20110222PAC to Staff 1-15.pdf

~ROCKY MOUNTAINPORA ll OF iwF1 D
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
2nii FEB 22 At; 10= 27
Februar 21,2011
Neil Price
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5918
RE: ID PAC-E-l 1-6
IPUC Production Data Requests (1-15)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's responses to IPUC Production Data Requests 1-
15. Provided on the enclosed CD are Attachments IPUC Production 1,4, and 8. Provided on the
enclosed Confidential CD are Confidential Attchments IPUC Production 10 -(1-15).
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
"-.e lD~J a.
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 1
IPUC Production Data Request 1
Please provide a copy of the 2010 Idaho Irrigation Load Control Program Report.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 1
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 1.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 2
IPUC Production Data Request 2
Please confirm that the Company proposes limiting participating sites to a
minimum 50 hp pump size, resulting in an estimated elimination of 13 MW from
the Program.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 2
No, that was one of the options discussed in Case No. PAC-E-I0-07, however
based on a question from Commissioner Smith during hearings the Company
decided not to propose that in the current application. The language proposed
under the Paricipation section on Sheet 72A.l in the pending application provides
the Company the necessary ability to pursue several actions to improve program
performance, "based on criteria the Company considers necessary to ensure the
effective operation of the Program and utilty system. Selection criteria may include, but
wil not be limited to,' cost effectiveness, impact on the operation of the Company's
transmission and distribution system, biling demand, location, pump horse power,
pumping system configuration, and/or electric system confgurations."
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 3
IPUC Production Data Request 3
If the previous inquiry is confirmed, does the Company believe it is appropriate to
include minimum pump size in the tariff language?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 3
No, as explained in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 2.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
Februar 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 4
IPUC Production Data Request 4
Please calculate the cost effectiveness of the Program, for 2010, implementing
only the Company's proposed change to the opt-out penalty. Please provide all
workpapers used in the calculation.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 4
As shown on Table 13, page 8 of the 2010 Irrigation report there were only 740
opt-outs which caused a total of 118,740 kW not avoided during the Program
Season. Based on the curent tariff the opt-out penalty for 2010 was $25,061.
Calculating the economic impact of the proposed opt-out is season dependent.
Runing such an analysis against the 2010 program would assume opt-out
behavior that may not be replicated under the proposed change. However, if
grower behavior were replicated regardless of the proposed change in opt-out
provision, and one were to assume the same growers opted out each event, and the
opt-out provision was a one strike as opposed to six step ramping down of paid
incentives the maximum incentive reductions would be approximately $330,000
(assuming an average of 11,000 kW opting out each event multiplied by $30/kW-
yr incentive). The Utilty and Ratepayer benefit to cost ratio would increase from
1.78 to 1.83. Please refer to Attachment IPUC 4 for a high level analysis.
The proposed change is not only intended to reduce opt-outs and improve
program impact, which in turn wil improve reliabilty of the resource and
program economics, but is also intended to address an inequity issue between
customers utilizing opt-outs and customers paricipating in all events.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 5
IPUC Production Data Request 5
Please provide a detailed list of each Control Event, time, date, number of sites
interrpted, number of opt-outs, amount of MW curailed, and amount of MW
opted out, for the 2010 Program.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 5
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 1, the 2010 Idaho Irrigation Load Control report.
Table Nineteen on page 17 of the report contains the control event time, date, and
amount ofMW curiled. Opt-out information is summarized in Table Thirteen
on page 8. Table Twelve is a summar of the number of sites and customers
participating in the dispatchable program. By subtracting the number of sites that
opted-out on Table Twelve from total paricipants on Table Thirteen you would
have the number of sites interrpted.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 6
IPUC Production Data Request 6
Please calculate the cost effectiveness of the Program, for 2010, implementing
only the Company's proposed change to the credit payment. Please provide all
workpapers used in the calculation.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 6
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 4 for the results of the requested analysis. The
analysis was performed against the cost-effectiveness evaluation work completed
for Attachment IPUC 1, the 2010 Idaho Irrigation Load Control report. It should
be noted that the calculations are based on the nominal value (the average biling
demand for June, July and August of the prior two years) and not on the realized
reductions.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
Februar 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 7
IPUC Production Data Request 7
Please list any additional criteria beyond that included in the proposed tariff
language the Company may consider in the participation selection process.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 7
With the proposed taiff language the Company does not anticipate the need for
additional criteria. That being said, as proposed the Company would retain the
abilty to limit program paricipation if necessary to ensure the program's
effective operation and enhance cost-effectiveness.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 8
IPUC Production Data Request 8
Please provide a copy of the February 15 letter sent to prospective participants.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 8
Please refer to IPUC Attachment 8 for a copy of the customer letter.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
P AC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 9
IPUC Production Data Request 9
When will the Company inform prospective paricipants of selection or exclusion
from the Program prior to the star of the season?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 9
As soon as the Commission rules on the pending application the Company wil
send Schedule 10 customers a second letter informing them of any approved
changes to Schedule 72A. The Company will review the applications and
assuming the Commission approves the tariff participation language determine
loading by circuit. Once that analysis is complete the Company will notify
customers whether or not they have been selected to paricipate. The Company
intends to complete this process as soon as possible.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
P AC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
Februar 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 10
IPUC Production Data Request 10
Please list the substations and circuits experiencing voltage excursions AND
provide a map locating the substations, circuits and paricipating irrigation
customers. What percentage of participating substations does this represent?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 10
The voltage excursions are generally limited to those areas north of Idaho Falls on
five principle transmission substations; Amps, Big Grassy, Bonnevile, Jefferson
and Rigby. Together the five transmission substations serve 77.9 percent ofthe
programs participating load. Of the 36 distribution substations served by the five
transmission substations there are approximately 8 distribution substations where
we have experienced problems when executing dispatch events; approximately 22
percent (8 divided by 36) of the distribution substations are impacted. Below is a
high level summary of the transmission substation, distribution substation, feeder,
and impacted circuits. For a list of growers by circuit reference please refer to
Confidential Attachment IPUC 10 -1. Confidential Attachments IPUC 10 -2
through IPUC 10 -15 are fies/maps of the impacted circuits. This information is
confidentiaL.
Transmission sub ~distribution sub ~feeder / circuit
Amps7ren07renll, renl2, ren13
Amps7winspar7wns21, wns22
Big GrassY7camas7cmsll, cms12
Big GrassY7sandune7snd21, snd22
Big GrassY7dubois7dbsll, dbs12
Big GrassY7hamer7hamll, ham12
Bonnevile7merril7mrl1, mr12, mr13
Jefferson7anderson~andl1, and12, and13
Generally there have been no issues with load paricipating on the Rigby
transmission substation therefore no data is being provided.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 11
IPUC Production Data Request 11
Please define the types of voltage excursion the system undergoes during Program
dispatch events. Explain the impact of each voltage excursion to the system.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 11
The issue is fully explained in Attachment IPUC 1, beginning on page 9.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
Februar 21,2011
IPUC Production Data Request 12
IPUC Production Data Request 12
What mitigation methods had the Company considered and/or tried to address the
voltage excursions and load loss?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 12
Other than the mitigation methods implemented and describe in Attachment IPUC
1, other options include additional program modifications, like those described in
this application, and making additional capital investment to fully automate the
line capacitor bans on the impacted circuits.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-11-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 13
IPUC Production Data Request 13
Does the Company have any type of Voltage Regulators in place in any of the
circuits affected to maintain a constant voltage level? Explain why this method of
voltage regulation does or does not work to address the voltage excursions and
load loss. Identify which circuit does or does not have installed voltage control
equipment.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 13
Yes, the Company has line voltage regulation on all circuits. As described in
more detail in Attachment IPUC 1, beginning on page 9, the issue is the
concentration of agricultural seasonal loads on select substations and circuits and
the lack of capacitor bank automation. Manual capacitor bans are installed
during the summer months to accommodate the seasonal summer demand on
those circuits, when that demand is removed i.e. a dispatch event occurs, if the
Company doesn't also remove the capacitor bans voltage excursions may occur.
The general stair stepping in and out of dispatch events addresses the sudden drop
in load that can impact voltage adjustments however it's the magnitude of the
drop and the offsetting impact of presence of the manual capacitor bans that
results in the voltage excursions.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
P AC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 14
IPUC Production Data Request 14
On page 2 of the Application, the Company stated "the dominance of the
paricipating agricultural pump loads on some circuits is simply beyond the
compensatory abilties of the Company's installed voltage control equipment."
What is the threshold point i. e., a percentage of the substation/circuit capacity, of
each circuit when this circumstace wil occur? Please identify the threshold
points separately for each circuit if they differ from each other.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 14
The rule of thumb regarding the magnitude of load that can be removed from a
circuit absent fully automated capacitor banks is generally 50 percent. Removing
loads over that amount subject that circuit to possible voltage excursions. This
may vary by circuit however based on the overall load on the circuit and capacitor
bank locations and configurations.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter
PAC-E-II-6/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21, 2011
IPUC Production Data Request 15
IPUC Production Data Request 15
Please explain how the Company determined the threshold points for the circuits.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 15
The method used by the Company to determine theshold points is described in
Attachment IPUC 1, beginning on page 10 see the "Analysis and solution"
section.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Carol Hunter
Carol Hunter