Bay State Wind 400 Megawatt Public Bid

Electronic Cover for Bay State Wind proposal cover. Electronic only, no printed hardcopies.
BAY STATE WIND LLC PROPOSAL FOR
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS FOR

OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY PROJECTS
400 MW WITH AN EXPANDABLE
TRANSMISSION PROPOSAL
DECEMBER 20, 2017
Submitted to
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

and the Electric Distribution Companies
Prepared by
Bay State Wind LLC

Bay State Wind
Bay State Wind Bringing home
at a glance the promise of
offshore wind
• Positions Massachusetts at the forefront of the
United States’ emerging offshore wind industry
• High quality, high skilled jobs for the new
25 miles green energy economy, launched right here in
off the Massachusetts South Coast. 250,000 Massachusetts
homes in Massachusetts will be supplied with
• A clean and reliable energy source powered by
clean, reliable and stable-priced power.
Massachusetts’ world-class offshore wind resource
30 MW • Long-term investment in Massachusetts ports and
battery storage solution, larger than any other harbors
pairing with offshore wind in the world today.
Bay State Wind is the strongest, most dependable
and experienced partner to help Massachusetts
400 MW realize these opportunities.
installation using the very latest in offshore
energy technology.
Project benefits
$700 million Increasing and diversifying energy supply Enhances energy reliability and resilience
direct investment in the commonwealth.
• Dramatically advances the commonwealth’s use • Delivers power directly to high-demand areas in
of carbon-free renewable energy Massachusetts, relieving constraints on the grid
$8.75 million • Reduces electricity price spikes that hit communities • State-of-the art battery storage system to meet
to support the commonwealth’s and businesses hardest during peak winter usage peak consumer demand
cornerstone programs for low income
175,000 families. Consumer benefits Economy-wide benefits
is the number of cars that would need to
be removed from the road to equal the • Bay State Wind will generate over $700 million in
greenhouse gas reductions from Bay $30 million energy consumer savings over the project’s
State Wind. in lease payments, fees and taxes to needed economic shot in the arm for areas like New
lifetime
support local government functions over Bedford and Fall River
the operational lifespan. • These investments in turn get “recycled” through
the Massachusetts economy, generating another
$1 billion in added value
$150 million
estimated annual winter price
reduction benefits.
Over 850
annual jobs created during construction.
Over 7,900
direct and indirect jobs over the life of the project. 3 Bay State Wind 3
Why Bay State Wind?
Bay State Wind brings together a formidable partnership of two large energy
companies with one common goal, to ensure the high-quality delivery of the
power of offshore wind to Massachusetts.
In Eversource, you have more than a century of Our intention is simple, to guarantee that Massachusetts
local New England knowledge and unparalleled successfully delivers one of the largest offshore wind
experience building and operating electrical farms in the US and becomes the North American hub for
transmission systems. In Ørsted, you get unrivaled the offshore wind industry. We will do this by delivering
industry expertise and the experience of delivering for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment and
the most technologically advanced offshore wind the commonwealth. Our corporate goals are completely
farms at the lowest cost to consumers. aligned with the policy objectives of Massachusetts and
we welcome the responsibility in delivering them.
This is our passion;

this is what we do.
Ørsted Ørsted by numbers:

About Ørsted About Eversource • Built the worlds first offshore wind farm in 1991
Ørsted is the world’s leading offshore wind developer, Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and Hartford, • 23 offshore wind farms constructed with
responsible for constructing nearly a quarter of the Connecticut, Eversource is a Fortune 500 company and 3.8 GW capacty
world's installed offshore wind capacity. Based in New England's leading electric transmission builder. • 7 offshore wind farms under construction
Denmark, it has chosen to base its North American equaling 5 GW
headquarters in Boston and is recognized as the leader The company employs around 8,500 people. It has • 8.8 GW total offshore wind capacity by 2022
in offshore wind in the US market. It operates across the planned, designed and delivered over $2.8 billion • Over 2,200 employees dedicated to designing,
US, Europe and Asia, and brings immense experience of worth of major electricity transmission upgrades building and operating offshore wind power
constructing and operating offshore wind farms in even in Massachusetts over the past decade. Eversource • Built largest offshore wind farm to date and is
the most challenging of conditions. has more than a 100-year history of operation in currently developing what will be the world's
Massachusetts and actively supports 191 Massachusetts largest at 2.6 GW
Ørsted has worked positively with government communities it serves. Eversource works tirelessly to • Global offshore wind leader with a pipeline of
and partner companies to undertake the ongoing support the energy efficiency, carbon reduction and projects totaling 10 GW
construction of the world’s largest 2,600 MW offshore renewable energy goals of the commonwealth.
wind installation off England’s east coast, establishing
the area as Europe’s leading center for offshore wind
production and manufacturing.
4 5
Bay State Wind 5
The Bay State Wind advantage
A partner for the long haul Financial capacity
Bay State Wind will construct, own Backed by Eversource and Ørsted,
and operate the offshore wind Bay State Wind has unbeatable
farm throughout its lifetime. We financial strength. In 2016,
are committed to Massachusetts combined assets exceeded $50
for the long haul and spreading billion and combined annual cash
the benefits of our projects into the flows totaled almost $4 billion.
local community. Crucially, the partnership will be
able to construct this offshore wind
Strength of supply chain farm without the need to bring in
Ørsted is leveraging its market- other financial partners.
leading global position and US
project pipeline to give suppliers Record of environmental
greater certainty in making stewardship
long-term decisions to invest in Ørsted began life as Danish Oil
the commonwealth and the US, and Natural Gas. Since that time,
resulting in a major boost to the the company has increasingly
local economy. moved into renewable energy
as the world and the company’s
Knowledge of New England’s values have changed. We recently
electrical system changed our name to Ørsted to
Bay State Wind will utilize the reflect our move towards 100%
deep knowledge of its partners
to deliver offshore wind power
renewable energy. Eversource is
focused on being a catalyst for
Case Study
Ørsted is in the process of
HFIG has sought to work with various
into the electrical system, serving clean energy development in New constructing the world’s largest other sea users. Of these, by far the
Massachusetts as efficiently England. It allocates 7 percent of offshore wind farm off the east
as possible. Ørsted’s extensive its annual revenues – or more than coast of England, an area with
most positive response has come
experience with undersea electricity $500 million annually – to energy an historic fishing industry similar from Ørsted, which has collaborated
transmission systems will ensure the efficiency programs for its nearly to Massachusetts. Ørsted has
maximum amount of clean energy 4 million customers. Its energy been dedicated to constructive with us on a study of the ecological
is delivered to shore. Eversource’s
sophisticated understanding of New
efficiency programs have been
consistently ranked number one in
engagement with the Holderness
Fishing Industry Group (HIFG) in the
effects of the construction and
England’s electrical grid will enable the country. local area. operation of the Westermost Rough
Bay State Wind’s clean energy
to be delivered to Massachusetts We are skilled at undertaking wind farm. The wind farm study is the
consumers efficiently and
effectively.
complex infrastructure projects
in sensitive locations and are the
first of its kind to be conducted
only developer with a marine anywhere in the world and is proving
biologist on staff who has a focus
on protection of the North Atlantic
to be of significant value in
Whale. assuaging fishermen’s concerns
about offshore wind development.
Mike Cohen, CEO of HFIG and Chairman of the

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organization
6 7
Bay State Wind Bay State Wind 7
Delivering one of the World's
most advanced offshore
wind farms
Bay State Wind has acquired a lease for a site located 25 miles offshore of
Massachusetts – a significant distance away from the south coast and
residential communities.
The proposal is to build a state-of-the-art, 400 MW installation using the very latest in offshore energy technology.
If built today, Bay State Wind would be the largest offshore wind farm in the US – a scale that the project team
behind Bay State Wind has the expertise and proven track record to deliver.
The benefits of this project will be significant to Massachusetts:
• Only this scale of development can genuinely deliver on the policy goal of Massachusetts to become the hub
of the offshore wind industry in North America
• A project of this scale delivers maximum impact for the supply chain, jobs and state and local tax revenues
• Helps to achieve genuine diversification of energy supply, helping to avoid price hikes for customers
The World’s largest offshore wind Transmission Staging area

farm battery storage capability Bay State Wind will leverage its New Bedford will serve as the oper-
Bay State Wind is planning to world-leading technical expertise ations and maintenance center for
support the project by developing in building offshore and onshore Bay State Wind. This development
the biggest battery storage system electricity transmission. will deliver a significant economic
ever deployed in conjunction with a boost and create new jobs in
wind farm, helping to ensure power the area.
is available during peak hours when
it is needed most.
8 9
Bay State Wind 9
Other community benefits
Bay State Wind is committed to spreading the benefit Collaborative research and initiatives
of its proposed ambitious partnership with the Conditional upon award, Bay State Wind will implement
Commonwealth of Massachusetts throughout the a portfolio of collaborative research and programmatic
communities it will serve. initiatives for the protection of New England's fisheries
and whale populations, including:
Skills and training
We have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding • Woods Hole Oceanography Institute
with the Massachusetts Maritime Academy to $500,000, multi-year grant for the development of
financially support scholarships, which offers students advanced whale detection systems
from under-represented communities the opportunity
of careers in the maritime industries. • New England Aquarium Right Whale Project
$500,000 grant, in collaboration with Massachusetts
We have also entered into a Memorandum of Lobstermen's Association and others, to improve the
Understanding with Bristol Community College right whale population status through prevention of
(conditioned upon award) to provide 1 million dollars gear entanglement
for the Bay State Wind Faculty Endowment that will
Project benefits
provide funding for five years for a professor that will • Whale Alert Project
focus on offshore wind training and curriculum. $25,000 annual grant for the refinement of the
Whale Alert System to prevent lethal ship strikes
Help with energy bills for low-income households
Increasing and diversifying energy supply Bay State Wind will leverage the expertise and financial Bay State Wind has struck landmark agreements with • Mitigation and Monitoring Advisory Panel
The 400 MW offshore wind farm proposed by strength of its partners, as well as the benefits of four of Massachusetts' leading Community Action Bay State Wind will develop a panel that
Bay State Wind will dramatically advance the economies of scale, to deliver its many benefits to Agencies to help low-income families with their energy includes right whale specialists, acousticians and
commonwealth’s utilization of carbon-free energy consumers at a materially lower price than any offshore bills. Bay State Wind will contribute up to $8.75 million environmental representation to provide input for a
resources. And by diversifying the commonwealth’s wind resource contracted in the US to date. over the life of the project to help to alleviate the mitigation and monitoring plan
energy supply, Bay State Wind will help dampen energy burden on low income households and make
volatile electricity prices that often-hit communities Clean energy benefits low-income homes more energy efficient. • Center for Coastal Studies
and businesses during the hard winter periods. Bay State Wind will realize the commonwealth’s clean $5,000 annual grant (up to 5 years) for the Marine
energy goals established by the landmark Act to Debris Program to promote marine waste reduction
Consumer benefits Promote Energy Diversity passed by the commonwealth and recycling initiatives
Electricity customers in Massachusetts benefit in two of Massachusetts in 2016, building the foundations for a
key ways: new industry that will grow and is expected to deliver • National Ocean Science Bowl/Blue Lobster Bowl
a significant portion of energy for the US in the future, $5,000 annual grant (up to 5 years) to support
• Savings on annual electricity bills replacing carbon based generation. We want Bay State the highly-regarded high school Ocean Science
• The most cost-effective offshore wind proposal Wind and Massachusetts to be the catalyst for change. Education Program and encourage students to
enter into the renewable energy field
Analysis conducted by Levitan and Associates for Bay Enhance electricity reliability
State Wind estimated that Massachusetts consumers By capturing New England’s powerful offshore wind
could save up to $150 million per year on their winter resource through the most advanced generation,
electricity bills through the Bay State Wind project. transmission and storage technologies, Bay State Wind
will deliver a steady stream of carbon-free power to
Massachusetts, significantly improving the reliability of
the commonwealth’s energy supply during peak
winter periods.
10 11
Bay State Wind Bay State Wind 11
Launching a new American industry
right here in Massachusetts
Through our detailed and ambitious ports and supply chain strategy, Bay State
Wind will deliver high skilled, high paying jobs to Massachusetts. With strong
vendor relationships stretching back over 20 years, we are perfectly placed to
deliver new jobs through suppliers across Massachusetts.
New Bedford
New Bedford is one of our preferred staging areas
for construction, as well as the operations and
maintenance base throughout the lifetime of the
wind farm.
Somerset
Bay State Wind’s offshore wind power will make
landfall at Somerset. Where the electricity transmission
cable comes onshore, Bay State Wind will build a new
electrical substation as well as an advanced technology
energy storage system. Local construction jobs will be
spurred during development as well as local property
tax revenues that will continue throughout the
project's life.
Additionally, Bay State Wind is exploring with a major

supplier the potential for Brayton Point to become
the home of a new multi-million-dollar manufacturing
facility for the fabrication of steel towers.
Supporting the Massachusetts economy

We will look to work with several advanced
manufacturing firms with significant operations within
Massachusetts.
Work will include:
• Manufacturing of the offshore substation

components
• Construction and deployment of the flagship
battery storage system
• Manufacturing of secondary steel parts associated
with the transition piece
Bay State Wind will
• Fabrication of steel towers deliver high skilled, high
paying jobs.
12 13
Bay State Wind 13
14 Dollaut venderciur Dollaut venderciur 15
1) Boston and Boston Harbor

• Location of Ørsted (North America) and Eversource
headquarters
• The Bay State Wind project and procurement will
be managed from here
Massachusetts Boston
1
• Preferred site for the outfitting and painting of
transition pieces
2) Brayton Point
Northampton • Landfall of the export cable
• Onshore project substation
• Grid connection
• Deployment of the battery storage facility
• Potential site for manufacture of steel towers
3) Massachusetts Maritime Academy

• Global Wind Organization (GWO) certified training
Plymouth • Transition pieces mock-up donated by Bay
State Wind
Fall River 4) New Bedford

• Potential site for wind turbine or foundation
5 pre-assembly and load-out point
2 3 • Operations and maintenance base
Massachusetts
Maritime Academy • Fuelling point for project, maintenance and
Brayton transportation vessels
Point
4 • Bay State Wind pproject office where health, safety
and environmental teams will be based
New
Bedford 5) Fall River
• Potential site for the outfitting and painting of
transition pieces
Martha’s
• Potential site for various staging needed
Vineyard
during construction
Nantucket
Key
Supply Chain Opportunities Cable Corridor / Route
Onshore Substation O&M Base
15 15
Bay State Wind
baystatewind.com
@BayStateWind

View our short film at baystatewind.com
All graphics in this document are for illustrative purposes.

Dates are based on available information and are subject to change.
Cover image: New Bedford Harbor, MA
16
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS FOR A
400 MW OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PROJECT
WITH AN
EXPANDABLE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
Prepared for
Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company d/b/a Unitil

Massachusetts Electric Company d/b/a National Grid
Nantucket Electric Company d/b/a National Grid
NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy
Western Massachusetts Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy
(collectively, the “EDCs”)
and
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
December 20, 2017
Submitted by
Portions of this Proposal contain confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive information, and
which accordingly have been redacted from the “Public Version” of this Proposal. Bay State Wind LLC
has submitted a Confidential/Privileged Version of this Proposal which includes the redacted information,
and which should be treated as a non-public record that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
applicable laws or as expressly set forth in the Request for Proposals.
Contents Proposal of Bay State Wind LLC for Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects
Contents
1. CERTIFICATION, PROJECT AND PRICING DATA (CPPD FORM) .................. 1-1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL .................................................. 2-1
2.1 Bay State Wind – Bringing Home the Promise of Offshore Wind ....................... 2-2
2.2 Why Bay State Wind? ...................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Technical Acumen ............................................................................................. 2-7
2.2.2 Financial Capacity and Independence............................................................ 2-8
2.2.3 Strength of Supply Chain Relationships ........................................................ 2-9
2.2.4 Demonstrated Commitment to the Economic Future of the Region .. 2-9
2.2.5 Knowledge of New England’s Electric System .......................................... 2-10
2.2.6 Environmental Stewardship ........................................................................... 2-10
2.3 Project Summary............................................................................................................. 2-10
2.3.1 Generation ........................................................................................................ 2-11
2.3.2 Transmission ..................................................................................................... 2-11
2.3.3 Storage ............................................................................................................... 2-12
2.3.4 Construction and O&M Ports ...................................................................... 2-12
2.4 Consistency of the Bid with Statutory Review Criteria – The Bay State
Wind Advantage.............................................................................................................. 2-12
2.4.1 Enhanced Electricity Reliability ..................................................................... 2-13
2.4.2 Contribution to Reducing Winter Electricity Price Spikes .................... 2-14
2.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness to Electric Ratepayers ................................................. 2-14
2.4.4 Avoid Line Loss and Mitigate Transmission Costs .................................. 2-14
2.4.5 Project Viability; Reasonableness of Timeframe....................................... 2-15
2.4.6 Promote Energy Storage Systems................................................................ 2-16
2.4.7 Mitigate any Environmental Impacts............................................................ 2-16
2.4.8 Create and Foster Employment and Economic Development in the
Commonwealth................................................................................................ 2-17
2.4.9 Benefits to Low Income Ratepayers ........................................................... 2-20
2.5 Scale Matters.................................................................................................................... 2-20
2.6 Alternative Bids ............................................................................................................... 2-24
2.7 Project Entities and Affiliates ....................................................................................... 2-25
3. OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS....................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Maintenance Outage Requirements ............................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Foundations and Structures ............................................................................ 3-2
3.1.2 WTGs ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Offshore Transmission Assets (OSS, Offshore Export Cable and
Array Cables) ...................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.4 OnSS ..................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2 Operating Constraints..................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Technical Parameters........................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.2 Operating Constraints...................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.3 Offshore Accessibility, in Case of Assets Failure ....................................... 3-5
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System i

3.2.4 Other Restrictions ............................................................................................ 3-5

3.3 Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.3.1 Avoiding Transmission Constraints............................................................... 3-7
3.3.2 Enhancing Electricity Reliability ...................................................................... 3-7
3.3.3 Contribution to Reducing Winter Electricity Price Spikes ...................... 3-7
3.3.4 Project Benefits to the Forward Capacity Market (FCM) ....................... 3-9
3.3.5 Project Benefits to the Ancillary Service Market ....................................... 3-9
3.3.6 Project’s Operating Flexibility Benefits for ISO-NE .................................. 3-9
3.3.7 Net Economic Benefits ................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.8 Reliability Benefits from Project’s Paired Battery Storage System ...... 3-11
3.4 Moderation of System Peak Load ............................................................................... 3-12
4. ENERGY RESOURCE AND DELIVERY PLAN ................................................... 4-1
4.1 Energy Resource Plan ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Wind Data ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Projection of Net Annual Energy Production ........................................... 4-13
4.1.3 Power Curve..................................................................................................... 4-14
4.1.4 Physical, Environmental and Operational Efficiencies and
Availabilities ....................................................................................................... 4-16
4.2 Offshore Wind Energy Generation Delivery Plan .................................................. 4-18
4.3 REC/Environmental Attribute Delivery Plan ............................................................ 4-19
5. FINANCIAL/LEGAL ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 RFP Provides for Predictable, Long-Term Revenue Stream................................... 5-1
5.2 Business Entity Structure ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3 Description of Financing Plan......................................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Bidder Experience in Securing Financing..................................................................... 5-5
5.5 Financial Resources and Strength ............................................................................... 5-10
5.6 Audited Financial Statements ....................................................................................... 5-11
5.7 Board of Directors, Officers, and Trustees List...................................................... 5-12
5.8 Bid Security ...................................................................................................................... 5-12
5.9 Credit Issues/Credit Rating Downgrade Events...................................................... 5-12
5.10 Federal Production Tax Credit or Investment Tax Credit Role ........................ 5-13
5.11 Pending Litigation ............................................................................................................ 5-13
5.12 Expected Operating Life ............................................................................................... 5-14
5.13 Financing Commitment ................................................................................................. 5-15
5.14 Agreements with Respect to Energy ......................................................................... 5-15
5.15 Affiliated Entities and Joint Ventures.......................................................................... 5-16
5.16 Statement regarding Bankruptcy/Reorganization Proceedings ............................ 5-16
5.17 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................... 5-17
5.18 Litigation, Disputes, Claims or Complaints against any Distribution
Company........................................................................................................................... 5-18
5.19 Litigation, Disputes, Claims or Complaints, or Events of Default ...................... 5-18
5.20 Statement Regarding any Governmental Investigation .......................................... 5-19
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System ii

5.21 Regulatory and other Approvals needed to Execute a Binding Sale

Agreement ........................................................................................................................ 5-19
5.22 Conformance to FERC’s Applicable Regulatory Requirements .......................... 5-19
5.23 Direct and Indirect Affiliations and Affiliate Relationships.................................... 5-23
6. SITING, INTERCONNECTION, AND DELIVERABILITY .................................... 6-1
6.1 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Property Rights ................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.2.1 Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy
Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500)............... 6-5
6.2.2 State Licenses and Easements ......................................................................... 6-6
6.2.3 Onshore Easements .......................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.4 Timeline for Acquisition of all Licensees and Easements ......................... 6-8
6.2.5 Joint Use of Existing or Proposed Real Property Rights .......................... 6-8
6.3 Proper Zoning or Permitting ......................................................................................... 6-9
6.4 Description of the Area Surrounding the Eligible Facility Site ............................. 6-11
6.5 Interconnection Path Site Control ............................................................................. 6-12
6.6 Interconnection Request to ISO-NE.......................................................................... 6-12
6.7 Electrical System Performance Studies ...................................................................... 6-13
6.8 Multiple Interconnection Requests............................................................................. 6-14
6.9 Technical Reports or System Impact Studies........................................................... 6-15
6.10 Studies Using the ISO-NE Proposed Interconnection Process Changes .......... 6-16
6.11 Electrical Models ............................................................................................................. 6-17
6.12 Electrical One-Line Diagram ........................................................................................ 6-17
6.13 Current or New Interconnection Facilities Owned by Bidder ........................... 6-17
6.14 Incremental Data Requirements ................................................................................. 6-20
6.15 Energy Delivery ............................................................................................................... 6-21
6.16 Sufficiency of Proposed Point of Delivery into ISO-NE ........................................ 6-21
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PERMIT ACQUISITION PLAN AND NEW
CLASS I RPS CERTIFICATION ..................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Permits, Licenses, Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental
Impact Statements Required .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Anticipated Timeline for Seeking and Receiving Required Permits ...................... 7-1
7.3 Prior Experience in Environmental Impact Assessment Process .......................... 7-4
7.4 Preliminary Environmental Characterization of the Site and Project ................ 7-11
7.5 Documented Level of Public Project Support ......................................................... 7-23
7.5.1 Public Project Support .................................................................................... 7-23
7.5.2 Community Agreements ................................................................................ 7-26
7.5.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan .............................. 7-27
7.5.4 Conclusion on Project Support.................................................................... 7-36
7.6 New Class I Renewable Portfolio Standard Eligible Resource
Documentation ............................................................................................................... 7-37
7.7 Appropriate Tracking System Information and Documentation ......................... 7-37
7.8 Existing, Preliminary, or Pending Claims of Litigation ............................................ 7-37
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System iii

8. ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY; COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO

EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Preliminary Engineering Plan .......................................................................................... 8-3
8.1.1 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 8-4
8.1.2 WTGs ................................................................................................................... 8-5
8.1.3 Electrical System ................................................................................................ 8-9
8.1.4 Array Cables ....................................................................................................... 8-9
8.1.5 Interlinks ............................................................................................................ 8-11
8.1.6 OSS...................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.1.7 OnSS ................................................................................................................... 8-12
8.1.8 Battery Storage................................................................................................. 8-14
8.2 Equipment Suppliers Under Consideration .............................................................. 8-14
8.2.1 Ongoing Dialogue Regarding Supply of Key Project Components...... 8-16
8.3 Same or Similar Equipment in Operation ................................................................. 8-18
8.4 Evidence of Readiness for Transfer to the Design and Construction Phases .. 8-19
8.5 Full and Complete List of Equipment Needed......................................................... 8-20
8.6 Equipment Procurement ............................................................................................... 8-20
9. PROJECT SCHEDULE .................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Schedule and Critical Path .............................................................................................. 9-2
9.1.1 Overview of the Critical Path ......................................................................... 9-2
9.1.2 Critical Path......................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3 Planning and Management Tools to Predict and Track the
Construction Campaign ................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.4 Schedule Contingencies and Float Time ...................................................... 9-4
9.2 Maritime Vessels and Laydown Facilities..................................................................... 9-4
9.2.1 Maritime Vessels ................................................................................................ 9-4
9.3 Status of all Critical Path Items...................................................................................... 9-7
10. CONSTRUCTION AND LOGISTICS .............................................................. 10-1
10.1 Major Tasks Associated with Deployment of Proposed Project ........................ 10-2
10.2 Documentation of Site Control for Marine Terminals and Other
Waterfront Facilities ...................................................................................................... 10-7
10.3 Proposed Approach for Staging and Deployment of Major Project
Components .................................................................................................................... 10-9
10.3.1 Foundations ....................................................................................................... 10-9
10.3.2 WTG................................................................................................................. 10-12
10.3.3 Electrical – Array Cable ............................................................................... 10-18
10.3.4 Electrical – Export Cable ............................................................................. 10-19
10.3.5 OSS.................................................................................................................... 10-19
10.3.6 OnSS ................................................................................................................. 10-21
10.3.7 Battery Storage............................................................................................... 10-22
10.4 Party Responsible for Each Deployment Activity ................................................. 10-22
11. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................................................. 11-1
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System iv

11.1 O&M Plan for the Project ............................................................................................. 11-2

11.1.1 Operating and Maintaining an Offshore Wind Farm ............................... 11-2
11.1.2 Location of the O&M Base ............................................................................ 11-3
11.1.3 Local Content and Job Creation .................................................................. 11-3
11.1.4 Role of Project Sponsor ................................................................................. 11-4
11.1.5 Scheduling of Maintenance and Equipment Testing ................................. 11-4
11.2 Site Control Documentation ....................................................................................... 11-5
11.3 Proposed O&M Funding Mechanism .......................................................................... 11-5
11.4 Major Equipment Terms of Warranties/Guarantees ............................................. 11-5
11.4.1 WTGs ................................................................................................................. 11-5
11.4.2 Transmission and Other Assets (OSS, OnSS, SCADA, HV
components and cables) ................................................................................. 11-6
11.4.3 Battery Storage System .................................................................................. 11-6
11.5 O&M Agreement Contract Status.............................................................................. 11-6
11.6 O&M Services Experience ............................................................................................ 11-7
12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/EXPERIENCE ...................................................... 12-1
12.1 Project Organizational Chart ....................................................................................... 12-2
12.2 Bidder and Project Participant Experience ............................................................... 12-2
12.2.1 Bay State Wind LLC........................................................................................ 12-2
12.2.2 Ørsted ................................................................................................................ 12-2
12.2.3 Eversource......................................................................................................... 12-6
12.3 Key Staff Experience ...................................................................................................... 12-7
12.3.1 Key Personnel Directly Involved in the Management of the Project .. 12-8
12.4 Relevant Current Projects.......................................................................................... 12-13
12.4.1 Ørsted .............................................................................................................. 12-13
12.4.2 Eversource....................................................................................................... 12-14
12.5 Project Team ................................................................................................................. 12-18
12.5.1 Construction Period Lender ....................................................................... 12-18
12.5.2 Operating Period Lender and/or Tax Equity Provider ......................... 12-18
12.5.3 Financial Advisor ............................................................................................ 12-18
12.5.4 Environmental Consultant ........................................................................... 12-18
12.5.5 Facility Operator and Manager ................................................................... 12-19
12.5.6 Owner’s Engineer .......................................................................................... 12-19
12.5.7 Transmission Consultant ............................................................................. 12-19
12.5.8 Legal Counsel.................................................................................................. 12-19
12.6 Bidder’s ISO-NE Market Experience ....................................................................... 12-19
13. EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 13-1
13.1 Emissions Estimates ........................................................................................................ 13-1
13.2 Improvements to the Emissions Profile..................................................................... 13-2
13.3 Contribution to Massachusetts 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act and
the 2010 Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020................................................. 13-2
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System v

14. CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

OTHER DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS ................................................. 14-1
14.1 Direct Job Creation ....................................................................................................... 14-3
14.1.1 Development .................................................................................................... 14-3
14.1.2 Construction ..................................................................................................... 14-3
14.1.3 Operations ........................................................................................................ 14-4
14.2 Indirect Job Creation ..................................................................................................... 14-4
14.3 Economic Development Impacts ................................................................................ 14-5
14.4 Tracking or Reporting Mechanisms Contributing to Employment and
Economic Development ................................................................................................ 14-8
14.5 Benefits or Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project ................................. 14-9
14.6 Benefits to Low-Income Ratepayers in the Commonwealth and Impacts
on the Cost to the Project ......................................................................................... 14-10
15. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS
(AND ALL SYSTEM UPGRADES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS)........................................................................ 15-1
15.0 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................... 15-1
15.0.1 RFP Requirements for Expandable Transmission System (ETS)........... 15-1
15.0.2 Bay State Wind Approach ............................................................................. 15-2
15.0.3 Alternatives Developed and Evaluated ....................................................... 15-3
15.0.4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ....................................................... 15-15
15.0.5 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 15-15
15.0.6 Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................. 15-20
15.1 Transmission Project Information (Expandable Transmission Line) ................ 15-22
15.2 Proposed Payment Required for the Project and all System Upgrades
(Expandable Transmission Line) ................................................................................ 15-34
15.3 Schedule of Payments (Expandable Transmission Line) ...................................... 15-38
15.4 Design Life of the Project (Expandable Transmission Line) ............................... 15-38
15.5 Description of the Reliability Benefits of the Proposed Project and Impacts
on Existing Transmission Constraints (Expandable Transmission Line).......... 15-39
16. EXCEPTIONS TO FORM PPAS ................................................................... 16-1
17. RESPONSE TO TRANSMISSION TARIFF/CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS ......... 17-1
ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................... 17-1
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System vi

Tables
259BTable 2.1 Key Project Parameters ....................................................................................................... 2-2
260BTable 2.2 Summary of Proposed Generation and Proposed Assets in the Preferred
Option1 ................................................................................................................................. 2-11
261BTable 3.1 Indicative Planned Outage Overview per Main Asset .................................................. 3-1
26BTable 3.2 Benefits to the ISO-NE System of the Bay State Wind Project ................................. 3-7
263BTable 4.1 Measurement Heights Relative to MSL (m) .................................................................... 4-2
264BTable 4.2 Vortex Mesoscale Data Summary. .................................................................................... 4-4
........................................................ 4-9
26BTable 4.4 Long-term Correction Factors ....................................................................................... 4-10
................................................... 4-11
268BTable 4.6 Net Annual Energy Production (P50 and P90)............................................................ 4-14
............................................................................................. 4-15
270BTable 5.1 Projects Financed and Developed by Ørsted ................................................................. 5-7
271BTable 5.2 Projects Financed and Developed by Eversource ......................................................... 5-9
27BTable 5.3. Eversource Selected Consolidated Financial Data – Balance Sheet and Income
Statement ............................................................................................................................. 5-10
273BTable 5.4. Eversource Selected Consolidated Cash Flow Data – Funds from Operations
and Debt Issuances ............................................................................................................ 5-10
274BTable 5.5. Ørsted Selected Consolidated Financial Data – Balance Sheet and Income
Statement ............................................................................................................................. 5-10
275BTable 5.6. Ørsted Selected Consolidated Cash Flow Data – Funds from Operations and
Debt Issuances .................................................................................................................... 5-11
276BTable 5.7 Ørsted and Eversource Credit Ratings......................................................................... 5-12
27BTable 5.8 Depreciation Period by Asset Type............................................................................... 5-15
278BTable 7.1 Timeline of Completed Project Activities and Milestones .......................................... 7-2
279BTable 7.2 Projected Timeline for Receipt of Project Permits, Licenses, and
Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Statements ..................7-2
280BTable 7.3 Ørsted Experience in Permitting Offshore Windfarms ............................................... 7-5
281BTable 7.4 Eversource EIA Experience – Project Highlights ........................................................... 7-8
...................... 7-12
283BTable 7.6 Project Support Letters .................................................................................................... 7-26
284BTable 8.1 Summary of Proposed Generation and GLL Proposed Assets in the Preferred
Option ...................................................................................................................................... 8-3
285BTable 8.2 Key Foundation Details........................................................................................................ 8-4
..............8-6
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System vii

.............................................................................................................. 8-8
................................................. 8-8
............................................. 8-8
290BTable 8.7 Electrical System Specifications/400 MW Case.............................................................. 8-9
.................................................................................... 8-9
........................................................................................................... 8-10
................................................................................ 8-13
294BTable 8.11 Same or Similar Equipment in Operation (based on Preferred Option) ................... 8-19
295BTable 9.1 Ongoing and Completed Work under the Geoscience and Permitting Work
Streams .................................................................................................................................... 9-5
................................................................................ 9-7
297BTable 10.1 Example of Preferred Vessel Types ............................................................................... 10-3
.................................................................. 10-8
29BTable 10.3 Deployment Activity Responsible Parties .................................................................. 10-23
30BTable 11.1 Ørsted’s Operated Sites as of 2017 .............................................................................. 11-8
....................................................................................................... 12-8
............................................................................................. 12-11
30BTable 12.3 Ørsted Project Experience ............................................................................................ 12-15
304BTable 12.4 Eversource Project Experience ..................................................................................... 12-17
305BTable 13.1 Project Anticipated Emissions ......................................................................................... 13-1
306BTable 14.1 Jobs Created by Indirect Employment Effects ............................................................. 14-5
307BTable 14.2 Average Labor Income of Indirect Employment Effects ........................................... 14-5
308BTable 14.3 State and Local Tax Revenue Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects ........................... 14-7
309BTable 14.4 Gross State Product Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects ........................................... 14-8
................................................................ 15-17
31BTable 15.2 OSS Specifications ............................................................................................................ 15-23
312BTable 15.3 OSS Components............................................................................................................. 15-28
Table 15.4 Onshore Components .................................................................................................... 15-29
............................................... 15-30
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System viii

Figures
Figure 2.1 Global Offshore Wind Capacity ........................................................................................ 2-5
Figure 2.2 First Mover Advantage on WTG Technology................................................................ 2-6
............................................................................................................... 2-18
........................................................................................................ 2-21
................................ 3-3
................................................................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3.3 Up- and Downwards Regulation of Production.......................................................... 3-10
......................... 3-14
.................... 3-14
Figure 4.1 Air-Sea Interaction Tower. ................................................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4.2 The WindCube LiDAR at the Air-Sea Interaction Tower .......................................... 4-3
Figure 4.3 ASIT Lidar and Mesoscale Data Coverage ...................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4.4 Elevation Map of the Lease Area with the Wind Data Sources................................. 4-5
........................................................................................................................................ 4-6
................................. 4-7
..................................................................................................................................... 4-7
.........4-8
...................................................................................................................................... 4-8
......................................................................................... 4-9
.................................................................................... 4-10
...................................................................................... 4-11
.................................................................... 4-12
................................................................................ 4-16
................................................................................................. 5-2
............................................................................. 6-3
........................................................ 6-4
..................6-7
Figure 6.4 Local Zoning Map for the Town of Somerset ............................................................. 6-10
Figure 6.5 FEMA Flood Mapping, Brayton Point, Somerset, Massachusetts ............................ 6-12
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System ix

........................................................................... 6-18
Figure 7.1 Projects where EIA or Major Permitting Work was carried out by Ørsted..........7-4
Figure 7.2 Bay State Wind in the News ........................................................................................... 7-24
Figure 8.1 Project and Transmission Authority Scope .................................................................... 8-4
Figure 8.2 MP and TP with Scour Protection Stone Bed ................................................................ 8-5
................................................................................... 8-5
..................................................................................... 8-6
................................................................................................................................... 8-7
............................................................ 8-10
............................................................................................................. 8-11
Figure 8.8 380 MW OSS (Gode Wind 01, Germany)................................................................... 8-12
................................................................................................. 9-2
.............................................................................. 10-1
Figure 10.2 Transportation and Installation of a MP (Westernmost Rough, 2014) ............... 10-11
Figure 10.3 Installation of a TP (Westernmost Rough, 2014) ..................................................... 10-11
................................................................... 10-12
Figure 10.5 Upending of Tower Section in Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015)..................... 10-13
Figure 10.6 Towers Assembled and Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015) ........ 10-13
Figure 10.7 Towers Assembled and Ready for Loadout (Gode Wind 2015).......................... 10-14
Figure 10.8 Nacelles Pre-assembled and Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015) 10-15
Figure 10.9 Blades Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015) ........................................ 10-15
Figure 10.10 Loading towers onto installation vessel (Gode Wind 2015) ................................. 10-16
Figure 10.11 WTG Installation Vessel at Work - Installation of a WTG Blade (Borkum
Riffgrund Wind Farm 1 2014) ....................................................................................... 10-17
Figure 10.12 DP2 Vessel and CTV (Gode Wind 01+02 2015) ..................................................... 10-18
Figure 10.13 Typical Jacket Transported Horizontally .................................................................... 10-20
........................................................................................................................... 11-2
................................................................................................................... 11-3
....................................................................................... 11-7
........................................................................... 12-3
Figure 12.2 Total Constructed Capacity by Ørsted (MW) ........................................................... 12-4
Figure 12.3 Ørsted Organization with Number of FTE Employees in Each Unit (as per
Dec. 2016)............................................................................................................................ 12-7
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System x

.......................................................................................................... 15-4
.................................................................................................................. 15-9
............................................................................................ 15-13
15-21
........................................................................................................ 15-22
Figure 15.6 OSS Foundation ................................................................................................................ 15-24
Figure 15.7 OSS Topside with Deck Configuration....................................................................... 15-24
Figure 15.8 Typical Ørsted-designed Topside with a 4-leg Jacket (Westermost Rough
Windfarm, United Kingdom) ......................................................................................... 15-25
...................................................................................................................... 15-26
Figure 15.10 Typical Trench/Conduit Configuration – Illustrative ............................................... 15-27
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xi

Attachments
Attachment 1-1
Attachment 2-1
Attachment 2-2
Attachment 2-3
Attachment 3-1
Attachment 3-2
Attachment 4-1
Attachment 4-2 Site Assessment Plan (SAP)
Attachment 4-3 SAP Approval Letter from BOEM
Attachment 4-4
Attachment 4-5
Attachment 4-6
Attachment 4-7
Attachment 5-1
Attachment 5-2 DONG Energy Annual Report 2014
Attachment 5-5 Eversource 2014 Financial Report
Attachment 5-8
Attachment 5-9
Attachment 5-10
Attachment 6-1
Attachment 6-2 Executed Lease-OCS-A 0500

Attachment 6-3 Town of Somerset Zoning By-Laws
Attachment 6-4
Attachment 6-5
Attachment 6-6
Attachment 6-7
Attachment 7-1
Attachment 7-2
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xii

Attachment 7-3
Attachment 7-4
Attachment 7-5
Attachment 7-6 Project Support Letters
Attachment 7-7
Attachment 7-8
Attachment 7-9
Attachment 7-10 Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institution Letter of Support
Attachment 8-1
Attachment 8-2
Attachment 8-3
Attachment 8-4
Attachment 9-1
Attachment 9-2
Attachment 10-1
Attachment 10-2
Attachment 10-3
Attachment 12-1
Attachment 14-1
Attachment 14-2
Attachment 15-1
Attachment 15-2
Attachment 16-1
Attachment 17-1
Attachment 17-2
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xiii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABCD Action for Boston Community Development
AC alternating current
Action Action Inc.
AEP Annual Energy Production
AFUDC allowance for funds used during construction
aMSL above mean sea level
ASIT Air-Sea Interaction Tower
AWEA American Wind Energy Association
Bay State Wind Bay State Wind LLC
BCC Bristol Community College
Bid this response to the RFP
Bidder Bay State Wind LLC
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Management
BUAR Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEII Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COP Construction and Operations Plan
CT DEEP CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
CT Connecticut
CSC CT Siting Council
CTV Crew Transfer Vessel
DOB Depth of Burial
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOER Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
DP2 dynamic positioning
DPU Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
EDC The Electric Distribution Companies listed on the cover page to this
proposal
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xiv

EPC Engineering, Procurement, Construction

ESA Endangered Species Act
ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance
ESI Eversource Investment, LLC, an Owner of Bidder
ETS Expandable Transmission System
Eversource Eversource Energy, the corporate parent of ESI
FCM Forward Capacity Market
FCP Fisheries’ Communication Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FIR Fishing Industry Representative
FLiDAR floating light detection and ranging
FLO Fisheries Liaison Officer
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GHG greenhouse gas emissions
GIS generation information system
GLL Generator Lead Line
GW gigawatt
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWO Global Wind Organization
GWSA Global Warming Solutions Act
HSE Health, Safety, and Environment
HV high voltage
Hz hertz
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO-NE ISO New England
ITC Investment Tax Credit
km kilometer
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatt
LAI Levitan and Associates, Inc.
LEAN Low Income Energy Affordability Network
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xv

LGIA Large Generator Interconnection Agreement

LGIP Large Generator Interconnection Procedures
LiDAR light detection and ranging
LIHEAP Low Income Heating Assistance Program
LMP locational marginal price
m meter
M.G.L. Massachusetts General Laws
m/s meter per second
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Mass CEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
MCA Maritime and Coast Guard Agency (United Kingdom)
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission
MMA Massachusetts Maritime Academy
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MP MP
MRP Massachusetts Research Partnership
MVA megavolt-amps
MVAr megavolt-amps (reactive)
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCLC National Consumer Law Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NEPOOL New England Power Pool
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NHESP Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPCC Northwest Power Coordinating Council
NPT Northern Pass Transmission
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xvi

NSRA Navigational Safety Risk Assessment

O&M operations and maintenance
OATT Open Access Transmission Tariff
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
ODFA Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreement
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OnSS onshore substation
Ørsted Ørsted A/S, the corporate parent of Ørsted NA
Ørsted NA Ørsted North America Inc., an Owner of Bidder
OSS offshore substation
Owners Ørsted NA and ESI, the 50/50 owners of Bidder
PACE People Acting in Community Endeavors
PNOI preliminary non-binding overlap impact
POI Point of Interconnection
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PTF Pool Transmission Facilities
REC Renewable Energy Certificate

RFP Request for Proposal
RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
RI HPHC Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission
ROE return on equity

SAP Site Assessment Plan
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
SEC Site Evaluation Committee
SEMA/RI Southern Massachusetts and Rhode Island
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SOV Service Operating Vessel
SSCAC South Shore Community Action Council
STATCOM Static Synchronous Compensator
SWA Service and Warranty Agreement
TBA time-based availability
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xvii

TP transition piece
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WAP Weatherization Assistance Program
WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
WTG wind turbine generator
XLPE cross-linked polyethylene
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xviii

Confidentiality Statement
Portions of this Proposal contain confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive
information, and which accordingly have been redacted from the “Public Version” of this
Proposal. Bay State Wind LLC has submitted a Confidential/Privileged Version of this
Proposal which includes the redacted information, and which should be treated as a non-
public record that is exempt from disclosure to the maximum extent permissible under
applicable laws and as expressly set forth in the Request for Proposals.
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xix

Section 1 Certification, Project and Pricing Data (CPPD form)
1. CERTIFICATION, PROJECT AND PRICING DATA (CPPD FORM)

The Certification, Project and Pricing Data (“CPPD”) document is a Microsoft Excel workbook that is
provided on the website at www.MACleanEnergy.com.
Please see Attachment 1-1 for CPPD form.
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System 1-1

Section 2 Executive Summary of the Proposal
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

The bidder is required to provide an executive summary of the project proposal that includes a
complete description of the proposed generation and/or transmission bid, the proposed contract term
and pricing schedule, and other factors the bidder deems to be important. Expandable Transmission
proposals must provide the information requested below for each phase of the expansion and identify
all incremental equipment and incremental costs associated with the expandable nature of the plan.
Bay State Wind LLC (Bay State Wind, the Bidder), a 50/50 joint venture between Ørsted
North America Inc. (Ørsted NA) and Eversource Investment, LLC (ESI) (collectively “Owners”)1,
is proud to propose the Bay State Wind Project (the Project), a first-of-its kind U.S. utility-scale
offshore wind farm located approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers [km]) off the south coast
of Massachusetts. The Project will provide 400 megawatts (MW) of clean, reliable offshore
wind energy to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the lowest possible cost, maximizing
long-term economic and environmental benefits.
This Bid consists of state-of-the-art wind turbine generators (WTG), associated inter-array
cabling, an onshore substation (OnSS) and offshore substation (OSS), export cable, a battery
energy storage system, and onshore works for grid connection to the ISO New England (ISO-
NE) electric grid. The individual wind turbine size, total number of WTGs, and other aspects of
the Project, may change in order to reflect the latest developments in technology and to
optimize Project cost and performance prior to final permitting and construction.
The Project includes optionality for either a generator lead line (GLL) or expandable
transmission system (ETS), as required in Section 2.2.1.3 of the RFP, the latter of which
could provide up to 1,600 MW of
transmission capacity. This Bid presents the ETS solution.
The Project can offer this clean power to the Commonwealth at
for power and RECs.
For the ETS included in this Bid, the Bidder proposes a FERC
tariff.
Key Project parameters are detailed in Table 2.1.
1 Ørsted NA is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ørsted (Ørsted). ESI is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Eversource Energy (Eversource).

Table 2.1
259B Key Project Parameters
Project Size 400 MW
Location (Site Control) Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) Lease OCS-A 0500
Generator Lead 1 X 400 MW OSS with kilovolt (kV) subsea cable
Storage System 30 MW/60 megawatt-hour (MWh) (2 hour discharge)
Products Offered Energy and Renewable Energy Credits
Point of Interconnection (POI) Brayton Point, Massachusetts
Price (power and RECs)
Term 20 years;
Qualified Capacity (expected) – Summer
Qualified Capacity (expected) – Winter
O&M and Construction Base New Bedford, Massachusetts
Commercial Operation
2.1 Bay State Wind – Bringing Home the Promise of Offshore Wind
Ørsted and Eversource are proud to Key Project Benefits
propose the Bay State Wind Project • in net lifetime economic benefits
(the Project), a first-of-its kind U.S. • million short tons of greenhouse gas emissions
utility-scale offshore wind farm avoided over the 20-year contract period
located approximately 25 miles (40 • $158 million annual reduction in winter prices
km) off the south coast of • 850 construction jobs and permanent O&M jobs
Massachusetts. The Project will • 7,939 indirect jobs created
provide 400 MW of clean, reliable • Over $300 million in total direct investment in the
offshore wind energy to the Commonwealth
Commonwealth of Massachusetts at • $8.7 in total contributions to low income programs
the lowest possible cost, maximizing long-term economic and environmental benefits. The
Bidder is a 50/50 joint venture that brings together world-leading offshore wind generation
and transmission development, operational experience and regional knowledge of electricity
markets. The resulting collaboration will dependably deliver offshore wind to the
Massachusetts market at the lowest cost to consumers.
Entering into a long-term contract with the Bidder’s project is a cost-effective strategy for the
Massachusetts Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) and the Commonwealth to pursue.
The Project will:
 Enhance electric reliability by capturing New England’s powerful and consistent
offshore wind resource through the most advanced generation and transmission
technology, providing much needed electricity supply directly into the constrained
Southern Massachusetts and Rhode Island (SEMA/RI) load zone.
 Contribute to reductions in winter price spikes by providing additional energy and
capacity where and when the resource is needed most through industry-leading high
load factor generation integrated with a significant storage system that will deliver
during periods of highest demand.

 Be cost-effective to ratepayers by delivering multiple benefit streams to ratepayers at

a materially lower price than any offshore wind resource contracted in the U.S. to
date.
 Mitigate transmission costs by interconnecting at one of the most robust points on
the Southern New England grid and optimizing the design and utilization of the
offshore and onshore delivery systems; and holding ratepayers harmless for any cost
overruns.
 Ensure project viability by deploying the Bidder’s combined team to overcome the
complexities and challenges that have stymied previous efforts to develop offshore
wind, and to meet the Commonwealth’s energy cost, system reliability and
greenhouse gas reduction challenges in the most aggressive and responsible
timeframe possible.
 Promote energy storage systems by deploying the U.S.’s largest battery storage
system ever to be paired with offshore wind; and by selecting one of
emerging advanced technology companies as the Preferred Option for this showcase
project.
 Mitigate environmental impacts by adding a significant new emissions-free resource
to New England’s generation mix and making a significant down-payment towards
the Commonwealth’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) targets. Further, the
Project will leverage the many proprietary techniques and lessons learned in
developing its portfolio of European projects to avoid, minimize and mitigate any
harm to New England’s indigenous wildlife and social resources. As well, Bidder is
making a major financial commitment to the leading research, educational and
advocacy organizations for implementation of strategies to protect and enhance New
England’s whale populations.
 Create and foster economic development in the region through a multi-faceted, long-
term supply chain strategy that includes: 1) maximizing use of
for construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) activity; 2)
development of the first Jones Act-compliant installation and transportation vessels,
which will allow greater utilization of
3) procuring products and services through
to the greatest extent possible; 4) leveraging Ørsted’s
considerable pipeline and buying power to attract leading offshore wind component
manufacturers to locate
; 5) repurposing “New England is setting the pace for
underutilized properties for development of a national clean energy future with
onshore project elements (i.e., substation, its proven track record in energy
battery storage); and 6) supporting training efficiency and bold clean energy
and certification programs for offshore goals. Our partnership with Ørsted
workers. on Bay State Wind represents a
significant opportunity to help make
 Provide relief to low income ratepayers those goals a reality and we look
including tens of thousands of households in forward to delivering this renewable
Massachusetts through a partnership with and reliable source of power to
the state’s leading community action customers.”
agencies. The Bidder will specifically support
Jim Judge, Chairman, President, and
two programs – the Low Income Heating CEO of Eversource Energy

Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) –

which offer bill payment relief and implementation of a portfolio of energy efficiency
services designed to reduce overall home energy consumption for low income
customers.
A more detailed matrix of how the Bidder’s proposal satisfies the threshold bidder eligibility
requirements (Section 2.2.1 of the RFP) and RFP review criteria (Section 2.2.2 of the RFP) is
provided as Attachment 2-1.
2.2 Why Bay State Wind?

With issuance of its Request for Proposals for Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy
Projects (RFP), Massachusetts has pushed itself to the forefront of the offshore wind industry
in the U.S., with the opportunity for the Commonwealth to garner a first mover advantage.
With this RFP, the Commonwealth stands poised to capture the significant energy,
environmental and economic rewards that development of a locally-based offshore wind
generation hub can deliver. The Commonwealth is well positioned for this leadership role –
an excellent wind resource, strong maritime tradition and ports infrastructure, supportive
academic institutions, a skilled workforce, and enlightened political leadership and
progressive energy policies are among Massachusetts’ most compelling competitive
advantages.
Massachusetts has positioned itself to be on the forefront of advanced technological
development and scientific research. A successful U.S. launch of this global industry – and
establishing the Commonwealth’s central place in it - will hinge on the results of this RFP and
on who the Commonwealth chooses as its partner in the all-important initial phase of this
journey. Bay State Wind is the unquestioned choice – Ørsted and Eversource together
possessing the requisite experience, skills, financial strengths, and capacity to deliver on the
Nation’s first utility-scale offshore wind project and securing the Commonwealth’s
preeminent position in the future of this burgeoning clean energy industry.
Ørsted’s leadership in global offshore wind development is unparalleled with nearly three-
times the installed capacity as its closest competitors. Over the past 25 years, Ørsted has
constructed 3.8 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity, with another 5 GW under
construction taking its operation base to 8.8 GW of capacity by 2022 (Figure 2.1). The
lessons learned over this 25+ year evolution culminate in this Project, reflecting the very best
in offshore wind design, engineering, finance and construction, and adapting these best
practices to the U.S. East Coast market.
Ørsted brings to the Project many “firsts” in the offshore wind industry, including but not
limited to:
 Pioneered the industry with the development of the first-ever offshore windfarm
(Vindeby, 1991);
 Successfully developed the first commercial-scale offshore windfarm in the world
(Horns Rev I, 2003);
 Designed and constructed the largest windfarm in operation today (London Array,
2013);

Figure 2.1 Global Offshore Wind Capacity
 Competitively awarded a power purchase agreement (PPA) for what will be the largest
windfarm in the world once constructed (Hornsea I and II, 2,600 MW);
 Achieved a significant cost milestone as the first developer to win a tender with a
zero-subsidy bid (Germany);
 First developer to effectively decommission an operating offshore windfarm and
restore seabed to former conditions (Vindeby);
 First developer to integrate battery storage as part of an offshore wind farm (Burbo
Bank Extension);

and

Ørsted’s better understanding of life-cycle cost and risk, gained from almost three decades of
offshore wind experience, allows capture of the first-mover advantage on key technology, as
demonstrated in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 First Mover Advantage on WTG Technology
Ørsted’s “develop, build, own, and operate model” means the Bidder is vested in the long-
term success of our wind farms. Ørsted’s track record demonstrates that it is careful not to
overpromise; and always live up to our commitments. Ørsted remains responsible for
delivering on its obligations over the life of the asset. Unlike other developers, whose
interests may be more short-term, our financial success is inextricably linked to the
performance of generation assets over their useful life. This means that Ørsted’s interests
are well-aligned with those of utilities and the electricity consumers Ørsted serves.
Eversource, a Fortune 500 company based in Boston and Hartford, has been serving
Massachusetts customers for over 100 years. During that time, Eversource has continuously
supported both the energy policy and goals outlined by the Commonwealth, in addition to the
growth of the 191 communities that it serves. Eversource, which is only one of four North
American energy companies recognized as an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)
leader, is New England's premier energy company and transmission developer. Eversource
brings to bear its deep commitment of supporting the Commonwealth's renewable energy
goals, and has utilized its considerable experience in doing this to interconnect renewable
generation sources, such as wind power, into the electrical system. As New England's
premier transmission developer, Eversource is also able to interconnect resources in the
most reliable and cost efficient manner possible, thereby sustaining both the integrity of the
transmission system, while also alleviating costs for all customers. Finally, Eversource is
recognized as the leader in providing top tier reliability, with the utmost focus on safety, to all
customers within the New England region.
Together, Ørsted and Eversource bring a winning combination to the development of the
U.S.’s first utility-scale offshore windfarm. These strengths are encapsulated in the following
core competencies:
 Technical acumen (engineering, procurement and project management);
 Financial capacity and independence;

 Strength of supply chain relationships;

 Knowledge of electricity markets;
 Demonstrated commitment to the economic future of the region; and
 Environmental stewardship.
Each of these competitive advantages is summarized below.
2.2.1 Technical Acumen

As an industry leader, Ørsted has gained invaluable expertise in the development of over
twenty offshore wind projects. Many claimed that building such complex, massive energy
infrastructure projects in the harsh conditions of the open ocean was a fool’s errand. Ørsted
has proven the skeptics wrong; and to this day our cadre of 2,000 dedicated wind energy
employees – more than three times the number of our nearest competitor – continue to
drive innovation. And Ørsted is already seen as the industry standard-bearer in the U.S. and
Asian markets. Our agility is demonstrated as the first international company to enter these
new markets.
Ørsted works hand-in-hand with vendors in the design and development of the numerous
components that must integrate seamlessly in the challenging offshore environment. As
further documented in Section 12, Ørsted is organized into functional areas of specialization
(e.g., WTGs). Ørsted has industrialized development of offshore wind farms; individual
projects are not “one-off” but leverage the learnings of prior developments and fit neatly
within a larger portfolio. Ørsted’s relationships with vendors puts it in the unique position to
drive innovation, standardization and cost reduction for this Project and future offshore wind
development in collaboration with our supplier network. This is a huge differentiator and
means that the Project, and the Commonwealth, are benefitting from Ørsted's European
experience to the fullest extent possible.
Ørsted has keen insight into where the industry is headed, and the unique ability to
anticipate cost reductions in the bid price. Moreover, as explained in Section 8, Ørsted has
the unique ability to establish improved engineering solutions in its procurement
specifications and to work in close collaboration with suppliers to meet or exceed these
standards in a process of continual refinement.
As documented in this Bid, Ørsted’s long-term stake in these complex generation systems
means the Bidder can analyze fleet performance and internalize these lessons in developing
the next generation of offshore wind projects in an optimal cycle. The Bidder’s deep bench of
transmission planners and engineers provides an unmatched ability to configure, procure,
construct, and operate the offshore wind farm assets consistent with reliability requirements,
and with an eye towards providing the greatest value to the grid.
Furthermore, this sophistication extends to our O&M program aimed at maximizing the
production from our portfolio of more than 1,000 individual WTGs. As documented in Section
11, Ørsted has achieved a significantly better record in reducing unplanned outages after
taking over this function from the equipment supplier once the warranty period has expired.
A more recent addition to the Bidder’s arsenal is our companies’ collective focus on storage
solutions to exploit the full potential of intermittent renewable energy resources. Ørsted has
created a dedicated division, centered in the United States, to advance and coordinate the

company’s deployment of advanced storage solutions. Eversource brings deep experience in

interconnecting renewable resources into New England's electrical system reliably and cost-
effectively. With this proposal, the Bidder leverages these combined company skills in
technology research and development to advance the Commonwealth’s interest in
integration of storage solutions.
2.2.2 Financial Capacity and Independence

The Bidder’s Owners bring unrivaled financial
Eversource has the highest credit
capacity to the Project. Ørsted and Eversource are
rating among U.S. utilities and is the
publicly traded companies with a combined market only energy company in the United
capitalization of approximately $40 billion, and States with an A+ rating (S&P).
combined operating cash flows of approximately $4
billion annually, driven largely by regulated assets and long-term electricity supply contracts.
Each maintain excellent, investment grade credit ratings (please see table below) and
Eversource has the highest credit rating among U.S. utilities.
Sponsor S&P Moody's Fitch
Ørsted BBB+ (stable) Baa1 (stable) BBB+ (stable)
Eversource A+ (stable) Baa1 (stable) BBB+ (positive)
Their financial strength and proven track record have been, and will continue to be, critical in
enabling them to fund project construction and operation, and, where desirable, to attract
capital from investors on terms more favorable than less financially robust developers could
obtain. Their financial resilience will insulate the development, construction and operation of
Bay State Wind from the inevitable ups-and-downs of the business cycle.
The Bidder intends to finance the development, construction and operation of the Project
exclusively with capital from its Owners. Doing so eliminates the risk that project-level
financing imposes on projects of this type, ensuring that financing issues will not delay
project construction or otherwise impede the delivery of clean energy to Massachusetts
ratepayers. The Owners will secure the funds for their respective capital contributions to the
Project through a combination of internally generated cash flows and capital markets
issuances at the publicly traded parent level.
Eversource and Ørsted have the financial wherewithal and project-development experience
to adopt a strategy that will maximize the benefit of the federal investment tax credit (ITC).
Specifically, they can fully utilize the ITC without bringing in other tax equity partners (even for
an 800-MW project). In contrast, developers that are less financially robust, have less
experience, or are subject to constraints imposed by third-party tax-equity investors will face
considerably greater challenges in maximizing the value derived from the ITC, especially in
light of the federal tax reforms under consideration by Congress. By virtue of the financial
strength and proven track record that Eversource and Ørsted possess, the Project is uniquely
positioned to qualify for the ITC on an accelerated schedule that will maximize value, and to
apply that value efficiently, passing resulting cost reductions on to Massachusetts
ratepayers.

2.2.3 Strength of Supply Chain Relationships

The size and scope of Ørsted’s market influence allows it to extract the best deal from
vendors across the offshore wind supply chain. As further documented in this Bid, Ørsted has
the unmatched ability to leverage its’ market-leading global position and U.S. project pipeline
to give suppliers greater certainty in making long-term decisions to invest in the
Commonwealth, resulting in a major boost to the
Bay State Wind has the strength,
local economy. As the developer with the largest
expertise, and commitment to make
Massachusetts the center of the new portfolio (operating, in construction, and under
U.S.-based offshore wind industry. development), and the only developer active in
Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific region,
our suppliers have been more than willing to follow Ørsted across the globe.
This is not a new strategy but a reprise of Ørsted’s phenomenal success in building a robust
UK industry in service of that county’s growing ambitions for offshore wind development.
Ørsted’s 2,000-MW build-out on the UK’s East Coast was accompanied by a multi-billion
dollar investment by supply chain partners, the creation of 1,600 construction jobs and 500
long-term O&M jobs, including for example, the establishment of factories by Siemens
Gamesa and Mitsubishi Vestas for the production of wind turbine blades. Through Bay State
Wind’s commitment to the Commonwealth, much the same will be accomplished here, and
already evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Ørsted and
. Beyond procurement and
manufacturing, the Bidder is similarly committed to establishing long-term, constructive and
mutually respectful relationships with local trade unions with the result of supporting the
professional development and deployment of union labor in this new industry wherever
feasible.
2.2.4 Demonstrated Commitment to the Economic Future of the Region

The Owners have a long track record of supporting local economic growth and encouraging
broad supply chain development in the areas where they operate. With major partnerships
already solidified (see discussion in Section 2.4.8), Ørsted has made great strides in
replicating the models it has developed in Europe to successfully stand up a local supply
chain in the Commonwealth and to diversify the industrial use of major port centers, such as
New Bedford, and underutilized properties such as Brayton Point. Eversource’s more than
100-year commitment to the Commonwealth and its communities, and Ørsted’s selection of
Boston as the location for its U.S. headquarters, demonstrate their commitment to the region
for the long-term. The Bidder has recently opened an office in New Bedford and is proud to
support myriad civic organizations statewide, with a particular focus on not-for-profit
institutions in and around the Project; colleges and universities who will train the next
generation of workers in the emerging offshore wind industry; and research institutions that
support a greater understanding of the ocean environment in which it operates. Finally, the
Bidder has been in active discussions with a number of the Commonwealth’s major energy
users to help meet their corporate sustainability goals. The Bidder has secured Letters of
Intent from, among others, the Southcoast Health System for the procurement of energy
and/or RECs from additional generation constructed within the Lease Area, and the Fenway
Sports Group (Boston Red Sox) as a Sustainability Partner.

2.2.5 Knowledge of New England’s Electric System

Bay State Wind will utilize the deep knowledge of its Owners to deliver offshore wind power
into Massachusetts. Eversource has an unparalleled understanding of New England's electric
grid. Over the past 15 years, Eversource has been committed to meeting the region's
changing energy profile by designing and constructing solutions to eliminate congestion and
alleviate high prices for customers throughout the region. In fact, Eversource's innovative
design of the New England East West Solution and Greater Springfield Reliability Project has
delivered annual savings to customers of over $800 million. Combined with Ørsted's
extensive experience with undersea systems, this sophisticated understanding of the New
England electric grid will enable Bay State Wind's clean energy to be delivered to
Massachusetts customers in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.
2.2.6 Environmental Stewardship

Ørsted and Eversource have a legacy of environmental stewardship. Ørsted recently changed
its name from DONG Energy (Danish Oil and Natural Gas) as this name no longer reflects the
company’s activities. The company has made a commitment to going 100 percent
renewable, and already today 85 percent of capital is deployed towards green energy
solutions in wind, biofuels, storage and customer solutions. Ørsted has reduced its carbon
footprint by more than 50 percent in the span of a decade.
Similarly, Eversource is focused on being a catalyst for clean energy development in New
England. Eversource is one of only four North American energy companies recognized as an
ESG leader. Additionally, it allocates 7 percent of its annual revenues—or more than $500
million annually—to energy efficiency programs for its nearly 4 million customers.
Eversource’s energy efficiency programs have been consistently ranked #1 in the country. It
is well under way in building 70 MW of solar energy in Massachusetts and divesting its
remaining fossil fueled generation. Eversource has spent approximately $6 billion over the
past 12 years to strengthen New England's high voltage electric grid to improve reliability and
resiliency and to better allow new efficient and less emitting power to reach the region's
customers.
The Bidder recognizes the importance of being an environmental steward and ensuring that
the construction and operation of the Project is compatible with existing social, economic
and environmental uses within and around the Project. Ørsted and Eversource have
extensive experience in permitting of complex infrastructure projects across Europe and New
England, including the undertaking of environmental impact assessments as part of the
development process.
The Owners’ industry-leading team of wildlife and marine

specialists have been working proactively since being awarded the Lease in June 2015 to
engage with interested and affected stakeholders and to conduct sound site assessment
activities to support development of appropriate mitigation and minimization measures.
2.3 Project Summary

The Project has been engineered and configured to optimize production, while taking care to
ensure the compatibility of the Project with existing marine and terrestrial uses. The Project
consists of the following major elements: 1) generation; 2) transmission and interconnection;

and 3) battery storage system. These are summarized in Table 2.2 and described in turn.
Additionally, the Bidder summarizes here our construction plan and use of regional port
facilities.
Table 2.2
260B Summary of Proposed Generation and Proposed Assets in the Preferred Option1
Generation
WTG
Foundations Monopile/Transition Piece (MP/TP)
Transmission & Onshore Facilities
Array cable kV cables
Export cable kV cable
OSS
OnSS Traditional open air solution
Battery storage system 30 MW/60 MWh
1
The Preferred Option represents the Bidder’s current understanding of the generation, transmission
and other facilities necessary to provide 400 MW of offshore wind energy generation capacity to the
EDCs. As discussed elsewhere in this Section 2, the Bidder will continue to review and may modify the
Preferred Option to ensure that it provides the most advantageous and cost-effective solution to the
Commonwealth, the EDCs, and the ratepayers.
2.3.1 Generation
The 400-MW Project will be situated within the boundaries of Bay State Wind’s federal Lease
Area, located approximately 25 miles (40 km) off the southern coast of Massachusetts. The
Preferred Option’s generation solution will consist of the
WTG with a m rotor diameter. This WTG is a
WTG platform,
. As discussed in
Section 8, Ørsted is in discussion with WTG manufacturers who can provide
viable generation solutions. Final selection will be made post-award. The Bid will consist of
, each of which will use conventional MP technology to fix the WTG to the seabed.
This foundation technology has been used by Ørsted in a safe, economical, and
environmentally sound way in over 1,000 prior applications and is entirely suitable for
conditions found in near-shore conditions of the Project site.
2.3.2 Transmission
The Bidder explored several alternatives for an expandable, open access, non-discriminatory
offshore transmission solution. While several permutations were explored, these ultimately
coalesced into two options that differ based on size and timing of the build-out. These two
options include
Ultimately, the
approach was adopted as the most cost-effective and prudent choice given the uncertainties
surrounding the size and location of future offshore wind development.
The Bidder’s proposed ETS, which is the is a modular and truly
expandable design.

The OnSS will be designed to accept export cables of capacity to receive the full
1,600 MW of offshore wind generation. The ETS will be equipped with
to provide prudent redundancy and reliability benefits to the system
and to offshore generators. Once fully constructed, the ETS will connect to the onshore grid
at the Brayton Point 345-kV Substation or the Bourne 115-kV Substation.
2.3.3 Storage
The Preferred Option includes the deployment of a 30-MW/60-MWh battery storage solution,
located at the OnSS at Brayton Point. The storage system will be operated in load-following
mode, charging with power from the offshore wind farm in off-peak hours and discharging
during peak hours to provide additional system reliability and peak price mitigation. Under
the Preferred Option, the supplier is ; however, final selection will
be made post-award.
2.3.4 Construction and O&M Ports

The Bidder has signed an option agreement with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
(MassCEC) for use of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal as its primary
construction port, supporting the state’s considerable investment in this facility as a major
center for offshore wind construction.
The Bidder will also use a Massachusetts site
for the outfitting and coating of TPs; this is likely to be either or
. Lastly, Bidder has entered into an exclusive agreement for the
potential use of the property, as its
O&M base. Altogether, these sites represent a significant clustering of major offshore wind
deployment activities in the Commonwealth.
2.4 Consistency of the Bid with Statutory Review Criteria – The Bay State
Wind Advantage
Massachusetts’ landmark clean energy legislation, An Act to Promote Energy Diversity, sets
out the important public policy objectives that are behind the state’s offshore wind
procurement strategy. This section considers nine criteria for bid selection that are indicative
of the diverse set of grid-related, economic
Bay State Wind – By the Numbers
and environmental priorities that drive this
and future offshore wind procurements in • 400 MW – Nameplate capacity
the Commonwealth. The following • – Average annual capacity factor
discussion highlights how this Bid achieves • – Availability
- and indeed excels - in bringing these • – Expected annual yield (GWh)
benefits to the Massachusetts ratepayer • MW – Winter Qualified Capacity (expected)
and citizens at large. • MW – Summer Qualified Capacity (expected)

2.4.1 Enhanced Electricity Reliability

With the recent retirement of the Brayton Point Power Station, and the potential loss of
approximately 8,000 MW of baseload generation overall by 2020, the ability of the proposed
Bay State Wind Project to inject emissions-free power directly into the SEMA/RI load zone
beginning in 2022 will contribute greatly to the future electricity needs of the region.
Moreover, the Project will help diversify the region’s generation profile, adding significant
new capacity that is both fuel-free and immune from commodity price volatility.
The Bidder’s design and operating plan has been specifically crafted with the region’s vital
need for enhanced reliability, particularly during winter peaks, in mind:
 Of the three eligible bidders, the Bidder is the furthest along in the ISO-NE
interconnection queue process. The completed Feasibility Study shows that the
Project can interconnect the expected capacity into Brayton Point with no system
upgrade. This will also facilitate achievement of our in-service date, and deliver on
the Project’s reliability benefits without delay.
 The Bidder has opted to deploy a 30-MW/60-MWh battery storage system as a load-
following resource that will help ensure that the system is providing additional power
when needed most. The system will charge in off-peak hours and discharge during
peak demand hours, contributing an average of percent additional energy during
the 5-hour summer peak period; and an average of percent additional energy
during a 2-hour winter peak period.
Offshore wind is a stable, predictable, and reliable source of clean energy with high annual
capacity factors and an average forecasting error below 4 percent (2 hours prior to delivery).
The Bidder will further enhance these attributes by deploying the following cutting edge
technology:

 Optimized windfarm layout: Using proprietary tools that integrate skills and
knowledge from across Ørsted’s significant offshore wind organization, the Bidder is
able to optimize the Project’s site layout for aerodynamics reducing wake loss and
increasing overall generation. The Bidder’s advanced optimization tools also reduce
CAPEX by factoring in foundation and array cable costs to determine the optimal
position for each WTG.
 Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM): The provision of a STATCOM provides
greater voltage stability for ISO-NE due to its fast reactive power response. This
significantly improves the stability of the system and aids ISO-NE in avoiding
cascaded trips and partial blackouts.

The Bidder is committed to qualifying the Project’s capacity in the ISO-NE Forward Capacity
Market (FCM).
2.4.2 Contribution to Reducing Winter Electricity Price Spikes

The Project will help insulate New England ratepayers from winter electric price spikes by
reducing thermal generation in SEMA/RI. Throughout the U.S., fluctuations in seasonal
temperatures and extreme weather patterns have resulted in unexpected constraints to
current infrastructure. Due to the retirement of non-gas generation (i.e., coal and nuclear)
this dynamic is only expected to worsen.
An analysis conducted for the Bidder by Levitan and Associates Inc. (LAI) found that
reduction in winter peaks ascribable to the Project will result in estimated savings to
Massachusetts ratepayers of $158 million per year. Pairing offshore wind with the battery
storage system described above will augment these savings.
2.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness to Electric Ratepayers

The Bidder is pleased to submit a bid price that it believes to be significantly lower than any
previous U.S. solicitation in which offshore wind was an eligible resource. This is the ultimate
test and manifestation of the Project’s advantage – leveraging technology prowess in the
design, construction and operation of a cutting edge generating source; strength of balance
sheet to reduce financing costs; combined with the market know-how to maximize the value
of energy delivered to the grid.
The Bidder has leveraged Ørsted's industrialized approach to development and construction
to bring best practices and purchasing power from Europe, where more than 15,000 MW has
been built, to New England.
The lifetime net ratepayer benefit of the Bay State Wind Project is conservatively estimated to be
more than
2.4.4 Avoid Line Loss and Mitigate Transmission Costs
One of the primary advantages of the Project is that it will tie directly into the SEMA/RI
control area at Brayton Point, significantly minimizing line losses associated with
transmission from projects bringing power into Massachusetts from neighboring control
areas. As noted previously, preliminary analysis from ISO-NE suggests that the Project can
safely interconnect the expected capacity at this point with no significant upgrades. More
importantly, the addition of 400 MW of clean and renewable generation will help defer or
displace expensive transmission associated with terrestrial wind projects projected to serve
Massachusetts’ Class I RPS program.
Additionally, the Bidder’s approach is to use state-of-the-art transmission technology
to minimize line losses to the maximum extent possible.
From a ratepayer perspective, our pricing proposal holds customers harmless from
transmission cost overruns, however unlikely. The cost of the GLL is included in our fully
bundled PPA price, providing the Bidder with a strong incentive to control costs and maximize
delivered throughput. Similarly, under our ETS solution, the proposed formula rate tariff
which limits ratepayer exposure to

additional transmission development in support of the Commonwealth’s full 1,600 MW build-

out.
2.4.5 Project Viability; Reasonableness of Timeframe

Building large-scale windfarms offshore is not easy – especially in a new market like the U.S.
By combining the respective strengths and relevant skill sets of two large energy companies,
supported by a track record of achievement, the Bidder is the right partner to get the job
done and to keep Massachusetts ahead of the pack in the interstate competition for offshore
wind jobs and economic development opportunities.
Project viability is supported by the Ørsted legacy of 22 offshore wind farms already
developed, constructed and in current operation in Europe, with an additional seven wind
farms currently under construction (see Section 12). As detailed in Section 5, financing does
not require any outside lending arrangements due to Ørsted’s and Eversource’s solid
financial balance sheets. Sections 8 and 10 describe how technical design and
constructability is retained in-house and is based on almost three decades of experience of
engineering, procuring, and constructing offshore wind farms and complex onshore
transmission lines. This in-house experience and technical know-how is what sets the Bidder
apart from all other offshore wind developers. Further, Section 9 highlights the team’s ability
to execute the Project in a commercially reasonable timeframe.
Since June 2015, the Bidder has been actively engaged in the development of the Project.
Among eligible bidders, the Bidder believes it is furthest along in several key project
development areas, including but not limited to interconnection, site control, and
environmental permitting. The Bidder was the first U.S. developer to secure a Site
Assessment Plan from the BOEM and has now deployed equipment within the Lease Area for
the all-important task of gathering data on wind and other environmental conditions.
Moreover, the Bidder has developed solid contingency plans and optionality across major
project parameters (e.g., suppliers, logistics, interconnection points) to ensure that it has the
flexibility to respond to unforeseen events to deliver as committed.
As discussed throughout this Bid, major work streams – including permitting,
interconnection, site control, and supply chain development and procurement – are already
well underway, limiting the possibility of future surprises that could delay or derail the
project. The Bidder has secured necessary land rights for development of our substation and
storage solution. Moreover, the Bidder has built considerable optionality into all these work
streams so that a ready default is available should our Preferred Option ultimately prove non-
viable. Where applicable, these fallback plans are detailed in relevant bid sections.
The Bidder has proposed what it believes to be an aggressive yet realistic schedule for
commercial operation given critical path items. The Bidder is well-aware of the
Commonwealth’s desire to bring these resources on-line as quickly as possible in order to
realize the price, reliability, diversity, economic development and environmental benefits that
offshore wind can bring and is striving to meet those expectations. Furthermore, the team is
taking significant steps to de-risk the project timeline. Further, our de-risking initiatives
reduce the risk of COD delays at no cost to the ratepayer irrespective of any cost exposure
borne by the Bidder. These steps include:


 Deviating from our normal practice by taking early investment decisions on some
long lead-time items ahead of securing necessary construction permits;
 Entering into detailed discussions resulting in letters of support with builders of Jones
Act-compliant heavy lift installation and transportation vessels; and
 Front-loading our site survey activities as much as possible, being the first to mobilize
vessels for the geophysical and geotechnical survey campaign to document seabed
conditions.
By the same token, the Bidder strives to make commitments that are responsible and well-
informed. Our proposed COD of strikes the right balance between an optimized
engineering, procurement, permitting and construction schedule and the best interests of
the Commonwealth.
2.4.6 Promote Energy Storage Systems

The Bidder will support the Commonwealth’s
“As the Commonwealth continues to
cutting edge Energy Storage Initiative to advance
make unparalleled investments in
the energy storage segment of the Massachusetts renewable energy, energy storage
clean energy economy. The Bidder will directly technologies have the potential to play
advance three of the program’s salient objectives, an integral role in effectively deploying
including: these new resources… The state and
industry [will] lead the way on exploring
 Attracting, supporting and promoting
the most cost-effective deployment of
storage companies in Massachusetts;
energy storage for Massachusetts’
 Accelerating the development of early ratepayers.”
commercial storage technologies; and,
-Governor Charlie Baker
 Capitalizing on storage technology’s
benefits to clean energy integration, grid reliability, system wide efficiency, and peak
demand reduction.
As noted previously, the Bidder will pair the offshore windfarm with a 30-MW/60-MWh
battery storage solution. This configuration is chosen to serve as a cost-effective complement
to the offshore wind farm – minimizing the capital cost addition while yielding the greatest
value to ratepayers through deployment as a peak reduction/shaving resource. Moreover, in
the Preferred Option the Bidder has selected as the storage
solution provider, providing this world-class energy storage provider with a marquee
opportunity to boost its position in the growing and increasingly competitive battery storage
market.
2.4.7 Mitigate any Environmental Impacts

The Bidder is fully committed to developing the Project in a way that is protective of
environmental and human resource values. The Bidder has worked diligently over the past
two years to put in place a program to fully document and mitigate, as necessary, any
environmental concerns associated with project, including but not limited to protecting and
enhancing the region’s fisheries; and addressing any issues that may arise with respect to
the North American Right Whale. (See Text Box for a description of the Bidder’s major
funding initiatives in this area).

As documented in Section 7, our extensive team of internal and external subject matter
experts, in consultation with outside advisory groups, is transferring the accumulated
experience and lessons learned from our state-of-the-art offshore environmental
minimization and mitigation program to these shores. This extends both to the site lease
area and export cable route – Ørsted has successfully laid cable in environmentally sensitive
ecosystems throughout Northern Europe and the Bidder will parlay that expertise to ensure
no harm to New England’s vital coastal resource. Eversource’s experience in successfully
navigating the permitting process for a number of complex infrastructure projects is also
being brought to bear for our onshore activities.
Bay State Wind Environmental Initiative

On a going forward basis, and conditional upon PPA award, Bidder is making a major resource commitment towards the
support of New England’s preeminent research, philanthropic, educational and advocacy institutions in implementing a
portfolio of collaborative research and programmatic initiatives for the protection the region’s indigenous fisheries and whale
populations. This multi-year commitment will be comprised of the following elements:
•
• Woods Hole Oceanography Institute (WHOI) - $500,000, multi-year grant fund for the development of advanced whale
detection systems
• New England Aquarium Right Whale Project (in collaboration with Lobster Foundation of MA) - $500,000 grant fund
(50/50 split) to improve the North American Right Whale population status through prevention of gear entanglement.
• Whale Alert Project - $25,000 annual grant for the refinement of the Whale Alert System to prevent lethal ship strikes.
• Bay State Wind will develop a Mitigation and Monitoring Advisory Panel that includes right whale specialists,
acousticians, and environmental (E-NGO) representation to provide input for a mitigation and monitoring plan.
• Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) – grant of $5,000/year (up to 5 years) for the Marine Debris Program to promote
marine waste reduction, removal and recycling initiatives
• National Ocean Science Bowl/Blue Lobster Bowl - grant of $5,000/year (up to 5 years) to support the highly regarded
high school ocean science education program and encourage students to enter into the renewable energy field.
2.4.8 Create and Foster Employment and Economic Development in the Commonwealth
For the Bidder, the task at hand is not simply to build a project, it is to build a U.S.-based
offshore wind industry, with significant supply chain investments in Massachusetts. The
Bidder aims to deliver on the promise of high skilled, high paying jobs that is part and parcel
of building this new U.S.-based industry with a multitude of local suppliers. And the team is
uniquely positioned to do just that. Our strong vendor relationships, built in some cases
across two decades of collaboration, gives us the credibility to get our suppliers to commit to
our vision of a vibrant and sustainable U.S. market - and to make concrete investment
decisions on that basis. As Figure 2.3 illustrates, while much of this activity is naturally
concentrated along Massachusetts’ coastal communities, the opportunity to tap into the
Commonwealth’s solid base of advanced manufacturing and high-tech service industries
enables us to also involve inland communities statewide in this green industry.
Local economic development highlights of the Project include:
 An estimated 850 construction job-years.
 An estimated 7,939 indirect jobs.

 Approximately permanent jobs in O&M over the planned operating life of

the Project.
 Use of New Bedford as the staging area for construction, and the O&M base over the
life of the asset. This will require the Bidder to make short- and long-term lease
payments, port fees, and annual property tax payments. The Preferred Option
includes WTG pre-assembly and long-term O&M based in New Bedford, though the
exact use of this site is to be determined.
 Entering into an exclusive arrangement with one of Europe’s top specialized
manufacturers and suppliers of to set up operations in
Massachusetts.
As of this Bid, the Bidder, and its supplier are actively

pursuing the leasing of a site , resulting in 125
construction job-years.

 Securing a letter of support from

expressing its intentions to investigate the potential for establishing a new
steel tower fabrication facility in the Commonwealth, potentially at the former site of
the Brayton Point Generating Station. At full operation, the plant would result in 150-
200 new jobs.
 Working with various vessel owners to support the construction of two Jones Act-
compliant heavy lift installation and transportation vessels in the U.S. This will have
profound consequences for Massachusetts’ ambitions to establish its preeminent
position in the offshore wind supply chain and for the U.S. market more generally. As
evidenced by this Bid, the deployment of a U.S.-built, flagged and operated
installation and transportation vessel will enable the greater use of
It will also facilitate cost savings in
project development by avoiding the “workarounds” heretofore required to meet the
strictures of the Jones Act.
 Cable landing and OnSS development at Somerset, Massachusetts. This site will
serve multiple purposes - it will enable the Bidder to make landfall of the export
cable, facilitate development of the OnSS, and support deployment of the battery
storage solution. In addition, it will repurpose the existing transmission infrastructure.
Use of the site will create local construction jobs while contributing to the local
property tax base as an offset resulting from the Brayton Point Power Plant closure.
 Shortlisting several advanced manufacturing firms with significant operations within
Massachusetts, including:
̶ for the manufacture of components to be used
in the OSS and the Transition Pieces (TPs);
̶ for the construction and deployment of the
Project’s battery storage system; and
̶ for manufacture of steel
parts Other suppliers also under consideration for
this scope.
 Entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Massachusetts
Maritime Academy (MMA) to provide long-term financial support for this state
university focused on careers in the worldwide maritime economy. Initial funding will
support the offering academic scholarships from students from under-represented
Gateway Cities across the state. Subject to bid award, future funding will support
such initiatives as the development and offering of Global Wind Organization (GWO)
certified training, which is mandatory for all workers going offshore or working at
heights. In this way, the Bidder hopes to empower the next generation of students to
be a part of the emerging offshore wind industry.
 Memorandum of Understanding with Bristol Community College (BCC) to begin in
December 2017. The purpose of this MOU is for the Bidder and BCC to work
collaboratively together in the development of a wind energy educational component
at the college. The MOU includes:
̶ Participating in the BCC “Women in STEM” series
̶ Serving on the BCC STEM advisory board

̶ Participating in BCC’s K-12 initiative to train middle school and high school science teachers
on developing an offshore wind energy curriculum
̶ Hosting BCC student interns
̶ Serving as a guest lecturer in BCC’s offshore wind courses
Exploring a collaboration with BCC and other industry stakeholders to develop an
offshore wind training center in New Bedford, Massachusetts. In addition, the MOU
contains a pledge of $1 million contingent upon a PPA to use for various initiatives
such as; scholarships, classroom needs, training programs, infrastructure projects as
they relate to a new campus location.
2.4.9 Benefits to Low Income Ratepayers

The Bidder has entered into a major agreement with four of Massachusetts’ leading
Community Action Agencies for the statewide delivery of services that aim to lessen the
overall energy burden to low income customers. Under the agreement, the Bidder will
contribute a total of $8.7 million pre-COD and during the 20-year PPA term to support two of
the Commonwealth’s cornerstone programs – the Low Income Heating Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Using the extensive and well-
established Low Income Energy Affordability Network (LEAN) for service delivery, the Bidder’s
funding will supplement available public funding to reach more ratepayers in every corner of
the Commonwealth for bill payment relief and implementation of a portfolio of energy
efficiency services designed to reduce overall home energy consumption for low income
customers. Funding will be allocated to service providers statewide in accordance with
formulas established by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development, which will also provide oversight of expenditures. In their letter of
acknowledgement, the CEOs of two of the Commonwealth’s leading Community Action
Agencies estimate that “the amount pledged by the Bidder would help serve the home
energy needs of tens of thousands of households” over the course of the agreement (see
Attachment 14-2). This funding will be borne by the Bidder and will not be passed on to other
consumers through the PPA.
2.5 Scale Matters

Throughout the regulatory process leading up to this RFP, the Bidder has supported a
solicitation that enables price discovery around projects of varying capacity. In this way, the
Bidder has sought to demonstrate the material price advantage associated with the scale
economies attendant to larger-scale windfarms. Significant upfront investment in lease
acquisition, permitting, procurement and certain construction activity is largely fixed and
unchanging irrespective of windfarm size. Thus, it stands to reason that the ability to spread
these fixed costs over the greater production of a larger windfarm will result in a lower cost
per kilowatt-hour to the ratepayer.
Additionally, in our view, Massachusetts is in its own “competition” with neighboring states
who are also now aggressively entering the race for offshore wind resources. To the state
that commits the greatest capacity will likely go the jobs. A larger project is more likely to
attract the investment and clean energy jobs that the Commonwealth is hoping to attract
through this procurement mechanism.

The numbers speak for themselves. We believe we have put forward a bid price that is
compelling. Should the Commonwealth want to get the lowest possible price for electricity
consumers with the greatest economic benefits in terms of jobs and economic development
opportunities, a large scale project is the way to go. It would further put Massachusetts
ahead of other states competing for their share of offshore wind economic development.
As the Evaluation Team compares projects of varying sizes, the Bidder wants to underscore
two points.
First, purchasing a significantly lower cost large-scale project today is demonstrably in the
public interest. As the Evaluation Team considers the possibility of future cost reductions, a
level playing field analysis will consider the weighted average price of two sequential 400-
MW bids against today’s price for an 800-MW bid. If the 800-MW bid is percent lower
than a 400-MW bid in this solicitation, then the Evaluation Team should understand that the
next solicitation will have to produce a 400-MW bid that is percent lower to match on
price (Figure 2.4). In addition, 800 MW will attract supply chain investments earlier
compared to potentially two 400-MW projects with different configurations. Although we
firmly believe that the U.S. offshore wind industry still has a distance to travel down the cost
curve, we do not see such a dramatic cost decline as feasible in the very short-term.
Second, we encourage
the Evaluation Team to
also consider the window
of opportunity presented
by the Federal
Investment Tax Credit
(ITC). The ITC provides a
five-year declining
federal incentive for the
development of offshore
wind. Project that
commence construction
in 2018 will qualify for an
18 percent tax credit
while those starting in
2019, the final year of
the ITC, will only qualify for 12 percent. Thereafter, unless extended by Congress, the Federal
ITC will go to 0 percent. Every dollar that is realized from the ITC is one less dollar that would
have to be incurred by Massachusetts ratepayers. All else being equal, should
Massachusetts defer procurement it could otherwise make today it will also lose out on this
important federal benefit.
In developing this Bid, the Bidder recognizes the burgeoning interest that has been shown
across the Northeast region in offshore wind generation. In addition to future solicitations
under the Energy Diversity Act, several states have followed Massachusetts’ lead by
announcing their own commitments to the development of offshore wind generation
resources through procurement processes. This includes:
 Connecticut: The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(DEEP) issued a draft RFP on December 15, 2017 for, among other things, offshore wind

capacity. Pursuant to 2017 legislation DEEP is authorized to procure roughly 200 MW of

offshore wind.
 Rhode Island: Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo’s March 1, 2017 announcement
that the state would set a new goal of 1,000 MW of renewable energy by 2020. As
footnote 8 of the Massachusetts Section 83C RFP notes, Narragansett Electric “has
expressed interest in evaluating and considering projects proposed in response to this
RFP.”
 New York: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has adopted a 2,400 MW offshore wind
goal by 2030 and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is
finalizing the state’s Offshore Wind Master Plan. Pursuant to New York’s Clean Energy
Standard, it is anticipated that offshore wind delivered into NY-ISO from neighboring
control areas will be eligible to participate.
Furthermore, apart from these state-led procurements, the Bidder believes that an offshore
wind market may develop with municipalities and large commercial customers interested in
purchasing renewable energy. As reflected in Section 5, the Bidder has signed a Letter of
Intent with one of Massachusetts’ signature institutions – Southcoast Health Systems – to
explore this opportunity further.
For these reasons, the Bidder anticipates a vibrant regional offshore wind market to
materialize over the next few years, and is confident in its ability to secure additional offtake
pursuant to these upcoming opportunities.


2.6 Alternative Bids

The Bidder is submitting two separate bid cases, differing in total project nameplate capacity.
These include: 1) a 400 MW bid; and 2) an 800 MW bid. For each of these bid cases, the
Bidder proposes a GLL and an ETS. As per guidance from the EDCs, the Bidder is submitting
each of the project bid cases with both the GLL and ETS solution, for a total of four separate
bids (i.e., two bid cases X two transmission solutions).
The salient differences between the bid cases are as follows:
1. 400 MW bid. This bid is responsive to the RFP requirement mandating that bidders
provide a 400 MW nameplate capacity project. Of the two bid cases, this project
achieves COD in the earliest timeframe, while delivering substantial benefits to
Massachusetts EDCs and the customers they serve.
2. 800 MW bid. This bid front-loads more of the offshore wind development required
under the Energy Diversity Act. As highlighted in Section 2.5 the main advantage of
this bid case is that it captures the significant economies of scale associated with
offshore wind development to deliver a substantially lower bid price. This larger bid
also pulls forward and augments the many consumer and grid benefits of offshore

wind development enumerated above, including but not limited to net economic
benefits, winter price suppression effects, enhanced reliability, and early and greater
achievement of greenhouse gas reduction targets. Moreover, the 800 MW bid
enhances Massachusetts competitive position relative to other states in the quest for
local supply chain development.
To facilitate the Evaluation Team’s review of these separate bid cases and how they differ
from one another, the Bidder has developed a matrix highlighting those sections of the bid
that materially differ from one another. This matrix can be found at Attachment 2-3.
2.7 Project Entities and Affiliates

The Bidder holds a federal offshore renewable energy lease (BOEM Renewable Energy Lease
No. OCS-A 0500) (the Lease), as well as certain other property rights, and has engaged in
permitting activities for the proposed Project. The Bidder’s affiliate BSW ProjectCo LLC, which
is also a 50/50 joint venture of the Bidder’s Owners, has engaged in project development
activities for the proposed Project, such as entering into agreements with partners,
consultants, and property owners, as well as contributing to the drafting of this proposal. See
Figure 12.1 and Attachment 5-10 for the corporate structures of the Project, Bidder, and
Owners.
In the event that the proposed Project is selected in this RFP for negotiation, the Bidder
intends – as further discussed in Sections 5.2 and 6.2.1 - to: (1) assign the geographic
portion of the Lease where the proposed Project will be constructed from the Bidder to BSW
ProjectCo LLC, as provided by BOEM’s regulations; and (2) sign PPAs associated with the
proposed Project in the name of BSW ProjectCo LLC.
The Bidder has an affiliate relationship with NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource
Energy and Western Massachusetts Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy, two of the
EDCs participating in the RFP Process, and both members of the Evaluation Team.
Accordingly, measures have been put in place to ensure that the Bidder and its affiliates
comply not only with applicable law and the requirements of the RFP, but also with voluntary
standards to prevent any actual or apparent instance of unfairness, discrimination, or undue
preference toward the Bidder in this RFP Process, as detailed in Section 5.17.

Section 3
Operational Parameters
The Project will assist the region in overcoming winter
reliability challenges by delivering energy when it is needed
most and helping to reduce winter peak energy prices and
price volatility. Only the Bay State Wind Project
will deliver the full extent of these benefits.
The Project will have significant capabilities
in offering flexibility solutions to ISO-NE,
increasing system stability, balancing the
system as well as optimizing the operation of
the transmission and distribution networks.
The Bidder is proposing a 30-MW/60-MWh
battery storage solution from a
supplier that enhances grid stability,
shifting energy delivery to meet the demand
profile.
The annual winter price reduction benefit
averages about $158 million per year.
The Project expects to be able to qualify
substantial capacity in the Forward Capacity
Market beginning with Forward Capacity
Auction .
The Bidder will implement state-of-the-art systems
to reduce both maintenance scope and costs to
the Commonwealth and electric ratepayers.
9.6 %
12.4 %
average hourly energy average hourly energy
delivery increase in delivery increase in
summer peak hours with winter peak hours with
battery time-shifting battery time-shifting
Anholt Offshore Wind Farm

Section 3 Operational Parameters
3. OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
In this section, the Bidder outlines the maintenance outage requirements, operating
constraints, and reliability benefits of the Bay State Wind Project’s Preferred Option. The
Preferred Option Project has been designed with redundant equipment, which will minimize
maintenance requirements, disruptions in service, and overall risks to the utility grid, while
maximizing the predictability, reliability, and ancillary benefits of the generating and energy
storage assets. For example, the Project includes the installation of two transformers working
in parallel, meaning that if one is out of operation, the Project will still be able to produce and
deliver energy. This level of optimization is possible due to the deep well of experience and
expertise that the Bidder draws from with respect to its owners Ørsted and Eversource.
3.1 Maintenance Outage Requirements

Specify partial and complete planned outage requirements in weeks or days for all generation facilities
and transmission facilities. Also, list the number of months required for the cycle to repeat (e.g., list
time interval of minor and major overhauls, and the duration of overhauls).
The Bidder will develop and implement an overall maintenance plan that is based on the
specific equipment and features of the Project. This plan will detail the activities and
frequency of the surveys, inspections, and regular maintenance to be performed, including
scheduled outage events. All of these activities will be conducted according to industry best
practices and the experience of the Bidder’s Owners, to preserve asset integrity, extend its
lifetime as far as possible, and minimize any outages, as outlined in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1
261B Indicative Planned Outage Overview per Main Asset
Main System Sub-systems Scheduled Outage Extent of Outage
WTG Maintenance WTG including tower
Program
Balance of Plant, Structures (Foundations
including OSS and OSS Topside)
Maintenance HV Cables
Program
HV Systems on OSS
LV and Utilities on OSS

SCADA Systems

3.1.1 Foundations and Structures
3.1.2 WTGs
The Preferred Option is the
and Ørsted has acquired substantial hands-on

experience with WTGs,
Based on our extensive experience with this

technology, the Bidder has designed the
inspection and maintenance plan to minimize
outages.
It is expected that the WTG OEM Service Provider will directly support the Project for up to
years during the operation ramp-up. The WTGs will be subject to planned maintenance,
including general inspection, sampling, testing, and replacement. To improve operability and
performance control, the WTGs will be continuously remotely monitored. Uninterrupted
monitoring allows for immediate identification and response to any issues that may arise. In
case of a failure, a troubleshooting team will service and repair the affected WTG.
This offshore wind industry practice is based on the manufacturer’s requirements as it is a
precondition for maintaining the initial warranty. By employing components with higher
reliability and increasing equipment condition monitoring, the Bidder aims to minimize the
amount of service hours required during the annual service, or even reduce service to every

second year or more. This will lead to a significant decrease of outages, maintenance cost
and resources, and an increase in PBA.
WTG Operational Experience

As shown in Figure 3.1, WTGs were installed in ,
and Ørsted’s has been expanding ever since, with rotor and rated
capacity With a rated capacity of MW and a rotor diameter of m,
Ørsted’s experience with WTG technology is described in more detail in

Section 8.1.2.
3.1.3 Offshore Transmission Assets (OSS, Offshore Export Cable and Array Cables)
The offshore transmission assets will be designed for the highest possible time availability
target. To realize this target, the Bidder intends to employ a
approach for inspections of offshore transmission assets.

3.1.4 OnSS
The Bidder will monitor the OnSS both remotely and locally on a continuous basis. The
equipment in the OnSS will be configured with a condition monitoring system that will sound
an alarm upon detecting equipment issues. In addition, the substation will be inspected
every month for anomalies with the equipment operation. The Bidder will put in place an
established and documented program for the maintenance of all equipment critical to the
reliable operation of the station. Maintenance programs will conform to the equipment
manufacturer’s recommendations.
In addition, a reliability maintenance program will be implemented. Preventive maintenance
will be performed to ensure reliability of the substation and line equipment, and planned
outages will be conducted in accordance with the NERC/NPCC Standard-TOP-003-1. This
equipment will be maintained in accordance with the interconnection agreement. In addition,
all protective system maintenance will be performed in accordance with the NPCC PRC 005-
2 standard. Substation equipment will be maintained by qualified personnel in accordance
with applicable industry standards and good utility practice to provide maximum operating
performance and reliability.
All major equipment will be under long-term warranty. During the warranty period, the
manufacturers will provide the necessary services to maintain or replace the equipment. The
manufacturers will also be responsible for the cost of the equipment as well as any cost
incurred by the Bidder to support the repair and/or replacement. Outside contractors will be

secured to augment the in-house workforce as necessary. Eversource has extensive

experience maintaining utility substations and routinely services over 300 substations of
varying configurations. The company employs highly trained and experienced personnel to
install, maintain, and repair equipment as required.
3.2 Operating Constraints

Specify all the expected operating constraints and operational restrictions for the project (i.e., limits on
the number of hours a unit may be operated per year or unit of time).
Operating constraints for the Project are primarily related to technical parameters defined by
the equipment OEMs, which can be categorized by wind resources and weather conditions
(see Section 4.1 for more detailed information), grid outages determined by ISO-NE, and HSE
issues.
The individual assets will be operated and maintained in accordance with the Bidder’s and
subcontractors’ safety policies, user manuals, and regulations.
3.2.1 Technical Parameters

The operational constraints for the WTGs are:
 Cut-in wind speed: approximately meters per second (m/s)
 Cut-out wind speed: approximately
 Equipment operational temperature:
For temperatures inside the WTG and related to temperature critical components at ambient
temperatures between a certain capacity de-rating
would be expected, while the WTG will completely stop when the temperature reaches and
exceeds Note that these parameters are intended for indicative purposes only,
as they will vary depending on the specific WTG technology.
3.2.2 Operating Constraints

Besides maintenance outage requirements as described in Section 3.1 and technical
parameters discussed above,
3.2.3 Offshore Accessibility, in Case of Assets Failure

In case the offshore assets are down due to failure, offshore accessibility would potentially
pose a constraint on the repair and restart of the equipment. Such accessibility is primarily
determined by wave height for sailing operations, and wind speed and visibility conditions for
flying operations, which have been assessed based on the recent information available.
As described in Section 3.1, the Bidder will seek to optimize all scheduled and unscheduled
maintenance as much as possible, especially when outages are required. Typically, outages
are planned taking into consideration low wind periods and offshore accessibility
3.2.4 Other Restrictions

Further accessibility constraints may be imposed by the BOEM and other regulatory agencies
to protect significant resources such as marine mammals. These could affect sailing and

increase operational cost due to the monitoring activities and overall compliance with the
requirements.
Operating constraints and restrictions have been accounted for in the availability and Annual
Energy Production (AEP) assessment and do not seem to be problematic.
3.3 Reliability
Describe how the proposal would provide enhanced electricity reliability to Massachusetts, including
its impact on transmission constraints.
The Preferred Option Project is designed to

markedly enhance electric system reliability,
particularly during the winter months when
electric and natural gas demand experience
a coincidental peak. Since 2000, the share
of the electricity supplied by natural gas-fired
generation has increased from 12 percent to
nearly 50 percent while natural gas
transportation capacity has remained
relatively static.2 While gas pipelines have
been constructed to serve firm demand for
natural gas distribution customers, limited excess capacity to serve the region’s natural gas-
fired generating fleet remains. Furthermore, nearly 8 GW of non-natural gas-fired generation
is expected to retire by 2020, which will amplify the effects of pipeline constraints.
The Project is designed to assist the region in overcoming its winter reliability challenges by
delivering energy when it is needed most (e.g., during cold winter periods when natural gas
demand is at its peak), helping to reduce peak energy prices and price volatility. Only the Bay
State Wind Project will deliver the full extent of these benefits as discussed below. By
harnessing the world-class offshore wind expertise of Ørsted in the design, engineering and
operation of these complex assets, the Project will fully exploit the excellent wind conditions
off the Massachusetts coast.
New Technology Increases Reliability and Capacity Factors:

The Owners’ deep experience in offshore wind generation keeps them at the forefront of deploying new technology
that helps increase reliability and capacity factors, such as the
This and other new

technologies further increase the stable reliable production profile of the Project, enabling it to play an important
role in increasing system reliability in Massachusetts.
2 Comments of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resource in Docket DPU 15-37, Pg. 11.

The Project’s capabilities for enhancing electricity reliability in the Commonwealth are further
outlined in Table 3.2 and Sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.7 below. These capabilities will improve
the reliability and efficiency of the ISO-NE system.
Table 3.2
26B Benefits to the ISO-NE System of the Bay State Wind Project
Capability System Stability System Balancing Network Optimization
Sub-second speed of
frequency response  
Delivery of reactive power
and voltage support  
Fast ramp-down/de-load  
Fast ramp-up at all
operating ranges  
STATCOM to dampen
harmonic distortions  
Automated response in
system events   
Real-time “available
power estimation”  
3.3.1 Avoiding Transmission Constraints
As described in Section 6, the Project proposes to interconnect with the ISO-NE system at
Brayton Point, in proximity to the main load centers in the region. By doing so, the Project will
avoid key transmission constraints that would increase the cost of delivering energy
produced by the Project to customers located within these load centers.
3.3.2 Enhancing Electricity Reliability

The scale of the Project will help effectively bridge the gap created by retirement of some of
New England’s largest generators and increase the diversity of Massachusetts’ energy mix,
thereby making it more reliable and resilient. Indeed, some of the Project’s key reliability
benefits stem from the fact that while the nameplate capacity is 400 MW this capacity is
spread across WTGs, each of which act as an independent power plant. As such, even if
one of these power plants fail, the remaining will continue to produce power. This
reliability strength is amplified by the unparalleled O&M experience of the Owners, which
allows the Bidder to maintain availability of the Project at a rate well above industry average.
3.3.3 Contribution to Reducing Winter Electricity Price Spikes

Extreme weather patterns have amplified constraints on New England’s natural gas pipelines
and ultimately have caused periodic spikes in wholesale energy prices, primarily during
winter cold snaps. This dynamic was apparent during the Polar Vortex of 2014 when ISO-NE
saw wholesale prices soar.

The Project provides more consistent output during the winter months, enhancing reliability,
as demonstrated by the Project’s capacity factors which approximate percent during
these months. To the extent offshore wind displaces gas-fired generation during the peak
hours of winter months and reduces the fuel demand of natural gas-fired generators, the
Project will aid pipeline congestion, exerting downward pressure on delivered gas costs, i.e.,
the primary driver of wholesale energy prices in New England. The Bidder’s winter season
production could also supplant the cost and emissions of either oil-fueled or dual-fueled
power plants that burn oil when natural gas is unavailable or uneconomic. See Figure 3.2
below, simulating the effect that a 400-MW offshore wind facility connecting into SEMA/RI
could have had in displacing thermal generation during the 2014 Polar Vortex event.
To assess the effect of the Project on winter price spikes, the Bidder commissioned LAI to
perform an estimate of the effect of the Project on future energy prices. The full report,
“Contribution to Reducing Winter Price Spikes by the Bay State Wind Project”, can be found
in Attachment 3-1.
The price reduction impacts are reported as a reduction of the total cost to load
Massachusetts customers and as Massachusetts load-weighted, average price impact.
All prices reported in this report are in real 2016 dollars. Key results of the analyses are
summarized below.
With respect to the incremental RE scenario, the winter price reduction in Massachusetts is
greatest for the highest decile (10th) of Locational Marginal Prices, about $4.35 to

$4.55/MWh, depending on the winter season definition. The top decile includes price spikes
as well as other high prices. For the lower deciles, the absolute price reduction is less, but
the percentage reduction is greater than for the top decile.
Based on data for November 2010 through October 2014, the annual price reduction over
all hours ascribable to incremental offshore wind averages approximately $158 million per
year for EDCs in the Commonwealth.
3.3.4 Project Benefits to the Forward Capacity Market (FCM)

As outlined is Part VII of the CPPD form (Attachment 1-1), the Preferred Option Project
expects to be able to qualify MW of capacity in the summer and MW of capacity in
the winter in the FCM beginning with Forward Capacity Auction
. This capacity will diversify the energy mix available in the FCM, thereby
increasing reliability in the ISO-NE system over the life of the asset. Furthermore, due to its
higher winter capacity factors, the Project will alleviate the price pressure and volatility
created by the impact of extreme weather on natural gas pipelines that serve New England.
3.3.5 Project Benefits to the Ancillary Service Market

The Project will deploy software that allows it to automatically adjust its power output in
response to the onshore grid frequency effectively providing inertial response to the grid.
Furthermore, the Project has the capability to inject or absorb reactive power at all operating
ranges. By utilizing this capability, the Project will aid ISO-NE in managing voltage on the
transmission system without requiring additional reactive compensation. The extent to which
the service can be beneficial to the ISO-NE is determined by the length of the cable from
shore. The provision of a STATCOM onshore provides greater voltage stability for ISO-NE due
to its fast reactive power response unlike other reactive power compensation equipment.
This significantly improves the stability of the system and aids ISO-NE in avoiding cascaded
trips and partial blackouts.
3.3.6 Project’s Operating Flexibility Benefits for ISO-NE

The Project will be capable of quickly changing its power output from the power available at
the given wind speed. If required, the Project could undergo a fast power ramp down and
operate at lower stable export levels. This would allow ISO-NE to manage system flexibility
needs and ensure the security of supply during high renewable production or from excess
generation to stabilize the onshore grid frequency. Technically, a faster response provider
can offset the need for larger volumes of response (i.e., a 1-MW fast response may have the
equivalent impact of a 1.5-MW slow response). Additionally the fast acting capability of WTGs
can also help stabilize grid oscillations by damping the power oscillating at certain
frequencies. By utilizing this proven capability from the WTGs, ISO-NE will have access to a
more flexible resource and can further optimize the frequency response needs (see Figure
3.3).

Figure 3.3 Up- and Downwards Regulation of Production
Note: At wind speeds of 8m/s and above. Based on meso-scale data from the four nodes closest to the project site
wind speeds were at 8m/s and above 63 percent of the time between 2006 and 2016.
3.3.7 Net Economic Benefits

Based on internal analysis, and using a cost-effectiveness model developed by LAI, the
Bidder has conservatively estimated that the overall net economic benefit of the Bay State
Wind Project to ratepayers is more than over the life of the Project. These total
net economic benefits are comprised of both direct benefits and indirect benefits.
Direct benefits are those offsetting credits flowing to the EDCs in connection with the
products procured under an 83C PPA. These benefits would offset direct costs and would
reduce net costs recoverable from ratepayers through the distribution charge.
 Energy Direct Benefit – Since energy procured under an 83C PPA will be resold into
the wholesale market by the EDCs in the ISO-NE Day Ahead or Real Time Market, or
both, the value of this benefit is the sum of hourly products of energy delivered and
the hourly price (locational marginal price [LMP]) at the injection node (delivery
point).
 REC Direct Benefit - Direct benefits from RECs are based on the market value of any
RECs sold or the avoided market purchase cost of RECs that otherwise would have
been purchased by the EDCs to cover Standard Offer load. Thus, the value may
depend on the relative position of the EDCs in any year.
Indirect benefits do not flow directly through EDC tariffs, but rather (1) affect the costs of
providing retail energy supply by Standard Offer or competitive providers through changes in
wholesale prices of energy, capacity, and RECs.

 Energy Cost-to-Load – The annual sum of the hourly products of EDC loads and
corresponding zonal market energy prices (LMPs).
 EDC Share of System-wide Production Cost – The annual sum of hourly variable
production costs for all New England Generators, multiplied by a factor representing
the Massachusetts EDC share of total load. In certain procurements, this measure
has been used in a weighted sum with Energy Cost-to-Load in order to assess the
impact on customers, in general, and Massachusetts residents, in particular. The
EDC share of system-wide production cost tends to be a more robust indicator than
Cost-to-Load both for an individual contract as well as for a portfolio of contracts.
 Capacity Cost-to-Load – The change in annual FCM charges assigned to
Massachusetts EDCs attributable to the award of a given project or portfolio. The
charges could be affected by the addition of the awarded project as a capacity
resource and/or by changes in energy prices affecting the FCM clearing price.
 Transmission Cost – The deferral or avoidance of transmission costs to move
renewable energy from Northern New England to Massachusetts load centers.
Although not directly counted in the cost-effectiveness test, these results are amplified when
taking into account the 850 direct construction jobs; around permanent O&M jobs and
7,939 indirect jobs and significant resultant economic activity from the Bidder’s material
long-term investment in the Commonwealth. These numbers also do not capture the value of
avoided emissions, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions mandated under
the GWSA.
3.3.8 Reliability Benefits from Project’s Paired Battery Storage System

The Bidder recognizes the Commonwealth’s laudable efforts to become a national and global
leader in energy storage, including its support for projects that innovatively pair energy
storage with offshore wind. The Bidder and its affiliates recognize the value of integrating
energy storage with large scale renewable energy resources, and are deploying storage in
multiple applications world-wide. For example, Eversource, through its affiliates, is
developing one of the largest energy storage demonstration programs in the nation.3
Similarly, Ørsted has demonstrated a strong commitment to integrating energy storage with
large scale renewables including the soon-to-be commissioned (Q1 2018) 2-MW/2-MWh
lithium-ion battery storage system at the 90-MW Burbo Bank Offshore Wind Farm. This
energy storage system will provide rapid frequency response services thereby helping to
maintain system stability at the appropriate frequency.4 The Burbo Bank project marks the
first time an offshore wind farm will integrate a battery storage system to deliver frequency
response to the grid.
As part of the Project the Bidder will integrate a 30-MW/60-MWh lithium-ion battery storage
unit at the OnSS. Through close collaboration with leading battery storage suppliers, the
Bidder has tailored the energy storage system to best support the reliability of the ISO-NE
transmission system, encourage the development of the energy storage industry in the
Commonwealth, and create a foundation for future innovative energy storage projects. These
efforts have culminated in a letter of intent with the Preferred Option (see Section 8.4
and Attachment 8-2).
3 MA DPU Docket 17-05.

4 For the European market, the appropriate frequency is 50 Hz rather than the 60 Hz at which the U.S. power grid operates.

storage solutions
around the world including the recently completed
is committed to advancing
energy storage technology through ongoing partnerships with other Massachusetts energy
storage technology development vendors and our region’s leading academic institutions.5
Furthermore, as this
would be the first time a large battery storage system is deployed alongside a large offshore
wind farm in the U.S., the Project would secure a unique competence for
As designed, the battery storage unit will function as a time-shifting device, charging in the
off-peak hours when demand is low (e.g., hours 10:00 pm – 5:00 am), and releasing the
energy during on-peak hours. The battery storage unit will be sized to have a capacity
equivalent to approximately percent of the Bidder’s nameplate capacity (30-MW/60-MWh)
and the ability to provide full discharge for 2 hours. This means that the battery will be able
to increase the Project’s energy delivery by an average of percent every day during the 2-
hour winter peak period. During summer months, the discharge can be spread over the 5-
hour summer peak demand period, increasing the Bidder’s average energy delivery during
peak demand by an average of percent.
This ability to shift significant amounts of energy to when it is most needed in the system will
not only help increase system reliability, it will also have a tangible impact on winter and
summer peak prices.
Through its ability to time-shift production, the Project will also support the Commonwealth’s
goal of maximizing the value of clean, renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions (see Section 13).
3.4 Moderation of System Peak Load

Describe how the proposal would contribute to moderating system peak load requirements and
provide the following information:
i. Estimated average output for each summer period (June- September) from 1:00 - 6:00 pm
ii. Estimated average output for each winter period (October-May) from 5:00 – 7:00 pm
By delivering 400 MW clean energy generating capacity close to Massachusetts’ main load
centers, the Project will help moderate system peak load requirements throughout its
lifetime. This is particularly true due to the Preferred Option’s consistently high average
production rate, achieved by deploying the WTG
In addition, the Bidder’s proprietary site layout
optimization tools will enable it to minimize the shadowing effect between the WTGs (wake
losses) and maximize the wind climate usage. Furthermore, by pairing the Project with a
state-of-the-art 30-MW/60-MWh battery storage system, the Project can store production
during hours with low demand and deliver them at periods of high demand, thus allowing it

to better follow the Commonwealth’s anticipated peak load hours (see Section 3.3.8). By
doing this, the Project is able to create the most value for Massachusetts ratepayers. In the
following section, the Bidder will quantify its contribution to moderating system peak load
requirements.
Attachment 3-2 provides:
1) Net hourly energy production, based on the wind resource data (a 12 x 24 energy
projection) at P50, with and without impact of battery storage system, the latter has
been included solely for purposes of comparison as the Bidder intends to deploy the
battery storage system. The attachment also includes the following information:
̶ Estimated average output for each summer period (June- September) from 1:00 - 6:00 pm
with combined offshore wind farm and battery storage system
̶ Estimated average output for each winter period (October-May) from 5:00 – 7:00 pm with
combined offshore wind farm and battery storage system
The strategic use of a battery to better cover the peak load demand leads to an uplift of
in summer and in winter compared to the previously presented average
productions.
The Project’s production profile for an average day (24 hours) in July and March at P50 are
provided in Figures 3.4 and 3.5. The peak hours, as defined in the RFP, have been
highlighted. The chart displays two production profiles: (1) the blue line is the offshore wind
asset in isolation, and (2) the red line shows the combined offshore wind farm and battery
storage system and shows the increased energy delivery during peak hours as described
above.


Section 4
Energy Resource and
Delivery Plan
The outstanding nature of wind resources offshore
Massachusetts is well documented. Ørsted has
dedicated significant resources to data collection,
modeling, and calibration. This work increases the
confidence in the energy production projection
essential to the Project’s business case.
In June 2017, Bay State Wind became the first
lease holder in New England to receive approval
of its Site Assessment Plan and subsequently
deployed two FLiDAR buoys and one wave buoy
to continuously monitor and assess the wind
resource across the Lease Area.
Bay State Wind uses proprietary tools to optimize
wind turbine layout to ensure maximum output.

Bay State Wind is ready, willing, and able to supply

Class-1 RECs.
% %
electrical availability for the
efficiency offshore substation
% %
uptime for each average net
wind turbine capacity factor

Section 4 Energy Resource and Delivery Plan
4. ENERGY RESOURCE AND DELIVERY PLAN

In this section, the Bidder discusses the anticipated energy resource profile for the Project
and the delivery of RECs, including related efforts in data collection, modeling, and wind
climate prediction. Significant meteorological and metocean evaluations already underway
are being supplemented by third party evaluations.
4.1 Energy Resource Plan

For Eligible Facilities, the bidder is required to provide an energy resource or fuel supply plan for its
proposed project, including supporting documentation. The fuel supply/energy resource profile
information should be consistent with the type of technology/resource option proposed and the term
proposed. Bidders should respond to all information requests which are relevant to the bid in a timely
manner.
A robust wind climate prediction regime is paramount to an accurate assessment of the

energy resource profile for the Project. Ørsted has dedicated significant resources to data
collection, modeling and calibration. This work increases the confidence in the energy
production projection essential to the Project’s business case. A constant communication
line has been established with potential WTG manufacturers to ensure that the supplied
power curve is representative for the site conditions. Finally, a set of assumptions for the
expected efficiencies and availabilities has been thoroughly developed based on Ørsted’s
more than two decades of experience in wind farm operations, combined with Eversource’s
expertise in local conditions. The following section provides a detailed summary of the data
that support the Bidder’s prediction: 1) the primary wind data collected to date, plus
reference data, summaries of third-party assessments, and other data collection efforts; 2)
the projection of net AEP; 3) the Project’s power curve; and 4) assumptions relating to
physical, environmental, and operational factors affecting energy production.
All Projects
Provide a summary of all collected wind data for the proposed site. Identify when and how (e.g.
meteorological mast or LiDAR – for “Light Detection and Ranging”) the data was collected and by
whom.
4.1.1 Wind Data

The Bidder has compiled Primary and Reference data in assessing the wind energy resource
at the Project site. As described in more detail below, because the Primary data set is from a
location distant from the Project Area, this dataset is used as a reference source of validated
hub height wind speed data. The Bidder relies principally on modelled mesoscale Reference
data in deriving its wind resource assessment. To increase the reliability and accuracy of the
Reference dataset, it is necessary for the Bidder’s wind resource experts to calibrate and
adjust the data for known biases and long-term environmental conditions. These steps, and
the resulting final climate analysis are described below. These data sources are described in
more detail in the following subsections.
Additionally, and as discussed below, the Project has contracted with an unaffiliated third
party to provide an independent assessment of the wind resource and energy yield of the
Project.

Additionally, in June of this year, Bay State Wind became the first U.S. developer to receive
approval from BOEM for deployment of a floating light detection and ranging (FLiDAR) and
met ocean buoy. The discussion below describes the status and long-term benefit of this
data collection effort.
Primary Data
Air-Sea Interaction Tower Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
Since October 8, 2016, a WindCube V2 profiling LiDAR (unit WLS7 436) has been deployed
at the Air-Sea Interaction Tower (ASIT) near Martha’s Vineyard by the MassCEC. The ASIT is
operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The LiDAR campaign is executed by AWS
Truepower and the data collected are in the public domain. The LiDAR is located 16 miles
(26 km) from the proposed wind farm site area, and the measurement heights available are
shown in Table 4.1. The position of the LiDAR on the tower is shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1
263B Measurement Heights Relative to MSL (m)
Measurement heights relative
to MSL (m)
53
60
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
180
200

Figure 4.1 Air-Sea Interaction Tower. The location of the WindCube LiDAR is marked with the red
circle.
Figure 4.2 The WindCube LiDAR at the Air-Sea Interaction Tower

Before deployment, WLS7 436 was validated by NRG Systems. The reference instrument was
another WindCube LiDAR. The reference LiDAR had previously been certified by the Technical
University of Denmark in a validation against an onshore met mast. NRG Systems validated
the wind speed of WLS7 436 at heights of 40 m, 80 m, 120 m, and 160 m. The wind
direction was validated at 100 m. The ASIT LiDAR is too far from the site to serve as a direct
measurement of the wind conditions at the wind farm but it is a valuable reference source of
validated hub height wind speed measurements.
The ASIT LiDAR data coverage was 92 percent. The data availability over time is plotted in
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3 ASIT Lidar and Mesoscale Data Coverage
Reference Data
Vortex Mesoscale Data
Mesoscale modelled data from the commercial provider Vortex is the primary source of wind
data for the project (Table 4.2). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) buoys and the Buzzard’s Bay tower provide long-term data sources in the region, but
they are at such low heights that vertical extrapolation to hub height would be highly
uncertain.
Table 4.2
264B Vortex Mesoscale Data Summary.
Mesoscale Model
Input Data Parameters Applied Period Height [m]
MERRA2 Wind speed, wind
direction, temperature, 01/2006 – 06/2017 120 aMSL
ERAI pressure
The four mesoscale nodes closest to the site area, labeled VORp005, VORp006, VORp007,
and VORp008, are used to derive a representative wind climate (Figure 4.4). Modeled data
based on two input sources (MERRA2 and ERAI) are available at each node. The mesoscale

data are available at heights from 50 m to 150 m above mean sea level (aMSL) in steps of
10 m. The wind climate is derived from the level at 120 m aMSL, as this is closest to hub
height.
Figure 4.4 Elevation Map of the Lease Area with the Wind Data Sources
Mesoscale Model Calibration

It is known that mesoscale wind speeds can be biased compared with calibrated reference
instruments. Therefore, the mesoscale model is corrected using the wind data from the ASIT
LiDAR and the mesoscale node VORr012 co-located with it (Figure 4.5). It is assumed that
the corrections derived at the ASIT location are applicable across the region, since the model
governing the mesoscale data is the same.

Since the mesoscale data are sampled hourly, the 10-minute LiDAR data are averaged to
hourly values. Only LiDAR data with availability higher than 80 percent are included. In
addition, for hours where less than 80 percent of the data are usable after filtering on
availability, the average is set to not a number (ignored). The concurrent period is the period
with simultaneous data for the ASIT LiDAR and both mesoscale sources. It is limited by the
lag in the mesoscale data, which are only available after some time (Figures 4.3 and 4.5).
Two separate methods for correcting the mesoscale modelled data are used:
 Scaling: The scaling method derives a scaling factor as the ratio between the LiDAR
mean wind speed and the mesoscale mean wind speed over the concurrent period.
Only timestamps where both the LiDAR and the mesoscale wind speeds are defined
and less than 25 m/s are included. A separate scaling factor is derived for ERAI
( ) and MERRA2
 Calibration: The calibration method compares mesoscale to LiDAR wind speeds in
30° sectors defined by the mesoscale wind direction. A linear regression with an
offset defines the relation between the mesoscale and LiDAR wind speeds. This
relation is used to correct the mesoscale wind speeds corresponding to wind
directions in the smaller interval of ±2.5° around the center of the sector. A sector-
wise calibration is obtained by shifting the regression sector in steps of 5°. A
separate calibration is undertaken for the ERAI and MERRA2 mesoscale wind
speeds. The sector-wise results are illustrated in Figure 4.6. The scaling parameters
and the sector-wise linear regression parameters are then applied to the four
mesoscale nodes surrounding the wind farm. The mesoscale wind direction is not
corrected.

The correlation between the ASIT LiDAR wind speed and the mesoscale modelled wind speed
without correction, with the mean wind speed scaling and the calibration method are shown
in Figures 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9, respectively.

From the qualification of mesoscale models in Europe it is known that the mesoscale wind
speed distribution is skewed relative to measurements, resulting in a larger Weibull k-factor
and a positive bias on the AEP. To correct for this the AEP is calculated for both the
mesoscale data and the ASIT LiDAR in the concurrent period.
Figure 4.10 shows that the corrected mesoscale has a positive bias on both the gross and
the net AEP, as expected from previous findings in Europe. The average bias over the two
correction methods and the ERAI and MERRA2 sources is . Hence a gross AEP
adjustment with an efficiency of is applied in the yield calculation.

Wind Shear
A wind shear is derived by fitting the wind speed profile at each of the four mesoscale nodes
to a power law profile. It is assumed that any correction to the mesoscale wind speeds is the
same at all heights. Hence the shear is calculated from the uncorrected mesoscale data. A
separate shear is calculated for the ERAI and MERRA2 data.
The wind shear from the mesoscale modelled data is divided up in to 12 sectors as can be
seen in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.11. The observed variation across sectors is typical of
offshore sites.

With an average wind shear of the mean wind speed is expected to increase by
approximately for an increase of 10 m around hub height.
Long-term Wind Climate
Only full data years are included in the wind climate analysis. The mesoscale time series at
the four nodes closest to the wind farm site cover the period 2006-2016 at the time of
writing. New data become available monthly, but with a lag of a few months.
To correct for any deviation from the long-term mean wind speed over the period 2006-2016
the mesoscale node VORr014 is used, since for this location a time series extending back to
1996 was purchased. A long-term correction factor is derived for both the ERAI and the
MERRA2 wind speed data by calculating the mean wind speed at 120 m aMSL at VORr014
in the period 2006-2016, which is concurrent with the data at the four primary mesoscale
nodes, and in the period 1996-2016, which constitutes the long-term period. The ratio of
former to the latter gives the long-term correction factor, which is applied to the wind speeds.
These are summarized in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
26B Long-term Correction Factors
Mesoscale source Long-term correction factor [-]
ERAI
MERRA2
Vertical Extrapolation of Wind Climate

With the assumed power law wind speed profile the wind climate is extrapolated from 120 m
aMSL to hub height. This is handled in the energy yield calculation as a function of wind
direction. For reference, the mean wind speed at hub height is summarized in Table 4.5.

Final Wind Climate on Site

A representative wind climate is derived by averaging all the corrected mesoscale time series
across the four nodes. Similarly, the wind direction, temperature, and pressure time series
are also averaged. For the wind directions, a vector average is used.
The evolution of the mean wind speed from the uncorrected mesoscale data to the final wind
climate are summarized in Table 4.5. The wind rose is illustrated in Figure 4.12 while Figure
4.13 shows the wind speed distribution considering all wind direction sectors.

Raw wind speed measurements from the ASIT LiDAR and mesoscale data from all used
nodes, as well as time series of the final wind climate for the site are shared in
Attachment 4-1.
Indicate where the data was collected and its proximity to the proposed site. Include an identification
of the location and height for the anemometers and/or “range gate” heights for sensing by LiDAR that
were used to arrive at an assessment of the site generation capability.
See the preceding discussion for a description of where the data was collected and its
proximity to the proposed site.
Describe any additional wind data collection efforts that are planned or ongoing.
Planned and Ongoing Wind Data Collection Efforts

The Bidder is currently conducting meteorological and metocean evaluations, inclusive of
wind speed and direction at multiple heights, as part of the site assessment activities of the
Project within the Lease Area. The Site Assessment Plan (SAP) describes how, where and
when the data will be collected. A copy of the SAP, as posted on the BOEM website, is
included as Attachment 4-2 and the BOEM approval letter from June 29, 2017 is included as
Attachment 4-3. On July 8, 2017, the Project deployed two and one
Buoy within the Lease Area. While data will be collected for at least 24 months, the
first data is already becoming available for analysis now and demonstrates an encouraging
agreement with the wind climate data that the Bidder derived from its mesoscale data and
the wind measured from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution LiDAR at the Air-Sea
Interaction Tower. The Bidder will continue to analyze the floating LiDAR outputs as they
becomes available, but the initial data is proving how valuable it is for the Bidder to be the

first lease holder in New England to receive BOEM approval of its SAP and the only one with
FLiDAR units deployed within its lease area.
Provide (a) at least one year of hourly wind resource data. Real Data collected from the site is
preferred, though projected data is permissible. Methodology must also be included and (b) a wind
resource assessment report from a qualified unaffiliated third party wind resource assessment firm.
Include an analysis of the available wind data which addresses the relationship between wind
conditions and electrical output.
See Attachment 4-1. A discussion of the methodology and analysis of wind resource data is
provided above.
In addition to this ongoing data collection, and as discussed above, the Bidder has enlisted
to provide a third-party wind assessment (Attachment 4-4).
Provide a projection of net annual energy production, including projections of average net hourly
energy production, based on the wind resource data (a 12 x 24 energy projection) at both P50 and
P90 levels.
4.1.2 Projection of Net Annual Energy Production

As a first step, the gross energy yield is estimated from the wind resource data and the WTG
power curve (Section 4.1.3), following the procedure described in the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400-12-1 standard.
The gross yield estimate is the theoretical yield that the wind farm can produce based only
on the power curve and the wind resource. No losses are included in the number. The gross
yield can never be realized as production will be lost due to wake losses, availability, and
other losses.
As a second step, the wake losses (see Section 4.1.4) are calculated based on the WTG
positions, the wind resource frequency distribution, and the WTG power and Ct curves.
Finally, additional efficiencies and availabilities are applied to derive the net P50 AEP. The
net AEP is the annual energy delivered from the wind farm to the interconnection point at the
grid. The assumptions for efficiencies in the calculation of projected AEP are provided in
Section 4.1.4.
The calculation of the AEP at the P90 level follows the procedures laid out in Guide to the
Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)6. The sensitivity of the AEP on the wind
speed is calculated considering the non-linear nature of the power curve. For the
uncertainties not depending on the wind speed, the sensitivities are set to the magnitude of
6 Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. 2008. Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty
in Measurement. JCGM 100:2008. Available online at:

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf.

the given loss (i.e., 1-efficiency). The total uncertainty on the production is the square root of
the sum of squares of all the individual uncertainties (weighted by their sensitivities). From
the total uncertainty, the net AEP at the P90 level (or any other percentile) can be found by
assuming that the AEP distribution is a normal distribution with a mean value of net AEP
(P50) and a standard deviation given by the total uncertainty.
The Net AEP (P50 and P90) is presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
268B Net Annual Energy Production (P50 and P90)
Net AEP GWh/y
P50
P90
The average gross and net hourly AEP for P50 and P90, based on the wind resource data
presented in Section 4.1.1, are provided in Attachment 4-5. Note that no energy storage
impact is included.7 Based on the long-term wind climate, a time series of hourly gross
production is derived. The P50 and P90 levels for each hour and month are calculated. The
P50 (P90) is the median (P90 percentile) of the production values in a given hour and
month. The variation represents the fluctuations in the wind speed from day to day within a
month and from year to year.
In a second step, the P50 and P90 production in each hour and month is divided by the total
gross production over the year to generate the corresponding fraction of the production
occurring in a particular hour on a representative day of a particular month. Finally, the
fractional production values are scaled by the net AEP, producing a 12x24 matrix of
projected hourly energy generation in MW. All losses and availability assumptions are
included. The losses are assumed to be distributed evenly across all hours, months and
years.
Provide a site-adjusted power curve. Each curve should list the elevation, temperature and air density
used.
4.1.3 Power Curve

A site-adjusted power curve is provided below in Table 4.7 and depicted in Figure 4.14.
The power curve is the relation between the wind speed and the produced power for a single
WTG. The site-adjusted power curve is specified at the mean air density at the site. This is
calculated following the procedure in IEC 61400-12-1, corresponding to the hub height of
119 m aMSL and a mean site temperature of 11.2 degrees Celsius (°C). The resulting mean
air density at hub height is kg/m3. The Ct value is the thrust coefficient. It expresses
7 Similar 12x24h production matrices are included in the third-party wind assessment (Attachment 4-4). Note however, that
in the third party report, the entries in the matrices correspond to monthly totals in a given hour reported in GWh, while in
Attachment 4-5 the values representing an average day for every hour and month are reported in MWh. Therefore, the
values in Attachment 4-5 have to be multiplied by the number of days in a month and divided by 1000 to be compared with
the values in Attachment 4-4.

how much force the WTG exerts on the flow as a function of wind speed. This input is
necessary for the calculation of the wake losses.
The WTGs in this proposal have a nameplate capacity of kilowatt (kW).
8 This is further attested to by the independent engineering company in their third party wind resource assessment
report (Attachment 4-4) (Attachment 4-6).

Identify the assumptions for losses in the calculation of projected annual energy production, including
each element in the calculation losses.
4.1.4 Physical, Environmental and Operational Efficiencies and Availabilities

The following physical, environmental, and operational losses are assumed in calculating the
Project’s projected AEP.
Wake. Each WTG creates a turbulent wake effect which in a wind farm can impact downwind
WTGs. The N.O. Jensen model is used to calculate the wake efficiency using the specified
power and thrust curves for each WTG. The calculations are based on a wake decay
coefficient of . Wake losses are calculated to reduce overall WTG efficiency to
percent.
High-Wind Hysteresis. High wind hysteresis losses occur when the WTG has stopped
production at high wind speeds because one of the stopping criteria has been met (e.g., too
high wind or too strong gusts).
The WTG will only restart when the wind is below a certain criterion so there will be a period
where the WTG could in theory be producing but it is not because it is waiting for the wind to
be low enough to initiate the restart. This results in what is called high wind hysteresis loss.
Blade Surface Roughness. Contamination of the rotor by dirt and insects will lead to an
increase in the surface roughness, which in turn leads to lower aerodynamic efficiency of the
blade. Offshore, due to the remote location, the occurrence of blade contamination due to

dirt and insects is expected to be quite low. In addition, the expected high frequency of
sustained periods of rain will act as a very efficient cleaning system for the blades, reducing
any contamination to a negligible level. It has been also assessed that the risk of icing is
negligible at the wind farm location. Based on all the considerations above, the Blade
Surface Roughness efficiency is set to 100 percent.
Representativeness of Wind Conditions. This adjustment factor accounts for potential
adjustments to the power curve due to the differences between the wind conditions under
which the power curve is measured and under which the wind turbines operate within the
offshore wind farm. This is represented by an adjustment of on the power
curve.
Induction Zone Adjustment. This adjustment accounts for the free wind speed, as measured
during power curve tests, being affected by the WTG induction zone, also known as
compression zone effect, which have a boosting effect. The adjustment to the power curve is
done with a factor of percent.
Electrical Efficiency. Modeled electrical efficiencies for the wind farm and electrical system
are estimated to be percent based on the specific planned wind farm layout. The factor
includes efficiencies gained from use of cutting-edge technologies such as the WTG
transformer, array cables, export cable and substations (transformer units, reactors and
filters).
Turbine Availability. Each WTG’s availability is assumed to be percent uptime from year
and percent from year onwards, which is an estimate based on Ørsted’s
experience gained from operating wind farms using mature WTG technology (Figure 3.1),
furthering improvement and performance management. This factor takes account of
scheduled and unscheduled losses due to downtime of the WTGs. Ramp-up adjustments are
accounted during the early operation start-up.
Array Cable Availability. The array cables availability is assumed to be percent uptime,
based on Ørsted’s experience gained from operating wind farms. Issues that may affect
availability are the design of the cable entry system and ground conditions on the site.
Substation Availability. The OSS is expected to have an availability of percent, which
accounts for the energy lost in the offshore electrical components including
transformers and offshore shunt reactors. The OnSS availability is percent, which
includes losses in the onshore transformers, shunt reactors, harmonic filters and STATCOMs.
These factors take account of scheduled and unscheduled losses due to downtime.
Scheduled downtime is reduced to an absolute minimum by 1) designing the system with
dual transformers and 2) performing scheduled maintenance during the low-wind months
and on one transformer at a time.
Export Cable Availability. This factor takes account of losses due to failures of the export
cable, both offshore and onshore, and is represented by an availability of percent.
Grid Availability. Grid availability can be defined as the losses due to the main onshore
transmission grid being unavailable, and it is represented by an availability of percent.

4.2 Offshore Wind Energy Generation Delivery Plan

Please provide an energy delivery plan and profile for the proposed project, including supporting
documentation. The energy delivery profile must provide the expected Offshore Wind Energy
Generation to be delivered into the ISO-NE market settlement system and permit the Evaluation Team
to determine the reasonableness of the projections for purposes of Sections 2.2.1.3 Eligible Bid
Categories and 2.2.1.7 Minimum Contract Size of the RFP. Such information should be consistent with
the energy resource plan provided above and also considering any and all constraints to physical
delivery into ISO-NE.
The energy delivery plan is based on the input and methodology presented in Sections 3.4
and 4.1.2, and it is provided as a P50 average year expectation for the hourly profile (see
Attachment 3-2). Additionally, the energy delivery plan includes the benefits from the energy
storage battery proposed in Sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.
The energy delivery profile provided here confirms that the Project conforms to all
requirements set out in Section 2.2.1.3 of the RFP, including:
1. A price schedule for energy delivery conforming to Section 2.2.1.4 of the RFP (see
Part III and VI in the CPPD, Attachment 1-1)
2. A proposal that consists of a GLL and ETS project as required by Sections 2.2.1.3.1
and 2.2.1.3.2 of the RFP (see Sections 8 and 15 in the Bid)
3. The Project will propose a battery storage system to create the most value for
Massachusetts ratepayers and as such the delivery profile will conform to the
request that a Project’s energy delivery follows the Commonwealth’s load as closely
as possible. This is further elaborated upon in Sections 3.3.8, 3.4, 4.1, and 4.2.
Further, the Project conforms to all requirements of Section 2.2.1.7 of the RFP. As described
in Section 6.6, the Bidder has already received a queue position from ISO-NE ( ), and
ISO-NE completed its Feasibility Study for the Project’s interconnection at Brayton Point on
April 7, 2017. In the study, ISO-NE found that the Bidder could connect 800 MW at the
Brayton Point POI with no need for system upgrades. Additionally, ISO-NE has completed a
Preliminary Non-Binding Overlapping Impact (PNOI) Study with 800 MW of injection to the
Brayton Point 345-kV Substation. This study assesses the Project’s ability to provide
incremental capacity in a manner that meets the Capacity Capability Interconnection
Standard (CCIS). The PNOI Study assessed the injection of 800 MW and identified upgrades.
However, given the Project’s anticipated Qualified Capacity of in summer and
in winter, the Bidder anticipates that the binding ISO-NE study will find no upgrades will
be required. In the event that the ISO-NE binding study does identify upgrades, these will be
constructed as necessary. This is also discussed in the CPPD, Part VII.

4.3 REC/Environmental Attribute Delivery Plan

Please provide documentation demonstrating that the project will Deliver GIS Certificates representing
those RECs or Environmental Attributes.
As an Offshore Wind Energy Generation proposal, this Project will produce Class-1
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) (see Section 7.6). The Bidder will use the New England
Power Pool (NEPOOL)-generation information system (GIS) to track these Class-1 RECs and
their environmental attributes as they are delivered throughout the lifetime of the Project.
While the Bidder has not currently registered with NEPOOL-GIS it will do so at the appropriate
time to allow it to deliver GIS Certificates as required by the RFP. As required by the form of
PPA, the Bidder will deliver RECs either directly into each EDC’s account or execute an
irrevocable forward transfer certificate. Documentation will be provided once available.

Section 5
Financial / Legal
Bay State Wind consists of two of the most stable and
diverse energy companies with unrivaled balance sheets to
support the Project. Ørsted and Eversource are committed to
this Project and have invested more than million to date
to support development.
The Bidder’s financial resilience will insulate the
development, construction, and operation of the
Project from the inevitable fluctuations of the
business cycle, and eliminate the need for external
financing.
Ørsted and Eversource have the financial capability
to construct up to 800 MW without the need to bring
in tax equity partners, thereby eliminating the need
for costly tax equity investment and greatly reducing
overall financing execution risk.
Across its portfolio, Ørsted has brought 95% of all
projects receiving final construction permits to
fruition—a remarkably high success rate.
Orsted and Eversource Energy Credit Ratings

Sponsor S&P Moody’s Fitch
Orsted A/S BBB+ (stable) Baa 1 (stable) BBB+ (stable)
Eversource Energy A+ (stable) Baa 1 (stable) BBB+ (positive)
20 + offshore
wind farms
financed 50B
Owners’ assets
total more than
$
100 %
~ 4B
$ combined
annual
funded by operating
equity contributions cash flow
Borkum Riffgrund Offshore Wind Farm
Section 5 Financial/Legal
5. FINANCIAL/LEGAL
Bidders are required to demonstrate the financial viability of their proposed project.
The proposed Project’s financial viability is based on several factors, primarily the financial
strength of Ørsted and Eversource, and their combined experience in financing, constructing,
and operating offshore wind generation around the world and electric distribution and
transmission facilities in New England. Ørsted and Eversource are publicly traded companies
with a combined market capitalization of approximately $40 billion, and combined operating
cash flows of approximately $4 billion annually. Their financial strength and proven track
record have been, and will continue to be, critical in enabling them to fund project
construction and operation, and, where desirable, to attract capital from investors on terms
more favorable than less financially robust developers could obtain. The financial strength of
Ørsted and Eversource – and by extension the Bidder’s financial strength – is described in
greater detail in the following responses.
5.1 RFP Provides for Predictable, Long-Term Revenue Stream

5.1 Each bidder is required to submit information and documentation that demonstrates that a long
term contract resulting from this RFP Process would either permit the bidder to finance its
proposal that would otherwise not be financeable, or assist the bidder in obtaining financing of
its proposal.
Long-term PPAs awarded through this RFP Process will create a predictable, long-term
revenue stream from credit-worthy counterparties that appropriately value clean, renewable
energy from offshore wind generation. The prospect of predictable, long-term revenue will
give the Bidder and its affiliates the certainty necessary for them to make the substantial
capital contributions needed to finance the Project, not to mention significant flexibility in
financing it. This flexibility, combined with the considerable financial strength of Ørsted and
Eversource, will give the Bidder and its affiliates access—if needed—to the lowest-cost
sources of capital, ultimately reducing the cost of the clean energy delivered from the Project
to Massachusetts ratepayers.
5.2 Business Entity Structure

5.2 Please provide a description of the business entity structure of the bidder’s organization from a
financial and legal perspective, including all general and limited partners, officers, directors,
managers, members and shareholders, involvement of any subsidiaries supporting the project,
and the providers of equity and debt during project development. Provide an organization chart
showing the relationship between the equity and debt participants and an explanation of the
relationships. For jointly owned facilities, identify all owners and their respective interests, and
document the Bidder’s right to submit a binding proposal.
The Bidder is 50 percent controlled by each of ESI and Ørsted NA. Specifically, ESI and
Ørsted NA (together, the Owners) jointly own the Bidder’s parent company (and sole member-
manager), Bay State HoldCo LLC. Bay State HoldCo LLC is managed by a four-person board
of directors who constitute “managers” within the meaning of the Delaware Limited Liability
Company Act. At the direction and under the supervision of the directors of Bay State HoldCo
LLC, the Bidder’s project-development activities are facilitated by a four-person steering

committee. The individuals who hold (and have previously) held these positions are listed in
Section 5.7.
The Bidder has no subsidiaries, but has two affiliates (in addition to its parent) that are
likewise jointly controlled by the Owners: BSW ProjectCo LLC and its sole member-manager,
BSW HoldCo LLC. The governance of BSW ProjectCo LLC and BSW HoldCo LLC mirrors that of
the Bidder and Bay State HoldCo LLC, with the same individuals serving on the boards of
directors and steering committees for both sets of companies. An organization chart
depicting the foregoing structure is provided in Figure 5.1.
As previously noted, the Bidder holds a federal offshore wind energy lease (BOEM Renewable
Energy Lease No. OCS-A 0500), as well as certain other property rights, and has engaged in
permitting activities for the proposed Project. BSW ProjectCo LLC has to date engaged in
project development activities for the proposed Project, such as entering into agreements
with partners, consultants, and property owners, as well as contributing to the drafting of this
proposal. In the event that the proposed Project is selected in this RFP for negotiation, the
Bidder intends to: (1) assign the geographic portion of BOEM Renewable Energy Lease No.
OCS-A 0500 where the proposed Project will be constructed from Bidder to BSW ProjectCo
LLC, as provided by BOEM’s regulations (and as further discussed in Section 6.2.1); and (2)
sign PPAs associated with the proposed Project with the EDCs in the name of BSW ProjectCo
LLC.

The development, construction and operation of the Project will be supported by the Owners
and their affiliates. Specifically, Ørsted North America and its affiliates will be supplying
construction, operation, and maintenance services for the offshore portions of the Project,
while Eversource Investment and its affiliates will be supplying those services for the onshore
portions of the Project. Ørsted is the industry leader in offshore wind, having constructed 3.8
GW of generation over the past 25 years across numerous markets (approximately 30
percent of global installed capacity), with another 5.0 GW under construction. Ørsted’s
2,000+ employees together possess unparalleled expertise in offshore wind design,
engineering, permitting, finance, procurement, construction, and operation that will be put to
use for the benefit of the Project. Eversource is likewise an industry leader in its field, having
successfully developed hundreds of transmission projects over the past decade. Relying on
8,000 employees across the region, Eversource has unmatched knowledge of New England’s
electrical system, and extensive experience in interconnecting renewable resources in a
reliable and cost-effective manner. Ørsted and Eversource’s capabilities, track records, and
collective talent pool—all of which are further discussed in Section 12—are invaluable assets,
and when paired with the companies’ financial strength will ensure that the Project delivers
reliable, cost-effective renewable energy to Massachusetts ratepayers.
To date, the Owners have provided funding to the Bidder by providing equity contributions to
Bay State HoldCo LLC, which Bay State HoldCo LLC has in turn used to provide equity
contributions to the Bidder. The Owners have taken the same approach to funding BSW
ProjectCo LLC through BSW HoldCo LLC, and intend to continue funding both the Bidder and
BSW ProjectCo LLC in this manner until operation. Section 5.3 provides further explanation
of the expected financing plan.
The Bidder has been authorized to submit this proposal by a written consent from its sole
member, Bay State HoldCo LLC. A copy of the written consent is included as Attachment 5-1.
5.3 Description of Financing Plan

5.3 Please provide a description of the financing plan for the project, including construction and
term financing. The financing plan should address the following:
i. Who will finance the project (or are being considered to finance the project) and the related
financing mechanism or mechanisms that will be used (i.e. convertible debenture, equity or
other) including repayment schedules and conversion features
The Project will be financed by its Owners, which plan to finance the development,
construction, and operation of the Project with 100 percent equity. Since the financing for
the Project will solely be equity from its Owners and not reliant upon outside parties, a
detailed financing plan is not necessary; however, additional details are included herein.
Ørsted and Eversource’s combined financial strength eliminates the risk project-level
financing imposes on projects of this type, ensuring that financing issues will not delay
project construction or otherwise impede the delivery of clean energy to Massachusetts
ratepayers.

Ørsted will secure the funds for its portion of the capital contributions to the Project as it
does for all the projects across its portfolio of offshore wind farms and non-wind energy
projects, through a combination of:
 Cash flow from existing business (~$1.6 billion cash flow from operating activities in
2016);
 Debt issuance by Ørsted; and
 Capital recycling through divestment of assets (~$1.3 billion cash flow from
divestments in 2016).
Eversource will secure the funds for its portion of the capital contributions to the Project as it
does for its other energy infrastructure investments, through a combination of:
 Internally generated cash flow (~$2.2 billion cash flow from operating activities in
2016); and
 Debt issuance by Eversource
ii. The project’s existing initial financial structure and projected financial structure
As discussed in Section 5.3.i, the Project is currently financed with 100 percent equity,
equally contributed by Ørsted and Eversource through Bay State HoldCo LLC and BSW
HoldCo LLC. The financial structure will be 100 percent equity during development,
construction and operation.
iii. Expected sources of debt and equity financing
As discussed in Section 5.3.i, the Project will be financed with 100 percent equity from its
Owners.
iv. Estimated construction costs

v. The projected capital structure
As discussed in Section 5.3.i, the Project’s projected capital structure will be 100 percent
equity.
vi. Describe any agreements, both pre and post commercial operation date, entered into with
respect to equity ownership in the proposed project and any other financing arrangement.
Ørsted and Eversource entered into multiple agreements related to the ownership, financing,
development, and operation of the Project in December 2016. First, ESI acquired a 50
percent membership interest in Bay State HoldCo LLC (the Bidder’s sole member-manager),
as well as in BSW HoldCo LLC (the sole member-manager of BSW ProjectCo LLC), through
two subscription agreements. Second, the Owners entered into two limited liability company
agreements, for Bay State HoldCo LLC and BSW HoldCo LLC, respectively that provide for
governance of all four jointly-controlled companies, as well as the mechanics of project
financing. (As discussed in Section 5.2, the Bidder intends to assign a portion of its offshore
lease to BSW ProjectCo LLC in the event of success in the RFP Process, and for BSW
ProjectCo LLC to enter into PPAs with the EDCs.)
In addition, the financing plan should address the status of the above activities as well as the
financing of development and permitting costs. All bidders are required to provide this information.
As of December 2017, the Owners have spent on the Project, all

financed with 100 percent equity equally contributed from the Owners. Remaining funding
will be contributed as equity in accordance with approved capital budgets under the
applicable agreements referenced above. No other financial agreements or external
resources are needed for the Project to move forward.
5.4 Bidder Experience in Securing Financing

5.4 Provide documentation illustrating the experience of the bidder in securing financing for
projects of similar size and technology. For each project previously financed provide the
following information:
i. Project name and location
ii. Project type and size
iii. Date of construction and permanent financing
iv. Form of debt and equity financing

v. Current status of the project
Ørsted is the world’s leader in offshore wind development and construction, with over 25
years of experience executing complex capital projects, including 22 operational offshore
wind projects with 3.8 GW of operational capacity. Similarly, with the completion of hundreds
of capital projects over the past decade, Eversource has established a successful track
record in delivering customer value and demonstrated expertise in building, financing,
owning and maintaining infrastructure for the electric industry. Eversource’s annual
investment in energy infrastructure has averaged $1.8 billion over the last three years
ending 2016.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 provide lists of offshore wind projects and other large energy distribution
projects financed and developed by the Owners.

Table 5.1
270B Projects Financed and Developed by Ørsted
Construction Permanent Permanent
Capital Commercial Capital Capital
Project Size Construction Structure / % Operation Structure Structure /
Name Location Type (MW) Start (Year) Ørsted (Year) (Year) % Ørsted Status
Offshore 100% Equity / Under
Borssele 1&2 Netherlands 700 TBD 2021 TBD TBD / TBD
Wind 100% Ørsted Construction
United Offshore 100% Equity / Under
Hornsea 1 1,218 2016 2019 TBD TBD / TBD
Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted Construction
Borkum Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity / Under
Germany 450 2017 2019 2017
Riffgrund 2 Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted Construction
Walney United Offshore 100% Equity / Under
660 2015 2018 2017 TBD / TBD
Extension Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted Construction
United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity / Under
Race Bank 573 2015 2018 2017
Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted Construction
Burbo Bank United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
258 2015 2017 2016 Operating
Extension Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
Gode Wind 1 Germany 332 2015 2016 2015 Operating
Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
Gode Wind 2 Germany 252 2015 2016 2014 Operating
Westermost United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
210 2014 2015 2014 Operating
Rough Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
Borkum Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
Germany 312 2013 2015 2012 Operating
Riffgrund 1 Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
West of
United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
Duddon 389 2013 2014 2010 Operating
Kingdom Wind 50% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
Sands
Anholt Denmark 400 2012 2013 2011 Operating
Gunfleet United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
12 2012 2013 2012 Operating
Sands 3 Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted 100% Ørsted
Lincs 270 2011 2013 2009 Operating

Table 5.1 Projects Financed and Developed by Ørsted (continued)

Construction Permanent Permanent
Capital Commercial Capital Capital
Project Size Construction Structure / % Operation Structure Structure /
Name Location Type (MW) Start (Year) Ørsted (Year) (Year) % Ørsted Status
London Array 1 630 2011 2013 2004 Operating
100% Equity /
United Offshore 100% Equity /
Walney 1 & 2 367 2010 2012 2009 50.1% Operating
Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted
Ørsted
Horns Rev 2 Denmark 209 2008 2010 2007 Operating
Gunfleet Sands United Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
173 2008 2010 2011 Operating
1&2 Kingdom Wind 100% Ørsted 50% Ørsted
Avedøre Offshore 100% Equity / 100% Equity /
Denmark 10.8 2009 2009 2009 Operating
Holme Wind 100% Ørsted 100% Ørsted
Burbo Bank 90 2006 2007 2006 Operating
Barrow 90 2005 2006 2004 Operating
Nysted Denmark 165.6 2002 2003 2010 Operating
Horns Rev 1 Denmark 160 2002 2003 2006 Operating
Middelgrunden Denmark 20 2000 2001 2000 Operating
Vindeby Denmark 5 1991 1991 1991 Decommissioned

Table 5.2
271B Projects Financed and Developed by Eversource
Permanent
Construction Commercial Capital Permanent
Project Size Construction Capital Operation Structure Capital
Name Location Type (MW) Start (Year) Structure1 (Year) (Year) Structure2 Status
Interstate
Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
Reliability CT 345 kV 2013 2015 2015 Operating
Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
(NEEWS)
Long-Term 115 kV
Lower SEMA MA and 2009 2014 2014 Operating
Upgrades 345 kV
Greater
115 kV
Springfield Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
MA / CT and 2011 2013 2013 Operating
Reliability Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
345 kV
(NEEWS)
115 kV
Middletown Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
CT and 2003 2009 2009 Operating
to Norwalk Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
345 kV
Glenbrook Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
CT 115 kV 2006 2008 2008 Operating
Cables Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
Long Island
Replacement CT 138 kV 2006 2008 2008 Operating
Cable
Stoughton Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
MA 345 kV 2005 2007 / 2009 2007 / 2009 Operating
Cables Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
Bethel to Electric 44% Debt / 44% Debt /
CT 345 kV 2004 2006 2006 Operating
Norwalk Transmission 56% Equity 56% Equity
1. During construction, Eversource typically finances projects with a combination of short-term debt and internally generated cash flow. Projects are not financed at the project
level with non-recourse debt, but rather on balance sheet at the regulated entity developing the project. Capital structure for the regulated entity is generally maintained at
the allowed ratemaking capital structure, which can change over time. The current allowed capital structure has been provided.
2. Once a project reaches commercial operations, short-term financing during construction is typically replaced with long-term debt, but the capital structure will continue to be
generally maintained at the allowed ratemaking capital structure, which can change over time. The current allowed capital structure has been provided.

5.5 Financial Resources and Strength

5.5 Please provide evidence that the bidder has the financial resources and financial strength to
complete and operate the project as planned.
As discussed throughout Section 5, Ørsted and Eversource are stable and diverse energy
companies with robust balance sheets that reflect the financial strength needed to complete
and operate the Project in the ordinary course of their respective businesses.
Financial and cash flow data for Ørsted and Eversource is provided in Tables 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
and 5.6.
Table 5.3.
27B Eversource Selected Consolidated Financial Data – Balance Sheet and Income Statement
(Millions of Dollars) 2016 2015 2014
Balance Sheet Data:
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net $21,351 $19,892 $18,647
Total Assets 32,053 30,580 29,740
Total Capitalization 20,470 19,542 18,946
Income Statement Data:
Operating Revenues 7,639 7,955 7,742
Net Income 950 886 827
Table 5.4.
273B Eversource Selected Consolidated Cash Flow Data – Funds from Operations and Debt
Issuances
Net Cash Flow Provided by $2,175 $1,434 $1,652
Operating Activities
Issuance of Long-term Debt 800 1,225 725
Increase/(Decrease) in Short-term (12) (242) 285
Debt
Total Debt Issuances 788 983 1,010
Table 5.5.
274B Ørsted Selected Consolidated Financial Data – Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Balance Sheet Data
Total Assets 20,473 22,119 22,487
Capital Employed 9,144 9,140 9,827
Income Statement Data
Revenue 9,180 9,817 9,192
EBIT 2,082 281 339
From DONG Energy 2016 Annual Report
Assumes DKK to USD exchange rate of 0.15

Table 5.6.
275B Ørsted Selected Consolidated Cash Flow Data – Funds from Operations and Debt
Issuances
Cash flow from operating activities 1,691 1,128 1,435
Interest-bearing net debt 519 1,379 597
From DONG Energy 2016 Annual Report
Assumes DKK to USD exchange rate of 0.15
As demonstrated, both Eversource and Ørsted are large, growing companies, and have a
combined market capitalization of approximately $40 billion. Moreover, both possess deep
capital-market expertise, as evidenced by their ability to routinely access the public debt
markets. For example, in November 2017, Ørsted successfully issued green hybrid capital
securities and green senior unsecured bonds totaling €1.25 billion (approximately $1.5
billion) and over the course of 2017 the Eversource Parent successfully issued $1.2 billion of
Series K and Series L Senior Notes.
Eversource– Financial Highlights

• Eversource is a large cap company traded on the
New York Stock Exchange, with an equity market
Ørsted – Financial Highlights
capitalization of approximately $20.5 billion.
• Eversource is listed as number 343 on the Fortune • Ørsted is traded on Nasdaq Copenhagen Stock
500 2016 list of the largest U.S. corporations (by Exchange, with an equity market capitalization of
gross revenues). approximately $23 billion.
• Eversource has a $1.45 billion commercial paper • Ørsted was listed in June 2016. The IPO was the
program that is used to fund short-term working largest in Europe in the last 5 years and the largest
capital requirements. Eversource initially draws on IPO ever in Denmark both in terms of deal size and
its commercial paper program to fund its projects. market cap.
As short-term debt accumulates, it is refinanced • Ørsted has syndicated revolving credit facilities
with long-term debt sold in the capital markets. totaling €1.75 billion (approximately $2.1 billion).
• Eversource has invested $5.3 billion in new energy • Ørsted has invested approximately $4.7 billion in
infrastructure in the past three years. new energy infrastructure in the past two years
5.6 Audited Financial Statements

5.6 Provide complete copies of the most recent audited financial statement or annual report for
each bidder for each of the past three years; including affiliates of the bidder (if audited
statements are not available, reviewed or compiled statements are to be provided). Also,
provide the credit ratings from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s (the senior unsecured long term
debt rating or if not available, the corporate rating) of the bidder and any affiliates and partners.
Although the Bidder does not have any audited financial statements or annual reports, the
annual reports for Ørsted (formerly known as DONG Energy) and Eversource for the past
three fiscal years (ending December 31, 2016) are provided as Attachment 5-2, Attachment
5-3, Attachment 5-4, Attachment 5-5, Attachment 5-6, and Attachment 5-7. Moreover, the
unaudited 2014, 2015, and 2016 annual financials for the Bidder and its joint venture
affiliates are provided as Attachment 5-8.

The Bidder does not have any outstanding debt and therefore does not have a credit rating.
The current senior unsecured (long-term) debt ratings of Ørsted and Eversource are provided
in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7
276B Ørsted and Eversource Credit Ratings
Sponsor S&P Moody’s Fitch
Ørsted BBB+ (stable) Baa1 (stable) BBB+ (stable)
Eversource A (stable)1 Baa1 (stable) BBB+ (positive)
Rating for senior unsecured long term debt. Corporate Credit rating is A+
5.7 Board of Directors, Officers, and Trustees List

5.7 Please also include a list of the board of directors, officers and trustees for the past three years
and any persons who the bidder knows will become officers, board members or trustees.
The governance of the Owners’ four jointly-controlled companies is discussed in Section 5.2.
The directors of both Bay State HoldCo LLC and BSW HoldCo LLC are
The
steering committee members for both the Bidder and BSW ProjectCo LLC are
There is one former director: who resigned effective March 31, 2017.
There are two former steering committee members: , who
resigned effective January 1, 2017; and who resigned
effective April 3, 2017.
5.8 Bid Security

5.8 The bidder should demonstrate its ability (and/or the ability of its credit support provider) to
provide the required security, including its plan for doing so.
The Owners have ample resources to provide bid security on behalf of the Bidder. Eversource
Investment has an intercompany credit facility with Eversource in the amount of million
with untapped capacity of million. In addition, Eversource has access to a commercial
paper program of billon, with remaining capacity of over million. Ørsted NA has a
million credit facility with Nordea and a million credit facility with
The Owners will arrange for the security required under the RFP Process to be provided in the
form of cash deposits or letters of credit. Ørsted and Eversource are rated by the three major
credit rating agencies as set forth in Section 5.6.
5.9 Credit Issues/Credit Rating Downgrade Events

5.9 Provide a description of any current or recent credit issues/credit rating downgrade events
regarding the bidder or affiliate entities raised by rating agencies, banks, or accounting firms.
Neither Ørsted nor Eversource have experienced any current credit issues or recent rating
downgrade events, and neither is aware of any pending credit issues or credit rating
downgrade events, nor any other financial issues raised by rating agencies, banks, or
accounting firms. As demonstrated in Section 5.6, all three major credit rating agencies rate
Ørsted’s and Eversource’s credit as stable, and both are well regarded and maintain strong

investment grade credit profiles. Additionally, in December 2017, S&P raised Eversource’s
corporate rating to A+ (stable), reflecting S&P’s assessment of Eversource’s business risk
profile as excellent. Eversource currently maintains the highest credit rating of any company
in the Energy and Utility industry in the United States.
5.10 Federal Production Tax Credit or Investment Tax Credit Role

5.10 Describe the role of the Federal Production Tax Credit or Investment Tax Credit (or other
incentives) on the financing of the project.
By virtue of the financial strength and proven track record that Eversource and Ørsted
possess, the Project is uniquely positioned to qualify for the federal ITC on an accelerated
schedule that will maximize value, and to self-monetize that value efficiently, passing
resulting cost reductions on to Massachusetts ratepayers.
The Project’s efficient self-monetization of tax attributes will maximize cost-savings for
Massachusetts ratepayers. Because the Project need not rely on third-party tax-equity
investment, it will be unaffected by volatility in the appetite for and—crucially—the pricing of
such investment. By eliminating monetization risk in this way, the Bidder can pass the
maximum benefit of the ITC on to Massachusetts ratepayers. This attribute is critical to the
success of the Project, as it significantly reduces the aforementioned risks to ITC
qualification and overall financing execution that other developers could face.
The ITC is available for wind facilities that commence development by December 31, 2019,
but its value decreases each year after 2016, as follows:
 By December 31, 2016 – 100% value, or 30% of Qualified Energy Property
Eversource and Ørsted have the financial wherewithal and project-development experience
to adopt a strategy that would (subject to timely execution of long-term PPA through this RFP
Process) allow the Project to qualify for the ITC. The Bidder has been working
collaboratively with a number of key potential suppliers and specialist advisors to ensure that
the ITC qualification strategy is complaint with guidance from the IRS, is feasible having
taken into account suppliers’ manufacturing capacity over the relevant timescales and does
not sacrifice technical design flexibility. In addition to the ITC qualification strategy, the
Bidder holds several key attributes which will re-risk the efficient monetization of the tax
credits given that the Bidder can: (1) build on balance sheet; (2) rely on know-how from a
proven track record of project execution; and (3) self-monetize the ITC. In contrast,
developers that are less financially robust, have less experience, or are subject to constraints
imposed by third-party tax-equity investors would face considerably greater challenges in
qualifying for the ITC in
5.11 Pending Litigation

5.11 Bidders must disclose any pending (currently or in the past three years) litigation or disputes
related to projects developed, owned or managed by Bidder or any of its affiliates in the United
States, or related to any energy product sale agreement.

There is no pending litigation or dispute—nor has there been any in the past three years—
related to any project developed, owned, or managed by the Bidder or any of its affiliates in
the U.S.
See the annual reports referenced in Section 5.6, which disclose material litigations involving
the Owners’ respective affiliates. In particular, Ørsted NA’s affiliate Elsam Kraft A/S is party
to litigation in which the Danish competition authority found that it charged excessive prices
in the Danish wholesale power market from 2003 through 2006 (a period when Elsam Kraft
A/S was not yet owned by Ørsted NA’s ultimate parent company). An appeal of that
determination is currently pending before the High Court of Western Denmark. Following the
Danish competition authority’s finding, consumers also brought claims for damages, for
which a litigation provision has been established.
On November 16, 2017, an action captioned Breiding v. Eversource Energy, et al, C.A. No.
17-12274-DJC (the “Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against affiliates of Eversource and Avangrid, Inc., another company engaged
in the energy generation and distribution business. The complaint alleges that Eversource
and Avangrid, Inc. each possessed and exercised monopoly power that enabled them each to
manipulate the wholesale prices of natural gas sold to electric generation facilities in New
England that in turn artificially inflated electric rates charged to customers. The Action
purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of electric distribution customers, as well
as other New England electric customers. The Action asserts claims under the federal
antitrust laws as well as certain state law causes of action. The time within which the
Eversource has to respond to the complaint has not yet elapsed. Eversource believes that
the Action is without merit and intends to contest the matter vigorously.
On October 13, 2017, the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority opened Docket
No. 17-10-3, entitled “PURA [Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority] Review of the
LDCs’ Gas Supply Portfolio, Asset Strategies and Practices”. The purpose of the docket is to
review the gas supply portfolio, asset strategies, and practices of Connecticut’s local gas
distribution companies, including Yankee Gas, and will include the Local Distribution
Companies’ use of load forecasting, daily and intra-daily nominations, deliveries and
imbalance, to evaluate compliance with requirements to provide safe and reliable service for
gas customers under Connecticut law and in the context of the growing dependency of the
electric grid on natural gas resources. A scheduling order has not yet been issued in this
docket.
5.12 Expected Operating Life

5.12 What is the expected operating life of the proposed project? What is the depreciation period for
all substantial physical aspects of the bid, including generation facilities, transmission lead lines
to move power to the grid, transmission proposals, and mandatory and voluntary transmission
system upgrades?
The expected operating life for the Project is

For tax purposes, the Project will be depreciated in accordance with IRS guidelines. For
accounting purposes, the major components of the Project will be depreciated over their
operating lifetimes, as outlined in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8
27B Depreciation Period by Asset Type
Asset Type Depreciation Period
Generation facilities (WTGs)
Transmission lines (lead lines or expandable transmission)
OSS
OnSS
Battery storage system
5.13 Financing Commitment

5.13 Has the bidder already obtained financing, or a commitment of financing, for the project? If
financing has not been obtained, explain how obtaining a long‐term agreement as proposed will
help you in obtaining financing for the proposed project, in obtaining more favorable terms for
the financing of the proposed project, or in supporting the future capital investment.
The Project will obtain development, construction and permanent financing through the
Owners in the form of equity contributions. Ørsted and Eversource are committed to
financing the Project, which will not need to rely on any external financing for construction or
operation.
In all cases, long-term PPAs will enable the Owners to obtain the necessary internal
approvals to authorize the substantial capital contributions needed to finance the Project.
Moreover, the long-term PPAs will make it easier for the Owners to access the public debt
markets at the parent level, as creditors rely on secured revenue streams to achieve the
necessary comfort level to make their investments.
See Section 5.3 for details regarding the financing plan.
5.14 Agreements with Respect to Energy

5.14 State whether bidder has executed agreements with respects to energy, RECs and/or capacity
for the project (including any agreements that have been terminated) and provide information
regarding the associated term and quantities, and whether bidder has been alleged to have
defaulted under or breached any such agreement.
The Bidder has not entered into or executed any agreements for energy, RECs or capacity for
the Project.
Bay State Wind has been in active discussions with municipal, corporate, and non-profit
organizations in relation to the potential purchase of energy or RECs from additional
generation constructed in the Lease Area. These discussions are specific to the opportunity
for those organizations to procure energy or RECs from new offshore wind energy generation.
None of these potential agreements would affect the Project or pose an adverse risk to
Massachusetts ratepayers. The key potential impact relevant to this bid submission is the
opportunity to develop additional generation capacity at no cost to ratepayers while providing
supplemental net economic benefits to the Commonwealth.

At this stage, Bay State Wind has secured a Letter of Intent with Southcoast Health System,
as provided in Attachment 5-9.
Bay State Wind believes that building partnerships with local institutions like these will be
critical to growing broad awareness and support for an offshore wind industry in
Massachusetts. Corporate offtake is also a leading driver of renewable energy growth in the
U.S. and Bay State Wind endeavors to see Massachusetts serve as the pace setter for
corporate offtake of offshore wind power.
None of the agreements contain any binding commitments with respect to energy, RECs
and/or capacity. The discussions that Bay State Wind is having with potential corporate
partners have only just begun, and activity in this area will be ramped up over the course of
2018 and beyond. The agreements executed at this stage are indicative of the types of
arrangements that Bay State Wind continues to pursue and mature.
5.15 Affiliated Entities and Joint Ventures

5.15 List all of bidder’s affiliated entities and joint ventures transacting business in the energy sector.
As detailed in Section 5.2, Ørsted NA and ESI jointly control four companies that are involved
in the proposed Project.
Virtually all of Eversource’s business is conducted in the energy sector. Ørsted owns,
sometimes jointly, over one hundred entities active in the energy sector. Please see
Attachment 5-10 for corporate structures for Ørsted and Eversource, as well as Ørsted’s and
Eversource’s 2016 Annual Reports (Attachments 5-4 and 5-7) for a complete list of active
affiliated entities and joint ventures.
As discussed in Section 5.17, the Bidder’s affiliates include two of the EDCs, and measures
have accordingly been put in place to guard against unfairness or undue preference for the
Bidder in this RFP Process.
5.16 Statement regarding Bankruptcy/Reorganization Proceedings

5.16 Has bidder, or any affiliate of Bidder, in the last five years, (a) consented to the appointment of,
or was taken in possession by, a receiver, trustee, custodian or liquidator of a substantial part
of its assets, (b) filed a bankruptcy petition in any bankruptcy court proceeding, (c) answered,
consented or sought relief under any bankruptcy or similar law or failed to obtain a dismissal of
an involuntary petition, (d) admitted in writing of its inability to pay its debts when due, I made a
general assignment for the benefit of creditors, (f) was the subject of an involuntary proceeding
seeking to adjudicate that Party bankrupt or insolvent, (g) sought reorganization, arrangement,
adjustment, or composition of it or its debt under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or
reorganization or relief of debtors?
The Bidder and its affiliates have not taken any of the above-described actions in the last five
years. For the avoidance of any doubt, this response encompasses not only the Bidder’s
three affiliates that are jointly controlled by Ørsted NA and ESI, but also Ørsted and
Eversource’s affiliates.

5.17 Conflicts of Interest

5.17 Briefly describe any known conflicts of interest between Bidder or an affiliate of Bidder and any
Distribution Company, or any affiliates of the foregoing.
The Bidder has an affiliate relationship with two of the EDCs (as discussed below), and
acknowledges that conflicts of interest are an important issue that the Evaluation Team and
the Independent Evaluator must consider. Accordingly, measures have been put in place to
ensure that the Bidder and its affiliates comply not only with applicable law, but also with
voluntary standards to prevent any actual or apparent instance of unfairness, discrimination,
or undue preference toward the Bidder in this RFP Process.
ESI is an affiliate of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy and Western
Massachusetts Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy, two of the Massachusetts EDCs
participating in the RFP Process, and both members of the Evaluation Team. See Attachment
5-10 for Eversource’s corporate structure. Eversource maintains a rigorous compliance
program, Code of Business Conduct, and policies to avoid conflicts of interest and
appearances of impropriety, and to ensure compliance with state and federal codes of
conduct and affiliate transactions rules. In particular, Eversource has endorsed and
supported the use of the Utility Standard of Conduct for the RFP Process, which is binding on
all Eversource employees (including ESI), and whose principles are consistent with
Eversource’s compliance program and Code of Business Conduct.
More importantly, Eversource and Ørsted have also adopted additional measures to ensure
and facilitate adherence to the Utility Standard of Conduct. To effectuate the Utility Standard
of Content’s requirement of a Bid Team and an Evaluation Team, affected Eversource
employees receive a copy of the Utility Standard of Conduct and a roster of the employees on
each team, and sign a certificate acknowledging and agreeing to follow the Utility Standard of
Conduct. Employees assigned to each team are required to wear color-coded identification
badge covers that clearly identify Bid Team members (green) and Evaluation Team members
(red). Affected employees are given training on—and periodic reminders of—their obligations,
with a single point of contact (the Deputy General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer)
identified for any compliance-related questions. In addition, the Eversource Bid Team and
Evaluation Team use separate IT server locations that have security limiting access to
specific team members as approved by the Chief Compliance Officer and IT. Employees of
Ørsted NA and its affiliates also receive an updated Bid Team roster periodically. All meetings
of the joint venture steering committees and boards of directors begin with a reminder of the
Standard of Conduct and the importance of separation between the Bid Team and the
Evaluation Team.
Beyond the Utility Standard of Conduct and internal measures in furtherance of it, Ørsted and
Eversource are subject to the following requirements and procedures:
 The fairness measures imposed by Section 83C as well as the Massachusetts
Department of Public Utilities’ (DPU) implementing regulations thereunder, including
the appointment of the Independent Evaluator responsible for overseeing the RFP
Process and authorized to order the setting aside of any winning bid found to be the
result of a process that was not fair and objective, and that was substantially
prejudiced as result.

 The measures imposed by the Massachusetts Electric Industry Restructuring Act of

1997, as well as the DPU’s implementing regulations thereunder, to ensure strict
separation between EDCs and any unregulated generation affiliate thereof, including
the Standards of Conduct for EDCs and their Affiliates set forth at 220 CMR 12.
 Other measures included in the RFP Process, which the Independent Evaluator
determined to have a “design [that] satisfies the statutory standards for an open, fair
and transparent solicitation that is not unduly influenced by affiliates.” (Peregrine
Energy Group, Independent Evaluator Report on the Proposed Timetable and Method
of Solicitation and Solicitation Process under Section 83C of the Green Communities
Act 3–4 [May 5, 2017]) (Independent Evaluator Report).
 Other legal standards designed to ensure fairness in PPAs, such as the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) review of Market-Based Rate Authorization
requests and of affiliate transactions under Boston Edison Co. re: Edgar Elec. Energy
Co., 55 FERC ¶ 61,382 (1991), Ameren Energy Generating Co., 108 FERC ¶ 61,081
(2004), and Allegheny Energy Supply Co., 108 FERC ¶ 61,082 (2004) (collectively,
Edgar-Allegheny).
 Additional requirements contained in the joint venture agreements between Ørsted
NA and ESI that go above and beyond the measures imposed by existing law and the
RFP Process, such as more specific standards for separation between Bid Team
Members and Evaluation Team Members, training on fairness measures, and
procedural safeguards to reduce the possibility of any actual or apparent unfairness
in the bid evaluation and PPA negotiation processes.
5.18 Litigation, Disputes, Claims or Complaints against any Distribution

Company
5.18 Describe any litigation, disputes, claims or complaints involving the Bidder or an affiliate of
Bidder, against any Distribution Company or any affiliate of any Distribution Company.
The Bidder is unaware of any pending litigation, disputes, claims or complaints involving the
Bidder or any affiliate of the Bidder against any of the EDCs or any affiliate of any EDC.
5.19 Litigation, Disputes, Claims or Complaints, or Events of Default

5. 19 Describe any litigation, disputes, claims or complaints, or events of default or other failure to
satisfy contract obligations, or failure to deliver products, involving Bidder or an affiliate of
Bidder, and relating to the purchase or sale of energy, capacity or renewable energy certificates
or products.
Neither the Bidder nor any of its affiliates has been implicated in any litigation, disputes,
claims or complaints, or events of default or other failure to satisfy contract obligations, or
failure to deliver products, involving, and relating to the purchase or sale of energy, capacity
or renewable energy certificates or products in the U.S.
See Section 5.11 on litigation involving Ørsted’s NA’s affiliate Elsam Kraft A/S.
See Section 5.11 on litigation involving affiliates of Eversource.

5.20 Statement Regarding any Governmental Investigation

5.20 Confirm that Bidder, and the directors, employees and agents of Bidder and any affiliate of
Bidder are not currently under investigation by any governmental agency and have not in the
last four years been convicted or found liable for any act prohibited by State or Federal law in
any jurisdiction involving conspiracy, collusion or other impropriety with respect to bidding on
any contract, or have been the subject of any debarment action (detail any exceptions).
Neither the Bidder, the Owners or their affiliates, nor any of their respective directors,
employees, or agents (acting in their professional capacities) is currently under investigation
by any governmental agency, or has in the last four years been convicted or found liable for
any act prohibited by State or Federal law in any U.S. jurisdiction involving conspiracy,
collusion or other impropriety with respect to bidding on any contract, or has been the
subject of any debarment action.
See Section 5.11 on litigation involving affiliates of Eversource.
5.21 Regulatory and other Approvals needed to Execute a Binding Sale

Agreement
5.21 Identify all regulatory and other approvals needed by bidder to execute a binding sale
agreement.
The marked-up form PPAs submitted with this Bid have received the necessary approvals
from the managers of the Bidder, Bay State HoldCo LLC, BSW ProjectCo LLC, and BSW
HoldCo LLC (although changes to the form PPAs made during the negotiation process may
require further such approvals).
Offshore Delivery Facilities
Agreement
5.22 Conformance to FERC’s Applicable Regulatory Requirements

5.22 Describe how the project will conform to FERC’s applicable regulatory requirements, including,
but not limited to, FERC requirements relating to allocation of transmission capacity and open
access, the justness and reasonableness of rates, the potential for undue preference or
discrimination, and affiliate dealings, if any. Describe how your proposed approach is consistent
with FERC precedent and ratemaking principles.
In this section, the Bidder demonstrates that its two categories of bids (Offshore Wind Energy
with a Project-Specific GLL and Offshore Wind Energy with an ETS Proposal) conform to
applicable FERC regulatory requirements.




5.23 Direct and Indirect Affiliations and Affiliate Relationships

5.23 Describe and document any and all direct and indirect affiliations and affiliate relationships,
financial or otherwise in the past three years between the bidder and one or more of the
Distribution Companies and their affiliates, including all relationships in which one of the
Distribution Companies has a financial or voting interest (direct or indirect) in the bidder or the
bidder’s proposed project. These relationships include:
– Corporate or other joint arrangements, joint ventures, joint operations whether control exists
or not;
– Minority ownership (50% or less investee);
– Joint development agreements;
– Operating segments that are consolidated as part of the financial reporting process;
– Related parties with common ownership;
– Credit, debenture, and financing arrangements, whether a convertible equity feature is
present or not;
– Wholly owned subsidiaries; and
– Commercial (including real property) relationships with any Distribution Company.
None of the EDCs has a financial or voting interest, direct or indirect, in the Bidder or the
proposed Project.
As noted in Section 5.17, the Bidder is an affiliate of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a
Eversource Energy and Western Massachusetts Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy,
two of the Massachusetts EDCs participating in the RFP Process, and both members of the
Evaluation Team. See Attachment 5-10 for Eversource’s corporate structure.
As discussed in Section 5.3, Ørsted and Eversource entered into multiple agreements related
to the ownership, financing, development, and operation of the Project in December 2016.
First, Eversource acquired a 50 percent membership interest in Bay State HoldCo LLC (the
Bidder’s sole member-manager), as well as in BSW HoldCo LLC (the sole member-manager
of BSW ProjectCo LLC), through subscription agreements. Second, the Owners entered into
limited liability company agreements for Bay State HoldCo LLC and BSW HoldCo LLC that
provide for governance of all four jointly-controlled companies, as well as the mechanics of
project financing.
Eversource’s contribution to ESI to date has been provided in the form of inter-company debt
from Eversource. ESI has a revolving credit agreement with Eversource to facilitate the
issuance of intercompany debt.

Section 6
Siting, Interconnection,
and Deliverability
Bay State Wind will interconnect 400 MW
into the ISO-New England grid at Brayton
Point.
The ISO-New England Feasibility Study
for Brayton Point indicates that 400 MW
of capacity can be interconnected
without any system upgrades.
Results of the ISO-New England System
Impact Study are scheduled for Q1 2018.
The energy provided by the Project will
be delivered to the Commonwealth
without material constraint or
curtailment.
The proposed point of delivery at Brayton
Point is sufficient to ensure full dispatch
of the proposal’s Clean Energy
Generation profile.
Bay State Wind has

First in ISO-New
secured property rights in
England queue
Somerset, Massachusetts
at an ideal
to support interconnection
interconnection
with the ISO-New England
location.
transmission grid.
Burbo Bank Extension Project

Section 6 Siting, Interconnection, and Deliverability
6. SITING, INTERCONNECTION, AND DELIVERABILITY

In this section, the Bidder addresses the site locations, property rights, and points of
interconnection for the Preferred Option. Since June 2015, the Bidder has invested
significant resources into developing contingency plans and optionality across its siting and
interconnecting efforts to provide for maximum project viability. Further, ISO-NE has
completed the study for an interconnection at Brayton Point ( ), and the Bidder has
completed an independent feasibility study for a second interconnection at Eversource’s
115-kV Bourne Substation (for 880 MW; ). Information regarding the Bourne Point of
Interconnection (POI) is provided in Attachment 6-1. Under the ETS, the Bidder will use
Brayton Point and Bourne as primary POIs. Each will serve 800 MW of the 1,600 MW
capacity. Studies conducted to date for both POIs indicate sufficient capacity to interconnect
a total of 1,600 MW of offshore wind generation (800 MW at each POI – Brayton Point and
Bourne).
6.1 Site Plan

This section addresses project location, siting, real property rights and interconnection issues. Bidders
should ensure that the threshold criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of the RFP for generation,
transmission proposals, and system upgrades are verified in their responses.
6.1 Provide a site plan (or plans) including a map (or maps) that clearly identifies the location of the
proposed project site, Delivery Facilities Project route, the assumed right-of-way width, the total
acreage for Eligible Facilities, the anticipated interconnection point (or, if applicable, multiple
points for a Transmission Project), deployment facilities, and the relationship of the site to other
local infrastructure, including transmission facilities, roadways, federal and state waters, and
waterways. In addition to providing the required map(s), provide a site layout plan which
illustrates the location of all major equipment and facilities on the site.
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 provides a site plan of the Preferred Option, identifying the Lease Area,
offshore wind generation facilities, the OSS, OnSS and interconnection point, and export and
inter-array cables. The WTGs and array cable layouts are all confined within the Lease Area
and have been developed to optimize production, maximize safety during operations, and
minimize the environmental footprint. A ‘buffer area’ between the edge of the Lease Area
and the proposed WTGs and OSS has been included to ensure that all installation and
maintenance activities take place within the Lease Area, without impacting waters outside of
OCS-A 0500. This also ensures that no turbine winglets overhang outside the Lease Area
border. The export cable from the OSS to the OnSS also includes a buffer around it within the
Lease Area to allow effective and safe maintenance activities to be carried out should they
be needed. The proposed layouts do not overlap any known shipwreck, to both minimize
safety concerns and to protect cultural resources. Due to expected helicopter support during

operations, two helicopter corridors are considered for the OSS (one for take-off and one for
landing). These are aligned with the main wind direction so that pilots can safely fly in and
out. Finally, an additional buffer has been considered along the borders with the neighboring
lease areas. The purpose is to minimize wake effects between neighboring wind farms
thereby maximizing production from all potential operators for the overall benefit of the
Commonwealth.
Deployment facilities are identified in Section 10.1 (Figure 10.1).
A site plan for the OnSS is provided in Section 15.1 (Figure 15.4). A site plan for the battery
storage system is provided in Attachment 8-3.
These figures should be considered illustrative, with the exception of proposed onshore POI
and related facilities.
Assumed right of way width: Not included in Figure 6.1 as it has yet to be negotiated with
landowners, and permitted through appropriate federal and state agencies.
Total acreage: The export cable is ( ) long. The Phase I development area
(WTG layout) is approximately 30,090 acres in size. The OnSS site is acres and the
proposed interconnection corridor is long. All of this is depicted in the site
plans (Figures 6.1 and 6.2).
Anticipated interconnection point: Under the ETS, the Bidder will use Brayton Point and
Bourne as primary POIs. Each will serve 800 MW of the 1,600 MW capacity.



6.2 Property Rights

6.2 Identify any real property rights (e.g., fee-owned parcels, rights-of-way, development rights or
easements or leases) that provide the right to use the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission
Project route, including, for Eligible Facilities, and any rights of way needed for interconnection.
i. Does the project have a right to use the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission Project route
for the entire proposed term of the PPA or tariff (e.g., by virtue of ownership or land
development rights obtained from the owner)?
☐ Yes ☒ No If not, please explain:

The Bidder (i) holds a federal lease issued on a competitive basis after January 1, 2012 for
an offshore wind energy generation site located on the Outer Continental Shelf and for which
no turbine is located within 10 miles (16 km) of any inhabited area; and (ii) either (a) has
acquired all other real property rights to construct and operate the Facility, to interconnect
the Facility to the Interconnecting Utility, to construct the Network Upgrades (to the extent it
is Seller’s responsibility to do so) and to perform Seller’s obligations under this Agreement, or
(ii) reasonably expects to acquire such other real property rights (x) as they relate to real
property located in State waters or on State- or MassCEC-owned land, upon the completion of
any permitting and other licensing procedure required by a Governmental Entity or the
MassCEC, and the satisfaction of any conditions precedent contained in an option
agreement between Seller and the MassCEC, and (y) with respect to privately owned
property, upon the payment by Seller of an amount that represents the fair market value of
such real property rights.
ii. If so, please detail the Bidder’s rights to control the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission
Project route control.
6.2.1 Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500)
The Bidder is the Lessee of an offshore commercial lease granting it the exclusive right to
subsequently seek BOEM approval for the development of the leasehold in question. The
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) (the “Lease”; included as Attachment 6-210) is granted by the
United States of America acting through BOEM per the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
In accordance with the Lease, and as discussed in Section 7.4, the Bidder is currently
performing the necessary site assessment and planning activities to receive approval from
BOEM to construct and operate the Project. As discussed in Section 5.2, in the event that the
Project is selected in this RFP for negotiation, the Bidder intends to assign the geographic
portion of the Lease where the Project is proposed to be constructed to BSW ProjectCo LLC,
as provided by BOEM’s regulations (30 CFR §§ 585.408–585.411). Such assignment would
not change the terms and conditions of the Lease, to which BSW ProjectCo LLC would
become subject. If for any reason BOEM were not to approve the partial assignment of the
10 Documentation of re-assignment of the Lease to Ørsted (formerly DONG Energy) as well as a clarification on Lease
blocks is also provided in Attachment 6-2.

Lease from the Bidder to BSW ProjectCo LLC, the Bidder would proceed with constructing
and operating the Project—as well as signing PPAs—in its own name.
The export cable route as shown in Figure 6.1 is currently envisioned to cross federal,
Massachusetts State, and Rhode Island State waters before landing at the OnSS site. The
Lease provides for a Project Easement in Lease Addendum D which will grant the rights for
the location and operation of the cable to the boundary of Federal and State waters.
6.2.2 State Licenses and Easements

The Bidder will apply to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP)
for a Chapter 91 Waterways License, which will grant the rights required for installation and
maintenance of cables within Massachusetts State waters. The Bidder will apply to the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for an easement agreement that
will grant the rights for cables in Rhode Island State waters. See Section 7.2 for additional
details on Project permitting.
6.2.3 Onshore Easements

The Bidder will acquire real property rights from the and easement rights from
the successor to See Figure 6.3.
The Bidder proposes to build a new substation at this site. The export cable
from the proposed OSS will land and be terminated at the new OnSS site, at which power will
be stepped up from . Underground circuits will be installed to interconnect
the new OnSS with the existing 345-kV substation, owned by National Grid and located
approximately to the south, on land currently owned by
On November 9, 2017, the Bidder entered into an Option to Purchase Agreement (Option
Agreement) with the The Option Agreement gives the Bidder the
exclusive right to purchase this site, and is valid for an initial term of 18 months (the Option
Period). The Option Period may be extended for an additional 12 months.
To complete the interconnection between the new substation and the existing National Grid
substation, an easement will be required on lands formerly owned by to support
installation of underground duct bank, conduit, and cables. The Bidder anticipates that a
portion of the required easement will be co-located within an easement area held by National
Grid, in which overhead transmission facilities are currently operated and maintained.
The Bidder had previously considered siting its new substation facility on Dynegy property, at
the location of the former Brayton Point Generating Station. The Bidder initially contacted
representatives of Dynegy in March 2016 to open a dialogue intended to advance acquisition
of rights to the property. In June 2016, however, Dynegy informed the Bidder that it planned
to conduct a competitive solicitation to sell the Brayton Point site (300+ acres in total), and
that only bids to acquire the complete site, accepting any environmental liabilities/risks,
would be considered. Because the Bidder does not need 300+ acres, nor was it able to
properly characterize environmental conditions of the site (and liabilities related to such
conditions), it was not able to put forth a successful bid. As such, the Bidder pursued other
site alternatives, resulting in the Option Agreement for described above.


If Dynegy is able to complete the sale of its Brayton Point property, the Bidder expects to
work directly with the new owner to acquire the necessary easement rights described above,
to complete the interconnection to the National Grid Substation.
iii. Describe the status of acquisition of real property rights, any options in place for the exercise of
these rights and describe the plan for securing the necessary real property rights, including the
proposed timeline. Include these plans and the timeline in the overall project timeline.
6.2.4 Timeline for Acquisition of all Licensees and Easements

For the interconnection at Brayton Point, and as described above, the Bidder has entered
into an Option Agreement for purchase of property
and proposes to construct a new OnSS at this location. The
Bidder anticipates that it will exercise the Option Agreement described above following
completion of several key milestones. Factors that may govern the timing for exercising the
Option Agreement for the include approval of a PPA by the MA DPU, and
receipt of permit and siting approvals from federal and state agencies.
The Bidder expects to negotiate acquisition of the easement rights described above, to
complete the interconnection between the new OnSS and the existing National Grid
substation. At present, such negotiations cannot be completed due to Dynegy’s ongoing
efforts to sell its property. Dynegy has indicated that any sale is targeted for completion in
late 2017. Assuming such a sale is completed, the Bidder will look to immediately
commence discussions/negotiations with the new Owner, and will look to complete
easement acquisition as expeditiously as possible.
With regard to offshore rights required for the Project, the Bidder anticipates receipt of final
approval from BOEM of the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) in , and receipt
of other required federal and state permits by . A timeline for acquisition of property
rights and receipt of necessary permits and/or licenses is provided in Section 7.2 and a
schedule is provided in Section 9.
6.2.5 Joint Use of Existing or Proposed Real Property Rights

iv. Identify any joint use of existing or proposed real property rights
The properties identified for the Project include both on- and off-shore components. The
Lease Area and export cable routes are currently used for recreational and commercial
boating activities; and will continue to be in use during construction and operation of the
Project. Potential impacts and mitigation for such impacts to marine and ocean uses in the
Project Area are addressed in Section 7.4.
In order to protect the public and the offshore assets of the Project, the Bidder will work with
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to establish aids to navigation and Notices to Mariners, with
NOAA to map Project areas on nautical charts, and with local fishing and boating
organizations and community leaders during construction, as spotters and spokespersons
emphasizing the need to avoid use conflicts and maintain safety.
For onshore facilities at Brayton Point, the Bidder intends to construct the landing and
substation site entirely upon the in Somerset, Massachusetts. The
will be vacated in its entirety upon closing, and all existing buildings/structures will
be removed. As such, this site will be used exclusively in support of the proposed Project.

There will be no other/joint uses of the site. It is expected that any easements secured from
Dynegy (or subsequent owner), to complete the interconnection between substation facilities
will be made use-exclusive to the Bidder in order to protect public safety. As noted above, a
portion of the proposed easement will be co-located in an existing easement held by National
Grid, within which other transmission structures and uses will continue to exist. The Bidder
expects to coordinate closely with National Grid, through the ongoing ISO-NE Interconnection
Review process, and during negotiations to acquire said easement, to ensure that all existing
facilities can continue to be operated and maintained safely.
6.3 Proper Zoning or Permitting

6.3 Provide evidence that the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission Project route is properly
zoned or permitted. If the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission Project route is not currently
zoned or permitted properly, identify present and required zoning and/or land use designations
and permits and provide a permitting plan and timeline to secure the necessary approvals.
Detail the zoning and permitting issues:
Offshore, the Project (i.e., the generation assets) will be located within the designated Lease
Area (Figure 6.1). A proposed export cable route is currently being assessed with regard to
environmental constraints and technical requirements. Once approved by BOEM in the COP,
the easements will be included in Addendum D of the Lease. As discussed in Section 6.2, the
export cable route will cross Federal, Massachusetts State, and Rhode Island State Waters
before landing at the OnSS site. The Bidder will receive the necessary state permits
(Massachusetts Chapter 91 Waterways License; Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management [RIDEM] Easement Agreement) prior to construction. See Section 7.1 and
Attachment 7-1 for additional details on Project permitting.
Onshore, the portion of the site on which the Bidder will construct its substation and a
portion of its underground interconnection facilities is zoned Residential by the Town of
Somerset. Portions of the area for which an easement will be required for interconnection to
the existing National Grid substation facility are also zoned Residential, while other portions
are zoned Industrial. The National Grid substation is located on property zoned Industrial (the
Dynegy site).
Local zoning for the Town of Somerset is displayed in Figure 6.4. The current version of the
Town of Somerset Zoning By-Laws is provided in Attachment 6-3.
Section 4 of the Zoning By-Law sets forth Use Regulations within each of the Town’s zoning
districts, and Section 5 identifies applicable Dimensional Requirements by district. Section
4.2.6 of the By-Law discusses industrial uses and indicates where such uses are allowed by
district. This section specifically identifies electrical substations as a use that is allowable by
Special Permit within Residential district. The Planning Board is the Special Permit granting
authority in Somerset. This same section, 4.2.6, indicated that substations are an allowable
use within Industrial Districts.

Figure 6.4 Local Zoning Map for the Town of Somerset
Based on the foregoing, the Bidder expects to be required to obtain a Special Permit from the
Somerset Planning Board for construction of the proposed substation and associated
ancillary facilities (i.e., underground transmission interconnections) since those facilities will
be located, in part, in a Residential District. Facilities proposed to be built on land currently
held by Dynegy are allowable uses as these would be located in an Industrial District. The
Bidder will coordinate and work closely with local officials, including those responsible for
review and enforcement of local zoning requirements, and will endeavor to comply with local
zoning requirement and procedures. It is not anticipated at this time that zoning exemptions
under Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) Chapter 40A will be required, however, a final
determination to that effect will be made in due course, as the Project proceeds.
Permitting Plan and timeline:
Start Date: June 2015 End Date:

A permitting plan for the Project is provided in Section 7.2 and a critical path schedule is
provided in Section 9.

6.4 Description of the Area Surrounding the Eligible Facility Site

6.4 Provide a description of the area surrounding the Eligible Facility site and/or Transmission
Project route (including landfall), including a description of the local zoning, flood plain
information, existing land or waterway use, and setting.
Local zoning and floodplain information is not applicable for the offshore portions of the
Project. Permitting requirements including COP approval and receipt of a Massachusetts
Chapter 91 Waterways License and a RIDEM Easement Agreement, are described in Section
7.1. In general, the waters off of southern New England experience high levels of
commercial, military, and recreational vessel traffic. The Lease Area is to the north of the
Nantucket-Ambrose Traffic Separation Scheme (TTS) and to the southeast of the
Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay TTSs. Although there is some commercial traffic passing
through the Lease Area, the heaviest trafficked routes into and out of southern New England
waters are to the west and outside of the area proposed for the first phase of development.
Similarly, vessel trip report data illustrate that the areas with the highest levels of
recreational fishing activity are to the west of the Lease Area. Therefore, this is not expected
to conflict with the construction and operation of the Project. Existing waterway use in the
Project Area is further described in Section 7.4.
The site on which the Bidder proposes to construct its OnSS is currently owned by
Current uses of the site are related to
The site is bounded to the north by residential uses; to the east by largely undeveloped land
owned by Dynegy including an existing electric transmission corridor with structures/uses
maintained by National Grid; to the south by land owned by Dynegy (principally, the site of
the former Brayton Point Generation Station), and to the west by Lee River.
The Bidder proposes to construct underground transmission facilities to interconnect to
National Grid’s existing 345-kV substation on the Dynegy/Brayton Point site. The lands on
which these underground facilities will be constructed are owned by Dynegy (at present) and
would be partially co-located within the existing National Grid right-of-way that runs north
from the Brayton Point site.
According to published data by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), portions
of the site on which the Bidder proposes to construct its OnSS and interconnection facilities
is within Zone (see Figure 6.5). This area is designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area,
which is an area subject to inundation during the 100-year flood event (i.e., 1 percent chance
of flooding on an annual basis). The Bidder will construct all facilities to withstand such
storm/flood events and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

Figure 6.5 FEMA Flood Mapping, Brayton Point, Somerset, Massachusetts
6.5 Interconnection Path Site Control

6.5 Describe how the bidder plans to gain interconnection path site control and describe the status
of the plan.
The plan to obtain site control of the interconnection path is detailed in Section 6.2.
6.6 Interconnection Request to ISO-NE

6.6 Please provide documentation to show evidence of the interconnection request to ISO-NE, the
applicable New England Transmission Owner, or any neighboring control areas, to interconnect
at the Capacity Capability Interconnection Standard. Please describe the status of any planned
interconnection to the grid. Additionally, any studies undertaken by ISO-NE or the bidder must
be provided.
The Bidder filed for interconnection relatively early in the process and is significantly more
progressed than the other offshore wind queue positions involved in this RFP Process. On
August 1, 2016, the Bidder filed a Capacity Network Resource Interconnection Service
request with ISO-NE for the Project to interconnect 800 net MW capacity at Brayton Point in
Somerset, Massachusetts, under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff Schedule 22-
Standard Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP). A copy of the interconnection
request confirmation is included as Attachment 6-4. The Bidder received Queue Position

ISO-NE completed its Feasibility Study for the Project’s interconnection at Brayton Point on
April 7, 2017. The Feasibility Study shows that the Bidder can connect up to 800 MW at the
Brayton Point POI with no system upgrades required. The Feasibility Study is Critical
Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) and can be made available to persons with
the required clearance upon request. On September 4, 2017, ISO-NE started the System
Impact Study, which is slated for completion in Q1 2018.
ISO-NE performed an evaluation of the PNOI studies for Queue Position
Capacity Commitment Period, and issued its findings on March 24, 2017. The PNOI
Study is CEII and can be made available to persons with the required clearance upon
request. Based on the results of the PNOI Study no system upgrades were assumed.
The Bidder encourages the Evaluation Team to request that ISO-NE provide the PNOI Study
and Feasibility Study to the Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 1.7.4.1 of the RFP.
The Bidder will work towards

executing a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) with ISO-NE for the offshore
wind generation facility which ISO-NE is currently studying under after completion of
the System Impact Study.
6.7 Electrical System Performance Studies

6.7 The studies should describe the Project’s electrical system performance, its impact to the
reliability of the New England Transmission system, and how the project would satisfy ISO NE’s
I.3.9 requirements. The studies must also provide the status of any interconnection studies
already underway with ISO-NE and/or the transmission owner. Provide a copy of an
interconnection agreement, if any, executed by the bidder with respect to the proposed project.
If an interconnection agreement has not been executed, please provide the steps that need to
be completed before an interconnection agreement can be executed and the associated
timeline.
Performance and its impact:
Attachments:
To date ISO-NE has completed the project Feasibility Study and PNOI Study. The Feasibility
Study and PNOI Study are CEII and can be made available to persons with the required
clearance upon request. The Bidder encourages the Evaluation Team to request that ISO-NE
provide the Feasibility Study and PNOI Study to the Evaluation Team in accordance with
Section 1.7.4.1 of the RFP.
ISO-NE started the System Impact Study on September 4, 2017 and expects to complete it in
Q1 2018. The Feasibility Study, based on N-1 and N-1-1 thermal and voltage analysis, shows
that the Project can interconnect 800 MW to the POI at the Brayton Point 345-kV Substation
without any upgrades to the transmission system. The Feasibility Study also assessed the
performance of the wind farm start-up, power factor requirements, and short-circuit
requirements. During startup, the windfarm does not violate any high or low voltage criteria.
The power factor analysis shows the windfarm fully meets the power factor requirements of

the LGIA Appendix G. The short-circuit analysis showed no significant impact on the ISO-NE
grid circuit breaker duty as a result of interconnecting the Project.
After completion of the System Impact Study the Bidder will submit, in Q1 or Q2 2018,
Proposed Plan Applications for Project I.3.9 approval. Based on the ISO-completed Feasibility
Study the Bidder expects no upgrades to the ISO-NE transmission system, aside from
expanding the Brayton Point 345-kV Substation. However, if the System Impact Study
identifies any upgrades, the Bidder, after review of the System Impact Study results, will
submit together with the Transmission Owner additional Proposed Plan Applications for the
required upgrades on the transmission system and will commit to construct such required
upgrades.
Upon completion of the System Impact Study, the Bidder may request ISO-NE to undertake a
Facilities Study. A Facilities Study will provide the detailed costing estimates of the network
upgrades which National Grid must build at Brayton Point, the decision will not be made until
the completed System Impact Study has been reviewed with ISO-NE. If the Facilities Study is
waived, the Bidder can begin working towards signing a LGIA after the System Impact Study.
If successful, the Bidder expects to execute an LGIA in .
The PNOI Study is discussed in Section 6.15.
Large offshore windfarms undertake harmonic studies to determine the level of harmonic
distortion within the windfarm interconnection facilities and at the onshore POI. Harmonic
assessments are required to determine if harmonic filters are required and if so, their
technical specifications. To undertake a harmonic assessment Bay State Wind has engaged
National Grid to begin a harmonic measurement campaign at the onshore POI at Brayton
Point in order to record the background harmonic measurements. This is required for the
harmonic assessment and to complete a harmonic filter design.
6.8 Multiple Interconnection Requests

6.8 If multiple interconnection requests have been made, please specify all such active requests
which have not been superseded by subsequent requests and information regarding the status
of each. Provide copies of any requests made and studies completed.
In addition to which is currently at the System Impact Study assessment stage with
ISO-NE, the Bidder has also filed an additional Interconnection Request for 880 MW in the
Cape Cod area with a POI at the Eversource Bourne 115-kV Substation, with the Canal 345-
kV Substation as a backup POI. A copy of the interconnection request confirmation is
included as Attachment 6-1 which was assigned Queue Position This second
Interconnection Request is for use as part of the ETS which is described in more detail in
Section 6.13 and Section 15, or may be used for future RFP solicitations. The Bidder has
elected for ISO-NE to perform a Feasibility Study for which ISO-NE has said is
expected to be studied in Q3 2018. Since the ISO-NE Feasibility Study could not be
performed in time for submission with this proposal, performed, for the
Bidder, an independent feasibility type study for However, ISO-NE did complete a
Preliminary Non-Binding Overlapping Impact Analysis (PNOI) for which showed that
no transmission elements are overloaded for each scenario evaluated. The PNOI Analysis
report is CEII and can be made available to persons with the required clearance upon
request.

6.9 Technical Reports or System Impact Studies

6.9 Projects that do not have I.3.9 approval from ISO-NE must include technical reports or system
impact studies that approximate the ISO-NE interconnection process, including but not limited
to clear documentation of study technical and cost assumptions, reasoning, and justification of
such assumptions. All studies must assume the project will interconnect using the Capacity
Capability Interconnection Standard, must use the current ISO-NE interconnection process
(including network impact scenarios from multiple projects interconnecting), and must also
detail any assumptions with respect to projects ahead of the proposed project in the ISO-NE
interconnection queue and any assumptions as to changes to the transmission system that
differ from the current ISONE Regional System Plan. Please include a scenario analysis that
shows how changes in the project interconnection queue could impact interconnection costs.
ISO-NE started the System Impact Study on September 4, 2017. The scheduled completion
is Q1 2018. The feasibility study has been completed and this shows the project can inject
800 MW to the POI at the 345-kV Brayton Point Substation without any network upgrades
required and no adverse impact to the reliability of the onshore system. A description of the
ISO-NE studies is provided in Sections 6.6 and 6.7. The feasibility study includes all prior
queued projects; hence earlier queued projects are not impacting the bidder. If withdrawal of
an earlier queued project were to impact the interconnection request, the bidder will make
the necessary upgrades required.
The ISO-NE has completed the project Feasibility Study (on April 7, 2017) and PNOI Study (on
March 24, 2017). The Feasibility Study results show that based on N-1 and N-1-1 thermal
and voltage analysis the Project can interconnect 800 MW to the POI at National Grid’s
Brayton Point 345-kV Substation without any upgrades and adverse impact to the onshore
transmission system. The Feasibility Study also assessed the performance of the wind farm
start-up, power factor requirements, and short-circuit requirements. During startup, the
windfarm does not violate any high or low voltage criteria. The power factor analysis shows
the windfarm fully meets the power factor requirements of the LGIA. The short-circuit analysis
showed no significant impact on the grid circuit breaker duty as a result of interconnecting
the wind farm. The Feasibility Study technical assumptions are described in the study report.
The Feasibility Study evaluated a 2021 transmission system representation. Steady state
analyses were completed for summer peak, shoulder and minimum load levels based on the
NEPOOL 2016 Capacity, Energy, Load and Transmission (CELT) Report, issued in May 2016.
The feasibility study includes all relevant prior queued planned projects. The non-binding cost
estimate to expand the 345-kV Brayton Point Substation in order to interconnect the Bidder’s
project ( is . This cost estimate, provided by National Grid, is in current
year (2017) dollars with (-50 percent/+200 percent) accuracy. The bidder does not have
additional cost estimate details.
If an earlier queued project were to withdraw this would in general result in less thermal
stress on the transmission system in the area. Therefore no adverse thermal impact would
be expected. Also, the Project has adequate voltage control capability and therefore the
withdrawal of an earlier queued project would have no adverse impact on the Bidder’s
project. However, if the withdrawal of an earlier queued project were to impact the
interconnection request, the bidder will make the necessary upgrades required. The Bidder is

not expecting any impact on the interconnection costs from the withdrawal of an earlier
queued project.
The Project has significant dynamic reactive capability and the bidder is not expecting the
System Impact Study to result in any required upgrades to the transmission system.
However, if any such required upgrades are identified in the presently ongoing System
Impact Study the Bidder will commit to making such required upgrades.
In general the Feasibility Studies and the System Impact Studies are performed in
accordance with the Network Capability Interconnection Standard (NCIS), where local
generation displacement is acceptable. In these two studies the Bidder selected for Capacity
Network Resource Interconnection Service (energy capability and capacity capability).
ISO-NE has also completed, in accordance with the Capacity Capability Interconnection
Standard, a PNOI Study for Brayton Point. In the PNOI Study three generation dispatch and
system configuration scenarios were evaluated. Scenarios #1 and #2 did not include the
SEMA/RI area identified system upgrades and were therefore not further considered.
Scenario #3, which included the preferred transmission system upgrades identified in the
recently completed wide area SEMA/RI study, identified potential minor overloads (3
percent) on two 345 kV overhead transmission lines. The rating of these two 345 kV lines will
need to be verified since the ratings used in the PNOI Study for these two lines may be sag
limited. The 3 percent overloads on these two lines was due to a single stuck breaker
contingency at the West Farnum Substation. As described on Page 10 in the Notes Section of
the ISO-NE PNOI Study report, under less conservative stressed system conditions, the
violations identified in Scenario #3 may not be an issue. Therefore, based on the above
considerations no significant network upgrades were assumed for the purpose of
participating in the FCM.
6.10 Studies Using the ISO-NE Proposed Interconnection Process Changes

6.10 To the extent that you provide an alternative interconnection scenario based on ISO-proposed
interconnection process changes, you must also include studies using the proposed ISO-NE-
proposed process. Any such studies must be accompanied with clear documentation of study
technical and cost assumptions, reasoning, and justification of such assumptions.
ISO-NE has not notified Bay State Wind of any interconnection request process changes
while the project has been under study. If any process changes are proposed by ISO-NE Bay
State Wind will complete any necessary studies per ISO-NE requirements. Accordingly, since
there is not an alternative interconnection scenario being provided at this time, there are not
additional studies using the proposed ISO-NE-process applicable for integration into the
proposal.
Furthermore, if additional studies are necessary, ISO-NE does have an ongoing process
whereby interconnection requests that are submitted within 180 calendar days of each other
may be studied as part of a cluster study, allowing the studies to be completed in parallel as
opposed to sequentially in order to speed up the study process. This is not applicable to the
Project because the System Impact Study has already commenced without any involvement
of other queue positions. The Feasibility Study is CEII and can be made available to persons
with the required clearance upon request. The Bidder encourages the Evaluation Team to

request that ISO-NE provide the Feasibility Study to the Evaluation Team in accordance with
Section 1.7.4.1 of the RFP.
6.11 Electrical Models

6.11 Provide the electrical models of all energy resources supporting the proposed project in
accordance with the filing requirements of the ISO-NE Tariff Schedule 22 and 23.
Electrical models are proprietary to a third-party WTG manufacturer and the Bidder has a
limited right of use. The Bidder is not authorized to release these models to the Evaluation
Team. If the Evaluation Team needs access to these models, the Bidder will help applicable
parties obtain access to such documents pursuant to a multi-party non-disclosure
agreement.
6.12 Electrical One-Line Diagram

6.12 Provide a copy of an electrical one-line diagram showing the interconnection facilities and the
relevant facilities of the transmission and/or distribution provider.
A one-line diagram for the Preferred Option’s transmission system is provided as Figure 6.6
and Attachment 6-6. In the diagram, WTGs are abstracted and do not appear, and the
diagram is oriented with the array system at the bottom and grid interconnect at the top.
6.13 Current or New Interconnection Facilities Owned by Bidder

6.13 Specify and describe the current or new interconnection facilities (lines, transformers, switching
equipment, system control protection, etc.) that bidder owns or is intending to construct or have
constructed in order to deliver the proposed energy.
A full description of the planned interconnection facilities is provided in Section 8.1 and
Section 15.1.
In the Preferred Option, the proposed Project will consist of the following major components:
Wind Farm Array System and WTGs –
. The individual WTG size and total number of WTGs may change in order to optimize
Project cost and performance. However, the total generation delivered at the Brayton Point
345-kV Substation will remain at 400 MW. Each WTG will be equipped with its own dedicated
generator step-up transformer. These transformers have a no-load tap changer.
Refer to Section 8.1.2 for further information on the WTGs. The individual WTGs and their
generator step-up transformers will be connected to a submarine array cable network,
which will terminate at an OSS. Section 8.1.4 provides further information on the array
cables.


OSS – The OSS contains the transformers and switchgear required to connect the array
cables and transform the voltage up to kV for export to shore. For the 400 MW
generation to Brayton Point, the OSS will consist of
transformers; each transformer will have switchgear sections ( in total), with
submarine cables terminating at each switchgear section ( ).
There are installed to
compensate for the export cable charging current. The transformers will be
interconnected with tie switches. Section 8.1.7 and Section 15.1
provides further information on the OSS.
kV Circuit – circuit will connect the OSS to a new OnSS, with each
circuit connecting 400 MW of offshore WTGs. The circuit will consist of a
submarine cable portion, approximately long, and an underground cable
portion (the length will depend on routing). The circuit will have approximately
which will be compensated by
Section 8.1.5 provides
further information on the export cable.
OnSS – A new onshore air insulated substation will be constructed to terminate the
circuit from the OSS. The OnSS will consist of the following equipment:
 submarine/underground circuit from the offshore wind generation
 switchgear housing circuit breakers and disconnect switches
 fixed shunt reactor
 variable shunt reactor
 harmonic filter
 STATCOM
 30-MW with 60-MWh Battery Energy Storage Device
 transformers equipped with load tap changers
The two halves of the 400-MW OnSS will be connected with a
will connect the new OnSS to the 345-kV Brayton Point
Substation.
Section 8.1.8 provides further information on the OnSS.
Brayton Point 345 kV Substation Upgrades – The upgrades of the existing Brayton Point 345-
kV Substation are subject to the System Impact Study not yet finalized by ISO-NE. The
Feasibility Study, also performed by ISO-NE prior to the System Impact Study, shows that
Brayton Point 345-kV Substation will be expanded with a number of 345-kV gas-insulated
system bay positions. This will include the installation of new circuit breakers at the Brayton
Point 345-kV Substation. The underground cables from the new OnSS will terminate at the
new bay(s) at the Brayton Point 345-kV Substation.
Upgrades to the Existing ISO-NE Transmission System – Aside from the upgrades required at
the Brayton Point 345-kV Substation, no other system upgrades will be required.

Voltage Control – The WTG step-up transformer no-load tap will be set at 1.015 pu boost,
based on the Feasibility Study conducted by ISO-NE. A power plant controller will dispatch the
WTG reactive power in order to regulate the voltage at the OSS to . The
transformers at the new OnSS will be equipped with load tap changers which will control the
voltage at the bus.
6.14 Incremental Data Requirements

6.14 Incremental data requirements for Projects that include Transmission facilities:
1. IDV file(s) in PSSE v32 format modelling only the new/modified Transmission components of
the project.
IDV file are provided as Attachment 6-7. The IDV files are suitable for steady state analysis of
the windfarm.
2. If the Bidder does not use PSSE, provide in text format necessary modeling data as follows:
Line Data:
Voltage: Thermal Ratings:
Impedances (r, X and B)
Line Length/to and from bus numbers and names
Not applicable; data for the line characteristics and electrical properties are provided as IDV
file in Attachment 6-7.
- Transformer data: (including Phase shifting transformers if applicable):
Terminal Voltages: Thermal Ratings:
Impedance
From: To:
(bus numbers and names)
Not applicable; data for the onshore and offshore transformers are provided as IDV file in
Attachment 6-7.
- Reactive compensation models as necessary
Not applicable; data for the reactive compensation are provided in the IDV file in Attachment
6-7.
- Other changes to the model that would occur due to a Project such as terminal changes for
lines/transformer/generator leads/loads etc.
The IDV file provided in Attachment 6-7 represents the offshore windfarm electrical system
for steady state analysis. No changes to the existing onshore electrical system are necessary,
subject to the results of the ISO-NE feasibility study discussed in Section 6.7.

6.15 Energy Delivery

6.15 Please detail with supporting information and studies (as available) that the energy
contemplated in your proposal is able to be delivered to the Distribution Companies without
material constraint or curtailment.
The energy provided by the Bidder is able to be delivered to the EDCs without material
constraint or curtailment as studied in the ISO-NE Feasibility Study and System Impact Study
and described in Section 6.7.
ISO-NE has completed a PNOI Study for Brayton Point in accordance with the capacity
capability interconnection standard (CCIS), and issued its findings on March 24, 2017. The
ISO-NE PNOI Study modeled three generation dispatch and system configuration scenarios.
Scenario #3 included the preferred transmission system upgrades identified in wide area
SEMA/RI study recently completed. Scenarios #1 and #2 did not include the SEMA/RI area
identified upgrades and were therefore not further considered. In Scenarios #3 the PNOI
Study identified two minor overloads (3 percent) on two 345 kV overhead transmission lines.
The rating and possible mitigation for these two lines will need to be verified. Also, under less
conservative stressed system conditions, the violations identified in scenario #3 may not be
an issue. Therefore, based on the results of the PNOI Study, it is not expected that any
network upgrades will be required for the Project to connect at the CCIS.
The PNOI Study is Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) and can be made
available to persons with the required clearance upon request.
The Bidder encourages the Evaluation Team to request that ISO-NE provide the PNOI Study
and Feasibility Study to the Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 1.7.4.1 of the RFP.
Additional detail on the Bourne POI and associated studies is provided in Attachment 6-1.
In addition, the integration of a battery system as proposed herein will further ensure that the
Bidder will be able to deliver the contemplated energy without material constraint or
curtailment.
6.16 Sufficiency of Proposed Point of Delivery into ISO-NE

6.16 Please provide sufficient information and documentation to demonstrate that the proposed
point of delivery into ISO-NE, along with their proposed interconnection and transmission
upgrades including any transmission upgrades beyond the point of interconnection, is sufficient
to ensure full dispatch of the proposal’s Clean Energy Generation profile͘.
The proposed point of delivery at Brayton Point is sufficient to ensure full dispatch of the
Project’s generation profile without any system upgrades. The existing 1.5 GW coal power
station at Brayton Point was shut down in May 2017; this frees up sufficient capacity for the
Project. This is supported by the results of the Feasibility Study performed by ISO-NE, as
described in Section 6.7, and further detailed below.
ISO-NE completed a comprehensive Interconnection Feasibility Study for in the spring
of 2017. The Feasibility Study evaluated steady-state thermal and voltage performance of
the ISO-NE transmission system following N-1 (single contingency events) and N-1-1 (two
independent contingency events). The analysis was performed in accordance with NPCC and
ISO-NE transmission planning standards. The study results showed no violations of voltage or

thermal reliability criteria and no violations of ISO-NE line-out criteria with the proposed
Project delivering up to 800 MW at the Brayton Point POI.
To be conservative, the two Preferred Option Project STATCOMs were modeled out of service
in the steady state voltage and thermal analysis. This approach was taken to demonstrate
that the Project has sufficient reserve reactive power capability, which is further assessed in
ISO-NE’s System Impact Study. The additional reactive power reserve capability modeled in
the Feasibility Study will ensure that the results of ISO-NE’s System Impact Study will not
require the Project to incorporate additional equipment to meet acceptable dynamic system
performance.
The steady-state analysis evaluated the Project impact on the New England transmission
system reliability performance at summer peak, shoulder, and minimum load levels. Heavy
transfers in and out of SEMA and Rhode Island were used to stress the Project area.
The following dispatches were tested:
 Peak Load with high SEMA/RI Import
 Peak Load with high West to East Transfers
 Shoulder load with high SEMA/RI Export
 Minimum load for HV stress
In all cases, the Project was dispatched against western Massachusetts generation remote
to the Brayton Point study area.
The Feasibility Study results showed no violations of voltage or thermal reliability criteria. As
well, the Feasibility Study determined that the Project meets the power factor requirement at
the POI in accordance with the Appendix A requirements of the LGIA.
A short-circuit assessment was also performed as part of the Feasibility Study to determine
the Project’s impact on the transmission system fault current levels and breaker duty. The
short-circuit study found no significant impact as a result of interconnecting the Project at the
345-kV Brayton Point Substation.
The Feasibility Study further assessed the start-up sequencing of the Project to demonstrate
the Project would not violate voltages at the 345-kV Brayton Point Substation during Project
startup. The assessment confirmed that voltages would not be violated.
The Feasibility Study also performed a project collector system analysis to demonstrate that
the settings of the WTG voltage control, WTG transformer taps, offshore and onshore load
tap changer taps, variable shunt reactor taps, and STATCOM voltage control were selected
for optimum performance.
The results of the Feasibility Study, with some possible adjustments, are generally used in
the steady-state portion of the ISO-NE System Impact Study. Therefore, the results of the
Feasibility Study are a very good indication that the Project will have no impact on the steady-
state performance of the ISO-NE transmission system.

Section 7
Environmental Assessment,
Permit Acquisition Plan, and
New Class I RPS Certification
Ørsted and Eversource are industry leaders in permitting complex
energy projects.
Since December 2015, the Project has been conducting
assessments of biological, cultural, socioeconomic,
geophysical, and geological conditions across the Project Area.
The Bidder has led a proactive stakeholder engagement
process with regulatory agencies, tribal nations, local
communities, universities, fishermen, environmental
groups, low income populations, labor and local business
interests, and recreational users.
The Bidder is applying best science, working with
stakeholders, and incorporating lessons learned from
offshore wind projects in Europe to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate potential environmental impacts.
The Bidder received The Bidder has signed Conditional upon PPA
the industry-first a Memoranda of award, the Bidder is
approval of a Site Understanding with committing more than $2
Assessment Plan by Massachusetts Maritime million to support New
Academy, Bristol England’s preeminent
the Bureau of Ocean
Community College, Action institutions with
Energy Management
for Boston Community collaborative research and
in June 2017, and
Development, South Shore programmatic initiatives
deployed two FLiDARs
Community Action Council, to protect the region’s
and a wave buoy
International Brotherhood indigenous fisheries and
to collect valuable of Electrical Works, and whale populations.
wind resource and others.
metocean data.
Deployed FLiDAR Buoy
Section 7 Environmental Assessment, Permit Acquisition Plan and New Class I RPS Certification
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PERMIT ACQUISITION PLAN AND NEW

CLASS I RPS CERTIFICATION
In this section, the Bidder outlines the status of efforts related to the Project’s environmental
assessment and the acquisition of required permits, licenses, authorizations, and
certifications. The preliminary environmental site characterization indicates that the Bidder
will be able to deliver the Project, while minimizing environmental impacts throughout
construction and operation of the Project. The Project has also garnered a significant level of
public support through direct stakeholder engagement.
7.1 Permits, Licenses, Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental

Impact Statements Required
This section addresses environmental and other regulatory issues associated with project siting,
development and operations for both generation and transmission projects, as applicable.
7.1 Provide a list of all the permits, licenses, and environmental assessments and/or environmental
impact statements required to construct and operate the project. Along with this list, identify the
governmental agencies that are responsible for issuing approval of all the permits, licenses, and
environmental assessments and/or environmental impact statements. If a bidder has secured
any permit or has applied for a permit, please indicate this in the response.
The permit matrix included in Attachment 7-1 lists the permits, licenses, and environmental
assessments and/or environmental impact statements required to construct and operate the
Project, and identifies the regulatory agencies responsible for issuing approval of same. The
list also details the status relating to any permit applications or permits that have been
secured by the Project at this stage.
Furthermore, the schedule provided in Section 9 is based on a robust understanding of the
necessary permits, licenses, environmental assessment and/or environmental impact
statements required for construction and operation of the Project. This understanding is
informed by consultation with federal and state regulatory agencies, previous environmental
assessment experience (see Section 7.3), and a thorough review of the U.S., Massachusetts
and Rhode Island regulatory framework.
7.2 Anticipated Timeline for Seeking and Receiving Required Permits

7.2 Provide the anticipated timeline for seeking and receiving the required permits, licenses, and
environmental assessments and/or environmental impact statements. Include a project
approval assessment which describes, in narrative form, each segment of the process, the
required permit or approval, the status of the request or application and the basis for projection
of success by the milestone date. All requirements should be included on the project schedule
in Section 10.

The Bidder has reviewed federal, state, and local permitting requirements to identify the
applicable regulatory framework for the construction and operation of an offshore wind
energy project. As detailed in Sections 7.3 and 7.5, the Bidder has extensive experience in
permitting projects of similar complexity and has undertaken significant activities in
advancing the permitting process ahead of responding to this RFP. A summary of milestones
achieved to date is provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1
278B Timeline of Completed Project Activities and Milestones
Activity/Milestone Date
Lease OCS-A 0500 went into effect April 1, 2015
12-month extension of the Preliminary Term granted by BOEM April 27, 2016
Submitted SAP Survey Plan June 16, 2016
SAP Survey Plan accepted by BOEM August 10, 2016
Completed preliminary site assessment activities including geophysical and September – October
geotechnical surveys 2016
Submitted SAP to BOEM 20 December, 2016
Interagency kick-off meeting with federal and Massachusetts and Rhode Island February 7, 2017
state agencies as well as the Federally Recognized Tribes
Submitted COP Survey Plan February 28, 2017
Submitted Cable Route Survey Plan, Avian Survey Protocol, and Marine Mammal March – April 2017
& Sea Turtle and Fisheries Baseline Characterization Approach Memos
SAP was approved June 29, 2017
Deployed FLiDARs to assess meteorological conditions at Lease Area in support July 8, 2017
of Project engineering and design
Completed avian surveys across the Lease Area May – October 2017
Completed export cable route reconnaissance survey May – October 2017
Completed reconnaissance wetlands and cultural resources surveys at Brayton Point August – September 2017
The complete timeline for seeking and obtaining all required permits, licenses, and
environmental assessments and/or environmental impact statements is detailed in Section 9.1
and is summarized below in Table 7.2. The Bidder anticipates approval of the COP with BOEM’s
Record of Decision in ; however, all permits and approvals will not be received until
given that certain permits can only be issued 6 months before the start of construction.
This projection is based on multiple factors including engagement with the regulatory community,
understanding of the federal and state permitting process, milestones achieved to date, as well
as Ørsted’s and Eversource’s experience in conducting environmental impact assessments and
permitting complex projects.
Table 7.2
279B Projected Timeline for Receipt of Project Permits, Licenses, and Environmental Assessments
and/or Environmental Impact Statements
Activity/Milestone Date
1Note that certain federal and state agency approvals have a statutory “start” date such that receipt of approval must be timed to
within 6-12 months of start of construction even if the materials needed to support permit application are available.

The permitting process is comprehensive with multiple agencies and other stakeholders
involved at the federal, state, and local level. A matrix of applicable regulations and permits,
including the current status and/or anticipated date of receipt, is provided in Attachment 7-1.

The applicable federal and state regulatory requirements for development within the Lease
Area and interconnection in Massachusetts are summarized in Attachment 7-4.
7.3 Prior Experience in Environmental Impact Assessment Process

7.3 Provide information detailing prior experience in environmental impact assessment process.
The Bidder’s Owners, Ørsted and Eversource, have extensive experience in permitting of
complex infrastructure projects across Europe and New England, including the undertaking
of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) as part of the development process.
Ørsted has a proven track record for successfully leading the development process including
EIA work involving approximately 25 offshore wind farm projects. The extensive experience
Ørsted brings to the Project team through producing or managing the EIA or being the
responsible lead for obtaining or amended existing permits for construction and/or operation
of offshore wind projects across Europe is illustrated in Figure 7.1 and Table 7.3.
Figure 7.1 Projects where EIA or Major Permitting Work was carried out by Ørsted

Table 7.3
280B Ørsted Experience in Permitting Offshore Windfarms
Permit Capacity Construction
Project Country approval Ørsted permitting involvement (MW) Completed
Vindeby DK 1990 First-ever offshore windfarm in the world. 4.95 1991
Project was successfully decommissioned by
Ørsted in 2017.
Middelgrunden DK 1999 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 20 2000
for the WTGs located close to
Copenhagen.
Horns Rev 1 DK 2001 Ørsted responsible for permitting process. 160 2002
Nysted DK 2001 Ørsted responsible for permitting process. 166 2003
Horns Rev 2 DK 2005 Ørsted responsible for permitting process. 209 2009
Avedøre DK 2008 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 7 2009
for intertidal-based WTGs.
Gunfleet Sands UK 2004 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 108 + 65 2011
1+2 for offshore and onshore parts of the
development.
Walney 1+2 UK 2008 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 184+ 184 2012
for offshore and onshore parts of the
development.
London Array UK 2006 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 630 2012
1 for offshore and onshore parts of the
development.
Anholt DK 2010 Consent provided by Authority. Ørsted 400 2013
responsible for specific stakeholder
agreements (e.g. with fisheries) and
environmental monitoring.
Gunfleet Sands UK - Ørsted responsible for permitting process 12 2013
III Demo for offshore and onshore parts of the
demonstration project.
West of UK 2008 Ørsted responsible for permitting process 389 2014
Duddon Sands for offshore and onshore parts of the
development.
Borkum DE 2004/ Permitted by other developer. Ørsted 312 2015
Riffgrund 1 2014 applied for amendment of existing consent
to allow for the first-ever suction buckets in
Germany. Successfully managed challenging
noise requirements during construction.
Westermost UK 2012 Ørsted achieved amendment of existing 210 2015
Rough consent under the Section 36 regime to
allow for bigger WTGs. Achieved local
planning consent for OnSS at very short
timescale.
Gode Wind DE 2013 Ørsted applied for amendment of existing 332+252 2016
I+II consent to allow for bigger WTGs.
Successfully managed challenging noise
requirements during construction.

Table 7.3 Ørsted Experience in Permitting Offshore Windfarms (continued)

Permit Capacity Construction
Project Country approval Ørsted permitting involvement (MW) Completed
Burbo Bank UK 2014 Ørsted responsible for full Development 258 2017
Extension Consent order (DCO) process including
consultation with all stakeholders. Onshore
infrastructure constructed in Wales
requiring local permits.
Walney UK 2014 Ørsted responsible for full DCO process 660 Under
Extension including consultation with all stakeholders construction
for the offshore and onshore aspects of the
development. Managed various issues
related to offshore and onshore
environmental impacts.
Hornsea UK 2014 Ørsted involved in DCO process with 1218 Under
Project 1 previous project owner. Managed various construction
issues related to offshore and onshore
environmental impacts.
Race Bank UK 2015 Ørsted achieved amendment of existing 565 Under
consent from 2012 under the Section 36 construction
regime to allow for bigger WTGs and
changed cable route. Managed crossing of
protected area in intertidal zone using
bespoke installations tools.
Borkum DE 2016 Ørsted applied for amendment of existing 450 Under
Riffgrund 2 consent to allow for bigger WTGs and construction
foundation choice to include both MPs and
suction bucket.
Hornsea UK 2016 Ørsted responsible for full DCO process 1300 Under
Project 2 including consultation with all stakeholders construction
for the offshore and onshore aspects of the
development. Managed various issues
related to offshore and onshore
environmental impact.
Hornsea UK DCO in process by Ørsted. - Under
Project 3 development
Bay State US COP under preparation by Ørsted - Under
Wind development
Ocean Wind US COP under preparation by Ørsted - Under
development
Greater TW EIA under preparation by Ørsted - Under
Changhua development

Similarly, Eversource has experience in the development of large, complex energy projects
that require robust EIAs. Over the past 10-15 years, Eversource has planned, designed,
permitted, and constructed over $2.8 billion of major transmission upgrades in southern
New England. Eversource has developed extensive relationships with local, state, and federal
agencies with whom it is necessary to work to successfully site and permit such projects, and
is intimately familiar with the regulatory framework in the New England states. Table 7.4
provides an overview of several illustrative projects for which Eversource was required to
complete the robust EIA process with either federal and/or state oversight.
Four of the five projects highlighted below are interstate transmission projects. These
projects demonstrate Eversource’s experience in completing permitting and siting efforts for
multi-State projects and is directly applicable to the Bidder’s proposed solution. This
experience demonstrates Eversource’s ability to complete these processes successfully, and
to secure approvals/authorizations that are consistent across multiple jurisdictions.
Relying on these strengths, the Bidder is supported by a very experienced team, combining
permitting and EIA expertise and knowledge from the European wind markets with local
knowledge of the regulatory regime and the EIA process in the U.S.

Table 7.4
281B Eversource EIA Experience – Project Highlights
Environmental Permitting Scope Permit / Siting Challenges Outcome/Status
Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Submarine Cable Project – Construction of a 4.5-miles (7.2-km)-long cable across Vineyard Sound from Falmouth MA to
Tisbury MA. This was a first-of-its-kind collaboration between Comcast and NSTAR.
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review by • First infrastructure project permitted • Successful installation on time and on
lead federal Agency (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Massachusetts Ocean budget
[USACE]) Management Plan (implemented on Dec 31, • Avoided protected eelgrass beds
• Section 106 consultation with Massachusetts Historical 2009) • Awarded the Environmental Business
Commission and Bureau of Underwater Archaeological • Underwent three project siting reviews Council’s Nicholas Humber
Resources (BUAR) (DPU, Cape Cod Commission, and Environmental-Energy Award for
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the MADEP Martha’s Vineyard Commission DRI Outstanding Collaboration (2013)
• M.G.L. Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing from MADEP review)
• Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review, • Collaborative effort with Comcast Cable
including preparation of Draft and Final Environmental company
Impact Reports (EIRs) • Traversed busy public ferry service route
• Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) during installation
Siting Division Section 72 License • Protected eelgrass beds along shoreline
• Consultation with Massachusetts Office Coastal Zone
Management and review under the Massachusetts
Oceans Management Plan
• Consultation with Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &
Wildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species
Program (NHESP)
• Consultation with Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries
• Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) review
• Martha’s Vineyard Commission DRI review
• Local Conservation Commission approval under the
Wetland Wetlands Protection Act

Table 7.4 Eversource EIA Experience – Project Highlights (continued)

Greater Springfield Reliability Project – High-voltage transmission project involving construction of a new 39-mile (63-km) 345-kV circuit from Bloomfield,
CT to Ludlow, MA. This multi-State project included multiple system upgrades with over 600 new transmission structures and 13 new or rebuilt substations
and switching stations.
• NEPA review by lead federal Agency (USACE) • Consultations with multiple environmental • Development of cultural avoidance and
• MEPA review, including preparation of Draft and Final agencies in MA, including the Massachusetts mitigation plans approved by all Tribes,
EIRs Historical Commission (MHC), NHESP, and USACE, MHC, and the Advisory
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification by MADEP and the Massachusetts Department of Council on Historic Preservation
the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Conservation and Recreation • All siting approvals and permits received
Protection (CT DEEP) • Avoidance and minimization of wetland • NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact
• Section 404 Permitting under the Clean Water Act by impacts (FONSI)
the USACE • Development of compensatory wetland • Project completed and placed in service
• Siting Approval by the Massachusetts Energy Facilities mitigation plan in 2013
Siting Board and the CT Siting Council (CSC) • Acquisition of land and land rights to • Project was finished on time and under
• M.G.L. Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing from MADEP support expansion of transmission rights-of- budget, despite challenging weather
for crossing of the Connecticut River way, including land rights needed from events that included Superstorm Sandy
• Local Conservation Commission approval under the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and the blizzard of 2013
Wetland Wetlands Protection Act in the cities/towns of and Recreation
Agawam, West Springfield, Springfield, Chicopee and • Section 106 consultations with Native
Ludlow American Tribes
Long Island Replacement Cable Project – Replacement of a 139-kV submarine cable system within Long Island Sound, between Norwalk (CT) and
Northport (Long Island, NY). The existing system was installed in the late 1960s and consisted of seven (7) fluid filled cables surface laid on the floor of Long
Island Sound. Due to a history of cable impacts and leaks, Eversource (CL&P) proposed to replace the system in the early 2000s with three cross-linked
polyethylene (XLPE) cables (3-phases per cable, 3 circuits in total) buried in sediments using jetting methodologies.
• NEPA review by lead federal Agency (USACE) • Active use of shellfish aquaculture beds in • Successful consultations with
• Section 404 Permitting under the Clean Water Act by Norwalk Harbor and south of Sheffield lobstermen and shellfish
USACE Island (CT) interests/organizations and development
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification by New York • Long term monitoring of impacts to of construction mitigation to
State Department of Environmental Conservation shellfish resources minimize/avoid impacts
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the CT • Water quality impacts associated with • All siting approvals and permits received
DEEP, and Office of Long Island Sound Programs removal of existing cables and jetting/burial • NEPA FONSI
Permitting by CT DEP of new cables • Project completed and placed in service
• Siting Approval by the CSC • Disruption/effects on CT and NY Lobster in 2008, on time and on budget
• Article VII Siting Approval by the Public Service industry in Long Island Sound
Commission • Effects on fisheries and marine mammals
during construction

Table 7.4 Eversource EIA Experience – Project Highlights (continued)

Interstate Reliability Project – This Project spanned 3 States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts and was completed in cooperation with
National Grid. In Connecticut, the Project included 37 miles (59 km) of new 345-kV transmission lines in 11 CT Towns: Lebanon, Columbia, Coventry,
Mansfield, Chaplin, Hampton, Brooklyn, Pomfret, Killingly, Putnam, and Thompson. The Project also included upgrades at three existing substations: Card Street
Substation (Lebanon), Lake Road Switching Station (Killingly), and Killingly.
• NEPA review by lead federal Agency (USACE) • Consultations with multiple environmental • Development of cultural avoidance and
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification by CT DEEP agencies in CT, including the Natural mitigation plans approved by all Tribes,
• Section 404 Permitting under the Clean Water Act by Diversity Data Base, the CT State Historic the USACE, MHC, and the Advisory
the USACE Preservation Office (SHPO), Council on Historic Preservation.
• Siting Approval by the CSC • Avoidance and minimization of wetland • All siting approvals and permits received
impacts • NEPA FONSI
• Development of compensatory wetland • Project completed and placed in service
mitigation plan in 2015
• Acquisition of land and land rights to • Project was finished on time and on
support expansion of transmission rights-of- budget
way
• Section 106 consultations with Native
American Tribes
Northern Pass Transmission (NPT) Project - NPT is a 192-mile (309-km) transmission line project that will bring over 1.0 GW of clean power (hydro-
electric) from Canada to New Hampshire. The Project will include a new direct current (DC) transmission line from the Canadian border to Franklin, NH, where a
converter terminal will be built to convert the power to alternating current (AC) and a new AC transmission line will carry power to the Deerfield, NH substation.
• Presidential Permitting by the U.S. Department of Energy • Avoidance and minimization of visual/scenic • The Project has completed all
(DOE) impact in White Mountain National Forest environmental permitting efforts and
• NEPA review, including Draft and Final Environmental • Route selection to NH resident concerns awaits only receipt of approval from the
Impact Statements (EISs), with DOE as lead federal regarding potential environmental/visual NH SEC.
agency effects
• Section 404 Permitting under the Clean Water Act by • Inclusion of 60 miles (96 km) underground
the USACE in response to public and agency concerns
• NH Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) siting review • 32 miles (51 km) of new right-of-way
• Consultation with multiple State environmental agencies acquisition from willing landowners
in NH – State agencies participate in the NH SEC review
process

7.4 Preliminary Environmental Characterization of the Site and Project

7.4 Provide a preliminary environmental characterization of the site and project, including both
construction and operation. In addition, the bidder should identify environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project and any potential impediments to development. A plan to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate such impacts or impediments should also be included. The analysis should address each
of the major environmental areas presented below, for the proposed project:
i. Air quality
ii. Community
iii. Cultural resources
iv. Fishery, avian, and marine mammal impacts
v. Other ecological biological resources (including endangered species)
vi. Landscape and visual
vii. Oceanography
viii. Sound, noise and vibration
ix. Socio-economic and land use
x. Traffic and transportation (including Navigation)
xi. Water resources (including quality and flood risk)
Since receiving the Lease in June 2015, the Bidder has been actively evaluating and characterizing
the Project and assessing potential impacts through desktop assessments, field surveys, agency
consultation, and stakeholder outreach. As discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.5, the Bidder is
working with federal and state agencies, the Tribes, and other stakeholders to appropriately assess
environmental resources of concern, avoid and/or mitigate potential effects, and obtain the
necessary permits and approvals to support the construction and operation of the Project.
The Bidder benefits from the experience that Ørsted and Eversource have in incorporating
innovative minimization and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the extent
practicable, as discussed in Section 7.3. The following section provides a preliminary environmental
characterization of construction and operation of the Project, based on existing data as well as the
field surveys conducted to date for the Project. While potential mitigation measures are identified
below, the Bidder understands that appropriate measures will be identified during the permitting
and outreach process in collaboration with federal and state agencies and other stakeholders.
A summary of the Project’s preliminary environmental assessment, including proposed approaches
to avoid and/or minimize potential effects during construction and operation of the Project, is
provided in Table 7.5, as well as preliminary identification of measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate such impacts.
The details summarized in the table below are only preliminary details because the Project has not
yet completed its environmental assessment and therefore the identification of potential mitigation
measures can only be preliminary. The final identification of adequate and appropriate mitigation
measures cannot be addressed before detailed knowledge about the site is obtained. The Project
is currently undertaking further site characterization in the form of survey activities and desktop
studies that will enable the final environmental assessment of potential impacts and the
identification of appropriate, adequate, and site-specific mitigation measures for the Project.












7.5 Documented Level of Public Project Support

7.5 Provide documentation identifying the level of public support for the project including letters
from public officials, newspaper articles, etc. Include information on specific localized support
and/or opposition to the project of which the bidder is aware. Provide copies of any agreements
with communities and other constituencies impacted by the project, and a stakeholder map
with a plan for community engagement activities. Please discuss the status of the stakeholder
plan.
The Bidder views community engagement as a critical and integral part of the siting and
development process and, as such, it is closely connected to such work streams as
environmental permitting and supply chain development. Since the announcement of the
Project in September 2015, the Bidder has undertaken a comprehensive public engagement
and media campaign.
7.5.1 Public Project Support

The public response to the development of an offshore wind industry in Massachusetts and
to the Project specifically has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, multiple articles and
press releases have been published providing direct support for the industry and the Project,
highlighting the numerous benefits of offshore wind energy13. In September 2016, the
National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, Massachusetts
Audubon Society, Environment Massachusetts, Massachusetts Sierra Club, and Clean Water
Action issued a statement praising “the visionary, collaborative, and bipartisan leadership”14
in Massachusetts for its support of this new industry, highlighting the benefits of clean
energy and local, high-quality jobs. These and other materials praising the Project and
offshore wind energy in Massachusetts are highlighted in Figure 7.2.
13 http://www.mass.gov/governor/press-office/press-releases/fy2017/governor-baker-signs-comprehensive-energy-
diversity-law.html
14 https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Global-Warming/2016/09-06-2016-MA-
Offshore-Wind-Power-Takes-Another-Step-Forward.aspx

Figure 7.2 Bay State Wind in the News

Figure 7.2 Bay State Wind in the News (continued)

As discussed above, the Bidder’s initial outreach and engagement has resulted in letters of
support for the Project from several individuals and organizations, as identified in Table 7.6.
Copies of these letters are included in Attachment 7-6.
Table 7.6
283B Project Support Letters
Organization Individual
Action for Boston Community Development John Wells, Vice President, Real Estate & Energy
(ABCD) Services
Action, Inc. Elliott Jacobson, Vice President for Energy Services
Bristol Community College (BCC) Laura L. Douglas, President
Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative, Inc. Leo Cakounes, President
Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce Wendy K. Northcross, Chief Executive Officer
House of Representatives Representative Antonio F.D. Cabral, 13th Bristol
District
House of Representatives Representative Dylan Fernandes, Barnstable,
Dukes, and Nantucket District
House of Representatives Representative Patricia A. Haddad, 5th Bristol
District
House of Representatives Representative Paul A. Schmid, 8th Bristol District
Immigrants’ Assistance Center, Inc Helena DaSilva Hughes, Executive Director
Massachusetts Senate Senator Julian Cyr, Cape and Islands District
Massachusetts Senate Senator Mark Montigny, Assistant Majority Leader,
Second Bristol and Plymouth District
Massachusetts Senate Senator Michael J. Rodrigues, First Bristol and
Plymouth District
New Bedford Economic Development Anthony R. Sapienza, Chair, Board of Directors
Council
New Bedford Wind Energy Center Paul L. Vigeant, Managing Director
New England Aquarium Scott D. Kraus, VP, Senior Science Advisor
People Acting in Community Endeavors Bruce Morell, Executive Director
(PACE), Inc.
South Shore Community Action Council Daniel Shannon, President, Board of Directors
(SSCAC), Inc.
SouthCoast Chamber Rick Kidder, President/CEO
The Lobster Foundation of Massachusetts Mike Bartlett, President
Town of Aquinnah James Newman, Chairman, Aquinnah Board of
Selectmen
United Way of Greater New Bedford Michelle N. Hantman, President/CEO
7.5.2 Community Agreements

As detailed in this section, the Bidder has entered into several agreements with interested
and affected constituencies. These include:
 Massachusetts Maritime Academy (MMA)
 Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD)
 Action Inc. (Action)
 South Shore Community Action Council (SSCAC)

 People Acting in Community Endeavors (PACE)

 Bristol Community College (BCC)
 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Copies of these agreements can be found in Attachment 14-2.
7.5.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan

Relying on Ørsted’s and Eversource’s experience in developing multiple major infrastructure
projects across New England and Europe, the Bidder has developed an extensive outreach
program. Project outreach efforts draw on the dedicated public relations and subject matter
expertise and resources resident within the Ørsted and Eversource teams, supplemented by
a team of industry and community liaison officers with well-established relationships with
and the trust of the stakeholder communities. The purpose of this program is to both create
positive awareness of the Project by highlighting local community and statewide benefits and
to solicit feedback from Project stakeholders. The following section describes in more detail
the outreach efforts aimed to foster dialogue with, and address the distinct interests of, the
range of interested and affected stakeholder groups.
The planning and development of a large-scale offshore wind project touch on a diversity of
interests to ensure that all user groups can co-exist. The Bidder is therefore implementing a
stakeholder engagement and communications program that identifies the range of interest
and user groups along with the main mechanism to engage with each group. It is reviewed
and updated on a regular basis. As described more fully below, these interests include but
are not limited to:
 Regulatory agencies
 Tribal Nations
 Local communities in proximity to the Project area
 Universities
 Fishing communities
 Environmental groups
 Low income populations
 Labor and local business interests
 Recreational boating groups
The following sections provide a summary of the
Bidder’s efforts to date and plans for continued Bay State Wind at the Gay Head 10K,
October 2017
engagement with these important stakeholders.
Regulatory agencies: Federal and state agencies with a jurisdictional interest in the Project
are identified in Section 7.1. The Bidder has been actively engaged with the regulatory
community since acquiring the Lease in June 2015.
In accordance with the Lease and 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 585, the Bidder has
been communicating regularly with BOEM about pre-survey meetings, the SAP Survey Plan,
and the SAP for the deployment of metocean buoys in the Lease Area. The Bidder’s SAP

Survey Plan was accepted by BOEM on August 10, 2016 and the SAP was approved on June
29, 2017 after completion of preliminary site assessment activities in September/October
2016. Notably, this marked the first time BOEM has ever approved a SAP for offshore wind
development, and the agency commended this milestone as “a pioneering effort”. With SAP
approval completed, the Bidder successfully launched two FLiDAR buoys and a wave buoy in
July 2017 and is now collecting metocean data in the Lease Area that will be used in the
development and design of the proposed wind farm.
The Bidder has engaged with BOEM, NOAA NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MADEP,
Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries, BUAR, MHC, Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Protection, RI
HPHC and other state and local agencies, as well as the Tribes, regarding site
characterization and assessment plans for specific resources. In February 2017, the Bidder’s
permitting team met with federal and state regulatory agencies in Boston to:
 introduce the Bidder’s project and permitting team;
 outline the key components of the development process, scope, project definition,
and timeline;
 review the proposed survey rationale and methodology for site and resource
characterization;
 gain a common understanding of the agencies’ and developer’s roles,
responsibilities, objectives and information needs; and
 seek regulatory agency input and agree on next steps.
The meeting was the first opportunity to meet with the regulatory community critical to the
success of the Project and engage in constructive dialogue about the Project scope and the
road ahead. Subsequently, the Bidder has continued to engage with federal and state
regulatory agencies regarding specific survey protocols and the Project’s approach to the
COP as well as providing updates on Project status. An overview of our engagement efforts
with the regulatory agencies is provided in Attachment 7-7. The Bidder anticipates working
closely with federal and state regulators throughout the Project development process.
Tribal Nations: The Bidder has identified the three federally recognized tribes in
Massachusetts and Rhode Island (Mashpee Wampanoag, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
[Aquinnah] and the Narragansett Tribe) and has developed a special engagement program
relating to Tribal interests. Additionally, the Bidder is committed to following direction
provided in the Renewable Energy Program Regulations (30 CFR 585), Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, and in the terms and stipulations of the Lease, which
require engagement with the Tribes and consideration of Tribal interests. The Bidder has
conducted the necessary pre-survey meetings and has engaged with a Qualified Marine
Archaeologist to review the potential for impacts associated with site assessment activities
completed to date. Although not required by the Lease, the Bidder has also reached out to
the Tribes to present survey results. Additionally, the Bidder is actively engaged in exploring
other opportunities to support Tribal initiatives related to cultural resource investigations. An
overview of outreach with the Tribal Nations is included in Attachment 7-8.

Local communities in proximity to the Project area:

The Bidder recognizes the benefits of building
strong working relationships with communities
proximate to its offshore wind projects. Through
these relationships, local community members can
identify concerns as well as opportunities to benefit
from Project development. To support this effort:
 The Bidder has proactively reached out to
local communities through informational
meetings throughout 2016 and 2017, press
releases, website promotion and a
Bay State Wind supports United Way
significant presence on social media.
of Greater New Bedford, November
 The Bidder held four open houses 2017
November 27 – 30, 2017 to share Project
information with the public and solicit feedback from the local community. Open
houses were held in Somerset, New Bedford, and Falmouth, and on Martha’s
Vineyard.
 The Bidder supports and participates in community events such as the Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay Annual Gala and the Red Sox STEM Event. The Bidder has
committed a budget of nearly $200,000 for calendar year 2017 in support of these
activities, and plans to continue this activity on a continuing basis.
 Bay State Wind gave $2,500 to the United Way of Greater New Bedford, whose
Hunger Heroes Project is distributing 800 turkeys and 1,000 meals for Thanksgiving
with the assistance of more than 300 volunteers across 15 food pantries and
agencies in the region.
 The Bidder also gave $2,500 to the Bay State Wind Holds Open Houses
Immigrant’s Assistance Center of New with Massachusetts and Rhode
Bedford, which provides an array of Island Communities
services to more than 7,000
Meetings organized in Somerset, New Bedford,
immigrants annually.
Martha’s Vineyard and Falmouth were hosted by 12
 The Owners maintain involvement members of the Bay State Wind team, providing
with several local and regional attendees with access to the full range of skills and
organizations including Northeast expertise that Bay State Wind brings to the offshore
Energy and Commerce Association, wind market and a valuable opportunity for in depth
New England Women in Energy and discussion with specialists on the team. Over 100
Environment, Massachusetts members of the public attended the meetings,
Business Roundtable, Cape Cod representing the fishing community, local Economic
Chamber, Martha’s Vineyard Development Boards, academic institutions,
Chamber, and Boston University for fabricating companies, marine engineers and boat
Sustainable Energy. builders, seafood processors, State agencies (EPA,
MA DMF), elected officials, environmental
 Additionally, the Bidder has appointed consultants, city councils, local press, the Rotary
separate Community Liaison Officers Club, local residents and an onshore wind developer.
for Martha’s Vineyard and South Attendees were most interested in the impacts on the
Coast (New Bedford). These region’s commercial fishery interests and job
Community Liaison Officers serve as opportunities, and were supportive of the Project.

“on-the-ground” ambassadors for the Project. Both Community Liaison Officers,

are highly respected members of their respective
community with an extensive network of local contacts with civic institutions and
opinion leaders.
They will work with local residents, representatives, organizations

and businesses to provide information about the Project. They will leverage business,
municipal, and community service experience on the region to develop community
programs and work with residents to ensure local voices are heard throughout all
phases of the Project.
 If awarded this PPA, the Bidder will sustain its community engagement strategy for
2018 and beyond. We will consider the merits of establishing a Community Benefits
Fund, comparable to those proposed by Eversource for the Northern Pass Project in
New Hampshire and those now in place for several of Ørsted’s UK windfarm projects.
These Community Benefit Funds are funded by Ørsted and Eversource as project
proponents but are administered by a third-party to allocate available grant funds to
eligible civic organizations based on pre-defined categories of support and individual
grant limits.
Fishing communities: The Bidder recognizes the benefits of building strong working
relationships with communities proximate to its offshore wind project. A partner in Bay State
Wind, Ørsted has pioneered outreach and trustworthy communications with European
fishermen interests and that experience Ørsted Collaborates with Lobster
informs our approach to working with the Fishery on Offshore Wind Farm
American fishing industry as well. Eversource
The Westermost Rough offshore wind farm site,
has done likewise for many of its projects in
operational since 2015, is located 5 miles (8 km) off
southern New England, most notable for the
the east coast of England in the heart of the largest
Long Island Replacement Cable project, on lobster fishery in the United Kingdom. The fishery
which Eversource engaged directly with represents approximately 20% of national lobster
commercial fishing interests in multiple states landings with a first-sale value of several million U.S.
to address their concerns, and to integrate dollars per annum. After listening to the concerns
their expertise in the development of raised by fishermen, Ørsted collaborated with both the
construction methods and communications Holderness Fishing Industry Group (HFIG) and Hull
protocols. The Bidder’s goal is to establish a University to develop and undertake a joint study
“good neighbor” working relationship with examining the potential impacts of the wind farm on
commercial and recreational fisheries crab and lobster stocks. The study is the first of its
operating in and nearby to the Lease Area and kind to be conducted anywhere in the world and is
proving to be of significant value in assuaging
cable routes. The Bidder has developed a
fishermen’s concerns. The use of a fishing industry
fisheries outreach program to minimize owned and managed research vessel has allowed
disruption of fishing activities during Project local fishermen to assume a lead role in the data
data collection and construction phases and collection process, and the study has highlighted the
maximize ease of access and safe navigation positive effects of the two industries collaborating to
for fishing activities in the Bidder’s long-term conduct high quality, scientifically robust research that
fishermen feel affinity towards.

operations. To achieve these goals, the Bidder

has developed the following objectives: “HFIG has sought to work with various
other sea users. Of these, by far the most
1. Identify major and incidental fisheries with a positive response has come from Ørsted,
history of operations in or near the lease which has collaborated with us on a
area. study of the ecological effects of the
2. Map these fisheries’ likely presence in construction and operation of the
spatial and temporal scales. Westermost Rough wind farm […] The
wind farm study is the first of its kind to
3. Identify and map the economic and
be conducted anywhere in the world and
social structure of these fisheries, taking
is proving to be of significant value in
into account likely points of landing,
assuaging fishermen’s concerns about
shore-side services, and professional
offshore wind development.”
service institutions.
Mike Cohen, CEO of HFIG and Chairman
4. Identify and attend various fisheries of the National Federation of Fishermen’s
working groups organized by state Organization
organizations.
5. Identify peer leaders and respected voices within the communities of interest.
6. Through face-to-face communications, identify individuals curious about offshore
wind power development and technology, and open to opportunities for engagement.
The Fisheries Communications Plan (FCP) consists of three methods of approach as detailed
below. Through all of these engagements, the Bidder is gathering available data including
local knowledge, from management, academic, industry, and non-profit sources as well as
collecting data directly through observation during surveys or from local fisherman. These
data will be aggregated and presented in the COP submission.
1. Fisheries Liaison Officer
The Bidder has employed a regional commercial fisheries expert, to
act as a business representative as the Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO) for the Project.
As the first step in engagement, the Bidder has identified and engaged with over 25
agencies, regulatory agencies, trade associations, and fisheries research institutes
as well as over 100 fisheries businesses and individual fisherman that broadly
encompass the fishing industry in the region. This list will expand as the Bidder
continues to map the economic and social network of regional fisheries. In this
process, the FLO will continue to engage and gather input from fisheries
stakeholders.
2. Fishing Industry Representative
The FCP also includes Fishing Industry Representatives (FIRs), experienced local
fishermen and women who act as representatives for the industry on board the
Bidder’s survey vessels. This program is ongoing, and has proven successful with real
time engagement and mitigation of potential gear conflict situations reducing
impacts to fishing activity as well as survey activity. The FIRs also have identified and
mapped current patterns of fishing activity in the Lease Area.

Environmental groups: The Bidder has engaged and consulted with several major national
and regional environmental organizations (including Natural Resources Defense Council,
National Wildlife Federation, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Conservation Law
Foundation) on a number of occasions to understand the issues, exchange data and
information and discuss the proposed approach to data collection and impact assessment
relating to the protection of North Atlantic Right Whales and other protected marine mammal
species found off the northeast Atlantic coast and, more specifically, within the Lease Area
and close proximity. To support this effort, the Bidder participates in externally-led initiatives
including the ad hoc Habitats Working Group established by the Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management (in collaboration with the Mass CEC, the American Wind Energy
Association’s (AWEA’s) Offshore Committee, and BOEM. Semi- monthly meetings have been
held to gather input, hear concerns, and share updates regarding the Bidder’s plans and
activity status. In addition, the Bidder has and will have opportunities to engage with
representatives of these organizations at marine science conferences including
OCEANOISE2017, the Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, and the North
Atlantic Right Whale Consortium annual meeting as well as industry-specific conferences
sponsored by AWEA. The Bidder will continue to engage in the semi-monthly meetings as well
as meet one on one with representatives of these organizations as opportunities allow.
On a going forward basis, and conditional upon PPA award, Bidder is making a major
resource commitment towards the support of New England’s preeminent research,
philanthropic, educational and advocacy institutions in implementing a portfolio of
collaborative research and programmatic initiatives for the protection the region’s indigenous
whale populations. This multi-year commitment will be comprised of the following elements:
1. Woods Hole Oceanography Institute (WHOI) ($500,000, multi-year)
Bay State Wind will fund a technology advancement/study for development and
improvement of real-time detection systems for right whales for potential use during
construction. This will include utilization of digital acoustic monitoring buoys and
slocum gliders and potentially include an oceanographic sensor suite. The system will
be linked to the Whale Alert system. See Attachment 7-10 for a Letter of Support
from WHOI.
2. New England Aquarium Right Whale Project/Lobster Foundation of Massachusetts
($500,000; multi-year)
Bay State Wind will provide financial support to the New England Aquarium Right
Whale Project and to the Lobster Foundation of Massachusetts for use in mitigating
right whale gear entanglements. The funding is conditional on full cooperation and
approval of all project spend between the two organizations and additional approval

of the South Shore Lobster Fishermen’s

Association. Bay State Wind seeks to First launched in 2012, the Whale Alert
support initiatives that improve the network comprises regional efforts to
North American Right Whale population reduce ship strikes and other human
status, but as importantly does so in a activities that threaten whale species
manner that is supportive of our fishing recovery. Network members utilize various
industry neighbors. areas of expertise including technology,
research, outreach, and education to
3. Whale Alert System ($25,000 annually) increase the effectiveness of whale strike
Bay State Wind will continue with preventive measures. Ørsted is proud to
annual support of the APP with the be a financial backer and a key
intent to improve and progress the representative of a network of energy
system for utilization during partners. http://www.whalealert.org/
construction and operation
4. Marine Mammal Mitigation Advisory Panel ($50,000 annually to cover costs)
Bay State Wind will develop a Mitigation and Monitoring Advisory Panel that includes
right whale specialists, acousticians, and E-NGO representation to provide input for a
mitigation and monitoring plan for federal authorizations. Agreement on measures is
not a condition of the panel process but it is a goal. Dr. Scott Kraus (New England
Aquarium) and Dr. Mark Baumgartner (WHOI) have agreed to participate in the panel.
5. Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) ($5,000/year; up to 5 years)
Bay State Wind will provide financial support to the CCS Marine Debris program to
support development of the marine debris program for marine waste reduction,
removal and recycling initiatives.
6. National Ocean Science Bowl/Blue Lobster Bowl ($5,000/year; up to 5 years)
Bay State Wind will provide support to the National Ocean Science Bowl to support
the highly regarded high school ocean science education program. Bay State Wind
hopes to encourage local students to enter into the renewable energy field and sees
this as a great opportunity to cultivate local talent.
Marine Users: The Bidder places significant importance on providing marine users such as
commercial and recreational fishing, navigation and boating interests and tourism groups
with information about the project and specific survey activities. This is achieved through
public meetings and public notifications (such as local Notices to Mariners). In addition, the
Bidder recognizes that, as a new marine industry, all ocean users need to be play a role to
improve ocean management and avoid potential conflicts of use and has engaged in regional
approaches to ocean management with involvement of federal agencies, states and
stakeholders. All meetings with stakeholders are logged and recorded as part of Bay State
Wind’s stakeholder outreach plan, which is reviewed on a regular basis. As part of the
process, the Bidder is also committed to a number of Open House events at key stages in the
development of the Project to provide an opportunity for stakeholders and user groups to
engage with the Project team.

Low income populations: In support of the

“Bay State [Wind]’s commitment [in opening Energy Diversity Act’s goal of encouraging
a Project office in New Bedford] today marks
development of offshore wind projects that
another concrete step towards realizing the
benefit low-income ratepayers, Bay State
economic potential of this emerging
industry.” Wind initiated in February 2017 an ongoing
dialogue with two of the area’s preeminent
Massachusetts Assistant Senate Majority organizations in the field of low income
leader Mark C. Montigny consumer advocacy and support service
delivery – the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and the LEAN regarding cost-effective
support for low-income ratepayers in Massachusetts. This dialogue resulted in a
groundbreaking MOU in which the Bidder has committed to up to $17.55 million in lifetime
funding toward the statewide delivery of energy efficiency upgrade and arrearage
management services to low-income communities in Massachusetts. MOUs have been
established with four of the Department of Housing and Community Development-sanctioned
Community Action Agencies for the funding and administration of these grants – ABCD and
Action, for implementation of a statewide program; PACE, targeting New Bedford and the
South Coast; and SSCAC, to address the energy challenges of the Cape and Islands low
income population. These MOUs are provided as Attachment 14-2 and are summarized in
Section 14.6.
Labor and local business interests: The Bidder is committed to using local labor wherever
possible, with due consideration to requisite skill sets and cost effectiveness. To identify
opportunities for economic development and job creation, a dialogue has been initiated with
the major trade groups with potential relevance to the construction and operation of the
Project - the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Association
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Utility Workers Union of
America, Maritime Trade Council, Laborers International Union of North America,
Massachusetts Building Trades Council, and New England Regional Council of Carpenters.
On September 2, 2017, the Boston and New England Trade Council convened a meeting
between representatives of the Project and 14 representatives of several organized trades
with an interest in offshore wind development, including electricians, carpenters, pile drivers,
millwrights, operating engineers, seafarers and longshoremen. The Bidder looks forward to
continued discussions with these union representatives on the scope of future engagement
in staging, construction and O&M activities.
In addition, beginning in March 2017, the Bidder convened a series of meetings with the
IBEW with a focus on the onshore elements of the Project. This latter dialogue leverages
Eversource’s longstanding relationship with
the IBEW in the development of land-based “The Port of New Bedford is the hub of the
transmission and other electrical commercial fishing industry on the East
infrastructure projects and the goodwill that Coast, and we are positioning ourselves
this has generated. These discussions likewise to become a center for offshore
wind energy in the years ahead. The
resulted in the execution of a Project Labor
establishment of an office here by one of the
Agreement (PLA) and a MOU.
industry’s leaders, Bay State Wind, is
The PLA establishes a framework for the use another important step forward in this
of Union Labor to support effort.”
relevant/jurisdictional work. The PLA New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell

establishes the protocol by which construction contractors will work with IBEW local unions,
and to prioritize the use of Massachusetts-based union workers. If Bay State Wind is the
selected Bidder under the current RFP, the PLA will be included in all relevant contracts
between the Bidder and construction contractors, and all construction contractors will be
required to sign onto and accept the terms of the PLA.
Further recognizing that certain offshore work requires specialized skills and experience, and
that a shortage of such skilled workers currently exists in Massachusetts, the Bidder and the
IBEW have also entered into an MOU to accompany the aforementioned PLA. This MOU
establishes a mutual commitment between the Parties to collaborate in the development of
a training program to help developed a skilled labor force to support offshore wind
construction in Massachusetts. Both the proposed Project, assuming the Bidder is
successful, and the growing offshore wind industry in Massachusetts (and likely beyond) can
be expected to reap the benefits of such a training program.
The PLA and MOU documents can be amended to allow other trade groups/organizations to
become Parties as the Project advances.
Universities and research institutions: The Bidder has undertaken several separate but
interrelated initiatives with area universities and institutions to support workforce
development, training, and primary research in offshore wind-related fields of study:
1. Massachusetts Maritime Academy (MMA)
The Bidder has entered into an MOU with the MMA, a fully accredited, four year, co-
educational state university offering Bachelor and Master of Science degrees that are
highly regarded in the worldwide maritime industry and beyond. As the MOU attests,
the partnership between the Bidder and MMA will serve as a vehicle for “building a
strong workforce development system aligned with state education policies and
economic development goals. This partnership will focus on gateway communities to
ensure educational academic opportunities for K-12 students, technical training and
hiring of skilled workers in the emerging U.S. offshore wind industry, and provide
citizens with knowledge, skills, and education to be well trained members of the
community who are afforded the opportunity to apply for and retain competitive jobs,
high wages, social mobility and satisfying careers.” The Bidder has made an
unconditional grant of $25,000 for 2018 to support scholarships to underprivileged
students who come from Gateway Cities; four additional annual grants of $50,000
will be contingent upon a PPA award.
2. New Bedford Wind Energy Center
A grant of $25,000 has been made to support the New Bedford Wind Energy Center.
The New Bedford Wind Energy Center is a partnership of the city’s Harbor
Development Commission, the New Bedford Economic Development Council, and
Bristol Community College. The center’s mission is to capture all the benefits
possible, including local job creation and investments, from the development of the
offshore wind industry in Massachusetts. Grant funds will be applied to support the
Center’s research and training efforts, furthering the development of a large-scale
offshore wind industry in Massachusetts.

3. Massachusetts Research Partnership

The Bidder is a regular participant in the stakeholder meetings and discussions
convened by Mass CEC with regard to research priorities and academic collaboration.
The Bidder is supportive of the research agenda progressed by Mass CEC, in
particular the establishment of the Massachusetts Research Partnership (MRP), and
has been actively engaged in discussions with members to set priorities, as well as
attendance at workshops and associated events. The Project team has met
individually with a number of key institutions including Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Amherst, UMass Dartmouth, and
other Massachusetts-based research organizations to consider synergies and
collaborative initiatives.
The Bidder is supportive of MRP’s involvement in the national academic institution
network, POWER US, formed in 2017, as demonstrated by its participation in a
national 2-day workshop organized by National Renewable Energy Lab in Boulder,
Colorado (October 2017) in order to help set the national offshore wind research
agenda. The Bidder will draw upon its extensive European experience in industry-
university collaboration to help identify the most effective mechanism for working
together for the benefit of innovation in the offshore wind sector.
4. Bristol Community College
The Bidder signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Bristol Community
College (BCC) to begin in December 2017. The purpose of this MOU is for the Bidder
and BCC to work collaboratively together in the development of a wind energy
educational component at the college. The MOU includes:
• Participating in the BCC “Women in STEM” series
• Serving on the BCC STEM advisory board
• Participating in BCC’s K-12 initiative to train middle school and high school
science teachers on developing an offshore wind energy curriculum
• Hosting BCC student interns
• Serving as a guest lecturer in BCC’s offshore wind courses
• Exploring a collaboration with BCC and other industry stakeholders to develop
an offshore wind training center in New Bedford, Massachusetts
In addition, the MOU contains a pledge of $1 million contingent upon a PPA to use for
various initiatives such as; scholarships, classroom needs, training programs,
infrastructure projects as they relate to a new campus location.
7.5.4 Conclusion on Project Support

As documented above, the Bidder has made a concerted effort to better understand and
genuinely address the concerns of a diverse group of stakeholders through a comprehensive
outreach effort. This effort is already paying dividends, as evidenced by the overwhelming
and documented support for the Project from individual opinion leaders and institutions
across the Commonwealth. This work does not end with the submission of this bid; rather the

Bidder will ramp up its efforts consistent with the stakeholder engagement plan as we move
into the more visible development stages of the Project. This should give the Evaluation
Team confidence – as it does for the Bidder – that the Bidder is building up a strong base of
community goodwill, and ensures that the Project delivers clean power for all of
Massachusetts while respecting the communities it impacts.
7.6 New Class I Renewable Portfolio Standard Eligible Resource

Documentation
7.6 Provide documentation demonstrating that the project was or will be qualified as New Class I
Renewable Portfolio Standard Eligible Resource under M.G.L. c. 25A, § 11F, and 225 CMR
14.00.
As a new offshore wind energy facility, energy from the Project will qualify as a New Class I
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Eligible Resource because it meets the standards
defined in M.G.L. c. 25A, § 11F, and 225 CMR 14.00.
While the Bidder has not currently submitted its Class 1 RES application with the DOER it will
do so at the appropriate time, and provide documentation once available.
7.7 Appropriate Tracking System Information and Documentation

7.7 All bidders must include sufficient information and documentation that demonstrates that the
bidder will utilize an appropriate tracking system to ensure a unit-specific accounting of the
delivery of Offshore Wind Energy Generation, to enable the Department of Environmental
Protection, in consultation with DOER, to accurately measure progress in achieving the
commonwealth's goals under chapter 298 of the acts of 2008 or Chapter 21N of the General
Laws. The RECs associated with Offshore Wind Energy Generation must be delivered into the
Distribution Companies’ NEPOOL GIS accounts.
The Bidder will utilize the NEPOOL GIS tracking system for attribute tracking, which will allow
MADEP, in consultation with DOER, to accurately measure progress in achieving the
Commonwealth’s goals under Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008 or Chapter 21N of the
General Laws.
The Bidder agrees to deliver the RECs associated with offshore wind energy generation into
the EDCs’ NEPOOL GIS accounts.
7.8 Existing, Preliminary, or Pending Claims of Litigation

7.8 Identify any existing, preliminary or pending claims or litigation, or matters before any federal
agency or any state legislature or regulatory agency that might affect the feasibility of the project
or the ability to obtain or retain the required permits for the project.
There are no existing, preliminary, pending, or foreseeable claims or litigation, or adversarial

matters before any federal agency or any state legislature or regulatory agency against the
Bidder, the Owners, or their affiliates that would affect the feasibility of the Project. The
Bidder is aware of Fisheries Survival Fund v. Jewell, Civ. No. 16-2409 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 8,
2016), a pending lawsuit in which plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of environmental
analyses for BOEM’s December 2016 auction for its “New York lease area”.

Section 8
Engineering and Technology;
Commercial Access to Equipment
Bay State Wind’s unrivaled experience allows us to offer the
lowest cost to ratepayers. The Bid anticipates future price
reductions and passes those savings on to the ratepayers of
the Commonwealth. Bay State Wind is the most advantageous
option for the Commonwealth, applying state-of-the-art
technical solutions, optimizing supply chain and logistics, and
offering safe and environmentally acceptable design solutions.
Ørsted is leveraging its market-leading global position and U.S.
project pipeline to give suppliers greater certainty in making
long-term decisions to invest in the Commonwealth and the
United States, resulting in a major boost to the local economy.
In the Preferred Option, the Bidder intends to deploy the
with a monopile
foundation. The Bidder has extensive experience with the
platforms and has installated more
than 1,000 monopile foundations.
With more than 25 years of experience in the industry,
22 operational wind farms at a total capacity of 3.8 GW,
and an additional 5.0 GW to be delivered by the end of
2022, the Bidder has a proven track record of successfully
delivering its projects as committed.
25 + years of experience
in the offshore
wind indusry 22 7 operational
wind farms of
3.8 GW capacity
projects
under
construction
8.8 GW of installed
capacity by the
end of 2022 1,000 monopile
foundations
installed
Section 8 Engineering and Technology; Commercial Access to Equipment
8. ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY; COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT

This section includes questions pertinent to the engineering design and project technology. This
section must be completed for a project that includes new facilities or capital investments for both
generation and transmission components if applicable. Bidders should provide information about the
specific technology or equipment including the track record of the technology and equipment and
other information as necessary to demonstrate that the technology is viable.
This section discusses how the Bidder is bringing together the accumulated experience of
Ørsted and Eversource designing, procuring, building, and operating offshore wind farms and
power transmission solutions. Recent auction results in Germany and the UK have
demonstrated Ørsted’s commitment to lowering price and the power of focused efforts to
reduce all costs and optimize production. Ørsted was a successful bidder in the most recent
auctions in UK, Germany and the Netherlands, setting a new global price level.
Ørsted’s multi-disciplinary Product Line team is dedicated to scrutinizing all cost items, and
providing improved engineering solutions where they have impact to cost and performance.
This scrutiny is brought to bear on the supply chain as well, in collaboration with suppliers,
enabling them to reduce costs and provide higher value with their products. The Bidder is
determined to bring this process of continual refinement and cost reduction to bear on the
Bay State Wind Project. Moreover, Bidder is committed to developing a U.S.-based supply
chain. Ørsted’s long-term, synergistic relationship with suppliers enables us to provide
suppliers with greater visibility into our entire portfolio of future U.S. projects and to secure
commitments to incrementally growing a local manufacturing presence. This confidence in
Ørsted’s role in shaping U.S. market development has enabled some of Ørsted’s trusted
suppliers, most notably foundation and WTG suppliers and vessel owners, to make firm
commitments for this project, expressed in their written support (see Section 8.2).
In past years, Ørsted has consistently been instrumental in bringing technological advances
into projects, for example:
 The first offshore wind project applying battery technology. (Burbo Extension)
 The first project with the present Siemens D6/D7/D8 platform (Westermost Rough).
 The first project with the MHI Vestas V164 platform (Burbo Bank Extension). It
brought MHI Vestas back as a supplier to the offshore wind market.
Ørsted’s in-house Product Line team will apply the most recent technological advances; an
optimized design, supply chain, and logistical train; and safe and environmentally sound
solutions and work methods to the U.S. offshore wind market, thus delivering cost savings to
Massachusetts’s ratepayers. The Bid anticipates future price reductions and passes those
savings on to the ratepayers of the Commonwealth.

The Preferred Option. As of this bid

submission the Bidder has not finalized its The Bidder’s unique in-house engineering
capabilities, unrivaled know-how and deep
supply decisions, and final supplier
experience allows it to reduce costs along a
decisions will be made following a rigorous broad front, such as optimizing the design of
competitive bidding process for all major foundations resulting in significantly lighter
components. However, the Preferred Option structures and large cost reductions. Ørsted
described in this Bid represents our current has previously demonstrated this with several
view of the most advantageous solution for projects including:
this project, based upon the Bidder’s deep
• Walney 1 & 2 offshore wind farms: original
understanding of the state of the supply design was redesigned internally resulting
market and technical experience. Supply or in 200 tons lighter structure (22%
installation contracts are not in place difference); and
because prices tend to become more
attractive once an award is in place. The • Race Bank offshore wind farm: original
foundation design was redesigned
Preferred Option sets a high bar for what
resulting in reduced average foundation
needs to be achieved by the Bidder in the weight by 180 tons (21% difference).
procurement phase. Table 8.1 below shows
a summary of the technical solution in the Preferred Option.
The suppliers expected to offer the optimum contribution to the above criteria are listed
where most relevant, but the final selection is ultimately contingent upon the supplier’s
ability to deliver competitive proposals.
In addition to the suppliers of major equipment, Bidder is evaluating its options for transport
and installation. In an effort to further drive cost reduction and the establishment of a local
supply chain, Bidder has entered into discussions with vessel owners on their interest and
capacity to timely build the first Jones Act-compliant installation and transport vessels
serving the U.S. offshore wind market. As described in more detail in Section 8, the Bidder is
pleased to report that these efforts have yielded tangible progress as solutions are presently
being offered by
(see Section 9.2).

Table 8.1
284B Summary of Proposed Generation and GLL Proposed Assets in the Preferred Option
Generation
Foundations Monopile/Transition Piece (MP/TP) solution by
TP installation with new built Jones Act-compliant vessel

Wind turbines (WTG)
Installation with new built Jones Act-compliant vessel

in New Bedford
Transmission
Array Cables cables
Stored in New Bedford
Installed with foreign installation vessel
OSS topside Sub-assemblies cut and manufactured in
Topside main assembly in
Barged from yard to site on Jones Act-compliant barge, installed with
non U.S. crane vessel
OSS jacket substructure Jacket substructure manufactured in U.S.
Barged from yard to site on Jones Act-compliant barge, installed with
non U.S. crane vessel
Offshore Export Cable kV cable(s)
Installed with foreign installation vessel and U.S. barge
Onshore Export Cable kV cables
Installed with traditional methods
OnSS Traditional open air solution; to be built at or near Brayton Point
Battery Storage 30 MW/60 MWh, built at OnSS, supplied and delivered by
Assembled in Massachusetts
Interlinks 275 kV cable(s)
Installed with foreign installation vessel
8.1 Preliminary Engineering Plan

8.1 Provide a reasonable preliminary engineering plan, which includes the following information:
i. Type of generation and transmission technology
ii. Major equipment to be used (including nacelle, hub, blade, tower, foundation, transmission
structures and platforms, electrical equipment and cable)
iii. Manufacturer of each of the equipment components listed above as well as the location of
where each component will be manufactured.
iv. Status of acquisition of the equipment components
v. Whether the bidder has a contract for the equipment. If not, describe the bidder’s plan for
securing equipment and the status of any pertinent commercial arrangements
vi. Equipment vendors selected/considered
vii. Track record of equipment operations
viii. If the equipment manufacturer has not yet been selected, identify in the equipment
procurement strategy the factors under consideration for selecting the preferred equipment

The Bidder is currently evaluating several manufacturers for equipment procurement and
has initiated dialogue with these providers. The following discussion identifies the Preferred
Option. However, final selections will be made based on competitive tenders conducted post-
award. An overview of the manufacturers under consideration, including a track record of
equipment operations, is provided in Sections 8.2 and 8.3.
The Project design can be broken down into several key components:
 Foundations;
 WTGs;
 Array and export cables;
 OSS and OnSS; and
 Battery storage.
These are designed to generate and bring power to a suitable grid injection point operated by
a Transmission Authority (Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1 Project and Transmission Authority Scope
8.1.1 Foundations
A MP/TP design is assumed for all WTG positions based upon the preliminary site data
obtained. This foundation method is well-known and very mature, being Ørsted's preferred
foundation method in Europe over the past 17 years. Ørsted has placed more than 1,000
MP-based foundations and will, in the coming years before the Massachusetts project goes
online, add another 500 new positions through its existing pipeline. Based upon the early
site investigation results, the Preferred Option is the MP, because it the most economical
solution and the simplest and least time consuming to install.
This foundation is based on a large steel pipe (MP) that is driven into the seabed. A TP is
bolted to the top of the MP. Key details are highlighted in Table 8.2 and shown in Figure 8.2.
Table 8.2
285B Key Foundation Details
Foundation Component Size

MP (metric tons)
TP including skirt
MP diameter top/bottom (m)

Figure 8.2 MP and TP with Scour Protection Stone Bed
The Bidder is also evaluating the use of piled jackets and suction bucket jackets, all of which
could potentially be used as alternatives. The final foundation package selected will depend
on the water depth, WTG size, and the results of detailed geotechnical investigations.
8.1.2 WTGs
In the Preferred Option, the Bidder is using the
as shown in Figures 8.3 and 8.4.

This WTG type is
ith as demonstrated in Table

8.3 and Figure 8.5).

For this Project the WTG will be modified to meet specific U.S. conditions (e.g., grid frequency
and voltage level),
While the above-described platform is currently the Bidder’s Preferred

Option, a final decision has not been taken yet, and as such, other suppliers are under
consideration. These include


8.1.3 Electrical System

Electrical system specifications are provided in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7
290B Electrical System Specifications/400 MW Case
Installed WTG Capacity
POI (Point of Interconnection)
Number of circuits (number of export cables)
Grid voltage level (OnSS to Grid)
Transmission system voltage level (OSS to
OnSS, export cable)
Array voltage level (WTG to OSS, array
cable)
8.1.4 Array Cables

The array cables connect the WTGs to the OSS. The WTGs are arranged in “strings”, with a
number of WTGs on one cable, based on the power capacity of the platform connecting the
cables and the WTG rating.
The use of
to be connected to the OSS. is used as the array
system voltage in order to reduce the system losses compared to lower voltages and to
connect more WTG per array string. The construction of the array cables is shown in Figure
8.6 and design specifications are provided in Table 8.8.
A map showing the cable layout can be found in Figure 6.1.
The Bidder has utilized similar equipment in previous projects.

Export Cable
The export cable system connects the OSS to the OnSS, delivering High Voltage power to
Brayton Point for the Grid. The export cable system is comprised of
Cable specifications are shown below in Table 8.9. A cross-section of the armored, insulated,
highly engineered 3-core subsea cable design is shown below (Figure 8.7)
A map showing the export cable route can be found in Figure 6.2
The Bidder has utilized similar equipment in previous projects.

8.1.5 Interlinks
Under the ETS option, the OSSs would be connected by submarine cable interlinks.
One interlink would connect the OSSs that interconnect to Brayton Point. A second interlink
would connect the OSSs that would, in turn, interconnect to Bourne (2 interlinks in total). See
Section 15.1 for additional information on the interlinks.
8.1.6 OSS
The OSS will be located within the Lease Area and will serve to convert and package energy
for transfer from the WTGs to the OnSS. The 400-MW substation will consist of a topside
structure and a jacket substructure. The final dimensions of the OSS will be determined by
the Project capacity, as the jacket substructure is dependent on water depth and wave and
swell exposure.
The Bidder is considering the use of pin piles or suction buckets to fix the jacket to the
seabed. The OSS will carry equipment for high-voltage transmission and distribution, along
with other equipment such as a backup diesel generator, batteries, and panels for WTG
control.
The topside structure will be equipped with a crane, helicopter deck, and boat landing for
maintenance of the OSS and WTGs. The structural system for the topside is a steel brace

column system with architectural walls (climate shield) that are non-load-carrying except for
local wind load. The main braces and columns are tubulars (circular members) whereas
members in the decks are wide flange H profiles. This type of structural system has been
used on 15 of Ørsted’s previous OSSs. This method has also been used at the majority of oil
and gas installation in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
The reasons for choosing the system are:
 Many fabricators from which to choose ensuring selection of a proven structural
solution (as well as competitive pricing);
 Allows for parallel fabrication as each deck can be fabricated separately; and
 Robust system offering the flexibility needed to incorporate changes as design
proceeds and/or if required by permits/siting agencies.
The cable and cellar deck will be open decks and the remaining rooms will in general be
closed, climate-controlled rooms with the exception of the transformer and shunt rooms,
which will be natural ventilated via openings in the walls.
A photo of an Ørsted project OSS is provided in Figure 8.8.

Figure 8.8 380 MW OSS (Gode Wind 01, Germany)
8.1.7 OnSS
The OnSS will be located at on an approximately
-acre site near the export cable landing point. The substation will be sized for 400 MW of

offshore generation capacity. Please refer back to Section 6 for additional information
regarding the OnSS site, including the system interconnection point (the existing National
Grid Brayton Point Substation) and other alternatives considered. Overall, the equipment
selected to be utilized in the substation is extremely reliable. Eversource has extensive
experience utilizing this equipment, most of which has demonstrated an average useful life
of forty years.
The engineering of the OnSS will be based on open air structures using insulated 345kV
equipment. The Bidder is considering both gas and air insulated equipment. The substation
will be equipped with from
the offshore platform, and to the National Grid
substation at Brayton Point. A control center will be equipped with protective relaying and
control systems, as well as local and remote control of equipment. The primary equipment,
including electrical components is provided in Table 8.10.
The OnSS will be equipped with harmonic filtering and reactive compensation equipment.
The harmonic filters are present to mitigate any impact of harmonics on the onshore grid
from the WTGs, or dampen any amplification of existing harmonics present in the 345-kV grid
due to amplification by the export system cable circuits. Variable and fixed shunt reactors
compensate for the export cable charging and harmonic filters. The variable shunt reactor in
connection with the STATCOM will serve to control the Brayton Point 345-kV bus to a target
voltage determined by ISO-NE.

Both the onshore and OSSs are equipped with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) systems. The SCADA system main
task is to provide Monitoring, Control and Under the Preferred Option,
Protection of the HV and MV components. The
secondary task is to provide interface to will construct and install the
external systems, and monitor and control the Project’s battery storage system. has
LV system and Auxiliary Systems. Ultimately extensive experience installing and
presenting all information on a Human commissioning commercial grid energy
storage solutions with over MW of
Machine Interface (HMI flat screen
energy storage installed, under construction
presentation) allowing also alarms and
or in late stages of development at
system events to be logged and managed. numerous sites around the world.
Overall, the equipment Bay State Wind has
selected to be utilized in the substation is extremely reliable and is expected to perform to its
project life of . Eversource has extensive experience utilizing this
equipment.
8.1.8 Battery Storage

The OnSS will be equipped with a battery storage system which will be configured to charge
with renewable wind energy during off-peak hours and discharge into the grid during peak
hours. The 30-MW/60-MWh battery system can discharge over a 2-hour period. The battery
system utilizes parallel stacks of battery cells connected to power inverter systems which
convert the electrical energy from AC to DC and vice versa. The parallel configuration means
the battery system is inherently very reliable because individual battery modules can be
isolated and serviced as required. Isolation transformers will transform the low voltage of the
battery system up to a medium voltage collection grid which connects the battery system to
the main auto transformers. To ensure maximum availability of the battery system, it will be
interconnected to each autotransformer, ensuring the battery system is available during a
transformer outage and equipped with sectionalizers which allow the battery energy to be
supplied to/from either or both auto transformers.
8.2 Equipment Suppliers Under Consideration

8.2 If bidder has not yet selected major equipment for project, please provide a list of key
equipment suppliers under consideration
Ørsted helps drive local economic growth through its ‘multi-contract developer’ approach
which retains full control of the supply chain. As overall construction contracts are not
subcontracted, the Bidder is able to secure high levels of local supplier engagement. This
control also allows monitoring of the supply chain in an area and active engagement by the
Bidder where there may not be sufficient competition. By engaging directly with suppliers we
can help lower barriers to entry for new players. This, in turn, helps create local jobs and
greater competition, and reduce the costs of electricity from offshore wind. Concrete
examples of how Ørsted works to remove barriers to entry for new supply chain companies
include:
 Splitting contracts into smaller scopes to enable new or specialized suppliers to more
easily bid and thus enter the market;

 Facilitating discussions between our established suppliers and new potential sub-
suppliers;
 Arranging regional supply chain events to highlight commercial opportunities for
potential suppliers; and
 Spending time with suppliers to improve their understanding of our requirements and
terms and conditions.
Ørsted prides itself on its credentials as a long term investor and is deeply committed to the
regions and local areas where it constructs and operates offshore wind farms. The ‘multi-
contract developer’ approach is therefore important as it allows Ørsted to better realize the
potential that offshore wind development can have on a region’s economy; and to reduce the
cost of electricity through increased competition.
Consistent with Bidder’s standard practice, equipment suppliers have not yet been selected
and firmly contracted. Rather, the Bidder has entered into detailed dialogues with many
suppliers concerning 1) technology available for the Project, 2) possibilities for localizing
manufacturing, and 3) pricing. The Bidder is committed to supporting development of the
supply chain in the United States, and across the industry driving decreased costs and
increased safety and quality. Experience gained during many offshore wind farm projects and
other large scale utility projects show that the best way of obtaining these goals is through a
combination of long term collaboration and an open competitive approach, allowing the most
optimal solutions to be chosen for the project while making room for new and innovative
players to enter the industry. Due to this approach – together with the known lead times of
the different components - suppliers are not yet firmly contracted.
While it is not possible to list a chosen supplier per component, the known potential
suppliers are listed in Attachment 8-1. The Bidder expects that additional suppliers with
operations in Massachusetts will be identified during the development phase, and invited to
submit qualifications and participate in the open competitive approach.
In addition, the Bidder has committed to a dedicated full-time Massachusetts-based
employee, with the sole role of identifying and supporting local suppliers through the tender
processes and development of the supply chain; and continuing to employ a multi-contract
approach to the development and construction of our offshore wind projects. Beginning in
2018, in addition to the Head of Procurement based in Boston, the Bidder will hire a local
contract manager to strengthen resources and engagement in the local supplier qualification
and negotiation processes. It is expected that in the coming years the Bidder will hire several
procurement staff locally who will work with different supplies and services sourced in
Massachusetts and throughout the industry in the U.S.
To even further deepen the local supply chain, the Bidder generally requests major suppliers
to set forth similar requirements for their sub-supplier markets. These goals include
achieving a maximum of local supply and jobs by focusing on the right opportunities for local
potential suppliers; collaborating with suppliers across tiers and across markets to develop a
sustainable and competitive offshore wind supply chain; and identifying, developing, and
sharing (e.g. via project specific supply chain events) opportunities to increase business for
Massachusetts-based suppliers.

In selecting the equipment for the Project, the Bidder will focus on, in no particular order, the
supplier’s or manufacturer’s:
 Ability to develop the local supplier market;
 Track record and references;
 Financial rating;
 Safety and quality records; and
 Price level of their proposals.
8.2.1 Ongoing Dialogue Regarding Supply of Key Project Components

Geotechnical Investigations
The Bidder has secured a Letter of Intent with in respect to
the geotechnical investigations Phase 1B to be initiated (Attachment 8-
2).
Foundations Suppliers
The Bidder has entered into an exclusive Letter of Intent with a global leader in the
manufacture of for the local manufacturing of a critical component
(see Attachment 8-2). Under this arrangement, will be
performed in Massachusetts, which will support a large number of local jobs and economic
growth. The agreement with the key supplier is exclusive to the Project due to the long and
trusting relationship between developer and supplier and is emblematic of the Ørsted
philosophy of using its buying power to leverage local economic development activity and
cost reduction. This key supplier has delivered large-scale Ørsted in
Europe on time, budget and according to quality and safety requirements. The supplier is
also dedicated to continual cost reduction and development of a sustainable long term U.S.
manufacturing base in order to eliminate transportation cost.
In addition, WTG tower manufacturer
, which is expected to add 150-200 jobs when the plant is operating at full capacity. This
comes in addition to the direct and indirect jobs assessed in this section, since the
commitment has come in after completing the calculations. See Attachment 8-2 for a Letter
of Intent.
WTG Suppliers
The Bidder has run a Request for Information process and has had very close dialogue with
the three major WTG suppliers over the last year –
- concerning the supply of WTGs for the Project.
As part of this process, all three manufacturers have committed to being ready to participate
with binding offers containing:
 Maximum production at the lowest total cost over the life of the project;
 Capacity to deliver on schedule; and

 Commitments to work with a staged localization of manufacturing for future projects

in order to create a sustainable industry in the U.S.
The clear support and commitment to contribute with the above is documented in the
attached Letters of Support from all three manufacturers (Attachment 8-2).15
OSS Suppliers
Over the past year, Bidder has received budget proposals from several capable OSS
suppliers, both U.S.-based and abroad. A minimum of three of those are committed to
participating in our competitive tender. A Letter of Support from a
potential U.S.-based OSS design firm is included as Attachment 8-2. In addition, one of these
OSS suppliers, is located in New England with parts of its manufacturing in
Massachusetts. This supplier has submitted to us their Letter of Support in participating in
the future competition, which is included as Attachment 8-2.
Cable Suppliers
The Bidder is currently engaged with several possible suppliers to deliver cables for the
Project, and plans to finalize the selection and contract signing for the supply cables by early
Based on the Bidder’s extensive global experience and knowledge of cable suppliers
from 20+ offshore wind projects, the Bidder is confident that this approach will deliver the
highest value for rate-payers and help develop a U.S. offshore wind supply chain while
ensuring a high level of project viability. The Bidder’s preferred and back-up solutions are
outlined below:
Array Cables
The Bidder is engaging with
The Bidder is also monitoring the U.S. market to identify capable U.S. suppliers.

Export Cables
The Bidder will collaborate with a broad range of cable suppliers including pre-selected
suppliers for ongoing projects such as Hornsea 02 (1,386 MW offshore UK) to ensure the
greatest degree of competition and leverage potential scale benefits when negotiating with
suppliers.
1. based global expert in cable systems with over employees

in countries. Ørsted has a longstanding relationship with in the EU market
and has the added benefit of bundling procurement with the array cable purchase;
2. headquartered in with over experience in the cable
industry and approximately employees;
3. a state-of-the-art supplier based in with over employees; and
4. a world leader in the energy and telecom cables and systems industry, with
over employees across countries.
Onshore Suppliers
The Bidder has long-standing relationships with both equipment suppliers as well as civil and
electrical construction contractors that will be utilized for the onshore work. To the extent
possible, contracts will be executed with local suppliers for the onshore construction scope
as well as the equipment.
Battery Storage Suppliers
Over the past year, the Bidder has received proposals from several U.S. based battery
storage suppliers, which are committed to participating in our competitive tender for this
equipment.
Vessel Suppliers
Procurement of vessels, including the construction of two new-built Jones Act-compliant
installation and transport vessels, is a key component of project planning with regards to
equipment; installation and transport vessel suppliers are discussed in Section 9.2.
8.3 Same or Similar Equipment in Operation

8.3 Please identify the same or similar equipment by the same manufacturer that are presently in
commercial operation including the number installed, installed capacity and estimated
generation for the past three years.
The Bidder’s strategy for supplier selection in terms of technology risk is to use proven
technology. The critical equipment components for this Project are based on earlier versions
that have been manufactured and operated with success on various large-scale offshore
wind farms by the Bidder as well as the general offshore wind industry. As such, all

equipment used in this Project has a long history of reliable operation and poses no practical
technological risk. Furthermore, the Bidder has installed, operated and maintained
equipment from the majority of the manufacturers referenced in the table provided in
Attachment 8-1. Table 8.11 identifies similar equipment in use by the same manufacturers.
Table 8.11 Same or Similar Equipment in Operation (based on Preferred Option)

294B
Total
Number capacity Est. Generation Past
Equipment Supplier installed (MW) 3 Years (GWh)
WTG
MP foundation
Array cables
Offshore transformer
Export cable
Battery Storage System

1 Estimate based on data from the 4C Offshore Wind Farm Database.
2
3 Based solely on projects where Bidder constructed OSS. However, it is worth noting that, barring corrosion and
climate protection, the transformer technology employed offshore is similar to transformers deployed onshore
across the globe, meaning the real figure numbers in the thousands.
4 Estimate based on data from the 4C Offshore Wind Farm Database, using fully commissioned offshore wind
projects. While there will have been some variations across different suppliers the general design will have
been similar.
8.4 Evidence of Readiness for Transfer to the Design and Construction

Phases
8.4 For less mature technologies, provide evidence (including identifying specific applications) that
the technology to be employed for energy production is ready for transfer to the design and
construction phases. Also, address how the status of the technology is being considered in the
financial plan for the project.
To deliver a cost-effective low risk Project the Bidder will employ technology, equipment and
methodologies that are mature (i.e. currently operational or in the construction phase for
other large scale offshore wind farms). In other words, all critical components that the Bidder
plans to use on the Project are based on established earlier versions that have been
manufactured and operated successfully by the bidder on multiple large-scale offshore wind
projects.
The only major component in the Project that could be said to be less mature is the battery
storage system which the Bidder plans to deploy to maximize the benefits of the Project’s
energy delivery to the Commonwealth. However, under the Preferred Option,
is widely recognized as a pioneer and
leader in the market for utility scale energy storage. has extensive experience installing
and commissioning commercial grid energy storage solutions with over MW of energy

storage installed, under construction or in late stages of development at numerous sites

around the world. To put this impressive figure into context, MW is equivalent to almost
percent of the U.S.’s entire commissioned battery storage fleet16.
have been providing effective and reliable energy storage services since
including peak shaving, ancillary services, renewable integration (ramp management), and
grid reliability applications. technical proposal for the Project is provided in Attachment
8-3, with additional details regarding the company’s track record and global experience.
Given this impressive track record the Bidder is confident in skills to deliver a battery
storage system ready for transfer to design and construction and successful commissioning
in line with the overall Project schedule.
The status of the technology has no bearing on the financial plan of the Project.
8.5 Full and Complete List of Equipment Needed

8.5 Please indicate if the bidder has a full and complete list of equipment needed for all physical
aspects of the bid, including generation facilities, turbine support structures, electrical
platforms, transmission lead lines, and mandatory and voluntary transmission system upgrades.
If not, identify the areas of uncertainty and when the full and complete list of equipment will be
identified.
The list of equipment needed is shown in Attachment 8-4. The Bidder has interpreted “full
and complete list of equipment needed” as including only components and major sub-
components.
8.6 Equipment Procurement

8.6 Please indicate if the bidder has secured its equipment for all physical aspects of the bid,
including generation facilities, transmission lead lines, and mandatory and voluntary
transmission system upgrades. If not, identify the long-lead equipment and describe the timing
for securing this equipment.
As described in Sections 8.2 and 8.5, equipment and suppliers are not yet firmly contracted
although the Bidder has initiated detailed dialogues with many suppliers. A timeline for
securing equipment components in provided in Section 9.
The Bidder’s approach to securing such equipment is two-fold; for certain components of the
onshore scopes that are considered standard items, framework agreements are already
secured with suppliers. Contracts for such equipment would be directly awarded to the
applicable supplier, which in many cases would have guaranteed lead times for delivery. The
framework agreements for standard long lead equipment are typically valid for 3-5 years.
With regards to the non-standard, customized equipment items, competitive bids would be
solicited prior to awarding. In this scenario, suppliers would be vetted and pre-qualified by
the Project team prior to being included on the bid list to ensure that the Bidder has an
established working relationship and prior experience with the suppliers providing proposals.
In both cases, pricing would be fixed at the time of contract execution to minimize
uncertainty around cost risks throughout the duration of the Project.
16 Bloomberg New Energy Finance lists the U.S. as having 675-MW installed battery storage capacity as of 2017.

Another third procurement methodology used, especially for larger offshore CAPEX supply
and services, is target-oriented collaboration contracting which is a procurement strategy
Ørsted has used over the past 5 years. This strategy has reduced cost and increased safety
and quality
All equipment will be contracted and procured once siting and permitting activities are
underway, allowing ample time for the equipment to be delivered on-site or to a storage
facility prior to construction. Many of the non-standard long lead equipment will warrant a
factory acceptance test prior to shipping, which will ensure that the equipment is in proper
working order prior to delivery on site. This process greatly reduces risk and eliminates
uncertainty, which in turn ensures that construction goes smoothly and schedule delays are
minimized.
The long lead equipment and services required for this Project include:
Foundations – As documented
in Attachment 8-2, the Bidder has entered into a
, which outlines the intention – exclusive to the
Bidder with regards to this RFP - to set up significant parts of the foundation manufacturing
in The contract is estimated to be closed in
WTGs – including the WTG towers, the nacelles, and the blades. The choice of technology
depends on the supplier choses which will depend on the competitive tender taking place
through first half of It is expected that the technology will be selected in
Array Cables – Ørsted has full supply security for the array cables
is contemplating manufacturing the array cables

and Ørsted is supporting this effort.
Offshore Export Cable – Ørsted has very close relations with the few global potential
suppliers of export cables. Ørsted intends
in order to obtain the best possible cost. The contract is
estimated to be closed in
OSS – including the foundation and the platform – also referred to as the “topside”, and all
of the electrical components that are part of the transformer system. There are few capable
suppliers in the U.S. for the OSS; therefore, in order to obtain the most optimal cost, it is very
important to maintain competition in the purchase of these components. The contract is
planned to be closed in
OnSS – including the electrical components. Eversource will make use of
The civil engineering and construction of the actual
facility will be done by experienced . The contract is estimated to
be closed in

Section 9
Project Schedule
The Bidder is confident that its Project can be developed, financed,
and constructed by 2022.
The proposed build-out is both aggressive and achievable, taking in
Ørsted’s lessons learned from planning and executing multiple large-
scale offshore wind projects and Eversource’s knowledge of the local
regulatory and supply chain dynamics.
The Bidder’s ability to develop the Project is supported by Ørsted’s
history of more than 20 offshore wind farms developed in Europe,
with an additional seven wind farms currently under construction.
The Bidder gained a significant Project milestone with the industry-
first approval of a Site Assessment Plan in June 2017 with
subsequent deployment of two FLiDARs and a wave buoy in the
Lease Area.
Bay State Wind has secured Letters of Support from
installation and
transport vessels, enabling the greater use of Massachusetts ports
and harbors.
Geophysical and geotechnical surveys across the Lease Area and
export cable routes were commissioned in early 2016 and will be
completed by 2018.
2015 2016 2017
Lease transfer SAP Approval

to Orsted: and Buoy
June 2015 Deployment:
Q2 2017

Section 9 Project Schedule
9. PROJECT SCHEDULE
A bidder must demonstrate that its proposal can be developed, financed, and constructed and be
technically viable within a commercially reasonable timeframe. The bidder is required to provide
sufficient information and documentation that shows that the bidder’s resources, process and
schedule are adequate for the acquisition of all rights, permits and approvals for the project and for
the financing of the project consistent with the proposed project milestone dates.
Bidders are required to provide a complete critical path schedule for the project from the notice of
selection of the project for contract consideration to the start of commercial operations. For each
project element, list the start and end date.
In the Preferred Option, the Bidder will bring the Project to COD by
The proposed schedule for the development and construction of the Project is achievable,
supported by Ørsted’s history with planning and executing multiple large scale offshore wind
projects and Eversource’s knowledge of the local regulatory framework and supply chain
dynamics. Bay State Wind has planned for contingencies and unexpected events. The
Bidder’s ability to execute the Project as committed is supported by its history of 22 offshore
wind farms already developed, constructed and in current operation in Europe, with an
additional seven wind farms currently under construction (see Section 12). As detailed in
Section 5, financing of the Project does not require any outside lending arrangements due to
Ørsted’s and Eversource’s financial strength. Technical design and constructability is
retained in-house and is based on almost three decades of experience with engineering,
procuring, and constructing offshore wind farms and complex onshore transmission lines.
This in-house experience and technical know-how is what sets the Project apart from all other
offshore wind developers.
The Bidder seriously evaluated the feasibility of a and determined that it would
significantly increase cost and risk to the Commonwealth. To enable the earliest COD
possible,
This enables us to put forward
the most aggressive yet realistic timeline. Similarly, the Bidder’s dialogue with vessel owners
has revealed that the earliest possible delivery of Jones Act-compliant vessels is such
that offshore installation of TPs and WTGs cannot be initiated prior to Finally, the
Preferred Option WTG, which will provide the greatest value to Massachusetts ratepayers,
Below, Section 9 highlights our expertise in planning and demonstrates the Bidder’s ability to
execute the Project in a commercially reasonable timeframe.

9.1 Schedule and Critical Path

9.1 Identify the elements on the critical path. The schedule should include, at a minimum,
preliminary engineering, financing, acquisition of real property rights, Federal, state and/or local
permits, licenses, environmental assessments and/or environmental impact statements
(including anticipated permit submittal and approval dates), completion of interconnection
studies and approvals, procurement, facility contracts, start of construction, construction
schedule, and any other requirements that could influence the project schedule and the
commercial operation date.
9.1.1 Overview of the Critical Path

The overall critical path for the Project is provided in Figure 9.1, identifying a timeline for
interconnection studies and application, site investigations and environmental surveys, and
federal, state and local reviews and permitting, all of which has already been initiated. The
primary construction critical path of any large scale offshore windfarm project includes the
installation and energization of the OnSS and OSS, and installation of the first string of
foundations and array cables, which enables WTG commissioning (Figure 9.1). A more
detailed Project schedule is provided in Attachment 9-1; however, not all the items identified
therein are considered critical path.

9.1.2 Critical Path

Site investigation activities were initiated in early 2016 and are ongoing. The purpose of
these studies is to develop a robust understanding of ground conditions at the Project site
which informs engineering, design and permitting.
As discussed in Section 7.2, a key factor defining the Project’s critical path is BOEM’s
approval of the COP. The Bidder intends to submit the COP in and has anticipated
an month review based on , as well as
discussions with BOEM regarding their review timeline. Therefore, the Bidder assumes
receipt of COP approval by , as indicated in Figure 9.1.
The earliest construction activities are commencement of the modifications at the Brayton
Point 345-kV Substation, and the start of construction for the OnSS. Both activities are
expected to begin in .
The export cable will be installed (surface laid and post lay jetting) from
starting onshore and moving out to the OSS. Once pulled in and installed, the offshore
jointing can commence followed by the offshore platform termination and onshore transition
joint bay termination. After termination, hot commissioning and energization can proceed.
The target for energization from the onshore grid
Although the Bidder has estimated lead-time for supply of the export cable, this
activity is being scheduled as occurring prior to COP approval, in early to allow
offshore installation to begin in early . In order to mitigate risk, the commissioning
timeline includes a pre-COP signing of several contracts for the OnSS.
After approximately months of fabrication, the OSS is ready for load out and installation,
at approximately the same time the export cable will be loaded out from facilities in Europe.
The OSS topside and jacket will be installed within a window from .
This approach allows for pre-commissioning of electrical systems and components starting
with the fire safety systems etc. before actual hot commissioning and energization can be
commenced.
WTG installation will start in , followed by several weeks of commissioning and
offshore testing. The first power from the Project will be ready for delivery after energization
of the first string in The WTG installation and commissioning phase will be
completed by .
9.1.3 Planning and Management Tools to Predict and Track the Construction Campaign
While refining the construction campaign for the Project, the Bidder will utilize Ørsted’s vast
experience from previous planned and executed projects. Ørsted has developed several tools
based on lessons learned from previous projects, one of which is an offshore reporting tool
installed on each vessel during the construction campaign and managed by Ørsted’s own
client representatives onboard. This tool captures all installation statistics including
construction status, installation activity durations, and weather downtime. This data is
benchmarked against the anticipated durations for the campaign. The activities and
durations are saved within an accessible database system that enables future projects to
easily and more precisely estimate the duration of future construction campaigns.

In addition to this tool, Ørsted has also developed measures to model offshore construction
campaigns durations and weather downtime by inputting and evaluating known durations of
the previous offshore activities in concert with a 37-year-record weather file. A Monte Carlo
analysis provides a P2017, P50 and P80 duration for the installation campaign.
These two tools, together with the experience of the project management team enables the
Bidder to precisely estimate how long the installation campaign will take, the most optimal
time to launch and not least what float is necessary between the construction scopes to
ensure a smooth campaign without either too much float or unnecessary downtime on
construction vessels.
9.1.4 Schedule Contingencies and Float Time

Of course, not all can be modeled. Offshore construction is a complex operation, with many
factors at play. Conditions on the site might require that the primary scopes - foundation,
inter-array cables, and WTGs – not necessarily follow the same “typical” sequence. As an
example, ground conditions might present a higher risk of punch-through when jacking up for
the WTG installation in certain places, thereby suggesting that WTGs follow another
sequence than inter-array cables, which might be better suited sequencing installation by
cable type (150 mm, 500 mm, 630 mm, etc.). As many of the studies that inform the final
sequencing have not been completed yet, the Bidder has incorporated an approximately
1 month float between the start date of each main scope, to ensure that adequate flexibility
remains in the schedule.
The WTG suppliers require lead time to accommodate U.S. design modifications into existing
designs and to type-certify WTGs according to IEC standards prior to serial production. During
serial production the WTG components will be transported to the U.S. to build up sufficient
storage buffer at the load out port for the WTG installation to start. WTG installation start is
anticipated for to allow sufficient time to build up the needed storage buffer. As
discussed in Section 9.2, the Preferred Option includes the use of two new Jones Act-
compliant installation and transportation vessels for installation of the TPs and WTG. The
timeline for securing two new-built Jones Act-compliant vessels supports earliest realistic
WTG installation in
9.2 Maritime Vessels and Laydown Facilities

9.2 Include a discussion on use of maritime vessels and access to them. Also include a description
and discussion of the laydown facility/facilities to be used for construction, assembly, staging,
storage, and deployment.
9.2.1 Maritime Vessels

A list of the vessels needed for the Project is provide in Section 10 (Table 10.1).
In the following sections, the Bidder details the use of maritime vessels with regards to
geoscience investigations; WTG, foundation and cable installation; staging; and O&M.
17 P20; P50; P80 refer to the confidence level of the probability of the modelled duration not being exceeded. Looking
across the last 37 years of recorded weather for the site, load out harbors etc., the modelled installation campaign would
in 20 percent, 50 percent or 80 percent of the time be executed within the modelled period.

Geoscience Investigations
As part of the Project the Bidder must contract vessels to perform substantial investigations
of the seabed as well as the environment to gain an understanding of potential impacts that
the Project may have and to complete necessary modeling and design. This work
commenced in 2016 and to date the Project has made use of both U.S. and non-U.S. flagged
vessels (Table 9.1). For future survey works the Bidder will endeavor to use U.S. flagged
vessels whenever possible and cost effective, but expects to continue using a mix of U.S. and
non-U.S. flagged vessels due to a limited number of suitable vessels in the U.S. It is worth
noting that there are no Jones Act compliance issues related to the use of non-U.S. flagged
vessels for the purposes of geophysical and geotechnical investigations.
Finally, as shown in Table 9.1 the Bidder has already completed a significant part of the site
investigation and permitting work. This is important as supply and installation contracting
time schedules are closely linked between scopes. The fact that the Bidder has performed
this amount of work contributes significantly to the robustness of the construction time
schedule.
Table 9.1
295B Ongoing and Completed Work under the Geoscience and Permitting Work Streams
Scope Description Vessel Status
Desktop studies of site Included geological studies NA Completed 2016
and initial UXO study
Geophysical 1a screening 900 m line separation grid RV Ocean Researcher Completed 2016
survey reconnaissance for
accurate bathymetry,
supporting seabed mapping
and structural modeling
Geotechnical 1a Initial seabed geological Fugro Synergy Completed 2016
investigation formation and geological
classification
Geophysical 1b export Reconnaissance along the RV Shearwater Completed 2017
cable route survey export cable route for RV Ocean Researcher
accurate bathymetry,
seabed mapping and
structural modeling
Geophysical 1b site Ultra-high-resolution RV Ocean Researcher Initiated 2017
survey as per 1a but with
greater resolution to
better understand and
evaluate seabed conditions
(80 m line separation grid)
Heavy Lift Vessel for TPs and WTGs:

The Bidder has investigated the market thoroughly for vessels and concluded that there are
currently no Jones Act-compliant vessels capable of installing the TPs or WTGs. However,
there are many players in the market who are willing to pursue the construction of such a
vessel. Ørsted has a strong track record of facilitating the investment in new offshore wind
installation vessels. As an example, Ørsted, through its A2SEA ownership, invested in two

purpose-built offshore WTG jack-up vessels in 2010 and 2012, each at the value of around
$150M18. Around the same time, due to limited supply of vessels for foundation installation,
Ørsted was a critical driver in bringing Swire Blue Ocean’s purpose-built offshore wind
installation vessels Pacific Orca and Pacific Osprey to the market, by committing a pipeline of
offshore wind farm projects to Swire Blue Ocean.
Today, Ørsted maintains an ongoing dialogue with the major offshore wind installation
players about development of new installation vessels, methods, tools and concepts. This is
part of Ørsted’s work to bring down the cost of offshore wind energy.
Ørsted brings this experience to the U.S. market, and in order to facilitate the construction of
a Jones Act-compliant heavy lift installation and transportation vessel for the Project, Ørsted
has:
 Thoroughly evaluated the market for parties interested in building a Jones Act-
compliant offshore wind installation and transportation vessel;
 Talked to more than 25 different U.S. or international companies interested in
building, owning or operating a Jones Act-compliant offshore wind installation and
transportation vessel;
 Assessed the companies’ interest, ability and credibility in bringing a Jones Act-
compliant offshore wind installation and transportation vessel to the market; and
 Entered into detailed technical and commercial discussions with the most promising
suppliers, to help them mature their concepts and their business cases up until
investment decision. The discussions are ongoing.
The Letters of Support and Letters of Intent, provided in Attachment 9-2 from four potential
contractors represent the most promising delivery of the necessary Jones Act-compliant
offshore wind installation and transportation vessels. The Bidder is, as stated in the Letters
of Support, in close technical collaboration with these suppliers regarding Jones Act-
compliant heavy lift installation and transportation vessels for offshore wind installation. All
of these companies are committed to collaborating with the Project in order to reach the best
solution regarding the necessary vessel which, as the Preferred Option, will enable the
Project to install WTGs from and TPs from
This also means that pre-assembly of the WTGs can take place locally in ,
creating local jobs and supporting economic growth.
Cable Installation
The Bidder has investigated the cable installation market in the U.S. thoroughly and
concluded that there are available contractors and vessels for cable installation for limited
parts of the scope. In order to mitigate risk and ensure high efficiency during installation, the
majority of the installation scope will be performed with state-of-the art European vessels
and equipment; however, the Project intends to utilize sustainable and efficient U.S.
equipment and vessels, as available, for smaller aspects of the scope. For example, the
Bidder intends to install the inter-array cables out of .
18 https://www.a2sea.com/a2sea-invests-in-a-new-jack-up-vessel/

Laydown Facilities
The Bidder has signed an option agreement to lease MassCEC’s New Bedford Marine
Commerce Terminal as the installation hub for as the Preferred Option, and
freighters will deliver components from Europe or the U.S. to the laydown facility at
the terminal. It is anticipated that construction management will operate in at a
sister location, which will transform into the O&M base post-construction.
The site facilities necessary for the Preferred Option are provided in Table 9.2; backup
locations are also listed. Laydown facilities are also discussed in Section 10.2.
Operation and Maintenance

The Bidder intends to set up an O&M base in creating a substantial number of
long-term jobs and supporting sustainable economic growth in the Commonwealth (see
Section 11 and 14).
9.3 Status of all Critical Path Items

9.3 Detail the status of all critical path items, such as receipt of all necessary siting, environmental,
and ISO-NE approvals.
Since 2015, the Bidder has been actively engaged in development of the Project and has
initiated several critical path items necessary to maintain the current Project schedule. The
status of important Project milestones, including several critical path items, is provided
below.
Interconnection Request and Studies. In August 2016, the Bidder filed an application with
ISO-NE for interconnection at Brayton Point. As discussed in Section 6.6, the ISO-NE
Feasibility Study was completed in April 2017 and the ISO-NE System Impact Study is
expected to be completed in Q1 2018. The ISO-NE I.3.9 process is not considered critical
path for the Project.
Site Access for Interconnection. The Bidder has entered into an Option agreement to
purchase a . This site is the
location of the Bidder’s proposed OnSS. Additional easements are needed from Dynegy (or
subsequent property owner) and/or National Grid for installation of underground facilities
needed for completion of the interconnection to National Grid’s existing 345-kV substation at

Brayton Point. National Grid is an active participant in the ISO-NE Interconnection Process for
and the Bidder expects to secure the necessary easements in 2018.
Site Assessment and Characterization. Physical surveys for the two-year environmental
studies were commissioned in early 2016. To support the Project schedule, the Bidder has
advanced the Phase 1B geophysical and geotechnical surveys and export cable survey into
the summer and fall of 2017 to ensure the required seabed and environmental data are
collected to support follow-up studies and engineering and design of the Project. Two LiDAR
buoys were deployed in July 2017 within the Lease Area to collect pertinent data, such as
weather, wind speed and direction, and significant wave height and direction. The Bidder will
continue to perform site assessment and characterization surveys including field work and
desktop assessment through Q3 2019.
Federal, State and Local Permitting. As discussed in Section 7.2, the Bidder received
industry-first approval for its SAP in June 2017. In February 2017, the Bidder filed a revised
COP Survey Plan and BOEM accepted the plan in November 2017. The Bidder continues to
consult with BOEM and other federal and state agencies regarding necessary environmental
and cultural impact assessments in support of the anticipated COP filing and other required
permits. After Phase 1B geophysical and geotechnical surveys are completed, the Bidder will
submit all the required federal, state and local permit applications including the COP. The
Bidder anticipates submitting the COP in
Attachment 7-1 provides a list of federal, state, and local permits with date
of expected application and expected receipt of permits, approvals and/or licenses.
Technology and Services Procurement. Procurement studies and confidential meetings have
been initiated as part of the Bidder’s technology access strategy (see Section 8.2).
Additionally, the Bidder has signed an option agreement to lease MassCEC’s New Bedford
Marine Commerce Terminal as a construction port. Ørsted’s internal Marine and Ports
Department has made three (3) separate site visits to the New Bedford Marine Commerce
Terminal to obtain required details to plan for construction. Eversource has great local
experience in OnSS construction in Massachusetts and strong relationships with local
suppliers.
Construction. Construction of the OnSS is anticipated to commence
Construction of offshore components of the Project, including the
foundations, WTGs, OSSs, and export and inter-array cables,

Section 10
Construction and
Logistics
The Bidder leverages its unrivaled industry experience to
navigate the thicket of engineering, logistical, and legal challenges
to deliver the United States’ first large-scale offshore wind farm,
while building Massachusetts’ capacity to serve as the North
American hub for future offshore wind development.
Developing a complex, large-scale infrastructure project
in the harsh ocean environment is no small engineering
feat. Sweating the details is crucial. Ørsted’s mastery of
the staging and deployment of offshore wind projects,
and confidence in its ability to replicate this process
to the benefit of Massachusetts ratepayers and local
economy, is revealed in the detailed construction and
logistics plans.
The Bidder’s purpose-driven approach to construction
and logistics is manifest in the extensive and long-term
commitment to Massachusetts’ port facilities. The Bidder
intends to use
for the Project, along with for
transition piece outfitting.
The Bidder is working with various vessel owners to
support construction of
We are eager to collaborate with community

partners in New Bedford and excited to show our
new neighbors the many benefits from this offshore
wind project.
Ørsted President of North America
Thomas Brostrøm
Gode Wind Project
Section 10 Construction and Logistics
10. CONSTRUCTION AND LOGISTICS

This section of the proposal addresses necessary arrangements and processes for outfitting,
assembly, storage and deployment of major project components such as turbine nacelles, blades,
towers, foundations, and transmission support structures. Please provide a construction plan that
captures the following objectives:
In this section, the Bidder outlines its construction plans for all major Project components,
including related logistics, site control, and the roles and responsibilities of third parties. The
Bidder again brings to bear its deep well of experience in executing large-scale, off-shore
wind projects around the world; indeed, the Bidder’s owners will furnish hundreds of
employees dedicated to each of the major installation packages.
With its unique multi contracting approach that breaks major work packages into more
discrete tasks, and the greater deployment of its own human resources the Bidder retains
control over the outfitting, assembly, deployment and commissioning to a greater degree
than any other developer in the business. This enhanced control covers not only the
procurement phase and the division of work scopes into more narrow delivery packages, but
also characterizes the construction phase. In the present context, it means that Bidder is
better positioned to define where the different activities will take place, to assert greater
control of local content.
The construction setup has evolved over years of collaboration with key suppliers and
contractors. The Ørsted approach to collaboration is typically that of a long-standing
relationship, where procedures, vessels and tools are optimized from project to project to
achieve those significant cost reductions for which Ørsted is known.
Figure 10.1 shows the logistics activities for the Project and their geographical spread. As
depicted, much of the logistical activity is concentrated in Massachusetts.

As described in Section 14, a significant number of jobs will be created in around the
Commonwealth in consequence of the Bidder’s more active control of activities and
deliberate policy of locating these activities to support the development of a local supply
chain.
This remainder of this section describes: 1) the major tasks associated with the deployment
of the proposed Project, 2) the sites where these activities are slated to occur; 3) the wide
array of specialized vessels to be used for the construction works – some of which will be
new built, Jones’ Act compliant vessels; and finally 4) the split of the overall Project scope
into the various installation responsibilities.
10.1 Major Tasks Associated with Deployment of Proposed Project

10.1 Please list the major tasks or steps associated with deployment of the proposed project and the
necessary specialized equipment (e.g. vessels, cranes).
The Bidder will take a multi contracting approach to equipment procurement and installation
of the Project, the two major tasks associated with the deployment of the proposed project.
Ørsted has successfully developed and followed this approach though its entire portfolio of
offshore wind projects completed to date.
To acquire the necessary equipment and install the Project, Ørsted has an Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (EPC) organization with over 900 employees, employing
technical specialists and dedicated Managers to the installation of each of the package
scopes in this project. For every project under installation, daily progress is recorded in
corporate systems, which gives unique comparative data in helping to determine how much
time each installation task should take and under all weather conditions. The major
installation package’s necessary equipment includes:
 foundations;
 WTGs;
 array cables;
 export cable;
 OSS;
 onshore cables; and
 OnSS including battery storage.
Each package will have its own installation contract with a specialized contractor, and each
offshore package will require specialized vessels as described in Table 10.1. The WTG will be
installed by the supplier, using the supplier’s specialized lifting equipment and product
specific procedures.

Table 10.1 Example of Preferred Vessel Types

297B
Project Type of Vessel Size of

Component (Number) Vessel Illustrative Example of Vessel Type1 Purpose/Role of Vessel(s)
Installation vessel
capable of installing the ~37000
Monopiles (MPs)
foundations in dynamic gross tonnage
position (DP2) mode2
Jack-up transportation
~11000
Transition Pieces and installation vessel
gross
(TPs) specialized for offshore
tonnage
wind farms
Jack-up transportation
and installation vessel
Wind Turbine specialized for WTG ~16000
Generators gross
(WTGs) tonnage
(1, new U.S.-built)

Table 10.1 Example of Preferred Vessel Types (continued)

Component (Number) Vessel Illustrative Example of Vessel Type Purpose/Role of Vessel(s)
Siem Aimery
4,500t cable A DP2-capable vessel purpose-built to facilitate

capacity array cable termination at WTG foundations.
DP2 Cable Lay Vessel

(U.S.-built
Array and Export
transportation and
Cables Edda Freya
installation vessel)
(2)
3,000t cable A DP2-capable vessel, designed to lay array

capacity and export cables.
Maersk Connector
A DP2 capable vessel designed to transport

Array and Export DP2 Cable Lay Vessel 7,000t cable
and install the export cable between the OSS
Cables (1) capacity
and shore.


Durocher Marine
A DP2 capable barge for Export Cable

Array and Export DP2 Cable Lay Barge 3,400t cable
transportation and installation in shallow
Cables (1) capacity
water.
Harvey Deep-Sea
DP2 Multi-Purpose A DP2 capable vessel designed for boulder

Array and Export 5,700t cable
Service Vessel removal and array and export cable burial,
Cables capacity
(1, U.S. Built) after being laid down.
McDermott DB50
Offshore DP2 Heavy lift vessel 29,722 gross A DP2 capable vessel for lifting and installing
Substation (OSS) (1) tonnage the OSS.


A Jones Act-compliant vessel for crew housing

Service operation and transfer; the service operation vessel
Tonnage
vessel houses up to 60 people with accommodations,
4874
(1 to 3) helipad, daughter craft, and Walk to Work
access to foundations.
WTG, cable, and
OSS
Commissioning
Jones Act-compliant vessels for crew transfer;

Crew transfer vessel Tonnage
supporting personnel logistics with the
(1 to 3) 215
transport of 12 to 24 people.
1 These are illustrative or otherwise model examples of a vessel class or type being considered for each role.

The overall coordination and management of the offshore construction work will be carried
out under the Ørsted EPC Director, with dedicated construction site staffing. This approach
gives the in-house EPC organization full control of the installation campaign, maintaining
quality and schedule goals. The Bidder will house a permanent offshore presence at the site,
with a dedicated Service Operating Vessel (SOV) or a jack-up platform having
accommodation for workers. Sailing back and forth from land will leave too few effective
working hours in a day to secure work progress. On-site coordination and HSE functions will
be primarily carried out from this vessel.
10.2 Documentation of Site Control for Marine Terminals and Other

Waterfront Facilities
10.2 Please provide documentation to demonstrate site control for all marine terminals and other
waterfront facilities that will be used to stage, assemble, and deploy the project for each stage
of construction.
i. If available, evidence that the bidder or the equipment/service provider have right(s) to use a
marine terminal and/or waterfront facility for construction of the offshore wind energy project
(e.g., by virtue of ownership or land development rights obtained from the owner).
The Bidder has signed an option agreement

with MassCEC that would entitle it, if “We are eager to collaborate with community
successful in the RFP Process, to lease the partners in New Bedford and excited to show
New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal for our new neighbors the many benefits from
the construction of the Project (Attachment this offshore wind project.”
10-1). Pursuant to a September 2016 Letter Ørsted President of North America Thomas
of Intent, MassCEC entered into identical Brostrøm
option agreements (conferring identical rights)
with the Bidder, Vineyard Wind LLC, and Deepwater Wind LLC.
On November 2, 2017, the Bidder opened its New Bedford office, expanding operations in
the Commonwealth and furthering the commitment to the Southeast region.
ii. If not available, describe the status of acquisition of real property rights for necessary marine
terminal and/or waterfront facilities, any options in place for the exercise of these rights and
describe the plan for securing the necessary real property rights, including the proposed
timeline. Include these plans and the timeline in the overall project schedule.
As discussed above, the Bidder has secured an option to lease the New Bedford Marine
Commerce Terminal for construction of the Project.
As discussed in Section 9.2, the Bidder has identified several waterfront facilities for
purposes of installation and O&M. The status of acquisition of real property rights for these
sites is provided in Table 10.2. Acquisition of these sites is not on the critical path; however,
the overall project schedule accounts for the time necessary to secure the real property
rights.

iii. Identify any joint use of existing or proposed real property rights for marine terminal or
waterfront facilities.

As stated above, the Bidder, Vineyard Wind LLC, and Deepwater Wind LLC have signed identical
option agreements with MassCEC entitling them to lease the New Bedford Marine Commerce
Terminal in case of success in the RFP Process. In the event that the instant Section 83C
solicitation results in multiple awards, with multiple winning bidders identifying the New Bedford
Marine Commerce Terminal as their preferred staging area for elements of project construction,
the option agreement contains mechanisms whereby priority use of the terminal can be agreed
upon by the winning bidders or decided by a “tie-breaker.” In the event that the Bidder is unable
to use the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, it has identified alternative facilities as
described in Section 9.2 (Table 9.2).
10.3 Proposed Approach for Staging and Deployment of Major Project

Components
10.3 Please describe the proposed approach for staging and deployment of major project
components to the project site. Indicate the number, type and size of vessels that will be used,
and their respective roles. Please include specific information on how the bidder’s deployment
strategy will conform to requirements of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act).
The proposed approach for staging and deployment of major Project components is provided
below. A summary table identifying the number, type and size of vessels that will be used and
their respective roles is provided in Table 10.1.
The Bidder has thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the requirements of the Jones Act to
ensure that installation and operation of the Project is fully compliant with the Jones Act.
10.3.1 Foundations
The foundation construction and installation package consists of MP and TP fabrication, TP
outfitting, and MP and TP installation on site. In the Preferred Option, the foundation
package will contribute the most to new Massachusetts jobs.

MP and TP Tube Fabrication and Transit

The construction of MP and TP tubes are not very labor intensive, and it is anticipated that
they will be fabricated in Europe. It is assumed that 3 sets of MP tubes can be transported to
the feeder port site in one trip and approximately 15-18 TP tubes in one trip.
Jones Act Applicability: No, because no transportation of merchandise between two points in
the U.S. has occurred.
MP Installation
A non-U.S.-flagged DP2 vessel will transport the MPs from to the site
position and complete installation of the MP, using a pile gripper to keep the MP in position
during the piling process. After piling is finished the hammer will be lifted off the MP and
placed on the vessel deck prior to moving to the next position and repeating the process. The
DP2 vessel will be capable of carrying 7-9 sets of MPs onboard depending of the size and
weight of the MP.
TP Outfitting in
The TP tubes will be outfitted in
Like the MP, the TP consists of a tube, but is much shorter, on the order of 25 m. In addition,
the fully outfitted TP is significantly more complicated than the MP. In addition to the pipe,
the TP consists of an external steel / concrete platform, internal steel platforms, and
electrical items, such as lights, wires, switch gears, cable trays and various gauges, as well
as rails for the elevator that runs up to the nacelle from the top of the TP. The steel platforms
consist of standard steel profiles that are cut and welded manually, produced either at a
central production location near the port or dispatched to local subcontractors in the area. All
steel parts must be painted before assembly. Once the platforms are mounted in the TP, the
assembly of all internal components can take place and the TPs loaded onto an installation
vessel.
TP Installation
In the Preferred Option, a Jones Act-compliant vessel will install the TPs. The installation
vessel will transport the TPs from the outfitting port in to the site position, dynamically
maintain position on-site, and start the installation of the TP. First, an anode cage will be
installed on the TP. Next, the TP is placed on top of the MP and bolted together. During the
bolting process a remotely-operated vehicle will create and secure a connection between the
anode cage and the MP for cathodic protection. When foundation installation is finished a
tent or similar cover will be put on top of the TP to protect the structure and electrical
components inside.

Jones Act Applicability: Yes, in the Preferred Option, a Jones Act-compliant vessel will be
used.
Figures 10.2 and 10.3 show the transportation and installation of a MP and TP.
Figure 10.2 Transportation and Installation of a MP (Westernmost Rough, 2014)
Figure 10.3 Installation of a TP (Westernmost Rough, 2014)

10.3.2 WTG
To allow for an effective WTG installation, installation out of a local harbor is preferable. To
comply with Jones Act, under the Preferred Option, the Bidder is working with four vessel owners
to support the construction of two Jones Act-compliant heavy lift installation and transportation
vessels. This will support an effective and safe installation campaign on this Project, but it will
also pave the way for future offshore wind farms in the U.S.
The WTG components will be fabricated at production facilities and then

transported to the envisaged load out port of on board large cargo vessels.
WTG Pre Assembly in

In the port of the WTG components will be pre-assembled and prepared for load
out. The load-out harbor also functions as the storage buffer for WTG components, ensuring
a constant supply to the installation vessel transiting between the offshore installation site
and the load out port. The pre-assembly and storage activities in the harbor requires skilled
workers and heavy lifting equipment such as crawler cranes to move the components
around.
The main and most resource demanding pre-assembly activity is tower assembly and
outfitting. Incoming tower sections are inspected for overseas transport damage, and
temporary stored by means of purpose built heavy-duty tower lift-trucks.
When assembling the complete tower structure, the bottom tower section is upended from
horizontal to vertical and bolted into a temporary tower stacking foundation near the

quayside (Figure 10.5). Thereafter, middle section(s) are stacked and bolted on top, the
service-lift is installed inside the complete structure, and multiple electrical connections are
run for HV cable, communication, DAVIT crane and nautical marking components.
Certification work is carried out on certified structural elements and components. Pre-
commissioning work prior to load out includes applying ID markings and a QC walk-down with
the owner’s representative (Figures 10.6 and 10.7).
Figure 10.5 Upending of Tower Section in Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015)
Figure 10.6 Towers Assembled and Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015)

Figure 10.7 Towers Assembled and Ready for Loadout (Gode Wind 2015)

Nacelles are unloaded at the pre-assembly harbor by means of multi wheelers or a harbor
crane. A thorough inspection for overseas transport damage is conducted, and pre-assembly
consists mounting the Heli-hoist (basket), cooling unit with wind measurement instruments,
and aviation marking components. If a nacelle is stored for a longer period, it needs to be
conditioned by means of dehumidification and rotating of the entire drive train (e.g.
generator). Prior to getting ready for load out, the nacelle assembly are pre-commissioned,
ID-markings applied, and a QC walk-down with the owner’s representative is conducted
(Figure 10.8).
Figure 10.8 Nacelles Pre-assembled and Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015)
WTG blades are stored at the pre-assembly site as well, transported via harbor crane and
trucks with special trailers. Little pre-assembly or inspection is required (Figure 10.9).
Figure 10.9 Blades Ready at the Load Out Port (Gode Wind 2015)
The Bidder intends for MassCEC’s New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal to be a critical
part of this Project’s success, and the highly skilled and appropriately licensed workforce
supporting this task will include:
 Site management (e.g. Site Manager, Supervisor(s), Planner, HSE, Secretary);
 Crane drivers;
 Multi wheeler and heavy lifting truck drivers;
 Other logistics vehicle site drivers;
 High voltage electricians;
 Low voltage and communication electricians;

 Mechanical fitters; and

 Dock workers.
WTG Installation
After pre-assembly of the WTGs in the WTG components (blades, nacelle and
tower) are loaded onto the Jones Act-compliant heavy lift installation and transportation
vessel, as the Preferred Option. WTG components are fastened onto the deck of the
installation vessel using specially-designed seaworthy fastenings. Once fully loaded up to six
WTGs sets can be stored on board for transport and installation offshore (Figure 10.10).
Figure 10.10 Loading towers onto installation vessel (Gode Wind 2015)
Once positioned at the offshore site, the installation vessel jacks up and connects with a
preinstalled foundation via gangway. Installation for each WTG is performed in five lifts;
tower, nacelle, and three blades. This method of installing full towers and single blades from
a dedicated installation vessel has proven to be an efficient and safe way to install WTGs
offshore (Figure 10.11).

Figure 10.11 WTG Installation Vessel at Work - Installation of a WTG Blade (Borkum Riffgrund Wind Farm 1
2014)

WTG Commissioning
After installation, the WTG is connected to grid and commissioned. will serve as
the commissioning harbor and
however, commissioning would likely be completed by technicians hosted by either a crew
transfer vessel (CTV) and/or DP2 vessel with a “walk to work” access system (Figure 10.12).
The DP2 vessel uses a gangway system to transfer commissioning technicians to the WTGs
and acts as a hotel vessel at the same time. CTVs push onto the boat landing on the
foundations to allow technicians to ascend the WTG.
WTGs typically begin producing power 1 to 4 days after installation has been completed.
Figure 10.12 DP2 Vessel and CTV (Gode Wind 01+02 2015)
10.3.3 Electrical – Array Cable

A standard DP2 Installation vessel, and DP2 Post-lay burial vessel, with associated support
craft, will be used to install the array cable. The cable will be transported to by a
freighter. The cable installation vessel will pick up lengths of cable from there to be laid.
Full site characterization has yet to be undertaken; however, it is expected that sand (loose,
becoming very dense) is the predominant feature with some harder formations that may be
evident, in addition to boulders. Although subject to change, the Preferred Option for cable
installation is listed below: A DP2 vessel with turn tables or cable tanks will pick up and
install the platform-connecting and inter-array cables, assisted by a pre dredging or mass
flow excavation vessel for sand wave/excessive slope removal (route preparation). Another
vessel will bury the cables by
Cable crossings will require special measures such as rock placement; mattresses; and/or
propriety separation devices;
Further, the operation will be assisted by survey vessels for pre cable lay surveys, post cable
lay surveys, and Depth of Burial (DOB) surveys; and crew boats for tower teams, messenger
wire installation, etc.; and a cable protection system during the cable installation period.

Both ends of the cable will be pulled into the TP or the OSS cable deck. After temporary hang-
offs are installed a cable termination crew will commence final installation and
commissioning.
10.3.4 Electrical – Export Cable

Installation of the export cable route can be defined by near-shore and far-shore sections.
The near shore section routing is complex but the main difficulties are shallow water areas
and a low, narrow bridge. Thus, installation of the full route cannot be completed with a
standard installation vessel. To overcome this, a shallow water barge will be utilized. The
cable installation vessel (DP2) will transport cable from the load out port to the barge within
the near shore section. The barge will transit up river, laying and burying cable, finally
transferring cable to the transition joint bay. The installation vessel will transit back down the
river laying the cable towards the OSS, either by simultaneous lay and burial
(Plough/Jetting/Cutting) or assisted by a DP2 vessel for cable burial works (Jetting/Cutting/
mass flow excavation). An offshore joint will be required as a complete single cable cannot
be transported in one transit due to weight and volume restrictions. Associated support craft
will be used as necessary: Dredging or Mass Flow Excavation vessels for sand
wave/excessive slope removal (route preparation); DP2 vessels with turn table for cable
transportation and installation, a jointing vessel or barge, a Boulder Clearance vessel
equipped with a boulder clearance plough; and/or orange peel grab, Survey vessel(s) for pre
cable lay surveys, post cable lay surveys and DOB surveys; and crew boats for platform
access etc. Cable crossings will require special measures such as rock placement;
mattresses; and/or propriety separation devices. A cable protection system will be
implemented during cable installation.
The ends of the cable will be pulled into the transition joint bay and the OSS cable deck. A
temporary hang-off will be installed and then the cable termination crew can commence their
works.
10.3.5 OSS
OSS Fabrication and Installation
The OSS components - jackets, piles and topside - will be fabricated in selected fabrication
yards, transported to the site and installed. The topside and jacket will be loaded onto
separate U.S. flagged barges at the fabrication yard and towed to the offshore site (Figure
10.13). The transit time could be up to 14 days, depending on yard location. A heavy lift
vessel will sail directly to the site, to meet the towed barges. The jacket will be lifted from the
barge and placed on the seabed, and secured by use of 4 to 8 piles or suction buckets.

Figure 10.13 Typical Jacket Transported Horizontally The topside will then be lifted in
position on the jacket by the
heavy lift vessel, and secured by
welding to the jacket. The lifting
operation, described in detail in
Attachment 10-3, will not
contravene the requirements of
the Jones Act because no
transportation of merchandise
between two points in the U.S.
has occurred.
It is anticipated that the
will be used to lift and

install the topside of the OSS. A
detailed description of the
installation of the jacket, piles
and topside is provided in Attachment 10-3.
OSS Commissioning
All electrical equipment on the OSS needs to be commissioned to ensure quality, safety and
functionality of each individual system and well as the integrated substation. Three phases of
commissioning will to take place to ensure this.
Factory Acceptance Tests
Factory acceptance tests are carried out to confirm that the equipment under test has been
manufactured in accordance with the approved design. These tests provide the employer
with the opportunity to identify any design or build quality issues in advance of the
equipment being delivered to site. All issues identified, should where possible, be rectified by
the supplier prior to shipment.
Site Acceptance Test
During the site acceptance test, the equipment suppliers commissioning engineer conducts
testing of the components supplied (as stand-alone systems) under the project scope, and
tests the conformance of the delivered solution to the approved design and functional
specifications. This process also confirms the integrity of the installation and the absence of
any transit damage.
Site Integration Test
The site integration test involves the overall testing of the complete OSS. The system(s)
under test may be composed of hardware, software, or hardware with embedded software.
The site integration test is a process of verifying that the substation meets its requirements
and performs in accordance with the design and client expectations.

First Energization of HV equipment and On Load Tests

Following the completion of factory acceptance, site acceptance, and site integration tests,
and providing all the associated documentation has been completed and a Pre-Energization
Inspection carried out, the equipment can be considered ready for energization. At this stage,
the system is handed over to the Senior Authorized Person who will carry out the actual
energization of the HV system.
10.3.6 OnSS
The Bidder’s Owner Eversource will be responsible for detailed design, procurement,
construction and commissioning of the OnSS. All the major equipment will be installed upon
completion of concrete foundations and cable duct banks. The equipment manufacturers are
responsible for transportation, rigging, and placing the equipment on the concrete
foundations. The rigging company who acts as a subcontractor to the equipment
manufacturer is responsible for all logistical services, e.g. engineered rigging and hauling
plans, routing, permitting, clearance checking, escort, police escort, load analysis of
transport, as well as dimensional restrictions. When required, the rigging company is also
responsible for temporary local warehouse storage of equipment and components. Upon
installation of the equipment on the foundations, the rigging company is responsible for
checking alignment, anchoring, and proper temporary protection from weather. Upon placing
the equipment the manufacturers are required to complete attachments of all components
associated with each equipment piece. When required, as part of final deployment the
equipment will be filled with an insulating fluid and/or insulating gas.
OnSS Commissioning
All equipment, aside from the STATCOM, will be tested as soon as it is installed and control
and protection equipment is available. Testing will be performed by competent and licensed
contractors working in accordance with the test methodologies and plan reviewed and
verified by qualified engineers. All tests will be documented by prescribed test reports and
accepted by the Bidder. The commissioning will be performed in strict adherence to ISO’s
protocol on receiving permits and clearances.
345kV and medium voltage breakers: Upon the installation of all breakers and control
panels, each breaker will be acceptance tested. The acceptance testing will include
operability of the breakers, functional testing of control and protection schemes, alarms and
indications, as well as remote control (SCADA) operability.
Control Center: The control center will be acceptance tested at the manufacturer’s facility.
Upon the installation at the site, each control and protection scheme will be tested and
commissioned along with other equipment.
STATCOM: The STATCOM will be installed and commissioned by the manufacturer. Upon
successful commissioning of the STATCOM, the Bidder will commission the output of the
STATCOM power feeders to the system. The commission of the STATCOM will be performed
after successful interconnection with National Grid’s substation.
Step-Up Transformers: Upon the installation of the step-up transformers, they will be
acceptance tested and commissioned.

Commissioning of the Onshore Station: Upon the acceptance testing of the substation
control center and once the modifications to National Grid’s Brayton Point substation are
completed and in service, the commissioning of the substation will commence. The duration
of the final commissioning will be approximately four weeks.
10.3.7 Battery Storage

The battery system supplier will deliver a turnkey system with all components up to the medium
voltage switchgear. Eversource will be responsible for the connection of the battery system to the
OnSS via the main autotransformers. The battery system will be installed in a dedicated building
which houses the battery cells, power inverters and switchgear. The battery system step up
transformers will be housed outside the building on concrete pads.
10.4 Party Responsible for Each Deployment Activity

10.4 List the party (e.g. the bidder, or equipment/service providers under contract to the bidder)
responsible for each deployment activity and describe the role of each party. Describe the
status of bidder’s contractual agreements with third-party equipment/service providers.
Ørsted’s approach to the sourcing and supply of the components and skills required for
construction and operation of the Generation Asset and Offshore Transmission Asset of the
Project is expected to be managed through a multi-contracting approach with the main
packages and contractors described in Table 10.3. This is in contrast to a turnkey approach
with only one contract for both supply and installation of the major scopes. The multi-
contracting approach combined with Ørsted’s in-house engineering capabilities allows for full
EPC control, with the benefits of an optimized and transparent allocation of risk and full
control over interfaces between main packages.
The procurement team in Ørsted works dedicated with broadening the supply chain by
identifying, pre-qualifying and developing new suppliers, and manage the supply chain as a
portfolio across the current and future portfolio of wind farms when procuring components
for new wind farms.
Ørsted believes that using multiple suppliers will encourage competition in the supply chain,
driving both price down and performance up and thereby reducing the cost of electricity.
Within the offshore wind industry, several of the suppliers have a portfolio of different
products combined with a production capacity that enables them to both supply a range of
different components used in the wind farm, such as cables and HV components, and supply
to multiple wind farms.
Although competition is maintained by making sure alternative suppliers are available -
Ørsted primarily works with selected, strategic suppliers in order to develop more cost-
efficient concepts and products that can be used in tomorrow’s wind farms. The close
interaction with the service-suppliers and manufacturers and the sharing of knowledge
between the experts are key success factor in developing more efficient manufacturing,
installation methods, and technology.
An explanation of the responsibility split between contracts and the status of contracting the
major scopes is provided in Table 10.3. Additional information about the procurement
process is provided in Section 8.2. See also Section 9.2 for a description of negotiations and
discussions regarding installation vessels for foundation, WTG, and cable deployment.

Table 10.3 Deployment Activity Responsible Parties

29B
Deployment Activity Responsible Party Status of Procurement

Foundations The foundations supplier will deliver the finalized MPs and
the TPs at a quayside in order for the installation
contractor to be able to transport them to the site.
WTG The WTG supplier will transport, pre-assemble, install, and

commission WTG components. The Bidder will contract the
installation vessel and free issue this vessel to the WTG
supplier for the installation
Array cables The array cable supplier will manufacture and deliver the
array cables at the designated harbor and the array cable
installation contractor will take over the cables there,
then transport, install and connect the cables from there
Export cable The export cable manufacturer will deliver the export
cable to the designated site which can be a harbor or the
offshore project site where the installation contractor
will take over the cable and install it and terminate it at shore
OSS The OSS fabrication contractor will load the jacket and piles
onto a Jones Act-compliant transportation barge and then load
the topside onto a separate Jones Act-compliant transportation
barge.
The OSS installation contractor will tow the transportation
barges to the field using Jones Act-compliant tow tugs.
The OSS installation contractor’s installation vessel will
meet the transportation barges in the field to lift off and install
the structures.
OnSS Commonly the rigging companies hired by the
manufacturers are primarily responsible for staging and
deployment activities. When required, the manufacturers
hire local experienced contractors for specialized services.
Battery Storage The battery storage supplier will transport and install
storage components.
An electrical contractor will connect the battery
component to the OnSS.

Section 11
Operation and Maintenance
The Bidder has an unparalleled track record
in constructing and operating offshore wind
farms with more than two decades of operational
experience and 3.8 GW constructed offshore wind
capacity across more than 20 operational offshore
wind farms.
Ørsted operates more wind turbines than any
other offshore wind operator in the world.
The Bidder uses proprietary tools to achieve
higher-than-average production factors including
optimized site layout and in-house operation
and maintenance capabilities.
The Bidder expects that approximately O&M
jobs will be created for the ongoing operation
and maintenance of the Project.
Bay State Wind has initiated dialogue with local
training providers to ensure these roles can be
sourced locally to the extent possible.
New Bedford, Massachusetts
, and
a Bay State Wind office has been established in
the city.
Gode Wind Project 1+2

Section 11 Operation and Maintenance
11. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Projects that can demonstrate that the operation and maintenance (“O&M”) plan, level of funding, and
mechanism for funding will ensure reliable operations during the term of the contract or the tariff are
preferred.
In this section, the Bidder addresses the complex task of operating and maintaining a
commercial offshore wind energy facility, involving both on- and off-shore facilities and
equipment critical to the successful generation of clean wind power. With more than two
decades of operational experience and 3.8 GW constructed offshore wind capacity across 22
offshore wind farms in operation, the Bidder has an unparalleled track-record in constructing
and operating offshore wind farms. It is this experience that allows us to frequently secure
above industry-average production figures on our assets (see Figure 11.1). Having assets
with greater availability not only supports cost reductions, it also increases the reliability
benefits of our wind farms. Specifically, the Bidder achieves these higher production figures
through two sophisticated tools it has developed to ensure the reliable operation of projects:
Optimized site layout: Proprietary tools that integrate skills and knowledge from a broad
variety of disciplines allow us to design an optimized layout design compared to what our
competitors can deliver. The design tool allows us to optimize our site layout for
aerodynamics, reducing wake loss and increasing overall generation, and it also supports
cost reductions by helping to minimize foundation and cable costs.
In-house O&M capabilities: As the operators of the largest offshore wind fleet in the world,
Ørsted has built a highly skilled in-house O&M team. Through these in-house capabilities and
continuous learning from our generation fleet, the Bidder is able to secure higher availability
than the industry average. This allows our wind farms to be producing power for more hours
per year.

11.1 O&M Plan for the Project

11.1 Provide an O&M plan for the project that demonstrates the long term operational viability of the
proposed project. The plan should include the location of the O&M base, a discussion of the
staffing levels proposed for the project, the expected role of the project sponsor or turbine
manufacturer/outside contractor, scheduling of major maintenance activity, and the plan for
testing equipment.
Modeled on the successful track record of Ørsted and Eversource in operating complex
commercial offshore wind energy and transmission facilities, the O&M Plan for the Project
will tap into an organization articulated in three elements.
Although the O&M Plan will be

finalized as a component of the Facility Design Report (FDR)/Facility Installation Report
review process (see Section 7.2), a preliminary O&M Plan is provided below.
11.1.1 Operating and Maintaining an Offshore Wind Farm

It can take around people to operate and maintain an offshore wind farm. An
indicative outline of the team structure of the staff working on one of Ørsted’s operation wind
farms is provided in Figure 11.2.

11.1.2 Location of the O&M Base

Under the Preferred Option, the O&M base is expected to be located in ,
Massachusetts.
11.1.3 Local Content and Job Creation

The Bidder estimates that around long-term jobs (including subcontractors and others)
will be required to perform the O&M activities for the Project. These jobs will be based in
Massachusetts. Additional details on local content and job creation are provided in Section
14.
To further provide benefits to the Commonwealth, the Bidder has initiated discussions with
local training providers to ensure skills and competencies can be sourced locally to the
extent possible for the following roles:

11.1.4 Role of Project Sponsor

The Bidder will be accountable for performing all scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
as well as all inspections related to the foundations, WTGs, array cables, OSS, export cable,
OnSS, and onshore O&M facilities. Some of the specialized O&M activities will be contracted
to third-party service companies. The following is an initial list of maintenance contractors
available in the New England area:
The Bidder is in the process of evaluating additional maintenance contractors throughout

New England. Service agreements, where required, are expected to be entered as described
in Section 11.5.
11.1.5 Scheduling of Maintenance and Equipment Testing

An overall maintenance schedule will be developed in the early execution phase, considering
the specific equipment and features of the offshore wind farm, detailing the activities and
frequency of the surveys, inspections, and regular maintenance to be performed per industry
best practices and with Ørsted’s and Eversource’s experience. A high-level overview of how
frequent scheduled inspections and maintenance are performed is provided in Table 3.1;
however, this will be adjusted prior to construction based on site-specific conditions.
Additionally, the Bidder intends to utilize its extensive experience to minimize costs and
maintenance in order to guarantee the success of the Project for all parties and
beneficiaries.
Maintenance of the Project includes both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance; all
necessary condition monitoring, inspections and diagnostics, Asset Integrity Assessments,
and major overhauls to ensure the integrity and operational status of the assets are
accounted for in the O&M plan.
To support O&M, the Project will be remotely controlled 24/7 via the SCADA systems for wind
turbines and the balance of plant equipment. Condition monitoring is accomplished via
monitoring systems implemented on key components and via the alarms in the SCADA
systems. Diagnostic evaluations are completed by inspecting logs in the SCADA systems and
by diagnostic on-site investigations.
Preventive maintenance will be performed to ensure that the operation of the substation and
line equipment will provide high reliable performance. Maintenance of equipment will be
performed in accordance with the interconnection agreements. In addition, all protective
system maintenance will be performed in accordance with NPCC PRC 005-2 standard.
Substation equipment will be maintained by qualified personnel in accordance with
applicable industry standards and good utility practice to provide maximum operating
performance and reliability.

11.2 Site Control Documentation

11.2 Please provide documentation to demonstrate site control for all marine terminals and other
waterfront facilities that will be used to for the O&M.
i. If available, evidence that the bidder or the equipment/service provider have right(s) to use a
marine terminal and/or waterfront facility for O&M of the offshore wind energy project (e.g., by
virtue of ownership or land development rights obtained from the owner).
ii. If not available, describe the status of acquisition of real property rights for necessary marine
terminal and/or waterfront facilities, any options in place for the exercise of these rights and
describe the plan for securing the necessary real property rights, including the proposed
timeline. Include these plans and the timeline in the overall project schedule.
iii. Identify any joint use of existing or proposed real property rights for marine terminal or
waterfront facilities.
Under the Preferred Option, the Bidder will use a site to support O&M activities.
On November 21, 2017 the Bidder signed an agreement with
in (see Section 10.2). Due diligence is currently being
undertaken to assess its suitability as a location to base long-term O&M facilities for the
Project, in addition to use as a Construction Management Base. The Bidder has the right to
benefit from this agreement. The detail of the relationship is confidential and subject to a
Non-Disclosure Agreement but is available upon request.
11.3 Proposed O&M Funding Mechanism

11.3 Describe in detail the proposed O&M funding mechanism and funding levels to support planned
and unplanned O&M requirements.
O&M will be funded by internally generated cash flows from the revenues the Project
receives from PPA payments, in addition to revenues from the capacity and ancillary services
markets. If the Bidder requires working capital during the operating period, it will use
internally generated cash flows, equity contributions from the Project Owners, and loans from
either the Owners. The Bidder can provide additional information regarding funding of O&M
upon request by the EDCs.
11.4 Major Equipment Terms of Warranties/Guarantees

11.4 Describe the terms (or expected terms) of the warranties and/or guarantees on major
equipment that the bidder is utilizing or proposing to utilize.
11.4.1 WTGs

limited to software updates, engineering support and

remote diagnostics services. During the SWA period, it is assumed that the Bidder will
provide a proportion of the technicians to ensure know-how ramp up and a smooth transition
after the SWA expires. During this initial -year period, the OEM is expected to provide a
warranty covering the cost for potential component replacements as well as a PBA warranty
at .
the Bidder will be responsible for all maintenance and
inspections of the WTGs. During this period, warranties from third parties, such as the WTG
OEM, are expected to apply to any components and services acquired from such third party.
These warranties have a duration of
If the Bidder determines that the warranty is breached within the defect notification period
after final acceptance of the equipment and materials, the contractor shall either repair or
replace the affected equipment and materials at its sole cost and expense.
11.4.2 Transmission and Other Assets (OSS, OnSS, SCADA, HV components and cables)
The Bidder expects that the equipment and materials associated with the OnSS and
transmission infrastructure will be covered by a -year warranty. The supplier will warrant
that all equipment and materials it supplies will conform to specifications provided by the
Bidder, will be new when delivered and free from defects in title, design, material and
workmanship for up to years after final acceptance of work. If the Bidder determines that
the warranty is breached, the contractor shall either repair or replace the affected equipment
and materials at its sole cost and expense.
11.4.3 Battery Storage System

The battery storage system will be covered by a -year standard warranty inclusive of
Capacity Augmentation. Capacity Augmentation guarantees the rating of the battery and
ensures that it will not degrade over the -year warranty period.
11.5 O&M Agreement Contract Status

11.5 Describe the status of the project sponsor in securing any O&M agreements or contracts.
Include a discussion of the sponsor’s plan for securing a medium-term or long-term O&M
contract, including the expected provider of O&M services.
To ensure that the Project provides the most cost-effective offshore wind energy to the
Commonwealth, it is expected that the Bidder will enter into long-term O&M agreements with
both Ørsted and Eversource.
Where relevant might tender Service Contracts among

approved suppliers with vetted qualifications, capabilities, and proper scalability to handle
the long-term arrangement and scope of maintenance. The most prominent of these is the
WTG SWA as described in Section 11.4.
The intention would be to enter into an agreement approximately prior to
commercial operation to ensure that the supplier is familiarized with the site and capable of
taking over maintenance operations immediately.

The Bidder and its Operators – - are actively engaging with several
well-established international and local service providers for the provision of O&M services.
In most cases, these agreements will be jointly negotiated with the equipment supply
agreements to ensure compliance of the warranty obligations and operational efficiency
when transitioning from the construction phase to the operational phase.
Besides informally exploring market opportunities and suppliers’ capabilities, the Bidder has
entered into a more formal dialogue with some service providers in the form of Requests for
Information, RFPs, and Bidders Conference per PMI best practices, depending on the scope
of service and market maturity.
It is expected that service agreements and contracts will be conditional on the Bidder being
awarded a long-term contract in this RFP process.
11.6 O&M Services Experience

11.6 Provide examples of the bidder’s experience with O&M services for other similar projects͘
The Bidder’s Owners, Ørsted and Eversource, have developed, constructed, and operated
many large energy projects over the past 25 years. Specifically, Ørsted operates more
offshore WTGs than any other operator in the world, and is currently the operator of 22
commercial-scale offshore wind power facilities (Figure 11.3, Table 11.1). Similarly,
Eversource regularly maintains over 300 substations of various capacity and configurations.
Both companies employ highly trained professional engineers and experienced personnel to
install, maintain, and repair equipment and the Project would greatly benefit from this
combined experience to support O&M. See Section 12.4 for a complete list of similar Ørsted
and Eversource projects.

Table 11.1 Ørsted’s Operated Sites as of 2017

30B
Wind Turbine Ørsted

Size (#, WTG Scope of Operational
Project (MW) capacity) Country Operations1, 2 Period
Nysted 165.6 72 X 2.3 MW DK 2004 - ongoing
Barrow 90 30 X 3 MW UK 2006 - ongoing
Burbo Bank 90 25 X 3.6 MW UK 2007 - ongoing
Horns Reef 2 209 91 X 2.3 MW DK 2009 - ongoing
Walney 367 102 X 3.6 MW UK 2011- ongoing
Gunfleet Sands 172.8 48 X 3.6 MW UK 2012 - ongoing
Anholt 400 111 X 3.6 MW DK 2013 - ongoing
London Array 630 175 x 3.6 MW UK 2013-2017
Westermost Rough 210 35 X 6 MW UK 2014 - ongoing
Gunfleet Sands demo 12 2 X 6 MW UK 2014 - ongoing
Borkum Riffgrund I 312 78 X 4 MW DE 2015 - ongoing
Gode Wind 01-02 582 97 X 6 MW DE 2016 - ongoing
Burbo Bank ext. 254 32 X 8 MW UK 2017 - ongoing
Lincs 270 75 X 3.6 MW UK 2017 - ongoing
1 The scope of operations is dependent on the country specific conditions and specifically whether and to which the extent the
transmission assets are operated by the TSO.
2 Generating Assets (GA), Generating Assets and Offshore Substation (GA+OSS).

Section 12
Project Management/Experience
Fielding some of the most experienced and capable hands
in the global offshore wind and New England transmission
industries, the Bidder is the best guarantee of delivering a
successful offshore wind project to the Commonwealth.
Over the past 25+ years, Ørsted has constructed
3.8 GW of offshore wind capacity, accounting
for around a quarter of the world’s installed
offshore wind capacity.
Over the past decade, Eversource has
successfully completed hundreds of traditional
and major capital projects.
Eversource has a proven track record in
successful single- and multi-state project
siting and permitting, working closely with
other companies to develop major projects, and
safely and efficiently constructing transmission
projects.
Eversource has been a member of ISO-NE,
NEPOOL, and NPCC since inception.
3X the capacity under

management as our
nearest competitor
3.8 GW of constructed
offshore wind capacity
2,000+ Ørsted employees

supporting Bay State
Wind Project
Gode Wind Project

Section 12 Project Management/Experience
12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/EXPERIENCE

Bidders are required to demonstrate project experience and management capability to successfully
develop and operate the project proposed. The Distribution Companies are particularly interested in
project teams that have demonstrated success in projects of similar type, size and technology and can
demonstrate an ability to work together effectively to bring the project to commercial operation in a
timely fashion.
In 2016, Ørsted and Eversource joined forces to create a single, cohesive team solely
dedicated to the development of the Project. This team combines top talent from the world’s
leading offshore wind developer and New England’s pre-eminent energy company with deep
experience in successfully developing complex energy projects over the past 20+ years. The
Owners’ depth of experience, proven track record and unparalleled commitment to
excellence will ensure seamless project execution, unrivaled by any competitor.
Consisting of two leading energy companies, the Bidder brings a winning combination of
experience and skills to the development of Massachusetts’ first offshore windfarm and the
U.S.’s first utility-scale offshore windfarm. These strengths are encapsulated in the following
core competencies:
Technical Acumen
With 23 offshore wind projects constructed and a dedicated offshore wind business unit
consisting of over 2,000 dedicated experts spanning engineering, permitting, supply
chain engagement and O&M, Ørsted is the industry leader within offshore wind. Similarly,
Eversource brings deep experience in interconnecting renewable resources into New
England's electrical system reliably and cost-effectively. Eversource has served as New
England's leading electricity and natural gas distribution company for over a hundred
years. With over 8,000 employees based across New England, its deep knowledge of the
region's electrical system is without parallel.
Financial Capacity
The Bidder brings an unrivaled financial strength reflected in the joint venture partners’
solid credit rating scores, total assets worth more than $50 billion and a cash flow from
operating activities of about $4 billion.
Supply Chain Relationships
The Bidder’s market-leading global position within offshore wind, and sizeable U.S.
project pipeline, gives it the unique ability to provide suppliers greater certainty when
making long-term decisions to invest in the Commonwealth, resulting in a major boost to
the local economy. This is not a new strategy but a reprise of Ørsted’s phenomenal
success in building a robust UK offshore wind industry. Ørsted’s 2,000-MW build-out on
the East Coast of the UK has been accompanied by a multi-billion dollar investment by
our supply chain partners, in large part due to Ørsted’s active engagement with both
potential local suppliers and large multi-national ones to entice them to invest in the
region.

Knowledge of New England’s Electrical System

The Bidder brings an unrivaled sophisticated understanding of New England’s electrical
system through the joint-venture partner, Eversource. The Bidder has parlayed this
understanding to provide Massachusetts ratepayers with the lowest cost, highest value
offshore wind project.
Environmental Stewardship
The Bidder recognizes the importance of being an environmental steward and ensuring
that the construction and operation of the Project is compatible with existing social,
economic and environmental uses within and around the Project area. Its’ industry-
leading team of wildlife and marine specialists have been working proactively since being
awarded the Lease in June 2015 to engage with interested and affected stakeholders
and to conduct sound site assessment activities to support development of appropriate
mitigation and minimization measures.
12.1 Project Organizational Chart

12.1 Provide an organizational chart for the project that lists the project participants and identifies
the corporate structure, including general and limited partners.
An organizational chart of the Bidder structure is provided in Figure 12.1.
12.2 Bidder and Project Participant Experience

12.2 Provide statements that list the specific experience of the bidder and each of the project
participants (including, when applicable, the bidder, partners, and proposed contractors), in
developing, financing, owning, and operating generating and transmission facilities, other
projects of similar type, size and technology, and any evidence that the project participants have
worked jointly on other projects.
12.2.1 Bay State Wind LLC

As a 50/50 joint venture between Ørsted and Eversource, the Bidder will benefit from the
extensive experience that these partners have gained over the past two decades in
developing, constructing, and operating complex energy projects. The complementary
partnership between these two parent companies brings world-leading offshore wind
expertise and expert knowledge of transmission, including offshore transmission, and deep
roots in Massachusetts together.
12.2.2 Ørsted
Ørsted is the industry leader in offshore wind with significant experience with the rigors and
challenges of the offshore wind business. Over the past 25 years, Ørsted has constructed 3.8
GW of offshore wind capacity (see Figure 12.2), which is approximately 30 percent of globally
installed offshore wind capacity. Ørsted's existing activities span a number of markets which
include Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, and
Taiwan. As a result, Ørsted is well practiced in adapting to, and thriving within, new
regulatory, permitting, and political landscapes. It is the current Ørsted leadership team that,
within the short span of the past three to four years, has driven dramatic cost reductions and
paved the way for exponential market growth.


Figure 12.2 Total Constructed Capacity by Ørsted (MW)

All of Ørsted’s experience in offshore wind in development, construction, operation, and

decommissioning is relevant to the Project. Specific examples of Ørsted’s expertise in
development and operations of offshore wind energy projects include:
 Participating in over 20 competitive offshore wind tenders and executing on project
development post-award;
 First-ever win with a zero-subsidy bid (Germany 2017);
 Permitting of complex projects with input and consent required from numerous
stakeholders including regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the
fishing industry;
 Design and planning of high-voltage transmission solutions capable of delivering
power from offshore wind projects to the identified onshore grid connection point,
from as far away as 50 miles (80 km) (Walney Extension, Race Bank and Hornsea 1);
 Construction of offshore wind farms in challenging marine environments, including
far from shore projects, high wave heights, high wind speeds and rough sea
conditions;
 Planning and execution of O&M strategy for offshore wind farms; and
 First-ever decommissioning of an offshore wind project, the Vindeby Offshore Wind
Farm near Lolland in March 201720.
Through combining the lessons learned and experience gained from the development,
construction and operation of a number of offshore projects in Europe, Ørsted is capable of
designing and implementing technical solutions that are appropriate and proven. To
demonstrate Ørsted’s breadth and depth of industry knowledge, a partial list of previous
projects is provided in Section 12.4. Key personnel are discussed in Section 12.3 provides
additional detail on Ørsted is an industry leader, with 3x the installed offshore wind-energy
key personnel capacity than its nearest competitor.
dedicated to this
Project.
Furthermore,
Ørsted is also
currently involved
in two additional
projects in the
United States
beyond this Project:
Ocean Wind (New
Jersey) and Coastal
Virginia Offshore
Wind, a partnership
with Dominion
Energy. Not only
does this reinforce
Ørsted’s
20 Hyperlink to youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJHB8V4hEE.

commitment to the U.S. offshore wind industry, but it also offers an opportunity to share
lessons learned across the region. The Bidder will leverage Ørsted’s experience, particularly
with regards to the BOEM permitting process and supply chain development, to secure on-
time and on-budget development of this Project to the greatest benefit of the
Commonwealth.
12.2.3 Eversource
Eversource is an industry leader in timely and efficiently siting, permitting, constructing and
maintaining large complex transmission and distribution projects including high-voltage and
extra HV overhead, underground and hybrid transmission lines, and associated terminal
equipment. Throughout New England, Eversource has successfully completed hundreds of
capital projects over the past decade with a proven track record in:
 Successful single state and multi-state project siting and permitting;
 Working closely with other companies to develop major projects; and
 Safely and efficiently constructing transmission and distribution projects.
As described in Section 5, Eversource, a Fortune 500 energy company, has significant
financial resources and invests substantially in transmission facilities. Eversource financed
those investments with its strong cash flows and ready access to the capital markets.
Eversource has successfully completed hundreds of traditional and major capital projects
over the past decade. Eversource’s innovative solutions to technical and environmental
challenges include:
 The first and most extensive 345-kV applications of solid core cross linked
polyethylene (XLPE) underground
cables in the United States; Eversource has recent and significant
 Laying marine cable from a purpose- experience with large, complex energy
built ship; and projects. Over the past 10-15 years,
Eversource has planned, designed,
 Constructing overhead transmission permitted and constructed over $2.8B of
support structures from the air, using major transmission upgrades in southern
helicopters. New England.
For the purposes of developing the Project,
Eversource has replicated its successful formula by assembling a core team of seasoned
professionals who have been involved in the development and construction of numerous
large transmission facilities, supplemented by internal and external resources that provide
the expertise to support project execution. A partial list of previous projects is provided in
Section 12.4 to further illustrate Eversource’s experience. Section 12.3 provides additional
detail on key personnel dedicated to this Project.

12.3 Key Staff Experience

12.3 Provide a management chart that lists the key personnel dedicated to this project and provide
resumes of the key personnel. Key personnel of the bidder’s development team having
substantial project management responsibilities must have:
i. Successfully developed and/or operated one or more projects of similar size or complexity or
requiring similar skill sets; and
ii. Experience in financing power generation projects (or have the financial means to finance the
project on the bidder’s balance sheet).
Ørsted has over 2,000 employees dedicated to the development, construction and operation
of utility scale offshore wind projects similar in nature to this Project (see Figure 12.3).
Eversource has approximately 8,000 employees dedicated to the development, construction
and operation of utility scale transmission and distribution projects across New England. It is
therefore undoubtedly one of the Bidder’s primary assets to be able to draw upon this
extensive talent and resource pool for the development, construction and operation of the
Project.
The Project development organization is provided in Figure 12.1. Once final permits are
received and construction begins, some roles will be exchanged with people specialized in
project execution: The project development manager is replaced by a program director from
the Ørsted EPC Division; the technical project manager is replaced by an EPC director and
similarly for other roles.
Figure 12.3 Ørsted Organization with Number of FTE Employees in Each Unit (as per Dec. 2016)

12.3.1 Key Personnel Directly Involved in the Management of the Project

The key personnel directly involved in the management of this Project are identified below
and resumes for those personnel are provided in Attachment 12-1. All the members of the
Project team have substantial experience within different areas of the development project:
consents and permitting, market development, project development and progress,
partnerships, along with broader business and investment experience.
Ørsted Key Staff

Ørsted relies on an experienced team to lead and manage the successful implementation of
the Project throughout all development aspects in accordance with management models that
have been implanted on dozens of previous projects (Table 12.1).



Eversource Key Staff

In its role as co-owner of Bay State Wind and service provider for development, construction
and operation of the onshore facilities, Eversource proposes an experienced team to lead
and manage the successful implementation of the facility throughout all development
aspects (Table 12.2).


12.4 Relevant Current Projects

12.4 Provide a listing of all projects the project sponsor has successfully developed or that are
currently under construction. Provide the following information as part of the response:
i. Name of the project
ii. Location of the project
iii. Project type, size and technology
iv. Commercial operation date
v. Estimated and actual capacity factor of the project for the past three years
vi. Availability factor of the project for the past three years
vii. References, including the names and current addresses and telephone numbers of individuals
to contact for each reference.
12.4.1 Ørsted
To date, Ørsted has constructed 3.8 GW of offshore wind capacity, which is approximately 30
percent of globally installed offshore wind capacity.
Ørsted's existing activities span a number of markets, Ørsted’s Unparalleled
Offshore Wind Experience
which include Denmark, the United Kingdom,
Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, and • 25+ years’ experience
Taiwan. Detailed information regarding Ørsted’s • 22 operational projects
offshore wind portfolio is provided in Table 12.3. • 3.8 GW constructed capacity
• 2,000+ dedicated employees
• 7 projects under construction
• 8.8 GW of capacity by 2022

For further information regarding the offshore wind projects referenced in Table 12.3, please
contact:
12.4.2 Eversource
Eversource has successfully developed several recent large projects with an initial capital
cost of more than $70 million. Descriptions of the projects are provided in Table 12.4. Since
the projects listed are not generation projects, there are no capacity and availability factors.
All of the projects listed in Table 12.4 are owned by Eversource affiliates, and the President
of Eversource's transmission department may be contacted for further information with
respect to any of these projects at:

Table 12.3 Ørsted Project Experience

30B
Capacity Factor (Estimated)1 Capacity Factor (Actual)2 Availability Factor (Actual)3

Size and Project In-Service
Project/Program Location Description Technology Date Status 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
Denmark4
Anholt Kattegat (DK) Offshore wind 400 MW; Siemens 2013 In Operation
Gamesa SWT-3.6-120
Avedøre Holme Øresund (DK) Nearshore 10.8 MW; Siemens 2009 / 2011 In Operation
wind Gamesa SWT-3.6-
107/120
Horns Rev 2 North Sea (DK) Offshore wind 209.3 MW; Siemens 2010 In Operation
Gamesa SWT-2.3-93
Horns Rev 1 North Sea (DK) Offshore wind 160 MW; Vestas V80-2 2003 In Operation
MW
Nysted Fehmarnbelt (DK) Offshore wind 165.6 MW; Bonus SWT 2003 In Operation
2.3-82
Middelgrunden Øresund (DK) Nearshore 20 MW; Bonus 2001 In Operation
wind B76/2000
Vindeby Smålandsfarvandet Offshore wind 4.95 MW; Bonus 1991 Decommissioned
(DK) B35/450
OWP West North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 240 MW; Technology 2024 Under
TBD Development
Borkum Riffgrund North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 240 MW; Technology 2024 Under
West 2 TBD Development
Gode Wind 3 North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 110 MW; Technology 2023 Under
TBD Development
Borkum Riffgrund 2 North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 450 MW; MVOW 8.3 2018 Under
MW-164 Development
Gode Wind 1 North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 380 MW; Siemens 2016 In Operation
SWT 6.0-154
Gode Wind 2 North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 252 MW; Siemens 2016 In Operation
SWT 6.0-154
Borkum Riffgrund 1 North Sea (DE) Offshore wind 312 MW; Siemens 2015 In Operation
SWT 4.0-120
Netherlands
Borssele 1 & 2 North Sea (NL) Offshore wind 752 MW; Siemens 2020 Under
Gamesa 8 MW Construction

Table 12.3 Ørsted Project Experience (continued)

Capacity Factor (Estimated)1 Capacity Factor (Actual)2 Availability Factor (Actual)3
Size and Project In-Service
Project/Program Location Description Technology Date2 Status 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
Hornsea 2 North Sea (UK) Offshore wind 1,386 MW; Technology 2022 Under
TBD Development
Hornsea 1 North Sea (UK) Offshore wind 1,200 MW; Technology 2020 Under
TBD Construction
Walney Extension Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 660 MW; MHI-Vestas 2018 Under
V164-8.0 MW & Construction
Siemens SWT-7.0-154
Race Bank North Sea (UK) Offshore wind 573 MW; SWT-6.0-154 2018 Under
Construction
Burbo Bank Extension Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 258 MW; V164-8.0 2017 In Operation
MW (MHI Vestas
Offshore Wind)
Westermost Rough North Sea (UK) Offshore wind 210 MW; SWT-6.0-154 2015 In Operation
West of Duddon Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 388.8 MW; SWT-3.6- 2014 In Operation
Sands 120
Gunfleet Sands Demo Thames Estuary (UK) Offshore wind 12 MW; SWT-6.0-120 2013 In Operation
Lincs North Sea (UK) Offshore wind 270 MW; SWT-3.6-120 2013 In Operation
London Array 1 Thames Estuary (UK) Offshore wind 630 MW; SWT-3.6-120 2013 In Operation
Walney 1 Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 183.6 MW; SWT-3.6- 2011 In Operation
107
Walney 2 Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 183.6 MW; SWT-3.6- 2011 In Operation
120
Gunfleet Sands 1 Thames Estuary (UK) Offshore wind 108 MW; SWT-3.6-107 2010 In Operation
Gunfleet Sands 2 Thames Estuary (UK) Offshore wind 64.8 MW; SWT-3.6- 2010 In Operation
107
Burbo Bank Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 90 MW; SWT-3.6-107 2007 In Operation
Barrow Irish Sea (UK) Offshore wind 90 MW; V90-3 MW 2006 In Operation
Offshore (Vestas)
Taiwan
Formosa 1 - Phase 1 Taiwan Strait Offshore wind 8 MW; 4.0 MW SWT- 2017 In Operation
120
Sources: Danish Energy Agency, Fraunhofer ISE & EEX, National Grid, and Ørsted.

Table 12.4 Eversource Project Experience

304B
Project/Program Description Location In-Service Date Cost (US $M)

Bethel/Norwalk Construction of a new 21-mile (34 km) 345-kV line consisting of 2.1 miles (3.4 CT 2006 $337
km) of XLPE cable, 9.7 miles (15.6 km) of high pressure fluid filled cables and
8.6 miles (13.8 km) of overhead construction
Glenbrook Cables Construction of two sets of parallel 115-kV XLPE cables installed along an 8.7- CT 2008 $239
mile (14-km) route underneath roadways in a highly congested area of Fairfield
County, close to New York City; and significant substation upgrades
Stoughton Cables Construction in phases of two parallel 345-kV high pressure fluid filled cables MA 2007 $317
installed along a 17-mile (27 km) route, and a third cable installed along an 11- 2009
mile (17 km) route, all underneath roadways in and near Boston; a new 345-
kV switching station, and associated substation improvements.
Long Island Joint project with Long Island Power Authority: replacement of seven fluid- CT 2008 $79*
Replacement Cable filled transmission cables between Norwalk, CT and Northport, NY by 3 138-
kV XLPE marine cables, buried 6 ft (2 m) below the sea bottom.
Middletown/Norwalk Joint project with United Illuminating: Construction of new 345-kV circuits CT 2009 $955*
consisting of 45 miles (72 km) of overhead line and 24 miles (39 km) of
underground cables; reconstruction of 57 miles (92 km) of 115-kV line;
construction of new substations and expansion of existing substations.
Greater Springfield Construction of 39 linear miles (63 linear km) of new 345-kV transmission MA/CT 2013 $676
Reliability (NEEWS) lines and reconstruction of existing 115-kV lines between Ludlow,
Massachusetts, and Bloomfield, Connecticut with 13 new or rebuilt
substations and switching stations (110 circuit m [177 circuit km])
Long-Term Lower Construction of new 18 miles (29 km) 345-kV line between Carver, MA, MA 2014 $106
SEMA Upgrades across Cape Cod canal to Bourne, MA and new 345-kV substation;
reconstruction of pre-existing 345-kV line on separate towers, and related
115-kV modifications.
Interstate Reliability Joint project with National Grid: Connecticut portion: 37 miles (59 km) of CT 2015 $218*
(NEEWS) new 345-kV line with associated substation improvements, now in
construction.
* = Eversource Cost Only

12.5 Project Team

12.5 With regard to the bidder’s project team, identify and describe the entity responsible for the
following, as applicable:
i. Construction Period lender
ii. Operating Period Lender and/or Tax Equity Provider
iii. Financial Advisor
iv. Environmental Consultant
v. Facility Operator & Manager
vi. Owner’s Engineer
vii. Transmission Consultant
viii. Legal Counsel
The shared expertise of Owners Ørsted and Eversource in developing, financing, and
operating energy projects will be supplemented by third party firms as outlined below.
12.5.1 Construction Period Lender

As outlined in Section 5, the Project will be indirectly financed by its two owners, Ørsted and
Eversource.
12.5.2 Operating Period Lender and/or Tax Equity Provider

As outlined in Section 5, the Project will be indirectly financed by its two owners, Ørsted and
Eversource.
In contrast to a majority of renewable developments, the Project is not dependent upon tax
equity financing under current federal tax law, which is particularly important in this political
climate. The volatility of appetite and pricing of tax equity investments will not affect this
Project, which significantly reduces the overall financing execution risk.
12.5.3 Financial Advisor

have been retained to provide financial advising for this
Project. , is one of the four largest public accounting
firms in the world, while is one of the largest accounting, tax, and business
advisory firms in the with over 2,400 professionals worldwide.
12.5.4 Environmental Consultant

is contracted to provide environmental consulting services for the Project.
is responsible for drafting and coordinating the completion of a full and compliant
COP for submission to BOEM. In addition to the COP, is responsible for the
delivery of a COP Survey Plan, including execution of site characterization surveys or sub-
contracting surveys and providing project management for sub-consultants. will
also support receipt of other federal, state, and local approvals required for construction and
operation of the Project. is a leading provider of consulting and engineering
services, with over 16,000 associates supporting government and commercial clients

worldwide with innovative solutions focused on water, environment, infrastructure, resource

management, energy, and international development.
12.5.5 Facility Operator and Manager

Bay State Wind will be the lead Facility Operator and Manager.
12.5.6 Owner’s Engineer

Supplementing Ørsted and Eversource’s robust internal resources, has
been retained as the Owner’s Engineer of record for this Project. is
headquartered in and is one of the largest and most experienced engineering firms in
the country, specializing in construction/commissioning support for power generation,
transmission and distribution, buildings, and central heating/chiller plants; as well as
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and technology services engineering.
12.5.7 Transmission Consultant

has been retained to provide consulting services. is a
leading industry provider of Power System Studies in the Northeast, with over 50
professionals providing system planning, engineering studies, and engineering and design
services.
12.5.8 Legal Counsel

The primary in-house legal counsel advising Ørsted and Eversource in connection with this
proposal are, respectively, . External legal counsel is being
provided by
12.6 Bidder’s ISO-NE Market Experience

Provide details of bidder’s experience in ISO-NE Markets. With regard to bidder’s experience with ISO-
NE markets, please indicate the entity that will assume the duties of Lead Market Participant for your
Project. Please provide a summary of the proposed Lead Market Participant’s experience with each of
the ISO-NE markets.
The Owners will designate a Lead Market Participant for Bay State Wind in accordance with
the ISO-NE asset registration requirements. The Lead Market Participant will be able to draw
on Eversource’s history of comprehensive involvement in ISO-NE.
Eversource has been a member of ISO-NE and its predecessor since inception. Relevant staff
experience includes:
 Extensive participation in the ISO-NE market, technical and planning committees,
tasked with establishing and overseeing the development and maintenance of
market rules.
 Experience operating renewable and conventional generation including participation
in the day ahead and real time markets for energy, in addition to the markets for
capacity, regulation, forward reserve, voltage support and financial transmission
rights.
 Provision of last resort wholesale power service in New Hampshire, Connecticut and
Massachusetts, including daily coordination with ISO-NE on load forecasting,

generation bidding and scheduling and oversight of power supply agreements in the
states.
 Significant experience in the fuel supply markets and an intimate understanding of
the reliability impacts to the power market.
Eversource has been a member of NEPOOL and NPCC since inception and participates in
these organizations on a regular basis. Eversource maintains policies and procedures and
executes activities in a manner that ensures all market activities comply with ISO-NE, FERC
and NERC/NPCC requirements.

Section 13
Emissions
Offshore wind is a renewable energy source
that will deliver large quantities of reliable
clean energy to the Commonwealth helping
it achieve its ambitious Global Warming
Solutions Act goals.
The Project would generate enough energy
to meet the annual electricity demands of
Massachusetts residences.
The Project would abate approximately
of emissions, which
is equivalent to a contribution of about
% of the Commonwealth’s required
Global Warming Solutions Act emissions
reductions.
short tons of
greenhouse gas emissions
Approximately would be abated
Equivalent cars from

to removing the road
Rødsand 1+2 Offshore Wind Farm

Section 13 Emissions
13. EMISSIONS
In this section, the Bidder highlights our unprecedented clean energy leadership as well as
the emissions impact of the Project.
Ørsted has made a commitment to going 100 percent renewable, and already today 85
percent of our capital is deployed towards green energy solutions in wind, biofuels, storage
and customer solutions. Ørsted recently changed its name from DONG Energy (Danish Oil
and Natural Gas) because this legacy name no longer reflects the Company since it has
reduced our carbon footprint by more than 50 percent in the span of a decade.
Similarly, Eversource is focused on being a catalyst for clean energy development in New
England. It allocates 7 percent of its annual revenues—or more than $500 million annually—
to energy efficiency programs for its nearly 4 million customers. Its energy efficiency
programs have been consistently ranked #1 in the country. It is well under way in building 70
megawatts of solar energy in Massachusetts and divesting its remaining fossil fueled
generation. Eversource has spent approximately $6 billion over the past 12 years to
strengthen New England's high voltage electric grid to improve reliability and resiliency and to
better allow new efficient and less emitting power to reach the region's customers.
The Bay State Wind Project is consistent with the Owners’ commitment to transitioning to a
clean energy future and will make a significant contribution towards the Commonwealth’s
ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals.
13.1 Emissions Estimates

13.1 Provide emissions estimates based on available data from the unit manufacturer. Alternatively,
provide actual emissions data determined in accordance with the paragraph above for a similar
facility built within the past 3 years. Include copies of supporting documentation for all
emissions estimates.
The operation of WTGs does not generate greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, emissions
data is not applicable (Table 13.1).
Table 13.1 Project Anticipated Emissions, expressed in pounds/megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh)

305B
Greenhouse
Gases
(all except
methane)
Expressed as
Carbon
Date of Dioxide Nitrogen Sulfur Carbon Particulate
Source of Test (if equivalent Oxide Oxide Monoxide Matter Methane
Information applicable) (CO2e) (NOx) (Sox) (CO) (PM 2.5) (CH4)
N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note:
Assumed to relate solely to the operation of WTGs. Additional information available upon request if necessary.

13.2 Improvements to the Emissions Profile

13.2 Describe any past investments that will, or have been made to your facility to improve its
emissions profile or any planned future investments made to your facility in order to improve its
emissions profile.
Not applicable.
13.3 Contribution to Massachusetts 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act and

the 2010 Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020
13.3 Describe how your project will contribute to the Massachusetts 2008 Global Warming Solutions
Act (GWSA) and the 2010 Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, updated in 2015. Describe
how your project will contribute to the Commonwealth’s 2030, 2040 and 2050 GHG emission
targets and any benefits associated with an earlier operational date.
The Massachusetts 2008 GWSA requires that

reductions from all sectors of the Benefits of Displacing Fossil Generation in
Massachusetts economy should achieve a 25 New England
percent reduction in greenhouse gas million short tons per year is the equivalent
emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent of removing cars from the roads21
reduction by 2050 as compared to 1990
levels.
The Project would represent the addition of a significant new large-scale, clean energy
resource to meet regional power demands, and enough generation to meet the needs of
Massachusetts residences22. As detailed in the 2015 Update of the Clean Energy
and Climate Plan for 202023, additional clean electricity is one of the two most significant
drivers for continued reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and achievement of
Massachusetts’ GWSA goals.
A 400-MW injection of clean energy at Brayton Point will displace significant fossil generation
in the ISO-NE system. Using monthly marginal emissions rates provided by ISO-NE,24 LAI
estimated that the Project would abate million short tons of greenhouse gas
emissions over the course of the 20-year study period. This is equivalent to percent of the
Commonwealth’s required GWSA emission reductions for 2020 to 2030, 2030 to 2040, and
2040 to 2050.25
The estimate of carbon reductions is calculated using the marginal emissions rates found in
the 2015 ISO New England Generator Air Emissions Report26. ISO-NE calculates a weighted
marginal emissions rate which includes all Locational Marginal Units over the course of the
year. LAI multiplied the monthly marginal emissions rates by output in order to estimate
avoided emissions.
21 Based on EPA figures for typical passenger vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide per year.
22 Based on Project production forecast and 2016 EIA data for Massachusetts’ residential energy use.
23 http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cecp-for-2020.pdf
24 https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/01/2015_emissions_report.pdf, Table 9 in the Appendix.
25 To arrive at reduction targets for 2030 and 2040, the Bidder has made a linear reduction from the 2020 (25 percent)
target and 2050 (80 percent) target. This yield a reduction target for 2030 of 43 percent and 62 percent for 2040.
26 https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/01/2015_emissions_report.pdf

Given the cumulative effects of carbon emissions, the Bidder understands and supports the
Commonwealth’s desire to achieve the earliest possible reductions as a down-payment
towards the Commonwealth’s commendable long-term targets under the GWSA. As noted in
Section 9, the Bidder believes it has put forth the most realistic and defensible operational
date for the Project given critical path items, including but not limited to securing approval of
the COP from BOEM. This factor, taken together with the Bidder’s collective experience and
financial and technical capability, should inspire confidence that these promised carbon
reductions will be realized at the earliest opportunity.

Section 14
Contribution to Employment
and Economic Development and
Other Direct and Indirect Benefits
The Project will result in over $400 million in total net economic
The Project will generate more than 850 jobs during construction.
The Bidder will across
Massachusetts through its extensive supply chain network.
The Bidder has entered into a major agreement with four of
Massachusetts’ leading Community Action Agencies to lessen
the overall energy burden to low income customers. The
Bidder will contribute a total of $8.7 million to support two of the
Commonwealth’s cornerstone programs – the Low Income Heating
Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Through a partnership with the Massachusetts Maritime Academy,
training and
.
The Project opened an ,
and Ørsted established its North American headquarters in
Boston, Massachusetts.
Eversource is a Boston based Fortune 500 Company strongly
supportive of the clean energy and community goals of the
Commonwealth.
JOB CREATION FINANCIAL INVESTMENT / CONTRIBUTION
7,939 Indirect
jobs
$
300M+ Total
investment
850 $
1.16B
Development
and Contribution
Construction Operational to gross state Gode Wind
Phase (Annual): Phase: product Project
Contribution to Employment and Economic Development
Section 14
and Other Direct and Indirect Benefits
14. CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER

DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS
In this section, the Bidder discusses the anticipated economic development and other direct
and indirect benefits for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts broadly and for the
communities within close proximity to the Project specifically. Given Ørsted’s significant
history of wind development in Europe, the Bidder anticipates positive impacts that would
mirror what has been achieved in countries like the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. The
Bidder’s aim is to replicate in New Bedford and the South Coast region more generally the
economic revitalization that has been seen in several regions of the UK following the
development of large-scale windfarms.
For the Bidder, the task at hand is not simply to build a project – it is no less an ambition
than building a U.S.-based offshore wind industry, with the first significant supply chain
investments made in Massachusetts. Bay State Wind aims to deliver on the promise of high
skilled, high paying jobs that is part and parcel of building this new U.S.-based industry with a
multitude of local suppliers. And the Bidder is uniquely positioned to do just that. Our strong
vendor relationships, built in some cases on a book of business going back 20 or more years,
gives us the credibility to get our suppliers to buy into our vision of a vibrant and sustainable
U.S. market - and to make concrete investment decisions on that basis. As shown in Figure
2.3, while much of this activity is naturally concentrated along Massachusetts’ coastal
communities, the opportunity to tap into the Commonwealth’s solid base of advanced
manufacturing and high-tech service industries enables us to also involve inland
communities statewide in this green industry.
The following sections highlight the tangible and quantifiable benefits realized through
implementation of the major elements of our economic development strategy. This strategy
encompasses the following major elements:
 Construction jobs. Bay State Wind will maximize the use of local labor and integration
into the overall construction phase. Recognizing that some offshore tasks are highly
specialized, there are nevertheless many work elements that can be supported by
the local labor pool. (Section 14.1)
 Operation and maintenance jobs. These roles are more permanent and necessary to
support the safe and efficient operation of the asset over its useful life. (Section
14.1)
 Indirect benefit creation. Bay State Wind’s significant expenditure within the local
Massachusetts economy to build and operate this significant new infrastructure
project will have major “ripple effects” in terms of additional jobs, local tax revenue,
and gross state product. (Section 14.2)
 Ports/harbors strategy. Bay State Wind intends to use the New Bedford Marine
Commerce Terminal as its construction base, to use another facility in
as its construction-management and eventual O&M base, and to use
for foundation manufacturing activity. (Section 10)
 Made in Massachusetts. The Bidder has actively pursued opportunities to recruit
Massachusetts-based advanced manufacturing and service providers in service of
the U.S.’s first large-scale offshore wind farm. Moreover, the Bay State Wind team

Section 14
has leveraged our unrivaled buying power to secure commitments from global
industry leaders to establish significant new manufacturing facilities in
Massachusetts. Our success in identifying suitable vendors – and commitment to
build on this foundation going forward - is documented in this Bid. (Section 8)
 Vessels strategy. The Bidder has obtained letters of support from several vessel
owners for construction of Jones Act-compliant heavy lift installation and
transportation vessels. Furthermore, the Bidder has made finding a solution to the
Jones Act a top priority, as it will unlock significant cost savings and the greater
utilization of local harbor facilities. (Section 9)
 Re-use of onshore properties. The Bidder has secured site control for the
construction and operation of Project components, contributing to the local tax base.
(Section 6)
 Workforce development. The Bidder is making a substantial commitment to
Massachusetts’ institutions of higher learning to support training programs for
offshore activities. (Section 14.3)
As demonstrated by Ørsted’s 25+ years of development experience in Europe, the Bidder will
implement a strategy to ensure that Massachusetts realizes the full range of economic
benefits, similar to that which has been achieved in countries like the UK, Netherlands, and
Germany (see UK Humber Region Case Study).
Ørsted’s Offshore Wind Development Brings Economic Revitalization

In recent decades the UK’s Humber region has faced significant challenges due to the loss of manufacturing and the decline
of its once burgeoning fisheries industry. This economic decline has led to persistently high unemployment rates, low skill
levels and limited population growth. However, in the past years the offshore wind industry has become a strong growth
engine for the Humber region’s economy, with the region’s local business council, the Humber LEP, describing it as the
number one economic opportunity for the area. Ørsted has played a key role in this economic rejuvenation providing an
average of 1,600 direct jobs per year in the Humber region between 2015-2020 (with up to 2,700 jobs in some years),
hundreds of long-term O&M jobs, and has catalyzed the development and growth of a local supply chain, helping to
reestablish manufacturing companies in the region.
“The region […] looks at growing the local economy by £216m annually and creating over 5,000 jobs, whilst also building upon
the great maritime tradition of the area. Despite many false dawns
[Grimsby’s] new vision is built on its increasing attractiveness to companies
looking to research, develop and deliver clean sources of energy such as
DONG Energy [Ørsted].”
Full story here at Lincolnshire Today
When offshore wind developers are committed to the communities where
they operate, like Ørsted is, they can have a strong revitalizing impact on a
region’s economy.
“Generating electricity for thousands of people, companies like Dong Energy [Ørsted], Centrica and E-on have plunged billions
of pounds into building the North Sea wind farms […] to reshape Grimsby’s industrial landscape. The huge shift for Grimsby to
now being a base for huge international firms […] was not necessarily a smooth one, with the town’s decline following the
collapse of the fishing industry well documented.”
Full story here at the Grimsby Telegraph

Section 14
14.1 Direct Job Creation

14.1 Please provide an estimate of the number of jobs to be created directly during project
development and construction, and during operations, and a general description of the types of
jobs created, estimated annual compensation, the employer(s) for such jobs, and the location.
Please treat the development, construction, and operation and maintenance periods separately
in your response.
In the Preferred Option27, a number of

activities will be placed in Massachusetts in
order to deliver the highest number of
Massachusetts jobs possible, without
compromising on the electricity price offered
to the ratepayers. The total number of full
time employees, expressed in full time job-
years is approximately 850 direct jobs during
development and construction. These figures
should be considered as extremely
conservative, in that they represent the local
content potential identified as of the date of
bid submission. The Bidder will continue to
explore additional opportunities for local
supply chain development as it moves forward
with the Project.
14.1.1 Development
Development of the Project will create
approximately 125 full time job-years, such as
engineers, environmental, financial, and other
professional roles, each with annual Total
Employer Compensation of $123,000
according to Mercer (2016)28 (Category PC
52, Professionals).
14.1.2 Construction
During project construction, an estimated 850
full time job-years will be created, filling roles
such as steel workers, welders, electrical
27 As defined in Section 8, the Preferred Option represents our current view of the most advantageous solution for this
project, based upon the Bidder’s deep understanding of the state of the supply market and technical experience.
28 Source: Mercer report, Total Employment Costs Around the World, 2016.

Section 14
workers and wind technicians29. Below are
listed locations and estimated Total Employer
Compensations, taken as an average across
various job categories and levels of
experience:
 : OnSS, onshore export
cable, battery storage. $80,000/year
 TP outfitting,
$90,000/year
 WTG pre-assembly, WTG
installation, foundation installation,
$70,000/year
An additional 75 professional jobs such as
engineers, business specialists and EHS
specialists will be employed in the
construction management functions, each
with annual Total Employment Cost of
$123,000 according to Mercer (2016)22
(Category PC 52, Professionals). These
activities will take place in
and other locations across the
Commonwealth.
14.1.3 Operations
Project O&M will create around long-term jobs, taking into account internal employees
and subcontractors.
These jobs will be located in Massachusetts.
14.2 Indirect Job Creation

14.2 Please provide the same information as provided in response to question 14.1 above but with
respect to jobs that would be indirectly created as a result of the proposed project.
Bay State Wind contracted with Boston-based energy economic consultant Levitan and
Associates, Inc. or LAI to perform a comprehensive analysis of economic benefits to the
Commonwealth (Attachment 14-1). Based on the analysis in the LAI report in Attachment 14-
1, “indirect” jobs creation is broadly interpreted to include both supply-chain jobs and other
new jobs created from multiple rounds of business, household, and government spending as
a result of the Project’s investment in the Commonwealth. The LAI report provides the
breakout of both drivers of indirect job creation, inter-industry spending effects and
additional household spending.
29 Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, as cited in Attachment 14-1.

Section 14
The Project is expected to create a total of 7,939 full-time-equivalent (FTE) job-years in
Massachusetts of indirect employment30 over the study period beginning in 2018 with
further development activities and extending through construction and the initial 25-year
operating period. Indirect job creation results associated with the development, construction,
and operations phases are shown below in Table 14.1. The complete details of the analysis
and results are provided in the LAI report.
Table 14.1 Jobs Created by Indirect Employment Effects

306B
(FTE-years)
Development Construction Operations Total
Indirect II Effect 48 2,269 5,622 7,939
Indirect Effect 25 1,103 3,365 4,493
Induced Effect 23 1,166 2,258 3,446
Unlike with direct job creation, it is not possible to identify the names of employers and
locations for the much more diffuse supply-chain and multiplier effects of indirect job
creation, as discussed in the LAI report. The LAI analysis expects that much of the locational
impacts will occur in and around New Bedford, which will be the hub of activities during both
the construction and operations phases. A second center of indirect job creation will be in
the Boston metro area, the hub of development activities and where TP outfitting, and
manufacture of TP, OSS, and battery storage components will be done. This job creation will
then promote economic development across an array of other industries in the
Commonwealth.
The average annual compensation of workers that benefit from indirect job creation is shown
in Table 14.2 below in comparison to Massachusetts average compensation. This
information is also from the LAI report, which provides details of the data sources.
Table 14.2 Average Labor Income of Indirect Employment Effects

307B
(2017 $000 / FTE-year)

Indirect II Effect 46.8 80.7 66.5 70.5
Indirect Effect 36.6 104.5 72.1 79.9
Induced Effect 58.3 58.2 58.3 58.3
14.3 Economic Development Impacts

14.3 Please describe any other economic development impacts (either positive or negative) that
could result from the proposed project, such as creating property tax revenues, creating lease
revenues to public and private parties, or purchasing capital equipment, materials or services
for local businesses. Please provide the location(s) where these economic development benefits
are expected to occur.
The Project will inject significant new direct investment into the Massachusetts economy. By
our estimate, the total local (MA) capital (CAPEX) and 25-year operational (OPEX) Project
30 The following figures include both indirect and induced job effects. Indirect effects reflect the changes in inter-industry
purchases in response to the new demands of the directly affected industry (industries). Induced effects reflect the
changes in household purchases of goods and services out of the additional income of employees and proprietors that is
created by the changes in direct and indirect expenditures. Indirect II is simply the sum of the indirect and induced effects.

Section 14
expenditures will exceed There are numerous local economic touchpoints
where the Project will create significant positive impacts, amplified throughout the entire
Massachusetts economy. In addition to the direct and indirect jobs identified in Sections
14.1 and 14.2, the Project will provide multiple other benefit streams. These include, but are
not limited to:
 Use of as the staging area for construction, and the O&M base over the
life of the asset. This will require the Bidder to make lease payments and fees
totaling over $20 million, excluding expected annual property tax payments to the
City of . The Preferred Option includes WTG pre-assembly and long-term
O&M based in though the exact use of this site is to be determined.
 Entering into an exclusive arrangement with one of Europe’s top steel
manufacturers and suppliers of , to set up operations in
Massachusetts (see Attachment 8-2). As of this Bid, the Bidder, and its supplier
are actively pursuing the leasing of a site for the ,
resulting in 125 construction job-years. In addition, WTG tower manufacturer
t the former Brayton Point Generating Station site,

which is expected to add 150-200 jobs when the plant is operating at full capacity.
This comes in addition to the direct and indirect jobs assessed in this section, since
the commitment was made after calculations were completed.
 Working to support the construction of two Jones Act-
compliant installation and transportation vessels in the U.S. This will have profound
consequences for Massachusetts’ ambitions to establish its preeminent position in
the offshore wind supply chain and for the U.S. market more generally. As evidenced
by this Bid, the deployment of a U.S.-built, flagged and operated vessel will enable
the greater use of Massachusetts’ ports and harbors. It will also facilitate cost
savings in project development by avoiding the “workarounds” heretofore required to
meet the strictures of the Jones Act.
 Cable landing and OnSS development at Massachusetts. This site will
serve multiple purposes - it will enable the Bidder to make landfall of the export
cable, facilitate development of the OnSS, and support deployment of the battery
storage solution. In addition, it will repurpose the existing transmission infrastructure.
Use of the site will create local construction jobs while contributing to the local
property tax base as an offset resulting from the
 Shortlisting several advanced manufacturing firms with significant operations within
Massachusetts, including:
̶ for the manufacture of components to be used
in the OSS and the TPs;
̶ for the construction and deployment of the
Project’s battery storage system; and
̶ for manufacture of
Other Massachusetts suppliers also under consideration for
this scope.
 Entering into a MOU with the Massachusetts Maritime Academy to provide long-term
financial support for this state university focused on careers in the worldwide

Section 14
maritime economy. Initial funding will support the offering academic scholarships
from students from under-represented Gateway Cities across the state. Subject to bid
award, future funding will support such initiatives as the development and offering of
GWO certified training, which is mandatory for all workers going offshore or working
at heights. In this way, the Bidder hopes to empower the next generation of students
to be a part of the emerging offshore wind industry.
 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Bristol Community College “I am enthusiastic about the opportunities
(BCC) to begin in December 2017. presented by the Bay State Wind project to
The purpose of this MOU is for the spur new economic activity in and around
Bidder and BCC to work New Bedford.”
collaboratively together in the
development of a wind energy Bruce Morell, Executive Director, People
educational component at the college. Acting in Community Endeavors, Inc.
The MOU includes:
̶ Participating in the BCC “Women in STEM” series
̶ Serving on the BCC STEM advisory board
̶ Participating in BCC’s K-12 initiative to train middle school and high school science teachers
on developing an offshore wind energy curriculum
̶ Hosting BCC student interns
̶ Serving as a guest lecturer in BCC’s offshore wind courses
 Exploring a collaboration with BCC and other industry stakeholders to develop an
offshore wind training center in New Bedford, Massachusetts. In addition, the MOU
contains a pledge of $1 million contingent upon a PPA to use for various initiatives
such as; scholarships, classroom needs, training programs, infrastructure projects as
they relate to a new campus location.
The local economic impacts analysis conducted by LAI, described in Section 14.2 for indirect
employment effects, also provides estimates of additional state and local income tax
revenue and gross state product impacts, the later measured as economic value-added
within Massachusetts. Total additional state and local income tax revenue contribution
effects of the economic growth stimulated by the Project are shown by phase and total in
Table 14.3. That table also projects the Massachusetts state government 27 percent share
of BOEM site lease payments, based on expected COD, energy output and MA Hub energy
prices. Total additional gross state product impacts of the Project by phase and total are
shown in Table 14.4.
Table 14.3 State and Local Tax Revenue Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects
308B
(2017 $ million)
State and Local Tax Receipts 0.4 26.2 47.5 74.2
BOEM Lease Revenue 0.3 0.4 12.9 13.6
Total Revenue 0.7 26.6 60.4 87.8

Section 14
Table 14.4 Gross State Product Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects
309B
(2017 $ million)
Direct Effect 3.3 121.9 287.6 412.8
Indirect II Effect 4.4 292.0 454.4 750.8
Indirect Effect 2.3 183.2 243.7 429.1
Induced Effect 2.1 108.8 210.7 321.6
Total Effects 7.7 413.9 742.1 1,163.6
14.4 Tracking or Reporting Mechanisms Contributing to Employment and

Economic Development
14.4 Please describe any tracking or reporting mechanisms, such as an annual report(s) of
milestones achieved and jobs created, to verify the contributions to employment and economic
development identified in 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.
In order to measure success in relation to the economic development estimates made in

Sections 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3 above, the Bidder proposes to implement a set of tracking
and reporting mechanisms that are administratively simple, transparent, and objective.
The Bidder will commit to tracking its Massachusetts direct employment and its
Massachusetts-sourced subcontractor and materials/services expenses as the basis for
updates of other direct, indirect, and induced employment creation benefits through the
second year of operation at full capacity. Because subcontractors and suppliers of goods and
services typically will not or cannot readily provide information on the employment effects of
their sales, the Bidder will apply the direct, indirect, and induced employment parameters
used in the IMPLAN model developed by LAI to actual local expenditures to derive estimated
non-Project local employment impacts. The cutoff of ending tracking after the second year of
operation at full capacity is because a steady-state will be achieved by that milestone. The
second, rather than the first year, is selected in case there are unusual expenses during the
first year or modification of the O&M plan based on initial experience.
Due to the different degrees of certainty for different job creation drivers, the Bidder will
provide a breakdown of the calculated FTE job impacts by category. In order from most to
least certain, they are:
 Direct Project employees;
 Project allocation of a portion of Massachusetts back-office and Boston-based
management employees;
 Estimates of other direct on-site employment during development, construction, and
operations;
 Estimates of indirect (supply chain) Massachusetts job creation; and
 Estimates of induced (income re-spending) Massachusetts job creation.
The Bidder will also maintain a list of local supplier establishments and the types of goods or
services they provide to the Project.

Section 14
The Bidder will commit to providing annual reports to DOER and/or MassCEC with narratives
on milestones achieved, jobs created, supply-chain procurement from Massachusetts
business establishments, and other economic development efforts and expenditures. Other
economic development efforts and expenditures will be reported in two categories,
commitments, and possible future efforts.
Other economic development commitments that will be reported on annually include:
 Property tax payments to for the OnSS and battery energy
storage facility;
 Lease payments to MassCEC for the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal,
and any local property taxes to the City of New Bedford;
 Lease payments and property tax payments to the for
activity at
 Contributions to local non-profit organizations via a Bay State Wind Community
Benefit Fund, once established and total ad hoc contributions and recipients until the
fund is established;
 Total annual contributions to Massachusetts Maritime Academy and how funds are
utilized (e.g., scholarships, GWO technician training);
 Total annual contributions to the New Bedford Wind Energy Center; and
 Total annual payments under the Low Income Ratepayer Fund established by the
Bidder and their allocation between LIHEAP and WAP.
As the Bidder gains traction in the Massachusetts economy and develops additional offshore
wind farms in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or elsewhere along the Atlantic seaboard, other
economic development activities, some of which may be in partnership with the MassCEC or
other organizations, will undoubtedly arise. The annual reports will also describe those sole
and joint efforts and participation by the Bidder.
Beyond reporting directly to the DOER, subject to appropriate protection of proprietary and
confidential information, the Bidder will commit to cooperate with the MassCEC by providing
short and/or long census form information for its annual MassCEC Industry Report, or for any
special offshore wind reports it sponsors.
Finally, the Bidder will post progress towards major milestones on the Bay State Wind
website as news becomes available, in the form of press releases and articles.
14.5 Benefits or Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project

14.5 To the extent not already specified elsewhere in your response, please address the factors
listed in Section 2.2.2.7 and describe any benefits or impacts associated with the proposed
project.
Given the context of this question, the Bidder assumes the reference to 2.2.2.7, above, was
intended to read 2.2.2.8 and the Evaluation Team is seeking to elicit any additional
information regarding potential local job and economic development benefits of the project
not previously covered in this section.

Section 14
In addition to what is included in Sections 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3, the Bidder has documented
in this section and elsewhere in this bid the breadth and depth of our local supply chain
development plan. The map depicted in Section 2.4.8 presents a snapshot of the many
areas of the Commonwealth directly touched by the Project – either as active port staging
areas during the construction or O&M phases of the Project; sites where the Bidder will
contribute to the local tax base given our project footprint; or those local communities and
businesses from which Bay State Wind will source the equipment and skills that will be
needed to build and service this utility-scale power plant over its useful life.
An additional point to underscore here is that the Bidder has deliberately taken a
conservative approach in ascribing jobs and local economic development activity to the
project. That is, the Bidder has only “counted” those local content commitments where there
is a high degree of confidence based on the current status of vendor negotiations. However,
this is not a static process and throughout the development phase Bay State Wind will make
a concerted ongoing effort to procure from those local vendors identified in Attachment 8-1
who are capable of meeting our rigorous standards for quality and cost-effectiveness. As
noted in Section 8.2.1, our “multi-contract” approach facilitates local suppliers getting
involved in scopes of gradually greater complexity and dollar value as their capacity for doing
this work increases.
The same should be said of local labor. Post-award, our intention is to continue to engage
with the many trade organizations with whom Bay State Wind has established relationships
to identify areas where the members of these organizations can play a constructive role in
the emerging offshore wind industry and, where appropriate, pursue PLAs to formalize these
understandings. The Bidder will consult with the trades to identify skill gaps and consider
approaches for closing those gaps, for example by expanding our support for training offered
by the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and the New Bedford Wind Energy Center. Lastly,
the Bidder will give preference to local suppliers who are in good standing with the local
trades in our sourcing and will encourage our major equipment vendors who require
specialized workers to support local training efforts.
Please see Appendix B of the LAI report (Attachment 14-1) for a description of expenditures
by phases (development, construction, operation) and by industry.
14.6 Benefits to Low-Income Ratepayers in the Commonwealth and Impacts

on the Cost to the Project
14.6 Please demonstrate any benefits to low-income ratepayers in the Commonwealth, and the
impact, if any, those benefits will have on the cost to the project.
Beginning in January 2017, the Bidder met with representatives of the NCLC, one the
nation’s preeminent low-income consumer advocacy organizations, and representatives of
the Massachusetts LEAN, an association of nonprofit agencies that coordinate the delivery of
government and utility-funded energy efficiency services to low-income customers
throughout Massachusetts. The purpose of this dialogue was to explore ways in which the
Bidder, as a wholesale generator without a direct relationship with retail customers, could
achieve the Energy Diversity Act’s goal of providing benefits to Massachusetts’ low income
ratepayers in the most cost-effective and impactful way possible. These discussions

Section 14
culminated in a MOU with ABCD and Action,
two of the leading Community Action Agencies “Over the course of the twenty year
(Attachment 14-2). Separate agreements agreement, the amount pledged by BSW
were reached with New Bedford-based People would help serve the home energy needs of
Acting in Community Endeavors, Inc. and tens of thousands of households.”
Plymouth-based South Shore Community
John Wells, ABCD and Elliott Jacobson,
Action Council (SSCAC) (Attachment 14-2). Action Inc.
Under these agreements, the Bidder has
pledged up to $17.55 million31 in financial support for two of the Commonwealth’s bedrock
programs in addressing energy affordability - the WAP and the LIHEAP. Upon award of a PPA
to the Bidder, these outlays will be made annually over the period of project development
and construction and ensuing a 20-year PPA term.
In summary, the key elements of the framework agreement comprise the following:
Program support. The Bidder support will work synergistically to help meet the energy
affordability need in the Commonwealth. Support for WAP will promote energy affordability
over the long-term through measures that provide long-term energy savings; while LIHEAP
will provide short-term assistance to those attempting to manage arrearages in their energy
bills.
 WAP. This federally- and utility-funded program supports the delivery of a range of
improvements to the energy performance of dwellings of low-income families. Local,
certified and insured weatherization contractors are hired to complete the work.
Scope of services can include: air sealing, attic and/or sidewall insulation, weather
stripping and minor repairs. Pursuing these investments enables low-income families
to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient,
comfortable, healthier and safer. Further, these investments have proven societal
benefits, including reduction in GHG and boosting job growth in Massachusetts’
emerging “green energy” sector. Despite its great success, WAP has only reached
approximately 20 percent of low income households, and is perennially at risk of
budget cuts. The Bidder’s contribution is intended to help augment, diversify and
stabilize the delivery of this important program.
 LIHEAP. Created in 1981, this is a federal program that assists eligible low-income
households in partial payment of their winter heating bills. The program is overseen
by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and funded by
grants appropriated from the federal government. LIHEAP has provided significant
financial assistance to thousands of low-income households throughout the
Commonwealth. According to Charles Harak of the National Consumer Law Center,
LIHEAP serves about 160,000 households annually, much less than the total eligible
population. In 2016, LIHEAP received $148 million from the federal government, but
the expectation is significantly less for 2017, i.e., $130 million. Therefore, as with
WAP, the leveraging of the Bidder’s funding would represent a small but integral
component of the Massachusetts’ LIHEAP program’s current concern value – simply
put, every dollar counts.
Funding. Payments will be made on an annual basis. Actual funding will be based on the MW
capacity award by the EDCs. Two funding tiers are contemplated – one covering the period
31 Payments are scaled on a $/MW basis, with an 800-MW project representing the high end of the range.

Section 14
between PPA award and Commercial Operation; and the second tier consisting of the 20-year
PPA period.
Fund Scope and Management. One of the key features of the framework agreement is that it
leverages the highly successful low income program delivery infrastructure in the
Commonwealth and ensures that low income customers within all communities statewide
can participate. Funding will be made to each of the state’s lead vendors, who in turn will
distribute monies received to local Energy Assistance Agencies and vendors in accordance
with a formula-rate set by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Fund Impact. The low-income fund is expected to significantly extend the reach of programs
intended to lessen the energy burden on low income households.
 Assuming 100 percent of funding was allocated to fuel assistance payments, it would
fully serve the needs of approximately 500 households;
 If the funds were instead used to increase payments to households already
determined to be LIHEAP eligible, this funding would provide $100 in additional
assistance to 2,500 households in the first year of the program and 5,000
households in the 20th year;
 Alternatively, the fund will cover whole building insulation and related energy
efficiency measures for 1,000 to 2,000 households statewide.
Ratepayer impact. The Bidder is holding ratepayers harmless for the cost of the program. The
amount contributed to the low-income fund is a lump sum annual amount independent of
the PPA price, facility production, or revenues received. Additionally, the Bidder has lowered
its return expectations to account for the cost of the program.

Section 15
Additional Information
Required for Transmission
Projects
The Bidder explored alternatives to develop the
optimal Expandable Transmission Network solution to
interconnect up to 1,600 MW of nameplate offshore wind
energy generation capacity and determined that the best
option for the Commonwealth is the Solution.
The Expandable Transmission Network solution
will to ensure facilities are
constructed and paid for only when and where
needed.
Design features
offer prudent redundancy and reliability
benefits.
The expected operating life for the Phase I
transmission system is .
The Bidder will use state-of-the-art
transmission technology to minimize line losses to
the maximum extent possible.
Bay State Wind has secured
for its onshore substation site.
Interconnection requests submitted to ISO-New
England for full 1,600 MW of nameplate capacity.

Gode Wind Project

Section 15 Additional Information Required for Transmission Projects
15. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS (AND

ALL SYSTEM UPGRADES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS)
In this section, the Bidder presents additional information with respect to the proposed
transmission components of the Project, as required in Section 2.2.1.3 of the RFP. Based on
our evaluation of several alternatives, the Bidder has determined that a modular solution
would be the best approach to the ETS option, given the uncertainties surrounding the size
and location of future offshore wind development. The ETS proposed by the Bidder
interconnects at two separate POIs. This approach allows for an optimized modular design
and improves the overall reliability and performance of the ISO-NE transmission system.
15.0 Alternatives Analysis

15.0.1 RFP Requirements for Expandable Transmission System (ETS)
Section 1.1 of the RFP requires that proposals include, “expandable, nondiscriminatory,
open-access offshore transmission facilities for the efficient delivery of their power to the
Onshore Transmission System.” Section 2.2.1.3.2 of the RFP further establishes certain
requirements that offshore transmission facilities must meet. These requirements are
summarized below.
Offshore transmission facilities must:
 include excess capacity, or be cost-efficiently expandable, to interconnect up to
1,600 MW of nameplate offshore wind energy generation capacity;
 provide nondiscriminatory access to Offshore Wind Energy Generators, must be
available to all future bidders, and must reasonable avoid any advantage or
preference toward any offshore wind generator (including itself);
 accommodate existing/currently planned offshore Wind Energy Generation;
 to the extent possible, be designed to be expandable;
 minimize overall costs while maximizing benefits to the ratepayers, including the
minimization of environmental impacts and the risk of stranded cost;
 be capable of delivering energy into the ISO-NE PTF system;
 must propose a OATT, Rate Schedule, or other Tariff consistent with terms provided
in Appendix C-3 (see Section 17); and,
 note that required Payment/Pricing information is provided below, consistent with
the requirements of Appendix B (see Section 17).
The Bidder has considered each of these requirements carefully in the development of its
ETS solution. The Bidder considered numerous solutions/concepts and conducted an
alternatives analysis to determine which solution best meets the criteria established by the
EDCs. The following sections describe the process, and provide the comparative results of
the three (3) alternatives given most serious consideration. The recommended “Preferred
Alternative” is provided, and this alternative (the “Distributed Solution”) is the subject of the
pricing and proposed Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreement terms provided in this Bid.

15.0.2 Bay State Wind Approach

Based on the requirements of Section 2.2.1.3.2 of the RFP, the Bidder developed and
evaluated several alternative designs for the ETS solution capable of delivering 1,600 MW of
offshore wind generation to the ISO-NE transmission grid, and capable of doing so using a
phased construction build-out/approach.
Upon developing several concepts, the Bidder performed an initial evaluation to verify that
each concept met the minimum requirements. Through this process, the Bidder was able to
narrow these initial concepts to a primary list of three (3) alternatives. These three
alternatives were then subjected to a comparative analysis, using a set of criteria refined
from the requirements described above. These selection criteria, which are further described
below, were developed with the clear objective of facilitating a qualitative evaluation of each
alternative, leading to a clear conclusion and selection of a Preferred Alternative.
The key criteria used by the Bidder in the selection of a preferred ETS network, included:
 Non-Discriminatory Access – A clear objective in the design of the offshore
transmission facilities is ease of access and fairness to current/future offshore lease
holders and wind generators. The Bidder evaluated each of its alternatives to qualify
how well they comply with this objective, including the location of potential future
lease blocks expected to be auctioned by BOEM in 2018.
 Cost to Construct – The Bidder developed indicative cost estimates for the complete
implementation of each alternative, with a higher preference given to the alternative
that represents the lowest cost to construct (i.e., lowest cost to ratepayers). Design
differences between the alternatives highlighted the need to ensure that cost
comparisons could be performed on and apples-to-apples basis. As further discussed
below, some alternatives place a higher burden on offshore generators to build
certain interconnection facilities, and it was critically important to take stock of those
additional costs as part of this analysis, since ALL costs will ultimately be borne by
ratepayers. While some alternatives may defer construction of certain facilities until
later (i.e., subsequent phases of construction), those alternatives are not necessarily
better when assessing the whole.
 Ratepayer Risk – In addition to cost, the Bidder assessed the extent to which each
alternative poses risks to ratepayers. Such risks include the potential for cost
escalation over time (e.g., for phased or deferred construction approaches), and
potential stranding of assets (e.g., if facilities are overbuilt in earlier phases, either
out of necessity or to accommodate award of future offshore wind generation).
 Environmental Effects, and Siting/Permitting Considerations – The Bidder evaluated
each alternative to qualify the likely environmental footprint of each, as well as the
ease or complexity of siting and permitting requirements. Similar to cost,
environmental effects and siting/permitting complexities needed to be considered in
the context of the “whole.” If an alternative inherently requires additional facilities be
construction by wind generators, the environmental impact of those additional
facilities must be factored in as well to ensure an appropriate apples-to-apples
comparison. The same holds for siting/permitting considerations since, in the final
analysis, all offshore facilities (transmission and generation alike) require such
approvals.

 Reliability Benefits – The Bidder evaluated the reliability attributes of each

alternative. In particular, it is important to understand the risks each alternative
presents to offshore generators (e.g., for unplanned outages of the offshore
transmission facilities) and the extent to which design redundancy minimizes such
risk.
15.0.3 Alternatives Developed and Evaluated












15.0.4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
15.0.5 Comparison of Alternatives





15.0.6 Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the assessment described above, the Solution (Alternative 1) is
considered favorable for 4 of the 5 five selection criteria identified. For the fifth criterion,
Environmental Impacts and Siting/Permitting Considerations, Alternative A is considered
slightly better than Alternatives 2 and 3 for environmental effects, but slightly worse for ease
of siting/permitting.
On balance, Alternative 1 ( Solution) is more favorably evaluated against the
selection criteria than Alternative 2 and 3. The matrix provided in Figure 15.4 summarizes
and compiles the three alternatives evaluated against the criteria and supports selection of
the Solution as the Preferred Alternative for the Expandable Transmission
System.


15.1 Transmission Project Information (Expandable Transmission Line)

15.1 Transmission Project Information:
i. Overall project description
As noted above in the alternatives analysis, the Bidder’s proposed ETS network solution is
the Solution. This solution provides for
capable of transmitted a full 1,600 MW of offshore wind
generation. The ETS network would be built in phases, in parallel with the award of offshore
generation contracts by the EDCs.
Recovery of costs associated with the ETS network will be recovered pursuant to a
FERC-jurisdictional Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreement. See Section 17. As set forth in the
Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreement, the ETS network
would be subject to comparable Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreements that would be
executed in connection with future awards of offshore generation. The proposal set forth
herein is applicable only to Phase I.
The following sections described the facilities that the Bidder would construct for Phase 1 of
its ETS. Figure 15.5 illustrates Phase 1 facilities (in yellow) for the Bidder’s 400 MW ETS
case. This is superimposed on the indicative figure used earlier (Figure 15.1).
 OSS/Platform – To collect wind generated power from the Project. As required by the
RFP (at Section 2.2.1.4.ii.a), the Bidder assumes that it would construct, operate and
maintain only OSS foundation and platform, plus equipment on the high side of the
generator transformer(s) on each platform, as part of the ETS network. Remaining
equipment on the platform will be installed as part of Bay State Wind’s facilities. The
equipment on the high side of the generator transformer(s) on each platform will be
made ready for future interlink to future phase of the ETS network.
 Export Cable – submarine cable, sized to be capable of
transmitting of power to an OnSS in Somerset, Massachusetts.
 OnSS –

 Onshore Interconnection to existing Transmission System –

would be installed between the new OnSS and the existing 345-kV Brayton Point
Substation located on the site of the former Brayton Point Generating Station. These
circuits would be located underground within easements to be acquired from Dynegy
(or subsequent owners as may be applicable) and National Grid. The underground
interconnection facilities will be installed in an excavated trench, and will include
multiple single-phase XLPE cables installed within cable conduit, fiber-optics and
related conduits to support communication and controls systems, and will be
backfilled using materials offering appropriate thermal properties.
 Upgrades to Existing Brayton Point Substation – The existing 345-kV Substation at
Brayton would be expanded and modified to accept the underground circuit(s) from
the new OnSS facility. Once terminated, offshore wind generation would enter the
ISO-NE transmission system via existing overhead circuits that exit Brayton Point to
the north.
ii. The operating voltage of the proposed project
For Phase 1, the OSS will collect inter-array cables operating at kV. The OSS will step
voltage up to -kV, and the export cable(s) will then transmit power at kV to the new
proposed Project OnSS, where power will be further stepped up to 345-kV. From the OnSS,
power will be interconnected to the 345-kV Brayton Point Substation where electricity will
enter the transmission system at 345-kV.
iii. The type of structures (such as steel towers, poles or jackets) that would be used for the
proposed project
OSS/Platform
The 400-MW OSS/platform is designed to be installed using a four legged jacket structure
secured the seabed. The final dimensions of the OSS will be determined based on the size of
the generation project awarded by the EDCs. As the jacket structure is also dependent on
water depth and wave and swell exposure; however, indicative dimensions are provided in
Table 15.2.
Table 15.2 OSS Specifications

31B
Specification
Topside steel weight [t]
Topside weight Total [t]
Jacket weight [t]
Water depth [m]
LxBxH [m]
Distance to ONS (export cable length) [km]
Structural Systems
Figure 15.6 provides an illustrative representation of the OSS foundation system the Bidder
proposes for Phase 1.

Figure 15.6 OSS Foundation
Figures 15.7 provide illustrative representations of the topside (where all OSS substation
equipment is housed) structural system under consideration by the Bidder. This structural
system for the topside would be a steel brace column system with architectural walls
(climate shield) that are not load carrying except for the local wind load. The main braces and
columns are tubulars (circular members) whereas members in the decks are wide flange H
profiles. This type of structural system has been used on all previous OSSs with the only
deviation that the walls in some cases also have been load carrying. This method has also
been used at the majority of oil and gas installation in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
Figure 15.7 OSS Topside with Deck Configuration

The reasons for choosing the system are:

 Many fabricators from which to choose, ensuring selection of a proven structural
solution (as well as competitive pricing);
 Allows for parallel fabrication as each deck can be fabricated separately; and,
 Robust system offering the flexibility needed to incorporate changes as design
proceeds and/or if required by permit/siting agencies.
The two lower decks of the top side (cable and cellar deck) will be open decks and the
remaining rooms will in general be closed, climate-controlled rooms with the exception of the
transformer and shunt rooms, which will be naturally ventilated via openings in the walls.
The OSS would be equipped with boat landing, heli deck and service crane.
An example of a typical Ørsted designed topside with a 4-leg jacket substructure, the
Westermost Rough Windfarm located in the UK waters, is provided in Figure 15.8.
Figure 15.8 Typical Ørsted-designed Topside with a 4-leg Jacket (Westermost Rough Windfarm,
United Kingdom)
OnSS
The Bidder proposes to construct an 800-MW OnSS using a gas-insulated substation design.
Figure 15.9 provides an illustrative layout of the OnSS. Equipment and steel foundations are
expected to be of reinforced concreate, and will be of a design suitable for existing soil
condition and coastal storm/flood events. Certain foundations may require pile support,
depending on the outcome of ongoing geotechnical investigations. Actual layout may vary as

well as environmental assessments are completed and based on siting/permit agency

reviews.
Underground Interconnections to the Brayton Point Substation

Underground 345-kV transmission facilities will be constructed from the new OnSS to the
existing substation approximately to the south on the Brayton Point
property. Underground circuits will consist of single-phase XLPE cables within conduits that
will be installed in an excavated trench. Conduits will also be installed for including of fiber
optic/communications cables that will support protection and control system. Once installed,
the trench will be backfilled using natural material or thermal backfill if required. Figure
15.10 provides a typical trench/conduit configuration that could be used to construct the
interconnection facilities.
The Bidder will install circuits between the OnSS and the Brayton Point substation.

Figure 15.10 Typical Trench/Conduit Configuration – Illustrative
Expansion of Brayton Point Substation

The existing 345-kV Brayton Point Substation will need to be modified and expanded to
accept the new underground circuit(s) from the OnSS to the north. National Grid
representatives are engaged with the Bidder and ISO-NE as the current Interconnection
Request process proceeds The existing station is of gas-insulated construction, and
the Bidder expects the station will need to be expanded to construct an additional bay in
which the interconnections can be completed. Equipment expected to be installed to support
this expansion include 345-V breakers, capacitor voltage transformers, arrestors, disconnect
switches, cable terminations and other ancillary facilities. As for the OnSS, foundation
requirements for the necessary equipment will be designed in consideration of existing soil
conditions, but are presently expected to be of reinforced concrete.
As noted above for the underground interconnections between the new OnSS and the
existing Brayton Point Substation, the
iv. The length of the proposed transmission line and the type(s) of terrain and land ownership of
the proposed ROW
For Phase I, the export cable route will be approximately long, with an
approximate diameter of
The route proposed between the proposed OnSS and the Brayton Point Substation (the point
of system interconnection) is roughly in length. Onshore terrain between
these locations is a combination of uplands, previously disturbed lands (associated with the
former Brayton Point Generation Station), and some wetlands. Portions of this area are
undeveloped (vegetated) or within existing easements held by National Grid for the use and
maintenance of existing overhead transmission facilities. Any areas of wetlands that cannot
be avoided during the installation of transmission facilities will be either fully restored
following construction, or appropriate compensatory mitigation will be implemented.
Onshore land and easement acquisition needs for Phase 1 are described in detail in Section
6.

v. The substation facilities (number of breakers, transformers, etc.) required at each terminal of
the proposed project and information as to how the new facilities would interconnect to any
existing facilities.
As noted above, for Phase I, the Bidder assumes that it would construct, operate and
maintain only OSS foundation and platform, plus equipment on the high side of the generator
transformer(s) on each platform, as part of the ETS network. Remaining equipment on the
platform will installed as part of Bay State Wind’s facilities. The equipment on the high side
of the generator transformer(s) on each platform will be made ready for future interlink to
future phase of the ETS network
The primary components for the OSS and their usage are explained in Table 15.3. Note that
certain components of the OSS would be supplied by the successful bidder for offshore wind
generation.
Table 15.3 OSS Components

312B
Number of
Description Purpose units Type of units
Medium Voltage Mainly to connecting strings of WTGs to the MV
Switchgear1 busbar and further to the MV side on the MV/HV
transformer
Grounding Auxiliary Providing auxiliary LV power supply
Transformer1
Neutral Grounding Making a solid grounded MV network
Resistor1
Transformer1 Changing the voltage level from WTG level (MV) to

the transmission system voltage level (HV)
Rating depends on rated WTG capacity
High Voltage Shunt Reactive compensation of the export cable to optimize
Reactor the active power transfer of the export cable and the
losses
Rating depends on export cable length
High Voltage Connecting export cable to the transformer and the
Switchgear HV SR to the export cable
1
To be provided by the generator.
The primary components for the onshore transmission substation and their usage are
explained in Table 15.4 below.

Table 15.4 Onshore Components

Number of Type of
Description Purpose units units
High Voltage Shunt Reactive compensation of the export cable to optimize
Reactor (fixed) the active power transfer of the export cable
High Voltage Adaptive reactive compensation due to load changes,
Variable Shunt to maintain neutral reactive power flow to onshore
Reactor grid and to compensate HV Harmonic Filter
High Voltage Filtering the harmonics in the system
Harmonic Filter
Dynamic Reactive Maintaining the grid voltage at the set point level
Compensation
High Voltage Switch Connecting various equipment to the HV busbar
Gear
Grid Transformer Changing the voltage level from transmission system
voltage level (HV) to 345-kV
Grid Switchgear Connecting the 345-kV cables to Brayton Point
Battery Energy Load-shifting the generation to peak hours

Storage1 Connecting within the OnSS
1
To be provided by the generator.
As described in Table 15.4 the OnSS is equipped with harmonic filtering and reactive
compensation equipment. The harmonic filters are present to mitigate any impact of
harmonics on the onshore grid from the WTGs, or dampen any amplification of existing
harmonics present in the onshore grid due to amplification by the export system cable
circuits. Variable and fixed shunt reactors compensate for the export cable charging and
harmonic filters. The variable shunt reactor in connection with the STATCOM will serve to
control the onshore POI bus to a target voltage determined by ISO-NE. The onshore grid
transformers will be equipped with tertiary windings to allow the connection of battery energy
storage if the offshore wind developer chooses to install.
The Underground Interconnections to the Brayton Point Substation and Expansion of Brayton
Point Substation sections in Section 15.1 describes how the new facilities would
interconnect to any existing facilities.
vi. The estimated costs of the proposed project broken out into separate categories as described
below for transmission facilities and substation facilities in nominal year dollars.
a. For cost of service or modified cost of service proposals:
1. Provide the capital cost estimate presented as a buildup of costs by category, such as
environmental, engineering, civil works, materials, equipment, construction, construction
management, physical and price contingencies, allowance for funds used during construction
(AFUDC), and all other categories for which recovery under FERC would be sought. These
categories are illustrative; aggregate costs into the categories most relevant to the development
of the proposed project. All costs should be provided in nominal dollars.


2. For projects with transmission and substation components, separate the costs into two rows
(e.g. use one row for substation construction and a second for transmission construction).
Describe the detailed financial plan on a monthly basis during the construction period, e.g., for
3 years or as long as necessary. The plan should present the costs and financial outlays in each
month of the construction period, and the corresponding sources of financing (equity
contribution and debt drawdown), as in the following illustrative table. Data should include an
estimate of the cost of both physical and price contingencies during the construction period.
The financing plan should indicate the ability to finance the construction of the proposed project
under base case and contingency scenarios.
3. Describe the proposed financing sources and instruments.

4. Sources of funds for construction and working capital - include name of entity providing debt
financing, loan amounts, interest rates, repayment period, grace period during construction;
and equity provided by project sponsor.
5. Sources of funds for unexpected repairs or replacement construction during the operating
period, e.g., replacement of tower. Note: the operating period is the applicant’s estimate of the
useful life or accounting life of the transmission project element(s).
b. If the bidder is proposing fixed-rate pricing rather than cost-of-service or modified cost-of-service
pricing, provide sufficient information and assessment to show that the proposed project,
including any necessary transmission network upgrades, is financially viable. In this regard,
provide capital cost estimates and operation and maintenance cost estimates and the basis for
your estimates, including the extent to which estimates are based on vendor contracts or
vendor quotes, your experience in the development, construction and/or operation of similar
projects, your approach regarding contingency and risk management, and your proposed
financing plan. All costs should be provided in nominal dollars, although inflation and cost
escalation estimates should be provided. Please describe in detail the due diligence you have
conducted in developing your pricing and tariff proposal.
Not applicable.
Please refer to Section 17 for

additional detail on the Offshore Delivery Facilities Agreement.
vii. Provide a proposed schedule for project development through release for operation that
includes key critical path items, such as:
a. Completion of studies and receipt of approvals needed for the interconnection;
b. Material and equipment procurement, including identification of long lead time equipment;
A schedule for the Project is provided in Attachment 9-1 and elaborated upon in Section 9.
As described in Section 6.7, ISO-NE has completed the feasibility study for the wind farm and
is currently performing the System Impact Study ( . The Feasibility Study shows that
the Bidder can connect 800 MW at the Brayton Point POI with no system upgrades required.
The expected timeline for receipt of approvals needed for the interconnection is provided in
Attachment 7-1.

As discussed in Section 9.1, the build time for the OSS and HV and MV electrical equipment
is approximately months with installation completed within a -month window. The lead
time of the export cable is approximately months.
Construction of all onshore facilities (OnSS and Interconnections) is estimated to require
approximately months for completion. Procurement of all onshore materials and
equipment, from the release of initial solicitations (i.e., RFPs) to delivery of all
materials/equipment, will occur over a -month period, likely commencing in
The longest single lead time item is expected to be the STATCOM(s), which will require an
estimated months for fabrication.
viii. Bidder must indicate whether it proposes to recover abandonment costs for its transmission
project from the Distribution Companies, as described in Section 2.2.2.5.2 of this RFP. If so,
Bidder must acknowledge that recovery of any such abandonment costs shall be in accordance
with FERC rules and policies, and also acknowledge that in no event will a Bidder seek to
recover abandonment costs if the abandonment was caused directly or indirectly by some act or
failure to act of the Bidder. Bidder must further affirmatively commit not to seek from FERC or
any other agency or authority any treatment of abandonment costs inconsistent with the
provisions of Section 2.2.2.5.2 of the RFP. To the extent the Bidder proposes to recover
abandonment costs, such proposal should be further described as set forth in Appendix C-3 of
this RFP.

15.2 Proposed Payment Required for the Project and all System Upgrades
(Expandable Transmission Line)
15.2 The proposed payment required for the transmission project and all system upgrades.
i. All proposals must include significant cost containment as stated in the RFP.
ii. List all situations which may change the proposed payments by consumers during the contract
term.

iii. Identify any limits placed upon the bidder’s post-contract term rates according to current FERC
rules.
Consistent with FERC’s Order No. 890 and FERC pro forma open-access transmission tariff,
iv. Identify all other project revenues which may be received by the bidder during the contract term
which would not reduce rates paid by consumers.
Not applicable.
v. If the proposed payments may change during the contract term or the proposal is based on cost
of service, the bidder must provide the method that transmission owner shall use to determine
the payment for the Transmission Project under the transmission Rate Schedule or Tariff and
Service Agreement to be filed with FERC. If the proposed payment is a formula rate, the Eligible
Bidder must also provide the formula and its proposed inputs that the transmission owner will
file with FERC.


vi. If the proposed payment is based on the Transmission Project’s cost of service and may change
during the contract term based on changes in the cost of service, a full revenue requirements
model must be included and submitted as a working Excel spreadsheet with the formulas
intact.
a. Provide the annual revenue requirement forecasts for the project – including assumptions.
Provide a draft version of the revenue requirement calculation in a format that is similar to what
would be included in the Rate Schedule or Tariff and Service Agreement application to FERC,
indicating the forecast revenue requirement amounts and all assumptions used in the
calculations. This should include but not be limited to the assumptions regarding rate of return,
depreciation life, split between debt and capital, AFUDC and weighted cost of capital, and a
detailed estimate of the anticipated average annual operating and maintenance cost. Provide
the information requested in Section 14.1.a of the Bidder Response Package.
A full revenue requirements model has been provided as Attachment 15-2.

vii. If the pricing proposed is based on cost of service, detail all cost containment commitments.
Examples of such commitments include fixed price components, cost overrun restrictions, or
other cost bandwidth provisions that are proposed to limit ratepayer risk must be clearly
defined.
See Section 15.2(i).

viii. Please include full and complete descriptions of all cost containment measures that you
propose to be included in your pricing. Additionally provide any supporting documentation for
any savings or methods of savings including cost caps on any portion of your project. Please
include working excel spreadsheets to more fully explain how your cost containment measures
should work. Please provide details and notes that describe the nexus between the cost
containment provisions in your proposal and those supporting documents and spreadsheets.
Please provide examples about how any cost containment measures you are proposing would
work.
See response to Section 15.2(i), above.

ix. To the extent that you are proposing different interconnection scenarios that affect cost please
include full and complete cost information on each scenario. Please describe all interconnection
and transmission upgrade costs required to interconnect at the Capacity Capability
Interconnection Standard and to ensure full delivery of the proposed Offshore Wind Energy
Generation profile, including transmission upgrades that may need to occur beyond the point of
interconnection.
Not applicable; the Bidder is not proposing different interconnection scenarios for
As discussed in Sections 6.6 and 6.7, there are no anticipated transmission upgrades
beyond the proposed POI (Brayton Point).
x. Please describe the coordination of the availability of the Offshore Wind Energy Generation and
any associated transmission or distribution facilities. All proposals must include a project
schedule, and proposals including a combination of transmission and Offshore Wind Energy

Generation should propose complete critical path schedules, for both elements of the project,
from the notice of selection for contract consideration to the start of commercial operations (the
“Baseline Schedule”). Please describe all aspects of your proposal that protect ratepayers from
risks associated with payments for transmission costs when any associated expected Offshore
Wind Energy Generation, as proposed by the bidder, is absent, reduced, or curtailed as
compared to the Baseline Schedule.
The Phase I transmission system in this Bid will be constructed by the Bidder in conjunction
with the corresponding offshore wind generation facility. A detailed schedule for the Project is
provided in Attachment 9-1 and elaborated upon in Section 9.
xi. Please describe your approach to avoid line losses.
The Bidder’s approach is to use state-of-the-art transmission technology to minimize

line losses to the maximum extent possible. For three-phase submarine cables,
15.3 Schedule of Payments (Expandable Transmission Line)

15.3 The schedule of the payments defined in 14.2 above including when the payments will
commence, how often payments will be required and the length of time over which payments
will be required. In no event may payments commence before the Transmission Project is
placed in service.
The Bidder assumes the reference to Section 14.2 is meant to refer to Section 15.2.
As referenced in Section 15.2,
15.4 Design Life of the Project (Expandable Transmission Line)

15.4 The design life of the project.
The expected operating life for the Phase I transmission system is .

15.5 Description of the Reliability Benefits of the Proposed Project and

Impacts on Existing Transmission Constraints (Expandable
Transmission Line)
15.5 A description of the reliability benefits of the proposed Transmission Project and its impact on
existing transmission constraints.
In addition to the reliability benefits described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, both the OSS and
OnSS have transformers which provide redundancy in the event of an
unexpected transformer outage. This means the Project can operate up to percent power
output during an onshore or offshore transformer outage, this results in an energy capture of
up to percent, based on a yearly wind distribution profile.
Additionally, the OnSS is equipped with two STATCOM device and variable shunt reactors
which are configured to control the voltage at the POI to a predefined target determined by
ISO-NE. This ensures the voltage at the POI is maintained at a steady level while operational.
In addition, additional reactive power can be produced during onshore grid faults to
contribute to the ISO-NE grid stability.
Finally, the battery storage contributes towards the reliability and security of the ISO-NE grid
as described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.

Section 16 Exceptions to Form PPAs
16. EXCEPTIONS TO FORM PPAS

Please attach an explanation of any exceptions to the Form PPA set forth in Appendix C-1. Comments
to the proposed Form PPA must include any specific alternative provisions in a redline format to the
Form PPA.
The Bidder has attached a mark-up of each form of the PPA provided at Appendices C-1 and
C-2 of the RFP (Attachment 16-1). In line with paragraph 2.2.1.9 of the RFP, Bidder has kept
its proposed changes to the bare minimum and our proposed changes fall into the following
categories:
 non-substantive corrections and edits;

 revisions intended to allow us to offer the lowest possible prices and increase
economic benefits without shifting any material risk onto the EDCs or ratepayers.
Our mark-ups include “notes to draft” explaining our proposed changes (other than the non-
substantive corrects and edits), however the key revisions are as follows:

Section 16 Exceptions to Form PPAs

Section 17 Response to Transmission Tariff/Contract Requirements
17. RESPONSE TO TRANSMISSION TARIFF/CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Transmission bids must contain a proposed tariff, rate schedule or transmission service agreement
(“Transmission Agreement”) that the Bidder proposes as the vehicle for recovery of its transmission
costs from the Distribution Companies and/or interconnecting generation suppliers. In addition, all
transmission bids must separately contain a detailed summary of the material provisions of the
proposed Transmission Agreement. Such a summary should include, but not be limited to, a
discussion of the key provisions set forth in Appendix C-3, as well as a cross-reference to the
corresponding sections of the proposed Transmission Agreement where such provisions may be
found.
Bidders are discouraged from proposing changes to the Form PPA and or variations from the Proposed
Tariff requirements.
The Bidder has attached a proposed form of Transmission Agreement (Attachment 17-1),
which the Bidder has referred to in this Bid as the “ODFA.” that has been drafted to comply
with the requirements set forth in Appendix C-3 of the RFP and to provide a reasonable
allocation of risk between the Bidder and EDCs whilst at the same time complying with
applicable FERC rules and policies.
The Bidder’s proposed ODFA which meets the requirements of the RFP and Appendix C-3. For
further details on the ODFA, please see Section 15.
The Bidder also sets out in Attachment 17-2 a chart that cross-references the Appendix C-3
requirements to the corresponding sections in the proposed Transmission Agreement that
reflects the Bidder’s proposals in respect of the Appendix C-3 requirements.

Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System

Attachments
400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System

Bay State Wind 400 Megawatt Public Bid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bay State Wind 400 Megawatt Public Bid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bay State Wind 400 Megawatt Public Bid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic Cover for Bay State Wind proposal cover. Electronic only, no printed hardcopies.

BAY STATE WIND LLC PROPOSAL FOR

LONG-TERM CONTRACTS FOR

DECEMBER 20, 2017

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

Bay State Wind LLC

This is our passion;

Ørsted Ørsted by numbers:

Mike Cohen, CEO of HFIG and Chairman of the

The benefits of this project will be significant to Massachusetts:

The World’s largest offshore wind Transmission Staging area

Additionally, Bay State Wind is exploring with a major

Supporting the Massachusetts economy

Work will include:

• Manufacturing of the offshore substation

1) Boston and Boston Harbor

3) Massachusetts Maritime Academy

Fall River 4) New Bedford

Supply Chain Opportunities Cable Corridor / Route

Onshore Substation O&M Base

View our short film at baystatewind.com

All graphics in this document are for illustrative purposes.

Cover image: New Bedford Harbor, MA

EXPANDABLE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company d/b/a Unitil

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

December 20, 2017

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System i

3.2.4 Other Restrictions ............................................................................................ 3-5

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System ii

5.21 Regulatory and other Approvals needed to Execute a Binding Sale

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System iii

8. ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY; COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System iv

11.1 O&M Plan for the Project ............................................................................................. 11-2

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System v

14. CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System vi

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System vii

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System viii

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System ix

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System x

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xi

Attachment 6-2 Executed Lease-OCS-A 0500

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xii

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xiii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xiv

EPC Engineering, Procurement, Construction

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xv

LGIA Large Generator Interconnection Agreement

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xvi

NSRA Navigational Safety Risk Assessment

REC Renewable Energy Certificate

ROE return on equity

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xvii

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xviii

400 MW with an Expandable Transmission System xix