20120817PAC to XRG 24-27,31-35,40,45,47.pdf

RECEIVir
20!? U& 16 PM 3:47
D4Hç. t" !1e1L.rJ:
jJ
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter(richardsonandoleary.com
gregrichardsonandoleaiy.com (W)
ROCKYMOUNTAIN
POWER
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP
August 16, 20.12
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: ID PAC-E-10-08
XRG Data Request (24-63)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's responses to XRG Data Requests 24-27, 31-35,
40, 45, & 47. Also provided are Attachments 24, 31, and 45.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
JT-ed.
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
Enclosure
C.c.: Jean Jewe1IIIPUC (3 copies of CDs) [e-mail]
Jeffrey S. Lovinger/lovingercLKLaw.com (W)
Kenneth E. [e-mail] (W)
Mark C. Moench/Rocky Mountain Power [e-mail] (W)
Daniel E. Solander/Rocky Mountain Power [e-mail] (W)
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 24
XRG Data Request 24
Please identify and provide evidence of any correspondence from XRG to Rocky
Mountain Power wherein XRG agreed to forego PPA execution on account of
Rocky Mountain Power's concerns regarding transmission availability at XRG's
proposed points of delivery at Brady or Borah.
Response to XRG Data Request 24
Please refer to Attachment XRG 24.
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 25
XR(1 Data Request 25
Please admit or deny that XRG consistently maintained its belief that transmission
would be available at its proposed points of delivery, and consistently requested
PPAs 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.
Response to XRG Data Request 25
PaciflCorp objects to this request on the basis that PaciflCorp does not possess the
requested information. In this data request PaciflCorp is asked to admit or deny
XRG's "belief' relative to the availability of transmission. PaciflCorp does not
know what "belief' XRG held and does not have information to ascertain XRG's
"belief." Without waiving its objection and reserving its right to renew this
objection at hearing, PacifiCorp provides the following response.
Deny. PacifiCorp does not have sufficient information to ascertain XRG's
"belief' relative to transmission availability. XRG did not consistently request
PPAs for all four projects. In an e-mail communication dated April 1, 2009 from
James Carkulis to Bruce Griswold, XRG instructed PaciflCorp to move forward
with only XRG-DP1O "until we figure out the rest."
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 26
XRG Data Request 26
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG Request No. 16 and
Answer 18. Please explain how Bruce Griswold (or anyone else at PacifiCorp
C&T) requested information regarding transmission availability for network
resource designation of the XRG projects. Provide all supporting evidence of
PaciflCorp C&T's request and PaciflCorp Transmission's response, and please
explain how the evidence provided supports Rocky Mountain 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 PaciflCorp Transmission regarding
the Company's ability to designate the XRG projects as network resources, please
state so.
Response to XRG Data Request 26
PacifiCorp Merchant (Commercial and Trading/C&T) used publicly available
information from OASIS to determine available transmission capacity for XRG
QF requests at the proposed point of delivery. PacifiCorp Merchant does not
request specific Network Resource designation until a power purchase agreement
(PPA) with the resource is executed. PaciflCorp Transmission OATT Section
29.2 (viii) requires an executed PPA with the resource for Network Resource
designation application or an attestation that execution of a PPA is eminent which
then must be provided within two weeks by PaciflCorp Merchant.
PacifiCorp did not contact or apply to PacifiCorp Transmission for Network
Resource designation because it did not have an executed PPA with XRG during
the referenced time period.
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 27
XRG Data Request 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 Mountain 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 Mountain
Power's determination regarding additional transmission availability. Please
provide all supporting evidence of the changed circumstances cited, and
please define "Point of Service" as used in the letter and response, including
a reference to where that term is defined in PaciflCorp'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
January 21, 2009.
(d)Admit or deny that a posting on an OASIS website regarding transmission
availability can be an incorrect approximation of actual transmission
availability.
(e)Did PacifiCorp's OASIS website inaccurately post available transmission
capacity on the paths necessary for integration of energy delivered to Brady
or Borah at any time after January 21, 2009? If no physical upgrades were
completed, please explain how the available capacity postings were correct
prior to the times listed in the September 21, 2010 letter.
Response to XRG Data Request 27
(a)PacifiCorp admits the revised determination did not result from physical
upgrades or physical changes to the transmission system. The revised
determination resulted from a modification to include Path C as a Point of
Service (for network reservations) on OASIS July 15, 2010 which did not
result from physical upgrades or physical changes to the transmission
system.
(b)The circumstance that changed was a modification made to include Path C as
a Point of Service (for Network reservations) on OASIS. The definition for
"point of service" is a point in a path for scheduling purposes only. Unlike a
point of receipt or a point of delivery, a transmission request cannot originate
or end at a point of service.
(c)No determination was done, and therefore no identifiable dates were
established, for physical transmission availability for the delivery of over 23
MW from the XRG projects at Brady. PacifiCorp Energy letter of
PAC-E-10-08IRocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 27
September 21, 2010 (the referenced Attachment XRG 5) refers to availability
of firm scheduling service for the XRG projects.
(d)Without additional context from the complainant, PacifiCorp cannot provide
a meaningful response. It appears complainant is associating available
OASIS path scheduling transfer capability with available physical
transmission facility capability which would be out of context for PaciflCorp
Energy letter of September 21, 2010 (the referenced Attachment XRG 5).
OASIS is the most accurate and current information available regarding
system capabilities. It can and does change over time as information and use
of the system changes.
(e)No, PacifiCorp's OASIS website did not inaccurately post available
transmission capacity on the paths necessary for integration of energy
delivered to Brady or Borah at any time after January 21, 2009.
The postings were correct. As was explained in PaciflCorp's response to
data request 21 (b), Idaho Power's decision to split the postings for Borah
and Brady resulted in the need to also separate the two physical points on
PaciflCorp's OASIS. Splitting the points, allowed PacifiCorp to identify and
post some additional firm scheduling flexibility for both paths independently.
Recordholder: Kenneth Houston I Jim Portouw
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 31
XRG Data Request 31
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production
Request, Attachment XRG 1, Part 2 (containing emails from Jim Partouw, a
Trader for PacifiCorp C&T, to John Younie, PacifiCorp C&T, on January 29,
2009, stating in response to Mr. Younie's inquiry into transmission capacity:
"Suggest PPA 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 Mountain 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.
Response to XRG Data Request 31
Please note the correct spelling for "Jim Partouw" is Jim Portouw.
(a)Deny. All of PacifiCorp's QF purchases are Network Resources.
(b)Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (a) above.
(c)Please refer to Attachment XRG 31, an email delivered to Mr. Carkulis on
May 11, 2009.
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08IRocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 32
XRG Data Request 32
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production
Request, Attachment XRG 1, Part 2 (containing email from Jim Partouw, a Trader
for PacifiCorp C&T, to John Younie, PaciflCorp C&T, on January 23, 2009,
stating: "We currently have 250 MW of PIP import capability from Brady, but
we have sold an option to APS to use this capacity so it will not always be
available. . . ." and on and January 29, 2009, stating, "Without Network Resource
status for this resource, we will need to use PacifiCorp PIP capacity and schedule
the energy to load on the PIP reservation.").
(a)Please provide the public scheduling numbers and OASIS reservation
number for the 250 MW PTP import capability referenced.
(b)Please explain for what purpose PacifiCorp had reserved this 250 MW of
PTP transmission.
(c)Please provide information regarding the designated network resources
supporting the entire quantity of the 250 MW PIP 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 that Mr. Partouw believed
PacifiCorp could schedule XRG energy to load on the PIP reservation?
(e)How has PacifiCorp used the 250 MW of PIP import capability referenced
by Mr. Partouw between January 21, 2009 and the date of this request?
Response to XRG Data Request 32
Please note the correct spelling for "Jim Partouw" is Jim Portouw.
(a)Subpart (a) was withdrawn by XRG in its "Withdrawal of Production
Requests Pending Resolution of Summary Judgment Proceedings" dated
June 9, 2011.
(b)PacifiCorp C&I owns the 250 MW PIP Brady import transmission to
fulfill contractual obligations with Arizona Public Service Company (APS)
in the 1995 Restated Transmission Agreement. In this agreement,
PacifiCorp granted APS 250 MW of firm transfer rights from Brady to Four
Corners/Glen Canyon Substations.
(c)Subpart (c) was withdrawn by XRG in its "Withdrawal of Production
Requests Pending Resolution of Summary Judgment Proceedings" dated
June 9, 2011.
(d)The APS and PaciflCorp contract executions done in 1995 were a
combination of asset change, power exchange, power sale, exchange of
transmission rights, and transmission agreements. Please note the time of
PAC-E-10-08fRocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 32
APS contract execution in 1995 was before Open Access Transmission
Tariff and, therefore, there was no distinction between PIP and Network.
With regard to PIP transmission reservations, there is no restriction on the
utilization as there is for Network transmission. Therefore should PIP
reservations owned by PacifiCorp C&T be set aside to fulfill APS
obligations not being used by APS in any particular hour, they can be used
by PaeifiCorp C&T for any legitimate purpose, including the import of
XRG energy to load.
(e) PacifiCorp C&T has used the import capability to fulfill the APS
obligations described earlier in this response. When not used by APS,
PacifiCorp C&T will use the import capability to transfer Network and non-
network resources into the Utah system.
Recordholder: Jim Portouw
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08IRocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 33
XRG Data Request 33
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Response to XRG's First Production
Request, Attachment XRG 1, Part 2 (containing Jim Partouw's e-mail on January
29, 2009 to John Younie stating, "Another 250 MW exists but APS has first rights
to schedule on the path. If APS schedules from Brady we could attempt to wheel
through Borah but this would be non-firm.")
(a)Please provide evidence that the non-firm option discussed was
communicated to XRG, or admit that this information was not
communicated to XRG.
(b)Please identify "APS."
(c)Please identify the public scheduling numbers or the OASIS reservation
number for the APS rights. Provide supporting evidence that such rights
existed at all times between January 29, 2009 and through September 21,
2010.
Response to XRG Data Request 33
Please note the correct spelling for "Jim Partouw" is Jim Portouw.
(a)Admit. PURPA requires that QF generation is a Network Resource to serve
network load for the utility which requires the use of firm transmission
service from the resource to network load. Use of non-firm transmission is
not allowed for serving network load. Since the XRO QF resources would
be network resources, firm transmission is required and the non-firm option
was dismissed as a non-viable option. PacifiCorp communicated on multiple
occasions that firm transmission is a requirement. Please refer to the
Company's response to XRG Data Request 24; specifically Attachment
XRG24.
(b)Subpart (b) was withdrawn by XRG in its "Withdrawal of Production
Requests Pending Resolution of Summary Judgment Proceedings" dated
June 9, 2011.
(c)Subpart (c) was withdrawn by XRG in its "Withdrawal of Production
Requests Pending Resolution of Summary Judgment Proceedings" dated
June 9, 2011.
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08fRocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 34
XRG Data Request 34
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to XRG Requests No. 5 and No.
16.
(a)Please explain how the emails between Jim Partouw and John Younie
constitute studies sufficient for PaciflCorp C&T to conclude that PacifiCorp
had transmission capacity for no more than 23 MW delivered at Brady. Did
PacifiCorp's investigation into the feasibility of designating the XRG
projects as network resources constitute "separate OASIS requests for
service to allow PaciflCorp the opportunity 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. Partouw authorized to grant or deny
transmission service requests? Was Mr. Partouw listed as a market function
employee? Was Mr. Griswold or Mr. Younie list as a market function
employee?
(c)List the information used by Mr. Partouw in his response. Was this
information publicly available? If so, where could XRG have located all
information in Mr. Partouw's emails? Did Mr. Partouw consult with
PaciflCorp 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. Partouw consider future transmission upgrades, such as the Populus-
Terminal line contemplated in the FBRC Order at 125 FERC 161,076
(October 21, 2008)?
(e)Did Mr. Partouw base his investigation into available transmission capacity
on an online date proposed for the XRG contracts, or did he rely on the date
of his emails, or some other date?
Response to XRG Data Request 34
Please note the correct spelling for "Jim Partouw" is Jim Portouw.
(a) Emails between Jim Portouw and John Younie do not constitute studies; they
contain summaries of evaluation and other information deemed necessary to
manage potential transmission alternatives and issues. No, PacifiCorp
evaluation of the feasibility of XRG projects did not include separate OASIS
requests for Network Resource status. As noted in the emails, there
remained a need to request Network Resource status. The process for
obtaining Network Resources designation is described in the response to
XRG Data Request 26.
(b) No, Mr. Portouw is an employee of PaciflCorp C&T. Only employees of
PacifiCorp Transmission are authorized to grant or deny transmission service
PAC-E-1 0-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 34
requests. Mr. Portouw and Mr. Younie are not Market Function employees;
Mr. Griswold is a Market Function employee.
(c)Primary information used in the response was historical knowledge of
transmission topology, business practices, existing transmission reservations
and APS contractual obligations. The existing topology, business practices
and transmission reservations were available on PacifiCorp OASIS. APS
contractual obligations would be embedded in FERC filed agreements. Mr.
Portouw does not recall any consultation with PacifiCorp Transmission on
the requests. Mr. Portouw would be the person to testify to his actions and
information used.
(d)No. Proposed XRG resource is delivered by Bonneville to PacifiCorp at
Brady. There were no known facility upgrades from Brady to PaciflCorp
system.
(e)Evaluation of XRG resource at Brady was based on dates in the Term section
of the project summary stated in the emails.
Recordholder: Jim Portouw
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-l0-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 35
XRG Data Request 35
Reference the following assertion in Ken Kaufmann'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 confirmation from PacifiCorp Transmission that
Transmission is available. PacifiCorp Transmission will charge PaciflCorp
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 future date. Please provide any internal or publicly available written
statement of this policy, if any exists.
(b)Please identify and provide the correspondence prior to this letter in which
PacifiCorp notified XRG of the option to conduct system impact studies to
determine transmission availability, including the cost of the study and how
XRG could request PacifiCorp complete the studies. If no prior
communication exists, please state so.
(c)Please admit or deny that Transmission Business Practice No. 9 states that
requests for network resource designations shall be made through separate
OASIS requests "to allow PaciflCorp the opportunity 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. Kaufmann or PacifiCorp C&T ever lodge an OASIS request for the
XRG projects, or otherwise consult with the Transmission Provider
regarding the necessity for a system impact study? If not, how did Mr.
Kauflnann know that a system impact study would be required?
Response to XRG Data Request 35
(a)Please refer to the Company's response to XRG Data Request 26.
(b)Please refer to the Company's response to XRG Data Request 26.
(c)Admit.
(d)Admit.
(e)Please refer to the Company's response to XRG Data Request 26.
PAC-E-1 0-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 35
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E- 10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 40
XRG Data Request 40
Reference Exhibits A-9 and A- 19 to Rocky Mountain Power's First Production
Request to XRG.
(a)On what basis did Mr. Griswold conclude that, "In order to accommodate
your request to deliver the full 235 MW, PacifiCorp merchant must request
network upgrades from PaciflCorp Transmission, and we understand that
such upgrades likely would take 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 of
PaciflCorp Transmission's OATT to reach this conclusion?
(c)Was Mr. Griswold effectively denying a transmission service request with
his statement that transmission capacity was unavailable? Could XRG have
contacted PacifiCorp Transmission directly itself regarding PaciflCorp
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.
Response to XRG Data Request 40
(a)Response was based on PacifiCorp Merchant (Commercial and
TradingtC&T) using publicly available information from OASIS to
determine available transmission capacity for XRG QF requests at the
proposed point of delivery.
(b)Yes.
(c)No. No. Transmission service requests for QF resource integration are the
responsibility of the merchant function accepting delivery from the resource
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16,2012
XRG Data Request 45
XRG Data Request 45
Reference Exhibits A-i and A-2 of Rocky Mountain Power's First Production
Request to XRG.
(a)Did Rocky Mountain Power ever provide IRP-method rates for the two 78
MW PURPA wind projects proposed?
(b)If yes, please provide the correspondence providing XRG 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. Please reconcile the response with Rocky
Mountain Power's statement in its Initial Comments in Case No. GNR-E-10-
04, p. 11, wherein Rocky Mountain Power advocates for use of the IRP
method.
Response to XRG Data Request 45
(a)No.
(b)Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (a) above.
(c)Please refer to Attachment XRG 45. PacifiCorp explained in an email dated
March 23, 2009 there was only 23MW of available transmission capacity at
XRG's point of delivery; therefore, there was only sufficient capacity to do
one of XRG's published rate QF requests.
Recordholder: Bruce Griswold
Sponsor: To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-08/Rocky Mountain Power
August 16, 2012
XRG Data Request 47
XRG Data Request 47
Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountain Power requested that the cost of the
Populus to Terminal project be placed in rate base in PAC-E-10-07. Please
explain the impact of completion of this project on Rocky Mountain Power's
ability to accept delivery of the 4 XRG projects referred to in the Complaint in
this case at Borah or Brady.
Response to XRG Data Request 47
Admit.
The question does not state where the power from the 4 XRG projects is to be
delivered. The Populus to Terminal project increased southbound capability
across Path C into Utah with the upgrades adding 650 MW of capacity
southbound. All the additional Path C capacity, including the incremental 650
MW of capability is currently subscribed to network service requirements and is
not available for firm purchase on PacifiCorp's OASIS. The upgrades did not
affect the availability of capacity from Brady or Borah to Path C other than
providing scheduling flexibility from Brady into Utah and from Borah into
Populus. Per PacifiCorp's OASIS website, there is currently no available
transmission capacity from Brady into Utah or from Borah into Utah. There is
posted capability from Borah to Populus.
Recordliolder: Kenneth Houston
Sponsor: To Be Determined