20100910PAC to IIPA 114-123.pdf

~~;~OUNTAIN ?~ECt
p \ nM'\ g~ 45 201 South Main, Suite 2300'lM ~ St.\ \. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
September 9, 2010
Eric L. Olsen ISB# 4811
Raine, Olson Nye, Budge & Bailey, Charred
P.O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
RE: ID PAC-E-1 0-07
IIP A Data Request (114-123)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mounta Power's responses to IIPA Data Requests 114-123.
Provided on the enclosed CD are Attchments IIP A 120 and 123.
If you have any questions, pleae feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~ T¿d tvulò/~
J. Ted Weston
Maner, Reguation
Enclosure:
cc: Rady Budge/Monsanto (C)
Jea JewelJ.UC (C)I 3 copies
Anthony Y ane1lP A (C)
Ben Ott/ICL (C)
James R. Smithonsanto (C)
Richad Anderson/onsanto (C)
Gerge C. Carer, IIIIonsato (C)
Dens PeseuIonsto (C)
Ga R. Kajander/Monsato (C)
Maurce Brubaker/Monsanto (C)
Brian Collins/onsanto (C)
Michal Gormanonsto (C)
Ka Iversn/onsanto (C)
Mar Widmer/Monsto (C)
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mounta Power
September 9, 2010
IIP A Data Request 114
IIPA Data Request 114
The Company "Demand Side Mangement Anual Report-Idaho" for 2009 lists
on Table 26 on page 37 a "Tota Resource Cost Test (PTRC) + Conservation
Adder" costnefit ratio of 5.808 for Idaho's Irrgation Load Control program.
The Company "Demand Side ManagementAnua Report-Uta" for 2009 lists
in Appendix 1 on page 54 a "Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) + Conservation
Adder" cost!enefit ratio of2.124 for Utah's Irrgation Load Control program.
Because these programs ar quite simlar, and because the incentive payments .are
quite similar, please explai why there is such a large difference in the
cost!enefit ratios and if this difference is expected to generaly contiue in 2010.
Response to LIP A Data Request 114
The pri drver is the single year cost differences in deliverig the two
programs. 2009 was the first year a dispatchable control program (Schedule 96A)
was offered in Uta. Its introduction led to a fourold growt in paricipating
loads from the Schedule 96 program (10 megawatts in 2008 to rougy 40
megawatts in 2009), with.the majority of tota paricipatig load electing to
. .............--j)ãrCípafêiñ-ilê..dispaiCM'61êprogram.A1tloug1iilê-iistrãtíôïi.ofdìšpãtcnã.blë
control equipment began in Uta in 2008 in anticipation of the dispatchable
progr, the majority of new equipment and instlation costs were reaizd in
2009. In addition, delivering the Uta progr is impacted fuer by the grter
geographical area to cover in deliverng the progr and generay smaller
avere pump sizes.
In regards to the Company's benefit cost ratio expectations for the programs in
20 i 0, the Company does expe greater convergence in 2010; however, for the
reasons noted above, it expets the Uta progr will continue to ru lower
benefit cost ratios overalL.
Recrdholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Deteed
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountan Power
September 9, 2010
lIP A. Data Request 115
LIP A Data Request 115
The Company's response to IIPA Request 67 indicates that the cost of the Uta
Residential Direct Load Control Program is reflective of the cost to operate the
program, but not the "levelized maket costs". Please explai what is included in
the "levelized market costs" tht is in addition to what is included in the operating
costs.
Response to lIP A Data Request 115
There seems to be some confsion regardig the Company's response to IIPA 67.
The response meant to convey tht the cost assumed by Quatec in their July 11,
2007 report was the levelized market cost (what the market was curently
charging) of a 10-year progr in 2007 dollars if the Compay were contractig
for additional resources at tht time. As noted in the Company's response to IIP A
Data Request 67, the Quantec cost used in the report was NOT reflective of the
cost of Rocky Mounta Power's Cool Keeper progr resources, which were
procured under a 10 yea pay-for-peormance agreement in 2003.
~~~_--_".~~~'W~=M==m_=","~Á'~",Á"~'H-~~~'_--_'_'~""~"__;,.~,_w_'_"~~'._d__G.~~..m~m,~~,~~~~_'__"_'~",,, _,_,._._____~,u...~._....._.__,~~.,~~.~~_~.~~.n~'n'~n.."'~n._,.~~'~'~NNW.'''.., __~____~~~____..._._.__M._"AAWn_.'nn_~
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determed
PAC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountan Power
September 9, 2010
lIP A Data Request .116
IIPA Data Request 116
The Company "Demand Side Management Anual Report-Uta" for 2009 lists
in Appendix 1 on page 54 a table tht conta the progr inputs and the values
for Uta's Irgaton Load Control program. Please provide a similar table for the
Uta Cool Keeper progr for 2009 and the Idaho Irrgation Load Management
progr for 2009.
Response to lIP A Data Request 116
No such table exists for the Cool Keeper program for 2009. As explaied in
Appendix 1 of the 2009 Demand Side Maagement Anua Report - Uta page
56, "Cost effectiveness anysis of the Cool Keeper program was conductd on a
program lifecyc1e basis for program years 2003 to 2013 in order to remove the
cost dierences from year to year associated with the contrctu payment
schedule under the pay for performance contrct with the progra delivery
vendor where the cost of the progr vares by program year."
Cost effectiveness for the Irgation Load Control program is analyzed on an
anua basis, utilizg 2009 kW and 2009 costs alone. The table on page 54
'~'~'.~'."-'--i)roviaes-ile aiUã"costs-and1eneñts ofile'Jigatiõii-rõacfCõñtrôrprgrãn'~ .......~___._,_,_._..._..__w,'_
for 2009.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determed
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountan Power
September 9,2010
IIP A Data Request 117
LIP A Data Request 117
The Company's response to lIP A Request 46 states that the latest estmate of the
benefit of the Idaho Irgation Load Control Program is $73.09 kW-year. The
Company "Demand Side Mangement Anual Report-Uta" for 2009 lists in
Appendix 1 on page 54 the same value of$73.09 for the dispatched program. The
Company "Demand Side Management Anual Report-Uta" for 2009 lists in
Appendix 1 on page 56 a value of $ 100.62 / kW-year for the Uta Cool Keeper
progr which includes a value of"$23/ kW-year associated with deferral of
transmission and distrbution inftrctue". Please answer the followig:
a Should the $23 / kW -year be added to the figue for the Idao Irgation Load
Control Progr benefit?
b. Please explai and quatif all diferences between the benefit assigned to the
Idaho Irgation Load Control Program and the Uta Cool Keeper Program.
Response to lI A Data Request 117
a ...Nõ:....Tl¿träïmissìõnaia.cüstn6iitìon(1&D)investmenraeferrlcrecûilšnöi..
factored into the Idao Irgation Load Control Program valuation methodology.
b. The mai benefit differences between the Idaho Irrgation Load Control Program
. and the Uta Cool Keeper Progra stem from differences in program siz,
available hour, notice provisions, and location. The Company has not quatified
the benefit differences ascribed to these individual program atbutes.
Recordholder:
Sponsr:
Jeff Bumgarer / Pete Waren
To Be Deterined
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountan Power
September 9, 2010
LIP A Data Request 118
lI A Data Request 118
On page 2 of Exhbit 56 (Hedm's testimony) there is a "Utiity Cost (OCT)"
listed of $20,032,734. Please provide a breakdown of all costs that make up ths
figue.
Response to lIP A Data Request 118
Table 1 below lists the components tht make up the $20,032,734.
Table i
Tota Program Costs
Administrative
Support
Evaluation
Field Expenses
.~._.~_..._.",.. ..lIQ.~______~~._._... ._....~.___....w....
Mangement
Incentive Credits
Tota Program Costs
CY2008 CY2009
Tota 2008-
2009
$2,239.92
$3,543.75
$6,561,452.19
'-$6~õ63:437:95...,~-.--.w.'$69~¡i6:9f'."'$6:Õ723jf4~86 -----....--~.-.~
$94,051.68 $7,298,531.14 $7,392,582.82
$8,917,785.14 $11,114,948.40 $20,032,733.54
$1,640.50
$2,268.75
$2,816,386.26
$599.42
$1,275.00
$3,745,065.93
Recrdholder: Jeff Bumgarer
Sponsor: To Be Detered
PAC-E-I0-07IRocky Mountain Power
September 9,2010
LIP A Data Request 119
IIPA Data Request 119
On page 2 of Exhbit 56 (Hedman's testiony) there is a "Utilty Costper kW"
listd of $43.24. Please provide an explantion of what kW figue was usd and
how it was derived.
Response to lIP A Data Request 119
Table 2 ilustrates the calculation of the Utiity Cost per kW. The 2008 and 2009
kW values are those used for the cost effectiveness anysis reported in the anua
reports. fied with the Idao commssion.
Table 2
Tota 2008-2009 Program
Costs $20,032,733.54
2008kW
2009kW
........................ __Inla..kW............
204,912
258,355
__._.46.3..161-
CostperkW $43.24
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Deteined
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 9, 2010
LIP A Data Request 120
LIP A Data Request 120
The response to LIP A Request 45 contaed loss stdies for each of the
Company's jursdictions. The trmission level energy losses were the sae for
all jursdictions. The Uta energy loss for seconda was 8.757%, while it was
10.148% for Idaho. Please answer the following:
a. Pleae provide a detailed explantion of how the calculation of the trsmission
level losses produces the same loss factor for all jursdictions.
b. Please provide a detaled explanation of how the calculation of secndar losses
produces different levels for different jursdictions.
c. Please provide a detaled explanation of all reasons why the losses at secondar
would be higher in Idao than in Utah. Please provide a copy of any studies the
Company has conducted in the las 10 years that would address these differences.
Response to lIP A Data Request 120
a Tliê..trmission.losi fa.aors..fofdêñiãrd(kW)-ãrdenêigyTi¿WlJ..arê...identicâI'for...
all stte jursdictions based on detailed system wide loss calculations. In order to
captue and recover losses in an equitable maner, all of the PacifiCorp
transmission losses were included and composite factors derived and applied as
the stag point for each state jursdiction.
The athed PAC 2007 Transmission loss analysis, Atthment IIPA 120, des
the sumar results for trmission voltages of 500 kV though and includig 46
kW,
b. The detaed losses consider individua class loadings and circuit representation
for distrbution substation, primar lines, distrbution line trformer, seconda
conductors and servces. Using seconda estimates of peak load and anua kWh
consption, losses ar calculated at each delivery component level and included
with the asociated load as tota loading for the next level of facilties requi to
provide servce to customers.
By recogng the instled facilties and losses for eah state by voltage level of
sece along with their corrspndig loads and losses, different losses, load,
and equivalent ratings will be experienced which would result in different loss
chactercs. To quatify these dierences for Uta and Idao, for example, a
sm of the loss results is suarze below frm the information provided
in respns to IIA Request 45:
PAC-E-I0-07/Rocky Mounta Power
September 9, 2010
LIP A Data Request 120
TABLE 1
DEMA LOSSES (kW)
Idaho (LIP A 45-2), Utah (lPA 45-4), Exhibit 5 (ÏIrst 6 columns)
Idaho Uta
1.021800Priar1.028400
Seconda
Line Transformers
Seconda
Servces
1.022075
1.001014
1.003632
1.016551
1.002307
1.006141
Composite
(Cumulative - Colum 6)1.114615 1.104839
For the demand loss facors, a review of the above data shows that different
estimates for priar circuits and line trformer losses account for the major
differences based on loadng levels and instaled facilties.
._._,....__,_,___._.__v,.v_._,_,__,._"..,_._,_._~."_._._'-.'-'_n'...,."_n_"-,m.'.,_.__~'."""_"'_"_"""'''-'."'.~~'_h.'''~~,~n__,"..~..,.~._,.~_..........____".c.._.._r__'_'__'_~"'''__'_'''-'.'..''_.'~_.,.~nY~_.~~,~,~_.'.'_'_'',.'.-....A'~..'.",,'_ò....~._._____.'_,._,__,,'-~_,.~..._~".,.'-='n~~hh~:.'YUy~.~__..i.,....,..._,.~..._'''_'-~h~'~hy.~~_.'~"_._~,..~_...,.__.,,.,..,~-,.,.,'-'_"_M,"~'.'_N~'~._...,_.,."'..,..c-'...,...,....¿,....~'_,........_._....__.-'-'--'
For line trsformers, a review of Exhbit 3 (last data row) shows tht the average
intaled size and percent loading levels indicate tht the more urban system
(Uta) instals much larger trformers and loadg levels with both of these
factors contrbuting to much lower losses due to higher effciencies and lower
equipment losses ratings.
These loss chaacteristics and difference are much more pronounced for the kWh
energy loss chateristics sumed below for the same Uta and Idao
comparsons:
TABLE 2
ENERGY LOSSES (kWh)
Idaho alP A 45-2), Utah (lA 45-4), Exhibit 5 (last 6columnsl
Idao Uta
1.0153868Pr1.0207321
Seconda
Line TraformersSecnda
Serces
1.0303020
1.0007709
1.0032528
1.0209477
1.0017724
1.0054173
Composite
(Cumulative - Colum 6)1.1016147 1.0875681
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mounta Power
September 9,2010
IIPA Data Request 120
As mentioned previously, the major differences which contrbute to the calculated
jursdictional results are due to primar and at a much larger level for line
transformers with respect to anua energy (kWh). Here agai equipment
loadng levels and average sizes contrbute to higher losses for Idao and much
lower for Uta.
Finally, another factor which can contrbute to losses is customer load
charcteristics. For example, highy seasonal loads will greaty increase the
energy losses associated with fixed losses which are essentially consistent for
each hour of the year regardless of load leveL.
c. Please refer to the Company's response to Item b. above.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Kenneth Houston
To Be Determined
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountan Power
September 9,2010
lIP A Data Request 121
IIA Data Request 121
What loss factor did the Company assume for its Irgation Load Management
load in its "Demand Side Mangement Anua Report-Idaho" for 2009?
Response to lIP A Data Request 121
As noted in the table on page 22 of Appendix 1 of the 2009 Demand Side
Management Annual Report - Idaho, the loss factor utilized for cost effecveness
analysis was 10.392%. The assumed losses and source of assumptions are listed
on page 3 of Appendix 1 of 2009 Demand Side Management Annual Report -
Idaho.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountai Power
Septembe 9, 2010
LIP A Data Request 122
LIP A Data Request 122
What loss factor did the Company assume for its Irgation Load Management
load in its "Demand Side Management Anua Report-Uta" for 20091
Response to lI A Data Request 122
As noted in the table on page 54 of Appendix 1 of the 2009 Demand Side
Management Annual Report - Utah, the loss factor utiized for cost effectiveness
analysis was 6.33%. The assumed losses and source of assumptions are listed on
page 4 of Appendix 1 of 2009 Demand Side Management Annual Report -Utah.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mounta Power
September 9,2010
LIP A Data Request 123
IIPA Data Request 123
The Company's response to IIPA Request 73 listed "SO" values for all
jursdictions over the 2000-2009 timeframe. Please provide (in Excel format if
available) data similar to that found on page 10.13 and 10.14 of Exhibit 2 in ths
filing, that would support the inormation provided in the response to UP A
_ Request 73.
Response to lIP A Data Request 123
Pleae refer to Attchment liP A 123.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Steven R. McDougal
Steven R. McDougal