20100824PAC to Staff 203-211, 213-222 .pdf

"~ROCKY MOUNTAINPOR
IÓ . A OlV1SION OF PA RE""-of .r-1~'J~_n
201 Sout Main. Suite 2300
Salt Lae Cit, Ut 84111
August 23, 2010
Scott Woodbur
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W. Washigton
Boise, ID 83702-5918
ZOIGAUG 24 AM 9= 35
Neil Price
Idao Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
RE: ID PAC-E-10-07
IPUC Data Requests (202-222)
Please fmd enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's responses to IPUC Data Reques 202-222,
excluding 202 and 212. These responses are in process and will be provided when available.
Provided on the enclosed CD are Attchments IPUC 209 -(1-2). Provided in Hard Copy is
Attachment IPUC 221. Provided on the enclosed Confdential CD is Confdential Attchment
IPUC 215. Confdential Atthment is Confdential and is provided to paries that have signed a
protective order in ths docket.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. T¿d W~/It
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Reguation
Enclosure:
C.c. Randy Budge/Monsanto
Jean Jewell/UC
Eric Olsen/IP A
Ben Otto/lCL
James R. Smith
Richard Anderson
George C. Carer, III
Denns Peseau
Gareth R. Kajander
Maurce Brubaker
Brian Collins
Michael Gorman
Kath Iverson
Mark Widmer
PAC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 203
IPUC Production Data Request 203
In Case No. PAC-E-08-03, in response to Staff Production Request No. 10,
instead of Alternative 2, the Company chose to build a double circuit 345 kV line
to maximize the corridor. Please provide justification showing how the extra
capacity from maximizing the corridor wil be utilzed immediately.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 203
The Populus - Terminal 345 kV double. (.drçuit line adds significant new
capabilty between Idaho and Utah cturil1g normal system operations and provides
additional benefits to customers by maintaining reliabilty during planned and
unplaned outages of other transmission lines that operate in parallel with the new
Populus to Terminal line. The extra capacity from maximizing the corridor is
utilzed immediately by allowing the system to operate at a higher overall
capacity than could be achieved by a single circuit 345 kV line had it been
constructed instead.
Alternative #2 (Proposed single circlIit 345 kV line from Populus to Ben Lomond)
did not provide the necessar long-term planed transmission capacity (1400
MW) required to serve customers and it did not provide the capacity necessary for
reliable operation of Energy Gateway. Haçl Alternative #2 been selected and
constructed it would have occupied the onfy viable and existing line route right-
of-way available and precluded any new lines in the future along the route.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. Cuningham
Darrell T. Gerrard
" it
",''';,.\
1',:1
II
Il
PAC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 204
IPUC Production Data Request 204
Please provide cost and transfer capacity comparisons if the Company had chosen
a different circuit configuration for the Path C Upgrade, for example, 230 kV
single or double circuit, 345 kV single circuit or a 500 kV single or double circuit
or other appropriate transmissioncoiIfigtirations., ,
Response to IPUC Production Data Request ~04
Alternatives to the 345 kV double circuit line were explained in PAC-E-08-
03/Rocky Mountain Power, September 10, 2008, IPUC Request 10. The
alternatives did not provide adequate transmission capacity so cost comparisons
were not prepared. The core Energy Gateway strategy, which Populus - Terminal
is part of, determined a 1500 MW transfer capabilty is the minimum system
requirement in order to prudently satisfy customer load requirements and maintain
system reliabilty. Two additional alternatives were reviewed involving building
a 500 kV line and installation oftwd345kV single circuits constructed over a
phased period of time.
A 500 kV line Populus - Terminal alternative would have required additional 45
foot right-of-way width beyond the curent right of way boundar for 43 miles
between Terminal and Ben Lomond. It also would have required purchases and
extensive use of eminent domain over a number of properties along the corridor
and would have met strong public opposition to erecting 500 kV towers in an
already developed urban area with espeaa.llY sensitive areas including fully
established and future proposed housing ;developments that parallel the right-of-
way, Farington Bay Wildlife Refuge and the Salt Lake City Airport. The
additional cost, permitting difficulty and"schedule impact of an additional 45 foot
right-of-way width in this segment rendered this alternative inferior.
Additionally, a 500 kV alternative would require expansion and installation of
500 kV substation facilities in Populus, Ben Lomond and Terminal substations
where currently only 345 kV substation facilties exist. The addition of a 500 kV
transmission line would require 500 kV - 345 kV transformers at Populus, Ben
Lomond and Terminal plus standby spare transformers. The installed cost of 500
kV - 345 kV substation facilties i~ inore!'t~n $60 millon at each of the three
sites. The selected double circuit 345kV line alternative did not require additional
500 kV substation facilties at all three locations.
The segment between Populus and Ben Lomond would have required a 175 foot
wide right-of-way for 500 kV line versus 150 foot wide right-of-way for the 345
kV line. Utah communities that would have been impacted include Garland,
Tremonton, Wilard and others. Again, the additional costs and permitting
challenges would have made thissegpen,tmore expensive and difficult tocomplete. ';"~! ,.JI
.'
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 204
The Company did not perform a detailea cost estimate for the 500 kV line
alternative. Conceptual high level cQ§ts,Were considered during the consideration
of alternatives. These high level çosts determined the 500 kV alternative was
significantly more expensive and inferior to the 345 kV double circuit alternative.
Phasing two 345 kV circuits over a period of time for the remaining Energy
Gateway segments were rejected because it cost significantly more in net present
value construction costs and present value requirements than building one line
with adequate capacity. There was also a political consensus that the number of
rights-of-way on public and private lands sl;ould be minimized and the use of
these limited rights-of-way shoulä t~ke ihto account regional long-term needs
instead of phasing redundant transmission projects over a relatively short period
of time. Many communities and othe:r stakeholders oppose granting rights-of-way
on public and public lands to undersized transmission projects.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. Cunngham
Darell T. Gerrard
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 205
IPUC Production Data Request 205
In Gerrard's testimony, page 7, lines 19-20, "the Company committed to increase
the transmission capacity by 300 MW from southeast Idaho to northern Uta."
Based on the Company's 2008 IRP, page 283, the planed rating (initial
completion) of Populus to Terminal transmission line is 700 MW. Please justify
the necessity of the additional 400 MW of transmission capacity in the absence of
the other segments of Energy Gateway West.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 205
The justification for increasing capaçity above original commitment is explained
in Darell Gerrard's testimony, page,8, lines 9-22. One of the alternatives was to
increase capacity up to 300 MW andwas rejected as explained in Gerrard's
testimony, page 12, lines 7-21.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. Cunngham
Darrell T. Gerrard
PAC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 206
IPUC Production Data Request 206
What is the maximum megawatt line rating or capacity of the 345 kV Populus to
Terminal facilty based on engineering design?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 206
The Populus-Terminal Project wil be par of Path C, a transmission path
consisting of multiple elements that connects the transmission system in the area
of Pocatello and Idaho Falls, Idaho, to the southeast corner of Idaho and northern
Utah. The new Populus to Terminal 345 kV transmission line, exclusive of other
Path C elements and impacts, is engineered to have a continuous capacity rating
of2228 amps (1331 MVA) and a 4-hour emergency rating of 2474 amps (1478
MVA).
(MW=Megawatts, MVA=MegavoltAmps)
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
David Hagen
Darell T. Gerrard
'.J;
PAC-E-1 0-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 207
IPUC Production Data Request 207
Without other Energy Gateway segments, the transfer capacity of Populus to
Terminal northbound direction is 350 MW and southbound direction is 700 MW.
Please explain how this capacity increases to 1400 MW in both directions once
Gateway South is completed without modifying the existing Populus to Terminal
transmission line.
Response to IPUC Production Data Requ.est 207
The planed incremental transfer capacity of the Populus to Terminal project
when completed in 2010 wil be 700 MW planed rating; however, this
incremental capacity will be limited in both the northbound and southbound
directions due to reliabilty operating limitations on other existing transmission
system elements that operate in parallel with the Populus to Terminal facilities.
After completion of the other Energy Gateway segments, including Energy
Gateway south, new transmission capacity will be added and these other existing
transmission system limitations wil no longer be present and the addition of the
Energy Gateway segments wil allow Populus to Terminal facilties to operate at
their full planed incremental rating. of 1400 MW.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darrell T. Gemml:
Darrell T. Gerrard
t
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 208
.,'
IPUC Production Data Request 208
Please describe and quantify the reliabilty requirements that the Populus to
Terminal line fulfills.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 208
The Company must comply with the following mandatory Federal and Regional
Standards and Criteria applicable to ¡the. planing, performance and operation of
the Company's Bulk Electric Systtmi¡(BES) interconnected in the Western United
States.
. NERC TPL-001 System Performance Under Normal Conditions
1
. NERC TPL-002 System Performance Following Loss of a Single BES
Element2
. NERC TPL-003 System Performance Following Loss of Two or More BESElements3,
. NERC TPL-004 System PerforhanceFollowing Extreme BES Events4I.' -. ,.!\. TPL 001- WECC-1-CR SysteinPerformance Criteria Normal Conditions
. TPL 002-WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria Following Loss of a
Single BES Element
. TPL 003- WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria Following Loss of Two
or More BES
. TPL 003- WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria Following Extreme BES
Events
. NERC TOP-002 Normal Operations Planing5
. NERC TOP-004 Transmission Operations6
. NERC TOP-007 Reporting SOL¡~nd(lROL Violations7
~ '-1i
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darell T. Gerrard
Darell T. Gerrard
1 NERC TPL-OOI can be found at: htt://www.nerc.com/fies/TPL-OOI-O.pdf
2 NERC TPL-002 can be found at: htt://w.Vw.nerc.com/files/TPL-002-0.pdf
3 NERC TPL-003 can be found at: htt://w*w.nerc;com/files/TPL-003-0.pdf
4 NERC TPL-004 can be found at: htt://w~w.hêre.com/fies/TPL-004-0.pdf
5 NERC TOP-002 can be found at: htt://www.nerc.com/fies/TOP-002-2.pdf
6 NERC TOP-004 can be found at: htt://www.nerc.com/files/TOP-004-2.pdf
7 NERC TOP-007 can be found at: htt://www.nerc.com/fies/TOP-007-0.pdf
WECC Reliabilty Stadards Documents can be found at htt://www.WECC.biz
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 209
IPUC Production Data Request 209
The Populus to Terminal line willalsob~ used to integrate potential new energy
resources in Wyoming, Utah, Idahoånd Oregon. Please provide a list of these
resources and identify which are in-service, under construction and planed.
a. What % of sizing of the Populus-Terminal line was designed to accept
PURP A mandated purchases?
b. What % of the Populus-Terminal line cost is or will be allocated to
RFP and PURP A contracts?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 209
The transmission capacity is required to deliver existing and future network
resources for PacifiCorp Energy and to. serve load and load growth for other
PacifiCorp wholesale customers including Utah Association of Municipal Power
Systems.
In-service resources include:
1) Please refer to the resource matrix in Exhibit B, pages 12-16, from the PAC
Energy Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (NITSA)
provided as Attachment IPUC 209 -1; and
2) The UAMPS Transmission Seryiçe()perating Agreement (TSOA) provided as
Attachment IPUC 209 -2.';1"
Resources under construction inc1ud~:
. Top of the World (Duke purchase power agreement)
. Dunlap Wind Resource
Future resources: Please refer to the posted/fied Integrated Resource Plan which
may be found at:, ll ;,
htt://ww.pacificorp.comlcontent/ dam/pacificorp/ docÆnergy Sources/Integrate
d Resource Plan2008IRPUpdatelP~cifiCorp-2008IRPUpdate 3-31-10.pdf
a. The line was not sized for, or to accommodate any specific PURPA purchases.
b. None. The line was planned and designed in response to the long-term
customer load service requirements as identified in the PacifiCorp integrated
resource plan.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Kenneth T. Houston,: d
Darell T. Gerrard:
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 210
IPUC Production Data Request 210
In Company witness McDougal workpaper Page 8.6.2 under Rate Base
Adjustments, there are 10 transmission projects added to Rate Base under the
Transmission category besides the Populus to Terminal Line transmission related
costs. For each project:
a. Please provide the project description and its purpose.
b. Please explain how each project is prioritized.
c. Please quantify its impact on the system.
d. Please explain how the Company undertes the construction of these
projects to assure reasonable cost. Are the projects contracted in-
house, competitively bid, or sole sourced?
e. Please provide the schedule of these projects and their respective costs.
Response to IPUC Production Data Requrst210
Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 24,
Attachment IPUC 24 -4 for a document sumary, as well as the associated cost
benefit analysis documents.
Provided previously as
Attach IPUC 24-4
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Project Name
Three Peaks SLlb;lìnstall ~45 kV Substation
Camp Willam~ - 9pth South Double Circuit 345 kV line
Red Butte -St George 138 kv dbl ckt, (345 kv Const)
Pinto 345 kV Series Capacitor
Dunlap Ranch Wind Farm Phase 1 Interconnection
Upper Green River Basin Superior Project - Transmission Part
Oquirrh New 345-138kV Substation
Parrish Gap Const Nw 230-69kV Sub
Line 37 Conv to 115kV Bid Nickel Mt Sub - Trans
Chappel Crk 230KV Cimarex Energy 20 MW
Community Park Convert to 115-12.5 kV - Transmission Part
Bil Cuningham,
Darell T. Gerrard
,:-~; \ ;
,
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 211
PUC Production Data Request 211
Please provide the amount of Idaho irrigation load curtailment that occurred
during the system coincident peak höurs of2009. What percentage of potential
curtailment does this represent? What percentage of CP does this represent?
Where is this referenced in jurisdictional allocation factors, class allocation
factors, power supply and rate design?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 211
During 2009 load curailment related to the Idaho irrigation load control program
occurred durng only the August moiithly system coincident peak. The August
system coincident peak occurred August 3,2009 at 6 p.m. Mountain Daylight
Time, and Idaho load at thìs time was 362 MW. During the August 3 curtailment
event, a total potential curtailment of240.7 MW was available based on the
program paricipants' historical biling demand. The exact amount of curailment
realized as a result of a paricular curailment event is not available.
The Company's fied case relies on forecasted loads for 2010 for jurisdictional
allocation factors, net power costs, and present revenues. Consequently, the
referenced curtailment event in 2009 is not referenced in the Company's filing
and does not directly impact jurispictjon"l allocation, net power costs, or rate
design. Please refer to the Company:s response to lIP A Data Request 16 for a
description of the impact of this program.oti the class allocation factors.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
L d,'"
'_i
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 213
IPUC Production Data Request 213
What supply side resource(s) would the Company consider as an appropriate
replacement for the Idaho and Uta Irrigation Load Control Programs should
these programs be discontinued?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 213
The Company plans and acquires resources on a system-wide basis and does not
assign any particular resource to the discontinuance of a load control program.
For puroses of evaluating the Idahqand Utah Irrigation Load Control Programs,
the Company assumed that the load control programs would displace a simple-
cycle gas-fired combustion turbine.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Waren
To Be Determined
!¡ i
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 214
Please explain the system benefits, pertaining to all jurisdictions, of the Idaho
Irrigation Load Control Program.
IPUC Production Data Request 214
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 214
Benefits of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Program are related to the ability to
meet system demand, and are retained by Idaho as a result of allocation factors
that are lower than they otherwse would be without the program.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
Li
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 215
IPUC Production Data Request 215
On page 4, lines 14-15 of Eelkema's Testimony, regarding the methodology used
to develop test year loads, pleasepro;vide:
a. An electronic list and detailed, 'explanation of all the variables used to fit the
sales of each class to weather and economic drivers (HIS Global Insights,
etc.).
b. All executable electronic regression models, along with descriptions of the
accuracy for each class (i.e.-descriptive statistics).
l"'.:,
'.
, \
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 215
a. Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC 215, specifically the sheet
labeled "Model" in each document. ,Confidential information is provided
subject to the terms and conditiom; oftne protective agreement in thisproceeding. "
b. The model is estimated using MetrixND which is proprietary software and,
therefore, an executable electronic copy cannot be provided. Please refer to
(a) above for a non-executable copy of the model in ExceL.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
PAC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 216
IPUC Production Data Request 216
On page 5, lines 12-20 of Eelkema's:Testimony, regarding the methodology used
to develop test year number of customers, please provide:
a. A detailed explanation of why a 13-year time period (January 1997- Janua
2010) was used to develop the nurber of customers for the non-industrial
classes.
b. An electronic list and detailed explanation of all the variables used to model
each class (Le.-HS Global Insights, etc.).
c. A detailed explanation of why economic drivers were not used to model the
irrigation class.
d. All executable electronic regression models, along with descriptions of
accuracy for each class (i.e.-descriptive statistics).
Response to IPUC Production Data Requ~st 216
A 13-year time period was used because the Company did not retain
monthly sales data by customer class before Januar 1997, and the
Company only had sales data though January 2010 at the time the forecast
was prepared.
a.
b.Please refer to Confidential Attacb,ent IPUC 215, specifically the sheet
labeled "ModeL." Confdent,ialjnfQÌ1liation is provided subject to the terms
and conditions of the proteetlvêagrèement in this proceeding.
,.
c.Economic drivers are not a gooa e)(pIanatory variable for irrigation sales
because irrigation sales are dependant on other factors which are difficult to
measure. These include the type of water year (timing and amount of
precipitation), the crops which are planted (alfalfa, potatoes, grains, hops,
etc.), irrigation practices (pivot, flood irrigation, solid set, etc.), and the
amount of irrigated far land.
d.The model is estimated using MetrixND which is proprietar software and,
therefore, an executable electrQuiccopy canot be provided. Please refer to
Confidential Attachment ipVCd115'fo~ a non-executable copy of the model
in Excel, specifically the sheetijbeled'''Stat'' for a copy of the descriptive
statistics. Confidential information is provided subject to the terms and
conditions of the protective agreement in this proceeding.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema r:
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 217
IPUC Production Data Request 217
On page 5-6, lines 22-23 & 1-9 of Eelkema's Testimony, regarding the
methodology used to develop test year average use per customer, please provide:
a. A detailed explanation of why the specific time frame was used to develop
average use per customer for the.non-'industrial classes.
b. An electronic list and detailed explanation of all the variables used to model
each class (i.e.-IHS Global Insights, etc.).
c. A detailed explanation of the time trend variables used to model the "other
classes."
d. All executable electronic regression models, along with descriptions of
accuracy for each class (i.e.-descriptive statistics).
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 217
a. The Company did not retain mortthly sales data by customer class before
Januar 1997, and the Company only had sales data through Januar 2010 at
the time the forecast was prepared.
b. Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC 215, specifically the sheet
labeled "ModeL."
c. Please refer to Confidential Attachmtnt IPUC 215, specifically the sheetlabeled "ModeL." . \
:.-:).1..
d. The model is estimated using MttrixND, which is proprietary software and,
therefore an executable electronic copy canot be provided. Please refer to
Confidential Attachment IPUC 215, specifically the sheet labeled "Stat."
Confidential information is provided subject to the terms and conditions of the
protective agreement in this proceeding.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
PAC-E-I0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 218
IPUC Production Data Request 218
On page 6, lines 13-22 of Eelkema's Testimony, regarding the development of
test year sales for industrial customers, please provide:
a. A detailed explanation ilustrating the process used by CCMs to determine
customer's future plans for businessprgcess changes.
b. All backcast studies used to evaluate the accuracy of this process in
determining future industrial säle's. If there are no studies, please explain
why.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 218
a. At the beginning of each year, CCMs meet with large industrial customers
that can directly impact bulk loaci demands on the utility's system to review
the overall needs of the custorner: AUhat time, projects of all sizes are
discussed and reviewed along with an assessment of which Rocky Mountain
Power departments need to be involved to meet the needs of the customer. If
customers are planning to bring new load on to the system, the CCM explains
the process for all loads that exceed 1 MW beyond an existing contract
demand. The process includes the possible fiing of an OASIS request along
with utilzing the Engineering Services Agreement through the Master
Electric Service Agreement process. For loads that are below 1 MW but
impact the total contract demand, a Master Electric Service Agreement
Amendment is used and an assessment performed by engineering as to
whether or not this service can, bé.m~t.,'ÇCMs wil work regularly with their
assigned customers to underståtagrovVh or reduction plans and how best to
serve these needs. For customerš'near the 4 MW level, regular load forecasts
are performed, which enable the' CCM and Rocky Mountain Power to manage
new loads coming on to the system. Each commercial and industrial customer
load growth is governed by existing contracts. If a customer does not have an
existing retail contract in place, CCMs work to establish such an agreement,
which requires that the customer con,tact Rocky Mountain Power for any load
that could exceed contract demand., i
t--... -,,?~'"
t
b. The Company has not conduete'd1any backcast studies of the accuracy of the
test year sales to new industrial çustomers; however, the Company re-
evaluates the information from'the Customer and Community Managers and
updates the information when necessary.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Loren Morse / Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 219
IPUC Production Data Request 219
On page 7, lines 1-5 of Eelkema's Testimony, regarding the development of test
year sales for new industrial customers and expansions of existing large
customers, please provide:
a. A detailed explanation of the Company's process for collecting input from
customers.
b. A detailed explanation of the Company's load factor analysis.
c. A detailed explanation of how the Company uses probabilities to determine the
likelihood of project occurence.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 219
a. For business customers, assigned account managers or CCMs are utilized.
Each customer has the direct opportunity to converse and interact regularly
with a company representative, at which time the CCM gathers feedback from
the customer. Customers that exceed 1 MW and meet certain SiC code
parameters are sureyed anually by a third pary called TQS. At this time
these large energy users are able, in a neutral setting, to provide importt
input regarding customer service, etc. Customers below the managed account
level have the opportunity to speak with Rocky Mountain Power business
solutions professionals when new service or alterations are required.
b. The Company relies on information from its Customer and Community
Managers (CCMs) as to expectedcustønìers' load factor. CCMs may use
various sources to develop the expected load factor, which include the load
factor of companies with similar processes, and input from the customer
which may be based on the customer's experience with similar processes.
c. Probabilties are used based on a scale developed by the Company in order to
adequately manage and plan for customer load. This scale is determined by
stages in the discussion and contract phases.
Tier 4- customer has begun talks,withCCM regarding new project exceeding 1MW ' .
Tier 3- Engineering Services Agrciement has been signed for new project
Tier 2- Engineering Services Agreement Amendment has been signed for new
project
Tier 1- Master Electric Service Agreement has been signed and funded by
customer
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Loren Morse / Pete Eelkema
To Be Determined;
,I:
PAC-E-1O-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 220
IPUC Production Data Request 220
On page 8, lines 1-6 of Eelkema's Testimony, regarding the development of test
year hourly loads, please provide a detailed explanation of why the Company
used a 19-year range of average monthly peak-producing weather instead of the
13-year range used to develop test yéar number of customers, or some other
range.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 220
The Company retained the date of its monthly peak since January 1990; therefore,
it was able to calculate the monthly peak-producing weather based on the 19 year
period. The Company did not retain monthly sales data by customer class before
Januar 1997 and only had sales data through January 2010.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema
PAC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 221
IPUC Production Data Request 221
Please provide the percentage of customers under each irrigation load control
schedule. As part of your response, plea~e provide the 2009 and 2010 average
montWy savings associated with each.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 221
During the 2009 irrigation season, approximately 41 % of eligible schedule 10
customers and eligible sites paricipated in the dispatchable option schedule 72A,
while 3% of eligible sites (6 % of eligible customers) paricipated in the schedule
forward options, schedule 72.
Please refer to Attachment IPU C 221 for the breakdown of paricipation by load
control schedule as well as the actual 2009 and estimated 2010 paricipation and
expected monthly savings.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
IDA-HO
PAC-E-I0-07
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
IPUC DATA REQUEST (202-222)
ATTACHMENT IPUC 221
IN HARD COpy ONLY.\
10 PAC.E.10-07
IPUC221
Attachment IPUC 221
Attchment IPUC 221
Data from 2009 Idaho Irrgation Load Control Quantitative Review (November 14,2009)
Table Eighteen
200 - Proram Impa by Parcipaton Option
Opn
Opion I m w 2-8
Option I t th 2-8
Optin II m w 3-
Opton II m w 4-7
Option II t th 3-
Option II t tt 4-7
Opton II m t w tt 3-6
Option II m t w th 4-7
Option IV m 2-8
Option IV w 2-8
Schedule Foiward totals
Dispah Option totals
Totals:
Counts
60
44
7
o
1
1
5
4
o
1
123
1,927
2,050
June
Avoid kW
1,902.5
954.5
65
o
11.5
20.5
95.5
108
o
34
3,782.5
231,042.4
234,824.9
July Avoied
kW
2,164.5
1066.5
66
o
12.5
20.5
95
107.5
o
33
4,162.5
254,192.9
25,355.
Aug Avoi
kW
2,083
1102
661.5
o
12.5
19
108
106
o
33
4,125.0
244,587.9
248,712.9
set Avoided
kW
1,550
941.5
575.5
o
7
20
94.5
96.5
o
33
3,318.0
o
3,318.0
Table Twelve
Schedule 10 Eligible & Full-Year Partcipang Sites & Custmers (Dispatc Opti)
208 Actual Partipants
2009 Actal Participan
Eligible 20 Conts
Cusmers NOT eligible to partpae 200
Parcipan Sit
1,491
1,927
4,723
N/A
Parcipant Customers
530
826
2,032
o
Table One
Longitudinal and Currnt Year Scedul 72 Eligible & Full.Year Parcipatng Site & Customers (Scheule Ford Opti)
2003 Actual Paripats
200 Actual Participants
205 Actual Participants
20 Actl Partipants
207 Actual Paricpants
20 Actal Paripant
209 Actl Partipts
Eligible 20 Conts
cusme NOT eligible to partcipae 2009
Attach IPUC 221.pdf
Parpan Site
401
734
1,065
931
681
87
123
4,723
N/A
Page 1 of2
Partpa Custo
207
34
489
478
40
79
112
2,032
o
10 PAC-E-1Q-07
IPUC221
Calculations:
2009 % of Customers by Load Contrl Scedule:
200 Idaho Irrigation Load Control Partcipation:
#ofSites:
%of
Sites:
#of %of
Cu~ome~: Cu~ome~:
Total 2009 Eligible Schedule 10:4,723 100%2,032 100%
Dispatchable Option 1,927 41%826 41%
Schedule Forward Option 123 3%112 6%
Table Produced in Response to IIPA 23A
ESTIMATED 2010 Avoided kW -Idaho lnigation Load Contrl
Number June July Aug
Option Signed Avoided Avoided Avoided
Up kW kW kW
Option I m w 2-8 55 1,782.5 1,867.0 2,089.0
Option I t th 2-8 40 944.5 1,061.5 1,025.5
Option II m w 3-9 293.5 378.0 283.0
Option II m w 4-7
Option II t th 3-
Option II t th 4-7 20.0 20.5 19.0
Option III m t w th 3-6 8 344.5 376.0 316.5
Option III m t w th 4-7 2 92.5 92.5 91.5
Option IV m 2-8 8 26.5 384.0 290.5
Option IV w 2-8 3 182.5 273.5 275.0
Option dispatch dispatchable 2,192 256,992.0 277,531.5 273,657.5
Totals:2,318 260,916.5 281,984.5 278,047.5
NOTE: These are estimated Avoided kW for the 2010 Irration Season based on
currnt expctations of partcipation. Actual results will be calculated at the conclusion of
the irrgation season and included in the Company's Idaho Annual DSM Report.
Attach IPUC 221.pdf Page 2012
Attchment IPUC 221
PAC-E-I0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
August 23,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 222
IPUC Production Data Request 222
On Page 9, lines 17-21 of Eelkema's Testimony, it says "Test year sales is not
adjusted to reflect the effects of tlie irriE~ti()n program because the Company is
assuming 100 percent tae-back. Iriigato,rs knowing they may be curailed during
the 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. window wil irrigate around the curailment hours. As a
result, energy will be shifted away from curailment hours, but the daily energy
wil not change appreciably." Please provide all "take-back" studies the
Company's completed supporting the conclusion that "daily energy wil not
change appreciably."
Response to IPUC Production Data Requrst 222
The Company has not completed.any "take-back" studies. The Company,
however, is in the process of conducting a grower surey as part of a broader
program evaluation underway which, coupled with the other components of the
evaluation, may provide insight into any shifting of irrgation load because of the
presence of the irrigation load management program. The Company wil share
the results of the evaluation findings with the IPUC Staff when they become
available.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Eelkema
Pete Eelkema \ ~