20110112XRG 24-63 to PAC.pdf

El~~r.0Jlr.fl~Y
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 7218 Boise, ID 83707 - 515 N. 27,h S,. Boise. ID 83702
2011 JAN II PH 4: 52
11 Januar, 2011
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
RE: P AC-E-1O-08
Dear Ms. Jewell:
We are enclosing three copies of the THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-IO, LLCs, in the above
case.
A copy is also enclosed for your stamping and retur to our offce.~i~
¿'t.Adams
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
,
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adas
Richadson & O'Lear, PLLC
515 N. 271l Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter'!richardsonandolear .com
gregam.cbadsonadolear.com
.... (" r:;.
t"'\. 1: ',., ~.-~ t
20U J~.M \ \PM It: 52
Attorneys for Complaiants XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-I0, LLCs
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP- )10, LLCs, )Complaits, )
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-I0-08
vs.THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST TO
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER
PACIFICORP, DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
Defendant.
Pursuat to Rule 225 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
(the "Commssion"), XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-I0, LLCs (collectively
"XRG" or "Complainants") hereby requests that PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountan Power provide
responses to the following with supporting documents, where applicable, as soon as possible, but
no later than February 1,2011.
Please refer to XRG's FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST for instrctions and defitions
applicable to this production request.
..
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24
Please identify and provide evidence of any correspondence from XRG to Rocky Mountan
Power wherein XRG agreed to forego PP A execution on account of Rocky Mountain Power's
concerns regarding transmission availability at XRG's proposed points of delivery at Brady or
Borah.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25
Please admit or deny that XRG consistently maintaned its belief that transmission would be
available at its proposed points of delivery, and consistently requested PP As for all 4 projects
despite Rocky Mountain Power's perception of a transmission problem. If denied, please
provide supporting evidence that XRG agreed with Rocky Mountain Power that transmission
was a fatal flaw.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG Request No. 16 and Answer il 8. Please
explain how Bruce Grswold (or anyone else at PacifiCorp C&T) requested information
regarding transmission availability for network resource designation of the XRG projects.
Provide all supporting evidence ofPacifiCorp C&T's request and PacifiCorp Transmission's
response, and please explain how the evidence provided support Rocky Mountan Power's
position stated to XRG from on or about March 23,2009 to September 21,2010, that
transmission access would only be available for 23 MW and thus only one of the XRG QFs. If
PacifiCorp C&T did not contact PacifiCorp Transmission regarding the Company's ability to
designate the XRG projects as network resources, please state so.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Attachment
XRG 5 (Rocky Mountain Power's September 21,2010 Letter).
(a) Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountan Power's revised determination that
transmission capacity was available for all 4 XRG projects did not result from physical upgrades
or changes to the transmission system.
(b) Please describe the changed circumstances that resulted in Rocky Mountan Power's
determination regarding additional transmission availability. Please provide all supporting
evidence of the changed circumstaces cited, and please define "Point of Service" as used in the
letter and response, including a reference to where that term is defined in PacifiCorp's OATT or
publicly available Business Practices.
(c) Please identify the dates on which transmission was in fact physically available for
delivery of over 23 MW from the XRG projects at Brady after Januar 21,2009.
Page 2 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
,
(d) Admt or deny tht a posting on an OASIS website regarding trmission availabilty
can be an incorrect approximation of act transmission availability.
(e) Did PacifiCorp's OASIS website inaccurately post available transmission capacity on the
paths necessar for integration of energy delivered to Brady or Borah at any time afer Januar
21, 2009? If no physical upgrades were completed, pleas.e explain how the available capacity
postigs were correct prior to the times listed in the September 21,2010 letter.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Attchment
XRG 5 (Rocky Mountan Power's September 21,2010 Letter), and Reference Rocky Mountai
Power's Respnse to XRG's Request No. 21.
(a) On whose behalf and for which generation projects or market transactions did PacifiCorp
C & T "imediately" request all available capacity on Path C once it discovered the availabilty
as described in Rocky Mounta Power's Response to XRG's Request No. 21(g)? Please
provide the date C & T reserved all available capacity along with the public scheduling numbers
and the OASIS reservation numbers correlating to the entire reservation.
(b) Has PacifiCorp reserved capacity on Path C for each of the XRO projects?
(c) If capacity was reserved for the 4 XRO projects, please state the date PacifiCorp reserved
capacity, and provide supportng evidence.
(d) If capacity was not reserved for the 4 XRG projects, please explain why. Please explai if
XRG's prior correspondence, the filing of the complaint in this case, and its subsequent offer to
settle for the rates in Order No. 31025 left ambiguity as to whether XRO wished to reserve any
necessar capacity on PacifiCorp's system.
(e) Please identify all entities and the use for which PacifiCorp C&T requested the available
capacity on Path C prior to requesting it for use for each of the XRO projects.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29
Reference Rocky Mountai Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Atthment
XRG 5 (Rocky Mountan Power's September 21,2010 Letter).
(a) Did PacifiCorp C & T request transmission capacity on Path C at any time between
Janua 21, 2009 and September 21,2010 for entities other than XRG? Please identify the entity
for which PacifiCorp C & T requested capacity and provide supporting evidence demonstrating
the date and result of the request.
Page 3 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-1O-08
,
(b) Did PacifiCorp Transmission reserve transmission capacity on Path C at any time
between Janua 21,2009 and September 21,2010 for entities other than XRG? Please identify
the entity for which PacifiCorp Transmission reserved capacity and provide supporting evidence
demonstrating the date of the reservation.
(c) At any time between Janua 21,2009 and September 21,2010, did PacifiCorp C & T
request transmission capacity enabling integration of energy deliveries to PacifiCorp's system at
Brady or Borah? Please identify the entity for which PacifiCorp C & T requested capacity and
provide supporting evidence of the result of the request and the date.
(d) At any time between Januar 21,2009 and September 21,2010, did PacifiCorp
Transmission reserve transmission capacity enabling integration of energy deliveries to
PacifiCorp's system at Brady or Borah? Please identify the entity for which PacifiCorp
Transmission reserved capacity and provide supporting evidence demonstrating the reservation
and the date.
(e) Please reconcile the responses to (a) though (d) with Rocky Mounta Power's
indication to XRG prior to September 21, 2010, that transmission was not available for its
projects. Reference Answer il8.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30
Did the transmission constraint identified by Rocky Mountan Power to XRO until September
21, 2010 limit Rocky Mountain Power's own generation resources or market trading activities?
Please explain when and how the transmission constraint had such an impact.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Attchment
XRG 1, Par 2 (contaning emails from Jim Parouw, a Trader for PacifiCorp C&T, to John
Younie, PacifiCorp C&T, on Janua 29, 2009, stating in response to Mr. Younie's inquiry into
transmission capacity: "Suggest PP A be contingent upon receiving Network Resource status").
(a) Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountain Power did not offer the option to XRG to
make the requested PPAs "contingent upon receiving Network Resource status."
(b) If admit, please explain why Rocky Mountan Power did not offer the option to XRG to
make the requested PPAs "contingent upon receiving Network Resource status."
(c) If deny, please provide supporting evidence.
Page 4 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-IO-08
I'
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32
Reference Rocky MOuntain Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Attachment
XRG 1, Par 2 (contaning email from Jim Parouw, a Trader for PacifiCorp C&T, to John
Youne, PacifiCorp C&T, on Janua 23,2009, statig: "We curently have 250 MW ofPTP
import capability from Brady, but we have sold an option to APS to use ths capacity so it will
not always be available. . . ." and on and Janua 29,2009, stating, "Without Network Resource
status for ths resource, we will need to use PacifiCorp PTP capacity and schedule the energy to
load on the PTP reservation.").
(a) Please provide the public scheduling numbers and OASIS reservation number for the 250
MW PTP import capabilty referenced.
(b) Please explain for what purose PacifiCorp had reserved ths 250 MW ofPTP
transmission.
(c) Pleae provide information regardig the designated network resoures supporting the
entire quatity of the 250 MW PTP capacity reservation. Reference PacifiCorp's OATT §§ 28.2
and 29.2.
(d) Why was excess 250 MW PTP capacity available such that PacifiCorp was able to sell an
option to use it to APS, and such tht Mr. Parouw believed PacifiCorp could schedule XRO
energy to load on the PTP reservation?
(e) How ha PacifiCorp us the 250 MW ofPTP import capability referenced by Mr.
Parouw between Janua 21, 2009 and the date of this request?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33
Reference Rocky Mountai Power's Response to XRG's First Production Request, Attchment
XRG 1, Par 2 (contang Jim Parouw's e-mal on Janua 29,2009 to John Younie statig,
"Another 250 MW exists but APS has first rights to schedule on the pat. If APS schedules from
Brady we could attempt to wheel thugh Borah but ths would be non-firm.")
(a) Please provide evidence that the non-firm option discussed was communcated to XRO,
or admit that this information was not communicated to XRO.
(b) Please identify "APS."
(c) Please identify the public scheduling numbers or the OASIS reservation numbe for the
APS rights. Provide supporting evidence that such rights existed at all times between Janua
29,2009 and though September 21,2010.
Page 5 ~ THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
"
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to XRO Requests NO.5 and No. 16.
(a) Please explain how the emails between Jim Parouw and John Younie constitute studies
suffcient for PacifiCorp C&T to conclude that PacifiCorp had trsmission capacity for no more
than 23 MW delivered at Brady. Did PacifiCorp's investigation into the feasibilty of
designating the XRG projects as network resources constitute "separate OASIS requests for
service to allow PacifiCorp the opportty to review and respond according to Section 32 of the
OATT?" Why or why not? Reference Transmission Business Practice NO.9.
(b) At the time of the emails was Mr. Parouw authorized to grant or deny transmission
service. requests? Was Mr. Parouw listed as a market fuction employee? Was Mr. Grswold or
Mr. Younie list as a market fuction employee?
(c) List the information used by Mr. Parouw in his response. Was ths information publicly
available? If so, where could XRO have located all information in Mr. Parouw's emails? Did
Mr. Parouw consult with PacifiCorp Transmission on the requests? Please provide supporting
evidence, or state the name of the person who can testify as to the answer.
(d) Did Mr. Parouw consider futue transmission upgrades, such as the Populus-Terminal
line contemplated in the FERC Order at 125 FERC il61,076 (October 21, 2008)?
(e) Did Mr. Parouw base his investigation into available transmission capacity on an online
date proposed for the XRO contrcts, or did he rely on the date of his emails, or some other date?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35
Reference the following assertion in Ken Kaufman's letter dated April 13,2010: "Before
PacifiCorp Merchant will agree to purchase more than 20 MW of new capacity at Borah or
Brady, it must make a formal request to PacifiCorp Transmission and receive confrmation from
PacifiCorp Transmission that Transmission is available. PacifiCorp Transmission will charge
PacifiCorp Merchant approximately $15,000 per project to perform a system integration study.
At that point, PacifiCorp Merchant will know when and if sufficient capacity will be available at
Borah or Brady to accept more than 20 MW of new capacity."
(a) Please state PacifiCorp's policy regarding the level of inquiry it will conduct during QF
contract negotiations to determine whether the Company will have adequate transmission
capacity to integrate a QF delivery to commence on a futue date. Please provide any internal or
publicly available written statement of ths policy, if any exists.
(b) Please identify and provide the correspondence prior to this letter in which PacifiCorp
notified XRO of the option to conduct system impact studies to determine transmission
Page 6 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
"
availabilty, including the cost of the study and how XRO could request PacifiCorp complete the
studies. If no prior communcation exists, please state so.
(c) Pleae adit or deny that Transmission Business Practice NO.9 sttes that requests for
network resource designations shall be made though separate OASIS requests ''to allow
PacifiCorp the opportunty to review and respond according to Section 32 of the OATT."
(d) Please admit or deny that the Section 32.1 of the OATT states, "After receiving a request
for service, the Transmission Provider shall determine on a non-discriminatory basis whether a
System Impact Study is needed."
(e) Did Mr. Kauf or PacifiCorp C&T ever lodge an OASIS request for the XRG
projects, or otherwse consult with the Transmission Provider regardig the necessity fora
system impact study? If not, how did Mr. Kaufan know that a system impact study would be
required?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG Request No. 16 (providing Business
Practice # 9 in response to XRO's request for the policy by which it requests network resource
status for PURPA projects).
(a) Pleae admit or deny that for the off-system XRG projects Business Practice #24 would
also apply.
(b) Please admt or deny that a tranmission customer must follow the process outlined in
Section 29.2 ofPacifiCorp's OATT to designate a network resource.
(c) Please admit or deny that Section 29.2 ofPacifiCorp's OATT states that among the
inormation required the transmission customer must provide the service commencement date
and the term of the requested network integration transinssion service.
(d) Please admit or deny that the attestation requirement in Section 29.2 ofPacifiC.orp's
OATT allows the network customer to demonstrate it has rights to the power specified by
signg a statement stating that it "has committed to purchase generation where execution of a
contract is contingent upon the availabilty of transmission service under Par III of the taff."
(e) Please admit or deny that these provisions ofPacifiCorp's OATT would apply to
PacifiCorp C&T's request to designate the output of the 4 XRG QFs as a network resoure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37
Did Rocky Mountan Power ever offer to enter into contracts with the XRG QFs contingent upon
availabilty of transmission service under Par III of the taff Why or why not?
Page 7 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-l 0-08
'.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38
What is PacifiCorp' s C&T's policy with regard to executing a PURP A contract contingent upon
availability of transmission service under Par III of the taff Please provide all examples of
PacifiCorp executing such a contract.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39
Has PacifiCorp C&T ever provided a signed statement to PacifiCorp Transmission under Section
29.2 of its OATT stating that it has commtted to purchase generation where execution of a
contract is contingent upon the availability of transmission service under Par III of the taiff?
Please describe the circumstaces of each such occurence, and provide supporting documentar
evidence.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40
Reference Exhibits A-9 and A- 19 to Rocky Mounta Power's First Production Request to
XRO.
(a) On what basis did Mr. Grswold conclude that, "In order to accommodate your request to
deliver the full 235 MW, PacifiCorp merchant must request network upgrades from PacifiCorp
Transmission, and we understad that such upgrades likely would tae four to five years to
complete"? Please provide all documents or other evidence supporting Mr. Griswold's
statement.
(b) Did PacifiCorp C&T follow the procedures set out in Section 32 ofPacifiCorp
Transmission's OATT to reach this conclusion?
(c) Was Mr. Griswold effectively denying a transmission servce request with his statement
that transmission capacity was unavailable? Could XRG have contacted PacifiCorp
Transmission directly itself regarding PacifiCorp C&T's ability to integrate to the output of the
QFs? If so, please provide reference to the OATT sections providing XRG that right.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41
Reference PacifiCorp's GATT, Par II.
(a) IfXRG had requested PTP fi transmission service to wheel the 70 MW output of the 4
XRO QFs from Brady to a point in the Uta load center, how would PacifiCorp have processed
that request?
(b) In analyzing available capacity, would PacifiCorp have considered the commencement
date of the delivery?
Page 8 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
(c) Would PaciñCorp have considered the upgrades scheduled for the Populus to Terminal
line on Path C if the commencement date was in June 2011, Janua 2012, Janua 2013, or
some other date?
(d) Did PacifiCorp consider the upgres scheduled for the Populus to Terminal line on Path
C for any entities inquiring into PTP transmission serce requested any time between Janua
21,2009 and December 31, 2010, for service commencing in June 2011, or Janua 2012, or
some later date? If so, please provide dates of the requests for which PacifiCorp considered the
Populus to Termnal Upgrade.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42
Reference PacifiCorp's 2007 IRP, Renewable Energy Action Plan, pp. 11, 13 (March 30, 2007)
(stating that upgrades to Path C providig 300 MW of "transfer capabilty" were "expected to be
available by the end of 2010" and that PacifiCorp was "moving ahead with the Path C upgrade
project"), available at htt:1 Iww.pacificorp.comlcontentl dampacificorp
Idoc/Environmentlnvironmental Concerns/Integrated Resource Planng 12.pdf.
(a) Please describe the status of the upgrade on the followig dates: Janua 21,2009,
October 2,2009, March 15,2010, December 31, 2010, and the date of ths request.
(b) Are the upgrades complete? If so, please provide the date of completion and the resulting
increase in capacity north to south. If not, when does PacifiCorp expect that the upgraes will be
complete and what will be the resulting increase in capacity nort to south?
(c) Ha any entity reserved any of the capacity that will be (or is) made available from the
upgrade?
(d) For each of the PacifiCorp personnel listed in XRO Request No. 19, please indicate
whether the person was aware of the proposed upgrade to Path C on each of the dates listed in (a)
of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43
Reference Exhbit A-19 of Rocky Mounta Power's First Production Request to XRG.
(a) Please reconcile Bruce Griswold's statement that "PacifiCorp estimates that the available
transmission capacity in its curent configuation at Brady can only accept approximately 20 to
25 MW of new generation," with the plans set fort in PacifiCorp's 2007 Renewable Energy
Action Plan cited in the last request.
(b) Did Mr. Grswold consider the proposed upgrades to Path C when he sent this email to
XRO? Why or why not?
Page 9 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAIANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-1 0-08
(c) Was it Rocky Mountan Power's position that XRO would have to pay for upgrades
PacifiCorp had already planned for Path C when Mr. Grswold stated, "PacifiCorp will expect
you to pay for all resulting interconnection costs including network upgrades'. . . such that the
ultimate cost to PacifiCorp's customers is not greater than the cost avoided by PacifiCorp not
constrcting or purchasing an equivalent resource located on a noi:-.constained portion of its
system"? If not, please explai what Mr. Grswold meant.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44
Reference PacifiCorp Transmission Techncal Workshop power Point Presentation (Januar
2010), at slide 19, available at http://ww.pacificorp.com/content/dapacificorp/doc/Suppliers
IRPs/ All Source2009/PresentationslRP AS2009- Tras WorkshopDraft 1-19-1 O.pdf (statig
afer 2010 or later upgrades necessar to receive output at Borah, Brady, or Kigport would be
"Zero $," assuming completion of the Gateway Segment B Populus to Terminal 345-kV line);
PacifiCorp Projects in WECC Path Ratig Process Power Point Presentation by Tom Tjoelker
and Craig Quist, at slides 15-18 (October 20-22,2010), available at http://ww.wecc.biz
/committees/StadingCommittees/CC/1 02020 1 0/Lists/Minutes/1/0ct%20,2%2020 1 0%20PCC
%20PAC%20E%20and%20W%20Presentation.pdf (projecting the Path C upgrade "will increase
the transfer capability of the redefined Path C (Path 20) to 1600 MW nort to south, and 1250
MW south to north," and will be in service December 31, 2010).
(a) Are the upgrades complete and in service such that deliver to Borah or Brady would
requie $0 in upgrades as stated in the power point? If so, pleae provide the date of such
completion. If not, when does PacifiCorp expect that the upgrades will be complete?
(b) Has PacifiCorp made the new capacity available on its OASIS website? If yes, please
provide the date that the new capacity was listed as available on the OASIS website. If not,
please state the date when the new capacity will be listed as available on the OASIS website.
(c) For each entity that has reserved any of the capacity that will be (or is) made available
from the upgrade, please provide the entity's name, its public scheduling number or the OASIS
reservation number, the amount of capacity reserved, and the dates for which capacity is
reserved.
(d) For each of the PacifiCorp personnel listed in XRO Request No. 19, please indicate
whether the person was aware that delivery to Borah or Brady would require $0 in upgrades as
stated in the power point once Populus-Terminal was complete.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45
Reference Exhibits A-I and A-2 of Rocky Mountain Power's First Production Request to XRG.
Page 10 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
,
(a) Did Rocky Mountan Power ever provide IRP-method rateS for the two 78 MW PUR A
wid projects proposed?
(b) If yes, please provide the corrspondence providing XRO with the rates.
(c) If no, please explain why Rocky Mountain Power did not provide such rates, and identify
the correspondence where it relayed its decision not to provide IRP method rates to XRG. Pleas
reconcile the response with Rocky Mountain Power's statement in its Intial Comments in Case
No. ONR-E-lO-04, p. 11, wherein Rocky Mountan Power advocates for use of the IRP method.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46
Please provide all docents in PacifiCorp C&T's possession regardig plan for upgrades of
Path C, and the impact the upgrades/constrction will have on transmission availabilty. Pleas
provide the name of the record holder, and date the document was generated and the date it was
first possessed by PacifiCorp C&T.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47
Please admt or deny that Rocky Mountan Power requested that the cost of the Populus to
Termnal project be placed in rate base in PAC-E-lO-07. Please explai the impat of
completion of ths project on Rocky Mountan Power's ability to accept deliver of the 4 XRG
projects referred to in the Complaint in ths case at Bora or Brady.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48
Reference Order No. 29998 (Case No. PAC-E-05-08) (approvig Mid America acquisition of
PacifiCorp).
(a) Did the Company commit to "increase Path C capacity by 300 MW (from S.E. Idao to
Nortern Uta)" with a "taget completion date" of2010?
(b) Did the Company subsequently design the Populus to Termnal upgrade to provide "700
MW of imediate additional. capacity?" Reference Direct Testimony of Rady Lobb, Case No.
PAC-E-IO-07, p. 21 (October 14,2010).
(c) If so, please explain why Rocky Mountan Power stated in response to XRG Request No.
20 that "completion of the Populus-Termnal upgrade likely would not alleviate constraints
across Path C sufciently to accommodate all 70 MW ofXRO's proposed output at Brady(.)"
Pleas provide the study by PacifiCorp Tramission supporting ths statement.
Page 11 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-l 0-08
~
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49
Please provide all discovery requests and responses generated in P AC-E-l 0-07 regarding the
Populus- Terminal project. Please also provide all confdential testimony and exhbits fied in
that case on the Populus-Terminal project.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50
Reference Monsanto Exhibit No. 227 (DEP-7), Case No. P AC-E- 10-07 (containing Rocky
Mountain Power's discovery response which listed as a fuction of the Gateway Central project
(Segment B of which is Populus-Terminal proj ect) that it will "faciltate the integration of
potential new energy resources in Wyoming, Uta, Idaho and Oregon, and help support
economic development in those states."); Direct Testimony of Darell Gerrard, Case No. PAC-E-
10-07, pp. 4, 8 (May 2010) (same and noting that PacifiCorp used ths same basis in the Mid~
American acquisition approval case).
(a) Please explain why Rocky Mountan Power assert that the project will facilitate
integration of new Idaho resources in the context of rate recovery but refused to consider the use
of the project in contract negotiations with XRG on the dates listed in the Answer il8.
(b) Please explain the usefulness of the project if it canot be used for new wid generating
facilities such as XRG's proposed 70 MW ofPURA projects. Who will use the 700 MW of
immediately increased capacity? Pleae list the potential new Idao resources for which the
Company plans to use the project.
(c) Is it PacifiCorp's policy to place transmission projects in rate base before it will consider
the upgrades' impacts on transmission availability in contract negotiations with PURP A
developers? Is the response different for the Company's own generating resources orRFP
bidders?
(d) Is the 700 MW Path C upgrade fuly subscribed? Reference Rebuttl Testimony of
Darell Gerrard, Case No. PAC-E-I0-07, p. 17 (November 16,2010).
(e) Please provide the anual load and resource studies relied upon by PacifiCorp in its
decision to constrct Populus-Terminal as a 700 MW line. Reference Rebutt Testimony of
Darell Gerrard, Case No. PAC-E-1O-07, p. 15 (November 16,2010).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51
Wil the Three Buttes project, the Top of the World project, or the Dunap I project
use the Populus-Terminal line? If so, please provide the public scheduling numbers and the
OASIS reservation numbers correlating to the entire reservation for each of these projects,
including the dates of the reservation.
Page 12 ~ THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAIANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-I0-08
.
REQlJST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52
Reference 125 FERC' 61,076, Docket No. EL08-75-000 (October 21,2008) (granting in par,
and denying in par, incentive rate tratment for PacifiCorp's Energy Gateway Trasmission
Expanion Project, which includes the Populus-Terminal Line).
(a) Has PacifiCorp planed since at least the date of ths order, that southwestern Idaho
would be a "hub," from which "power will be collected and moved in different diections"? If
not, please provide the updated filing with FERC clarfying that southwest Idaho is no longer a
planed hub. Reference il3 of the Order.
(b) List the southwestern Idalo generating resources PacifiCorp had in mind when if filed
the petition in ths FERC case. Are the XRG projects in southwestern Idaho?
(c) Given PacifiCorp's asserton tht "transmission must be sited 'ahead' of specific
generatiol1 resoures to best position utilities to meet futue forecasted load growt," please
explai the basis for Rocky Mountain Power's position that it would only provide 1 PPA for the
4 XRG projects. Reference il13 of the Order and Answer il8.
(d) Is it Rocky Mounta Power's policy to wait until a transmssion upgrade is in servce
prior to entertnig PUR A contract negotiations for proj ects that would use that capacity? If
so, did PacifiCorp make FERC aware that ths would be the policy when PacifiCorp asked for
incentive rate treatment for ths project? Please explain with regard to Rocky Mountan Power's
Responses to XRG Requests NO.2 and 15.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53
Please adit or deny that, on or about October 15, 2010, the XRG LLCs offered to forego any
clai to the higher rates in Order No. 30744 and to accept the rates in Order No. 31025 if Rocky
Mounta Power would agee to accept conditiona firm tranmission delivery.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54
Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountan Power is able to accept delivery under conditional
fir transmission from the 4 XRG QFs at Brady.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55
Please identify all instaces in which Rocky Mountan Power has agd to accept conditiona
firm trmission from QF or non-QF generators under long or short term agreements. Please
list all such agreements separately, and include the minimum followig information: date Rocky
Mounta Power agreed to accept conditional firm transmission, date the deliverig entity
commenced delivery (or is projected to commence deliver), generator-tye, entity delivering
Page 13 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - P AC-E-l 0-08
.
energy, and description of the natue of the agreement, e.g. long term PPA, short term market
purchase, etc.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56
Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountan Power requested to stay discovery in ths case on or
about October 18,2010, in order to respond to XRG's agreement to accept the Order No. 31025
rates.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57
Please admit or deny that, on December 16,2010, Rocky Mountain Power unlaterally lifted the
discovery freeze in this case. If admitted, please answer the following:
(a) Explain why Rocky Mountain Power recommenced litigation afer XRG offered to agree
to the rates in Order No. 31025, and forego the relief sought in the complait for the rates in
Order No. 30744.
(b) Does Rocky Mountan Power believe it had an obligation to negotiate with XRG in good
faith after filing of the complaint? If not, then between the time of the settlement offer on
October 15,2010, and the date Rocky Mountan Power lifted the discovery stay? Please explain.
(c) Please explain why discovery is necessar to understand that XRG is willng to enter into
standard PURP A PPAs containing the rates in Order No. 31025.
(d) Please explain the reason Rocky Mountain Power will not provide stadard PPAs for the
projects containing the rates in Order No. 31025.
(e) Please explai what terms are unown in a stadard Rocky Mountain Power PURP A
PPA for Idaho. Please explain in reference the Windland PPAs approved in Case No. PAC-E-lO-
05.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58
Has Rocky Mountain Power's position regarding the availabilty of the published rates in Order
No. 31025 to XRG's projects changed since the filing of the complaint in ths case? When did
Rocky Mountain Power first become aware that the availabilty of the rates may change?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59
What were Rocky MOuntain Power's published Idaho avoided cost rates in effect for the time
periods from: (a) October 15,2010 to November 5, 2010; (b) from November 5, 2010 to
December 14,2010; and (c) from December 14,2010 to the date of this production request?
What is the eligibility cap for availability of those rates during the same time periods - 10 aMW,
Page 14 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-l 0-08
)
100 kw, or some other amount? Is the response different for different QF resource types? Please
explain and direct XRG to the taff or rate schedule on fie supporting the responses for each
date.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60
How did the information in the response to the last request affected Rocky Mountan Power's
consideration ofXRG's settlement offer on October 15,2010, and Rocky Mountain Power's
apparnt decision to reject the offer on December 16, 2010?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
Please provide or describe Rocky Mountain Power's policy regarding when an Idaho QF
obligates itself to PP A so as to lock in the rates in effect on a paricular date as contemplated in
18 C.F.R. § 292.304( d)(2)(ii)? Which of the following actions are required in Rocky Mountan
Power's view to lock in rates on a paricular date - submitting a bindig offer to enter into a
PP A, enterig into an interconnection agreement, securng network resource designtion,
securng any necessar transmission service agreements for an off-system project, filing a
complait alleging the utility failed to negotiate in good faith?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62
Reference Rocky Mountan Power's comments filed in Case No. IPC-E-IO-22 (stating that
"Rocky MOuntan Power agrees with Staffs characterization of the Commission's grandfather
criteria. In order to qualify for grandfathered rates under these criteria (the QF must) . . . (b)
before the rate change, fie with the Commission a meritorious complaint alleging that but for the
utilty's improper conduct the QF would have secured a power sales contract before the rate
changed. ")
(a) Does Rocky MOuntan Power stil support these criteria, or have its criteria changed?
(b) Did the Commission approve of Rocky Mounta Power's criteria in Case No. IPC..E-I0-
22, or some less onerous requirement?
(c) Admit or deny that XRG meets Rocky Mountan Power's criteria described in its
comments with regard to the rates in order No. 31025.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63
Please explain how XRG has failed to meet Rocky Mountain Power's test with regard to the
rates in Order No. 31025. Is the relief requested in XRG's Complaint's Prayer for Relief unclear
as to XRG's commitment to PURPA PPAs?
Page 15 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-l 0-08
\
Than you for your prompt attention to ths Thrd Request for Production.
Sincerely yours,~
t J. Richardson
egory M. Adams
RICHASON & O'LEARY PLLC
Attorneys for Complainant
Page 16 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-1O-08
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
\t~I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the _ day of Januar, 2011, a tre and correct copy of
the within and foregoing THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8,
XRG-DP-9,XRG-DO-IO, LLCs TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER was served in the
maner shown to:
Jean Jewell
Commssion Secreta
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
iean.iewell~uc.idaho.gov
2L Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
1L Electronic Mail
Mark C. Moench
Rocky Mountan Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Mark.moench'!pacificorp.com
_ Hand Delivery
X U.S. Mail, postae pre-paid
Facsimile
lL Electronic Mail
Danel E. Solander
Rocky Mountan Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Danel.solander'!pacificorp.com
_ Hand Delivery
X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
lL Electronic Mail
Jeffey S. Lovinger
Lovinger Kaufman LLP
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925
Portland, OR 97232
10vinger'!LKLaw.com
_ Hand DeUvery
XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
lL Electronic Mail
Kenneth E. Kauf
Lovinger Kaufman LLP
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925
Portland, OR 97232
Kaufan'!LKLaw.com
_ Hand Delivery
iU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
By:Ic:
RICHASON & O'LEARY PLLC
Attorneys for Complainant
Page 17 - THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E-IO-08