20060911IPC to Staff 91-101.pdf

IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO. BOX 70
BOISE, IDAHO 83707
RECEIVED
200& SEP I I PH~: 33
Monica B. Moen
Attorney
An IDACORP Company
IDMiO F'UdLiC
UTILITIES COhHvllSSION
September 11 , 2006
Jean D. Jewell , Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re:Case No. IPC-06-
Idaho Power Company s Response to the Fourth Production
Request of the Commission Staff
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for filing an original and two (2) copies of Idaho Power
Company s Response to the Second Production Request of the Commission Staff
regarding the above-referenced matter.
I would appreciate it if you would return a stamped copy of this transmittal letter
to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Very truly yours
!6.
Monica B. Moen
MBM:sh
Enclosures
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone], E-mail MMoenrg)jdahopower.com
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
MONICA B. MOEN ISB #5734
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise , Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
RECEIVED
200b SEP II PH 4: 33
IDAHO PUBLI"~
UTILITIES CO~\M.4ISSI0N
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE RATE BASING
OF THE EV ANDER ANDREWS POWERPLANT.
CASE NO. IPC-06-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "the Company
and , in response to the Fourth Production Request of the Commission Staff to Idaho
Power Company dated August 22 2006, herewith submits the following information:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page
REQUEST NO. 91: Please explain in detail the transmission
improvements that "will provide capacity during all seasons and improve the reliability of
the Company s transmission system." Please quantify as accurately as possible the
benefits of increased transmission capacity and of improved reliability. If these
attributes cannot be quantified , please explain why.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 91: The proposed transmission
improvements would be constructed to accommodate the transmission requirements of
the new peaking facility. However, these improvements would also have a positive
impact on the Company s transmission system generally. Presently, three 230kV
transmission lines comprise the Midpoint West transmission system. All three of these
lines terminate in the vicinity of the Boise Bench substation. The addition of the
transmission improvements required for the Evander Andrews power plant project
would create a fourth 230 kV transmission line from the Mountain Home area to the
Boise load center. This additional line would increase redundancy and result in
increased transmission system reliability. Furthermore , the presence of this new
transmission line would make it feasible to add a 230/138 kV transformer in the
Mountain Home area and , thereby, improve local area reliability. System reliability is
enhanced by terminating the new fourth line at the Mora Substation , a location remote
from the Boise Bench substation.
Feasibility Studies for generator interconnections do not attempt to
determine whether excess capacity exists on the transmission system. However , the
Company s impression from performing the Feasibility Study for the interconnection
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 2
required by the proposed Evander Andrews power plant is that little excess
transmission capacity exists when the new facility would be in full operation.
The response to this request was prepared by Roger Grim , System
Planning Engineer, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen
Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 3
REQUEST NO. 92: Please explain in detail and quantify as accurately as
possible the benefits from the economies of centralizing operations at one location
(Evander Andrews). If these attributes cannot be quantified , please explain why.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 92: Expanding plant operations at an
existing Idaho Power location offers several benefits. The Company estimates that
approximately $600 000 in fixed operating costs would likely be saved by locating the
new plant at an existing Company-staffed site. That figure represents costs for
additional labor and plant overheads if sites other than Evander Andrews or Bennett
Mountain were chosen.
It is estimated that, at minimum, a staff of four additional employees would
be required to operate the plant at a new site. If the proposed site for the new facility
were located in Boise , support from the regional Hagerman maintenance shop would
likely be unrealistic. Thus, the need for two or three additional employees to provide
mechanical and technical support would likely exist in the future. The addition of these
new employees would increase the $600 000 that was used in the initial analysis.
These estimated staffing requirements assume peaking operations at the new plant.
However, conversion of the facility to a baseload operation in the future would require
more employees to cover ongoing 24-hour operation.
A new site also creates additional general overhead expenses beyond the
need for additional personnel. At least three additional vehicles would be required - a
pickup, fork lift, and a small utility truck. Also, additional general operational and
maintenance requirements such as office and warehouse spaces and infrastructure
requirements such as sewer , water, parking areas , landscaping, irrigation, heating and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 4
cooling systems and communication systems and expenses associated with security,
taxes and road maintenance would have to be considered. Additional vehicle mileage
fuel expenses could be expected as well for a supervisor that would travel between the
plants.
The response to this request was prepared by F. Gregory Hall , Principal
Engineer, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II
Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 5
REQUEST NO. 93: Please explain in detail and quantify as accurately as
possible the benefits from simplification of environmental compliance reporting as a
result of locating the new generating plant at the Evander Andrews location.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 93: Environmental compliance reporting
is simplified by locating the new generation plant at the Evander Andrews location for
several reasons and the Company would realize certain economies of scale. First, on-
site compliance inspections and record-keeping for each of the generation facilities
would be located at a single facility. For instance , monthly inspections for fugitive dust
and visible emissions for each of the units could be conducted simultaneously at one
plant. Second, there is better control of accurate record-keeping by having all the
quarterly reporting for CFR Part 60 and Part 75 located at one facility. Also, education
and training of the operation staff can be centralized.
Third, the required quarterly testing and reporting of the Continuous
Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) for each unit can be completed at one facility at
the same time. Should problems arise, similar equipment for the various units can be
compared to resolve any problems. The Company s facility technicians would have a
better opportunity to resolve any problems with the very sophisticated and technical
CEMS equipment because of the location of similar systems in close proximity.
Fourth , the systems would share the same spare parts inventory by being
at the same site. Fifth , testing costs for the annual Relative Accuracy Test Audit would
be reduced since the required EPA-approved Contractor who would conduct the test
would only charge one set-up fee. Finally, calibration gases that are used for daily
CEMS calibration can be shared at one plant.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 6
The response to this request was prepared by F. Gregory Hall , Principal
Engineer, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II
Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 7
REQUEST NO. 94: Is Idaho Power willing to provide a commitment
estimate for transmission costs that will be incurred to integrate the proposed new
Evander Andrews generating plant, similar to the Commitment Estimate offered for the
plant construction? If so, what is the commitment estimate for transmission costs? If
Idaho Power is not able or willing to agree to have the transmission improvements
subject to a commitment estimate, please explain why?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 94: Idaho Power Company is unable to
provide a commitment estimate for transmission costs that would be incurred to
integrate the proposed new Evander Andrews generating plant, similar to the
Commitment Estimate offered for the plant construction. At the time Idaho Power filed
its Application with the Commission for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, the
Company had negotiated a bid price for construction of the proposed new generation
plant at the Evander Andrews Power Plant Complex. The bid price for the generation
plant would cover the vast majority of the total cost of the generation plant with the
balance being easier to estimate without formal bids.
However, preparation of design and construction plans for the
transmission improvements required to integrate the new facility into the Company
system generally lag behind development of the plans for actual construction of the
plant. At the present time, only feasibility and technical studies have been completed
for the transmission improvements required to integrate the new facility into the
Company s transmission system. After the design and planning for transmission
requirements are sufficiently complete , bids for the construction and equipment needed
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 8
to build the necessary transmission facilities can be obtained and a commitment
estimate developed.
The Company is currently developing the plans for the infrastructure
needed to integrate the proposed peaking resource into its transmission system. Until
those design plans are finalized and bids for the materials and equipment received, the
Company will not have a firm estimate of the costs associated with integration of the
facility into its system. Thus , unlike the costs associated with construction of the plant
itself, the Company does not have a precise estimate of the costs of constructing the
requisite transmission facilities required for the new plant and is , therefore, unable to
provide a commitment estimate of those transmission costs at this time.
The response to this request was prepared by David "Kip" Sikes , Manager
Grid Operations and Planning, Idaho Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen
Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 9
REQUEST NO. 95: A natural gas fired peaking plant was not selected as
part of the preferred portfolio chosen in the Draft 2006 IRP. If 2006 IRP assumptions
are used and the proposed Evander Andrews plant is assumed to be a resource option
instead of part of Idaho Power s existing generation fleet , would the Evander Andrews
plant be chosen as part of the preferred portfolio?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 95: If 2006 IRP assumptions are used
and the proposed Evander Andrews plant is assumed to be a resource option instead of
part of Idaho Power s existing generation fleet, it is almost certain that the peaking
resource Idaho Power is proposing to add to the Evander Andrews would have been
selected as a part of the preferred portfolio. With the continued growth in summertime
peak-hour loads, Idaho Power needs either generation resources internal to its system
or additional firm transmission capacity to markets with availability of firm summertime
peak-hour energy.
The 2006 IRP predicts the 2007 summertime peak-hour deficit to be
approximately 115 MW. Summertime peak-hour deficits are forecasted to grow to 204
MW by the summer of 2009. Given the planning criteria to meet the peak-hour load
under a 90th percentile water condition and a 95th percentile peak-hour load , a peaking
resource capable of being constructed and placed on-line quickly, such as the proposed
Evander Andrews plant, would have most likely been included in the 2006 IRP'
preferred portfolio had it not been regarded as part of the Company s existing fleet.
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, Idaho Power Company, in
consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 10
REQUEST NO. 96: In Request No.1 of the Commission Staff, Staff
requested a copy of load-resource balance data by month for each of the years 2006-
2026 for six different assumed water and load conditions, with and without the addition
of the proposed Evander Andrews plant. The requested time period was chosen
specifically to correspond to the time period covered by the 2006 I RP. 2006 I RP load-
resource balance data has been in use by the Company for several months during the
preparation of the 2006 IRP; consequently, Staff assumed it could also be used to re-
examine the need for the Evander Andrews plant. In the Company s initial response to
this request, Idaho Power provided load-resource balance data for the period 2004-
2013, apparently from the 2004 IRP.
Please provide a response to this request using load-resource balance
data consistent with the data that will be used in the 2006 IRP.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 96: The requested information is
attached hereto as "Response to Request No. 96.
The response to this request was prepared by Phil DeVol, Planning
Analyst, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen, Attorney II , Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 11
CASE NO. IPC-O6-
IDAHO POWER CO.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'
PRODUCTION REQUEST
NO. 96 IS ON A DISK
PROVIDED WITH ALL
COPIES
REQUEST NO. 97: In response to Request No.2 of the Commission
Staff, the Company states "Peak load surpluses/deficiencies are evaluated using 90th
percentile water and 95th percentile peak load conditions." Has the Company changed
its capacity planning criteria for the 2006 IRP, or should the response be corrected to
refer to the "th percentile water and 70th percentile peak load conditions.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 97: The 2006 I RP indicates that for
peak-hour capacity planning, Idaho Power uses 90th percentile water conditions and
th percentile peak-hour load. In the 2004 IRP , Idaho Power indicates that the primary
scenario for determining the need for peak-hour or capacity resources is the 90
percentile water and 70th percentile load scenario.
In the 2004 IRP , 95th percentile peak-hour loads were coupled with 70
percentile average load forecast to incorporate a more adverse representation of peak-
hour loads. Although the 2004 IRP referred to the 70th percentile load scenario for
peak-hour capacity planning, the 95th percentile peak-hour loads were used to
determine the peak-hour surplus or deficit. The 70th percentile average load forecast
was used in the 2004 IRP (and the 2006 IRP as well) to determine monthly
hydroelectric generation; however, the determination of monthly hydroelectric
generation has very little, if any, impact on the peak-hour surplus/deficit. Idaho Power
felt that it was less confusing and more accurate to refer to the peak-hour capacity
planning criteria as 90th percentile water conditions and 95th percentile peak-hour load.
This designation is used throughout the 2006 IRP; however, the planning criteria is the
same as that used in the 2004 IRP.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 12
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, Idaho Power Company,
Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II , Idaho Power
Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 13
REQUEST NO. 98: Assuming, hypothetically, that the Evander Andrews
plant is constructed and that Idaho Power is fully utilizing all of its own resources and
purchase contracts, if water and load conditions are such that Idaho Power is still
unable to meet load , what other alternatives will be pursued to meet load? At what
point will load curtailment be considered?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 98: If Idaho Power is fully utilizing all of
its owned and contracted resources and water and load conditions are such that Idaho
Power is unable to meet its reserve requirements, load management procedures would
be implemented. These procedures involve declaring a Stage 1 or 2 Power Alert and, if
the situation is not resolved, a Stage 3 Power Emergency would be declared. The
following describes the process that would be used:
Stage 1 Power Alert - All Available Resources in Use. A Stage 1 Alert is
declared when Idaho Power foresees conditions where sustaining spinning and non-
spinning reserve obligations may not be possible. During a Stage 1 Power Alert, non-
firm wholesale sales are curtailed , the Pacific Northwest Reliability Coordinator is
notified , Idaho Power employees are notified and Idaho Power Corporate
Communications will issue public warnings requesting that all customers reduce energy
usage on a voluntary basis. Generation and transmission maintenance is postponed
as appropriate and all generation resources are made available.
Stage 2 Power Alert - Load Management Procedures are in effect. A
Stage 2 Alert is declared when Stage 1 measures have been exhausted and Idaho
Power is utilizing a portion of its non-spinning reserve. During a Stage 2 Alert, the
Pacific Northwest Reliability Coordinator and other WECC Reliability Coordinators are
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 14
notified , Idaho Power employees are notified, Idaho Power Corporate Communications
will continue to issue warnings and appeals for customers to reduce energy
consumption and emergency assistance from neighboring utilities will be requested.
During a Stage 2 Alert , non-spinning reserve requirements may be met by designating
firm load to be curtailed.
Stage 3 Power Emergency - Firm Load Interruptions Imminent or in
Progress.A Stage 3 Power Emergency is declared when (1) immediate action is
required to maintain system reliability, (2) firm load must be curtailed to meet Idaho
Power s spinning reserve obligations , or (3) Idaho Power is unable to serve a localized
portion of load due to equipment failures or high loadings on equipment. During a
Stage 3 Alert, the Pacific Northwest Reliability Coordinator and other WECC Reliability
Coordinators are notified , Idaho Power employees are notified and efforts to reduce
load and secure assistance as outlined in Stage 2 will continue. FERC Standards of
Conduct will be suspended and actual load curtailment will be initiated.
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, in consultation with Monica
B. Moen, Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 15
REQUEST NO. 99: Staff Request No. 18 specifically asked that the load
and fuel price forecasts used to perform the AURORA analysis be consistent with those
of the 2006 IRP. Based on the Company s response , it appears that 2004 IRP
assumptions were used with perhaps some update to fuel price forecasts. Please
provide responses to parts a , b , and c of Request No. 18 using 2006 IRP assumptions
or explain why 2006 IRP assumptions cannot be used.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 99: The requested information is
attached hereto as "Response to Request No. 99.
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Haener, Planning
Analyst, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen, Attorney II , Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 16
REQUEST NO.1 00: Staff Request No. 26 asked for monthly estimates
for the period June 2007-December 2027 of the number of hours the Evander Andrews
plant will be expected to operate to serve Idaho Power s load. Idaho Power did not
provide any estimate of expected operating hours. For the purposes of answering this
request, Staff assumed that the Evander Andrews plant would be added to Idaho
Power s portfolio and dispatched in an AURORA simulation using the portfolio selected
in the 2006 IRP. Please provide monthly estimates as requested , or if this cannot be
done , please explain why.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 100: As requested , Idaho Power has
added the new Evander Andrews plant to its existing portfolio. The resulting portfolio
including the new Evander Andrews plant and the portfolio selected in the 2006 IRP
was dispatched in an Aurora simulation from 2007 through 2032. This Aurora
simulation utilized 50th percentile water and average load conditions and 90th percentile
peak-hour loads for the Idaho South "bubble , the other WECC zones utilized default
Epis load and water conditions , which represent an average or median water and load
condition. The new Evander Andrews plant's operating hours as determined by the
Aurora simulation are attached hereto as "Response to Request No.1 00." The inputs
to the Aurora analysis will have a significant impact on of the number of hours that any
of the combustion turbines (CTs) are dispatched. In a simulation that utilizes 50th
percentile water and average load conditions and 90th percentile peak-hour loads
conditions for the Idaho South "bubble" and average or median conditions for the
remainder of the WECC, CT operation will be limited. Under more severe conditions for
the Idaho South "bubble" and the remainder of the WECC zones , such as 90
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 17
percentile water and 95th percentile peak-hour loads , the CTs are expected to dispatch
more frequently.
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, Idaho Power Company and
Rick Haener, Planning Analyst , Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B.
Moen , Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 18
REQUEST NO.1 01: Staff Request No. 51 asked for Idaho Power
current forecast of firm wholesale electric energy prices for the next five and 10-year
periods for heavy and light load hours. In response to the request , Idaho Power
provided monthly heavy and light load hour prices for three market hubs from July 2006-
December 2012 (approximately a six-year period). Does the Company prepare or
purchase a forecast that extends beyond 2012? If so , please provide a copy.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 101: Idaho Power does not regularly
prepare or purchase any forecasts of firm wholesale electric energy prices that extend
beyond the forecast provided in response to Request No. 51. This curve is developed
internally and it is Idaho Power s forward price curve. It is updated regularly and it is
used for generation portfolio optimization and risk management computations.
The Aurora Electric Market model will create a forecast of electric market
prices for the period simulated in an Aurora analysis. It is possible to extract this price
forecast for the various "bubbles" modeled in the analysis. An Aurora electric market
price forecast is largely dependent on the inputs and assumptions used for the analysis
and may not correspond to actual market prices. A forecast of electric market prices for
the next five and 1 O-year period for heavy load and light load hours is attached hereto
as "Response to Request No.1 01." This forecast was created by the Aurora Electric
Market model for Idaho Power s "bubble" in the 2006 IRP analysis.
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, Idaho Power Company, in
consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 19
REQUEST NO.1 02: Staff request No. 61 asked for an update on the
status on the Company s plans to upgrade the Borah-West transmission path. Neither
in its initial or its supplemental answers to this request did Idaho Power provide an
actual update on the project status as requested. Staff would like to know, for example
is the project under construction , when is completion expected, how much has/will the
rated transmission capacity of the path been increased , etc.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.02:
The Company noted in its response to Request No. 61 that the Borah West up
rate project will provide a 250 MW increase in East to West transfer capability on the
Borah West transmission path. The East to West transfer capability will increase from
its present rating of 2307 MW , to 2557 MW once the project is complete. Construction
is presently underway on all major phases of the project. May 2007 is the anticipated
project completion date. The major components of the project and their corresponding
construction status , are listed below:
Brady-Am Falls 138 kV line , Re-conductor 0.4 mile -Construction is Complete
Borah-Hunt 230 kV line, Rebuild 70.0 miles of 138 kV to 230 kV , single 1590
kcmil ACSR - 20% of the structures are installed.
Borah 345 kV , 175 Mvar Shunt Capacitor - Construction is 75% complete
Midpoint 345 kV , 175 Mvar Shunt Capacitor - - Construction is 70% complete
Adelaide Substation Reconfiguration - Construction is complete
Hunt Substation Reconfiguration - Construction 67% complete
The response to this request was prepared by Roger Grim , System
Planning Engineer, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Monica B. Moen
Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 20
REQUEST NO. 103: In Staff Request No. 74 , Staff asked Idaho Power to
describe any additional costs Idaho Power expects it will incur as a result of delaying
completion of the project from June 1 , 2007 until April 1 , 2008. If the answer to the
question can be determined simply by subtracting the winning bidder s 2008 online date
price from its 2007 online date price , then Staff can develop an answer without
assistance. However, if there are other costs because of delaying the online date until
April 2008 , such costs for acquiring replacement power for 2007 for example , then Staff
requests that Idaho Power provide an answer.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 103: One of the potential costs of
delaying the online date of the new Evander Andrews peaking resource is the premium
that will be paid for power purchased and delivered to the east side of Idaho Power
system. Without this peaking resource available for the summer of 2007, Idaho Power
plans to purchase additional energy delivered to the east side for July of 2007 to meet
the peak-hour planning criterion used in the 2004 IRP. To meet this planning criterion
Idaho Power needs to purchase 56 MW of energy and have it delivered to Idaho
Power s eastside during heavy load hours in July 2007.
In October 2005 , the July 2007 peak-hour deficit (assuming that Idaho
Power s transmission import capability from the Pacific Northwest is fully loaded) was
estimated at 111 MW. To reduce this deficit to an acceptable level (75 MW), an east
side purchase of 36 MW (111 MW deficit less 75 MW of firm import capacity associated
with the Red Butte to Borah/Brady transmission) is required.
The 2006 IRP analysis further refined the forecast for the July 2007 peak-
hour deficit. Idaho Power s current estimate of the July 2007 peak-hour deficit
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 21
(assuming transmission capability from the Pacific Northwest is fully loaded) is 131 MW.
To reduce this deficit to an acceptable level, an east side purchase of 56 MW is
required. The additional cost of this strategy depends on actual conditions during the
summer of 2007. Items to consider include the extent to which the new Evader
Andrews CT would have operated during 2007 had it been available to be dispatched
the cost of natural gas (to fuel the Evander Andrews CT), and the cost of power
purchases made in lieu of operating the Evander Andrews CT. It is extremely difficult to
estimate the additional cost of this approach without making a number of assumptions
about the future.
However, we do know with a fair degree of certainty that forward
purchases for July 2007 delivery on Idaho Power s east side will be more expensive
than July 2007 Mid-C purchases. On September 5 2006 , the Mid-C to Four Corners
price spread for firm HL energy was $16 to $17/MWh. The higher Four Corners price is
representative of the premium Idaho Power may have to pay for an east side purchase.
In addition , the premium relative to Mid-C pricing, the cost to purchase energy on Idaho
Power s east side may require an additional expenditure of $5 - $7 to compensate for
the cost of transmission between Four Corners and Idaho Power s east side
interconnections.
The response to this request was prepared by Karl E. Bokenkamp,
General Manager Power Supply Operations and Planning, Idaho Power Company, in
consultation with Monica B. Moen , Attorney II , Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 22
DATED at Boise, Idaho , this 11 th day of September 2006.
$.
MONICA B. MOEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF Page 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11 th day of September 2006, I served a true and
correct copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO
THE FOURTH PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMMISSION STAFF upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Donovan Walker
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Hand Delivered
- U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email:
Donovan. wal ke r cty puc. idaho. gov
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Peter J. Richardson , Esq.
Richardson & O'Leary
515 N. 2ih Street
O. Box 7218
Boise , Idaho 83702
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email:
peterCtY richardsonandoleary .com
Don Reading
Ben Johnson Associates
6070 Hill Road
Boise, Idaho 83702
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email: dreading cty mindspring.com
Monica B. Moen
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Page
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O6-
FOURTH PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NOS. 96 & 99
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-06-
FOURTH PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 100
Response to Request No. 100
i~~.
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
Evander Andrew #1
, .
rR~~mX~'
. .2007
12008
2009
;2010
2011
:2012
:2013
2014
2015
:2016
2017
2018
:2019
2020
2021
:2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
.2031
2032
~n.rgY(MWh)
17342
21813
17145
3951
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-06-
FOURTH PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 101
Response to Request No. 101
Sum of Price Condition
Off-Peak On-Peak
Report Year Report Month WECC WECC
2006 60.81.41
59.79.
63,81.
60.76.
2007 74,91.
76.102.
67.90.
55.74.
50.70.
47.65.
59.74.
62.82.
59.47 81.
58.80.
63.82.
63.77.
2008 62.77.48
58.78.42
54,72.
43.62.
46.59.
44.61.
53.74.
58.77.
54,75.
54.74.
57.76.
58.46 70.
2009 62.73.
57,76.
52.73.
45,60.
46.60.
45.60.
53.46 73.
58,80.
55.75.
52.71.
56.77.
59.68.
2010 45,53.
42.59.
Response to Request No. 101
41.56.
34.46.
34.46.
35.45.
40.59.
44.60.
41.57.
40.55.
43.57.40
45.47 52.
2011 48.57.
41.40 57.
38.54.
35.47.
36.50.
39.50.
44.66.
50.68.
45.64.
43.58.
44.57.
45.53.
2012 53.63.
50.67.
46.61.
42.57.
43.57.
46.59.
53.74.
59.80.
55.70.
50.69.
52.71.
52.64.
2013 56.49 68,
52.70.
48.49 64,
45.61.
45.61.
48.61.
58.79.
61.43 86.
57.77.
51.73.
55,73.
57.68,
2014 57.71.
54.73.
50.68.
Response to Request No. 101
46.62.49
46.61.
49.63.
60.80.
65.90.
59.77.
54.73.
56.76.
60.71,
2015 63.78,
59.75.
54.47 73.
50,64,
50.65.
53.70.40
65.84.
69.93.
63.82.
56.78.
60.80.
64.76,
2016 69.86.
63.80.
57.79.
52.70.
52.71.
57.48 71.
68.89.
74.99.
65.90.
62.82.
66.85.
68.40 83.
. :;',\,
5 Vear'HLpric~(~r~OO9thfough'8?fO11.)
5 Year LLpric~;(~/2006thrbugh812a1 t)
0,.V$ar
' ~,
kfJri~(K(9/~OO6through8/20t6) ,
1 OY eart-! Lpribe(9/2006 thrq\.jgh 8/201