20200414INT to ICL 1-17.pdf

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 1
Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462 Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail]

Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

-2023 INTEGRATED
CASE NO. INT-G-19-07
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE

Intermountain Gas Company, in response to the First Production Request of the Idaho
Conservation League to Intermountain Gas Company dated March 24, 2020, submits the
information below. All files referenced in this document will be available to the parties via the
Company’s SharePoint site. Confidential files will be placed in the CONFIDENTIAL Responses
SharePoint folder and non-confidential files will be placed in the general Responses folder. Links
to the site will be emailed to those on the certificate of service.
REQUEST NO. 1: If not already provided, please provide electronic copies of all data
requests received from and Company responses sent to any party in this proceeding.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: The Company has provided all data request
responses in this proceeding to the Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”).
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Jacob Darrington, 208-377-6041 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707
RECEIVED
2020 April 14,PM2:32
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 2
REQUEST NO. 2: Please provide a list of every individual and entity the Company
contacted with its July 11, 2018 letter invitation to join the IRP advisory group.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: The list of individuals invited to join the
Intermountain Gas Resource Advisory Committee is submitted as “PR 1_2_IGRAC Invitation
List”. For the complete list of individuals that accepted the invitation, please see Exhibit No. 1,
Section A, Page 2 of Intermountain’s 2019 – 2023 Integrated Resource Plan.
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Raycee Thompson, 208-377-6046
Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 3
REQUEST NO. 3: Please answer whether or not the Company facilitates remote
participation in its IRP advisory group meetings? If not, please explain why not.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: For committee members that were unable to attend
the meetings in person a call-in option was provided.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Raycee Thompson, 208-377-6046 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 4
REQUEST NO. 4: Please discuss in detail the Company’s basis for limiting its IRP
planning period to 5 years.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: In Order No. 27024, Case No. INT-G-97-02, the
Commission approved Intermountain’s request to limit the forecasting horizon for Integrated
Resource Plans to a period of five (5) years to more closely align the IRP with business planning
practices. The five (5) year planning horizon, updated biennially, provides adequate time to act
upon any capacity issues identified through the IRP process. Given the inherent inaccuracies in
long-term forecasts, and the fact that five years provides sufficient time to act upon any capacity
issues, a longer planning horizon would result in little to no additional benefit but would
significantly increase the hours and potential consultant expenses necessary to complete the IRP.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 5
REQUEST NO. 6: At page 5, the Company states: “…according to the American Gas
Association, households with natural gas versus all electric appliances produce 41% less
greenhouse gas emissions.”
a. Please provide the study that supports this statement.
b. Please explain whether or not this statement is representative of the households in
the Company’s service territory in Idaho.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
a. This statement was included in a section of the IRP that is not required, but that was
included to improve the readability of the document and set the stage for the current
natural gas market. Please see the file labeled “PR 1_6_ea_2017-03”.
b. This study is compiled by the American Gas Association. Idaho’s households would
have been represented in the nation-wide study but were not separately studied.
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 6
REQUEST NO. 7: At page 5, the Company states: “The Northwest Gas Association has
reported that the direct use of natural gas is about 92% efficient.”
a. Please provide this report.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
a. This statement was included in a section of the IRP that is not required, but that was
included to improve the readability of the document and set the stage for the current
natural gas market. Please see the file labeled “PR 1_7_NWGA_FactsWEBF”.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 7
REQUEST NO. 8: At page 5, the Company states: “…the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) has reported that natural gas for electric generation has allowed U.S.
power plants to achieve a 27-year low in emissions.”
a. Please provide this report.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
a. This statement was included in a section of the IRP that is not required, but that was
included to improve the readability of the document and set the stage for the current
natural gas market. Please see the file labeled “PR 1_8_EIA_Today in Energy”.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 8
REQUEST NO. 9: At page 6, the Company states: “As electric generating capacity
becomes more constrained in the Pacific Northwest, additional peak generating capacity will
primarily be natural gas fired.”
a. Please provide the basis for this claim.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
a. This statement was included in a section of the IRP that is not required, but that was
included to improve the readability of the document and set the stage for the current
natural gas market. The Idaho Energy Landscape discusses the use of natural gas for
peak power production in Idaho and can be found here: https://oemr.idaho.gov/wp-
content/uploads/FINAL-Energy-Landscape-2019-1.pdf

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 9
REQUEST NO. 11: At page 62, the Company discusses how it forecasts the price of
gas.
a. Please provide the Company’s annual low, base, and high gas supply price
forecast over the next 20 years. Please provide this information in a table that
identifies the annual cost by year.
b. Please provide the pricing forecast information and reports from the AECO,
Rockies, and Sumas pricing points and the proprietary model that the Company
used to forecast gas supply cost.
c. Please explain how the Company evaluated the impacts to gas supply cost from
the Canadian federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which
was assented to and commenced on June 21, 2018.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
a. The Company’s annual low, base, and high 20-year gas supply price forecast used in
the Company’s IRP filing is provided in the confidential file labeled
“CONFIDENTIAL PR 1_11_Price Forecast".
b. The Company has provided the forecast for the AECO, Rockies, and Sumas pricing
points. The price forecast utilizes multiple outside sources to create the Company’s
price forecast. The price forecast methodology is provided in the confidential file
labeled “CONFIDENTIAL PR 1_11_Price Forecast Design Document”. Due to the
utilization in the Company’s model of some outside sources that require their
forecasts remain proprietary, Intermountain cannot provide a copy of the model.
However, Intermountain is willing to set up a video call with interested parties to
walk through the model and discuss the inputs and results.
c. As mentioned in section VI of the “CONFIDENTIAL PR 1_11_Price Forecast
Design Document” file, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Canadian
Federal Fuel Charge (CFFC) impact costs apply to direct sales of natural gas. Since
Intermountain does not sell gas directly in Alberta or British Columbia, the CFFC is
not applicable and therefore does not impact the price forecast.
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Brian Robertson, 509-734-4546 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 10
REQUEST NO. 12: At pages 61-62, the Company discusses the capacity release
process.
a. Please provide the amount, duration, and sale value of every capacity release
successfully sold via pre-arranged deal with IGI Resources, Inc. (IGI) or via
auction through an Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) over the last three years;
b. Please provide the amount and duration of excess capacity that was not
successfully released via pre-arranged deal with IGI or via auction through an
EBB over the last three years.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Pursuant to Intermountain’s Objection, please see
the confidential information in the file labeled “CONFIDENTIAL PR 1_12_Capacity Releases”
regarding capacity releases that were previously provided to Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission during the most recent PGA process.
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Jacob Darrington, 208-377-6041 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 11
REQUEST NO. 13: At pages 82-83, the Company discusses Large Volume customer
energy efficiency.
a. Please provide the total number of large volume customers that have installed
SCADA units for tracking hourly therm usage data.
b. Please provide the percentage of the Company’s total large volume customers that
have installed SCADA units.
c. Please provide the total monthly page views of the Company’s Large Volume
customer website over the last 3 years.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
a. 110 large volume customers have installed SCADA units for tracking hourly
therm usage data.
b. About 84% of Intermountain’s large volume customers have installed SCADA
units.
c. The total annual page views for the Company’s Large Volume customer website
are as follows:
Intermountain Large Volume Customer Website Page View Count 2017 2018 2019

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Dave Swenson, 208-377-6118 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 12
REQUEST NO. 14: Please provide a table comparing the Company’s annual
conservation targets with the Company’s annual actuals, since the Company began implementing
its conservation program.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
Intermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Program – Therm Savings by Program Year
Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Kathy Wold, 208-377-6128
Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 13
REQUEST NO. 15: In the Company’s response to Staff’s Request No. 9, the Company
states: “The proposed second LNG tank at the Rexburg LNG Facility will expand the storage
capacity of the Facility, allowing the Company to maintain approximately two days of peak day
storage onsite. The Company conservatively strives to maintain two days of onsite storage to
meet core customer demands, while at the same time, reserving LNG trailers that will be called
into service for LNG transfer from the Nampa LNG Plant.”
a. Please provide the information and analysis the Company used to determine that
maintaining two days of onsite LNG storage is the least cost, least risk of all available
supply and demand side options to meet customer needs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
a. Maintaining two days of onsite storage at the Rexburg LNG Facility to meet a peak
cold weather event on the Idaho Falls Lateral (IFL) is a balance of cost and risk
weighed by Intermountain. At the time of initial design, it was decided that the
Rexburg LNG Facility would be built with onsite storage to reduce its dependency on
LNG trailers for immediate supply, and to allow each LNG trailer the freedom to
transfer product into storage at a rapid rate and then leave the site, as opposed to
leaving an LNG trailer on site at an additional hourly cost to connect directly to the
vaporization facility without storage, and removing product directly from the LNG
trailer into the Lateral at a rate dictated by customer demand at the time.
The initial volume of onsite storage was determined by current and future demand,
along with an industry standard storage tank design for satellite facilities. The initial
facility design also allows for the potential expansion of two additional storage tanks
of equal size. The desired requirement of two days peak onsite storage is a rule set by
the Engineering department as it allows for Rexburg LNG to have enough supply to
cover the peaking event planned for within the IRP, which is a needle peak event with
a single peak day and relatively high heating degree days occurring on each side of
the peak (derived from historical events as described within the IRP). The pre and
post peak days utilize almost the same amount of LNG as the peak day itself, which
equates to the two peak day onsite supply. Should an extended cold event occur, or
the Operator controlled supply from Rexburg not be as perfectly precise as a modeled
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 14
prediction, then the LNG trailers in reserve can begin to supplement supply for
Rexburg. Intermountain chose not to rely solely on LNG trailer supply to meet a
peak event as highway and interstate transportation is not reliably open at all times
throughout the winter.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015
Sponsor/Preparer: Russ Nishikawa, 208-377-6038 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 15
REQUEST NO. 16: At pages 67-71, the Company discusses Lost and Unaccounted For
(LAUF) gas.
a. Please provide the annual amount of Lost and Unaccounted For (LAUF) gas over
the last 20 years.
b. Please provide a comparison table, showing the annual amount of LAUF gas from
representative gas companies in the Intermountain West.
c. At page 68, the Company refers to “Dead Meters.” Please explain what dead
meters are and explain why the Company identifies several hundred dead meters
annually. Please provide the annual number of dead meters over the past 10 years.
d. Please provide the annual amount of “found gas” that escaped from the Company
system over the last 10 years.
e. Please answer whether or not the Company subtracted LAUF gas and “found gas”
from the Company’s load demand curves.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16:
a. Pursuant to Intermountain’s Objection, annual LAUF data reported in
Intermountain’s most recent PGA filing (INT-G-19-06) is included as “PR
1_16_INT-G-19-06 Workpaper No. 7”.
b. Pursuant to Intermountain’s Objection, the Company does not have the requested
table. However, information regarding the subject-matter of this request is
publicly available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/gas-
distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission-hazardous-liquids.
c. A dead meter is a meter with a measurement discrepancy. These meters are
identified on a monthly basis by the Company’s billing department based on a
report that monitors variances in usage. These meters are then pulled by service
technicians for additional testing to determine the root cause of the error. The
annual number of dead meters is as follows:
Intermountain Dead Meter Count
2016 2017 2018

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 16
d. Pursuant to Intermountain’s Objection, found gas data reported in Intermountain’s
most recent PGA filing (INT-G-19-06) is included as “PR 1_16_INT-G-19-06
Workpaper No. 7”.
e. Intermountain does not, and has no way to, forecast the amount of LAUF gas and
found gas.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Raycee Thompson, 208-377-6046 Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 17
REQUEST NO. 17: In response to Staff’s Request No. 13, the Company provided the
pipes targeted for replacement by length and pipe size.
a. Please provide the annual amounts of at-risk pipe the Company has replaced since
2013 and annual cost associated with these replacements.
b. Please provide the estimated date at which time all the at-risk pipe will be
replaced.
c. Please the information and analysis that supports the Company’s replacement rate
for at-risk pipe.
d. Please provide the estimated total cost to replace all the at-risk pipe.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17:
a. The Company completed a program in 2017 which replaced a high-risk subset of
3.5” steel pipe (Thin-Skin). Between 2013 and 2017, the Company replaced
roughly 16.2 miles of this type of pipe at an approximate cost of $5.65 million.
Between 2013 and 2019, the Company replaced, as part of an ongoing program,
roughly 66.2 miles of Aldyl-A pipe at an approximate cost of $8.52 million.
b. Providing a meaningful estimated completion date for replacing all at-risk pipe is
extremely difficult. Constrained annual budgets, contractor availability and cost,
impacts to the public, and other considerations all affect the rate at which at-risk
pipe can be replaced. It should be noted that risk is relative, and the replacement
program targets areas of pipe with the highest relative risk as identified by the
Company’s GIS-based risk model. This model is updated annually to reflect new
information, and the replacement program priorities may be adjusted accordingly
based on the results.
c. Information including leak history and quantified relative risk are trended and
reviewed annually as part of IGC’s DIMP Performance Management program.
This data is considered when determining whether the replacement program is
effectively reducing risk on the system or whether program changes are needed.
Risk between distribution systems is relative and the Company’s DIMP model is
used to target high-risk systems for replacement first. Budgets, availability of
qualified contractors, and impacts to the public all affect the scopes of work and
rate of replacing at-risk pipe.
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 18
d. Given the quantity of targeted pipe and the variability of pricing in replacing it,
providing a meaningful estimated total cost would be purely speculative.

Record Holder: Lori Blattner, 208-377-6015 Sponsor/Preparer: Jesse Volk, 218-770-8481
Location: 555 S Cole Rd, Boise, ID 83707

Dated: April 14, 2020
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
Preston N. Carter Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
RESPONSE OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE ICL – PAGE 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 14, 2020, a true and correct copy of INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE was served upon all parties of record in this proceeding via the manner indicated below:
Benjamin J. Otto Matt Nykiel 710 N. 6th Street Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Commission Staff
Diane Hanian, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A Boise, ID 83714 [e-mail]

John R. Hammond, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A Boise, ID 83714
[e-mail]

Electronic Mail

Lori A. Blattner

Name Company
Roger Chase Bingham County Economic Development
John Regetz Bannock County Economic Development
Ed Vining Northwest Pipeline - Williams
John Chatburn Idaho Office of Energy Resources
Dave Dickerson Northwest Pipeline - Williams
Dave Allred Northwest Pipeline - Williams
Randy Thomas Amy's Kitchen
Dale Nordstrom Micron Technology, Inc.
April Rice State of Idaho
Jan Rogers REDI of Eastern Idaho
Dana Kirkham REDI of Eastern Idaho
Kit Kamo Snake River Economic Development Alliance
Tina Wilson Western Alliance For Economic Development
Connie Stopher SEIDO (Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization)
Steve Fultz Caldwell Economic Development
Beth Ineck Nampa Economic Development
Matt Hunte Pocatello/Chubbuck Chamber of Commerce
Shawn Barigar Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce
Ethan Mansfield Boise Valley Economic Partnership
Scott Reese Bingham County Economic Development
Eric Beck Chobani
Garth Mickelson Chobani
Charlie Howell Jerome County
Katchy Roeme Jerome County
Roger Morle Jerome County
Terri Carlock Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Intermountain Gas Resource Advisory Committee Invitation Mailing List
Copyright © 2017 by the American Gas Association. All rights reserved
EA 2017-03 July 11, 2017

AA CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF EENNEERRGGYY UUSSEE,, OOPPEERRAATTIINNGG CCOOSSTTSS,, AANNDD
CCAARRBBOONN DDIIOOXXIIDDEE EEMMIISSSSIIOONNSS OOFF HHOOMMEE AAPPPPLLIIAANNCCEESS
22001166 UUPPDDAATTEE

Introduction
Natural gas, electricity, oil, and propane compete in the residential sector in a variety of applications – primarily space heating and water heating. Natural gas, electricity, and propane also compete in cooking and clothes drying applications. Choosing which energy to use has significant implications in terms of efficiency, economics, and the environment. While the ultimate energy choice is made by consumers and builders, this choice is also influenced by government policies. It is important that government policies and regulations that influence energy matters be based on accurate measurements of energy efficiency and environmental impacts. Most government policies and regulations that influence energy matters are
“site-based” - that is, they only consider the impacts at the site where the energy is ultimately consumed. Site-based regulations, such as appliance efficiency standards and measurement, can lead to higher energy resource consumption as well as higher
levels of pollution. A full-fuel-cycle analysis is more comprehensive. This method examines all
impacts associated with energy use, including those from the extraction/production, conversion/generation, transmission, distribution, and ultimate energy consumption. Site energy analysis only takes into consideration the ultimate consumption stage.
Significant energy is consumed, with resulting polluting emissions, during all stages of energy use.
This view is supported by the National Academies’ report to the Department of Energy (DOE), “Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards.”1 The report found that DOE should consider changing its measurement of appliance energy efficiency to one based on the full-fuel-cycle. This more accurate measurement would provide consumers with more complete information on energy use and environmental impacts.

1 National Academies, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12670
2
The purpose of this analysis is to compare the relative impacts associated with
residential appliances powered by natural gas, electricity, oil, and propane. Consideration is given not only to impacts at the point of ultimate energy consumption -- i.e., the home -- but also to those impacts associated with the production, conversion, transmission, and distribution of energy to the household. For example, energy is used and lost in the generation of electricity and in the processing required for crude oil and natural gas.
Summary of Results
The use of natural gas rather than electricity, oil, or propane in residential applications, when evaluated on a full-fuel-cycle basis, results in significant reductions in energy consumption, consumer energy bills, and air pollutant emissions. Natural Gas Use Results in Less Total Energy Consumption

➢ Although electric appliances (e.g., space heaters, water heaters, stoves and clothes dryers) may consume less site energy than their natural gas counterparts, this
disadvantage is more than offset by the greater energy efficiency of the overall natural gas production/delivery system.
▪ In a typical residential application, a natural gas home requires about one-quarter less total energy on a full-fuel-cycle basis than is required for a comparable all-electric home (see Exhibit I) for those appliances.
▪ This energy efficiency advantage of natural gas-based homes stems from the fact that less than ten percent of the natural gas energy produced is used or lost from the point of production to the residence. In contrast, almost 70 percent of the energy produced to satisfy the electricity needs of consumers is used or lost in the process of energy production, conversion, transmission, and distribution.
➢ A typical natural gas furnace consumes about the same site energy as a comparable oil furnace. A gas water heater uses slightly less site energy than an oil water heater. Also, since oil is not typically used in cooking and clothes drying, it was assumed that electric appliances would be used for those applications in the oil house. These
factors, when combined with a slightly higher efficiency for the overall gas production/delivery system relative to oil, result in gas appliances requiring 9 percent less total energy than the oil house.

➢ While natural gas and propane have the same site-based appliance efficiencies, natural gas is more efficient in the overall production/delivery system. This better
full-fuel-cycle efficiency results in the natural gas home requiring three percent less total energy than the propane house.
3
Note: “Other” includes impacts from distribution, transportation, processing, and extraction. * Energy use for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying appliances. Using Natural Gas Can Save Homeowners 43 to 49 Percent on Their Energy Bills
➢ The higher efficiency and lower price of natural gas relative to other energy forms result in annual utility energy bills for the gas home that are roughly 49 percent lower
than the comparable all-electric home energy bills, about 46 percent lower than the oil home, and 43 percent lower than the propane home.
▪ According to DOE,2 the 2016 U. S. representative average unit cost for residential gas is $9.32 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) versus $36.93 per MMBtu for electricity, $14.28 per MMBtu for distillate oil, and $15.44 per
MMBtu for propane.
▪ Based on these energy prices and the energy consumption levels modeled in this analysis, residential natural gas customers realize annual energy savings of approximately $743 relative to electricity customers, $803 relative to oil customers, and $635 relative to propane customers. Natural Gas is the Cleaner Fossil Fuel
The inherent cleanliness of natural gas relative to other fossil fuels, in conjunction with its high efficiency, results in numerous environmental benefits relative to electric, oil, and propane systems. These include lower emission levels of the criteria pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Natural gas combustion results in a fraction of the nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and particulate matter compared to oil, coal, and
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (August 11, 2015), Annual
Energy Outlook (April 14, 2015), and Monthly Energy Review (July 28, 2015)
4
propane combustion.3 In addition, natural gas use is substantially cleaner than oil, coal, and propane in regards to carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas. For
example, carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions are about 41 percent lower for the gas residence than those attributable to an all-electric home, about 18 percent lower than oil homes, and 16 percent lower than propane homes (see Exhibit 2).
1 Emissions from space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying Note – includes impact on CO2 equivalent from unburned methane This analysis is based on new homes that meet the 2011 International Energy Conservation Code. Electricity is assumed to be generated by all the inputs consumed for generation in the United States, including renewable sources and nuclear energy.
The appliances meet the minimum efficiency standards as set by the Department of Energy, where applicable, which represent the majority of appliances sold. An analysis based on the existing home stock would be even more favorable to natural gas, as older
homes tend to require more energy due to their lower thermal integrity and less efficient equipment.
The analysis does not consider air conditioning, which is almost always provided by electricity, and the economic comparison focuses on energy costs and does not consider equipment and installation costs.

Analysis of Full-Fuel-Cycle Impacts

Background
Significant amounts of energy can be used or lost along the “energy trajectory,” that is, in the extraction, processing, transportation, conversion, and distribution of

3 Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42 Emission Factors, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/index.html
5
energy. A more efficient energy trajectory translates into less overall energy production required. In addition, the efficiency of end-use equipment affects the total energy
requirement. In order to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the total impact of end-use energy applications on energy resources, the full-fuel-cycle must be examined; that is, the efficiency of the energy trajectory in conjunction with that of the end-use device. When compared with electricity, natural gas is delivered to consumers with much less energy wasted. The cumulative efficiency -- from the wellhead to the residential meter -- of the natural gas trajectory is approximately 92 percent. This means that for every 100 MMBtu of energy produced, 92 MMBtu of energy is delivered to the consumer. Based on the current mix of energy used for electricity generation, electricity delivers to the consumer only 32 MMBtu of the same 100 MMBtu of energy produced. For oil, each 100 MMBtu produced results in 84 MMBtu reaching the customer. For propane, each 100 MMBtu produced results in 87 MMBtu reaching the customer (see Table 1).
In terms of full-fuel-cycle -- the combined efficiency of the energy trajectory and the efficiency of the end-use equipment -- natural gas retains its superiority. For new residential applications, full-fuel-cycle efficiency will be 74 percent for the natural gas
space heating option that meets the minimum efficiency rating of 0.80. For electric heat pumps, whose federal minimum standard for fuel utilization efficiency is about 200 percent, the full-fuel-cycle efficiency will be about 64 percent. Less efficient electric
resistance heating has a full-fuel-cycle heating efficiency of only 32 percent. The full-fuel-cycle efficiency for an oil furnace averages about 67 percent, due to an energy trajectory efficiency of 84 percent. The propane furnace full-fuel-cycle efficiency measure is also 70 percent. Again, these efficiencies reflect the total of all losses from extraction, processing, transportation, conversion, distribution, and end use of the natural gas, electric, oil, and propane systems.

6
TABLE 1
ENERGY TRAJECTORY EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY DELIVERED TO THE HOME1

EXTRACTION

PROCESSING

TRANSPORTATION2

CONVERSION

DISTRIBUTION
CUMULATIVE
EFFICIENCY

Natural Gas
96.2% 97.0% 99.0% -- 99.0% 91.5%

Oil
94.9% 89.1% 99.7% -- 99.6% 84.0%

Propane
94.6% 93.6% 99.2% -- 99.2% 87.1%
Electricity:
Coal-Based Oil-Based Natural Gas-Based Nuclear-Based Other3-Based
98.0% 98.6% 99.0% 32.9% 93.5% 29.4% 96.3% 89.1% 98.8% 32.0% 93.5% 26.7% 96.2% 97.0% 99.3% 43.2% 93.5% 37.4% 99.0% 96.2% 99.9% 32.6% 93.5% 29.0% -- -- -- 56.0% 93.5% 52.4%
Electricity
Weighted Average4 98.0% 97.8% 99.3% 35.7% 93.5% 31.8%

Source: Source Energy and Emission Factors for Building Energy Consumption – 2013 Update, Prepared
by the Gas Technology Institute for the AGA – January 2014.
“--“ indicates not applicable or no efficiency loss. 1Efficiency of energy delivered to the home refers to the energy used or lost, from the point of extraction to the residence, not including the end-use device. 2Transportation of natural gas from processing plant to local distribution system; transportation of fossil fuel to electricity generating plants. 3Includes renewable energy 4Current national weighted average mix of all power generation sources. The superiority of natural gas, in terms of energy trajectory efficiency, more than
offsets the often higher end-use efficiency of electric equipment. The point of greatest inefficiency along the electricity trajectory is generation, where roughly two-thirds of the input energy is lost as heat in the production of steam to turn large turbine/generators. Additionally, approximately six percent of the electricity generated does not reach the ultimate consumer due to transmission line losses.

Methodology Energy Efficiency Trajectories (Table 1) Data for full-fuel-cycle energy efficiency factors were taken from Full-Fuel-Cycle
Energy and Emission Factors for Building Energy Consumption – 2013 Update, prepared by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) for the American Gas Association. The conversion and cumulative efficiency factors for “Other” energy inputs for electricity
7
generation was calculated based on the weighted average of the other factors as listed in the report.
Energy Use The analysis examines the total energy requirements for space heating, water heating, cooking, and drying of one-story, single family detached residence (2,072 square feet of conditioned space) in an average climate in the United States (4,811 heating degree days). Only natural gas, electricity, oil, and propane appliances were examined. The home in the analysis was assumed to meet 2011 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) standards with appliances that at least meet the minimum standards set by the Department of Energy. In the natural gas and propane heated homes, the analysis assumed the furnace had an efficiency of 80 percent. The energy requirement for the system’s fan was also included in the system’s energy requirement calculation. The electric home used a heat
pump with a heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) of 7.7. For the oil home, a furnace with an efficiency of 80 percent was used. All units produced approximately 58 MMBtu per year of useable heat annually.
For heating water, the home was assumed to use a 50-gallon electric water heater with an efficiency/energy factor of 90 percent, a 32-gallon oil model with an
efficiency of 51 percent, and a 40-gallon model with an efficiency of 59 percent in the natural gas and propane homes. All units meet the minimum efficiency set by DOE and can produce the number of gallons of hot water required by the home -- about 15 MMBtu of useful water heating output per year. Such sizing variations are common. Electric units must be sized somewhat larger in order to provide adequate quantities of hot water due to the units’ lower recovery rates compared with natural gas units, and the oil units are relatively smaller due to their larger burner size. All water heaters have a first hour rating in excess of 60 gallons. For cooking, the natural gas and propane units have an energy factor of 5.8 and the electric stove has an energy factor of 10.9, and all units produce 0.2 MMBtu of useful cooking energy. Clothes dryers have energy factors of 2.67 for natural gas and propane and 3.01 for electricity, and all units meet a drying energy output of 0.1 MMBtu per year. Since oil is not commonly used for cooking or clothes drying, it was assumed that
electric appliances for these applications were used in the oil homes.

Results
On a full-fuel-cycle basis, natural gas use in primary residential appliance applications is far more efficient compared with electricity, oil, and propane. The full-
fuel-cycle energy requirement for an average home using natural gas is 33 percent less than for a similar home using electricity, is 12 percent less than the similar oil home, and is five percent less than the similar propane home. End-use (site-based) energy requirements for this home would be 89.9 MMBtu per year of natural gas and propane, 48.3 MMBtu per year of electricity, and 87.0 MMBtu for oil. Total energy requirements (full-fuel-cycle), however, would be 102.0, 151.9, 116.6, and 107.2 MMBtu annually of
natural gas, electricity, oil, and propane, respectively (see Table 2).
8
For many areas of the country, space heating represents the greatest portion of energy use in residences. The site energy required for heating the natural gas and
propane homes of about 2,000 square feet is 59.6 MMBtu per year. A comparable home that has an electric heat pump requires 30.8 MMBtu of site energy annually for space heating while the oil home requires 58.9 MMBtu annually. The annual energy requirements for heating these homes, when measured on a full-fuel-cycle basis, would be 68.6 MMBtu for the natural gas furnace, 96.8 MMBtu for the electric heat pump, 74.9 MMBtu for the oil furnace, and 72.0 MMBtu for the propane furnace. The annual site energy requirement for water heating would be 25.4 MMBtu for the natural gas and propane appliances, 16.6 MMBtu for the electric option, and 29.1 MMBtu for oil. When calculated on a full-fuel-cycle basis, the annual energy requirement would be 26.6 MMBtu for natural gas, 49.8 MMBtu for electricity, 28.6 MMBtu for oil, and 28.0 MMBtu for propane. The energy requirements for residential cooking and clothes drying are typically
lower than for those for space and water heating. On a site-basis, the combined energy consumption by both of these appliances would be 7.1 MMBtu for natural gas and propane compared to 5.1 MMBtu for electricity. On a full-fuel-cycle basis, the energy
requirements would be 6.8 MMBtu for the natural gas appliances, 13.0 MMBtu for the electric appliances, and 7.2 MMBtu for the propane appliances (see Appendix for additional data on appliances).

TABLE 2
TYPICAL SITE-USE AND FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW HOME
(MMBtu per year)
NATURAL GAS ELECTRICITY OIL PROPANE
Space Heating 59.6 30.9 58.8 59.6
Water Heating 24.4 15.8 24.0 24.4
Cooking 3.3 1.8 1.8 3.1
Clothes Drying 3.0 7.3 7.3 3.1
Total Site Use 89.8 48.4 87.0 89.8
Energy Losses 2 11.8 103.2 24.5 14.7
FULL-FUEL-CYCLE USE 3 102.0 151.9 116.5 107.2
1It was assumed that electric appliances for these applications were used in the oil homes. 2Includes energy used or lost in extraction, processing, conversion, transportation, and distribution of energy. 3 Sum of Site Use and Energy Losses

9
Analysis of Consumer Cost

Background Consumer energy costs are the product of the total end-use energy required and the price of energy. Full-fuel-cycle energy efficiencies affect consumer energy costs in that these costs reflect the total volume of fossil fuels required to ultimately satisfy consumer energy needs.
Methodology The end-use (site) energy requirements calculated in the preceding section can be multiplied by national average prices for natural gas, electricity, oil, and propane to calculate the relative energy cost impacts on consumers. Each year the Department of Energy estimates representative average unit costs for energy (see Table 3). For 2016, DOE estimated that the price of electricity to the residential consumer in the U.S. would
be 4.0 times higher than the price of natural gas. DOE estimated that the price for distillate oil would be 1.5 times that of natural gas. Finally, DOE estimated that propane would be 1.7 times that of the price of natural gas. Please note that energy prices, and
resulting consumer costs, vary by region.

TABLE 3
2016 REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE UNIT COSTS FOR U.S. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PRICES
($MMBtu)
NATURAL GAS ELECTRICITY DISTILLATE OIL PROPANE
$9.32 $36.93 $15.44 $14.28
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (August 11, 2015), Annual Energy Outlook (April 14, 2015), and Monthly Energy Review (July 28, 2015)

Results
The total annual residential energy cost for the four appliances in a typical new natural gas home is $875 lower than the electric home, $784 lower than the oil home,
and $677 lower than the propane home. For space heat alone, residential consumers of natural gas can save $445 a year relative to electricity consumers, $295 a year compared to oil customers, and $355 a year compared to propane customers. For other baseload applications, energy cost savings can be realized for natural gas customers as well. Overall, typical new homes can save $429 per year in energy costs by using natural gas instead of electricity for water heating, cooking, and clothes drying. The natural gas house can save $490 per year in energy costs relative to the oil house for these applications. The natural gas costs for operating these baseload appliances would be $322 lower than those of the propane home.
10

TABLE 4
ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ENERGY BILLS FOR TYPICAL NEW HOMES
(2016$)
NATURAL GAS ELECTRICITY OIL PROPANE
Space Heating $601 $1,046 $896 $956
Other1 $314 $742 $803 635
TOTAL $915 $1,789 $1,699 $1,591
1 Includes water heating, cooking, and clothes drying

Analysis of Environmental Impacts

Background
The issue of energy use and its impact on the environment has become increasingly important. This is particularly true regarding the subject of global climate change, as nations struggle with mitigation/abatement of carbon dioxide emissions, the principle greenhouse gas. Consumption of natural gas emits the least amount of CO2 compared with all other fossil fuels -- approximately 44 percent less than coal, 27 percent less than petroleum, and 16 percent less than propane for similar amounts of energy consumed.4

Methodology This analysis examines the emissions of CO2 resulting from the full-fuel-cycle energy consumption. In addition, the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of unburned methane released into the atmosphere during this energy process was calculated. The emission
factors used to calculate greenhouse gas impacts for both combustion (site) and pre combustion (source) came from the GTI report on source energy and emission factors.5 These emission factors, presented in pounds per MMBtu consumed and/or per kWh
generated, were applied to the energy consumed by the appliances. Unburned methane is also a greenhouse gas, and is emitted during all the fossil
fuel cycles. The GTI report also provided methane emission factors for both pre-combustion (source) and combustion (site). The factors are presented as pounds per MMBtu and per kWh. These factors are then applied to the appliance energy consumption numbers. In order to convert the methane output into carbon dioxide

4 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
5 Source Energy and Emission Factors for Building Energy Consumption, Prepared by Gas Technology Institute for the Codes & Standards Research Consortium, August 2013, http://www.aga.org/Source Factors
11
equivalents (CO2e), the methane emissions were increased by a factor of 25 in order to account for methane’s global warming factor.6

Results On a full-fuel-cycle basis, natural gas use in residential applications generates significantly less CO2e than electricity, oil, and propane. The full-fuel-cycle CO2e emissions resulting from appliance use in a typical new home are presented in Table 5. The total efficiency advantage of natural gas, coupled with the fact that natural gas combustion emits approximately 44 percent, 27 percent, and 16 percent of the CO2 emissions of coal, oil, and propane per MMBtu consumed, respectively, results in significantly lower emissions for natural gas. For the natural gas appliances, annual overall CO2e emissions were 5.9 metric tons. In comparison, the all-electric option was 8.9 metric tons CO2e annually, the oil home produced 7.2 metric tons, and the propane home produced 7.0 metric tons.

TABLE 5

FULL-FUEL-CYCLE CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT
EMISSIONS FOR NEW HOMES1
(Metric Tons of CO2e2 per Average Household Energy Use)
Natural Gas 6.0
Electricity3 10.1
Oil 7.3
Propane 7.1

1 Space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying only 2 Includes impact of unburned methane 3 Based on actual generating mix in 2014

Conclusion
To analyze energy/environmental impacts on less than a full-fuel-cycle basis can mislead both policy makers and consumers. This more comprehensive method shows that natural gas use in the primary residential applications (space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying) results in increased energy efficiency, substantial consumer energy cost savings, and reduced environmental impacts when compared with electricity, oil, and propane use. Direct use of natural gas in the residential sector offers an efficient, cost-competitive alternative to electricity, oil, and propane with fewer adverse impacts on the environment.

6 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
12

In issuing and making this publication available, AGA is not undertaking to render
professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is AGA
undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone
using this document should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate,
seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in
any given circumstances. The statements in this publication are for general information and
represent an unaudited compilation of statistical information that could contain coding or
processing errors. AGA makes no warranties, express or implied, nor representations about
the accuracy of the information in the publication or its appropriateness for any given
purpose or situation.

This publication shall not be construed as including, advice, guidance, or recommendations
to take, or not to take, any actions or decisions in relation to any matter, including without
limitation, relating to investments or the purchase or sale of any securities, shares or other
assets of any kinds. Should you take any such action or decision, you do so at your own risk.
Information on the topics covered by this publication may be available from other sources,
which the user may wish to consult for additional views or information not covered by this
publication.

Copyright © 2017 American Gas Association. All Rights Reserved.
13
Appendix

Efficiency and Appliance Charts

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Natural Gas Facts
Natural gas is a safe, dependable and responsible energy choice – and a cornerstone
of the Pacific Northwest’s energy, environmental and economic future. Natural gas
heats our homes, powers businesses, fuels small and large vehicles and marine
vessels, and serves as a key component in many of our most vital industrial
processes.
This booklet provides an overview of natural gas and the myriad of benefits
that this domestic, clean, safe, low-cost, reliable and abundant energy source
offers Pacific Northwest (PNW) consumers. Already, 3.2 million regional
natural gas users are enjoying its economic and environmental
advantages, but expanding the use and applications of natural gas
will help to provide an economically feasible, cleaner environment
for future generations.
The Northwest Gas Association (NWGA) works to foster greater
understanding and informed decision-making on issues related
to natural gas among industry participants, opinion leaders and
governing officials in the Pacific Northwest, encompassing British
Columbia (BC), Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
P A G E 2 P A G E 3
Getting Natural Gas to PNW Consumers
Natural gas is the Earth’s cleanest fossil fuel. Created naturally
underground by years of pressure and decay, natural gas is composed
almost entirely of methane, with trace amounts of other gases,
including ethane, propane, butane and pentane. Its molecular
makeup is one carbon (methane) atom and four hydrogen atoms.
Natural gas is a domestic natural resource that is colorless and
odorless in its ordinary state.
Natural Gas 101
Ocean
Layers of sediment and rocks
Microscopic plants and animals
buried in the ocean floor over
millions of years
Biomaterial converted to natural gas
by earth forces and heat
Origin
Much of the natural gas we find and use today began as microscopic
plants and animals living in shallow marine environments millions of
years ago. As living organisms, they absorbed energy from the sun,
which was stored as carbon molecules in their bodies. When they
died, they sank to the bottom of the sea and were covered by layer
after layer of sediment. As this organic feedstock became buried
deeper in the earth, heat combined with the pressure of compaction
converted some of the bio-material into natural gas.
Migration
Once natural gas has been generated in nature, it tends to migrate
within the sediments and rocks where it was created using the pore
space, fractures and fissures that occur naturally in the subsurface.
Some natural gas rises to the surface and shows up in seeps, while
other gas molecules travel until they are trapped in impermeable
layers of rock, shale, salt or clay. These trapped deposits comprise the
reserves where we find natural gas today.
In the PNW, natural gas is delivered
to 3.2 million consumers through
a network with over 125,000 miles
of transmission and distribution
pipelines. The pipelines that
transport natural gas from
production areas in Alberta, BC,
and the U.S. Rockies can deliver
more than 4 million dekatherms
per day (MMDth/day) to the
region.
From wells in remote places to
homes in your neighborhood,
the natural gas industry operates
a safe delivery system that is a
model for the world.
In the PNW,
natural gas is
delivered through
a network with
over 125,000
miles of
pipeline
©https://www.123rf.com/profile_michelangelus’>michelangelus / 123RF Stock
Photo</a
North
EnbridgeFortisBC Southern Crossing
Natural Gas Supply Basins
TC Energy
Williams Northwest Pipeline
Other Pipelines
Avista Corporation
Cascade Natural Gas
Intermountain Gas
NW Natural
Puget Sound Energy
FortisBC Energy Inc.
Nova Inventory Transfer
Fort Liard
Fort St. John
Fort Nelson
Calgary
Kingsgate
Boise
Pocatello
Salt Lake City
Bend
Malin
Vancouver
SumasVictoria
Seattle
Portland
SpokaneWenatchee
KlamathFallsMedford
P A G E 4 P A G E 5
There are Four Segments of the Natural Gas Industry
involved in delivering natural gas from the wellhead to
the consumer
1. Producing Wells (producers) such as Anadarko, BP, Devon,
ExxonMobil and others, access natural gas by drilling wells into the rock then using
pipes to bring the gas to the surface. In most wells, the pressure of the natural gas
is enough to force it to the surface and into the gathering lines that run to central
collection points. Where the gas can’t flow naturally, advanced drilling technology
combined with hydraulic fracturing is used to bring gas to the surface.
2. Processors (midstream companies), like Enbridge, TransCanada and Williams
typically connect the various producing wells via a raw-gas-gathering network of
small diameter pipelines, and process the gas to transmission pipeline specifications.
3. Transmission Pipelines, such as Enbridge’s BC Pipeline, TransCanada’s
GTN System and Williams NW Pipeline, act like interstate highways for gas, moving
huge amounts of natural gas thousands of miles from production regions to market
regions served by local distribution companies. Compressor stations located about
every 50 to 60 miles boost pressure to counter what is lost from the friction of gas
moving through the pipe.
4. Distribution and Service Pipelines (local distribution companies),
such as those operated by Avista, Cascade Natural, FortisBC Energy, Intermountain, NW
Natural, and Puget Sound Energy, are where the familiar “rotten egg” smell is added to
natural gas before it is delivered to homes and businesses through distribution mains
(utility pipelines). Finally, after passing through a meter that measures use, the gas
travels to a customer’s equipment, appliances and vehicles.
1Producing Wells
2Processors
3Transmission Pipelines
4Distribution and Service
Pipelines
1Producing Wells
2Processors
3Transmission Pipelines
4Distribution and Service Pipelines
Natural Gas
Delivery System
Producing Wells
Gathering
Lines
Transmission
Underground
Storage
Compressor
Station
Regulator/Meter
1,900 Electric
Power Plants
Regulator/
Meter
Regulator/Meter
Regulator/Meter
Regulator/
Meter
Processing Plant
City Gate Station
Local Utility
Regulator
65 Million
Households
Supplemental Fuels–
Liquefied Natural Gas,
Propane Air for peak
demand days
Utility Underground Storage
195,000 Factories and Manufacturers
5 Million Commercial Customers–Offices, Hospitals, Hotels and Restaurants
Courtesy of AGA
P A G E 6 P A G E 7
Measuring Natural Gas
The energy content or heating value from natural gas
is measured in a British thermal unit, called a Btu. One
Btu is equivalent to the amount of heat needed to raise
the temperature of one pound (16 ounces) of water by
1 degree Fahrenheit , or about the amount of energy
released by striking a wooden kitchen match. Natural
gas is sold from the wellhead to purchasers in standard
volume measurements of thousands of cubic feet (Mcf).
Consumers are billed for use in therms. One therm is
equal to 1 cubic foot.
How Natural Gas is Used in
the Pacific Northwest
Overall, about 30 percent of natural gas delivered
to PNW consumers is used in the industrial sector,
providing energy for everything from mining
minerals to processing food. Generating electricity
consumes about 29 percent (BC uses almost no gas
to produce electricity). Another 16 percent is used
in the commercial market, for heating and cooling
office buildings, hospitals, schools, and for cooking in
restaurants. Most of the remaining amount — about 25
percent — is used in the residential market, providing
energy for home heating, hot water, cooking, clothes
drying and air conditioning.
For more information on natural gas in the PNW, go to
www.nwga.org/outlook
1 cubic foot (cf)
100 cubic feet (1 Ccf)
1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf)
1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf)
1 million (1,000,000) cubic
feet (1 MMcf)
MMBtu
Frequently Used Units for Measuring Natural Gas
= 1,028 Btu
= 1 therm (approximate)
= 1,028,000 Btu (1 MMBtu)
= 1 dekatherm (10 therms)
= 1,028,000 Btu
= 1 million Btu
To provide an added layer of safety for leak detection purposes:
Natural Gas is Safe
Safety is the core value and top priority of the natural gas
industry. The industry spends billions of dollars each year
to maintain and improve its infrastructure through safety
programs, markers, inspections, material specifications,
construction techniques, corrosion and damage control,
industry and peer education programs, and public education
programs.
It smells like rotten eggs
Utilities odorize natural gas with Mercaptan . . . The natural gas industry knows that safety is a joint effort
and proactively collaborates and engages in partnerships
with federal and state regulators, public officials, emergency
responders, excavators, consumers, and safety advocates. It is
by working together that the industry continues to improve
upon its longstanding record of providing natural gas safely,
effectively and reliably.
The number one cause of pipeline incidents is third-party
damage, such as that caused when excavation contractors
or even homeowners inadvertently dig in to a gas line.
Concentrated efforts by your local gas company, state
and federal regulators and other public agencies,
coupled with the new 8-1-1 Call Before You Dig
number, have helped reduce damages from excavation
by 60 percent since 2006. While the industry has
multiple safeguards in place to protect consumers, it is
important that consumers are actively involved in safety
precautions. It’s a partnership!
Natural Gas: Safe, Clean, Efficient . . .
and the Key to our Future
Transportation by
pipeline is the safest
form of energy delivery
in the country.
Did you know?PNW’s Natural Gas Use by Sector
Industrial
37%
Commercial
27%
NWGA Outlook Study
Residential25%Generation28%
Commercial17%Industrial30%
2016
P A G E 8 P A G E 9
Natural Gas is Clean
The cleanest burning fossil fuel, natural gas has already
helped reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
the U.S. over the past decade as it has been tapped to
replace heavy polluters such as coal. By 2015, natural
gas accounted for more than 33 percent of electricity
generated in the U.S.)
Natural gas contributes to cleaner air by:
• Burning extremely efficiently, producing primarily heat
and water vapor.
• Producing about 45 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2)
than coal, about 30 percent less than oil, and about 15
percent less than wood when burned.
• Providing almost no sulfur dioxide, dissolved solids or
airborne particulates.
Natural gas is an important tool in the suite of GHG and
CO2 emissions reduction options available to the U.S.
and Canada. As states and provinces move to further
reduce CO2 emissions from electric power generation,
for example, natural gas use is expected to increase. And
as the transportation sector makes use of the barely
tapped market for clean-burning natural gas vehicles
(NGVs), natural gas use and its beneficial impacts on GHG
emissions will only increase.
Emissions of Natural Gas vs. Coal
When natural gas is used to generate
electricity, total GHG emissions per
MMBtu of natural gas consumed (on a
CO2-equivalent basis) are 129 pounds,
compared with 212 pounds for coal.
Stated another way, due to the higher
efficiency of natural gas combined-
cycle generation plants, natural gas
emits 52-56 percent fewer GHGs
than coal-fired boilers to produce the
same amount of electricity. Source:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Natural Gas is Efficient
The more energy we save,
the lower our impact on
the environment. But
beyond using energy-
efficient products, it’s also
important to use the best
(e.g., most efficient) energy
source for the task. On
average, a house fueled by
natural gas is responsible
for about one-third fewer
GHG emissions than a
comparable all-electric
home, according to the
AGA.
Benefits of Direct
Use of Natural Gas
Why? Let’s take a look at
what’s called the full fuel
cycle, which accounts for how much energy is retained – or lost – from an energy source until its final
use in your water heater, oven or home heating system. With the full fuel cycle in mind, direct use of
natural gas comes out a winner in the energy efficiency race. For example, by the time you turn on an
electric appliance, up to 68 percent of the energy value from the original fuel has been lost. That means
the full fuel cycle efficiency is about 32 percent. By contrast, the full fuel cycle efficiency of a natural gas
appliance is about 92 percent – a substantial difference. More efficient use of a fuel means less energy lost
and less that needs to be produced, which reduces GHG emissions.
Natural Gas is also Cost-Effective
Besides gaining efficiency, however, consumers that convert to
natural gas also immediately save on their monthly utility bills.
Households that directly use natural gas for heating, cooking and
clothes drying spend an average of $874 less per year than homes
using electricity for those applications. In fact, low domestic natural
gas prices have led to savings of almost $69 billion for existing
residential natural gas customers in the U.S. over the past four years,
according to AGA.
Natural gas usage per household has
decreased in the U.S. even as overall demand
for energy has risen. This trend is due in part
to installations of tighter fitting windows,
doors and better insulation, utility-sponsored
energy efficiency programs, and development
of more efficient natural gas appliances.
Natural gas emits
up to 56% fewer
greenhouse gases
than coal for the
same amount
of electricity.
Natural Gas
Electricity
Courtesy of AGA
©https://www.123rf.com/profile_threeart’>threeart / 123RF Stock Photo
P A G E 1 0 P A G E 1 1
Natural Gas is Renewable
What is RNG?
Renewable gas is natural gas (biomethane) produced from existing waste
streams and a variety of renewable and sustainable biomass sources,
including animal waste (e.g. Cow manure from dairy farms), landfills, sewage
treatment plants, crop residuals and food waste. It is composed of primarily
methane, just like geologic natural gas.
As organic matter, or biomass, breaks down in the absence of oxygen; the
bacteria produces methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) as a natural byprod-
uct. The raw biogas, which contains methane and other compounds, can
be concentrated in one location and captured. Once collected, it can be
purified (or upgraded) into biomethane that meets the quality standards of
pipeline systems.
Upgrading to Biogas
The process of upgrading may vary from project to project, but the goal
is to ensure the gas introduced into the system meets the same quality
standards as natural gas. The process leaves behind primarily methane and
small quantities of other gasses. The first step is to remove contaminant
gasses through a careful gas cleaning process that leaves only CO2. The CO2,
which lowers the heating value of the gas, is removed using well-proven
gas processing technology employed around the world.
Once the gas is clean, only methane remains along with a small amount of ni-
trogen, making it almost impossible to distinguish from conventional natural
gas. Purified biogas free from undesirable contaminants is called biomethane
– also known as renewable natural gas.
The Future of Natural Gas
The Potential for Renewable Natural Gas
Sure, it’s clean, but is it safe?
In co-operation with other major gas utilities, NWGA member, FortisBC undertook a study to deter-
mine if biomethane was a safe alternative to natural gas. Multiple gas sources were examined in nu-
merous locations around North America and compared with conventional natural gas. Study results
showed that upgraded biomethane is interchangeable with natural gas. In some cases, biomethane
was purer (contained fewer contaminants) than conventional natural gas, meaning customers won’t
see any difference in the quality of gas provided. You can rest easy that it meets the same safety
standards as conventional natural gas. It is carbon neutral, extremely versatile and fully compatible
with the North American pipeline infrastructure.
What about the environment?
The creation of biogas does not deplete the earth’s non-renewable resources, in fact, it captures and
uses biogases from decomposing organic wastes that would otherwise go directly into the atmo-
sphere and facilitates a closed-loop carbon process.
What are NWGA members doing with RNG?
NWGA members are currently using or considering the use of renewable natural gas. Here are a few
examples:
• FortisBC: Four local supply projects (two farm and two landfill projects) are currently in opera-
tion, with two more set to come online in the next two years. Over 7,800 voluntary residential
and commercial customers participate in the RNG program, each designating between 5-100%
of their conventional natural gas as RNG. Cumulative demand for RNG since the program began
in 2011 has resulted in a reduction of over 30,000 tons of GHG emissions. For more information,
go to FortisBC’s website at https://www.fortisbc.com/NaturalGas/RenewableNaturalGas
• NW Natural: In April 2017, NW Natural and the City of Portland announced a partnership, where
NW Natural will recover and clean biogas from the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment
Plant and inject it into their distribution system. This project will also include a natural gas fueling
station. According the City of Portland, this will be the City’s single largest climate action project.
It will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21,000 tons annually, generate upwards of $3 million in
revenue a year for the City, and replace 1.34 million gallons of dirty diesel fuel with clean renew-
able natural gas--enough to run 154 garbage trucks for an entire year.
Courtesy of AGA
Natural gas is the cleanest alternative transportation fuel available and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% to 30% compared to diesel and gasoline.
P A G E 1 3
Natural Gas Transportation
Natural Gas can Reduce Vehicle Emissions
Natural gas is widely available and reliably used by
millions of consumers across our continent. Utilizing it to
fuel vehicles represents a significant and as yet virtually
untapped opportunity to lower transportation costs, reduce
pollution and play a role in securing North American energy
independence.
The transportation sector is a substantial source of
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), producing upwards of
40% of overall GHG emissions in the PNW. Large diesel-
powered trucks and buses are a big part of the problem,
driving through neighborhoods and communities and
idling in traffic.
GHG emissions from natural gas engines are 20-30 percent
lower than diesel and gasoline engines. Even when
compared to electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles (NGVs)
come out ahead, with fewer total GHG emissions from
energy production to end use (also called full fuel cycle).
NWGA’s mission is to advance
the safe, dependable and
responsible use of natural gas as a
cornerstone of the region’s energy,
environmental and economic
foundation. Its efforts foster greater
understanding and informed
decision-making among industry
participants, opinion leaders and
governing officials in the Pacific
Northwest on issues related to
natural gas.
The Northwest Gas Association
(NWGA) is a trade organization of
the Pacific Northwest natural gas
industry. Our members include
natural gas utilities serving
communities in the Northwest
and interstate pipelines that move
natural gas from supply basins into
and through the region. NWGA
members deliver or distribute all the
natural gas consumed in the Pacific
Northwest.
Dan S. Kirschner
Executive Director
Judy A. Adair
Manager
Business and Operations
Connor Reiten
Manager
Communications & Projects
About the
Northwest Gas
Association
Northwest Gas Association
1914 Willamette Falls Drive, Suite 260
West Linn, OR 97068
503.344.6637
Website
www.nwga.org
Courtesy of AGA
CO
Carbon monoxide
by 70 to 90%
NMOG
Non-methane
organic gas by 50
to 75%CO2Carbon dioxide by 20 to 30%
NOx
Nitrogen oxides
by 75 to 95%
When it comes to other harmful pollutants like nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and
particulate matter (PM), natural gas does even better. Recent studies found that natural gas
engines produce dramatically lower smog-causing NOx emissions than the cleanest diesel and
electric engines, while emitting almost no asthma-inducing SOx or PM.
In heavily-used fleet applications (think United Parcel Service, waste haulers, etc.), natural gas
vehicles can be deployed in greater numbers providing the most pollution reduction for the
dollars spent. Over time, NGV trucks offer lower operating costs than even the newest diesel trucks
because of lower operating, fuel and maintenance costs.
In the U.S. today, NGVs are already serving 40 major airports, comprise 20 percent of transit buses
and 60 percent of new garbage-hauling trucks ordered, and are being adopted in the long-haul
trucking market, rail industry and by marine shippers. Still, the potential for natural gas to serve
the transportation market has barely been tapped. Because natural gas is abundant domestically,
cost-effective and already used in nearly all classes of vehicles, it makes sense to pursue wider
deployment of NGVs for both environmental and economic reasons.
For more information on NGV’s emissions, go to the www.nwga.org.
PA G E 1 2
North
Enbridge
FortisBC Southern Crossing
Natural Gas Supply Basins
TC Energy
Williams Northwest Pipeline
Other Pipelines
Avista Corporation
Cascade Natural Gas
Intermountain Gas
NW Natural
Puget Sound Energy
FortisBC Energy Inc.
Nova Inventory Transfer
Fort Liard
Fort St. John
Fort Nelson
Calgary
Kingsgate
Boise
Pocatello
Salt Lake City
Bend
Malin
Vancouver
SumasVictoria
Seattle
Portland
SpokaneWenatchee
KlamathFallsMedford
P A G E 1 4 P A G E 1 5
For over 120 years Avista has served
the businesses and communities of
the Pacific Northwest with reliable
service and value.
Avista Utilities, the company’s utility
operating division, serves 375,000
electric and 336,000 natural gas
customers. Its service territory covers
30,000 square miles in eastern
Washington, northern Idaho and
parts of southern and eastern
Oregon, with a population of 1.6
million. Transmission and distribution
operations include energy delivery,
generation, and resource assets.
Operations also include the purchase,
transmission, distribution, and sale
of electric energy on both retail and
wholesale basis. The company also
purchases, transports, distributes, and
sells natural gas.
Avista’s stock is traded under the ticker
symbol “AVA.” For more information
about Avista, please visit www.
avistacorp.com or www.avistautilities.
com.
W A S H I N G T O N M O N T A N A
O R E G O N
I D A H O
Avista Corporation
P O Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220
800.227.9187
Website
www.avistacorp.com
www.avistautilities.com
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
Founded in 1953, Cascade Natural
Gas Corporation is an investor-owned
natural gas utility that serves nearly
280,000 residential, commercial, and
industrial customers in 96 communities
in Oregon and Washington.
Customers are served from three
regions comprised of twelve districts
(*), fifteen operations offices, and
surrounding communities: Northwest
Region – including Bellingham*, Mount
Vernon*, Bremerton*, Aberdeen* and
Longview*; Central – including Yakima*,
Wenatchee*, Moses Lake, Kennewick*
and Walla Walla*; Southern – including
Bend*, Ontario*, Baker City, Pendleton*
and Hermiston.
The area served by Cascade covers more
than 32,000 square miles and is home to
more than 1,000,000 people.
Cascade’s headquarters are located
in Kennewick, Washington. Cascade
Natural Gas Corporation is a subsidiary
of MDU Resources, Inc.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
M O N T A N A
I D A H O
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
Cascade Natural Gas Corp.
Cascade Natural Gas Company
Corporate Office:
8113 W. Grandridge Blvd.
Kennewick, WA 99336
1.888.522.1130
Website
www.cngc.com
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Sumas
Victoria
Bend
Klamath FallsMedford
Kingsgate
Boise
Pocatello
Salt Lake City
Malin
Seattle
Calgary
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Sumas
Victoria
Bend
Klamath FallsMedford
Kingsgate
Boise
Pocatello
Salt Lake City
Malin
Seattle
Avista
O R E G O N
P A G E 1 6 P A G E 1 7
Enbridge’s natural gas business in British Columbia
(B.C.) includes a natural gas gathering, processing
and transmission system that has formed the
backbone of the natural gas sector in province since
1957. This system connects the B.C.’s natural gas
exploration and production industry with millions
of consumers in B.C., Alberta and the U.S. Pacific
Northwest. Today, nearly 80 per cent of the gas
produced in B.C. touches this system.
This natural gas is used to heat homes, hospitals,
businesses and schools. It is also used as a fuel for
electric power generation and is a staple in a number
of industrial and manufacturing processes that create
hundreds of products that improve our daily lives.
On February 27, 2017, Enbridge completed its
merger with Spectra Energy. With the competition
of this merger, Enbridge became the owner and
operator of the natural gas business in B.C. that was
previously owned and operated by Spectra Energy.
Enbridge
425 1st Street SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3L8
1-888-992-0997
Website
www.enbridge.com
B R I T I S H
C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N I D A H O
A L B E R T A
Y U K O N N O R T H W E S T T E R R I T O R I E SA L A S K A
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Fort Nelson
Fort Liard
Fort St. John
Enbridge
FortisBC
16705 Fraser Highway
Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8
800.773.7001
Website
www.fortisbc.com
We deliver approximately 21 percent of the total
energy consumed in British Columbia, which is the
most energy delivered by any utility in the province.
Whether delivering electricity, natural gas or propane,
our more than 2,200 employees serve approximately
1.1 million customers in 135 communities.
FortisBC owns and operates approximately 48,200
kilometres of natural gas transmission and distribution
pipelines and approximately 7,200 kilometres of
transmission and distribution power lines. Under our
regulated utility operations, we also own and operate
two liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facilities and
four hydroelectric generating plants.
FortisBC Inc. and FortisBC Energy Inc. do business
as FortisBC. We are indirectly wholly owned by our
parent company, Fortis Inc., a leader in the North
American electric and gas utility business. Through its
subsidiaries, Fortis Inc. serves more than three million
natural gas and electricity customers.
B R I T I S H
C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N I D A H O
A L B E R T A
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Fort St. John
Kingsgate
FortisBC
P A G E 1 8 P A G E 1 9
Incorporated in 1950, and beginning
operations in 1956, Intermountain
Gas Company is a natural gas utility
serving southern Idaho in an area that
includes 75 cities and 23 counties, with
a population of about 1,200,000. The
company is based in Boise, Idaho.
Intermountain serves 120 industrial
customers. Potato processing, dairies
and meat processors, chemical, fertilizer
and electronics are the largest market
segments. In 2016, 48% of gas sales
were for industrial use, with commercial
and residential segments using about
16% and 32%, respectively.
Intermountain owns and operates a
six-million therm liquefied natural gas
storage facility near Nampa, Idaho.
During 2016, Intermountain delivered
670 million therms (64 billion cubic
feet) of natural gas to an average of
345,000 customers. In 2016, the number
of natural gas customers grew by 1.5%.
Intermountain owns and operates
12,361 miles of transmission laterals,
distribution lines, and services.
The company is a subsidiary of MDU
Resources Group, Inc., of Bismarck,
North Dakota.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
M O N T A N A
I D A H O
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
Intermountain
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Bend
Malin
Klamath FallsMedford
Kingsgate
Boise
Pocatello
NW Natural
220 NW Second Avenue
Portland, OR 97209
503.226.4211
Website
www.nwnatural.com
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
NW Natural, a 158 year-old company with
approximately 1,100 employees, is headquartered in
Portland, Oregon. It is one of the fastest-growing natural
gas local distribution companies in the country. NW
Natural serves more than 700,000 customers in Oregon
and SW Washington. Its service area includes the
Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, the populous
Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and portions of the
Columbia River Gorge.
NW Natural purchases gas for its core market from
a variety of suppliers in the Western United States
and Canada. The company operates an underground
gas storage facility developed from depleted natural
gas reservoirs near Mist in Columbia County, Oregon
and, with PG&E, is currently developing another
underground storage facility at Gill Ranch, near Fresno,
California. NW Natural sells storage services from the
Mist facility into the interstate market and will sell
storage capacity into the market from Gill Ranch. In
addition, the company operates two liquefied natural
gas storage facilities in Oregon.
In keeping with its steady growth, NW Natural has
increased annual dividends paid to shareholders every
year for 61 consecutive years, one of only a handful
of companies to achieve such a dividend record. NW
Natural common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE: NWN).
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Bend
Malin
Klamath FallsMedford
The Dalles
Salem
Eugene
NW Natural
Intermountain Gas Company
P O Box 7608
Boise, ID 83707
208.377.6000
Website
www.intgas.com
O R E G O N
Salt Lake City
P A G E 2 0 P A G E 2 1
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is Washington state’s
oldest and largest energy utility, serving more
than 1.1 million electric customers and almost
790,000 natural gas customers, primarily in the
Puget Sound region. PSE meets the energy
needs of its growing customer base through
incremental, cost-effective energy efficiency,
low-cost procurement of sustainable energy
resources, and far-sighted investment in the
energy-delivery infrastructure.
Within close proximity to the utility’s service
area is the Jackson Prairie Underground Natural
Gas Storage Project, operated by PSE and
jointly owned with Avista Utilities and Williams-
Northwest Pipeline. Since its first day of operation
in 1964, the Jackson Prairie Storage facility has
grown to meet increasing demands on the Pacific
Northwest gas supply system. Its underground
storage capacity of 41 billion cubic feet of natural
gas can provide 1.15 billion cubic feet of daily
delivery of gas--enough to heat nearly 1.2 million
homes on a cold winter day.
A new liquefied natural gas facility is also under
construction by PSE in the Port of Tacoma. The
facility will provide PSE natural gas customers a
reliable supply on peak load days as well as fuel
for maritime shipping.
PSE, the utility subsidiary of Puget Energy,
is regulated by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
M O N T A N A
I D A H O
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
Puget Sound Energy
P O Box 97034
Bellevue, WA 98009
Website
www.pse.com
Puget Sound Energy
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Bend
Malin
Klamath FallsMedford
Kingsgate
Boise
TC Energy is one of the largest U.S. transporters
of Canadian natural gas. GTN’s 612-mile, 36-
and 42-inch-diameter pipeline system is the
primary path for Western Canada Sedimentary
Basin natural gas to reach markets in the
Pacific Northwest, California, Nevada, and the
rest of the U.S. West. GTN’s strategic value
derives from its position downstream of
TransCanada’s Alberta and British Columbia
pipeline systems.
TC Energy’s Alberta system is the primary
transmission pipeline serving the WCSB
providing physical access to10 bcf/d of
gas production in Western Canada and to
Nova Inventory Transfer (NIT), a highly liquid
marketplace with daily transactional volumes
reaching more than 70 bcf. The Alberta System
also connects to growing supplies from the
Horn River and Montney shale gas plays in
British Columbia.
GTN is capable of transporting approximately
2.9 Bcf/d of Canadian and domestic natural
gas to serve western U.S. markets. The pipeline
system commences at the U.S./Canadian
TC Energy
border, near Kingsgate, British Columbia, and terminates near Malin, Oregon, where
it connects to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s California Gas Transmission System and to
Tuscarora Gas Transmission.
GTN’s customers are principally local retail gas distribution utilities, electric generators,
natural gas marketing companies, natural gas producers, and industrial companies.
GTN also operates North Baja Pipeline, LLC (NBP), which is owned by TC PipeLines,
LP. The NBP system primarily serves electric generation customers in Mexico via
Gasoducto Bajanorte (owned by Sempra Energy International). As a result of an
Expansion completed in April 2008, the NBP system is now bi-directional, making it
capable of importing 600 million cubic feet a day of LNG-sourced gas to serve U.S.
markets.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
I D A H O
M O N T A N A
One SW Columbia Street, Suite 475
Portland, OR 97258
503.833.4000
Website
www.tcenergy.com
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
SumasVictoria
Bend
Malin
Klamath FallsMedford
Calgary
Kingsgate
Boise
O R E G O N
P A G E 2 2 P A G E 2 3
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
W A S H I N G T O N
M O N T A N A
O R E G O N
I D A H O
Williams’ Northwest
Pipeline
P. O. Box 58900
Salt Lake City, UT 84158
801.583.8800
Website
www.williams.com
Williams Northwest Pipeline
C A L I F O R N I A N E V A D A
U T A H
long-term firm transportation agreements, including peak service, with an aggregate capacity
of 3.8 million dekatherms per day of natural gas.
Northwest’s bi-directional system provides access to abundant natural gas supplies in the
Rocky Mountain region, the San Juan Basin and the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin,
including British Columbia and Alberta. This offers customers supply diversity and choice. For
added flexibility and reliability, Northwest utilizes storage capacity of approximately 14 billion
cubic feet. It owns and operates a liquefied natural gas peak storage facility at Plymouth,
Washington, owns one-third of the underground storage facilities at Jackson Prairie near
Chehalis, Washington and contracts underground storage at Clay Basin in northeastern Utah.
Northwest’s gas control center in Salt Lake City, Utah, oversees operations 24 hours per day
using real-time tracking to monitor pressure and flow rates through its network of computers and
satellites.
About Williams Partners:
Williams Partners L.P. (NYSE: WPZ) is a leading diversified master limited partnership focused on
natural gas transportation; gathering, treating, and processing; storage; natural gas liquid fraction-
ation; and oil transportation. The partnership owns interests in three major interstate natural gas
pipelines, including Northwest Pipeline GP. Williams (NYSE: WMB) owns approximately 84 percent
of Williams Partners, including the general-partner interest.
Williams Northwest Pipeline
(Northwest) has provided safe and
reliable transportation of natural
gas to the Pacific Northwest and
Intermountain region for more
than 50 years. With initial pipeline
facilities constructed in 1956,
Northwest has upgraded and
expanded its system significantly
over the years in order to meet
the regions increasing demand for
natural gas.
Northwest’s natural gas
transmission system includes 3,900
miles of pipeline and extends from
the Colorado/New Mexico state
border to the U.S./Canadian border
in the state of Washington.
Northwest’s wide customer
base includes local distribution
companies, marketers, producers,
electric generators and various
industrial users. Its transmission
system serves customers with
Vancouver
Wenatchee Spokane
Portland
Seattle
Sumas
Victoria
Medford
Boise
Pocatello
Salt Lake City
Eugene
Regional Contacts
American Gas Association (AGA)400 N Capitol Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20001202.824.7000
www.aga.org
B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) Box 250, 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3604.660.4700
www.bcuc.com
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
P O Box 3621Portland, OR 97208-3621
800.282.3713www.bpa.gov
British Columbia Premier Office
P O Box 9041, STN Prov GovtVictoria, BCV8W 9E1
250.387.1715www2.gov.bc.ca/gov
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)Suite 2100, 350 7th Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3N9403.267.1100
www.capp.ca
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA)
1110, 505 – 3rd Street SWCalgary, AB T2P 3E6
403.221.8777www.cepa.com/
Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance (CNGVA)350 Sparks Street, Suite 809
Ottawa, ON K1R 7S8613.564.0181
www.cngva.org
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas1017 l Street, #513
Sacramento, CA 95814916.588.3033
[e-mail]
Common Ground Alliance (CGA)2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102-172
Arlington, VA 22201703.836.1709
commongroundalliance.com
Energy Information Administration, (EIA)
1000 Independence Avenue SWWashington, DC 20585
202.586.8959www.eia.gov
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426 866.208.3372
www.ferc.gov
Idaho Governor’s Office
State CapitolP O Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720208.334.2100
www.gov.idaho.gov/ourgov
Idaho Public Utility Commission (IPUC)
P O Box 83720Boise, ID 83720-0074
208.334.0300www.puc.idaho.gov
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)20 F Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20001202.216.5900
www.ingaa.org
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
1101 Vermont NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20005, USA
202.898.2200www.naruc.org
National Energy Board (NEB)
517 Tenth AvenueCalgary, AB T2R0A8
403.292.4800www.neb-one.gc.ca
NGVAmerica (NGVA)
400 North Capitol Street NWWashington, DC 20001
202.824.7360www.ngvamerica.org
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)Western Region
12300 W Dakota Avenue, Suite 110Lakewood, CO 80228
720.963.3160ops.dot.gov/western.htm
Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous materials Safety administrationU.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SEWashington, DC 20590
202.366.4595www.phmsa.dot.gov
Oregon Governor’s Office
State Capitol Building900 Court Street NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301503.378.4582
www.oregon.gov
Oregon Public Utility P O Box 1088
Salem, OR 97308-1088503.378.6600
http://www.puc.state.or.us
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas
1220 L Street NW, 9th FloorWashington, DC 20005
202.962.4752www.lngfacts.com
Washington Governor’s Office
Officer of the GovernorP O Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002360.902.4111
www.governor.wa.gov
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)P O Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250360.664.1160
www.wutc.wa.gov
P A G E 2 4 P A G E 2 5
Fixed Costs
Costs which relate entirely or predominantly
to the capital outlay necessary to provide the
system capacity plus operating expenses which
do not vary materially with the quantity of gas
transported through the pipeline system.
Force Majeure
A superior force, “act of God” or unexpected and
disruptive event, which may serve to relieve a
party from a contract or obligation.
Forward or Futures Contract
Contract for future delivery of a commodity such
as natural gas at a price determined in advance.
Fuel Switching
Act of an end-user with dual-fuel capability
switching fuel types if one type of fuel becomes
more economical or reliable than the other.
Gasification
The process during which liquefied natural
gas (LNG) is returned to its vapor or gaseous
state through an increase in temperature and a
decrease in pressure.
Hedging
Any method of minimizing the risk of price
change.
Henry Hub
A pipeline interchange located in Louisiana which
serves as the delivery point of NYMEX natural gas
futures contracts. Henry Hub is one of the most
active natural gas trading points in North America
and is commonly used as an index against which
prices at other trading points are compared.
Hydrostatic Test
A strength test of equipment (pipe) in which the
item is filled with liquid, subjected to suitable
pressure, and then shut in, and the pressure
monitored.
Integrated Resource Planning
A utility planning method whereby alternative
resource mixes, including demand-side and
supply-side options, are evaluated in order to
determine which resource plan minimizes the
overall cost of service, subject to reliability and
various other constraints.
Interruptible Service
A transportation service similar to firm service
in operation, but a lower priority for scheduling,
subject to interruption if capacity is required
for firm service. Interruptible customers trade
the risk of occasional and temporary supply
interruptions in return for a lower service rate.
Line Pack
Natural gas occupying all pressurized sections
of the pipeline network. Introduction of new gas
at a receipt point “packs” or adds pressure to the
line. Removal of gas at a delivery point lowers the
pressure (unpacks the line).
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Natural gas which has been liquefied by reducing
its temperature to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit
at atmospheric pressure (i.e. liquefaction). In
volume, it occupies 1/600 of that of the vapor
at standard conditions, making long distance
shipping feasible.
Load/Load Balancing/Load Factor
The Load is the amount of gas delivered or
required at any specified point or points on
a system; load originates primarily at the gas
consuming equipment (burner tip) of the
customers. Load balancing is the process by
which a pipeline uses line pack and storage
capabilities to equalize system gas pressures.
The load factor represents the percentage of
total capacity that is utilized in a given period of
time.
Local Distribution Company (LDC)
Company engaged primarily in the purchase and
distribution of natural gas to end-users. Closely
regulated at the state level, LDCs do not profit
from the resale of natural gas (see purchased gas
adjustment). They are allowed to earn a return on
the investments necessary to distribute the gas to
end users.
Looping
Increasing the capacity of a transmission system
by installing an additional pipeline alongside the
original.
Main
A distribution line that serves as a common
source of supply for more than one service line.
Market Hub
Point of interconnection between two or more
pipelines, gas processors or storage facilities
where the transfer of gas and related service takes
place, coordinated by the operator of the hub.
Marketer
Entity that links customers and gas companies
by providing services such as accounting,
supply aggregation and sales, and arranging for
transportation.
Mileage-Based Rates
Rates designed to reflect the difference in
pipeline costs based on the distance between
supply sources and delivery points.
Odorant
Any material added to natural or LP gas in
small concentrations to impart a distinctive
odor. Odorants in common use include various
mercaptans, organic sulfides, and blends of these.
Open Season
Period during which a pipeline company consults
with market participants seeking customers for a
pipeline expansion.
Cathodic Protection
A technique to prevent the corrosion of a metal
surface by making that surface the cathode of an
electrochemical cell.
Cogeneration
The use of a single prime fuel source to generate
both electrical and thermal energy in order to
optimize the efficiency of the fuel used. Usually
the dominant demand is for thermal energy with
excess electrical energy, if any, being transmitted
into the local power supply company’s lines.
Compressor Station
Locations along the interstate pipeline at which
large (thousands of horsepower) natural gas-
powered engines increase the pressure of the
natural gas stream flowing through the station by
compression.
Convergence
Describes the innovative combination of gas
and electric services usually through a merger or
acquisition between gas and electric companies.
Also used to describe increasing dependence
upon natural gas for electrical generation.
Core Customers
Residential/commercial customers who rely on
traditional distributor-bundled service of sales
and transport.
Curtailment
A method to balance natural gas requirements
with available supply. Usually there is a hierarchy
of customers for the curtailment plan. A customer
may be required to partially cut back or totally
eliminate his take of gas depending on the
severity of the shortfall between gas supply
and demand and the customer’s position in the
hierarchy.
Decline Rate
The rate by which natural gas production slows as
a natural gas well is drawn down (depleted) over
time.
Alternate Fuel
Other fuels that can be substituted for the fuel in
use to generate power or run equipment. In the
case of natural gas, the most common alternative
fuels are distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, coal
and wood.
Btu
British thermal unit, a measure of the energy
content of a fuel. The heat required to raise the
temperature of one pound of water by one
degree Fahrenheit at a specified temperature and
pressure. One Btu equals 252 calories, 778 foot-
pounds, 1,055 joules or 0.293 watt hours. One
cubic foot of natural gas contains about 1,027
Btus.
Burner Tip
A generic term referring to the ultimate point of
consumption for natural gas. Also, an attachment
for a burner head which forms a burner port
modified for a specific application.
Capacity
Maximum gas throughput a pipeline can deliver
over a given period of time generally stated in
MMcf/day. Also used to refer to contract volumes
by held by shippers: “XYZ Shipper holds 100
MMcf/day of firm capacity on ABC Pipeline.”
Capacity Release
A mechanism to establish a secondary market for
firm transportation capacity. Each pipeline must
offer capacity release through which holders of
firm capacity can voluntarily resell all or part of
their firm transportation capacity rights for a short
or long period to any person who wants to obtain
that capacity by contracting with the pipeline.
Released capacity must be traded via electronic
bulletin board, through a bidding process.
Capacity released for a calendar month or less,
or at maximum rate, does not have to be bid (all
prearranged rate).
Glossary
Direct-Connect Customers
Usually very large industrial customers connected
directly to an interstate pipeline system. These
customers purchase their own gas supplies
and contract directly with the pipeline for
transportation, thereby bypassing the bundled
services typically offered by local distribution
companies.
Deliverability
Maximum rate at which natural gas can be
extracted from a supply well, transported through
a pipeline or withdrawn from a storage well over a
given period of time.
Demand Side Management (DSM)
Utility activities designed to influence the amount
and timing of customer demand, producing
changes to the overall demand. Conservation
programs are a DSM technique.
Dig-in
When buried gas facilities (or other underground
utilities) are damaged by excavation.
Displacement
Method by which one company trades a like
amount of gas to another, even though the gas
itself does not move.
Dual-Fuel Capability
Ability of an energy-burning facility to alternately
utilize more than one kind of fuel, usually gas and
oil.
Firm Service
Service offered to customers under schedules
or contracts which anticipate no interruptions.
The period of service may be for only a specified
part of the year as in Off-Peak Service. Certain
firm service contracts may contain clauses which
permit unexpected interruption in case the
supply to residential customers is threatened
during an emergency.
P A G E 2 6 P A G E 2 7
Sweet/Sour Gas
Sweet Gas in its natural state can be used without
purifying. Sour Gas contains enough sulfur in its
natural state to make it impractical to use without
purifying.
Transportation
The act of moving gas from a designated receipt
point to a designated delivery point pursuant to
the terms of a contract between the transporter
and the shipper. Generally it is the shipper’s own
gas which is being moved.
Unbundling
The separation of the various components of
gas sales, storage, transmission, delivery and etc.
into an ala carte menu of services from which
a customer may choose only those desired; an
aspect of a deregulated market.
Unconventional Gas
Natural gas that can not be economically
produced using current technology.
Variable Costs
Operating costs which, in the aggregate,
vary either directly or indirectly in relation to
any change in the volume of gas sold and/or
transported; i.e., compressor station fuel and
expenses.
Wellhead/Wellhead Price
The wellhead is the point at which gas flows
from the ground. The wellhead price is the price
of gas flowing from the wellhead, exclusive of
gathering, treating, or transportation charges.
Working Gas
Gas in storage which is available for withdrawal
during a normal injection and withdrawal cycle.
Operational Flow Order (OFO)
An order issued by a pipeline prescribing specific
actions to be taken by shippers to alleviate
conditions that threaten or could threaten safe
operations or pipeline integrity.
Peak Day/Shaving
A peak day is the one day (24 hours) of maximum
system deliveries of gas during a year. Peak
shaving is a load management technique where
supplemental supplies, such as LNG or storage
gas, are used to accommodate seasonal periods
of peak customer demand.
Pig
A device used to clean and/or inspect the internal
surface of a pipeline. They are inserted into the
pipeline by means of a device called a pig-trap
and pushed through the line by pressure of the
flowing fluid, usually gas.
Pilot
A small flame which is utilized to ignite the gas at
the main burner(s).
Postage-Stamp Rate
Flat rates charged for natural gas transportation
service without regard to distance.
Price Signals
Commodity prices help market participants
interpret the status of the marketplace. For
example, low natural gas prices signal an
abundance of gas, low demand, increased supply
competition or some combination thereof.
Producer
Any party owning, controlling, managing, or
leasing any gas well and/or party who produces
in any manner natural gas by taking it from the
earth or waters.
Proved Reserves
An estimated quantity of natural gas deemed to
be recoverable in the future from known oil and
gas reservoirs under anticipated economic and
current operating conditions. Reservoirs that have
demonstrated the ability to produce by either
actual production or conclusive formation test are
considered proved.
Purchased Gas Adjustment
A provision approved by a regulatory agency
allowing a company to make filings to change its
rates reflecting its cost of purchased gas. If actual
purchased gas costs were lower than anticipated
during the previous period, customers may
experience a rate decrease. The reverse is true
if actual purchased gas costs were higher than
anticipated.
Spot Market/Price
A market characterized by short-term,
interruptible contracts for specified volumes of
gas. Participants may be any of the elements
of the gas industry - producer, transporter,
distributor, or end user. Brokers may also be
utilized. The Spot Price is a current one-time
purchase price.
Storage Facility
A subsurface geologic formation suitable for
and used to store natural gas for the purpose of
fuller utilization of pipeline facilities and effective
market delivery or load management.
Stress Crack
Internal or external crack in a material caused by
tensile or shear stresses less than that normally
required for mechanical failure in air. The
development of such cracks is frequently related
to and accelerated by the environment to which
the material is exposed. More often than not, the
environment does not visibly attach, soften, or
dissolve the surface. The stresses may be internal,
external, or a combination of both.
Common Conversion
1Ton A/C
1 Boiler HP
100 Boiler HP
100 lb steam
1 engine HP
1 BTU
1 Cu Ft natural gas
Boiler efficiency
Water Heater Efficiency
BTU
KW
1 Therm
Fuel Common Unit BTU Content
Natural Gas Therm 100,000
Diesel (light) Gallon 140,000
PS300 Gallon 150,000
Bunker C Barrel 6,400,000
(heavy) (42 gal)
Propane Gallon 92,500
Electricity KWH 3,413
LNG Gallon 85,800

= 12,000 BTU
= 42,000 BTU Input
= 42 Therms
= 1 Therm
= 10,000 BTU Input
= 1 lb water raised 1 F
= 1000 BTU
= 80%
= 75%
= British Thermal Unit
= 1000 Watts
= 29.3 KWH
Demand charge - not applicable with natural gas
1914 Willamette Falls Drive, Suite 260
West Linn, OR 97068
t: 503.344.6637 f: 503.344.6693
www.nwga.org
Twitter: @NWGas
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPAN
Lost and Unaccounted for Gas
(Volumes in Therms)
Line
No.Description Oct 2015 - Sept 2016 Oct 2016 - Sept 2017 Oct 2017 - Sept 2018
(a) (b) (c) (d)
1 Core Customer Purchased Gas 339,592,192 373,355,527 360,550,036
2 Transportation Customer Gas 345,348,399 354,152,074 350,401,998
3 LNG Storage Withdrawals 1,795,842 1,292,372 1,227,027
4 Under Deliveries of Gas from Pipeline (Draft) - 523,910 -
5 Total Deliveries to System 686,736,433 729,323,883 712,179,061
6 Core Customer Billed Gas 324,902,426 369,157,907 361,156,182
7 Unbilled Adjustment 815,526 3,800,799 (1,622,037)
8 Transportation Customer Billed Gas 345,348,399 354,152,074 350,401,998
9 Company Use Gas 529,408 297,147 390,755
10 LNG Storage Injections 11,370,008 1,190,801 1,428,508
11 Line Breaks - Found Gas - 231,195 71,663
12 Over Deliveries of Gas from Pipeline (Pack) 2,026,730 - 129,490
13 Total Deliveries to Customers 684,992,497 728,829,923 711,956,559
14 Lost/(Found) Gas (Line 5 minus 13)1,743,936 493,960 222,502
15 Average Purchase WACOG 0.28657$ 0.28349$ 0.23349$
16 Cost of Lost/(Found) Gas (Line 14 times Line 15) 499,763$ 140,033$ 51,953$
17 Lost Gas $/Therm (Line 16 divided by Line 5)0.00073$ 0.00019$ 0.00007$
18 Lost/(Found) Gas (Line 14) 1,743,936 493,960 222,502
19 Lost/(Found) Gas Therms Deferred 1,033,736 1,617,866 761,896
20 Lost/(Found) Gas Adjustment (Line 18 minus Line 19) 710,200 (1,123,906) (539,393)
21 Actual Lost Gas Rate (Line 14 divided by Line 5) 0.2539%(1)0.0677% 0.0312%
22 3-Year Average Lost Gas Rate 0.1172%(2)0.1176%(3)
See Case No. INT-G-17-05
See Case No. INT-G-18-02
Current PGA Year Lost Gas Rate
Workpaper No. 7
Case No. INT-G-19-06
Intermountain Gas Company
Page 1 of 1