20200625PAC to Staff 1-3.pdf

x ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
Aurfl8oil OF mCFICOSP
RECEIVEE
?U?i Jtlll25 Ptl 3: 0lr
*n,*-,B'fu#foffiffi*t
'l4OT W North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, t tah 84116
hlmre25,2020
Diane Hanian
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
[e-mail]. eov (C)
RE: ID PAC-E-19-16
IPUC ls Set Data Request (l-3)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power Response to IPUC lst Set Data Requests l-3.
Provided via e,ncryrption is Confidential Attachment IPUC 1.1.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
-Jsl-J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
Enclosures
PAC-E-19-16 / Rocky Mountain Power
June25,2020
IPUC I't Set Data Request 1
IPUC Data Request 1
Page 64 of the IRP details time-of-use and demand response initiatives in Utah,
where the stated objective is for rates to reflect costs.
(a) Please describe similar planned PacifiCorp programs in other states and the
objective(s) of these programs (e.g., reduce demand in most critical hours to
address capacity availability, reduce energy use over a wider span of peak
hours, shift energy use from peak to off-peak).
(b) If there are two or more objectives listed in response to "a" above, please rank
the objectives (most important to least important), if possible, and explain
why achieving the objectives is beneficial to the Company and its customers.
(c) Please describe how time-of-use peak and/or shoulder time periods and
pricing differentials were chosen for both the Utah programs described in the
IRP and for PacifiCorp's programs in other states.
(d) Were the Company's time-of-use rate designs influenced by past experience
of PacifiCorp or other utilities? Please explain.
(e) If PacifiCorp is not planning to expand time-of-use and demand response
programs outside of Utah, please explain why program expansion is limited to
Utah.
Response to IPUC Data Request 1
(a) In its general rate case (GRC) frlings in Washington (Docket UE-191024),
Oregon (Docket UE-374), and Wyoming (Docket 20000-578-ER-20), the
Company proposed new residential time of use (TOU) pilot programs. The
Company's goals with these pilots are to learn whether residential TOU rates
can give customers more cost-based choices to lower their bills, reduce the
Company's peak loads, and lower its net power cost expense.
(b) The Company does not have a particular rank for which goals are the most
important. Achieving these goals is important for customers and the
Company, because it could potentially save money for customers.
(c) Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC 1.1 for the basis of the Utah
residential electric vehicle (EV) TOU time periods and for the three proposed
pilots in Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming. Utah's TOU periods were based
upon the time of the Company system and distribution system peaks.
Washington's proposed TOU periods were based upon Mid-Columbia (Mid-
C) wholesale price projections. Oregon's TOU periods were based upon
historic real-time energy imbalance market (EIIVI) prices. The differential for
PAC-E-19-16 / Rocky Mountain Power
h:ne25,2020
IPUC 1$ Set Data Request I
the Utah EV TOU pilot was based upon stakeholder workshop feedback. The
differentials for Wyoming and Washington were based upon wholesale price
differentials. The differential for Oregon was based upon the differe,lrtial for
Schedule 36 in Idaho.
(d) Yes. The Company set its on-/off-peak energy price differential for the
Oregon residential TOU pilot at the same level as its successful Schedule 36
TOU option in Idaho.
(e) Please refer to the Company's response to subpart (a) above.
Confidential information is provided subject to the non-disclosure agreement in
this proceeding.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Robert Meredith
Ted Weston
PAC-E-19-16 / Rocky Mountain Power
Jvne25,2020
IPUC l't Set Data Request 2
IPUC Data Request 2
PacifiCorp states on pageTl of its IRP that Gateway West and Boardman to
Hernmingway are beyond the scope of acknowledgement for this IRP, but are
expected to bring deemed necessary future benefits to the region.
(a) Please explain why these transmission assets were not more fully incorporated
given the level of investment already made (planning and permitting),
PacifiCorp's stated commitment to regional transmission, and Idaho Power's
inclusion of Boardman to Hemingway in its IRP planning process and
preferred portfolio.
(b) Assuming that some of these transmission segments will be consffucted, when
does PacifiCorp anticipate that these facilities would be more fully
incorporated into the IRP decision making analysis (and possibly included in
the preferred portfolio)? Please explain.
(c) Please identify the factors that influence the timing for including these
segments in the analysis and explain their impact.
Response to IPUC Data Request 2
(a) In PacifiCorp's 2019 lntegrated Resource Plan (IRP), Boardman to
Hemingway (B2H) was analyzed in PortfolioP23 - Energy Gateway segments
D3, E, and H, P25 - Energy Gateway segments D3, E, and H, andP26 -
Energy Gateway segments H. The assumed B2H online date is Decernber 31,
2026.Thts represents a full incorporation of B2H analysis in the 2019 IRP.
Although B2H did not report net benefits sufficient for inclusion in the 2019
IRP preferred portfolio, there are additional potential benefits that wa:rant
continued exploration of this resource and therefore continued permitting. For
the B2H project benefits, please refer to PacifiCorp's 2019 IRP, Volume I,
Chapter 4 (Transmission) page 77 and78.
(b) Analysis of B2H potential is ongoing. The Company expects to include B2H
in its 2021 IRP analysis in some form, but does not know at this time the
details of that inclusion and inclusion in the preferred portfolio is not known
at this time and can only be determined after all analysis in the IRP is
complete.
(c) Please refer to the Company's response in subpart (a) above; the project has
been and will continue to be included in the IRP analysis. The timing of
inclusion into the preferred portfolio can only be determined through the IRP
analysis and cannot be predicted.
PAC-E-19-16 / RockyMountain Power
Jvne25,2020
IPUC ls Set Data Request 2
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Randy Baker / Brian Fritz
Ted Weston
PAC-E-19-16 / Rocky Mountain Power
June25,2020
IPUC l't Set Data Request 3
IPUC Data Request 3
PacifiCorp identifies scenario P-26 as a variant of the preferred portfolio (P45-
CNW). P-26 includes Boardman to Hemmingway but the preferred portfolio does
not (p. 378, IRP Vol II, App. M-R). If Boardman to Hemmingway is evaluated
and included in the analysis, please comment on the extent to which P-26 would
approximate the preferred portfolio.
Response to IPUC Data Request 3
Case P-26 approximates the preferred portfolio by including the same
assumptions, such as retirements and price policy, with the only change being
Boardman to Hemingway.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Amanda Sargent
Ted Weston