20171218INT to Staff 24-29.pdf

rrytu
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
I rurenruou NTAIN Ges Corupnruv
S5S SOUTH COLE ROAD . p.O. BOX 7608 . BOISE, IDAHO 83707 . [phone] . FAX: [phone]
December 18,2017
Ms. Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W . Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, lD 83720-0074
Second Production Request of the Commission Staff to Intermountain Gas Company
Case No. INT-G-17-04
Dear Ms. Hanian
In regard to the above reference case, enclosed for filling with this Commission are the original
and seven (7) copies of Intermountain Gas Company's response to the Second Production
Request of the Commission Staff.
Please acknowledge receipt of this filing by stamping a copy of this cover letter and returning the
stamped copy to us.
Should you have any suggestions regarding the attached, please don't hesitate to contact me at
[phone].
Very truly yours,
P. McGrath
Director, Re gulatory Affairs
Intermountain Gas Company
Enclosure
Mark Chiles
Ron Williams
r-,
=(aHffiOcoI!
q rrl5'(J
!
-a
u)
C)z
RE
cc
Ronald L. Williams, ISB No. 3034
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
802 W Bannock, Suite 900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Email : [e-mail]
Attomey for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
COMPANY'S 2OI7 -2021 INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLAN.
CASE NO. INT-G.I7-04
SECOND PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF'TO
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
COMPANY
COMES NOW, Intermountain Gas Company, and in response to the First Production
Request of the Commission Staff dated Monday, December 18,2017, herewith submits the
following information :
REQUEST NO. 24: In Production Request No. 2, Staff asked the Company to describe
efforts to obtain public and stakeholder participation in development of the 2017 IRP. In its
response, the Company described how it expanded public participation by adding a fourth
presentation of the IRP. Did the Company conduct any public outreach prior to performing the IRP
analysis? If yes, please describe such outreach. Additionally, please describe any working groups
or forums that the Company utilized as it developed plans, requirements, and assumptions for the
IRP analysis.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24:
The Company heldfour public meetings throughout the service territory with public
notification and a robust invitation list to o cross section of the public to include potentially
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page I
interested parties and large customers. A key part of the public meetings was the request and
encouragement for feedback and input. The Company also maintains numerous seats on local
economic development boards and committees throughout the service territory to continually be
lvtowledgeable and involved with growth and development plans that contribute to the IRP. Lastly,
the Company reached out to industrial customers during the planning and analysis phase as part of
our industriol survey, see additional information on the provided CD under the PR24 folder titled:
2016 IRP Industrial Survey Letter v2.pdf
Survey Sample.pdf
Record Holder: Mike McGrath20S-377-6000
Location:555 S Cole Rd. Boise. ID 83707
Sponsor/Preparer:Russ Nishikawa 208-3 7 7 -6038
REQUEST NO. 25: In its response to Production Request No. 13, the Company states that
it has been determined there is potential for two coal alternative locations throughout the
Company's service territory. Please provide details on the potential alternative coal locations,
including location and potential volume impact on natural gas in therms.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25:
There ore two (2) large volume customer plants with the ability to offset their entire natural
gas load with coal. One is located in the Magic Valley and could ffiet up to 75,000 therms per day
of natural gas. The second is located in the Canyon County AOI and could offiet up to 155,000
therms per day of naturol gas usage.
Record Holder: Mike McGrath20S-377-6000
Location:
Sponsor/Preparer:
555 S Cole Rd.Boiss, ID 83707
Russ Nishikawa 208-3 77 -6038
REQUEST NO. 26: In its response to Production Request No. 19, the Company states;
"The replacement project is not growth driven, so the installation timeline may change depending
on capital budget planning and construction workload." Please provide an explanation of what
factors are considered in the capital budget and construction workload processes and how these
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 2
factors may impact the installation timeline for the Rexburg Snake River Crossing project.
Additionally, please describe all alternatives evaluated and costs of each for crossing the Snake
River.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26:
Replacement projects, such as the Rexburg Snake River Crossing, that have been identified
as a potential future risk are placed in the five-year capital planning budget. The five-year budget
is reviewed and updated annualy with the potential to shift project construction dates depending
upon the overall-scale view of the Company's capital spending. Mony capital projects are driven
by customer growth and can move befween budget years depending upon a change in the outlook
for growth and actual growth numbers and locations. Some projects thot weren't on the inital five-
year planning horizon may arise unexpectedly and must be inserted into capital budget planning.
Potential risk capital projects must then be re-evaluated over the years and potentially moved
within the five-year budget accordingly. Since projects within the five-year Capital budget aren't
fixed in place, the Company has some flexibility to spend money on an as-needed basis with each
budget evoluation.
The current plan to horizontally directional drill a new pipeline to a safe depth under the
river and suruoundingfloodplain, in the same location as the existing pipeline crossing, was
determinedfrom an evaluation of the surrounding geography and existing ldaho Falls Lateral
layout. Wile reviewing alternative pipeline routes the Company found the river's Jloodplain has a
consistent widthfor more than a mile in each direction, not allowingfor a reduction in construction
efforts or cost reduction on drilling lengths. The current pipeline route olso utilizes existing access
to each side of the river that is curuently not replicated within a mile upstream or downstream along
the river, meaning land searches and negotiations would be requiredfor an alternative crossing
location. Finally, any deviationfrom the existing river crossing location will cause existing, non-
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 3
risk pipeline to be abandoned and new pipeline installed to the new location. The Company chose
to drill under the river and not to explore the installation of a pipeline bridge to span above the
river andJloodplain due to high costs, increased maintenance and additional risk,
Record Holder: Mike McGrath20S-377-6000
REQUEST NO. 27: In its response to Staffs Production Request No. 20, the Company
stated that the Rexburg LNG facility has onsite storage designed to hold two or more days of peak
shaving LNG. Please provide the workpapers, assumptions, and data used to make this calculation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.27:
The Rexburg LNG Facility has a 70,000 gallon LNG tankfor onsite storage, the tank holds
approximately 62,000 gallons of usable LNG, for IRP purposes the gallons of LNG is converted to a
thermal energ/ equivalent of approximately 52,700 therms. Intermountain plans to maintqin at
least two days of onsite LNG storage at the Rexburg Facility, which equates to a max withdrawal of
26,350 therms per day during o peakweather event.
Location:
Sponsor/Preparer:
Record Holder:
Location:
Sponsor/Preparer
Russ Nishikawa 208-37 7 -6038
Mike McGruth 208 -37 7 - 6000
555 S Cole Rd. Boise. ID 83707
Russ Nishikawa 208-37 7 -6038
REQUEST NO. 28: Please provide an estimate of the number of days that the Nampa LNG
facility can supply peak shaving LNG. Please provide the workpapers, assumptions, and data used
to make this calculation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.28:
The Nampa LNG Plant has a 7,300,000 gallon LNG tankfor onsite storage, the tank holds
approximately 6,800,000 gallons of usable LNG andfor IRP purposes the gallons of LNG is
converted to a thermal energt equivalent of approximately 5,780,000 therms. The Plant is capable
of vaporizing LNG back into a gaseous state and injecting gas into the local distribution system ot a
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 4
555 S Cole Rd. Boise. ID 83707
rate of 600,000 therms per day. At peak vaporization with a full tank the Nampa LNG Plant can
supplement gos supply for nine (9) days
Record Holder: Mike McGrath20S-317-6000
Location:555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707
Sponsor/Preparer: RussNishikawa208-377-6038
REQUEST NO. 29: In response to Staffls Production Request No. 23, the Company stated
that T-3 and T-4 customers do benefit from the Nampa LNG facility, and that "[i]n the event a
curtailment may be needed, the supply of the LNG plant would mitigate the risk of curtailment to T-
3 and T-4 customers." How does the supply of the LNG plant mitigate the risk of curtailment to T-
3 and T-4 customers? Is the Company obligated to provide natural gas from the Nampa LNG
facility to T3 and T4 customers in the event that these customers'upstream capacity and supply
resources are curtailed? If yes, please describe the Company's obligation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.29:
Intermountain has no contractual or Tariff obligation to directly supply any natural gas,
including LNG, to T-3 or T-4 transportation customers. T-3 customers are interruptible, and as
such, any material constraint issue on the Company's distribution system or ony overall supply
failure would likely result in the curtailment or complete interuuption of service to these customers
during the duration of the issue. T-4 customers ore consideredfirm on the distribution system to
the extent their gas supply is delivered to Intermountain's Citygate(s). However, supplyfailure
during a material constraint would also likely result in the curtailment or complete interruption of
service to these customers. Further, during periods of high system demand, all transportation
customers must limit doily use of natural gas to the lesser of contract CD or the amount of gas
delivered. Nevertheless, the supply of vaporized LNG can be considered a beneJit to the Company's
firm transportation customers. During periods of peok system use, the core market accounts for up
to 80% of system demand. LNG storage is withdrawn during peak demand periods to balance core-
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 5
market gas supplies with core-market demand which helps keep the distribution system pressures in
a range sfficient to serve all customers thereby indirectly benefitingfirm tronsportation customers.
Record Holder:
Location:
Sponsor/Preparer:
Mike McGrath 208-377-6000
555 S Cole Rd, Boise,ID 83707
Dave Swenson 208-377 -6118
IGC RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 6