20180226PAC to Staff 70.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RECElVED
2018 FEB 26 PM I2:31
1407 W North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
February 26,2018
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 2nd Supplemental Response to IPUC Data
Request 70.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
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/[e-mail] (cXW)
Katie Iverson/Monsantokiverson consultbai.com (C)
Eric Olsen/IIPA [e-mail] (C)
AnthonyYankel/IIPA tonvdvankel.net(C)
Randall C.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)
Thomas J.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (cXW)
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 26,2018
IPUC 6*Set Data Request 70 -2*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 R17-base-MM 1712300840 and
SO model summary report named SO Portfolio Rl7-WFSL-MM_180l121945:
(a)Please provide the location of this resource.
(b)Since this resource is included in the base case file,SO Portfolio Rl7-base-
MM 1712300840,it is assumed the resource could be brought online without
the new transmission line.With this assumption,please explainwhy 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 why the cost for the resource was not included in either the SO
Portfolio Rl7-base-MM 1712300840 and SO Portfolio R17-WFSL-
MM 1801121945 files?
Supplemental Request from Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)staff
received February15,2018:further to the Company's responseto 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 P\R(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 26,2018
IPUC 6"'Set Data Request 70 -2*Supplemental response
(vi)Is the proxy QF project mentioned on page 13,lines l 1-13,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?
2nd Supplemental Response to IPUC Data Request 70
Further to the Company's 1"Supplemental response to IPUC Data Request 70
dated February 21,2018 and specifically the Company's response to subpart (vii),
the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)staff provided clarification to the
reference in subpart (vii)to "2024".With that clarification,the Company
responds as follows:
(vii)Referencing the supplemental testimony of Company witness,Rick T.Link,
and specifically page 13.lines 1 l through 13 "This proxy QF project,which
requires interconnection facilities beyond the Aeolus-to-Bridger/Anticline
transmission line that cannot be built until 2024,is no longer included in the
Company's economic analysis of the Combined Projects".
PacifiCorp's long-term transmission plan currently estimates Energy
Gateway West and Energy Gateway South to be in-service in 2024.Energy
Gateway West and Energy Gateway South are both assumed to be in-service
in order for the proxy qualifying facility (QF)project to be able to
interconnect to PacifiCorp's transmission system.At this time,PacitiCorp
has not started the regulatoryapproval process or plan of development for
either project.The best estimated date remains 2024 at this time.
Recordholder:Rick Vail
Sponsor:Rick Vail