20100517AVU to Staff 1-10.pdf

Xan Allen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jean Jewell
Monday, May 17, 2010 10:12 AM
Xan Allen
FW: Avista's Responses to IPUC Staff Production Requests - 5/12/10
Staff_PR_001.doc; Staff_PR_001 Attchment Apdf; Staff_PR_002.doc; Staff_PR_003.doc;
Staff PR 004.doc; Staff PR 005.doc; Staff PR 006.doc; Staff PR 007.doc; Staff PR
OOB.doc; Staff_PR_009.doc; Staff_PR_009 Ãttaehment Axis; Staff_DR_010.docx - -
From: Kimball, Paul (mailto:Paul.Kimball(Qavistacorp.com)
sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:39 PM
To: Don Howell; Kris Sasser; peter(Qrichardsonandoleary.com; greg(Qrichardsonandoleary.com;
howa rd. ray(Qciea rwaterpa per .com; joe(Qmcdevitt -miler .com; crowleyla(Qaol.com; rowena(Qidahocan .org;
leeann(Qnwfco.org; bmpurdy(Qhotmail.com; botto(Qidahoconservation .org; kmiller(Qsnakeriveralliance.org;
robpluid(Qgmail.com; energylogs(Qgmail.com; oxford(Qmeadowcrk.com
Cc: Ehrbar, Pat; Andrews, Liz; Olsness, Patt
Subjec: Avista's Responses to ¡PUC Staff Production Requests - 5/12/10
.~ . ~6~'.. ..... ~'h, .~ C).~~ #'. 'l...cPO .. ¿;
'6i~ 1J ~-"(1' ..~tv.. ~~.~(.;., .'in' ~.~ J'.~
From: Kris Sasser
sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Jean Jewell
Subjec: FW: Avista's Responses to ¡PUC Staff Production Requests - 5/12/10
May 12,2010
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83720-5918
Attn: Donald L. Howell, II
Krstine A. Sasser
Re: Production Request of the Commssion Staff in Case Nos. A VU-E-10-01 and A VU-G-10-01
Attached is Avista's response in connection to Staff production requests in the above referenced docket.
Included in ths email is A vista's response to the following Production Requests:
StaffPR 1-10
C:C:Staff_PR_001.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_001 Attachment Apdf:::: C:C:Staff_PR_002.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_003.doc::::
C:C:Staff_PR_004.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_005.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_006.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_007.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_008.doc::::
C:C:Staff_PR_009.doc:::: C:C:Staff_PR_009 Attachment Axls:::: C:C:Staff_DR_010.docx::::
i
The items not included in ths email are:
Staff PR 003C & Attachments - Confidential in natue.
Staff _PR _006 Attachment - too large to emaiL. A CD with Production Request number 006 and attchment
will be mailed to all pares today, 5/12/10.
Staff PR 007C - Confidential in natue.
Staff PR 008C - Confidential in natue.
All CONFIDENTIAL responses wil be sent in a separate emaiL.
If there are any questions regarding the attached information, please contact me at [phone] or via e-mail
at paul.kimball~avistacorp.com
Than you,
Paul Kimball
Senior Regulatory Analyst
State & Federal Regulation
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave, Box 3727
Spokane, W A 99220-3727
(509) 495-584 diect
[phone] cell
paul.kimballlfavistacorp.com
2
JURSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
IDAHO
A VU-E-I0-0l / AVU-G-I0-0l
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-OOI
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Clint Kalich
Clint Kalich
Energy Resources
[phone]
Please provide a copy of the BorisMetrics study referred to on page 10, lines 14 - 18, of the Direct
Testimony of Clint Kalich.
RESPONSE:
The study is attached in the file "Staff PR 001 Attachment A."
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 1 of31
.mflir.1cs
December 15th, 2004
Clint Katich
Manager of Power Supply Analysis
A vista Corporation - MSC-7
. Post Offce Box 3727
1411 East Mission Street
Spokane, VV j\ 99220-3727
Letter Report on Northwest Power Pool Model Curve Fit Study
Introduction
Borismetrics reviewed and at the request of j\ vista updated the power curves relating inflow &
other parameters to generation by a statistical analysis of historical data for use in the NVV Power
Pool (pool) generation model (Model). \\ere the existing curves were deemed adequate, they
were left unchanged. The following eight projects were the subject of the study (Study):
1) Cabinet;
3) Long Lake;
5) Monroe;
7) Nine Mile;
2) Noxon;
4) Little Falls;
6) Post Falls;
8) Upper Falls;
The Model uses tables relating inflow and other parameters to generation. Below is a simple
example of such a table for Upper Falls. j\ graph ofthe table has been added for ilustration. The
tables are in a format that is "piece-wise" linear, where a non-linear cure is approximated by a
series of straight lines.
,.... UFM.(mQD PA(O (M-.t't21002H.o..1".0---'0
0....-UI..
1.701..7.7.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento,CA, 95851
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
boriscæborismetrics.com
StICPR_OO1 Attchment A Page 2 of 31
Page 2 of 31
Upper Fall Original Table 6
10.0 ~--
8.0 --
6.03:::0(
4.0
2.0
0.0
5,000 10,000 15,000
CFS
20,000 25,000 30,000
For example, an inflow of 15,000 CFS (cubic feet per second) would result in a generation of9
AMW (Average MegaWatts) for Upper Falls.
The first task was to update curves based on upgrades to hydro facilties not refl~cted in the "old"
tables. A number ofthe facilties were upgraded since the last tables were developed for the NW
Power PooL. These upgrades were reflected in "new" tables.
The second task of the Study was to develop "monthly" tables that provide an accurate relationship
between average flows and other parameters and generation. The inflow in the tables is for a
period of time to develop energy, AMW. The Model utilizes monthly flow data over a historical
period, in this Study sixty years. Some of the "old" tables for the Model were developed based on
daily relationships. However, because of the monthly natue of the Model runs, this would result
in an over-estimate of energy. The monthly inflow in the Model represents an average of daily
flows. Most of the tables represent a non-tinear relationship; so that the average monthly inflow
imp tied generation would be different than the average of daily generation from every daily
inflow.
For example given the above Upper Falls table, suppose a 4 day period had the following daily
flows: 2,100; 2,100; 2,900 and 2,900. The generation of these flows is 9.0,9.0,9.952 and 9.952
respectively. The average generation of the individual four days is 9.476. However, the average
flow is 2,500 with a resulting generation of 10.0 AMW. This is an overstatement of generation by
approximately 5.5%. Larger errors can occur where periods of high flow require a plant to spil
water. Continuing with this example, daily flows of 5,000, 32,500, 15,000, and 1,700 would
generate power equal to 8.2 AMW over 4 days. Averaging theflow (13,550 CFS) and referencing
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(§borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 3 of 31
Page 3 of 31
the Upper Falls table, as the NWPP monthly model does, would find 9.1 AMW during the period
considered, an overstatement of 11 %."
The primar method of the Study was to utilze historical daily data (1989 to 2004) on flows,
generation and elevation in combination with operational information from staff and statistical
analysis to develop final "monthly" tables for use in the ModeL. The analysis was performed in
Excel spreadsheets. The "new" tables were submitted to the NW Power Pool for "offcial" runs.
The results of the old and new models in the Pool Model for the eight hydro projects in anual
AMW is below:
POST LONG UPPER NINE LITTLE NOXON CABINET
AnnualAMW FALLS LAKE FALLS MONROE MILE FALLS RAPIDS GORGE Total
Old Results 9.91 57.43 8.65 13.08 16.33 22.72 203.44 120.41 451.96
New Results .9.91 57.57 8.65 12.45 16.33 21.18 199.12 123.02 44.23
Difference 0.00 0.14 0.00 -0.63 O.OC -1.54 -4.31 2.61 -3.73
% change 0.0%0.2%0.0%.4.8%0.0%-6.8%.2.1%2.2%-0.8%
Methodology Description
The 1 st step in developing new monthly curves was to review the old tables and clarify their use
from A vista and NW Power Pool staff. In the simplest case, a single "old" table represented a
relationship between flow and generation as in the example above. In other cases, there were
several tables that acted jointly to calculate generation given varous input parameters. These
more complex cases represented hydro projects with storage where elevation, draft and head were
utilzed as input parameters. Multiple new tables were developed in these cases. As par of this
"old" table review, upgrade information was collected.
The 2nd step was to graph the relationship from the daily data to the data in the clarified "old"
tables. An exact piecewise linear regression was fit to the old model utilizing the "linest" fuction
in ExceL. A graph of all data for atable was made for reference. A graph of the old model was also
made.
The 3rd step was the development of a "daily" model utilizing historical data for the relevant period
reflecting the most recent upgrade and operational data such as seasonality and special flow
conditions. The daily model was developed with statistical techniques. Either a piecewise tinear
regression or an "nth" order polynomial function was fit to the data. These are standard sttistical
techniques for curve fitting.
The 4th step was the development ofa "monthly" model based on the application of the daily
model to the historical daily data, then the model daily data is averaged by month. The averaged
monthly data for the table in question became the basis for the monthly modeL. The monthly
average data was fit using similar statistical techniques as the daily modeL. Step 4 accounts for the
overestimate of generation when a daily model is applied to a non-linear monthly modeL.
The 5th step was to express the monthly model in a format required by the NW Power Pool for the
model and having the Pool run the new tables. Additionally, the new models were tested in a
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borsmetncs
borìstâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StfCPR_001 Attachment A Page 4 of 31
Page 4 of 31
spreadsheet model that attempted to simulate the ModeL. While the additional spreadsheet model
generally resulted in the same results as the Pool Model rus, the Model sometimes produced
different results because the Model has parameters (such as flow maxums for generation) not
reflected in the tables.
Each of the projects wil be discussed below individually in the order listed above. The results wil
be presented graphically with a nartive. A new table in Model format is also presented.
Spreadsheets of the analysis are attched to the report on a compact disk.
Cabinet
Cabinet has a single table (Table 6) relating flow (CFS) to generation (AMW). The old table is
displayed below.
Old Cabinet Madel Table 6
50
20,000 40,000 60,000
CFS
80,000 100,000 120,000
200
150
i 100
The char below shows the actual daily data for the Study as blue diamonds. Note the parallel
lines of generation staing around 35,000 CFS representing upgrade in 2001.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristaborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 5 of 31
Page 5 of 31
Cabinet Daily Analysis
250.0
50.0
Uii
200.0
. .....--
150.0
~ci
100.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Thousands
CFS
. actual L new daily model . old
The pink line with squares represents the old modeL. The new daily model, a two-piece linear
regression, is shown as a red tine with triangles.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris~borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 6 of 31
Page 6of31
Cabinet Monthly Model
250.0
200.0
Monthly Model
150.0
§ce
100.0
50.0
0.0
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thousands
CFS
I · actual -monthly .. daily I
The monthly model was developed by utilizing the daily model on daily data, then creating
monthly averages and curve fitting the results. The monthly model is depicted above. A five-
piece linear regression was utilized.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristaborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_OO1 Attchment A Page 7 of 31
Page 7of31
The above provides a comparson ofthe "old" model, the monthly model and the daily Ilodel.
Below is the final Model table based on the new monthly curve.
Table 6 Cabinet
line #CFS AMW
QD PA
1 -0.0
2 .24,001 170.3
3 39,001 222.5
4 58,001 231.3
5 100,000 215.0
6 999,999 215.0
Noxon
Thee tables were analyzed:
. Table 7 Tailrace elevation (Feet) related to inflow (CFS)
. Table 9 Generation Effciency, HOVERK (AMW/Feet) related to inflow (CFS)
. Table 10 Maximum Generation (AMW) related to Head (Feet)
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCWborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StaICPR_001 Attchment A Page 8 of31
Page 8 of 31
Tailrace (in feet) is determined given flow (kfs, 1,000 cfs) by Table 7. Head is then determined
given pool elevation and the tailrace. Given flow and head, initial generation is calculated (Table
9). This value is then checked against maximum generation (Table 10).
Table 7, the tailrace cure, is depicted below. A four order polynomial regression was fitted to
the tailrace cure.
Table 7 Tailrace Model
2,188.0
2,178.0
2,186.0
2,184.0
2,182.0
~ 2,180.0
2,176.0
2,174.0
2,172.0
o 20 40 60
KFS
I..Actual ..Old -i New I
80 100 120
The fitted new model is virtally upon the actual data in the.Char. Clearly the fitted model fits the
actual data in a non-linear maner, while the old Table 7 is an inferior tinear approximation. The
new model was utilized due to its superior fit.
Table 9 was then examined given the calculated head from the new Table7. Below is a depiction
of Table 9 ofthe following: daily data (blue diamonds), the old model (red tine with trjangles) and
the new a 5th order polynomial regression daily model (pink line with squares). The new daily
non-tinear model was statically superior to a linear modeL. The data displays a non-lÍiear pattern.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 9 of 31
¡;J!
Staff_PR_001 Attachment A Page 9 of31
All Noxon MWlkf vs Head
12.0
--
11.5
11.0
10.5
Old -- .....-...
New --
10.0 .. - ,.- - -- _..- _ i- - -
-- ---.-
- ---:/Ii --- -
9.5
138.0 152.0 154.0 156.0 158.0140.0 142.0 144.0 146.0 148.0 150.0
Mwlkf
I . - data Ii Daily mAm Old I
The monthly model (below) was fitted as a 5th order polynomial regression based on the use of the
new daily model on daily data then averaged by month.
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.8
ii:i
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.4
Noxon Monthly HK vs Head (Table 9)
._....._--_.._...._._..._._..__......_............................._-_...._........__........_........_.._...............__......._ø..__.._.__...........,
.
..".,..,
....-t'/---
..II
:lfiI.11
I~-
II-
10.3
142.0 156.0 158.0150.0
Head
I- data I~ Monthly I
152.0 154.0144.0 146.0 148.0
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCåborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 10 of 31
Page 10 of 31
The models for Noxon Table 9 compare as follows.
Noxon Table 9 Model Compare
11.60
11.40
11.20
11.00
~ 10.80
10.60
10.40
10.20
10.00
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~r;C; .- ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~ ~ ,,~ ,,~ "v; ,,'5 "VJ ~~
Head
I-daily ..monthly ..old I
Table 10 was examined and the old data are depicted below. It represents max generation when
spil occurs, where flow is capped given Head leveL. Data where spil occured is used to develop
Noxon Table 10
rn
LLo
=~
48,000
47,000
46,000
45,000
44,000
43,000
42,000
129.0
--~~~..~~
"'
139.0 149.0
Head
159.0
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borìstâbonsmetrìcs.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 11 of 31
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 11 of31
Table 10 data which is displayed below.
Noxon Max Flow vs Head (T-10)
1/ 51"c:II
!l 500.c~
49
48
'a1/..47II
c:GI.2
J!46
co
)(II
E 45
44
43
.. +...:.: ~ · ...' .... · If. ......... . ....-.
..~ l'' ;..... ,... .... .. .i. ~ ......... ·.,. ..........-- .. .... ... .#....,:.......#.... ...l..........
. .
..
42
140.0 141.0 142.0 143.0 144.0 145.0
Head
147.0 150.0148.0 149.0146.0
The data has a shotgun pattern above 145 feet of Head so that regression models fit poorly
statistically. Also, the data is from a very limited sample. For these reasons, the old model was
not updated.
The following new NWPPA tables were developed for Noxon.
Table 7 . Taile Race Model
QD TW
line #Cfs Feet
1 0.00 2,172.99
2 5,000.00 2,173.16
3 10,000.00 2,173.72
4 15,000.00 2,174.57
5 20,000.00 2,175.64
6 25,000.00 2,176.84
7 30,000.00 2,178.10
8 100,000.00 2,184.80
9 124,500.00 2,186.90
10 9,999,999.00 2,186.90
Table 9
Head HOVK
Line # Feet (MW/cfs)
1 140.00 9.89
2 141.00 10.01
3 142.00 10.12
4 143.00 10.24
5 144.00 10.35
6 145.00 10.46
7 146.00 10.56
8 147.00 10.66
9 148.00 10.75
10 149.00 10;84
11 150.00 10.91
12 151.00 10.97
13 152.00 11.02
14 153.00 11.06
15 154.00 11.08
16 155.00 11.09
17 156.00 11.08
18 157.00 11.08
19 99999 11.081365
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_OO1 Attachment A Page 12 of 31
Page 12 of 31
Long Lake
Long Lake is a storage project with multiple tables. Tables 2 and 3 relate generation effciency
(HOVERK) to draft and elevation. Draft and elevation are .considered equivalent. Table 6
represents maximum generation for a given flow in CFS. The daily data over the whole study
period for Table 6 depicted below demonstratès multiple upgrades since 1989.
Table 6 - Long Lake All Data
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
i: 50.0::
c( 40.0
30.0 .
20.0
10.0
0.0
,. ~.-i" .....,'-.....~. ~....- .-:... .. .
.
.. -fi.. .
.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Thousands
CFS
Given discussions with A vista staff the last upgrade was completed in 1999. Data for 2000 on
was therefore utilized to develop Tables 2 and 3 as depicted below on the next page.
Tables 2 and 3 were developed by taking daily data from 2000 on and timiting the data to
conditions below an elevation of 1,530 feet. Data above 1,530 is where spil occurs and Tables 2
and 3 do not apply. The data is displayed below as generation efficiency, HOVERK, (AMW/KS)
a fuction of elevation. The data below on the next page displays two distinct groups of data, an
upper tine and a lower tine. The lower tine reflects the old model (red with squares). Internal staff
was unable to identify upgrades that would explain the upper line; therefore a new model (pink
line with triangles) was fitted to the lower data. This new model is approximately the same as the
old modeL. For these reasons the old curve was kept, with the caveat that new information could
change the model in the future.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 13 of 31
Page 13 of 31
Long Lake Table 2 & 3 HOVRK to Elevation
2000 on
12.5
12.0
.__._..._..__..-.+-.._-_....__._.._--
.. · )",... ...."... . ,....:,....,..-: ,..., .
.......
i 11.5::~:iii~ 11.0o:i ..~
10.5 ..
10.0
1,515 1,520 1,525
elevation in feet
I · data ..Old ..Possible New I
1,530 1,535
The Table 6 analysis for the daily model of maximum generation to flow is displayed below.
Long Lake Table 6
Daily Models
10.0
90.0
80.0 .
.- New..........u.......,
.Old ~
70.0 .
60.0 . .
I 50.0c:40.0
30.0
20.0
0.0
o 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
CFS
I . data -old -0 .. new I
P.O. Box15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(âborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafLPR_001 Attchment A Page 14 of 31
Page 14 of 31
The daily Table 6 model for Long Lake is a two-piece linear regression model that incorporates
upgrades in the estimation. Note the data from 2000 on, in blue is covered fairly well by the new
model represented by the pink line. The old model is in red cleariy shows the new model reflects
upgrades better than the old modeL.
Long Lake Monthly Table 6
90.0
10.0
.-&.. f~.i .;!
1 .l .
III
I
80.0
70.0
60.0
~ 50.0
c: 40.0
30.0
20.0
0.0
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Thousands
CFS
I . data -model I
Above is the monthly model estimated as five-piece linear regression modeL. The resulting Table
6 for the Model is below.
Long Lake Table 6
QD PA
CFS MW
0 0
5,000 58.6
6,400 73.4
10,000 85.2
20,000 82.8
40,000 86.3
999999 86.3
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCfborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Staff_PR_001 Attchment A Page 15 of 31
Page 15 of 31
Little Falls
Little Falls is a project with multiple tables. Below is a graph (Table 6) of all data of generation
versus flow.
Little Falls Daily All
5.0
35.0
30.0 . if ':. ~ _ . .
.
25.0 .
~ 20.0
:¡c(
. ,... ... ...
. I
. .
.
15.0 .
.
10.0
0.0
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
CFS
There are three tables of interest. The first is Table 7 that determines tailrace elevation as fuction
òfflow. Table 7 was not updated.
Litte Falls Table 7 Tailrace
1,298.00
1,293.00
i;
I
~ 1,288.00
~
1,283.00
1,278.00
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,00 45,000 50,000
CFS
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(1borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_OO1 Attchment A Page 16 of 31
Page 16 of 31
Given the determination of tailrace, head was determined as elevation minus the level of head.
Table 10 provides the maximum of usable flow (CFS) given head. It is assumed that HOVERK is
calculated using Table 10 to limit flow given the level of head.
Table 10 Liille Falls
Max CFS ~ Head
7,600
7,400
7,200
7,000
~
~ 6,800
.,:¡
6,600
6,400
6,200
6,000
60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0
Head
Table lOis a "given" operational table with no data for comparison and therefore not changed.
The resulting Table 9, which has generation effciency, HOVERK (AMWIKS), as a function of
head is depicted below. The new linear model (pin triangles) fits in a superior maner to the old
model (red tine with squares).
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris~borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 17 of31
Page 17 of 31
Table 9 Little Falls Hk vs Head
5.5 ...N.._....._...._.......
..
5.3
5.1 Old~
4.9
4.7
~ 4.5 . . .....
New ~ ";.11': .t,. .l .. .4.3
4.1
.
.
......... .
: ~..
72 73 74 75 76
3.9
3.7 . .
3.5
66 67 68 69 71
Head
I · data ..old ..... new I
70
The data beyond 76 feet of head was excluded as it represented maximum generation conditions
and had data that was clearly disjoint from the lower data. A linear regression was fitted to the
data. Because of the tinear relationship, a monthly model was not developed. Or put another way,
a daily linear model wil results in the same monthly model mathematically.
The next and last is Table 6 that determines maximum generation after initial generation is
calculated by Table 9. The daily Table 6 is displayed above. The old model is displayed a red
line with squares. The new daily model is a four piece linear regression (pink tine only). The two
models are fairly close.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris~borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Stal'CPR_001 Attchment A Page 18 of 31
Page 18 of 31
Little FallsTable- Dally
Max Gen vs CFS
15.0
...# ... ..
New is the line in the middle of the data
35.0
30.0
25.0
~ 20.0:ic
10.0
5.0
0.0
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Thousnds
CFS
I . dat _Old -New I
The monthly Table 6 is displayed below. The new monthly model is depicted as a pink line only,
the data is in blue diamonds and the old model is a red line with triangles. A 3rd order polynomial
regression was fitted to the data for the monthly modeL.
Monthly Little Falls Table 6
.._--_.__.........._-_.....__..._._....__......_.._._.... . .
5.0
... ...
. .. ..
.30.0
Old .
25.0 .
20.0
s:::
c( 15.0
10.0
0.0 .....
o 6,000 10,000 12,000 14,0002,000 4,000 8,000
CFS
I · data -Monthly ""Old I
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(iborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 19 of 31
StafCPR_001 Attchment A
The new tables for the Pool Model are as follows:
Table 6 Little Falls
QD PA
CFS MW
1 0 0.0
2 1,000 3.5
3 4,000 18.5
4 5,000 21.8
5 6,000 24.4
6 7,000 26.4
7 8,000 27.9
8 9,000 29.0
9 10,000 29.7
10 11,000 30.1
11 12,000 30.4
12 13,000 30.7
13 14,000 30.9
14 15,000 31.2
15 16,000 31.8
16 99,999 31.6
Monroe
Table 9 Little Falls
feet.mw/cfs
Head HOVK
62.00 4.21
88.00 5.05
Page 19 of 31
Monroe Street (Monroe) is a small run of the river project with one table. The one table is Table 6,
generation as a function of flow. The data for all the daily study period is below. Note the
upgrades in the historical plot of all the data.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borìscmborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 20 of 31
Staff_PR_001 Attchment A Page 20 of 31
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
s:8.0:E'"
6.0
4.0
2.0
Monroe Table 6 All data daily
',." ~ ..""i :u *il. ...*- ~.,.:I .. Z .
d*'S' zXx. . if-z:ii:~. ........~~:. z:,.:~~z :... .. .¿
. '" I
ii' .
... '...... .
'"
. .
.. :i~jr.. .lIZñ:~1I ~ ..
..u'
. ...
#:."A... ..,~,fa"~iim...:. u
..'i x x:i. x'" 1:xll :i .:I:i.. . . i: II
.. . :I x ~..~.'"
0.0
o 40,000 45,00015,000 30,000 35,00020,000 25,000
CFS
5,000 10,000
The daily model was developed on data from 2001 on, due to upgrades, as a three-piece linear
model (below as red line with squares). Plant upgrades were not reflected in old model (pink line
and squares), but are in the new daily modeL.
Monroe Table 6 Daily; 2001 on
16.0
.New
14.0 .. ..
Id
12.0
10.0
š:8.0:;ci
6.0 .
4.0 .
2.0 ..
0.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,00 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
CFS
I .data -model ..old I
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris~borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafLPR_001 Attachment A Page 21 of31
Page 21 of 31
Monroe Monthly Model
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
~8.0
c:
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
--_._...._.__..._--..._-_.__.._.._---_._-_.__._.._.......__......_--_.-..-_._._.._----~...~.
1i
t.
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
CFS
I . data -0 model I
25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
The monthly model was developed as a three-piece linear model based on the daily model as
before. The new Table 6 for the Pool Model rus is below.
Monroe Table 6
CFS MW
0 0
2,700 13.3
7,100 14.8
99,999 14.8
Post Falls
Post Falls is a storage project with multiple tables. Due to data considerations (complex seasonal
pattern) and the relative small size of the project, only Table 6, maximum generation as fuction of
flow, was analyzed. The old Table 6 does not have a seasonal pattern, but based on internal
discussions and an examination of the data, a seasonal pattern was detected (see below).
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris((borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafLPR_001 Attchment A Page 22 of 31
Page 22 of 31
Post Falls Table 6 Seasons
20 .-.-...-.....-.-------...-
18
8
Non-Winter has Higher Peak ~ 18 vs 16 AMW
16
14 .. .
12
~ 10((.
6 .
4
2 .
o
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
CFS
I. Jan to Apr . May to June À Sep to Dec I
30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Generally winter (blue diamond in above char) peaks at a lower level than the rest ofthe year.
Winter was refined as December though ApriL. The other season was the "rest" ofthe year.
Two Table 6 models were developed based on these seasonal periods. The following two pages
of chars present the daily and monthly models for the two seasons.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borist?borismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 23 of 31
Page 23 of 31
Post Falls Winter Daily Model
18
16
14
12
S 10
::'"8
6
4
2
0
0
.
...
.... ..
.
.
.
5,000 10,000 15,000
CFS
. actual -I model I
20,000 25,000
The best-fit winter daily model was a 4th order polynomial regression modeL.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristÕborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 24 of 31
Page 24 of 31
The best-fit winter monthly model also was a 4th order polynomial regression depicted above.
Post Fall Rest Daily Model
16
18
14 ..
12
~ 10::'"
8
...
.
6
4
2
o
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
CFS
I · data -- Daily I
35,000 40,000 45,000
The daíly best-fit "rest" model was a 3rd order polynomial regression depicted above.
Post Falls Rest Monthy Model
18
..16 .. I~1i II I~...-I~II
14 I~..
.. ,I~I~I~lI. .
12
s: 10 .::'"8
6
4
2 l
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
CFS
I. actual I~ model 1
The best-fit "rest" monthly data was a 3rd order polynomial regression.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borìstãborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 25 of 31
Page 25 of 31
Post Falls Model Comparison
16
2
14
12
10
~ 8
oi
6
4
o
o 5,000 10,000 15,000
CFS
20,000 25,000 30,000
I-Old ..Winter Monthly -- Rest Monthly I
Interestingly, the old Table 6 model is in between the two new seasonal Table 6 models. The two
new Table 6s for the Pool Model are found below.
ec 0 pr In er ay 0 ov es
CFS MW CFS MW
0 0.00 0 0.00
1,000 3.89 1,000 3.85
2,000 7..04 2,000 7.01
3,000 9.52 3,000 9.54
4,000 11.39 4,000 11.53
5,000 12.71 5,000 13.03
6,000 13.55 6,000 14.12
7,000 13.99 7,000 14.86
8,000 14.08 8,000 15.30
9,000 13.90 9,000 15.50
10,000 13.53 10,000 15.51
11,000 12.90 11,000 15.36
999,999 12.90 12,000 15.11
13,000 14.79
14,000 14.42
15,000 13.80
999,999 13.80
Post Falls Table 6
D t A W"t
Post Falls Table 6M t N R t
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borisCâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafLPR_OO1 Attchment A Page 26 of 31
Page 26 of 31
Nine Mile
Nine Mile has multiple Table 6s that represent thee seasonal conditions. It is a ru ofthe river
project so the Table 6 relating generation to flow is the only table type. There was no readily
available information as to the actual seasonal definitions for the thee old Pool Table 6s. It
appears that the seasonatity embedded in the code of the Pool Model was actually tued off and
no internal information was available. The char of all the data shows multiple upgrades and some
complexity.
Nine Mile Table 6 All
25.0
5.0
20.0
.
15.0
s:
:f . . .
.10.0 . .. .\t............ . ...... to... ..
..
0.0
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
CFS
I. all ,á 2003 on I
The most recent upgrades occurred in 2002, so the data for analysis became very timited. Two
seasons were detected rather than the three, which could be a function of the data. February and
March were the detected winter season, essentially representing high generation at the 24 MW
leveL. The second season was the "rest" of the year. The estimated daily models are presented
below. Note the winter has a slightly higher peak than the "rest". Both models are two-piece
linear models.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(âborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 27 of 31
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 27 0131
25.0
23.0
21.0
19.0
~17.0:i
15.0
13.0
11.0
9.0
2003 on Nine Mile Seasons
Winter has higher peak --li
Rest is lower ~.--
.
.
2 16 18
Thousands
4 12 146810
CFS
I · rest data - winter data ....,¡.... rest model. .... winter model I
The best-fit monthly winter model as a three-piece tinear regression is below.
Monthly Winter Nine Mile
23.0
21.0
19.0
17.0
~ 15.0
c( 13.0
11.0
9.0
7.0
5.0
.....-./.--.
¡r ~
//
".,J
5,000 25,00010,000 15,000 20,000
CFS
I · data --model I
The best-fit "rest" monthly model estimated as a 3rd order polynomial regression is shown below.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristâborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 28 of 31
Page 28 of 31
Monthly Data Rest Nine Mile
25.0
20.0 .
....
15.0
~
:Ec(
10.0
.. ..:..._..:.... l ,.~ ... I1I1I1
ÎJ
.
.. .
.
...:
..
5.0 . . ...
.
0.0
o 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
CFS
I. da . model 1
The new Power Pool tables follow.
Table 6 Nine Mile
February & March
Table 6 Nine Mile& D
CFS AMW
0 0.00
4,800 17.78
4,900 18.83
5,000 18.96
7,800 22.73
7,900 22.28
24,000 20.30
999,999 20.30
Jan.Apr to ec
CFS AMW
0 0.00
1,000 6.94
2,000 9.02
3,000 10.94
4,000 12.70
5,000 14.30
6,000 15.74
7,000 17.02
8,000 18.14
9,000 19.10
10,000 19.90
11,000 20.54
12,000 21.03
13,000 21.35
14,000 21.51
15,000 21.50
999,999 21.50
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boriscæborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attchment A Page 29 of 31
Page 29 of 31
Upper Falls
Upper Falls is a run of the river project with one table, Table 6 (generation vs. flow). The data and
information shows there was an upgrade in 1995.
Upper Fall Table 6 All data
11
9
10
~ 8..
. ,...
.
7 ..
6
5
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
CFS
i · data ..Old I
The best-fit daily model is estimated below as a seven piece tinear regression.
Upper Falls Daily Model
10.0
8.0
;:6.0
:;e:
4.0
2.0
.. .'.....
.I..
~.
0:r
0.0
o
. .
5,000 10.000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
. CFS
I · data -I Daily I
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boris(lborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
StfCPR_001 Attchment A Page 30 of 31
Page 30 of 31
Upper Falls Monthly Model
10
5
._._~_.. -.__._-
1.. --~-_.
~r,--..
~..,
,.:
~'.
l
¡
~
!
9
8
~ 7ci
6
4
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
CFS
I · data -+ model I
The best-fit monthly model above was a five-piece linear regression.
The new Table 6 for the Pool Model follows:
Table 6 Upper Falls NWP .
Une#CFS MW
1 0 0
2 300 0.30
3 900 3.33
4 1,200 4.50
5 1,500 5.67
6 1,800 6.84
7 2,100 8.01
8 2,200 8.40
9 2,300 .8.79
10 2,400 9.19
11 2,500 9.58
12 2,600 9.89
13 2,700 9.88
14 2,800 9.87
15 8,00 9.37
16 10,100 9.25
17 15,200 8.89
18 20,000 8.61
19 25,400 8.35
20 999,999 8.35
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
borìs(Cborismetrìcs.com
Telephone: 42?-922-2853
Fax: [phone]
StafCPR_001 Attachment A Page 31 of31
Page 31 of 31
Summary
The underting of the revision of the Pool models confirmed the two general tasks. First, there
were a number of upgrades to hydro projects that were not included in the old models. These new
upgrades were successfully captured in the new models. Second, the possible overestimation of
generation due to the use of a daily model on monthly data was overcome through proper
estimation techniques. The results by project are below based on Pool Model rus.
POST LONG UPPER NINE LITTLE NOXON CABINET
AnnualAMW FALLS LAKE FALLS MONROE MILE FALLS RAPIDS GORGE Total
Old Results 9.91 57.43 8.65 13.08 16.33 22.72 203.44 120.41 451.96
New Results 9.91 57.57 8.65 12.45 16.33 21.18 199.12 123.02 448.23
Difference 0.00 0.14 0.00 -0.63 0.00 -1.54 -4.31 2.61 -3.73
% change 0.0%0.2%0.0%-4.8%0.0%-6.8%-2.1%2.2%-0.8%
The overall change was a reduction of3.73 AMW due to the correction for the overestimation of
daily models on monthly models being greater than the effect of upgrades.
P.O. Box 15040
Sacramento, CA, 95851
Borismetrics
boristaborismetrics.com
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-I0-0l 1 A VU-G-1O-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-002
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/2212010
Clint Kalich
James Gall
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please explain why the 1929-1978 historical record is used for the Clark Fork hydro studies
discussed on page 12 of the Direct Testimony of Clint Kalich. Explain why hydro data for the
1979-2009 period is not used in the studies.
RESPONSE:
Avista chose to use the 1929-1978 dataset to align its efforts in Idaho and Washington, and to be
consistent with recent filings in both states. To use an expanded data set, data needs to be available
for both A vista hydro resources and other northwest hydro proj ects. The NWPP provide such data
only through 1998. Curently BP A is studying data through 2005 and we expect it to be completed
sometime next year. At that time we wil review the data for consideration in a rate filing.
The 50-year period was initially the result ofthe 2005 Puget Sound Energy proceeding in
Washington State where Washington Staff expressed concerns with the data beyond 1979. Furher
information maybe found in Washington Docket Nos. UG-040640, UE-040641, UE-031471, and
UE-032043 Order No. 06. Section 125 provides an effcient sumar ofthe issue.
Section 125:
Staff, however, disagreed with the use of the full 60 years of stream flow data
because the "rule cures" that the Northwest Power Pool and federal agencies
such as BPA develop and apply to ru off volumes to account for the multiple
uses to which the rivers are put are not yet available for the most recent 10
years. Thus, Staff recommended that we rely on data from the period 1928-
1977 in this proceeding.
Furher, Avista's previous general rate case settlement (Doc AVU-E-09-01) used the same hydro
year records.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
A VU-E-IO-Ol / A VU-G-IO-Ol
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-003
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Richard Storro
James Gall
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a copy of the Lancaster PP A discussed on page 4 line i 0, through page 5 , line 40f
the Direct Testimony of Richard Storro.
RESPONSE:
Please see Avista's response 003C, which contains TRAE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately fied under
IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated April 14,2010.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
IDAHO
AVU-E-10-01 1 A VU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-004
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Richard Storro
James Gall
Energy Resources
[phone]
Please explain how costs associated with the purchase of5.7 aMW ofRECs per year from 2012
through 2015 are allocated between Idaho and Washington. Reference Storro p. 9, lines 6-8.
RESPONSE:
The costs associated with this transaction are outside the time period ofthis rate fiing. These costs
wil be addressed in a future rate proceeding.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-10-01 1 A VU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-005
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Wiliam Johnson
William Johnson
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
On page 11, lines 7-14 of the Direct Testimony of William Johnson, he discusses the purchase of
250 MW of point-to-point transmission for the Lancaster plant. Does Avista have any future plans
to build transmission to directly connect the Lancaster plant to its system? If so, please discuss.
RESPONSE:
Yes. Avista is pursuing with BP A a joint study of the potential interconnection of the AVA
transmission system to the BP A transmission system at the BP A Lancaster substation. The
Lancaster plant itself wil continue to be interconnected to BPA's system at the Lancaster
substation. A vista has entered into the formal Line and Load Interconnection (LLI) process that
BP A requires to be used for this type of interconnection request. The Company has had an initial
meeting with BPA to discuss details concerning the schedule for BPA's LLI process, including
scope of work involved with the interconnection and the schedule associated with the facility
design and proj ect construction. BP A is currently conducting a system impact study regarding the
interconnection. Once that is completed a facilities study would need to be completed.
Once all studies are completed, an estimate of the time required for design and construction of the
facilities typically expected for an interconnection of this type indicates that such a project could
potentially be completed within two years. The Company currently expects the study work to be
completed in 2010. This would indicate an operational date oflate 2012 or early 2013. However,
this is only an estimate based on general design and constrction timelines observed in the industry
and is not reflective of an estimate provided by BP A. BPA estimates of construction on-line dates
wil not be available until later in the LLI process.
A preliminary estimate of A vista's direct cost for the Company-owned portion of this
interconnection is $3 million. Avista's preliminary estimate ofBP A portion of cost is less than $1
million. Additional details about the cost of the interconnection will not be known until the LLI
process and design work has been completed.
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
A VU-E-10-01 1 AVU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-006
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/11/2010
Dave DeF elíce
Jeanne Pluth
State & Federal Reg.
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a copy of any reports, studies or other analysis demonstrating the cost-effectiveness
of the following generation capital projects:
a. Noxon Units 2 and 3 upgrades,
b. Kettle Falls capital projects,
c. Colstrip capital additions,
d. Nine Mile upgrade,
e. Coyote Springs 2 capital projects,
f. Boulder Park control network replacement, and
g. any other generation capital projects that individually exceeded $1 milion.
In those instances in which justification for a paricular capital project was not based solely on
economics, please describe any non-economic benefits and quantify those benefits to the extent
possible.
RESPONSE:
See attached documentation (electronically only, due to the amount of information) for the
following generation projects:
Supporting
Amount Documentation
ER#ER Description (millons)Schedule
4137 Noxon Unit # 2 Upgrade $9.245 Schedule 2
4138 Noxon Unit # 3 Upgrade $9.265 Schedule 1
4101 Kettle Falls Capital Project $1.754 Schedule 3
4116 Colstrip Capital Additions $2.275 Schedule 4
4104 Nine Mile Upgrade $3.954 Schedule 6
4132 CS2 $0.855 Schedule 19
4113 Boulder Park $0.410 Schedule 20
4105 Noxon Capital Project $7.551 Schedule 7
6103 Clark Fork Implementation $3.595 Schedule 8
These materials were initially prepared for the Washington jurisdiction and include system
numbers.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
A VU-E-10-0l 1 A VU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-007
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Clint Kalich
James Gall
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide electrc and natual gas forward prices for October 2010 - September 20 i i contract
months as reported daily for all settlement dates during the period January 1,2009 through the
present for each of the locations included in the forward prices previously provided in the
workpapers of Clint Kalich. Please provide the data in an electronic Excel format.
RESPONSE:
Please see Avista's response 007C, which contains TRAE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under
IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated April 14,2010.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
A VU-E-IO-Ol 1 AVU-G-IO-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-008
DATE PREPARD:
WITNSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
4/30/2010
Clint Kalich
James Gall
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please list and describe any gas purchase contracts that have already been executed for delivery of
gas to Coyote Springs 2 or Lancaster during any months of the pro forma period. List the date of
the purchase, the quantity of gas, the scheduled delivery dates, and the price for the purchase in
$/MMBtu.
RESPONSE:
Please see Avista's response 008C, which contains TRAE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under
IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated April 14,2010.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-IO-Ol 1 A VU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-009
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
04/30/2010
Clint Kalich
Randy Barcus
Finance
[phone]
REQUEST:
For the pro forma period, please compare the Company's July 2009 monthly load forecast as used
in this rate case filing to the Company's monthly load forecasts made in each of the previous two
years. Please discuss changes in the forecasts due to economic conditions or other significant
events. Please also discuss, for A vista's service terrtory, the Company's expectations about the
timing and pace of recovery from the curent recession and accompanying rebound in load.
Finally, compare the load forecasts for the past two years to the Company's actual
weather-normalized loads durng the same time period.
RESPONSE:
Average load for the pro forma period is 1,122 average megawatts prior to any adjustments for
generation at Clearater Paper Company, Lewiston, Idaho. This compares with the year ago
forecast of 1,165 average megawatts, and the two years ago forecast of 1,156 average megawatts.
The two years ago forecast did not include a major electrc load increase at a paper manufacturing
company in Millwood, Washington. Both the pro forma year and the year ago forecast included a
similar forecasted load increase at this facility. The facility began operations in November 2009
and is operating at the expected leveL.
The forecast prepared two years ago (in July 2007) anticipated a slowdown of economic growth in
the service area, although a recession was not contemplated. The forecast prepared one year ago
(in July 2008) factored in a moderate recession with a slowdown in constrction in the residential
and commercial sectors along with a significant reduction in industrial output. The aforementioned
load addition at the paper company was unelated to the recessionary downward adjustments.
The pro forma forecast (prepared in July 2009) incorporated the severe impacts of the recession
which exceeded prior year expectations. A dramatic slowdown in construction along with
prolonged low industrial output was incorporated. This forecast assumes a slow recovery
beginning in mid-2010 with modest increases in industrial output, along with improving
residential construction activity durng 2010. By mid-20ll, industrial output has retured to
normal level, residential construction picks up to 56% of the peak period reached in 2006.
Residential construction additions average 80% of peak levels in the post 2011 period and do not
reach peak levels until 2016. Commercial construction is expected to lag growth in residential and
industral activity and exhibit tepid growth until the 2012 timeframe.
Refer to the spreadsheet "StafCPR _009 Attachment A.xls" for monthly and pro forma anual data
and chart.
St
a
f
C
P
R
_
0
0
9

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A
.
x
l
s
Na
t
i
v
e

L
o
a
d

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
Lo
a
d

(
a
M
W
)
Ho
u
r
s
74
4
72
0
74
4
74
4
67
2
74
4
72
0
74
4
72
0
74
4
74
4
72
0
Na
m
e
/
D
a
t
e

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F2
0
l
O
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
F2
0
l
O
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
1,
0
3
2
.
0
1,
1
5
0
.
5
1,
2
2
2
.
8
1,
3
3
4
.
8
1,
2
4
5
.
6
1,
1
2
5
.
5
1,
0
2
4
.
0
1,
0
1
8
.
9
1,
0
4
3
.
1
1,
1
2
6
.
9
1,
1
1
0
.
4
1,
0
3
4
.
1
1,
1
2
2
.
0
F2
0
0
9
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
8
F2
0
0
9
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
8
1,
0
8
2
.
1
1,
1
9
1
.
1
1,
3
3
2
.
6
1,
3
4
5
.
0
1,
3
2
5
.
6
1,
1
3
0
.
2
1,
0
9
9
.
5
1,
0
6
2
.
0
1,
0
3
5
.
1
1,
1
5
7
.
7
1,
1
8
7
.
8
1,
0
4
0
.
4
1,
1
6
5
.
2
F2
0
0
8
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
7
F2
0
0
8
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
7
1,
0
8
7
.
1
1,
1
9
1
.
9
1,
3
1
2
.
0
1,
3
6
7
.
8
1,
2
9
6
.
8
1,
1
3
2
.
7
1,
0
5
6
.
2
1,
0
2
6
.
4
1,
0
6
3
.
9
1,
1
5
9
.
6
1,
1
2
5
.
0
1,
0
5
3
.
4
1,
1
5
5
.
6
No
t
e
:

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
l
l

lo
a
d
s

t
o

C
l
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r

P
a
p
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

i
n

L
e
w
i
s
t
o
n
,

I
d
a
h
o

(
n
e
t

l
o
a
d

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

n
o
t

m
a
d
e

i
n

a
b
o
v
e

d
a
t
a
)
Av
i
s
t
a

S
y
s
t
e
m

L
o
a
d

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(O
c
t

2
0
1
0
-

S
e
p

2
0
1
1
)
II:iII3 mi
GJ E ~l!GJ ~
::
:
:
:

~
1
¡
=
~
-
=
.
-
:
:
:
:
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,
2
5
0

.
.

-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
1,
2
0
0

+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.~
F
2
0
0
8
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
7
1,
1
5
0
1,
1
0
0
m_
_
_
_
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
m
.
.
_
_
_
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
m
.
_
.
_
m
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
-
-
-
F
Z
a
a
~
m
ü
1
y
7
O
-
-
-
-
.
m
-
-
.
.
m
.
m
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
m
_
_
_
_
m
~
1,
0
5
0

l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,
0
0
0

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
-
.
-
~
.
,
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
-
~
.
~
.
~

.
.
~
.
_
.
.
.
1
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
-
.
-

"
,
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

2
St
a
f
C
P
R
_
0
0
9

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A
Na
t
i
v
e

L
o
a
d

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
Lo
a
d

(
a
M
W
)
Ye
a
r
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Na
m
e
/
D
a
t
e

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
F2
0
1
0
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
20
1
0
1,
3
0
7
.
6
1,
2
1
8
.
5
1,
0
9
8
.
7
99
6
.
6
99
1
.
3
1,
0
1
4
.
9
1,
0
9
6
.
3
1,
0
7
8
.
0
1,
0
0
4
.
2
1,
0
3
2
.
0
1,
1
5
0
.
5
1,
2
2
2
.
8
F2
0
1
O
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
20
1
1
1,
3
3
4
.
8
1,
2
4
5
.
6
1,
1
2
5
.
5
1,
0
2
4
.
0
1,
0
1
8
.
9
1,
0
4
3
.
1
1,
1
2
6
.
9
1,
1
1
0
.
4
1,
0
3
4
.
1
1,
0
6
2
.
2
1,
1
7
9
.
9
1,
2
5
3
.
0
F2
0
0
9
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
8
20
1
0
1,
3
2
1
.
0
1,
3
0
3
.
4
1,
1
0
8
.
3
1,
0
7
6
.
7
1,
0
3
9
.
5
1,
0
1
2
.
6
1,
1
3
3
.
9
1,
1
6
0
.
9
1,
0
1
5
.
7
1,
0
8
2
.
1
1,
1
9
1
.
1,
3
3
2
.
6
F2
0
0
9
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
8
20
1
1
1,
3
4
5
.
0
1,
3
2
5
.
6
1,
1
3
0
.
2
1,
0
9
9
.
5
1,
0
6
2
.
0
1,
0
3
5
.
1
1,
1
5
7
.
7
1,
1
8
7
.
8
1,
0
4
0
.
4
1,
1
0
5
.
6
1,
2
1
3
.
3
1,
3
5
6
.
3
F2
0
0
8
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
7
20
1
0
1,
3
4
5
.
3
1,
2
7
6
.
0
1,
1
1
3
.
5
1,
0
3
7
.
9
1,
0
0
9
.
0
1,
0
4
6
.
1
1,
1
4
1
.
5
1,
1
0
5
.
6
1,
0
3
4
.
2
1,
0
8
7
.
1
1,
1
9
1
.
9
1,
3
1
2
.
0
F2
0
0
8
/
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
7
20
1
1
1,
3
6
7
.
8
1,
2
9
6
.
8
1,
1
3
2
.
7
1,
0
5
6
.
2
1,
0
2
6
.
4
1,
0
6
3
.
9
1,
1
5
9
.
6
1,
1
2
5
.
0
1,
0
5
3
.
4
1,
1
0
5
.
5
1,
2
1
0
.
3
1,
3
3
6
.
0
Pa
g
e

2

o
f

2
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
A VU-E-10-01 1 A VU-G-10-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-No. 10
DATE PREPARD:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/05/2010
Elizabeth Andrews
Craig Bertholf
Rates & Tariff Admin.
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a listing of all A vista proceedings currently before other regulatory
agencies/jursdictions. Please include within your response a description of the proceedings, its
current status and docket number or other referencing information.
RESPONSE:
In the State of Washington the following proceedings are currently ongoing;
Docket No. UE-1 00513, 2009 Energy Recovery Mechanism anual review fied 4/1/1 0
Docket No. UG-100468, Natural Gas General Rate Case filed 3/23/10, suspended 4/5/10
by Order No. 1 and consolidated with UE-1 00467
Docket No. UE-100467, Electric General Rate Case filed 3/23/10, suspended 4/5110 by
Order NO.1 and consolidated with UG-100468
Docket No. UE- i 00176, 10-year Conservation Potential and Biennial Conservation Target
for 2010 and 201 i, fied 1/29/10
Docket No. UE-091902, Affiliated interest filing between Avista Turbine Power and
Avista Corporation filed 12/8/09
Docket No. UG-090015, Natural Gas 2009 Integrated Resource Plan filed 12/30109
Docket No. UE-081613, Electrc 2009 Integrated Resource Plan filed 8/31109
In the State of Oregon the following proceedings are curently ongoing;
Docket No. LC 49, 2009 Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan filed 12/30109
Docket No. UG 171, Compliance filing to Order No. 10-127 regarding the Senate Bil 408
Automatic Adjustment Clause fied 4/12/10