20170912Utah_DPU Set 9 RECALL & RESUBMIT to RMP - 09-07-2017 - updated.docx

PATRICIA E. SCHMID (#4908)
JUSTIN JETTER (#13257)
Assistant Attorney GeneralsCounsel for the DIVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITIESSEAN REYES (#7969)Attorney General of Utah
160 E 300 S, 5th Floor
P.O. Box 140857
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0857
Telephone [phone]
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH
In the Matter of Rocky Mountain Power’s Application for Approval of Resource Decision to Repower Wind Facilities
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)_________________-__
DOCKET NO. 17-035-39
Division of Public Utilities
9thSet of Data Requests to
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
September 7, 2017
_________________________________
Please send an electronic copy and a paper copy of your Data Response to:
Erika Tedder – Paralegal
Division of Public Utilities
160 E 300 S, 4th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
PLEASE E-MAIL YOUR DATA
RESPONSE TO ERIKA TEDDER
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Response should include where applicable native WORD and EXCEL documents with intact formulae.
Your Data Response is not consideredreceived until an electronic copy is furnished and received.
Link Testimony. In reference to Mr. Link’s Testimony, Exhibit 3:
Please provide the portion of the “Cost of Project” row that represents the Company’s return on the investment in the repower project, on both an annual and present value basis. Provide workpapers supporting the calculation in electronic spreadsheet format with formulas intact.
If applicable, please provide references to the workpapers provided supporting the Link Testimony containing the source numbers provided in response to part (a).
Link Testimony. In reference to Mr. Link’s Testimony, Exhibit 5:
Please provide the portion of the “Capital Recovery” row that represents the Company’s return on the investment in the repower project, on both an annual and present value basis. Provide workpapers supporting the calculation in electronic spreadsheet format with formulas intact.
If applicable, please provide references to the workpapers provided supporting the Link Testimony containing the source numbers provided in response to part (a).
Link Testimony. In reference to Mr. Link’s Testimony, Lines 303-334, describing the $7 million increase in the risk-adjusted PVRR in the case without Leaning Juniper:
Which price-policy scenario yielded the $7 million result?
Please provide all results listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the Link testimony with and without Leaning Juniper.
Please provide a benefit/cost ratio for the addition of Leaning Juniper to the repowering project. Provide workpapers supporting the calculation in electronic spreadsheet format with formulas intact.
Link Testimony. In reference to Mr. Link’s Testimony, Lines 303-334, describing the $20 million reduction in the risk-adjusted PVRR in the case with Goodnoe Hills:
Which price-policy scenario yielded the $20 million result?
Please provide all results listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the Link testimony with and without Goodnoe Hills.
Please provide a benefit/cost ratio for the addition of Goodnoe Hills to the repowering project. Provide workpapers supporting the calculation in electronic spreadsheet format with formulas intact.
Regarding the Company’s response to DPU 3.19, is the Company intending to make any investments to extend the lives of the towers and additional 10 years beyond their design life? If so, please provide all estimates of expected costs and supporting documentation for these values.
Please provide all results listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the Rick Link testimony excluding the costs of the WindFREE and WindINERTIA equipment.
In reference to DPU’s Data Request question 1.3.5, please state the warranty period for the WTG gearboxes at each of the Company’s wind plants. Are the gearboxes covered as part of the OEM warranty? If not, please provide the terms of any other maintenance agreement or warranty terms and conditions with respect to the gearboxes.
In reference to the Company’s Data Request response 1.3.5, Goodnoe Hills’ information was not included. Please provide the information that was asked for in question 1.3.5 for Goodnoe Hills.
Did the Company perform any due diligent efforts after the early failures of the gearboxes? For example, did the Company talk to the suppliers about the high failure rates? Did the Company negotiate any liability claims or other recourse actions to cover the costs to replace future failing gearboxes by either GETS or Rexroth? What due diligence has the Company performed on the repowered equipment to ensure that the gearboxes do not fail? Please describe the Company’s efforts.
How much does the Company anticipate spending on repairs and maintenance of the current wind fleet if it does not repower?
Please provide all geotechnical, engineering, or other reports proving that the current WTG towers and foundations will sustain new repowered equipment.
Please provide details of all payments made to GE and Vestus since May of 2016.
For each of the Company’s wind plant projects, please provide the annual inventory list of the following WTG components from the past 10 years. For each item, please identify 1) how many are in stock, 2) where is it being stored, and 3) the assumed dollar values of (a) through (f).
Rotor blade
Gearbox
Hub
Nacelle
Generator
Brake
DPU Requestor:Tuttle(801) 530-6223
Erika Tedder - [phone]
cc:Service List