20180223PAC to Staff 61-70.pdf

RECElVEDROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER2018FEB23AM9:0 I
A DMSION OF MCBCORP 1407 W North Temple,Suite 330
C Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
MM SSION
February 21,2018
Diane Hanian
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W.Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
[e-mail](C)
RE:ID PAC-E-17-07
IPUC 6"'Set Data Request (61-70)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Response to IPUC 6*Set Data Request 65 and 1
Supplemental Response to IPUC Data Request 70.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at [phone].
J.Ted Weston
Manager,Regulation
Enclosures
C.c.:Ronald L.Williams/PIIC [e-mail](C)
Brad Mullins/PIIC [e-mail] (C)
Jim Duke/PIIC [e-mail] (W)
Kyle Williams/PIIC [e-mail] (W)
Val Steiner/[e-mail] (W)
Brian C.Collins/Brubaker &Associates [e-mail] (C)(W)
James R.Smith/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)(W)
Maurice Brubaker/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)(W)
Katie Iverson/[e-mail] (C)
Eric Olsen/IIPA [e-mail] (C)
AnthonyYankel/IIPA [e-mail](C)
Randall C.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)
Thomas J.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)(W)
PAC-E-17-07/Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2018
IPUC 60'Set Data Request 65
IPUC Data Request 65
Please explain why was the Ekola Flats project was excluded from the fmal RFP
selection.
Response to IPUC Data Request 65
At the time that this data request was submitted to the Company,the Ekola Flats
project was not selected as a least-cost bid in the bid portfolio by the System
Optimizer (SO)model because the assumed limits for interconnection capacity
(1,030 megawatts (MW)of interconnection capacity after accounting for 240 MW
of interconnection capacity reserved for a transmission customer that has a signed
interconnection agreement on this part of the system influenced bid selections.
Subsequently,PacifiCorp transmission completed an interconnection-restudy
process,which is described in the Company's second supplemental filing.As
noted in that filing,this interconnection-restudy process showed,among other
things,that the Aeolus-to-Bridger/Anticline transmission line can enable more
new wind interconnections (1,270 MW versus 1,030 MW),providing an
opportunity for Ekola Flats to be included in the winning-bid portfolio.
Recordholder:Bruce Griswold
Sponsor:Rick Link
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2018
IPUC 6*Set Data Request 70 -1*Supplemental response
IPUC Data Request 70
In reference to the 240 MW PPA resource identified as I_WNE_EP_WDp in the
SO model summary report named SO Portfolio Rl7-base-MM_1712300840and
SO model summary report named SO Portfolio Rl7-WFSL-MM_1801121945:
(a)Please provide the location of this resource.
(b)Since this resource is included in the base case file,SO Portfolio Rl7-base-
MM_l712300840,it is assumed the resource could be brought online without
the new transmission line.With this assumption,please explain why the
Company chose to restrict new wind resource bids in eastern Wyoming to
1,030 MW (1,270 MW less 240 MW)as stated in the supplemental direct
testimony by Mr.Link on page 7,lines 14-15?
(c)Please explain whythe cost for the resource was not included in either the SO
Portfolio Rl7-base-MM 1712300840 and SO Portfolio Rl7-WFSL-
MM 1801121945 files?
Supplemental Request from Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)staff
received February15,2018:further to the Company's response to IPUC Data
Request 70 dated January 30,2018,please provide the followingclarification
specifically related to IPUC Data Request 70 subpart (b).Note:the Company has
adequately explained subparts (a)and (c).
With regard to IPUC Data Request 70 subpart (b),please explain:
(i)Does the 240 MW QF project in Carbon County,Montana fall behind the
TOT 4A transmission constraint?
(ii)Is the 240 MW QF project in Carbon County the same 240 MW of QF
capacity that is being subtracted from the capacity of the Energy Gateway
transmission project?
(iii)If it isn't,what are the QF projects that are being subtracted from the
capacity of the Energy Gateway transmission project?
(iv)If the QF project in Carbon County is not the same as the QF projects that
are being subtracted from the capacity of the Energy Gateway transmission
project,why weren't they included in the cost of the New Wind/New
Transmission case of the PVRR(d)economic analysis?
(v)If the costs are included,please identify where in the PVRR(d)analysis that
they are reflected.
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2018
IPUC 6"'Set Data Request 70 -l"*Supplemental response
(vi)Is the proxy QF project mentioned on page 13,lines 11-13,in Link,DI-
SUPP part of the 240 MWs subtracted from the capacity of the Energy
Gateway transmission project?
(vii)Why can't the interconnection facilities for this project be built until 2024?
1"Supplemental Response to IPUC Data Request 70
Further to the Company's response to IPUC Data Request 70 dated January 30,
2018,and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)staff supplemental
requests associated with IPUC Data Request 70 subpart (b),the Company
provides the followingsupplemental information:
(i)Yes,however the 240 megawatt (MW)qualifying facility (QF)project does
not require the construction of the Aeolus-to-Bridger/Anticline transmission
project.A review of interconnection studies for wind projects in the
interconnection queue indicated that approximately240 MW of new wind
could be interconnected without the transmission project.
(ii)Yes,the QF project is the same that is being subtracted from the total 1,270
MW capacity that includes the construction of the Aeolus-to-
Bridger/Anticline transmission project.
(iii)Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (ii)above.
(iv)Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (ii)above.
(v)The costs for the QF project are not included in the base case or the
combined projects case,and do not impact the present value of revenue
requirements differential (PVRR(d))analysis of the new wind projects.
However,the generation of the QF project is included in the base case and
the combined projects case so as to accurately impact portfolio selection in
each case.
(vi)No,the proxy QF project mentioned on page 13,lines l 1-13 is different than
the 240 MW QF project and is no longer included in the Company's
supplemental direct testimony analysis.The proxy QF project included in
the Company's direct testimony analysis was determined to require
additional interconnection facilities beyond the Aeolus-to-Bridger/Anticline
transmission project.
(vii)To the Company's knowledge,there is no construction restriction date of
2024 for this project.
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 21,2018
IPUC 60'Set Data Request 70 -1*Supplemental response
Recordholder:Shay LaBray
Sponsor:Rick Link