20130701Michael Youngblood DI.pdf

nfn:--i11.-rqF. ; l-, l- , ,i i-. '".1
2$t3 JU:i 2"q pil L: 0L
llit,iri';::i :'-.
l_lTiLl i: ::= i--ii.,, .,',:. ;,iii
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLTC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY' S APPLICATION EOR A
CERTIFTCATE OF PUBLIC CONVEN]ENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE INVESTMENT
IN SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
CONTROLS ON JIM BRIDGER UNITS 3
AND 4.
CASE NO. IPC-E-13-16
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
MICHAEL J. YOUNGBLOOD
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
71
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a.
A.
O. Please state your name and business address
A. My name is Michael J. Youngblood and my
business address is 722L West Idaho Street, Boise, rdaho.
0. By whom are you employed and in what
capacity?
A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
Power" or "Company") as the Manager of Regulatory Projects
in the Regulatory Affairs Department.
Please descrj-be your educational background.
In May of L911, T received a Bachelor of
Science Degree in Mathematics and Computer Sclence from the
University of Idaho. Erom L994 through 1,996, I was a
graduate student in the Executive MBA program of Colorado
State University. Over the years, I have attended numerous
industry conferences and training sessions, including
Edison Electric fnstitute's "Electric Rates Advanced
Course. "
o.Pl-ease describe your work experience with
Idaho Power Company.
A.I began my employment with ldaho Power j-n
L91'7. During my career, I have worked in several
departments of the Company and subsidiaries of IDACORP,
incJ-uding Systems Development, Demand Planning, Strategic
Plannj-ng and IDACORP Solutions. From 1981 to 1988, I
worked as a Rate Analyst in the Rates and Planning
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 1
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
t6
71
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
Department where I was responsible for the preparation of
electric rate design studies and bil-l- frequency analyses.
I was also responsible for the valj-dation and anal-ysis of
the l-oad research data used for cost of service
allocations.
From 1988 through 1,997, T worked in Demand Planning
and was responsible for the load research and load
forecasting functions of the Compdoy, including sample
design, impJ-ementation, data retrieval, analysis, and
reporting. I was responsible for the preparation of the
five-year and twenty-year load forecasts used j-n revenue
projections and resource plans as wel-l as the presentation
of these forecasts to the public and regulatory
commissions.
From t99L through 1998, I worked in Strategic
Planning. As a Strategic Planning Associate, I coordinated
the complex efforts of acquiring Prairie Power Cooperative,
the first acquisition of its kind for the Company in forty
years. I was the team leader on combined departmental
efforts responsi-ble for evaluating performance based
regulatJ-on and reviewing potential tel-ecommunicatj-ons
business opportunities as a direct resul-t of changes in
tel-ecommunication legislation. From 1996 to 1998r dS a
part of a Strategic Plannj-ng initiative, I helped develop
and provide two-way communication between customers and
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
1"6
71
1B
79
20
27
22
23
24
25
energy providers using advanced computer technologies and
te l-ecommuni- cat ions .
Erom 1998 to 2000, I was a General Manager of
IDACORP SoJ-utions, a subsidiary of IDACORP, reporting to
the VP of Marketing. f was dlrectly responsible for the
direction and management of the Commercial & Industrial
(*C&I") Business Solutions dj-vision. r had the overal.l-
responsibility for the research, development and
implementation of new products and services for C&I
customers. These new products and services included energy
informatlon services, bill payment and management products,
facility monitoring, telecommunication and internet
services, onsite qeneration and power quality analysis. I
was directly involved in the direction and product
development of the Allied Utilities Network, an al-l-iance of
utilities with the conimon goal of providing products and
services for their respective customers as well as the
growth of those services into new territories, including
national- and regional accounts.
In 2001-, T returned to the Regulatory Affairs
Department and worked on special projects related to
deregulation, the Company's Integrated Resource Plan, and
filings with both the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission" or "IPUC") and the Public Utility Commission
of Oregon (*OPUC").
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 3
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,2
13
t4
15
16
7"1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In 2008, T was promoted to the position of Manager
of Rate Design for Idaho Power. fn that position I was
responsible for the management of the rate design
strategies of the Company as well- as the oversight of all
tari-f f administrati-on.
fn January of 20!2, T became the Manager of
Regulatory Projects for Idaho Power, which is my current
position. In this position, I provide the regulatory
support for many of the large individual projects and
i-ssues currently facing the Company. Most recently that
has included providing regulatory support for the inclusion
of the Langley Gulch power pJ-ant investment in rate base
and supporting the Company's efforts to address numerous
issues lnvolving Qualifying Facilities (*QF") as defined
under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1-978
("PURPA"), including the Company's efforts in Case No. GNR-
E-11-03, the review of PURPA QE contract provisj-ons.
I. O\IERVIETT
O. What it the purpose of your testimony in
this matter?
A. The Company is requesting the IPUC issue a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (*CPCN")
rel-ated to the Selective Catalytic Reductj-on ("SCR")
investments planned for Jim Bridger Unit 3 and Jim Bridger
Unit 4 ("the Project"). In my testimony, I wiII briefly
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 4
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
L1
1B
79
20
2!
22
23
24
25
describe the portfol-io analysis of coal-fired generation
alternatives developed for the Company's 2073 Integrated
Resource Pl-an (*201-3 IRP"). The 20L3 IRP is being filed
concurrently with this filing in Case No. IPC-E-13-15 and
is Attachment 4 to the Application 1n this case.
In addition, I will present the cost estimates for
the Jim Bridger SCR systems and the estimated revenue
requirement impact of including that j-nvestment in the
Company's rate base. Finally, I will- discuss the Company's
request for the Commj-ssion to provide authorization and
blnding ratemaking treatment for the Company's SCR
investments in Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 pursuant to Idaho
Code S 61-541.
O. The Company has filed a number of CPCNs for
peaklng facilities over the last decade, and most recently,
for the Company's combined-cyc1e combustion turblne project
at the Langley Gulch power plant. Is this request for a
CPCN different from those requests?
A.Yes it is. Most of the Company's previous
requests for a CPCN were for new generating plants. This
request is different in that it is for the addition of
emission equipment required for the Company to remain
compliant with environmental regulations at an existing
generation resource. The Jim Bridger Plant is already a
valued part of the Company's generation fleet, and in fact,
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 5
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
L6
L1
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
as noted in Ms. Lisa Grow's testimony, is the Company's
Iowest cost thermal p1ant. The Jim Bridger Plant is
currentl-y included as production plant in the Company's
rate base. Ongoing operatj-on and maintenance of the plant,
including the investment in emission controls mandated by
state or federal environmental regulations, would not
typically be an investment for which the Company would
request a CPCN.
o.
this time?
A.As described in Ms. Grow's testimooy, the
Company is requesting a CPCN for the SCR investment because
of the magnitude of the investment and the uncertainty
surrounding coal-fired generation in today's political and
social- environment, as well as the amount of interest
expressed by stakehol-ders.
o.Please generally descrj-be the Project for
which the Company is requesting a CPCN.
A. The Project refers to the Company's
investment in SCR systems to reduce the emissions of
ni-trogen oxide for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4. A complete
discussion of the specific emission controls and equipment
required for the Project can be found in Mr. Tom Harvey's
testimony.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 6
Idaho Power Company
Why then is the Company requesting a CPCN at
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
t6
L7
18
1,9
20
27
22
23
24
25
O. Why are the investments in SCR systems at
Jim Bridger Unj-ts 3 and 4 necessary?
A.The Best Availabl-e Retrofit Technology
Appeal Settlement Agreement and the Wyoming Regional Haze
State Implementation Pl-an ("Wyoming Regional Haze SIP")
require the instal-l-ation of SCR systems on Jim Bridger
Unit 3 by the end of 2075 and on Jim Bridger Unit 4 by the
end of 20L6. On May 23, 20!3, the Envj-ronmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") proposed to approve the Wyoming
Regional Haze SIP for installation of SCR systems on Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4 j-n 2OL5 and 2016, respectively, as
outlined in the SIP. The EPA has indicated it wi-ll sign
a notice of f i-nal rulemaki-ng on November 21, 2073. This
would make these emission reduction requirements at Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4 federally enforceable as well-. This
is dj-scussed more fu11y in Mr. Harvey's testimony. In
order for the continued operation of the plant to be
compliant with environmental regulation, it wil-l- be
mandatory for the SCR systems to be lnstall-ed at Jim
Bridger Unlts 3 and 4.
O. When do the SCR emission control systems for
Jim Bridger Uni-ts 3 and 4 need to be installed and
operational- ?
A. In order to be compliant with these current
state and anticipated future environmental regulations, and
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 7
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
76
L't
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
enable continued operation of the Jim Bridger Plant, the
SCR emission control systems for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4
must be installed and operatj-onal by December 31, 2015, and
December 31, 20L6, respectively.
O.Is fdaho Power solely responsible for the
SCR investments for the Project?
A. No. Idaho Power is not the sol-e owner of
the Jim Bridger P1ant. The Company is a one-thj-rd partial
owner of the p1ant, the remaining two-thirds being owned by
PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp is also the operating partner of
the plant. Nevertheless, while the decj-sion to add SCR
systems to Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 does not so1ely reside
with Idaho Power, the Company did conduct its own
lndependent analysis to determi-ne if the addition of SCR
systems was economically prudent. This analysis is
discussed in greater detail in Mr. Harvey's testimony.
O. What did the Company conclude from the
resul-ts of the economic analysis discussed by Mr. Harvey?
A.Based upon the economic analysis discussed
in Mr. Harvey's testimony regarding both the Science
Applications International Corporatlon (*SAIC") and Idaho
Power evaluations analyzing the install-ation of SCR systems
at Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, the Company's concl-usion is
that compared to alternatj-ve compliance options, the
install-ation of the SCR systems is the l-owest incrementaf
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr I
Idaho Power Company
1_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
76
L7
18
79
20
27
22
23
24
25
cost and least risk option, and therefore, a prudent
economic decision for the ongoing operation of the Jim
Bridger P1ant.
II. 2OL3 IRP AT{AI,YSIS
o.Subsequent to the Company's conclusion that
the instal-l-ation of SCR systems is the prudent economic
decision for the ongoing operation of the Jim Bridger
P1ant, did the Company nonetheless eval-uate any potentj-al
reduction or early retirement of its existing coal-fired
resources ?
A.Yes. As part of the development of the
Company's 201,3 IRP, the Company included four resource
pJ-anning portfolj-os that explored options for reducing the
amount of coal-fired generatj-on in Idaho Power's generation
portfolio. The options to reduce the reliance on coal
included replacement with natural gas-fired generation,
increased demand-side measures including demand response,
changing the fuel at the North Valmy plant to natural 9ds,
and the Boardman to Hemingway transmission line. Two of
the portfolios specifically ceased coal-fired operations at
the Company's Jim Bridger and North Valmy coal plants (the
Boardman coal plant ceases coal--fired operations at year-
end 2020 in aII resource portfolios).
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 9
Idaho Power Company
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
77
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
0.What were the results of the 2073 IRP
analysis with regard to the portfolios that eliminated a
coal-fired resource at the Jim Bridger Pl-ant?
A.As described on pages 93-94 of Attachment 4
to the Application, Portfolios 6 and 7 ceased coal-fired
operati-ons at the Company's Jim Bridger and North Valmy
coal plants. These two portfolios ranked as the two
highest cost resource portfolios of the nine portfolios
analyzed. As shown on Tabl-e 9.2 on page 98 of Attachment
4, Portfol-io 6 had a net present val-ue for the 20-year
planning period (20L3-2032) that was $1,5L2,173,000 more
costly than the Company's preferred portfolio, and
Portfolio 7 was $1,785r578r000 more costly.
o.Based upon the analysis conducted in the
2073 IRP, is the continued operation of the coal-fired
resource at the Jim Bridger Plant cost-effective?
A Yes. As noted on page 113 of Attachment 4,
the Company's preferred resource portfolio in the 2013 fRP
is Portf ol-io 2. Resource Portfolio 2 incl-udes continued
operations at the Jim Bridger and North Valmy coal plants.
Idaho Power intends to operate its facilities, including
the coal-fired generation plants, in ful-l compliance with
environmental regulations.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 10
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
L6
77
18
79
20
2T
22
23
24
25
O. Do you believe the 2073 IRP was sufficient
in analyzing the complexities surrounding coal-fired
generation?
A. Yes. f believe the 2073 IRP, in addition to
the previously filed Coal Study, adequately analyzes the
Company's options for compliance whj-le supporting its
obligation to reliably serve the electrj-city needs of its
customers. The Idaho Power resource planning process has
four primary goals:
(1) Identify sufficient resources to
reliably serve the growing demand for energy within the
Idaho Power service area throughout the 20-year planning
period.
(2) Ensure the sel-ected resource portfolio
balances cost, risk, and environmental- concerns.
(3) Give equal and balanced treatment to
supply-side resources, demand-sj-de measures, and
transmission resources .
(4) Involve the public in the planning
process in a meaningful way.
IRP anal-yses are conducted by the Company on an
ongoing basis with the formal IRP document being filed for
acceptance with the IPUC and acknowledgement with the OPUC
every two years.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 11
fdaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
L7
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
o.
A.
IIT. PROi'ECT COST ESTIMATE
O. Has the Company determined a total project
cost estimate for Idaho Power's share of the Proiect
("Project Cost") ?
A.Yes. The total cost of the Project, before
Allowance for Eunds Used During Construction (*AEUDC") is
$353,8431886. Idaho Power's share of that amount, the
Project Cost, is one-third, or $117,947,962, comprised of a
$57,649,1L3 investment in Jim Bridger Unit 3 and a
$60,298,849 investment in Jim Bridger Unit 4, before AEUDC.
What is included in the Project Cost?
Confidential- Exhibit 7 shows the budget
projections for each cost description by year for Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4. The largest portions of the total-
Project Cost estimate are the costs incl-uded under the
engineer, procure and construct contract (*EPC Contract").
o.
Contractor?
Has a contract been signed with an EPC
A.Yes. As discussed in Mr. Harvey's
testimony, because of the extent of the Project and the
extended period of time it takes to p1an, permit,
engineer, procure, and construct SCR systems, and the
uncertainty of the final ruling from the EPA on approval
of the porti-on of the WyomJ-ng Regional Haze SIP that
addresses the SCR systems at Jim Bridger Uni-ts 3 and 4, a
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 1-2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
11
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
Limited Notice to Proceed ("LNTP") contract was
with the successful- bj-dder on May 31, 2073.
O. Has PacifiCorp, the majority owner
operator, made regulatory filings simil-ar to this
Idaho Power?
signed
and plant
filing by
A. Yes. As indicated by Mr. Harvey, in August
2012, PaciflCorp, d/b/a Rocky Mountaln Power, filed a CPCN
with the Wyoming Public Service Commission ("Wyoming
Commisslon") to construct two SCR systems on units 3 and 4
of the Jim Bridger Plant, ds well as a "voluntary request
for approval of resource decision to construct SCR systems
on Jim Bridger units 3 and 4" with the Public Service
Commissj-on of Utah ("Utah Commission") .
o.
A.
Vrlhat were the results of those filings?
On May 10, 201,3, the Utah Commj-ssion issued
a final- Report and Order approving the resource decision to
construct the SCR systems, which is incl-uded as Attachment
2 to the Application. The Utah Commission's conclusions
are provided below:
Based on the f oregoing discuss j-on and
the evidence presented in this caser w€
approve the Company's resource decision
to construct SCR systems to achj-eve0.07 Ibs/MMBtu limits at Bridger Unit 3
by 20L5, and Unit 4 by 2076, ds
described in the AppJ-ication. We find
the Company has demonstrated the
Bridger SCR Project is the least-cost
means, adjusted for risk, to meet the
emissions limits for Bridger Units 3
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 13
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
tr
6
1
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
76
71
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
ZO
21
2B
29
30
31
5Z
33
34
35
36
31
3B
39
40
47
42
A-)AJ
44
and 4 established by the Wyoming
emission standards. We also find the
Company's proposed timing for
completing the Pro j ect w1l-I benef it
ratepayers by avoiding increased
Project cost due to the requj-rements of
a compressed construction schedule and
possible additional outages.
Coordinating the timlng of the Projectwith the four-year maintenance
schedules of the Bridger Pl-ant also
will manage costs and risks associated
with potential replacement power cost
while the Project is implemented.
Importantly, this timing wil-l- also
ensure the Project is completed j-n time
to meet the Wyoming SIP deadlines.
Docket No. 72-035-92, Commi-ssion Report and Order, issued
May 10, 20t3, page 32).
On NIay 29, 20L3, the Wyoming Commission issued a
final order approving the CPCN for the SCR upgrades, which
is included as Attachment 3 to the Application. A sunrmary
of the Wyoming Commission's conclusions is provided below:
We conclude there is need for
additional- servi-ce which warrants
construction of the proposed SCR
upgrades to Bridger Units 3 and 4 based
upon our findings, which are supported
by the testimony of the intervenors as
well as the Application and testimony
and exhibits of RMP.
We conclude that: Ii] the proposed
expendi-tures are reasonable and in thepublic interest, Iii] the present and
future public convenience and necessity
require the construction and operation
of SCR upgrades to Bridger Units 3 and
4, and tfiil a CPCN shoul-d be issued in
this case. RMP has carried its burdensof proof and persuasion. It is in the
public interest that the certificate be
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr L4
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
14
15
L6
L1
18
L9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
issued.(Docket No. 20000-4L8-EA-72,
Record No. 13314 paragraphs 84-86).
O. Illhat amount has the Company determi-ned to be
the Project Cost includj-ng AFUDC ("Total- Commitment
Estimate") ?
A.The Total Commitment Estimate for the
Project is the Project Cost of $117,947,962 plus
$11,889,437 in AFUDC. The Total- Commitment Estlmate for
the Project, including AFUDC, is $729,837,393. Of this
amount, $62,923,527 is the Commitment Estimate for Jim
Bridger Unit 3 and $66,913 ,866 is the Commitment Estimate
for Jim Bridger Unit 4.
o.Please clarify what you mean by the term
Commitment Estimate.
A.Based on the EPC Contract, actual costs
incurred in the development phase and the forecast
estimates of the work to be completed, Idaho Power is able
to make a reliable estimate of the total capital cost of
the Project. As it has done in prior CPCN applications,
Idaho Power has termed this estimate a "Commitment
Estimate." The Commitment Estimate is a good faith
estimate of Idaho Power's total- capital cost incJ-uding
AFUDC, and additional costs the Company anticipates it wil-l-
incur but cannot quantify with precision at this time.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 15
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
L6
L1
18
79
20
2t
22
23
24
25
Idaho Power's Total Commitment Estimate for the Project is
$129 ,83'7 ,393 .
O. What is the estimated revenue requirement
impact of these proposed additions to the Company's rate
base?
A.Based upon the system investment stated
above, the Company performed a high-level jurisdictional
revenue requirement analysis. Based upon the current
jurisdictional split between Idaho and Oregon, the Idaho
jurj-sdictional addition to production plant would be
$60,196,124 for i-nvestments at Jim Bridger Unit 3 and
$64,074,741 for investment at Jim Bridger Unit 4. At the
Company's current rate of return, the additional- annual-
revenue requirement for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 would be
approximately $9.1 million and $9.7 million, respectively.
rv. REQITESTED REGUT,ATORY TREIATLTENT
O. What reguJ-atory treatment is the Company
requesting as part of this CPCN request?
A.The Company is requesting that the
Commission issue a CPCN order by November 29, 2013.
Pursuant to ldaho Code S 6L-54Lt the Company is requesting
that the Commission provide Idaho Power with authorization
and a binding commitment to provide rate base treatment for
the Company's capital investment in the SCR systems at Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4 in the amount of the Total Commitment
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 16
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1t_
72
13
t4
15
t6
L1
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
Estimate of $L29,837,393. Of that amount, the Commitment
Esti-mate of i62,923,527 for the investment in Jim Bridger
Unit 3 would be cl-osed-to-p1ant and authorj-zed for cost
recovery on or after January l, 2016, and the Commitment
Estimate of $66,91-3,866 for the j-nvestment in Jim Bridger
Unit 4 would be cl-osed-to-p1ant and authorized for cost
recovery on or after January 1, 20L1.
If binding ratemaklng is approved for the Total
Commitment Estimate of $129,83'7 r393, the Company coul-d be
assured that amounts incurred up to the Commitment Estimate
amount would be determined to be prudent. Should the cost
of the Project be less than the Commitment Estimate, the
savings would directly benefit the customer through a l-ower
amount in rate base. On the other hand, shou1d the Project
come in over the Commitment Estimate, Idaho Power would
have to demonstrate to the Commissi-on that amounts above
the Commitment Estimate were prudently incurred and should
be recovered in rates.
The return on equity the Company expects to earn on
the Project investment is the authorized rate in effect at
the time the Project is placed in service. Idaho Power
wil-l- depreciate the investments over the remaining Iife of
the Jim Brldger Pl-ant in accordance with the IPUC-approved
depreciation rates in effect at the time the investment is
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 71
Idaho Power Company
1 closed-to-plant. The Company's current depreciatj-on rates
2 were approved in Case No. IPC-E-12-08, Order No. 32559.
3 Q. Why is the Company requesting a CPCN order
4 by November 29, 20!3?
5 A. The LNTP concept described above was used
6 to reduce the risk and upfront costs of a EulI Notice to
7 Proceed ("FNTP") until the final- ruling from the EPA j-s
I released, and to ensure the EPC Contractor can meet the
9 deadl-ines for inst.allation as per the Wyoming Regional
10 Haze SIP. A provision in the LNTP states that December L,
11 2073, whj-ch is defined as the FNTP Date, is the deadline by
!2 which the FNTP must be issued in order for the EPC
l-3 Contractor to attain the Project completlon guarantee dates
L4 wj-thout requiri-ng a contract change. Idaho Power and
15 PacifiCorp have agreed thatr dS long as the FNTP is issued
76 on or before December L, 2073, neither the EPC Contract
t7 price nor the Project guarantee dates wil-l- be adjusted.
18 The Company is requesting a CPCN order by November 29,
19 2013r so that 1n the event that a favorable CPCN order is
20 issued, the Company will be able to approve PacifiCorp's
21 execution of the FNTP by December L, 2073.
22 O. Why is the Company requesting the Commission
23 provide authorization and binding ratemaking treatment for
24 the Company's SCR investments j-n Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4
25 pursuant to ldaho Code S 6L-541?
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 18
Idaho Power Company
A. Because of the uncertainty and political
2 realities surrounding the topic of coal-fired generation
3 descri-bed in the testimony of Ms. Grow, the Company is
4 concerned that decisj-ons made today may be second guessed
5 in the future. Even with a favorable determination
6 provided with a certificate, the risk of disallowance at a
7 future date is a concern for the Company. Eor that reason,
I the Company is requesting that the Commission provide
9 binding ratemaking treatment under Idaho Code S 67-54L.
10 O. Does ldaho Code S 6L-541 require the
11 Commission to make certaj-n determinations regarding Idaho
L2 Power's activities as a regulated utility?
13 A. The law provides that the Commission will
1,4 determine whether: (1) the utility has a Commission-
15 accepted integrated resource plan in effect, (2) the
1,6 Project is in the public interest, (3) the utility has
\7 considered other resources, (4) the Project is reasonable
18 compared to other resource options such as energy
L9 efficiency, demand-side management, and other alternative
20 sources of supply or transmission, and (5) the utility
2L participates in regional transmission planning.
22 O. Based upon the information the Company has
23 presented in this case, will the Commission be abfe to make
24 these determinations with regard to Idaho Power?
25
YOUNGBLOOD, DI L9
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
A.
the Company's
that are filed
Yes. This information has been
testj-mony, and in the CoaI Study
with this case.
addressed in
and 2013 IRP
V. SI'MI{ARY
o.In sunrmary, what specifically is the Company
requesting the Commission to incl-ude in its CPCN order?
A.Idaho Power believes that the results of the
CoaI Study conducted by the Company (SAIC analysis and
Idaho Power's Aurora simulation) and the portfolio costs
identified j-n the 2013 IRP clearly demonstrate that the
investment in SCR systems at Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4
represent the most cost-effective means of assuring
continued operation of the Jim Bridger Plant to provide
sufficient resources to reliably serve the growing demand
for energy within Idaho Power's service area. Even sor the
Company beli-eves that the current political and
environmental- climate provides additional risk of future
recovery of Company investments and necessitates a
transparent public process to review the resul-ts that
support the Company's conclusion. Therefore, the Company
requests the Commission evaluate the meri-ts of providing a
favorable CPCN order. Specifically, Idaho Power requests
that the Commission issue an order approving a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity by November 29, 20L3,
which finds that:
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 20
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
1,6
77
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
(1) The installation of Selective Catalytic
Reduction systems planned for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 is
consistent with Idaho Power's resource plans and j-s an
appropriate investment to assure the ongoing compliant
operation of the Jim Bridger Plant to reliably serve its
customers.
(2) Existing Wyoming and anticipated
federal regulations require the instal-l-ation of Sel-ective
Catalytic Reduction systems for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4
by December 37, 2015, and December 31, 2076, respectively.
(3) The approved Total Commitment Estimate
for the Project, including $11,889,437 in AEUDC is
$L29,837,393, which includes a Commitment Estimate for Jim
Bridger Unit 3 of $62,923,527 and a Commitment Estimate for
Jim Bridger Unit 4 of $66,913,866.
(4) Pursuant to Idaho Code S 6]--54L, the
Commission provides Idaho Power with authorization and a
binding commitment to provide rate base treatment, as
described previously in my testimony, for the Company's
capital investment in SCR controls at Jim Bridger Units 3
and 4 and related facil-ities up to the amount of the Total
Commitment Estimate of $L29,83'7,393 at such time the plant
is placed into operation. RetaiI customers wil-1 receive
the full benefit of the Project being completed under the
Total Commitment Estimate, while the Company will have the
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 27
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
t-0
11
72
13
1-4
15
16
77
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
opportunity
Estimate as
o.
A.
to justify any costs above the Total Commitment
prudently incurred for recovery.
Does this conclude your testimony?
Yes, it does.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 22
fdaho Power Company
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
t6
l7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
31
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Ada
ATTESTATION OF TESTIIONY
SS.
l, Michael J. Youngblood, having been duly sworn to
testify truthfully, and based upon my personal knowledge,
state the following:
I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the Manager
of Regulatory Projects in the Regulatory Affairs Department
and am competent to be a witness in this proceeding.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-filed testimony
and exhibits are true and correct to the best of my
information and belief.
DATED this 28th day of June 2073.
SUBSCRIBED AND
June 201,3.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 23
Idaho Power Company
before
ary Pu
Residing at:
My commission
or Idaho
{$f '1'(}"
olO
)t.r $ Jat&.,,ff
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-13-16
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
YOUNGBLOOD, DI
,TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.7
EXHIBIT NO.7
IS CONFIDENTIAL AND
WI LL BE PROVI DED TO
THE APPROPRIATE
PARTIES
UPON REAUEST AND
EXECUTION OF THE
PROTECTIVE
AGREEMENT