20180329PAC to Staff UT OCS Set 15 (1-20) (1).pdf

1407 W.NorthTemple
ROCKY MOUNTAIN Salt Lake City,UT 84116
POWER
A D1VISION OF PACIFICORP
March 6,2018
Béla Vastag
Office of Consumer Services
160 East 300 South
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
byvastag@utaah go_v (C)
RE:UT Docket No.17-035-40
OCS 15th Set Data Request (1-20)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to OCS 15*Set Data Requests 15.17
and 15.20.The remaining responses will be provided separately.If you have any questions,
please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jana Saba
Manager,Regulation
Enclosures
C.c.Erika Tedder/DPU [e-mail]@utah.gov(C)
Dan Kohler/DPU [e-mail](C)
Dan Peaco/DPU [e-mail] (C)(W)
Aliea Afnan/[e-mail] (W)
[e-mail] (W)
Philip Hayet/OCS [e-mail] (C)
Gary A.Dodge/UAE [e-mail] (C)
PhillipRussell/UAE [e-mail] (C)
Kevin Higgins/[e-mail] (C)
Neal Townsend/UAE [e-mail](C)(W)
Kate Bowman/UCE [e-mail](C)
Emma Rieves/UCE [e-mail](C)(W)
Lisa Tormoen Hickey/[e-mail] (C)
Mitch Longson/Interwest [e-mail] (C)
Nancy Kelly/[e-mail](C)
Jennifer Gardner/WRA [e-mail](C)
Penny Anderson/WRA [e-mail] (W)
Peter J.Mattheis/Nucor [e-mail] (C)
Eric J.Lacey/Nucor [e-mail] (C)(W)
William J.Evans/UIEC [e-mail]
Vicki M.Baldwin/UIEC [e-mail](W)
Chad C.Baker/UIEC [e-mail] (W)
17-035-40 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 6,2018
OCS Data Request 15.17
OCS Data Request 15.17
Please explain what has accounted for the fact that the per kW cost of wind in the second
supplemental filing is lower than the original shortlist projects in the Company's January
16 supplemental direct testimony (refer to Teply line 69).If the cost is even lower in the
second supplemental filing compared to the first supplemental filing,why wasn't Ekola
Flats selected instead of McFadden Ridge in the first supplemental filing?
Response to OCS Data Request 15.17
Please refer to second supplemental testimony of Company witness,Rick T.Link,
specifically page 2,lines 35 through 39.The interconnection-restudy process eliminated
McFadden Ridge (109 megawatts (MW)capacity)from eligibilityand also increased
interconnection capacity behind the TOT 4A cut-plane.Prior to the increase in
interconnection capacity,the size of a bid-portfolio that included the TB Flats I and II and
Cedar Springs project could not accommodate the 250 MW Ekola Flats project.The
increase in interconnection capability is sufficient to allow the Ekola bid (250 MW
capacity)to be selected in a bid portfolio that includes TB Flats I and II and Cedar
Springs.
17-035-40 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 6,2018
OCS Data Request 15.20
OCS Data Request 15.20
The Company modeled a 300 MW increase in transfer capacity from the Jim Bridger
plant to South Central Oregon to account for additional participation in the EIM market.
The Company has made a series of analyses (base case,wind bid analyses,solar
sensitivities,repowering sensitivity)in both this docket and in the Repowering docket
(17-035-39).Please identify any case for which the Company did not include the 300
MW increase in transfer capacity to account for the EIM impact,and explain why in
those cases,the Company did not include the 300 MW transfer capacity increase.
Response to OCS Data Request 15.20
The Company has not produced sensitivities that do not include the 300 megawatt (MW)
transfer capability increase associated with the energy imbalance market (EIM).The
Company estimated the impact of this assumption in its 2017 Integrated Resource Plan
(IRP)with simulations performed using the Generation and Regulation Initiative
Decision Tool (GRID).The incremental net benefits associated with this assumption that
were calculated using GRID for purposes of the IRP are summarized in Volume I of the
2017 IRP in Table 8.14.The Company has since incorporated this assumption into the
System Optimizer model (SO model),and Planning and Risk (PaR)model simulations
used in this proceeding,but has not eliminated the assumption to explicitly quantifyits
incremental impact.
The 2017 IRP is publicly available and can be accessed by utilizingthe followingwebsite
link:
htto://www.pacificorp.com/es/iro.html