6) None of the proposals claim to achieve compliance with these criteria, which is the fundamental aim of GSRP and MMP. Accordingly none of them “purport” to address the need served by the proposed transmission projects. Ice Energy “Ice Energy supports both the need and justification for the GSRP and MMP transmission system projects.” ...