20170829Utah_OCS Set 5 (1-8) Redacted.docx

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAHIn the Matter of the Application of Rocky:Docket No. 17-035-40Mountain Power for Approval of a :Office of Consumer ServicesSignificant Energy Resource Decision:Fifth Data Request toAnd Voluntary Request for Approval of:Rocky Mountain PowerResource Decision:August 24, 2017Please provide responses to:Béla VastagPhilip HayetOffice of Consumer ServicesJ. Kennedy and Associates, Inc.160 East 300 South 570 Colonial Park Drive, Suite 305Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Roswell, GA 30075(801) 530-6374(770) [e-mail]@jkenn.comREDACTED
Refer to Link testimony lines 640 to 648. Please confirm that the Company is proposing to recover capital costs from customers on the transmission investment over a 62-year period (through 2082), but for purposes of conducting the economic evaluation, the Company is only capturing the transmission capital revenue requirements over the period of 2020-2050 based on declining revenue requirements. Please explain why the Company did not capture all of the costs in the economic evaluation.
(CONFIDENTIAL) Refer to the Transmission ties data modeled in the System Optimizer found in the “TieCF…” files for each run.
Please explain why the “WyomingNE to Aeolis_Wyoming” transmission tie is xxxxxxxxXXxx during 2017-2019 period in the New-Wind/Transmission modeling from that in the base case. Shouldn’t the lines be xxxxxxxx until the new projects are completed in the New Transmission case.
Please explain why the “Cholla to 4-Corners” tie xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XXX xxXXXX during the 2021-2025 period in the New-Wind/Transmission modeling from that in the base case.
Please explain why the “_4-Corners to Cholla” tie increased from 0 MW to 200 MW during the 2021-2025 period in the New-Wind/Transmission modeling from that in the base case.
Please refer to Link Testimony, lines 667-671. Would the 230 kV Network Upgrades still be needed if the Dave Johnston plant were retired today? Please explain and provide supporting documentation.
Please explain why Glenrock I and III have higher historic capacity factors than Rolling Hills, but are all located in Glenrock WY.
From the System Optimizer outputs provided in the SO Model Inputs-Outputs.zip there are csv files for each case run that start with “SCEnergyBal” (example “SCEnergyBal-SENS-RPN-EEN-HH0000.csv”). In comparing these files, it seems that beginning in October 2020, the “End Use Load” differs between the SO runs with the New Wind/New Transmission projects compared to the Status Quo case.
Please explain what loads are included in this “End Use Load” Category
Please explain why the Company made this change to load.
Please provide an energy balance summary for each SO case that breaks down into PacifiCorp native customer load, purchases, FOT, EIM balancing purchases, generation, sales, contract sales, EIM sales, etc.
Please reconcile the change in End Use Load between the New Wind/Transmission case vs. the Status Quo case to the 11.6 aMW or 102 GWh reduction in load described at Link lines 566-575. Please provide workpapers.
Please provide the Access databases in the Company’s possession combining reporting documentation for the SO and PaR runs developed in this case. Please See “Control Panel” in SO Portolio Summary files, and links to various databases such as: \\Pdxfilc21p\Par\DATA1\DatabaseFiles\SO Reporting Database - Post 2011IRP.accdb
Refer to “Energy Gateway GM 2017 03 13 w Bonus.xlsm”
Please explain the assumptions the Company relied on to account for bonus depreciation versus the assumptions used when bonus depreciation is not available.
There appear to be inflation assumptions on the “Generic” tab in cells D2104:CC2174. Please explain if these are used in the analysis.
Please reconcile part b, to the inflation rate on “Gateway” tab cell O4.
Refer to “McFadden 110 RFPBM V13G_EPC_03312017_30YR-GW4_FINAL.xlsx” “Transmission Impact Adders” tab. Please explain what “Backstop pricing” is.