20150804PAC to Staff 8-11.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
. r'I.., .'
?Bii p,tlG -h $,t{ sr ll
,,;i-,, t : '' 1:
IljlLi-il ::l 'l(j,:.,,',i.rLit '
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake Clty, Uah 84lll
August 3,2015
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
i [e-mail]. gov (C)
RE: ID PAC-E-15-04
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request (8-l l)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC Data Requests 8-11.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
-i,-[*L il**io,t I Prl
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
PAC-E-15-04 lRocky Mountain Power
August 3,2015
IPUC Data Request 8
IPUC Data Request 8
In Order No. 32890. the Commission directed the Company to increase its efforts
toward achieving higher levels of cost-effective DSM, and to present clear and
quantifiable metrics regarding decisions to implement or decline to implement
energy efficiency programs. Please describe the Company's ellbrts to comply
with this order.
Response to Data Request 8
The Company continually assesses its DSM portfolio to ensure it includes a
robust set of cost-effective programs to customers. As part of this process, and
consistent with the Commission's guidance in Order No. 32890, the Company has
undertaken a number of specific actions over the past two years to achieve higher
levels of cost-effective DSM savings. These actions include the follow'ing:
On February 28,2014, the Company posted a public notice for updates to the
Home Energy Savings Program after reviewing changes with Idaho Staff.
Changes took effect April 13,2014. These changes were designed to improve
customer participation, align incentives with changing measure costs and savings
estimates, and enable new measure delivery channels, such as the introduction of
wattsmart Starter Kits.
On May 22,2014, in Advice No. 14-01, the Company filed for approval of tariff
modifications to its See ya later, refrigerator@ program. Changes were approved
effective July l, 2014. These modifications were designed to increase customer
participation, allow commercial and industrial customers with residential units to
participate.
On August 13,2014, the Company presented plans to begin sending home energy
reports to residential customers to Idaho Staff. The reports, which the Company
began distributing in January 2015, provide customers with information on how
their electricity consumption compares to their neighbors in similar homes as well
as suggestions on how to save electricity, including participating in other
programs offered by the Company.
On August 22,2014, in Case No. PAC-E-14-08, the Company filed for approval
to consolidate Electric Service Schedule Nos. I l5 - FinAnswer Express, 125 -
Energy FinAnswer, and 155 - Agricultural Energy Services, with modification,
into a new Electric Service Schedule No 140, Non-Residential Energy Efficiency.
These changes were intended to streamline the process to simplify program
participation for customers. Modifications included increased incentive levels,
expanding the program to include energy management services and incentives,
updating and expanding prescriptive incentive offers, and new offers for small
businesses.
Recordholders: Eli Morris. Michael Snow
Sponsor: Bill Comeau
PAC-E-I 5-04 I Rocky Mountain Pow'er
August 3,2075
IPUC Data Request 9
IPUC Data Request 9
In its Capacity Balance Determination, the Company explains that it determines
its annual system peak obligation by subtracting Existing Class 2 DSM (Volume
pages 79 and 136). This was not done in the Company's previous IRPs. Please
explain the rationale, methodology, and potential impacts of this change. In
particular, please explain:
(a) How does the Company derive I l0 MW of Class 2 DSM capacity reduction
(page 79) from its 2014 Class 2 DSM energy savings?
(b) How was this reduction allocated between the East and West control areas
(Page 8l )?
(c) Volume II Table D.3. shows a total nameplate capacity reduction of 565 MW.
According to Footnote No. 8, this is not a coincident peak reduction (page 66).
What coincident peak reduction is associated with this 565 MW capacity
reduction? How was this value determined, and how does it relate to the I l0
MW capacity reduction described earlier?
(d) According to Table 5.14. the Company anticipates that Class 1 DSM and
Class 2 DSM capacity contributions'*'ill remain constant through 2024.
According to Figures 8.20 and 8.24,the Company anticipates substantial
increases in Class 2 DSM load contributions. Please explain the differences
between the anticipated DSM load contributions in Chapters 5 and 8.
Response to Data Requcst 9
(a) Because system peak obligations in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
needed to be determined before the 2014 Demand-Side Management (DSM)
program year was complete. expected 2014 Class 2 DSM megawatt-hour
(MWh) savings, by state, were developed based on actual program activity for
January through June and forecasted activity for the remainder of the year.
Similar to the capacity reduction of new DSM resources, the capacity
reduction of these programs by state was determined based on their assumed
respective hourly shapes at the time of the Company's system coincident peak
(CP).
(b) Peak obligation reductions were calculated separately for each state, then
aggregated by control area.
(c) The CP reduction is provided in Volume I, Table 8.8 of the 2015 IRP, under
"New Resources," which shows aggregated amounts of incremental DSM fbr
the east and west balancing authority areas (BAA) by year. The 110
megawatts (MW) is the capacity reduction of the existing DSN{ and are
PAC-E-15-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
August 3,2015
IPUC Data Request 9
reported under "Existing Resources" for East and West balancing authority
areas as 73 MW and 36 MW, respectively (the sum of capacity reductions on
the East and West sides of the Company's system is rounded to 110 MW). For
further details, please refer to the data disks that were provided with the
Company's filing with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission on March 31,
2015, specifically,
Disk 4_CONF\Chapter - Appendix_CONF.zip\Chapter - Appendix\Chapter 8
- Results\Tbl 8.8, Fig 8.24 2015 IRP Capaoity L&R, resources to meet peak
load.xlsx.
The following table identifies the Class 2 DSM resources by east and rvest
area:
#{,idrf$.&ffi-.wt{}$ irlutl#ffi${ {r,[1ir,]13,r{i,9 tii *
SOreeonCal West D2 CA CA
SOregonCal West D2 OR OR
WallaWalla West D2 WW WA
Yakima West D2 YK WA
Goshen East D2 ID ID
Utah North East D2 UT UT
WvominpSW East D2 WY WY
(d) 'fable 5.14 shows existing resources, thus the constant DSM values as noted.
Figure 8.20 and Figure 8.24 show expected levels of future DSM as selected
for the preferred portfolio. Please also refer to Table 8.7 and Table 8.8 for the
preferred portfolio selections.
Recordholder: Ted Drennan
Sponsor: Rick Link
PAC-E-I5-04 /Rocky Mountain Power
August 3,2015
IPUC Data Request 10
IPUC Data Request l0
Please describe the process for validating the Company's System Benefits Tool
(SBT) model. Please provide the results of any validation work that has already
been completed. How will the SBT model be validated as more information
becomes available?
Response to Data Request l0
The system benefits tool was vetted through a stakeholder process following the
2013 lntegrated Resource Plan. No further validation work has been completed.
The company has indicated that it will develop cost and benefit support for
transmission projects for which it is seeking commission acknowledgement and
which are not being constructed specific to external drivers such as a transmission
customer request or NERC reliability standards.
Recordholder: Shayleah LaBray
Sponsor: Rick Vail
PAC-E-I5-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
August 3,2015
IPUC Data Request 1l
IPUC Data Request Il
The peak capacity contribution values for wind and solar energy presented in
Tables N.1 and N.2 differ substantially from those presented in Appendix O of the
Company's 2013 IRP. Please explain these differences, and explain why the
Company believes the 2015 IRP methodology to be preferable to that used in the
2013 rRP.
Response to Data Request 11
The changes in the results between the 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and
2015 IRP are driven by a change in methodology. The 2013 IRP relied on
capacity of the wind and solar resources available in the top 100 historical load
hours. The 2015 IRP relied on the capacity factor approximation method (CF
Method), which considers loss of load probability (LOLP) among all hours of the
year to develop its capacity contribution values for wind and solar resources.
By applying the CF Method, the peak contribution of wind and solar resources
was determined based on whether the wind and solar resources would contribute
in reducing the LOLP of the Company's system, consistent with how LOLP is
used to support selection of a 13 percent planning reserve margin (PRM) in the
Company's 2015 IRP PRM study (Appendix I), The CF Method approximates a
widely accepted, but computationally intensive approach to deriving capacity
contribution values, the effective load carrying capability method (ELCC
Method). For further discussion on ELCC method and the approximation of the
CF Method, please refer to the report prepared by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), which is quoted in footnote 47 of Appendix N to the
Company's 2015 IRP.
Recordholder: Ted Drennan
Sponsor: Rick Link