20180307PAC to Staff WY WIEC Set 16 (1).pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A DIVISION OF PACWICORP 1407 W North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
February 27,2018
Abigail C.Briggerman,#7-5476
Holland &Hart LLP
6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle,Suite 500
Greenwood Village,CO 80111
[e-mail](C)
RE:Wyoming Docket 20000-520-EA-17
WIEC 16th Set Data Request (1)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Response to WIEC 16th Set Data Request 16.1.
Provided on the enclosed Confidential CD is Confidential Attachment WIEC 16.1.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/[e-mail] (C)
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 27,2018
WIEC Data Request 16.1
WIEC Data Request 16.1
Please refer to pp.36-37 of Rick Link's SupplementalDirect Testimony,which discusses
the updated sensitivity analysis for the combined impact of the repowered wind resources
under consideration in Docket No.20000-519-EA-17.
(a)For both the Medium Gas,Medium CO2 and Low Gas,Zero CO2 price scenarios
shown in Table 6-SD,please compare the total combined PVRR(d)analysis modeling
results (combined repowering &new wind/transmission)with the comparable
modeling results included in Mr.Link's Table 8-SD on p.28 in his Supplemental
Direct Testimony filed in Docket No.20000-519-EA-17 for both pricing scenarios.
Shouldn't the benefits under each pricing scenario for the combined projects be the
same in Table 6-SD as in Table 8-SD,given that the analyses for each docket are
occurring at approximately the same time?If RMP disagrees,please explain why it is
reasonable that the benefits of the combined projects are not the same in Table 6-SD
as in Table 8-SD.
(b)For each category of costs used in its analyses (i.e.Cost of Project,Change in NPC,
Change in Emissions,Change in DSM,and Change in System Fixed Costs),please
reconcile and explain any differences in the PVRR(d)costs included in Table 6-SD
for each scenario relative to the sensitivity analysis provided in Docket No.20000-
519-EA-17 and shown in Mr.Link's supplemental direct Table 8-SD in that docket.
(c)Which of the two total combined scenario analyses best represents the benefits of the
combined projects in RMP's supplemental direct testimony -the one in the
repowering docket or the one in the new wind/transmission docket?Please explain
and support the response.
Response to WIEC Data Request 16.1
(a)For the purposes of this request,the Company assumes that reference to the
"combined projects"means wind repowering,new wind,and new transmission.
Based on this assumption and for the purposes of this response,the Company
responds as follows:
The benefits under each pricing scenario between the two referenced tables should
not be the same.Cost-and-performanceestimates for the wind repowering project
were updated for the February 5,2018 supplemental direct testimony economic
analysis in Docket 20000-519-EA-17.These cost-and-performance updates were not
yet finalized for the January 16,2018 supplemental direct and rebuttal testimony
economic analysis in Docket 20000-520-EA-17.
Consequently,the cost-and-performance assumptions for the wind repowering project
in the February 5,2018 supplemental direct testimony in Docket 20000-519-EA-17
are as summarized in Confidential Exhibit RMP_(RTL-1SD).The cost-and
performance assumptions for the wind repowering project used in the wind
repowering sensitivityin the January 16,2018 supplemental direct and rebuttal
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 27,2018
WIEC Data Request 16.1
testimony in Docket 20000-520-EA-17 are as summarized in Confidential ExhibitRMP_(RTL-lR)as filed in Docket 20000-519-EA-17.
(b)Please refer to the follow description of how the difference in cost-and-performance
assumptions for the wind repowering project as summarized in the Company's
response to subpart (a)would impact the line-items identified in subpart (b):
Cost of Project:the cost of the wind repowering project in the supplemental direct
filing in Docket 20000-519-EA-17 (Confidential Exhibit RMP_(RTL-lSD in
Docket 20000-519-EA-17)increased relative to those in the rebuttal filing as used
for the wind repowering sensitivity in Docket 20000-520-EA-17 (Confidential
Exhibit RMP_(RTL-lR)in Docket 20000-519-EA-17).The increased cost
contributes to an increased cost of project.
Change in net power costs (NPC),emissions,demand-side management (DSM),
and system fixed costs:the expected incremental output from repowered wind
facilities assumed in the supplemental direct filing in Docket 20000-519-EA-17
(Confidential Exhibit RMP_(RTL-lSD in Docket 20000-519-EA-17)increased
relative to what was assumed in the rebuttal filing as used for the wind
repowering sensitivityin Docket 20000-520-EA-17 (Confidential Exhibit
RMP_(RTL-1R)in Docket 20000-519-EA-17).The increase in incremental
energy output affects system resource selections and system dispatch,which in
turn affects NPC,emissions,DSM,and system fixed costs.
Please refer to Confidential Attachment WIEC 16.1,which quantifies how the
differences in cost-and-performance assumptions affects the sensitivities that include
both wind repowering,and the new wind and transmission assets as derived using the
Planning and Risk (PaR)model (stochastic mean)to report values in Table 8 SD of
Mr.Link's supplemental direct testimony in Docket 20000-519-EA-17,and Table
6SD of Mr.Link's supplemental direct and rebuttal testimony in Docket 20000-520-
EA-17.
(c)Between the two referenced sensitivities,the data and results used in the Company's
February 5,2018 supplemental direct testimony in Docket 20000-519-EA-17 best
represent the benefits of the wind repowering project,and the proposed new wind and
transmission projects.However,the Company has since updated this sensitivity in its
February 16,2018 second supplemental filing in Docket 20000-520-EA-17,and as
corrected on February 23,2018 in Docket 20000-520-EA-17,to reflect updates to the
proposed new wind resources.This updated sensitivity,which does not reflect any
changes to the cost-and-performance assumptions for the wind repowering project
relative to those assumed in the Company's supplemental direct filing in this
proceeding,best represents the benefits of the wind repowering project,and the new
wind and transmission project,as it reflects the most recent cost-and-performance
assumptions for each element.The results of this updated sensitivity,based on
System Optimizer model (SO model)and PaR results through 2036,are summarized
in the followingtable:
20000-520-EA-17 /Rocky Mountain Power
February 27,2018
WIEC Data Request 16.1
Sensitivity BenchmarkPVRR(d)PVRR(d)Change in(Benefit)/Cost($million)(Repowering,(New Wind &PVRR(d)New Wind,Transmission)Transmission)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2
SO Model ($608)($405)($204)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($541)($357)($184)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($567)($386)($181)
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($334)($185)($149)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($281)($150)($131)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($295)($156)($138)
Confidential information is provided subject to the protective order issued in this case.
Respondent:Randy Baker
Witness:Rick Link