20100920PAC to Staff 271-286.pdf

"
~~LOUNTAIN 201 Sout Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
September 17,2010
Scott Woodbur
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
Neil Pnce
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washigton
Boise, ID 83702-5918
RE: ID PAC-E-10-07
IPUC Data Request (271-286)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mounta Power's Responses to IPUC Data Requests 271-286. The
response to 282 and 283 ar Confdential. Provided on the enclosed CD are Atthments IPUC
272, 273, and 286 -(1-2). Provided on the enclosed Confdential CD are Confdential
Atthments IPUC 271, 282, 283, and 284. The Confdential Responss and Atthments are
Confdential and are provided to pares tht have signed a protective order in ths docket.
If you have any questions, please feel fre to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. T;t? Ú/~I ~
J. Ted Weston
Maner, Reguation
Enclosur:
cc: Jea Jewell/UC (C)/3 copies
Eric OlsenlIP A (C)
Ben OtolICL (C)
Rada BudgelMonsanto (C)
James R. Smithonsanto (C)
Richa AndersnIonsto (C)
George C. Carer, IIIIonsanto (C)
De Peseauonsanto (C)
Garth R. KajanderlMonsto (C)
Maurce BmbaerlMonsanto (C)
Brian Collinonsto (C)
Michael Gormanonsanto (C)
Kath IversnIonsto (C)
Mak WidmerlMonsanto (C)
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 271
IPUC Production Data Request 271
¡
In WPSC Production Request 1.48, Accc conductor is being utilzed on a
limited basis instead of the traditional ACSRconductor in the Populus-Terminal
transmission line.
a. How much of this conductor is being utilized on this transmission line?
b. What is the cost difference ($/mile) between ACCC and ACSR?
c. What are the advantages of using an ACCC conductor?
d. Please quantify the cost benefits of using this type of conductor.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 271
Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC 271. Confidential information is
provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective agreement in this
proceeding.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Steven E. Elder
To Be Determined
.1
¡:.
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 272
IPUC Production Data Request 272
. ,
Please provide any study that idèiitifibs the capacity constraints (shortfall) over
this transmission path before the construction ofthis line and how the
construction ofthis line satisfies that shortfall.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 272
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 272 fotthe Path C, WECC approved,
Operational Tranfer Capabilty Studiès (OTC Studies) for 2009 and 2010. These
studies show Path C is operated to reliabilty limited transfer capabilties (both
northbound and southbound) as a ftctìon of ambient outdoor temperature. These
limits are depicted in Figure #2 and discussed in the conclusions section of both
of the study reports. Please refer to detailed power flow modeling and firm
,transniission service obligations as provided in the Company's response to ¡PUC
Data Request 273 for capacity constraints (short fall) over this path before
constrction of this project.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darell T. Gerrard
Darell T. Gerrard'
: .¡ , ;~
:1
"I
\
"
i -.:i '"
'. ~, ;. .
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 273
IPUC Production Data Request 273
Please provide power flow modeling study results which specifically identìfy
when this transmission line has constraints other than the study provided in Staff
Production Request No. 202b.
a. Please quantify these constraints.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 273
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 273 for,the detailed power flow study modeling
results that identify this transmission line capacity limits northbound and
southbound. Also, please refer t,O the, Company' s response to ¡PUC Data Request
272 Path C Operational Transfer Capability Reports Northbound and Southbound
Figure #2.
a.) The constraints prior to the Populus to Terminal Project being completed can
be denved from the firm transmission service contract obligations shown
below (summer and winter seasons) and comparng it to Path C Operational
Capacity which is a fuction of te,mp~ratue as shown in Figue #2.
$tlMÈR''I'('il.n~'ÐtøJ¡~r'
Network PTP TRM ATCTIC
~ PATH C
Southbound
PATHC-NUT - Heav Load Hr.
PATHC-NUT - Li ht Load Hr.
Northbound
NUT-PATHC - HLH
NUT-PATHC - LLH
142
142
174
311
¡ ¡
TIC
,,;.lli!êR'tØì~1p::~~e~t.'
Network PTP TRM ATC
PATHC
Southbound
PATHC-NUT - HLH
PATHC-NUT - LLH
Nortbound
NUT-PATHC - HLH
NUT-PATHC - LLH
142
142
315
315
495
645 '
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darell T. Gerrard
Darell T. Gerrard,
", ',,1 :¿. "r!
PAC-E- 1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 274
IPUC Production Data Request 274
In response to Staff Production Request No. 208, the Company identified the
reliability standards required for this project. Please explain how this project
meets those stadards.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 274
The Populus to Terminal project was planed, designed and constructed and will
be operated in compliance with NERC and WECC reliabilty standards as listed
Request No. 208. The ultimate project capacity rating, operating limits and
procedures are established via compliance with these mandated reliabilty
standards. The standards are performance based and require the project to
perform to specific reliabilty levels during normal operation, single contingency
outages, double contingency outages and extreme outage events. The system
performance standards that must be met are sumarzed in Table 1 of the
Transmission Planing (TPL) standards. These standards have been established
by FERC to ensure that not only our the Company's customers reliably served
but also they provide a level of certainty that when the Populus to Terminal
project is interconnected to the widerWECC the reliabilty and integnty of the
overall electnc tranmission system:is maintaned.
iàt
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darell T. Gerrard
Darrell' T. Gerrard
. ..
J
,",'. ' ., 'j
.;.:.ì ,_.f.
PAC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
¡PUC Production Data Request 275
IPUCProduction Data Request 275
Using Alternative 2 referenced in Staff Production Request No. 203, constructing
a single circuit 345 kV line, will the Company stil meet reliabilty requirements
identified in Staff Production Request No. 208? Ifnot, why not?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 275
~ ¡ , j -'..
A single circuit 345 kV line would meet reliabilty requirements mandated by
Federal and Regional Standards and Criteria itemized in Staff Production Request
No. 203; however, the transmission path'would be rated at lower capacity. The
double circuit 345 kV line was built to address significant operational limits, short
term reliabilty requirements and longer term customer needs especially when
integrated with other proposed Energy Gateway segments.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. Cunnngham
John A. Cupparo'
i~ ,
, .
,J : i'
I
i';. r).
P Ac-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
¡PUC Production Data Request 276
IPUC Production Data Request 276
What is the cost per mile difference between constrcting a single circuit 345 kV
line and a double circuit 345 kV line?
Response to IPUC Production Data Requèst 276
There are several variables that significantly influence the cost per mile
differential between single circuit 345 kV line and double circuit 345 kV line.
The tye of supporting structure for conductor wil have a significant cost
differential depending on lattice tower or engineered mono pole (metal) design
with one or two circuits. New transmission lines often require engineered mono
poles due to right-of-way limitations; and minimizing visual impact while
unconstrained areas can sometimes use more traditional tower/pole designs;
however, mixing supporting structues within a project impacts design and
constrction costs.
Terrain and number of circuit angles also determines the design of the line
depending if the circuit is traversing mountains, wetlands or areas that sustain
severe weather. Access to line routes in remote areas adds costs due to temporar
roads, staging areas and eventual reclamation. Circuits that are built on flat
topology are easier to construct and may not have the same design requirements
as mountainous environments. Urban versus rual areas wil impact constrction
co~ts signficantly.
Permitting, environmental analysis ~d right of way costs can vary significantly
between transmission segments. Acquinng new nght-of-way verses utilizing
existing right of way is a signficant cost factor especially when acquinng nght of
way in urban areas compared to rual locations. However, permitting can be just
as challenging with public lands when addressing land use, endangered species,
route analysis and staeholder interests.
The final cost of any transmissióIlcir~uitwill be influenced by the above plus
matenal pnces and constrction bids~ For estimating puroses, Pacificorp uses a
block assembly estimating process wherethe base costs of a paricular design is
used as a staring point and then the remaining requirements as stated above are
scoped as more information is obtaned for the project. The base assembly
estimate for mono pole double circuit 345 kV line with conductor is
approximately twce the cost of mono pole single circuit 345 kV line with
conductor before other costs are factored in the total estimate.
The Company did not bid a single circuit mono pole design for the project as it
did not meet the project purose an~ need.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. CuníJgh~¡
John A. cupparo
PAC-E-IO-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 277
IPUC Production Data Request 277
Please compare the cost per mile of the Camp Willams-90th South line to the cost
per mile for the Populus- Terminal line. Please explain the cost per mile
difference between these two projects.
Response to IPUC Production Data Requrst 277
The cost per line mile for each respective engineer/procure/construct (EPC)
contract is shown below: "
Cost of Transmission Line/Mile (Engineer/Procure/Construct Contract
Costs only)
90th South - Willams
EPC Value Miles
90th South - Camp Willams DoUble Circuit 345kV Line (New) . $22!2?3,~~? 11".',....:.'".,.'w'n."".M,'N"~'..U._""..~~"...,.._....___..__..........,.._._.__._.,_'______ ._.".____'-.,...,._.__.___..._....._.........._._., ,..'.. '. .,,_ ...,_."........"..,...;...:...';t.."".,...__..._..__.___r..
Cost/Mile
$ 2,024,895
~pulu~-Terminal -m~_
Populus-Terminal Double Circuit 345kV Line (New)
EPC Value
$ 486,573,336
Miles
131
Cost/Mile
$ 3,714,300
Several significant differences betWeerithe t~ó projects contnbute to the cost/mile
varance:
. Scale - Populus to Terminal involvêá buÜding a: 131 mile transmission line while
the 90th South to Camp Wiliams pròject built an 11 mile transmission line
adjacent to an existing transmission line. For Populus to Terminal the additional
mileage and remote locations of much of the project added to and afected such
items as:
o Multiple location mobilzation and demobilization charges
o Larger storage and staging of matenals
o Longer delivery stage lengths from stores
o Additional crew per diemsdlle tò~remote locations
o Human and equipment resource management
o Overall project nsk pròfile
. Terain - The 90th South to Camp Wiliams project was along existing right-óf-
way though the. Salt Lake Valley. Ths property did not include wetlands for the
most par, and existing access roads were readily available.
~
i;.i. i'"f. t ,;:
~~,'.t
;.¡
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 277
The EPC contract for the Populus to Terminal project covered significant
wetlands along the Great Salt Lake ,andpther bodies of water, mountain terrain,
and large tracts of rural/non-develdped areas. The wetlands required permit
adherence with requirements such as temporary, non-invasive roads; special
washing locations; spil prevention backup systems; and significant restoration.
The project required extensive access road construction and restoration.
Mountain terrain required constrction of access roads with signficant cut and
fill locations, many of which required restoration to mimic natural contours. The
foundation requirements for Populus to Terminal across this variety of terrain
involved significantly larger (up to 16' diameter by up to 120' deep full cased
foundations) versus the shallower 30' to 40' foundations of 90th South to CampWiliams. ' ¡ ¡ ,
!
. Logistics - The logistics of managing materials and crews was significantly more
complex for Populus to Terminal as compared to 90t South to Camp Wiliams.
The 90th South to Camp Wiliams involved two to three crews while Populus to
Terminal involved approximately 30 crews.
. Permitting Requirements - The Populus to Terminal conditional use permits had
significatly more conditions under greater scrutiny than those of the 90th South
to Camp Willams project. On average the seven conditional use permits
(CUP's) for the Populus to TermtI)i:r',Pt:ojè~t had approximately ten conditions.
Wilard City CUP alone contained Ú cQn.ditions including removal of all access
roads and pads in hily terrain. In,¡idditioiito these CUP's, there was also a
memorandum of agreement with the City of Elwood that required the
constrction of a road. In contrast, the 90th South to Camp Wiliams project
required four CUP's with an average of approximately four conditions.
. Complexity of Work - Populus to Terminal involves numerous outage and
coordination issues to integrate the new line with the existing transmission
network with a signficantly higheåIumbtt of interconnection points as
compared to 90th to Camp Wiliams., Differing complexities included thefollowing: I'!'
Populus-Terminal:
o Environmenta constraints: Constrction of the Populus-Terminal line
occured in lands managed by the State and pnvate organizations. These
required strct constrction windows. Areas included Brigham Face
Wildlife Management Area, Wilard Bay, Farmington Bay, and duck
clubs. It also required constrction though the Salt Lake City
International Airport property. ...;; ,
o Cross-overs: To prevent345:kVòi;ôssings, Pacificorp made use of two
existng 345 kV lines on,the p;opuIus'to Termnal project. Due to system
',! ;'i'
PAC-E-I0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 277
impact, these 345 kV outages had to be completed under a compressed
schedule within a constrained time of the year.
o Jim Bridger Plant: The Populus to Terminal project interfaces with two
345 kV lines from the Jim Bridger power plant in Wyoming. To mitigate
system impact, this sequence of work, as well as one of the two
crossovers listed above, had to be performed during the power plant
maintenance outages. As a result, this work was performed under
schedule compression.
o Parish-Terminal: In order to åvoidthe costs to acquire additional propert
and to avoid disturbingfurthet wetlands on the Populus to Terminal
project, PacifiCorp made use of an existing 230 kV line between the
Terminal and Parish Substations. Ths line was reconstrcted to a 345
kV line configuration. Since this 230 kV line was a par of an n-1 loop, a
sequence of intermittent outages was used to support this reconstruction
in order to comply with NERC requirements. In addition, this line was
positioned between an existing 345,kV line and an existing 138 kV line in
the same corndor. Working conditions required significant safety and
outage coordination.
90th South-Camp Wiliams: "~; ,
o In contrast, the 90th South to'CampWiliams constrction sequence was
unimpeded by any other lines, with the exception of a requirement to
lower three poles of an existing 138 kV line in the spring of 20 10. The
outage sequence in the fall of2010 does not require schedule compression
as it is not dependent upon power plant outages. In addition, there is less
work to be performed within the, ,outage window, as only the new
substation expansions areb~tng,energized with the existing portions of
the substations remainingint$erviqe"t
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Todd Jensen
To Be Determned
'\,:
~ :" l
/.1-"~ :¡,
.; ;~~:i
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 278
IPUC Production Data Request 278
The original estimate for the Path C úpgrade is $78 milion. The updated project
is about $800 milion. The cost per megawatt increased from $250,000/MW to
about $570,000/MW, how does this project capture the economies of scale?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 278
Evaluating the two projects on a cost per MW basis would not be a valid
comparison due to the dramatic difference in project scope, purose and need, the
natue ofthe $78 milion scope estimate at the time and the reasons why this
option was not pursued.
The $78 milion option (increase Path C by 300 MW) was a plan developed to
support the Company's 2004 Integrated Resource Plan (lRP). The plan was
intended to provide a small increase in Path C capacity and proposed the
constrction and rebuild of existing 138 kV transmission lines from the
Treasureton Substation in Idaho to the Syracuse Substation in Uta (a distace of
approximately 90 miles). The transmission lines would continue to be operated at
138 kV. However, upon fuher review, the plan was rejected due to several
factors including that it would have provided only a small incremental increase of
300 MW s or less in transmission ,t¡aPIi:city f?r Path C and the plan did not meet the
needs of subsequent IRPs including tle current one. The plan would not have
provided adequate interconnection ca:pacity required for the Energy Gateway
West and Energy Gateway South plan which was developed in 2007.
In addition to the limited increase in transmission capacity, the $78 milion plan
had senous constrctabilty challenges as it required large segments of Path C to
be completely removed from service for extended periods, a year or more, as the
existing 138 kV facilties were rebuilt or ,replaced. This would have placed
significant 'reliabilty exposure on thê'traÎismission system serving the area to
Rocky Mountan Power customers during constrction. This alternative did not
allow the Company to meet itsfirmJtansmission obligations without long
duration path scheduling curlmerit~ fotconstrction nor did it meet the
Company's curent long-range resource plans and network load service
requirements.
The economies of scale and long term benefits to customers are gained through
building the Populus to Terminal project as one high capacity 345 kV double
circuit line on a single nght of way (new and existing) versus two separate 345
kV lines on two separate and new nghts,~f;way.
::! ,~- 1~, ,.
. ;., :
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
,. .' ~'. i
Wiliam A. cungham
John A. Cupparo
""
:¡.I...:;: i. '..'
PAC-E- 1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 279
IPUC Production Data Request 279
Please explain how the new Populus to Terminal transmission line would have
prevented or minimized the distubance events described by the Company in
response to Monsanto's Data Request 6.6.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 279
The Populus to Terminaltransmissipn line project when completed wil provide a
new high capacity transmissionlinepetween Populus, Ben Lomond and Terminal
substations. This new line is plai~a, designed and constructed with suffcient
capacity and reliabilty that during outage events, both planed or unplanned, due
to other existing transmission lines interconnecting these thee substations, the
stations can continue to operate reliably and continue to serve customers. During
these other existing transmission line outages the Populus to Terminal
transmission line also serves as a new high capacity transmission path connecting
Uta and Idaho. This new line carnes increased electric power flow durng these
line outage events and prevents redirected power from overloading other
interconnected utilty systems, which did occur dunng distubances in 2007. In
this regard the Populus to Terminal transmission line project will prevent or
minimize the impacts similar tothos' 2007 distubances.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
,-
Darell T. Gerrard
Darell T. Gerrard
01..'". 11 ., ~ ( ~
.:,
"L,
r ,
'.j:, "
l~~~ ". it' .
PAC-E-I 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 1 7, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 280
- ~
IPUC Production Data Request 280
To the extent possible, please describe the additional cost incured by Pacificorp
and its customers due to the disturbance events descnbed by the Company in
response to Monsanto's Data Request No 6.6. How do these costs compare to
Populus to Terminal transmission costs incured to prevent or minimize the
events?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 280
During the five disturbance events that occured in 2007 the Company did not
specifically measure or collect costs incured to the Company, other companies or
costs incured by our customers. All of the distubance events should be
considered significant due to the magnitude of generation impacted and due to the
duration of these multiple events, which ranged from several hours to multple
days.
During the three disturbances that occurred in September and October of 2007 the
Company was forced to curtail generation 'multiple times and as high as 1 100
MW dunng one event.
During two disturbances that occured in November 2007 the Company was
force to curil generation multiple times and as high as 500 MW during one
event. Generation owned by other utilties interconnected tothe Company's
transmission system was also curled during these events.
The construction of the Populus to Terminal project wil significantly reduce the
risk of any futue costs or impact!) ,the Company, other interconnected utilties and
to customers for any of the abovesare disturbances.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Darell T. Gerrard
I)arell T. Cierrard
! ~.f ' :
~~.( ~ .;;! t;
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 28 I
IPUC Production Data Request 281
In response to Monsanto Data request 1.11 -2, the Company compared the cost of
the Populus to Terminal transmission line to the avoided cost of aeroderivative
simple cycle units to provide capacity reserves. Please provide the economic
analysis comparing the cost of the Populus to Terminal transmission line to the
avoided cost of frame unit simple cycle gas turbines to provide capacity
reserves.
Response to IPUC Production Data Reqll~st 281
An economic analysis comparng the cost of the Populus to Terminal transmission
line to the avoided cost of frame unit simple cycle gas turbines was not
performed. The Aerodenvative unts were considered more applicable to the
situation assumed in the analysis due to their lower heat rate ,requirements
compared to the frame units.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Wiliam A. Cunningham
John A. Cupparo
,,i J',
. ~ . ~ .;:.
.. LJ "
if.
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 283
IPUC Production Data Request 283
Please provide a copy of the Company's analysis referred to in the
following paragraphs from pages 26.:27.ofthe confidential report "The
Oregon Independent Evaluator's Final Ciòsing Report on PacifiCorp's
2008R-l Renewables RFP" dated May 15, 2009:
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 283
Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC Production 283 for a table that
identìfies the name of each highly confidential attachment containing the analysis
supporting initial shortlist pnce scores for each bid. Confidential information is
provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective agreement in this
proceeding.
The Company considers the economic analyses of RFP bids to be of utmost
commercial sensitivity and highly confidentiaL. The models will be made
available for review at the Company's offces; no copies can be made. Please
contact Ted Weston at 801-220-2963 to dis;cuss arangements for review.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Rick Link
Stacey Kusters
Ii !.,
, \
,, ','
P AC-E-1 0-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 283
IPUC Production Data Request 283
Please provide a copy of the Company's analysis referred to in the
following paragraphs from pages 26-27 of the confidential report "The
Oregon Independent Evaluator's Final Closing Report on Pacificorp's
2008R-1 Renewables RFP" dated May 15,2009:
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 283
Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC Production 283 for a table that
identifies the name of each highly confidential attachment containing the analysis
supporting initial shortlist pnce scores for each bid. Confidential information is
provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective agreement in this
proceeding.
The Company considers the economic aralyses ofRFP bids to be of utmost
commercial sensitivity and highly confidential. The models wil be made
available for review at the company;1s offces; no copies can be made. Please
contact Ted Weston at 801-220-2963 to discuss arangements for review.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Rick Link
Stacey Kusters
ii,
"
, I
. PAC-E-IO-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 284
IPUC Production Data Request 284
Please provide a copy of all exhibits.\oth'e'confidential report "Report of the
Independent Evaluator on Negotiations'ih PacifiCorp's 2008R-l Request for
Proposals for Renewable Electric Resources" prepared by Boston Pacific, Inc.,
and dated September 18, 2009. '
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 284
Please refer to Confdential Attachment 284. Confidential information is
provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective agreement in this
proceeding.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Stacey Kusters
Stacey Kusters
f ":i .
u. ¡
i'
)
PAc-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 285
IPUC Production Data Request 285
Please provìde the methodology, and all executable electronic analysis used to
determine the curtailment credìt amounts paid to the Irrgation Load Control
Program paricipants. As par ofyo,q re~ponse, include an explanation of how
these credits have changed given changes in program paricìpation and
administrative costs. ' ,
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 285
The methodology used to determine the credit amounts paid to Irrigation Load
Control Program paricipants were based on financial analysis/modeling, but also
involved negotiation and settlement discussions. The curilment credìt amounts
were informed by the assumed va1U~jofthe resource, utilzing the methodology
defined in Rocky Mountan Power'sresponse to Request No. 286. The 2008 and
2009 curailment credits were first established by the stipulation to Rocky
Mountan Power's Case No. PAC-E-'07-05 approved in Order No. 30482 by the
Idaho Public Utilties Commission. At a meetìng between the Company and
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. (IIP A) on October 6, 2009, agreement
was reached to extend the previously stipulated curlment credit amounts and
additional three years, through 2012.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Deterrtneâ.!. :ti.'
, ;:~ ,I :/.,
;'i¡; . ;
:¡ ,
'.' f
'1,
~.
'.' ,i't.(.,
PAc-E-IO-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 17, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 286
IPUC Production Data Request 286
Please provide all executable electrQnic studies used to compare the Irrigation
Load Control Program to market purchase and other resource options. As par of
this response, please include all inputs and assumptions used to calculate the
"Benefit Value" shown in table ten of the 2009 Idaho Irrigation Load Control
Quantitative Review.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 286
Rocky Mountain Power applied a portfolio-based avoided cost methodology
using its capacity expansion optimization model, called System Optimizer. Please
refer to Attachment IPUC 286 -lfor'a description of the methodology. For the
updated valuation, the Company relied on what is referred to in the methodology
paper as the peak resource deferral method. For the original methodology, the
Company developed a weighted average of avoided costs from both peak resource
deferral and firm marketpurchase deferral modeling, the later only captùnng
benefits from deferring firm market purchases. Because the peak resource
deferral method allows deferral of both peaking generation capacity and market
purchases, the Company decided to dispense with the firm market purchase
deferral modeling step of the valuation methodology.
For the inputs and assumptions in deHivirigthe "Benefit Value" shown in table ten
of the 2009 Idaho Irrigation Load:ContrulQuantitative Review please refer to
Attachment IPUC 286 -2. ,J'
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Pete Waren
To Be Determined
~,
.~
\, I,
¡ :~
,~l"ç.
\
r 1 ~;. ::~J. ,L
""".' .t. ." \