20120504Sorenson Direct.pdf

Williams • Bradbury
ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEIVED
2OI2 MAY. -+ PM 2:00
IL- UTILITIES COMMISSION
May 4, 2012
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
Re GNR-E-11-03
Dear Ms Jewell
Please find enclosed an original and nine copies of the Direct Testimony of Ted
Sorenson on behalf of Renewable Energy Coalition for filing in the above referenced case.
The first copy of the testimony is designated as the reporter's copy, together with the
requested CD-ROM for the reporter.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to give me a call should
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.44 L.
Ronald L. Williams
RLW/jr
Enclosures
1015 W. Hays Street -Boise, ID 83702
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone] - www.williamsbradbury.com
RECEtVED
72Y - PM 2:00
DAHO puriC
UTLTES
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR
CALCULATING PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-1 1-03
RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
TED SORENSON

I Q. Please state your name and business address.

2 A. My name is Ted Sorenson P E and my business address is 5203 S. 11th

3 East, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

4 Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?

5 A. I am employed by and am the owner of Sorenson Engineering.

6 Q. What is your educational background?

7 A. I received a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, December 1974,
8 from the University of Idaho and a Masters in Civil Engineering, May 1976, also from
9 the University of Idaho.

10 Q. Please describe your professional and work experience.

11 A. I am a registered professional engineer in in the states of Idaho, Oregon,
12 Montana and Colorado. Attached as Exhibit No. 801 is a summary list of the
13 hydroelectric projects I have completed in my career. I have ownership in 5 hydro
14 projects in Idaho, and in other projects in other states and countries. I am also a member
15 of the Renewable Energy Coalition.

16 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?

17 A. The purpose of my testimony is to respond to some of the proposals of
18 Idaho Power Company, Rocky Mountain Power, and Avista Utilities as they relate to

19 small Q F projects, and more specifically, small canal and run-of-river hydro projects.

20 Q. Should the Commission continue distinctions between certain types and/or
21 sizes of PURPA projects?

22 A. Yes. First, the Commission needs to recognize differences between larger
23 and smaller PURPA projects, and also between certain types of PUIRPA projects. This
24 includes the importance of recognizing the difference in needs and significance of

25 existing hydroelectric projects versus proposed new projects. For example, I believe the
SORENSON, Di
Renewable Energy Coalition

I standard rate eligibility cap for resources that cannot be disaggregated should be
2 reinstated to ten megawatts, nameplate capacity. There should remain in place a

3 threshold for access to a simpler, more efficient contracting system, for projects that do
4 not have the ability to easily multiple one project into several. Because of the unique

5 physical characteristics and location of small-scale hydroelectric facilities in Idaho,
6 developers of hydro projects smaller than 10 MW should continue to have access to
7 standard, published QF rates. They also need a more streamlined and transparent
8 contracting process which would include a standard form power purchase agreement
9 (PPA) for both existing and new projects, reasonable pre-conditions and certainty and/or

10 predictability to changes in avoided cost prices.

11 Q. Why is this cap distinguishing certain types or sizes of QFs important?

12 A. Contrary to what is said or implied in some of the utility testimony, many

13 small hydro developers do not have the sophistication and financial resources to
14 separately negotiate individual PPAs, especially when avoided cost prices can change

15 quickly or often. While the consulting and legal expertise needed to calculate individual
16 IRP rates and negotiate a PPA can always be retained, the reality is that outside legal and
17 consulting fees can quickly make a small hydro project uneconomic. Nor does a small
18 hydro developer such as myself have the benefit of spreading the costs of negotiating one
19 PPA over three, four of five additional mirror-image projects.

20 Q. What other recommendations do you have for small projects below the

21 eligibility cap?

22 A. I endorse the recommendations of Mr. Don Schoenbeck, the expert
23 witness for REC, the Twin Falls Canal Company and the North Side Canal company,
24 related to standard rates, procedures and the time frames for changes in avoided cost

25 rates, for projects below a 10 MW eligibility cap.
SORENSON, Di 2
Renewable Energy Coalition

I Q. Idaho Power also proposes that QF contracts be limited to five years.
2 What is your opinion of this recommendation?

3 A. It is a punitive proposal that seems primarily designed to wreck the QF
4 industry, or at least would kill the small hydro QF industry. It would be virtually
5 impossible to finance the building of a new hydro project based on the revenue stream of
6 a five year contract. Hydro QFs, by their very nature, are extremely capital intensive and
7 need longer-term contracts in order to debt finance the capital costs necessary for a new
8 dam, turbines and other equipment. Idaho Power knows and understands this; it is a
9 hydro rich utility and its ratepayers benefit from this legacy of large, long-term capital

10 investments in similar assets. Once operating, hydro generation has virtually no fuel cost.

11 Q. How does Idaho Power's 5 year contract length also impact existing QF
12 hydro projects?

13 A. Many existing projects with PPAs starting to expire could be at risk of
14 continued operation. In essence, some of these legacy hydro QFs on the Idaho Power or
15 PacifiCorp system might have to shut down, if only 5 year contracts were available. Dam
16 repairs, equipment upgrades including interconnection, installation of better or more
17 efficient environmental protection, and re-newed governmental permits are many times
18 required at the end of a PPA. Without an adequate long-term PPA, these essential and
19 often required repairs and improvements could not be financed. It is disingenuous for
20 Idaho Power to expect its ratepayers to commit to paying for similar major capital

21 investments involved in the Shoshone Falls power plant rebuild, but then assert that
22 hydro PURPA projects should not be treated the same, in order to protect customers from
23 market risk. The same risk applies to both types of projects, and the same benefits of
24 preserving and extending the life of the hydro system applies equally to both QF hydros
25 and utility owned hydros. I must also point out that Avista and Rocky Mountain do not
SORENSON, Di 3
Renewable Energy Coalition

I appear to believe that 20 year QF contracts are a problem.

2 Q. Do you have a recommendation regarding standardization of avoided costs

3 for smaller projects?

4 A. Yes. I agree with Rocky Mountain Power witness Brown where she
5 recommends a standardization of avoided cost rates for non-wind and non-solar QFs
6 below an eligibility cap threshold, because it provides a simple and transparent means of
7 pricing that minimizes transaction costs.

8 Q. What about standard contracts and procedures?

9 A. I believe there are also elements of Rocky Mountain Power witness
10 Clements' testimony, with respect to larger projects, that would have value for both the

11 utility and the QF, for projects below the eligibility cap. For example, and without
12 endorsing specific components of Mr. Clements' proposed Schedule 38, the concept of a

13 list of requirements and schedule of actions and responses, would provide transparency,
14 simplicity and certainty to QFs below a 10 MW cap. The major addition I believe is
15 necessary for small projects would be to also develop standardized contracts. These are
16 similar to requirements which Idaho Power and PacifiCorp must meet in other states and

17 to a great extent already exist.

18 Q. Idaho Power proposes a new Schedule 74 which would allow the company
19 to interrupt deliveries from QFs during periods of low load, and instead run its own base
20 load generation, which it classifies as "must run." The Company classifies its run of river

21 hydro plants as "must run," stating that it cannot back these units down. (Parks, at
22 page 24).

23 Q. Do you agree that run-of-river hydro units should be classified as must
24 run?

25 A. No. From a physical or operational standpoint, hydro units are very
SORENSON, Di 4
Renewable Energy Coalition

I flexible in when and how much electricity they generate.

2 Q. Without getting into a discussion of legal issues concerning what Idaho
3 Power's FERC licenses may or may not require, is it physically possible to ramp hydro
4 generation, up or down?

5 A. Yes. For run-of—river hydro projects it is almost always physically
6 possible to back down or curtail hydroelectric generation without impacting downstream
7 flows. This can happen in several ways. If a hydro project is using a Pelton Turbine,

8 water can still pass through the turbine, without the turbine actually generating electricity.
9 For other types of turbines, such as Frances or Kaplan, direct water pass-through does not
10 work and water would be diverted to pass around the turbine and be "spilled" into the

11 river below.

12 Q. Can you provide an example?

13 A. Yes, a good example would be Idaho Power's Shoshone Falls hydro plant.
14 If Idaho Power wished to curtail generation at this plant, it would simply divert water
15 away from the plant's penstock leading down to plant, allowing the water to instead go
16 over Shoshone Falls and into the river below the generating facility.

17 Q. Once curtailed, could generation at Shoshone Falls then be quickly
18 brought back on line?

19 A. Yes. The turbine wicket gates would be opened, the water would again
20 flow to the generators and the Shoshone Falls plant would be back on line, in a relatively

21 short period of time.

22 Q. Rocky Mountain Power recommends that environmental attributes (EAs)
23 generated by a QF project, including renewable energy credits (RECs), should go to the
24 utility, along with the QF energy sold to the utility. Do you agree?

25 A. I think it should depend on the type of resource identified by the utility in
SORENSON, Di 5
Renewable Energy Coalition

I its IRP as the next major identifiable avoided generating asset. If that avoidable resource
2 is a renewable resource, then the EAs and RECs from the QF renewable resource should

3 go to the utility as part of the power sale. After all, the QF resource in this instance is
4 deferring the utility owned renewable resource, and it makes sense that the utility should
5 also get the EAs and RECs as part of the power purchase.

6 On the other hand, if the next IRP identified avoidable resource of a utility
7 that is used to set the standard avoided cost is not a renewable resource - for instance, a
8 gas fired power plant - the EAs and RECs from a renewable QF sale should not also
9 transfer to the utility along with the sale of power, without additional compensation. For
10 Idaho Power and PacifiCorp, the next avoidable generating units appear to be gas fired
11 power plants. In the case of these two utilities, the EAs and RECs for renewable QF
12 projects selling power to them should remain with the developer and the standard

13 contracts developed for projects below the 10 MW eligibility cap should contain a clear

14 statement to that effect.

15 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

16 A. Yes
SORENSON, Di 6
Renewable Energy Coalition
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 4th day of May, 2012, I caused to be served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following individuals in the
manner indicated below:
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
LI Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
Donovan E. Walker
Jason B. Williams
Idaho Power Company
P0 Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
[e-mail]
jwilliamsidahopower.com
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Avenue - MSC-23
Spokane, WA 99202
michael.andreaavistacorp.com
Daniel E. Solander El Hand Delivery
PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power El US Mail (postage prepaid)
201 South Main, Suite 2300 El Facsimile Transmission
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 El Federal Express
daniel.solanderpacificorp.com 0 Electronic Transmission
Donald L. Howell, II
Kristine A. Sasser
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (zip: 83702)
P0 Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
don.howellpuc.idaho.gov
kris.sasserpuc.idaho.gov
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
gregrichardsonandoleary.com
Attorneys for NIPPC, J.R. Simplot Co.,
Grand View, Exergy Development Group,
Board of County Commissioners of
Adams County, Idaho and Clearwater
Paper Corporation
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
SORENSON, Di 7
Renewable Energy Coalition
Robert D. Kahn
NIPPC, Executive Director Hand Delivers'
1 Li US Mail (postage prepaid) 117 Minor Ave., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101 Li Facsimile Transmission
rkahn Federal Express nippc.org Electronic Transmission
Don Sturtevant
Energy Director Li Hand Delivery
JR. Simplot Company US Mail (postage prepaid)
P.O. Box 27 Li Facsimile Transmission
Boise, ID 83707-0027 Li Federal Express
don.sturtevantsimplot.com Electronic Transmission
Robert A. Paul
Grand View Solar II Li Hand Delivery
15690 Vista Circle Li US Mail (postage prepaid)
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241 Li Facsimile Transmission
robertapau108gmail.com Li Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
James Carkulis
Managing Member Li Hand Delivery
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC Li US Mail (postage prepaid)
802 West Bannock Street, Suite 1200 Li Facsimile Transmission
Boise, ID 83702 F-1 Federal Express
jcarkulisexergydevelopment.com Electronic Transmission
Don Reading Li Hand Delivery Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC Li US Mail (postage prepaid) 6070 Hill Road Li Facsimile Transmission Boise, ID 83703 Li Federal Express [e-mail] Electronic Transmission
Bill Brown, Chair Li Hand Delivery Board of Commissioners of Adams County Li US Mail (postage prepaid) P0 Box 48 Li Facsimile Transmission Council, ID 83612 Li Federal Express [e-mail] Electronic Transmission
Man' Lewallen Li Hand Delivery Clearwater Paper Corporation Li US Mail (postage prepaid) 601 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100 Li Facsimile Transmission Spokane, WA 99201 Li Federal Express [e-mail] Electronic Transmission
SORENSON, Di 8
Renewable Energy Coalition
John R. Lowe
Consultant to Hand Delivery
Renewable Energy Coalition US Mail (postage prepaid)
Facsimile Transmission 12050 SW Tremont Street Federal Express Portland, OR 97225
jravenesanmarcosyahoo.com Electronic Transmission
R. Greg Femey El Hand Delivery Mimura Law Offices, PLLC L US Mail (postage prepaid) 2176 E. Franklin Road, Suite 120 fl Facsimile Transmission Meridian, ID 83642 Li Federal Express [e-mail] Electronic Transmission Attorneys for Interconnect Solar
Bill Piske, Manager El Hand Delivery Interconnect Solar Development, LLC fl US Mail (postage prepaid) 1303 E. Carter
Boise, ID 83706 Li Facsimile Transmission
[e-mail] fl Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
Wade Thomas L Hand Delivery General Counsel
Dynamis Energy, LLC Li US Mail (postage prepaid)
776 E. Riverside Drive, Suite 150 Li
Li
Facsimile Transmission
Eagle, ID 83616 Federal Express
Electronic Transmission wthomasdynamisenergy.com
C. Thomas Arkoosh
Capitol Law Group, PLLC F1 Hand Delivery
205 N. 10th St., 4th Floor Li US Mail (postage prepaid)
P0 Box 2598 Li Facsimile Transmission
Boise, ID 83701 Li Federal Express
tarkooshcapitollawgroup.com Electronic Transmission
Attorneys for Twin Falls Canal Company
And North Side Canal Company
Brian Olmstead Li Hand Delivery General Manager Li US Mail (postage prepaid) T Twin Falls Canal Company Li Facsimile Transmission P0 Box 326
Twin Falls, ID 83303 Li Federal Express
[e-mail] Electronic Transmission
SORENSON, Di 9
Renewable Energy Coalition
Ted Diehl
General Manager U Hand Deliver)'
North Side Canal Company E US Mail (postage prepaid)
921 N. Lincoln . U Facsimile Transmission
Jerome, ID 83338 U Federal Express
[e-mail] Electronic Transmission
Ted S. Sorenson U Hand Deliver)' Birch Power Company
5203 South I I th East U US Mail (postage prepaid)
Idaho Falls, ID 83404 U
U
Facsimile Transmission
[e-mail] Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
Dean J. Miller U Hand Deliver)' McDevitt & Miller, LLP U US Mail (postage prepaid) 420 W. Bannock Street (zip: 83702) U Facsimile Transmission P0 Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701 F-1 Federal Express
[e-mail] Electronic Transmission
Attorneys for Idaho Windfarms, LLC and
Renewable Northwest Project
Glenn Ikemoto U Hand Deliver)' Margaret Rueger F-1 USMail (postage prepaid) Idaho Windfarms, LLC U Facsimile Transmission 672 Blair Avenue U Federal Express Piedmont, CA 94611
[e-mail] Electronic Transmission
margaretenvisionwind.com
Megan Walseth Decker
Senior Staff Counsel
Renewable Northwest Project
421 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1125
Portland, OR 97204
meganmp.org
U Hand Delivery
U US Mail (postage prepaid)
fl Facsimile Transmission
U Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
M. J. Humphries
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC U Hand Delivery
4515 S. Ammon Road U US Mail (postage prepaid)
Ammon, ID 83406 fl Facsimile Transmission
Federal Express blueribbonenergygmail.com U
Electronic Transmission
SORENSON, Di 10
Renewable Energy Coalition
Arron F. Jepson
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
10660 South 540 East
Sandy, UT 84070
arronesqaol.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street (zip: 83702)
P0 Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
Liz Woodruff
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P0 Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tauna Christensen
Energy Integrity Project
769N. 1100E.
Shelley, ID 83274
[e-mail]
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
O Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
0 Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
El Hand Delivery
El US Mail (postage prepaid)
El Facsimile Transmission
El Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
Is' eiiilJ4 L. WL&40
Ronald L. Williams
SORENSON, Di 11
Renewable Energy Coalition
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. GNR-E-1 1-03
RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION
SORENSON, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 801
SUMMARY
The following is a list of hydroelectric projects which Ted S. Sorenson, P.E. and principal of
Sorenson Engineering has completed during his career. Additionally, projects which are owned,
operated, and designed by Mr. Sorenson are also provided separately. One project which Mr. Sorenson
purchased without designing is also listed. Below is a short summary of project totals.
1.Design of Hydroelectric Related Projects (35)
2.Design including Turbine/Generator and Switchgear for Hydroelectric Projects (31)
- Completed over a period of 28 years, all are still operating.
3.Hydroelectric Projects Owned and Operated by Mr. Sorenson (11)
4 Projects with CHEC equipment (13)
5.Projects with Gilkes equipment (13)
6.Hydroelectric Projects not designed but owned by Mr. Sorenson. (1)
SORENSON ENGINEERING- DESIGNED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
1.Arena Drop Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2010
Head 76 feet
Penstock 450 L.F. of 48-inch diameter pipe
Flow: 100 CFS
CHEC- Horizontal Frances connected to 500
kW
Location: Near Boise, Idaho
Construction Cost: $920,000
2.Arrowrock Hydroelectric (Pictured right)
Commissioned 2010
Head 150feet
Penstock 150 L. F. of 96-inch diameter pipe,
two penstocks
Flow: 1500 CFS
CHEC- Vertical Frances connected to 8.0 MW
generator, two units total 16.0 MW
Transmission Line: 5 miles
Location: Near Boise, Idaho
Construction Cost: $28,500,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 1 of 12
3.Midway Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2006
Head 27 feet
Penstock 90 L.F. of 98-inch diameter
pipe, two penstocks
Flow: 1300 CFS
CHEC-Horizontal Manually regulated
Kaplan connected to Single 1.6 MW
generator, two units total 2.6 MW
Transmission Line: 1 mile
Location: Hansen, Idaho
Construction Cost: $4,500,000
4.Mora Drop Hydroelectric (Pictured Right)
Commissioned 2006
Head 38 feet
Penstock 90 L. F. of 120-inch diameter pipe
Flow: 550 CFS
CHEC- Vertical Manually regulated Kaplan
connected to Single 1.6 MW generator
Transmission Line: 61 miles
Location: Kuna Idaho
Construction Cost: $2,200,000
5.Cove Flume Test Section for Pacific Power/Utah Power & Light
Completed 1998
Feasibility and Design for Test Section for Open Channel Flume
Flow 1500 cfs
Cast-in-Place and Precast Concrete Sections
6.Mopan Hydroelectric
Completed 1996
Feasibility and power sales for 12 megawatt Facility to include 42 meter high roller
compacted concrete dam and 92 kilometer transmission line in remote area.
Location: State of Petan, Guatemala, Central America.
7.Twin Falls Hydroelectric
Completed 1995
Fabrication Drawings for penstocks for 30 megawatt facility. Penstocks 14 feet in diameter.
Location: Near Twin Falls, Idaho
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 2 of 12
8.Fall River Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1993
Head 250 feet
Penstock 2700 L.F. of 96-inch diameter pipe
Flow: 550 CFS
Bouvier- Two Frances turbines connected to two 5 MW generators
Transmission Line: 861 miles
Location: Ashton, Idaho
Construction Cost: $14,000,000
9.Milner Dam Hydroelectric
Completed 1992
Completed Design portion of design build contract for five
32-feet wide by 18-feet high radial gates
Location: Near Burley, Idaho
Fabrication Cost: $1,800,000
10.Friant Fish Release Hvdr000wer Project
Commissioned 1992
Head 120 Feet
Flow 35 cfs
Gilkes- 500 KW Francis Turbine on Fish Hatchery Release Waters -
-Friant Dam and Friant River Canal
Location: Near Fresno, California
Construction Cost: $800,000
11.lnram Ranch Lower Hydroelectric Proiect
Commissioned 1990
Head 320 feet
11,000 L.F. of 30" Diameter Steel Penstock
20,000 L.F. of Trapezoidal Canal
Flow 25 cfs
Gilkes- Twin Jet Turgo
500 KW Induction Generator
Location: Near Challis, Idaho
Construction Cost: $600,000
12.Smith Falls Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1990
Head 1585 Feet
Flow 370 cfs
28,000 L.F. of 72", 69" and 57" Diameter Steel Penstock
Bouvier- Three Pelton Units; Two Twin Jets and One Single Jet
38,000 KW Aggregate Capacity of 3 Generators
Location: Boundary County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $14,000,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 3 of 12
13.Faulkner Land & Livestock Hydroelectric Project
Commissioned 1989
Head 140 feet
950 L.F. of 51" Diameter Steel pipe Penstock through rough mountain canyon terrain
Flow 80 cfs
Gilkes- Frances Turbine
875 KW Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear, 2 miles of 14 Ky transmission line
Location: Near Bliss, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,000,000
14.0. J. Power Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1988
Head 410 feet
6,000 L.F. 18" Diameter Steel pipe Penstock
Flow 7cfs
Gilkes- Single Jet Turgo Turbine
180 KW Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Oneida County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $250,000
15.Mink Creek Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1987
Head 470 feet
11,000 L.F. of 50" Diameter Steel pipe Penstock through rough mountain canyon terrain
Flow 100 cfs
Gilkes- Twin Jet Turgo Turbine
3,000 KW Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Franklin County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $2,500
16.Amy Ranch Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1987
Head 940 feet
20,200 L. F. of 18" Diameter Steel pipe Penstock
Flow 11 cfs
Bouvier- Twin Jet Pelton Wheel Turbine
700 KW Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Butte County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $850,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 4 of 12
17.Snedigar Ranch Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1986
Head 190 feet
Penstock 4,000 L.F.
30" Diameter Steel pipe through rough canyon terrain
Flow 35 cfs
Barber-Frances Turbine
540 KW Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Construction Cost: $650,000
18.Littlewood River Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1986
Head 29 feet
3,000 L.F. of canal in lava rock
Flow 460 cfs
Gilkes- Two Frances Open Flume Turbines
960 KW Two Induction Generators
Industrial Grade Switchgear, 1/2 mile transmission line
Location: Near Gooding, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,400,000
19.Geo Bon II Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1986
Head 31 feet
Penstock 120 L.F.
120" Diameter Steel pipe
3,000 L.F. canal and tailrace in lava rock
Flow 480 cfs
Voith- Double Regulated Kaplan Turbine
1,030 KW Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Near Shoshone, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,700,000
20.Schaffner Ranch Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1986
Head 1,230 feet
Penstock 11,000 L.F.
18" Diameter Steel pipe
Flow 5cfs
Gilkes- Pelton Turbine
440 KW Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear, 2.5 miles high voltage (46 KV) transmission line
Location: Lemhi County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,600,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 5 of 12
21.Ingram Ranch Upper Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1985
Head 185 feet
Penstock 900 L.F.
48" Diameter Steel pipe; 20,000 L.F. trapezoidal canal
Flow 80 cfs
Gilkes-Frances Turbine
1,060 KW Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Near Challis, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,100,000
22.Georgetown Irrigation Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1984
Head 220 feet
Penstock 18,500 feet of existing irrigation main
30" Diameter through 42" Diameter Steel pipe
Flow 30 cfs
Gilkes- Twin Jet Turgo Turbine
480 KW Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Georgetown, Idaho
Construction Cost: $500,000
SORENSON ENGINEERING- DESIGNED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS-
IN PROGRESS
1.South Canal Drop 1 Hydroelectric
Expected Commissioning 2013
Head: 54.2 feet
Flow: 1000 CFS
CHEC- Vertical Kaplan connected to a 4.0 MW generator
Penstock: 1,130 feet 132 inch dia. steel pipe
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
2.South Canal Drop 3 Hydroelectric
Expected Commissioning 2013
Head: 47.3 feet
Flow: 1000 CFS
CHEC- Vertical Kaplan connected to a 3.5 MW generator
Penstock: 290 feet 132 inch dia. steel pipe
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 6 of 12
Fargo Hydroelectric
Expected Commissioning 2013
Head: Unit 1 140 feet, Unit 2 81 feet
Flow: Unit 75 cfs, Unit 240 cfs
CHEC- Two Horizontal Frances Turbines connected single 1.1 MW generator
Penstock: 1,130 feet 132 inch dia. steel pipe
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 7 of 12
TED SORENSON- DESIGN/OWN! OPERATE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
1.C-Drop Hydroelectric (Pictured Right)
Commissioned 2012
Head: 23 feet
Flow: 700 cfs
CHEC- Vertical Kaplan connected to a 1.1
MW generator
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,800,000
2.Lower Turnbull Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2011
Head 150feet
Penstock 2,215 L.F. of 108-inch dia. pipe,
Flow: 700 CFS
CHEC- Vertical Frances connected to 7.8
MW generator,
Transmission Line: 1.7 miles
Location: Near Fairfield, Montana
Construction Cost: $7,000,000
3.Upper Turnbull Hydroelectric (Pictured Right)
Commissioned 2011
Head lOOfeet
Penstock 967 L.F. of 108-inch dia. pipe,
Flow: 700 CFS
CHEC-Vertical Frances connected to 5.7
MW generator,
Transmission Line: 1.3 miles
Location: Near Fairfield, Montana
Construction Cost: $5,000,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 8 of 12
4.Belize Hydroelectric (Pictured)
Commissioned 2007
Head 120 feet
Penstock 550 L.F. of 72-inch diameter
pipe
Flow: 375 CFS
CHEC- Two Frances Turbines connected
to Single 3.4 MW generator
Transmission Line: 61 miles
Location: Toledo District, Belize, Central
America
Construction Cost: $4,000,000
5.Pancheri Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2010
Head 503 feet
Flow 9cfs
CH EC- Twin Jet Pelton, 290 KW
Penstock: 10,000 feet 20 inch dia.
Location: Near Howe Idaho
Cost: $600,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 9 of 12
6. Tiber Dam Hydroelectric (Pictured Riaht
Commissioned 2004
Head 175 feet
Penstock 90 L.F. of 96-inch diameter pipe
Flow: 700 cfs
Gilkes-Frances Turbines connected to
Single 7.5 MW generator
Transmission Line: 1 mile
Location: Liberty County, Montana
Construction Cost: $7,000,000
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 10 of 12
7. Marsh Valley Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1993
Head 100 feet
Penstock 600 L.F. of 60-inch diameter pipe
Flow: 250 cfs
Chinese (Not CHEC)- Two Frances Turbines connected to Single 1900 KW generator
Transmission Line: 3 miles
Location: Bannock County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,800,000
8 Oregon North Fork Sprague River Hydroelectric Prolect
Commissioned 1988
Head 185 feet
5,700 L F of 51" Diameter Steel pipe
Penstock through rough mountain
canyon terrain
Flow 100 cfs
Bouvier- Twin Frances Turbines mounted
on Single Generator
1,230 KW Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear, 6 miles of 14 KV
transmission line
Location: Near Klamath Falls, Oregon
Construction Cost: $1,400,000
9. Birch Creek Hydroelectric Facility
Commissioned 1986
Head 517 feet
22,000 L.F. 5111 Diameter Steel pipe Penstock; 12 miles trapezoidal canal
Flow 75 cfs
Gilkes-Twin Jet Turgo Turbine (1986)
CHEC- Pelton Wheel (re-powered in 2007)
2,700 KW Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Clark County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $3,200,000
Exhibit No 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 11 of 12
TED SORENSON- OWNED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS, NOT DESIGNED BY
SORENSON ENGINEERING
Wry Creek Hydroelectric Project
Commissioned 2000
Head: 1,220 feet
Flow: 55 US
Gilkes- 3.4 MW
Penstock: 60,000 feet 42 inch dia. steel pipe
Location: Near Howe Idaho
Exhibit No. 801
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
T. Sorenson, REC
Page 12 of 12