20170912Utah_OCS 7 (1-11).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:Seventh Data Request toAnd Voluntary Request for Approval of:Rocky Mountain PowerResource Decision:August 30, 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.com
Refer to the Direct Testimony of Rick Link, Table 2. Please provide a revised version of this table and supply all workpapers electronically used to develop the results, based on replacing the 35% federal income tax rate assumed in the calculations with a federal income tax rate of:15%;20%; and25%.
Refer to the Direct Testimony of Rick Link, Table 3. Please provide a revised version of this table and supply all workpapers electronically used to develop the results, based on replacing the 35% federal income tax rate assumed in the calculations with a federal income tax rate of:15%;20%; and25%.
Refer to the Direct Testimony of Rick Link, Table 4. Please provide a revised version of this table and supply all workpapers electronically used to develop the results, based on replacing the 35% federal income tax rate assumed in the calculations with a federal income tax rate of:15%;20%; and25%.
Refer to the Direct Testimony of Rick Link, Table 5. Please provide the sensitivity results of doing both the repowering and new wind/ transmission projects for each of the 9 price-policy case scenarios. Please provide these results for SO Model, PaR Stochastic-Mean, PaR Risk-Adjusted, and the analysis with impacts quantified through 2050 (consistent with Link Table 3).
For the results produced in the question immediately above, please provide a revised version of these results and supply all workpapers electronically used to develop the results, based on replacing the 35% federal income tax rate assumed in the calculations with a federal income tax rate of:15%;20%; and25%.
The Company’s response to OCS 1.7 states that the IRP did not identify other renewable resource opportunities as part of the least cost, least risk plan. What does this precisely mean? Did PacifiCorp in fact identify a set of alternative renewable resource alternatives located throughout its System, and conduct a detailed analysis of each of those alternatives, such that it reached findings that the Wyoming projects were vastly superior? If such analyses were conducted, please supply the economic evaluations that were performed, electronically with all formulas intact.
The Company expects that construction will be completed by the end of 2020, and in fact in its response to OCS 1.17 says there is a 45-day schedule buffer before the December 31, 2020 deadline.
Since it is incorporating commercial terms to ensure construction will be complete by the end of 2020, will PacifiCorp hold ratepayers harmless in the event of a loss of PTC benefits in the event construction is delayed beyond the deadline?
In the same response, the Company states it has significant experience managing projects that need to be completed by a date certain or within a very narrowly confined construction window. Please discuss and explain about the projects that the Company has significant experience managing to a date certain or within a very narrowly confined construction window.
Refer to the Company’s response to OCS 1.18, please explain why the Company does not currently have a detailed map that it can provide, and when it expects it will provide one?
Is it the case that the 230 kV upgrades would ultimately be paid for by the benchmark projects if the developers of those projects are not affiliated with PacifiCorp? Likewise, if the same transmission upgrades are needed to support the winning wind projects in the RFP, would those non-affiliated project developers be responsible to pay the 230 kV upgrade costs?
Has the Company supplied the Supplement to OCS 1.22d as discussed in its initial response? If not please provide that information.
The Company’s response to OCS 1.24 explained that the opening of the Dave Johnston – Difficulty 230 kV line results in the approximately 570 MW of wind generation feeding radially into the Platte 230 kV bus. It also states that due to inadequate transmission the wind generation has to be curtailed to approximately 375 MW.
Please provide a detailed explanation of the fact that 570 MW of wind generation that has to be curtailed to 375 MW. How often was this done since 2012, how many MWHs were lost as a result?
Please state how many MWs of nameplate capacity exist that are curtailed to 375 MW?
How many MWHs have been curtailed each year since 2012?
Haven’t the modifications discussed in response to OCS 1.22 including transmission additions/modifications, shunt capacitors, dynamic line ratings, and the addition of the synchronous condensers led to fewer voltage oscillations? Please explain.