20180208PAC to Staff WY WIEC Set 13 (1-9).pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP 1407 W North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
January 30,2018
Abigail C.Briggerman,#7-5476
Holland &Hart LLP
6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle,Suite 500
GreenwoodVillage,CO 80111
[e-mail] (C)
RE:Wyoming Docket 20000-520-EA-17
WIEC 13th Set Data Request (1-9)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to WIEC 13th Set Data Requests 13.1-
13.9.Provided on the enclosed Confidential CD are Confidential Attachments WIEC 13.1-(1-2),
13.2,13.5,and 13.9 and Confidential Responses WIEC 13.5,13.7,13.8,and 13.9.Confidential
information is provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective agreement in this
proceeding.
If you have any questions,please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Stacy Splittstoesser,
Manager,Regulation
Enclosures
C.C.:Meridith Bell/WPSC [e-mail](C)
Lori L.Brand/WPSC [e-mail] (W)
John Burbridge/WPSC [e-mail] (W)
Michelle Bohanan/WPSC [e-mail] (W)
Kara Seveland/WPSC [e-mail](W)
Morgan Fish/WPSC [e-mail] (W)
Dave Walker/WPSC [e-mail] (W)
Perry McCollom/WPSC [e-mail](W)
Patti Penn/WIEC [e-mail](W)
Thor Nelson/WIEC [e-mail] (C)(W)
Emanuel Cocian/WIEC [e-mail] (W)
Adele Lee/WIEC [e-mail] (W)
Nik Stoffel/WIEC [e-mail] (C)(W)
Christopher Leger/OCA [e-mail] (C)
Crystal J.McDonough/[e-mail] (C)
Callie Capraro/NLRA [e-mail]
Lisa Tormoen Hickey/[e-mail] (C)
Brandon L.Jensen/RMSC [e-mail] (C)
Roxane Perruso/TOTCO [e-mail]
Jane M.France/TOTCO [e-mail] (C)
Constance E.Brooks/Anadarko [e-mail](C)
Danielle Bettencourt/Anadarko [e-mail](C)(W)
Paul Kapp/Anadarko [e-mail] (C)
Lisa Christian/TOTCO [e-mail] (C)
J.Kenneth Barbe/Southland [e-mail] (C)
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.1
WIEC Data Request 13.1
Please discuss in detail the steps that the Company undertook to evaluate each of the RFP
responses.Please include a detailed discussion of both quantifiable and non-quantifiable
factors that went into the selection process.Include in the discussion how tables ES-1
and ES-2 from CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit RTL-2SD were used in the evaluation.
Response to WIEC Data Request 13.1
The Company followed the bid evaluation and selection process as described in the 2017
Renewable Request for Proposals (2017R RFP)main document,specifically Section 6,
pages 22 through 29.Please refer to Attachment WIEC 13.1-1,which provides a copy of
the 2017R RFP main document.A simple flowchart showing the steps involved in the
evaluation process is provided as Attachment WIEC 13.1-2.
A third-partyconsultant was employed in compliance with Oregon Competitive
Guideline 10(f)to evaluate and validate the capacity factors of the wind assets associated
with the bids selected to the initial shortlist.Table ES-1 is a summary table showing key
components for the initial shortlist assets'wind resource studies provided in their bids.
Table ES-2 is a matrix comparing the assets for the evaluation factors used by the third-
party consultant in their capacity factor evaluation.Results from the capacity factor
evaluation were used in updating the final evaluation models if the third-partyconsultant
determined such an adjustment was appropriate.
Respondent:Bruce Griswold
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.2
WIEC Data Request 13.2
For each RFP response received for the renewable (non-solar)RFP,please provide the
following:
(a)A description of the bid,includingalternative structures (i.e.,PPA,self-build,build
transfer,etc.).
(b)The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)for each alternative.
(c)The economic structure for each alternative.
(d)The expected Net Capacity Factor (P50).
(e)The Net Capacity Factor at the PO5,P10,P25,P75,P90 and P95 levels.
(f)A detailed description discuss the reasons (both economic and otherwise)regarding
why (or why not)the project was selected.
Response to WIEC Data Request 13.2
For subparts (a)through (d),and (f),the Company responds as follows:
Due to the ongoing nature of the 2017 Renewable Request for Proposals (2017R RFP),
documentationassociated with the 2017R RFP are considered commercially sensitive and
highly confidential.The Company does not typically permit access to commercially
sensitive 2017R RFP documentation until the RFP has been concluded.Please contact
Stacy Splittstoesser at [phone] or Yvonne Hogle at [phone] to make
arrangements for review.
Please refer to the Company's response to WIEC Data Request 12.1,specifically
Confidential Attachment WIEC 12.1.
For subpart (e),PacifiCorp only required the Net Capacity Factor (NCF)at a P50 level in
each bid submittal.
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this
proceeding.
Respondent:Bruce Griswold
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.3
WIEC Data Request 13.3
Regarding the steps used to evaluate the quantifiable economic criteria of each RFP
response and alternative,please provide the following:
(a)Was the cost,energy output and other financial information provided in the RFP
response used verbatim by the Company in its evaluations?If the answer to this
question is that the Company did not use the information contained in the RFP
response verbatim,please discuss in detail what changes the Company made to the
information when evaluating the project economics.
(b)Did the Company calculate any economic metrics for the RFP responses prior to
modeling them in SO/PaR?If yes,please provide a detailed description of the
analyses for each of the RFP results/alternativesincluded an electronic copy of the
analyses with all formulae and links intact.
(c)Please provide the cost,net output and other modeling inputs related to the RFP
results modeled as choices in SO.
(d)Was a SO simulation(s)performed that allowed the model to select from any of the
RFP alternatives without constraint (aside from the requirements of the transmission
infrastructure and adherence to the planning reserve margin)for each of the 9 price-
policy scenarios?If yes please provide a full electronic copy of the results for these
simulations.If not,please discuss why not and if SO simulations were performed
allowingthe selection of the selection of the RMP results subject to constraints,
please provide a full electronic copy of the results as well as a detailed discussion of
the constraints and why they were imposed.
Response to WIEC Data Request 13.3
(a)Yes.If bid information was missing or deemed confusing,calls were held with the
bidder and independentevaluators (IE)to discuss any missing or confusing
information to clarify all bid assumptions.Bidders were requested to resubmit
Appendix C,which was used directlyin the bid-evaluation screening model.Bidders
were also asked to submit any supplemental information and documents to support
their bid proposal such as reports,permits,site control documents,etc.Once the
updated Appendix C data were received from the bidder,the Company requested
confirmation on the submittal as final.The final set of data,as confirmed by the
bidder,was used in the bid-evaluation screening model.
Only two changes were made by the Company outside of the information submitted
in Appendix C by bidders.Performance (net capacity factor)assumptions for bids
selected to the initial shortlist were reviewed by a third-partyconsultant.Based on
recommendations from this third-partyconsultant,the net capacity factor for two
projects were adjusted downward.
(b)Yes.Please refer to the 2017 Renewable Request for Proposals (2017R RFP)main
document,specifically Section 6.A and B.A copy of the 2017R RFP main document
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.3
is provided with the Company's response to WIEC Data Request 13.1,specifically
Attachment WIEC 13.1-1.The referenced section describes the economic metrics and
evaluation process prior to being evaluatedusing the System Optimizer (SO)model
and the Planning and Risk model (PaR).Due to the ongoing nature of the 2017R
RFP,the financial models of each bid and each bid alternative associated with the
2017R RFP are considered commercially sensitive and highly confidential.The
Company does not typically permit access to commercially sensitive 2017R RFP
documentation until the RFP has been concluded.Please contact Stacy Splittstoesser
at [phone] or Yvonne Hogle at [phone] to make arrangements for
review.
(c)Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (b)above.The screening models
used generate the modeling inputs for the SO model and PaR are highly confidential.
(d)Please refer to the Company's response to WIEC Data Request 13.6.
Respondent:Bruce Griswold /Randy Baker
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.4
WIEC Data Request 13.4
Regarding the steps used to evaluate the non-quantifiable criteria of each RFP response
and alternative,please provide the following:
(a)What non-quantifiable criteria or factors were considered by the Company when
evaluating the RFP results?
(b)How did the Company incorporate these into its evaluation of the RFP responses?
(c)If the Company created any models or other tools used to evaluate the non-
quantifiable criteria,please provide a copy of the evaluation for each of the RFP
response alternativesincludinga detailed discussion of the process used.
(d)Were any RFP results that were potentiallybetter from an economic perspective
relative to other RFP results (or the selected projects)rejected due to non-quantifiable
reasons?If yes,please list each occurrence and provide a detailed description
regarding the application of the non-quantifiable criteria.
Response to WIEC Data Request 13.4
(a)Please refer to Section 6.B.2 of the 2017 Renewable Request for Proposals (2017R
RFP)main document,which contains the non-price factors used in the non-price
evaluation.A copy of the 2017R RFP main document is provided with the
Company's response to WIEC Data Request 13.1,specifically Attachment WIEC
13.1-1.
(b)Please refer to Section 6.B.3 of the 2017R RFP main document,which contains a
description of how the non-price factors are used in the evaluation of 2017R RFP
responses.A copy of the 2017R RFP main document is provided with the Company's
response to WIEC Data Request 13.1,specifically Attachment WIEC 13.1-1.
(c)Due to the ongoing nature of the 2017R RFP,documentation associated with the
2017R RFP are considered commercially sensitive and highly confidential.The
Company does not typically permit access to commercially sensitive 2017R RFP
documentationuntil the RFP has been concluded.Please contact Stacy Splittstoesser
at [phone] or Yvonne Hogle at [phone] to make arrangements for
review.
(d)No.
Respondent:Bruce Griswold
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.5
WIEC Data Request 13.5
Confidential Response to WIEC Data Request 13.5
(b)
Please refer to Confidential Attachment WIEC 13.5,which provides a copy of the
Black and Veatch (B&)report "Wind Resource and Energy Production Assessment
for McFadden Ridge II Wind Farm"dated September 22,2017.
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.5
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this
proceeding.
Respondent:Ron Scheirer
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.6
WIEC Data Request 13.6
Were any SO simulations performed that allowed for the unconstrained (excluded
transmission requirements for wind and planning reserve margin requirements)choice of
both Wind and Solar RFP responses?If yes,please provide a full electronic copy of the
results.If not,please discuss in detail why not.
Response to WIEC Data Request 13.6
The portfolio-development phase of the bid-selection process allowed for unconstrained
selection of bids,whether wind or solar (i.e.,bid selections were not forced).These
studies were compared to simulations that did not allow any bid selections,whether wind
or solar,to calculate the present value of revenue requirements differential (PVRR(d))
relative to the studies that allowed unconstrained bid selections.
In the bid-selection studies,wind bids located behind the TOT4A transmission constraint
could not,in aggregate,exceed the assumed 1,030 megawatts (MW)of interconnection
capability (1,270 MW of interconnection capacity less 240 MW reserved for a
transmission customer that has a signed interconnection agreement).Please refer to the
Company's response to WIEC Data Request 12.1,specifically Confidential Attachment
WIEC 12.1.The Company did not perform simulations that assumed unconstrained
resource selections behind the TOT4A constraint because such outcomes are not feasible.
Respondent:Randy Baker
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.7
WIEC Data Request 13.7
Confidential Response to WIEC Data Request 13.7
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this
proceeding.
Respondent:Ron Scheirer
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.8
WIEC Data Request 13.8
Confidential Response to WIEC Data Request 13.8
Please refer to the Company's response to WIEC Data Request 13.5,specifically
Confidential Attachment WIEC 13.5,which provides a copy of the Black and Veatch
(B&)report "Wind Resource and Energy Production Assessment for McFadden Ridge II
Wind Farm"dated September 22,2017.
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this
proceeding.
Respondent:Ron Scheirer
Witness:Rick Link
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
January 30,2018
WIEC Data Request 13.9
WIEC Data Request 13.9
.Please also refer to the
Supplemental Direct Testimony of Mr.Chad A.Teply at page 4,lines 18-23,wherein the
Uinta project is described as a nominal 161 MW wind project.Please explain this
apparent inconsistency.Please explain whether the project was evaluated and selected
for the 2017R RFP final shortlist as a
project or a 161 MW project.Please also provide all
evaluationsof the Uinta Wind project as a 161 MW project.
Confidential Response to WIEC Data Request 13.9
The Uinta project wind information provided after the initial shortlist selection was based
on the megawatt (MW)
project which the third-partyconsultant used for completing its capacity factor
evaluation.In the best and final shortlist evaluation,the system optimizer model (SO
model)and planning and risk (PaR)model selected the 161 MW Uinta bid alternative in
the least cost portfolio across all nine price-policy scenarios,consistent with the
supplemental direct testimony of Company witness,Chad A.Teply.The third-party
consultant is updating its evaluation of the 161 MW alternative based on the same wind
regime for the project site but different turbine layout.Please refer to Confidential
Attachment WIEC 13.9,which provides a copy of the Sapere Consulting net capacity
factor (NCF)evaluation report dated January 26,2018.
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this
proceeding.
Respondent:Bruce Griswold
Witness:Rick Link