20160506Youngblood Direct and Exhibits.pdf

RECEIVED
t0l6fiAl -6 Ptt 3r l5
,, r, o,?ii, *o#t?fi 18u' o nr
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPATiIY' S APPLTCATION TO UPDATE ) CASE NO. IPC-E.16-11
SOLAR INTEGRATION RATES AND )CHARGES. )
)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
MICHAEL .T. YOUNGBLOOD
1 Q. Please state your name and business address.
2 A. My name is Michael J. Youngblood and my
3 business address is 7227 West Idaho Street, Boj-se, Idaho
4 83702.
5 Q. By whom are you employed and j-n what capacity?
6 A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
7 Power" or "Company") as the Manager of Regulatory Projects
8 in the Regulatory Affairs Department.
9 Q. Please descri-be your educational background.
10 A. In May of 7977, I received a Bachelor of
11 Sci-ence Degree in Mathematics and Computer Science from the
12 University of Idaho. Erom 1994 through L996, T was a
13 graduate student i-n the Executive MBA program of Colorado
L4 State University. Over the years, I have attended numerous
15 industry conferences and training sessions, including
16 Edison Electric Institute's "El-ectric Rates Advanced
!7 Course. "
18 O. Pl-ease describe your work experi-ence with
19 Idaho Power.
20 A. I began my employment with Idaho Power in
27 t971. During my career, I have worked j-n several
22 departments of the Company and subsidiaries of IDACORP,
23 Inc., including Systems Development, Demand Planning,
24 Strategic Planning, and IDACORP Sol-utions. Erom 1981 to
25 1988, f worked as a Rate Analyst in the Rates and Planning
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 1
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
1,2
13
14
15
16
77
18
T9
20
2\
22
23
24
25
Department where f was responsible for the preparation of
electric rate design studies and bill frequency analyses.
I was also responsible for the validation and analysis of
the load research data used for cost-of-service
allocations.
From 1988 through L991, I worked in Demand Planning
and was responsible for the l-oad research and Ioad
forecasting functions of the Company, including sample
desj-gn, implementation, data retrieval, analysj-s, and
reporting. I was responsible for the preparatj-on of the
five-year and twenty-year load forecasts used in revenue
projections and resource plansr dS well as the presentation
of these forecasts to the public and regulatory
commi-ssions.
From 1997 through 1998, f worked in Strategic
Planning. As a Strategic Planning Associ-ate, I coordinated
the complex efforts of acquiring Prairie Power Cooperative,
the first acquisition of its kind for the Company in 40
years. From 7996 to 1998r ds part of a Strategic Planni-ng
initiative, I helped develop and provide two-way
communicatj-on between customers and energy providers using
advanced computer technol-ogies and telecommunicatj-ons.
From 1998 to 2000, I was a General Manager of
IDACORP Solutj-ons, a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc., reporting
to the Vj-ce President of Marketing. f was directly
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
L6
L1
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
responsible for the direction and management of the
Commercial and Industrial Business Sol-uti-ons divi-sion.
fn 2001, I returned to the Regulatory Affairs
Department and worked on special projects related to
deregulation, the Company's Integrated Resource Plan
("IRP"), and filings with both the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") and the Public Utility Commission
of Oregon.
fn 2008, I was promoted to the position of Manager
of Rate Design. In that posi-tion I was responsible for the
management of the rate design strategies of the Company, as
wel-l- as the oversight of all tariff administration.
In January of 201"2, T became the Manager of
Regulatory Projects, which is my current position. In this
position, I provide the regulatory support for many of the
large individual projects and issues currently facing the
Company. I provided the regulatory support for the
incl-usion of the Langley Gulch power plant investment in
rate base and have supported the Company's efforts to
address numerous issues involving Qual-ifying Eacilities
(*QF") as defined under the Public Utility Regulatory
Pol-icies Act of I918 (*PURPA"), j-ncl-uding the Company's
efforts in Case No. GNR-E-11-03, the review of PURPA QE
contract provisions.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 3
fdaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
L6
L1
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
O. tr{hat is the purpose of your testimony in this
matter?
A.Idaho Power is requesting that the Commission
authorize the Company to update the solar integrati-on rates
and charges consistent with its most recently completed
solar integration study ("Solar Study"). The 2076 Sol-ar
Integration Study Report ("Study Report") is attached to
the Application filed contemporaneously with my testimony.
Philip DeVol's Direct Testimony provides a summary of the
Solar Study, a description of the rol-e of the Technical
Review Committee and process utilized for the analysis. and
the results of the 2076 Solar Study. The purpose of my
testimony is to provide the Commission with the Company's
request to update the incremental sol-ar integration charges
contained in Schedule 81, Intermittent Generatj-on
Integration Charg€s, based upon the costs identified by the
20!6 Solar Study.
O. Based on the resul-ts of the 2076 Sol-ar Study,
what is the cost of integrating solar generation on Idaho
Power's electrical system?
A.As presented in Mr. DeVoI's testimony, the
Solar Study analyzed four solar build-out scenarios at
j-nstal1ed capacities of : 400 megawatts ("MW"), 800 MW,
L200 MW, and 1600 MW. Table 9 on page 27 of the Study
Report shows the average integration costs per
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 4
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
L6
t1
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
megawatt-hour (*MWh") for each of the four build-out
scenarios. The costs identified by the Solar Study reflect
the costs to integrate solar generation for the calendar
year 201,6 and are reported in 2016 dollars. They are not
averaged or levelj-zed over the life of the solar project or
p1ant.
o.Does the Company propose to update Schedule 87
wlth incremental integration costs based upon the average
integratj-on costs identified in the Solar Study?
A. Yes. However, as demonstrated by the chart
be1ow, when a l-ine connecting the average integratlon costs
for each of the build-out scenarios is determined, it is
apparent that the average cost of integrating solar
generation is not a linear equation.
$0.90
$to.to
=$ so.zo
tr.! so.oo
.E
E Eo.so
g
f, so.+o
I oo.soo
S so.zogI so.ro
$0.00
Average $/MWh
y = 7E-13* - 2E-09x3 + 2E-06x2 + 0.0002x
R'= 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Nameplate Penetration Level of Solar Capacity (MW)
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 5
Idaho Power Company
1 By using the formula for the polynomial equation for
2 the trendline connecting the individual build-out average
3 costs, the average cost of solar integration can be
4 determj-ned at any discrete point along the line.
5 Therefore, based upon the average integration costs
6 determined in the 20L6 So1ar Study for each of the four
7 build-out scenarios, the average integration costs can be
8 determined at 100 MW increments.
9 Q. Have you provided an exhi-bit which shows how
10 the average costs of sol-ar integration at l-00 MW intervals
11 are used to determine the incremental costs of solar
L2 integration on Idaho Power's system?
13 A. Yes, my Exhibit No. 1. The first four cofumns
74 on Exhibit No. 1 reflect the cal-culations of the average
15 solar integration costs at 100 MW intervals, based upon the
16 2016 Solar Study buil-d-out scenarj-os. Col-umn A identif ies
L7 the individual- 100 MW interval designations. Column B uses
18 the formula for the polynomial equation for the trendline
19 shown on the chart above to determj-ne the average dollar
20 per MWh at each 100 MW interval. Column C reflects the
2l cumul-ative MWh for the j-ntervals based upon the average
22 load factor for each of the 400 MW blocks in the Solar
23 Study. Col-umn D is the simple multiplication of the
24 average dol1ar per MWh times the number of MWh in each
25 block to determine the cumulative average annual cost for
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 6
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
1,6
t1
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
1.
solar integration. The Sol-ar Study's buil-d-out scenarios
of 400 MW, 800 MW, 1200 MW, and 1600 MII'I are highlighted.
The average dollar per MWh for each of those build-out
scenarios is the same as those presented in Tabl-e 9 on page
2L of the Solar Report.
o.Please describe the remainder of Exhibit No.
A.The remainder of Exhibit No. !, columns E
through H, develops the incremental costs for integrati-ng
solar generation at 100 MW intervals. Column E uses column
D to determine the incremental annual cost in each 100 MI/'I
interval. Col-umn E reflects the incremental MWh for each
of the 400 MW build-out scenarios. Co1umn G simply dj-vj-des
column E by column F to calculate the incremental cost of
integration on a dollar-per-MWh basis. Column H calculates
the cumulative incremental cost for sol-ar integration.
Please note that the cumul-ative incremental costs in column
H are the same as the average annual- costs in column D.
However, wj-th the costs being allocated on an incremental
basis, the individual costs per MWh are more closely
aligned with the cause of those costs; thus, the initial
generation is assigned a lower cost than the later
generation, which is more costly to integrate.
o.Does column G in Exhibit No. 1 also reflect a
decrease in the incremental cost per MhIh around the 800 M[l{
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 7
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
t6
t1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
through L200 MW intervals?
decrease.
If sor please explaj-n this
A.Yes, it does. While the average cost per MWh
as shown on the chart on page 5 of my testimony is always
increasing, as I noted before, it is not a linear equation.
The Solar Study estimates the costs of the operational
modifications necessary to integrate the intermittent
generati-on from solar plants, where the operational
modifications are in the form of differing system reserve
requirements. Depending on the various resources that are
required to be run at various l-evels of integration, the
cost of those resources has an impact on the incremental
cost of integration at any given 1eve1. Exhibit No. 2 is a
step-wise chart depicting the incremental cost at each 100
MW interval. You will note that the decrease in the
incremental costs per MWh between the 800-1200 MV'I
penetration 1eve1s align with the change in slope of the
average cost per MWh shown in the chart on page 5. While
the average cost per MWh is still i-ncreasj-ng, it is
j-ncreasing at a sfower rate through that portion of the
chart. It steepens once again after the \200 MW 1eveI,
just as does the incremental cost per MWh shown on Exhibit
No. 2.
O. How do the incremental- 201,6 solar integration
costs shown in column G on Exhibit No. 1- compare to the
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 8
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1,4
15
16
77
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
incremental solar integration costs from the Company's 2074
Solar Study?
A.The 20L4 Solar Study was used to calculate the
solar integration charges currentl-y included in Schedule
87. In order to compare the costs between the two studies,
I took the non-levelized rates for the year 20L6 from each
of the solar capaclty penetration leveI sheets. (Schedule
8f, Sheet Nos. 81-9 through 87-15.) When compared to the
incremental integration costs from the 201-6 Sol-ar Study,
there is a signj-ficant decrease in the integration costs at
each interval. Exhibit No. 3 is a chart which graphically
depicts the comparison between incremental costs of solar
i-ntegration based upon the 201,4 Solar Study and updated
values provi-ded from the 20L6 Solar Study.
O. Have you provided the updated tables that the
Company is proposing will replace the tables contained in
Schedule 8'7?
A.Yes. Exhibit No. 4 contains 16 tables
would replace the tables in the current Schedule 87,
87-9 through 87-15, and would be used to create new
87-76 through 87-24. Each table discloses both the
which
Sheets
Sheets
levelized integration charger dS well as the non-levelized
stream of integration charge amounts listed by year. Just
Iike published avoided cost rates, the scheduled operation
date for the proposed generation project j-s used as the
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 9
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
t1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
o.
A.
starting point in the table, and each yearly amount through
the term of the proposed contract is set out accordingly.
The tables were created using the escalation and
discount rates from the 201,5 IRP, the Company's most recent
acknowledged IRP. The General O&M Escalation Rate of 2.20
percent and the Discount Rate (weighted average cost of
capital) of 6.74 percent can be found in the 20!5 IRP,
Appendix C - Technical Report, page 83.
Does this concLude your testimony?
Yes, it does.
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 10
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
't
8
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
I, 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 fdaho that the foregoing pre-fi1ed testimony
and exhj-bits are true and correct to the best of my
information and belief.
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Ada
SUBSCRIBED AND
May 2016.
ATTESTATIOII OF :IESrIIDIIT
ss.
DArED this t lday of tttay 2016.
expires: 72/20/2020
YOUNGBLOOD, Dr 11
Idaho Power Company
before / /1*s (t?' daY of
NoVary Publ for Idaho
Residing ati Star, Idaho
My commission
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-16-1 1
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
YOUNGBLOOD, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 1
9E
EEU=EoE EOll,rE
t $ ro N g, ra, N N ct, t @ !t t (\ @ o,(\l 0o lC, Ol $ F- N N (Il @ F @ O O G,!t- (7r- \ tO_ O)_ O)- N- \ l(l- r4,- 1 O- O)- O)- @- -ll,l, O $l t cD $ O F N i- lr(, O (D c4, (O lO(qr o (D l\ o lf, o lo o) fi, (o o N @ orFOlttOF@CDFNtlC, l\OJiJJJc{
ooooooooa66oooer0
G-tr-o>E=g,=EOtr
$@.(ft(olf,ror@toForo(o-O (4) lO i- O O) Ot CD CD O) O CD O (4, O)l!oooc)ooocrooocror-
er600Goo6aergaGo60G
E
o+E=E=otr
\t {- $ t r- I- i- N I\ ].- F- ]\ t\ I\ t\ FlO tO l() 1l) t t $ t l- l- l- N @ (O (l, (OcD- cD_ or_ ol ol ol (\f (\1 r(r_ ro_ ro_ to- o- o_ o- gr-*F 0ll (r) CO Gt (') (t, (O dl, (O (O (O (Ol.c, ro lo 1.) r{) r() lc, ro lf, r(, lr) 1.) ro t() ro to!F'F!Fr-
tEO=oboElEo=
.J=
=<
$ O N nl (o i- C, t- l(, $ (O O) @ (O -(\ @ I- t 14, N $ Ct F I- lf,) C) @ (O O C)! \r- cD_ (Y)- o- rr- o- (\t lo- @- cD- (o- N_ o_ C,)_ o- (l?
l{il $ (\l tF O) F lI1, !F O t i- 3r, F (i) N €N lfl O O (Y, $ IO rO .t CO !, $ (O - g)tFFFrF6lN
g e, @ e, 6 e e 6 G e, e e o e, o aG
oooC'I (Jo-bs>=<E
s t t.c, N cD rcl N N cD s o t $ N @ o)$l @ l4) O) $ F- N N C7, (o N (O O O G,t .rt_ cD_ F-_ lO- o)_ CD_ crL \ !n- lf,r- -_ O- O)- O)_ @_ qlO O N tt 0f, $ O,F (! l- t(, O CD (v) (O tO(r) @ (O F- () l{1l O lJ) Ct, (O (O O I- O O,F N t ro N O Cr, a Ol A tO_ I-_ O-
!FF-N
g666G6600ereroG@@@6
oEll -.
E=
O $ @ r, N (7) C) l.- fi, O l- $ O f- * r Ctl{:) O (O tF (O l{) O @ rO (f) F f- $ r i:CD O, O O O o/) 14, O (O CD lJ) tF N c) G,
- (r) l12 ti J rt F- d .+ F- - td - FJ {f) OttO O l{) O (O (O N F- C! @ C) Ct, .t O tto(r) $ (g t\ CD O- 6l <')- lo- @_ O_ Ot- - 0.r- lt-
!FrFtFF(\NN
o-
H=&B
o s o o N (o t N N N t(, o o) (Y) C) toq q r r C\l G? a u? u? q q q q \ \ \oqooooooooooooooooo@ a 6 6 0 e e, @ o e, e, e 0 a o ero
frE
sf;=
EE
ooooooooooooooooc)ooooooooooooooooF (! cO t lf) (O i- O CD O N 0D t lf) (g
-r-
troa-#GL
C".9EE
Lg
oortsoolu+,oo
C'
I G+,tr9oEoL(,
E
E'trGoo
cD
IELo
o
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-16-1 1
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
YOUNGBLOOD, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.2
o
cDL(Eso
tr
.9+,GL.
cDo+,E
L
-goo
-G*Jtro
EoEoE
E'ooo
CLoLo.
(to(o
oolo
ootF
oo(o
aoN
rt
=3
o'EoalOCL
-G o
ogoocr, o
o
OEcr>@j
o
OG
oEoor8so
CIoOG;xt!"-
ooi
oo(e
oo(\l
0o
o
(qi nB) lsoC uo;1uOqulllos lquetucrcul
Exhibit No.2
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-16-1 1
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
YOUNGBLOOD, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.3
c,o
c,o10
r'-*
-Looa-L6o.
Eoo
o
PG,to
F-t
@.It#
TEL.oo*,g
E
-goo
I G+,tro
EoL
e,e
t'f t
FtEa(,8liE
boItI
$UI
t
.TroGI
E
ooqqrt
C'oei
qqqBE;
eoo@ol4,@rarcttlo!.i o.i G.i 6i ;*o*g}an
(tmry$ po{, uogrrGqtrt rqoS lqmuercrrl
o{U,
(o(ot
€*o6l
B3
6t
trIIb*
ra:ofil
I
$3a
.90
he
T6ar,o
&
I
L
,L
-l
rlo6-G
lo6l;a)
q
IDt*
Exhibit No. 3
Garo No.|PC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Fago 1 ofl
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC,E-16-1 1
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
YOUNGBLOOD, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.4
0 - t00 tW Solar Capacity Penebation Level
NON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON.
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.04
0.04
0.u
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.M
0.M
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
LEVELlzED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
202',1
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 1 of 16
l0{ - 200 tW Solar Gapacity Penebation lovel
NON-LEVELlzED
CONTRACT
YFAFI
NON.
LEVELIZED
RATES
,sruwh\
2016
20't7
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203/.
203s
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
204',!
0.16
0.17
o.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
o.20
0.20
0.20
0.21
o.2'l
0.22
o.22
o.23
0.23
o.24
o.24
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
LEVEL'ZED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELlZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.2'l
0.21
o.22
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 2 of 16
201 - 300 fIY Solar Gapacity Penetration Level
I{ON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
20't7
2018
20't9
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
o.42
0.43
0.4
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.s6
0.57
0.s8
0.59
LEVELIZED
ON.LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.4
0.44
0.45
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 3 of 16
301 - '000 tW Solar Gapacity Penetration Level
NON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
{s/MWh}
2016
2017
2018
20't9
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203/,
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
204'.|
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.61
0.63
0.64
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.75
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
LEVELZED
ON.LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh'l
2016
2017
20'18
2019
2020
2021
0.ar
0.65
0.67
0.68
0.70
0.71
Exhibit No.4
Case No.lPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 4 of 16
40{ - 500 WV Solar Capacity Penetration Level
LEVELlzED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
/s/MWhr
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.94
1{ON.LEVELlzED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
20'18
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
20%
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.71
0.73
0.75
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.18
't.20
1.23
Exhibit No.4
Case No.IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 5 of 16
501 - 600 MUll Solar Gapacity Penetraffon Level
LEVELIZED
ON.LINE YEAR
20YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.01
1.03
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.13
1{ON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON.
LEVELIZED
RATES
($/MWh)
2016
2017
20't8
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
203'.1
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.86
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.09
1.',t1
1.13
1.16
1.19
1.21
1.24
't.26
't.29
1.32
1.35
1.38
1.41
1.44
'1.47
Exhibit No. 4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 6 of 16
601 - 700 tW Solar Gapacity Penetraton Level
LEVELIZED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
20'19
2020
2021
1.12
1.15
1.'.17
1.20
1.22
1.25
T{ON.LEVEL'ZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON.
LEVELIZED
RATES
(sruwh)
2016
2017
20'18
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.18
1.20
1.23
1.26
1.29
1.31
1.y
1.37
1.40
1.43
1.46
1.50
1.53
1.56
1.60
1.63
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 7 of 16
701 - 800 tW Solar Gapactty Penetration lovel
LEVELIZED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELlZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
2017
20't8
2019
2020
2021
1.17
1.20
1.22
1.25
1.28
1.30
NON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
fs/MWh)
2016
20'17
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
20%
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.18
1.20
1.23
1.26
1.28
1.31
1.v
1.37
1.40
1.43
1.46
1.49
1.53
1.56
1.60
1.63
1.67
't.70
Exhibit No.4
Case No.IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 8 of 16
801 - 900 tW Solar Gapacity Penetration Level
LEVELlzED
ON.LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
20't8
20't9
2020
202'.1
1.16
1.19
'1.21
'1.24
't.27
1.30
1{ON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YFAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
20'16
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.98
1.00
1.03
1.05
1.O7
1.09
1.'.|.2
1.14
1.',17
1.19
1.22
'1.25
't.28
1.30
1.33
1.36
1.39
1.42
1.45
1.48
1.52
1.55
1.59
1.62
1.66
1.69
Exhibit No.4
Case No.|PC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 9 of 16
90{ - 1000 tlUU Solar Gapacaty Penetration Level
LEVELlzED
ON.LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
20't7
2018
2019
2020
202',1
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.19
1.22
1.25
NON.LEVELtrED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203/
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.94
0.96
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.'.tz
1.15
1.17
1.20
1.23
1.25
1.28
1.31
1.v
1.37
1.40
1.43
't.46
1.49
1.52
1.56
1.59
1.63
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 10 of 16
100{ - ll00 m Sohr Capacity Penetraton Level
LEVELIZED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwht
2016
20't7
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.06
1.08
1.l'.!
't.13
1.16
1.18
NOil.LEVELlzED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(S/IrrWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
202',1
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.90
o.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.U
1.07
1.09
1.11
'l .14
1.16
1.19
1.22
1.24
't.27
't.30
1.33
1.36
1.39
1.42
1.45
1.48
1.51f.il
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 11 of 16
l{0t - 1200 tW Solar Capacity Penetration Leve!
LEVELIZED
ON.LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.15
NOl{.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
203',1
2032
2033
203/
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.9s
0.97
0.99
1.01
1,M
1.06
1.08
1.11
1.13
1.16
1.18
1.21
't.23
1.26
'1.29
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.41
1.44
'|..47
1.50
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 12 of 16
l2O1 - 1300 tW Solar Capacity Penetration Leve!
LEVELlzED
ON-LINE YEAR
20YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
20'17
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.O7
1.09
1.',t2
1.14
1.17
1.19
1{O1{.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r',
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.15
1.17
1.20
1.23
1.25
1.28
1.31
1.v
1.37
1.40
1.43
1.46
1.49
1.52
1.56
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 13 of 16
l30t - t'000 MW Solar Capacity Penetration Level
LEVELZED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.24
'l .27
1.30
1.33
1.36
1.39
NON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
20'|.7
2018
2019
2020
202',1
2022
2023
2024
202s
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'r
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
1.05
1.07
1.10
1.12
1.15
1.17
1.20
1.22
't.25
1.28
1.31
1.33
1.36
1.39
1.42
1.46
1.49
1.52
1.55
1.59
1.62
1.66
'1.70
1.73
1.77
1.81
Exhibit No.4
Case No.lPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 14 of 16
1101 - 1500 ffi Solar Gapacity Penetraton Lew!
LEVELlzED
ON-LINE YEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1.61
1.65
1.69
't.72
1.76
1.80
ilON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON-
LEVELIZED
RATES
ISruWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203/.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
20/.1
1.36
1.39
'l .42
1.46
'1.49
1.52
1.55
1.59
1.62
1.66
1.70
1.73
1.77
1.81
1.85
1.89
1.93
1.97
2.02
2.06
2.',t1
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-16-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 15 of 16
1501 - 1600 tW SolarGapacity Penetraton Lewl
NON.LEVELIZED
CONTRACT
YEAR
NON.
LEVELIZED
RATES(sruwh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
203r'.
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
1.91
1.95
2.OO
2.U
2.09
2.13
2.18
2.23
2.28
2.33
2.38
2.43
2.48
2.il
2.59
2.65
2.71
2.77
2.83
2.89
2.95
3.02
3.09
3.15
3.22
3.29
LEVEL!ZED
ON.LINEYEAR
20 YEAR
CONTRACT
TERM
LEVELIZED
RATES
(s/MWh)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2.26
2.3',1
2.36
2.41
2.47
2.52
Exhibit No.4
Case No. IPC-E-I6-11
M. Youngblood, IPC
Page 16 of 16