20060228Perks direct.pdf

" ":"
~; 2DAVID J. MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR REGULA TORY
AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
A VISTA CORPORATION
O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
.. ".. "'
: iU
' , . ~,
;; j!::SiCi!
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC
a Colorado Company,CASE NO. A VU-05- 7
COMPLAINANT
vs.
A VISTA CORPORATION dba A VISTA DIRECT TESTIMONY
UTILITIES , a Washington Corporation
GEORGE H. PERKS
RESPONDENT.
FOR A VISTA CORPORATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Please state your name, employer and business address.
My name is George H. Perks. I am employed as Manager, Generation - Joint
Projects, by" Avista Corporation and my business address is 1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, Washington.
Please state your educational background and professional experience.
I graduated from the MEBA School of Marine Engineering in 1971 with an
Unlimited Steam and Diesel License and spent one year on board as an apprentice for the
power plant operation on-board a cargo ship transporting materials world-wide.I was
employed by Pacific Power and Light between 1971 and 1975 at the Centralia Steam Electric
Plant as a Control Room Operator. My responsibilities included final construction review
system check-out and plant start-up and ongoing operation of the two 660 MW Coal fired
units at the site.
I was engaged in various business enterprises during the period 1976 through 1981.
Those work experiences included employment at Quali-Cast Steel, a specialty stainless steel
foundry in Chehalis, Washington, serving initially as Marketing Consultant to the Marine
group and later as Foundry Manager of Production Control. Beginning in 1979 , I was
employed as Plant Manager for Graystone Corporation for their concrete operations during
the construction of the Applegate hydroelectric facility near Medford, Oregon. The plant
included generation and boiler systems as well as concrete batching and mixing equipment.
I began my career at Avista Corp. in 1981 as plant manager for the Kettle Falls
generating station, a 50 MW biomass-fired generating project.In that capacity I was
responsible for project design review, equipment selection, construction oversight, staffing,
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
project start-up, and all facets of operation and maintenance of the project. The project was
completed in 1983. In 1988, I transferred to a position in Spokane as Project Development
Manager for WP Energy, a Washington Water Power subsidiary, and was involved in the
siting, permitting, design review, and equipment selection for a 60 MW biomass-fired project
at Williams Lake, British Columbia. Shortly after taking that position in Spokane, I became
the Company s Owner-Representative for both the Centralia coal-fired power plant and for
the Colstrip coal-fired power plant.
Beginning in 1999, I served as the Site Manager for Avista Power, a Company
subsidiary, to oversee the construction of the combined cycle combustion turbine project
located near Rathdrum, Idaho. In that role I was involved in all phases of the project
including equipment specification and selection, initial site work, construction and start-up in
2001.
In 2001 , I took on corporate oversight duties for the Coyote Springs 2 project
assisting with design, construction and start-up of the project. I assumed an increased level
of involvement in the project oversight at the time that the Company and its project partner at
the time, Mirant, were faced with the issues and impacts of the Enron bankruptcy which
required replacing the general contactor and crews at the work site. I was involved in all
aspects ofthe start-up of the Coyote Springs 2 project.
Since 2002, I have served as Manager, Generation - Joint Projects, where, in addition
to duties described above, my responsibilities have included managing the Company
interests in the Colstrip generating project and the Coyote Springs 2 generating project. As
part of those responsibilities , I provide operational oversight, capital project review
maintenance, safety, scheduling and operational coordination. I am also involved in the
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
assessment of thermal projects which the Company may consider as part of resource
acquisition plans as outlined in its recent Integrated Resource Plan.
What is the scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
My testimony will address the ability of a thermal-fired power project to
generate continuously for a month, under normal design conditions, once that project has
demonstrated that it can operate continuously at a given net output level for a period of 16
hours during the initial testing phase.I will also discuss the meaning of the term "boiler-
limited" as it relates to coal-fired generation projects and its applicability to" the determination
of the TRC project capacity. I conclude that, based on a review of the data provided to
Avista (including relevant plant output data during its "testing" phase), the TRC project is
capable of producing in excess of 10 aMW under normal design conditions for any given
month.
I am sponsoring an exhibit listed in the following table for identification, which was
prepared under my direction:
Exhibit No.Description
210 TRC Daily Average Net Output From January 2005 Through
September 30, 2005
What opportunities have you had to develop an understanding of the
TRC project?
I was able to visit the TRC project on January 20, 2006. Mr. Barry Bates, a
project owner, gave a tour of the facility to Company Witness Lafferty and myself. I have
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
also reviewed the testimony and exhibits of TRC witnesses in this case, and the results of
discovery conducted to date. Finally, I have reviewed extensive project test data and air
permit information provided by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Can you better describe your site visit to the TRC project?
Yes. Along with Company Witness Lafferty, we visited the project site in
order to get a better understanding of the project equipment and its operating characteristics.
The project was not operating at the time of our visit, having shut down on October 1 2005
to allow TRC to address air permit issues. I reviewed the coal and wood fuel delivery
systems. I was shown the steam turbine and electric generator installation. I also had an
opportunity to see the condensate and circulating cooling water systems, including cooling
towers. I was able to review the boiler and boiler auxiliary equipment, including forced and
induced draft fans, over-fire air equipment, traveling grate, and boiler feedwater pumps.
were able to see the relevant emissions control equipment. Finally, I visited the control
room, which contains the plant control systems. I am familiar with the technology employed
at the plant, given my prior experience with both coal-fired and wood-fired generating
projects.
In Witness Thompson s pre-med direct testimony, he discusses the
meaning of a "boiler-limited" project. Would you please comment on TRC witnesses
assessment of the boiler-limited nature of the TRC project?
Yes. On page 10 of Mr. Thompson s testimony, he states that "(bJoiler
limitations refer to the amount of thermal energy output that can be created from the boiler
portion of a Project." Mr. Thompson further states, at page 10, that boiler limitations "limit
the continuous output to a level less than the design of the generator." TRC Witness Mr.
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
Busch suggests, at page 6 of his testimony, that at the time TRC decided to install the steam
turbine and generator, TRC understood that the boiler did not have the capacity to meet the
full capability of the 16.5 MW steam turbine. Mr. Busch goes on to explain, at page 6 , that
TRC believed that an acceptable level of turbine performance
could be achieved, though exact performance would not be
known until actual operation. The turbine has achieved sound
and sustainable performance through initial operations
although, as expected, generation levels are substantially less
than plated ratings.
The impact of any "boiler limitations" on the project generation net output, however
can best be observed from actual test data already supplied by TRC, which I have reviewed.
The generation net output test data demonstrates that the TRC project capacity exceeds 10
aMW. This is true even though the generation net output of the TRC project appears to be
limited to an amount that is below the turbine and generator nameplate ratings due to the
amount of steam energy that is capable of being produced by the boiler.
Do you have any comments on Mr. Busch's statement, at page 6, that
(t)he turbine has achieved sound and sustainable performance through initial
operations although, as expected, generation levels are substantially less than plated
ratings. "
Yes. I disagree with Mr. Busch's characterization of the project as having
achieved sound and sustainable performance " if his intent was to suggest that the TRC
project had operated in other than simply an intermittent "testing and tuning" mode. The
project has been operated only in a testing and tuning mode throughout the operating period
of January 2004 through September 2005, as project operators attempted to make adjustments
and to meet air permit requirements. The TRC project in fact has operated only 134 days out
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
of the 273-day operating period. This represents less than half of the days during the period
from January 1 , 2005 through September 30 2005 The majority of those operating days saw
the project generation output at less than design capability.
Consequently, one should not look to the monthly generation data, previously
collected during this testing phase, when making a determination of the ultimate plant
equipment capacity.However, because this is a coal-fired generation project, we can
reasonably use the average daily generation data that was produced, to make a determination
of monthly capacity, as I will explain below.
Would you please describe the generation net output that has been
measured at the TRC project to date?
Exhibit No. 210 shows the average daily net output data for each of the nine
months of testing for the TRC project. This data was provided by TRC to A vista in reponse
to our discovery. One can observe that TRC operates on an intermittent and variable output
basis as the project is tested and further tuned. In spite of the up and down variability due to
testing, the TRC project did operate during 38 days at net output levels greater than 10 aMW
Why is it reasonable to use daily generation output, in the absence of
generation data based on sustained monthly operations?
A coal-fired thermal unit that has operated at sustained rated load for at least
16 hours at a time can conservatively be considered to have reached equilibrium in areas such
as steam temperature, boiler pressure, fuel feed rates, fuel air ratios, ash removal, feed water
makeup, thermal expansion and other plant parameters. In the TRC case, net output data
shows that the project can maintain "steady-state generation" in the 11 aMW to 12 aMW
range for 48-hour periods.
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
Because the project components have reached an equilibrium point, these levels of
generation are sustainable for monthly periods, when the plant moves beyond testing and
begins commercial operation. Therefore, the daily generation net output data that is already
available is sufficient to make a determination that the monthly generation capacity of the
project is above 10 aMW.Continuous generation above even these levels is simply a
question of reliability rather than capacity.
What is the current status of the TRC project with respect to its
operating permits?
In November 2005, TRC made a request to the MDEQ for modifications to
its air quality permit that would allow for increases in amounts of allowable NOx and S02
emissions. On February 10, 2006, the MDEQ issued a Preliminary Determination on the
TRC air quality permit modification request. The MDEQ did not approve the requested
increases in NOx and S02. Lower levels of NOx and S02 emissions are required as well as
additional emissions control equipment, which is needed in order to reach the required permit
emissions levels. Mr. Dempsey will provide additional testimony concerning TRC emissions
issues. Mr. Dempsey nevertheless concludes that the project capacity will still exceed
aMW, notwithstanding the lower emissions limits contained in the MDEQ air quality permit
Preliminary Determination.
Does that conclude your pre-fIled direct testimony?
Yes it does.
Perks, Di
A vista Corporation
, '.. -, ,, :..
;)0
!'.." ~;
~j3DAVID J. MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR REGULATORY
AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
A VISTA CORPORATION
O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
..
j r!LITi;~s c'U;i,',t'~SiC;
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC
a Colorado Company,CASE NO. A VU-05- 7
COMPLAINANT
vs.
A VISTA CORPORATION dba A VISTA EXHIBIT NO. 210
UTILITIES, a Washington Corporation
GEORGE H. PERKS
RESPONDENT.
FOR A VISTA CORPORATION
TRC Daily Average Net Output From
January 1 , 2005 Through September 30 2005
UO!te.IOWOJ 1!)S!AV 'S)(lad "D
~O-3'-flA V 'oN aseJ
IJola1i1!d OIZ'oN)!Q!qx3'
01-01-2005
01-15-2005
01-29-2005
02-12-2005
02-26-2005
03-12-2005
03-26-2005
04-09-2005
04-23-2005
05-07 -2005
05-21-2005
06-04-2005
06-18-2005
07-02-2005
07 -16-2005
07 -30-2005
08-13-2005
08-27-2005
09-10-2005
09-24-2005
aMW
............
(J)
())........
'tJ
..........
III
......
c...
::::J -I
:;tI
(')
~ c
O""C:
):I.en c::
en ..,
CD D)
"C (Q
CD
C' CD
.., c w -0 "C
~ C N -