Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240828Staff Comments (Redacted).pdf RECEIVED Wednesday, August 28, 2024 2:20:10 PM IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CHRIS BURDIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PO BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074 (208) 334-0314 IDAHO BAR NO. 9810 Street Address for Express Mail: 11331 W CHINDEN BLVD, BLDG 8, SUITE 201-A BOISE, ID 83714 Attorney for the Commission Staff BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER ) COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-16 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ) AND NECESSITY FOR THE BOISE BENCH ) BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY ) REDACTED COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF COMMISSION STAFF ("STAFF") OF the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its Attorney of record, Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General, submits the following comments. BACKGROUND On April 3, 2024, Idaho Power Company("Company") filed an application ("Application") with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission("Commission")requesting an order granting the Company a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN")to acquire new dispatchable energy storage with 150 megawatts ("MW") of operating capacity. On April 23, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Intervention Deadline. Order No. 36152. The Commission granted intervention to Micron Technology, Inc. and Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho. Order Nos. 36190 and 36228. STAFF COMMENTS 1 AUGUST 28, 2024 STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the Company's Application, responses to Production Requests, and supporting documentation. Staff recommends the Commission: a. Grant a CPCN for the Boise Bench Battery Energy Storage System(`BESS Project") project to help meet the 2026 capacity deficit; b. Establish a soft cap for manufacturer supplied BESS equipment costs, Idaho sales tax, and Allowance for Funds Used During Construction("AFUDC") as detailed in Confidential Attachment A; c. Establish a soft cap on future annual augmentation costs as detailed in Confidential Attachment A; and d. Establish a hard cap for the balance of system (`BOS") cost with 5% contingency and the interconnection costs as detailed in Confidential Attachment A. Request for Proposal Background To resolve the 2026 capacity deficit, the Company issued an all-source Request for Proposal ("RFP") seeking to acquire a combination of energy and capacity resources. Application at 3. This RFP was subject to the administrative rules of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon("OPUC"). Id at 4. The OPUC process involved the OPUC, the public, interested stakeholders, and an Independent Evaluator("IE"). These parties could review and amend the text of the RFP, the selection process, and the scoring method before the solicitation was issued. Once the RFP was issued, stakeholders scrutinized aspects of the Company's decisions during the selection process. Staff reviewed the IE reports that were issued at various stages of the selection process, and Staff believes the Company adhered to the approved process, applied the scoring fairly, and that the final short list("FSL") of proposals was appropriately determined. Staff was initially concerned that Section 3.1 of the RFP (Eligible Products) omitted certain resource types, but Staff concluded that the omitted resources were not feasible due to project time constraints. This conclusion is discussed in greater detail in comments filed by Staff in Case No. IPC-E-24-12. Staff believes that the RFP fairly solicited for a wide range of resource alternatives reasonably achievable within the time constraints of the capacity requirement. STAFF COMMENTS 2 AUGUST 28, 2024 Need for Capacity To confirm this requirement, Staff reviewed the results from the Company's Reliability and Capacity Assessment Tool ("RCAT"). The validity of the RCAT results depends on the validity of the model's algorithms, inputs, and assumptions. Staff reviewed all three of these components through production requests and onsite meetings with the Company. Staff is satisfied that the algorithms, inputs, and assumptions are reasonable, and Staff believes that the Company's forecast of a 236 MW capacity deficit in 2026 is valid. Uncertainty of Boise Bench BESS as Least-Cost The BESS Project is one of three resources the Company selected to meet the 226 MW projected capacity deficit in 2026 through the 2026 RFP. In addition to the BESS Project, the Company selected the Powerex Market Purchase Agreement, which is currently being reviewed by the Commission through Case No. IPC-E-24-12. Lack of Comparable Alternative Resources in the Company's Selected Portfolios One of the ways for Staff to determine if the BESS Project is least-cost, is for the Company to perform a stochastic analysis through AURORA comparing the net present value over a 20-year period of a model run of the resources the Company selects against other combinations of short-listed resources that would resolve the deficit. In its review, Staff discovered a lack of comparable alternatives to the BESS Project among the Company's combined portfolios. The Company provided a list of eleven different portfolios that were created using various combinations of the final shortlisted bids of eight resources. The Company also provided stochastic results of these portfolios to ascertain the least-cost and least-risk resources. Staff reviewed the Company's stochastic results and discovered the BESS Project was included within the portfolios that were ranked 3ra, 5tn, and 6t" in the list of selected least-cost and least-risk portfolios. According to Staff s review, the Company selected the third ranked portfolio, which also included a solar resource and the Market Purchase Agreement. Company's Response to Production Request No. 10—Confidential Attachment. However, through a discussion with the Company, Staff learned that the Ada County Commission denied the county permit for the solar STAFF COMMENTS 3 AUGUST 28, 2024 resource. As a result, the solar resource became infeasible to implement within the time constraints to meet the 2026 capacity deficit. Because the third selected resource is not feasible and the Company has not selected another, Staff believes the Company has not been able to definitively show that the BESS Project, in combination with the final set of resources needed to resolve the deficit, is least-cost. Lack of Comparable Alternative Resources in the Final Shortlist Bids Staff reviewed the Company's final shortlisted bids and was not able to identify a suitable alternative to the BESS Project from the RFP to make a useful comparison. The shortlist consisted of eight resources of different categories that the Company identified, and the BESS Project was ranked 41h among them. Confidential Exhibit No. 7. Staff attempted to compare the 5th ranked shortlisted resource, a 200 MW solar photovoltaic plus 100 MW BESS to the standalone Boise Bench BESS; however, they are not mutually comparable.1 Additionally, there were two BESS proposals that were not on the Company's short list because they were determined to be infeasible due to Available Transmission Capacity constraints on some of the Company's transmission paths that reduces their standalone Effective Load Carrying Capability. Company's Response to Production Request No. 30. Without consideration of interconnection cost,both projects had a lower levelized costs of capacity ("LCOC"): (1) the 200 MW BESS proposal from at M/kW/Month, and(2)the 100 MW BESS proposal from at =/kW/Month compared to the Boise Bench BESS Project with a LCOC of=/kW/Month. Due to the lack of availability of comparable BESS resources in the RFP shortlist, Staff could not verify that the Boise Bench BESS is the least-cost resource. Staff believes it is appropriate to set a cap for the cost of the BESS Project, especially as the other bids were from 3rd party developers and would have likely been contractually held to their cost estimates. Staff believes that a cost cap would reflect the same level of accountability to the Company's cost estimate. 'In the Company's response to Production Request No. 31,it stated,"It is important to note that Project 4 is a combined solar and BESS project which is a different product type than a standalone BESS product and therefore not comparable on a LCOC basis." STAFF COMMENTS 4 AUGUST 28, 2024 In addition, Staff could not identify a comparable alternative resource in the final short- listed bids to make a direct cost comparison to determine whether it is least-cost. Given these circumstances, Staff is not confident in concluding the BESS Project as being the least-cost resource. However, Staff recognizes there is a system capacity deficiency in June 2026, and it understands the need for this project to contribute towards alleviating the projected deficiency. Therefore, Staff recommends the Commission grant a CPCN for the Boise Bench BESS project. The BESS Evaluation Overbuild In response to Production Request No. 2, the Company explains that the 2026 RFP required all BESS project bids to include an overbuild such that the BESS resource can maintain its nominal capacity for the first two years of operation. Staff believes that this requirement was reasonable as all BESS resources should include some overbuild to prevent immediate need for augmentation. Given that the overbuild was required by the Company's RFP for all BESS projects, Staff believes that the overbuild costs included in the Boise Bench BESS bid were appropriately evaluated against its competing bids. Augmentation Unlike overbuild costs, evaluation of BESS bids in the RFP did not include any cost for future augmentation of the BESS resource. In response to Production Request No. 23, the Company states that the Idaho Power Evaluation Team applied a uniform augmentation adder to all BESS projects for evaluation purposes. Staff believes the Company's method of applying augmentation costs over time is reasonable as it reflects a variable degradation of the resource's performance, however, Staff has several concerns with the cost and form that the augmentation may take. The Company's Evaluation Team estimated augmentation cost at $1.1 0/kW-month. For the BESS Project, the augmentation adder totals $1.98 million per year or approximately $40 million over the life of the project. Staff notes that the augmentation adder is less than the augmentation estimates provided by the initial Boise Bench BESS Bid. The selected BESS Project bid included augmentation estimates totaling . Confidential Response to Production Request No. 1-Exhibit P at 10. Staff is concerned that by using a separate estimate STAFF COMMENTS 5 AUGUST 28, 2024 for augmentation costs, the Company may have under- or over-represented the cost of augmentation relative to what is provided in a given project bid. Additionally, the Company states that augmentation can be accomplished through an augmentation agreement with the battery manufacturer or by adding additional battery segments. Notably, these additional segments could be at the existing facility or at another location on the Company's system. Staff is concerned that the modular nature of BESS resources could allow the Company to continually augment its battery systems above what is needed to offset degradation outside of a traditional RFP process. Therefore, Staff recommends the Commission set a soft cap for future augmentation costs. Cost Caps and Future Recovery As part of the Company's initial bid to the 2026 RFP, the Company provided a breakdown of the estimated cost of the proposed BESS. As part of the RFP process,projects selected in the initial shortlist were able to update the cost estimates. The Company provided an updated September 2023 cost estimate for the BESS Project in its response to Production Request No. 4. Staff notes that the Company's updated bid cost estimate was less than the initial bid's cost and excluded future augmentation costs and long-term service agreement costs for operational and maintenance services. Based on Staff s lack of confidence of the BESS Project being the least-cost resource, Staff recommends the Commission set the future cost recovery of the BESS with cost caps. These cost caps are for total project costs excluding any Investment Tax Credits ("ITCs") offsets. If approved, the Commission will evaluate the actual cost of the project relative to the respective caps when the Company seeks recovery in future rate proceedings. Soft Cap on Estimated Costs Based on its analysis of the Company's estimated implementation costs, Staff understands the cost estimation is not based on a specific battery equipment provider as the Company is currently in the process of negotiating with several battery suppliers. Company's Response to Production Request Nos. I and 6. Staff recommends a soft cap that includes the manufacturer supplied BESS equipment costs, Idaho sales tax, and AFUDC. Staffs calculation of the soft cap is provided in Confidential Attachment A. The purpose of the soft cap is to STAFF COMMENTS 6 AUGUST 28, 2024 provide a maximum amount of recovery that the Company should be allowed to recover, unless it can provide compelling evidence otherwise. Regarding Staff s concerns for the augmentation costs, Staff recommends that the Commission order a soft cap on future augmentation costs for the Boise Bench resource at $1,980,000 annually. If the Company does exceed the soft cap, the Company should provide ample support for any augmentation that is greater than what is needed to offset the effects of degradation and/or augmentation to offset the degradation of a different BESS resource on the Company's system. Hard Cap on Estimated Costs Staff evaluated the Company's cost estimate for the BESS Project and believes the estimate was created with the Company's in-house expertise with implementing BESS resources on the system, which ultimately won amongst the other bids. Staff believes that because the Company is the most knowledgeable about the specifics of its system and there is no uncertainty with contracted material prices, a hard cap should be established on the remaining BOS cost with 5% contingency and the interconnection costs. Staffs hard cap calculation is provided in Confidential Attachment A. A hard cap is the maximum amount that the Company should be allowed to recover. Any additional costs above the hard cap could make the resource not cost effective, therefore making the resource not least-cost. Due to Staff s lack of confidence of the BESS Project being the least-cost resource and to hold the Company accountable to its cost estimate for its bid, Staff believes that a hard cap is necessary to protect customers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission: a. Grant a CPCN for the BESS Project to help meet the 2026 capacity deficit; b. Establish a soft cap for manufacturer supplied BESS equipment costs, Idaho sales tax, and AFUDC as detailed in Confidential Attachment A; c. Establish a soft cap on future annual augmentation costs as detailed in Confidential Attachment A; and STAFF COMMENTS 7 AUGUST 28, 2024 d. Establish a hard cap for the BOS cost with 5% contingency and the interconnection costs as detailed in Confidential Attachment A. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August 2024. &,A IiA Chris Burdin Deputy Attorney General Technical Staff. Kimberly Loskot Shubhra Deb Paul Jason Talford Matt Suess I:\Utdity\UMISC\COMMENrrS\EPC-E-24-16 Commeris-Redacted.docx STAFF COMMENTS 8 AUGUST 28, 2024 STAFF COMMENTS 9 AUGUST 28, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1) ey I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS b DAY OF AUGUST 2024, SERVED THE FOREGOING REDACTED COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF IN CASE NO. IPC-E-24-16, BY E-MAILING A COPY THEREOF, TO THE FOLLOWING: DONOVAN E WALKER TIM TATUM IDAHO POWER COMPANY IDAHO POWER COMPANY PO BOX 70 PO BOX 70 BOISE ID 83707-0070 BOISE ID 83707-0070 E-MAIL: dwalkergidahopower.com E-MAIL: ttatum(a�idahopower.com do ckets gidahopower.com AUSTIN RUESCHHOFF JIM SWIER THORVALD A NELSON MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC AUSTIN W JENSEN 8000 S FEDERAL WAY HOLLAND &HART LLP BOISE ID 83707 555 17TH ST STE 3200 E-MAIL: jswiernmicron.com DENVER CO 80202 E-MAIL: darueschhoff(cjhollandhart.com tnelson(a,hollandhart.com awj ensenghollandhart.com aclee(cr�,hollandhart.com mamcmillen&hollandhart.com KELSEY JAE COURTNEY WHITE LAW FOR CONSCIOUS LEADERSHIP MIKE HECKLER 920 N CLOVER DR CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES BOISE ID 83703 3778 PLANTATION RIVER DR E-MAIL: kelseygkelseyjae.com STE 102 BOISE ID 83703 E-MAIL: courtneykcleanenergyopportunities.com mike(cz,cleanenergyopportunities.com i PATRICIA JORD , SECRETARY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE