20170623Porter Rebuttal.pdf

An IDACORP Company
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Counse!
dwal ker@idahopower. com
June 23,2017
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Diane M. Hanian, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-16-28
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Wood River Valley
ldaho Power Company's Rebuttal Testimony
Dear Ms. Hanian
Enclosed for filing in the above matter are an original and eight (8) copies each of
the RebuttalTestimony of N. Vern Porter and the Rebuttal Testimony of David M. Angell.
One copy of each of the aforementioned testimonies has been designated as the
"Reporter's Copy." ln addition, a disk containing Word versions of the testimonies is
enclosed for the Reporter.
Very truly yours,
It-;SEffi*.
?ild!/\-
':-t., .l
Donovan E. Walker
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. ldaho 5t. (83702)
PO. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
BEFORE THE TDAHO PUBLIC UTILTTIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OE THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE WOOD RIVER
VALLEY
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF
N. VERN PORTER
CASE NO. ]PC-E-16-28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
O. Please state your name and business address.
A. My name is N. Vern Porter and my business
address is 7221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83102.
O. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
Power" or "Company") as the Vice President of Transmission
and Distribution Engineering and Construction and Chief
Safety Officer.
Pl-ease descri-be your educational- background.
of Brigham Young University
of Science in electrical-where I received my
engineering in 1985
o
A10 Iama graduate
Bachelort_ t_
L2
13
L4
15
and Master of Sci-ence in 1986. I also
received my
from Boise
o.
Executive Master of Business Administration
State University in 20L3.
Pl-ease describe your work experience with
L6 Idaho Power.
L7 A. I joined Idaho
18 career in 1986 with Pacific
79
20
21,
22
23
24
25
Power in 1989 after starting my
Gas and Blectric Company. I
have held a variety of positions within Idaho Power,
incl-udinq high voltage transmission engineer, system
planner, technical operations engineer, energy trader,
senior manager of grid operations, senior manager of
customer service, and general manager of power production.
In October 2009, I was named Vice President of Delivery
Engineering and Construction.
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
1
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
fn December 20L3t T was appointed to l-ead a Company-
wide safety initiative to transform the safety cul-ture and
work with all business units to j-mprove safety for
employees and the public. In April 2015, I became the Vice
President of Customer Operations, a position I hel-d until-
my current position. On March \, 2011 , I assumed the rol-e
of Vice President of Transmission and Distribution
Engineering and Construction and Chief Safety Officer for
Idaho Power.
O. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony
in this matter?
A. The purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to
respond to issues addressed in the direct testimony of the
other parties to this case, particularly those of Idaho
Pub]ic Utilities Commission Staff ("Staff") witness Michael
Morrison. I will generally address three main areas in my
testimony: (1) the significance and necessity of the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission's ("Commission") determination
regarding the
North VaIley
obligation to
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
t7
1B
19
20
23
need to provide a
in order for Idaho
redundant l-ine into the
Power to meet its
21,reliably serve the public; (2) the need to
kil-ovolt ("kV") transmission22 reconstruct the existing 138
24
line currentl-y serving the North Va11ey; and (3) the
appropriate base case line route and configuration from
which any potential additional incremental- cost is25
PORTER, REB 2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
cal-culated and allocated to the local jurisdictions, if the
Commission determines a redundant line to be required.
I will discuss the multiple factors Idaho Power
considered when determining the need for the redundant
transmission line for the North Valley and discuss j-ssues
and concerns that were considered when choosing the
proposed route and request for a Certifi-cate of Pub1ic
Convenj-ence and Necessity (*CPCN") .
I. RELIABLE UTTLITY SERVICE
O. From your perspective, what is the primary
j-ssue or problem the Company is trying to address and sol-ve
when proposing to construct a redundant 138 kV transmission
fine from the Wood River substation, near Hailey, to the
Ketchum substation?
A. The primary i-ssue is reliability of el-ectric
service. A long-term power outage caused by the l-oss of
the single transmissj-on line serving the North VaJ-1ey,
particularly during extreme weather conditions, poses a
risk to the community that Idaho Power bel-ieves should be
addressed. After considering all avail-abl-e opti-ons to
provide adequate reliability, the Company has proposed
building a redundant transmission l-ine as the most cost
effective and viable solution to address this reliability
issue. This is consistent with how fdaho Power has
planned, designed, constructed, and operated its system
10
11
L2
13
L4
1trJ-J
1,6
!1
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
PORTER, REB
fdaho Power
3
Company
1 across its service territory, and is consistent with the
2 prudent e.l-ectric utility design, planning, and system
3 configuration of many other utilities. Idaho Power witness
4 David M. AngeII, Transmission and Distribution Planning
5 Managar, will- further discuss the Company's planning
6 process and util-ity practices in his rebuttal testimony.
1 Q. Have you reviewed the testimony provided by
B Staff witness Michael- Morri-son?
9 A. Yes. Mr. Morrj-son u1timately concludes that
10 there is no demonstrated need for a redundant
arguing that the existing radial-
reliable on its own and that it
provide redundant facilities.
Is this consistent with prudent
1ine,
11
L2
utility
t-5
essentially
suf f icj-entIy
expensive to
o.
practices of
l-ine is
is too
13
L4
76
L1
1B
L9
20
21
22
23
24
expected of
service to
its provision of
reliability
essential
the public?
A. No, Idaho Power designs its system to meet
certain reliabil-ity and service quality standards. When
certain criteria are met, redundant service is provided to
reduce the risk, cost, and potential damage to the public
from interruption of service or long-term outage. The
North Va11ey area has grown to such a size, is relatively
remote with difficul-t access to facilities, and has a
substantial seasonal- resort economy-that the risk of harm
system design
the Company in
and the level of
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
4
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
from a potential long-term outage and the potential
catastrophic effects of a long-term outage during extreme
winter conditions when North Val1ey electric l-oad peaks is
be served by a single, radial- feed-no matter
10
too great to
how reliable
the past.
o.
considered if
to serve the
A.
provided by
Wood River
that sj-ngIe transmj-ssion l-ine may have been in
What are some of the risks the Company has
transmi-ssion l-ineit were to rely on just one
North Va1ley?
The North ValIey's electrical- supply is
the L2.4 mi-l-e transmi-ssion line between the
substation and Ketchum substation. If the line
11
L2
13 has a problem that resul-ts in an outage, the North Va11ey
1,4 residents and businesses wil-I l-ose power until the l-ine is
15 restored. Portj-ons of the line are in rough terrain and
76 difficult to access, especially during the winter. If the
t7 l-ine were to fail- in one of these difficult access areas
18 during the winter, it could take several- days or weeks to
19 restore electric service, jeopardizing public safety,
20 essential services, businesses, and increasing the
27 potential for extensive property damage. It is not a
22 question of tf, but when some event (ice loading,
23 avalanche, high winds, fire, etc. ) w111 take the line out
24 of service and the North Valley wil-l be without power for
25 multiple days. An event similar to this described scenario
PORTER, REB 5
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
o
9
unfolded earli-er this year in Jackson HoIe, Wyoming. In
February, heavy snow and strong winds toppled 71 steel
power poles supporting the single transmission l-ine
supplying the resort and local area. Below i-s a photograph
showing some of the downed structures.
10
11 :#rs.**I
72
13
74
15
76
71
1B
79
20
2t
22
23
24
a
'1
I
It took five days to restore power. Keep in mind
that the 1,7 poles were easily accessible on flat terraln as
they were directly adjacent to the maj-n road to the Jackson
Hole resort, not up 1n the mountains, dS is the case with
portions of Idaho Power's transmission Iine servi-ng the
North Va11ey. The outage dlsrupted vacation plans and
closed snow-dependent businesses during one of the area's
busiest months.
PORTER, REB
fdaho Power
6
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O. Have other communities taken comparable
reliabil-ity measures in constructing redundant transmission
service ?
A. Yes. Reliability concerns are not new or
unique to Idaho Power. Idaho Power has installed redundant
transmission l-ines to other mountain communi-ties that have
faced similar issues to provide adequate servj-ce to
residents and businesses. In McCall, for example,
historical-1y, the loss of its single 138 kV transmission
Iine serving the area during high l-oad periods resulted in
rotating outages. Idaho Power successfully worked with the
city and others to construct a second 138 kV line to the
McCaIl substation. Now that community enjoys a significant
10
11
72
13
L4 boost in reliabil-ity that supports future economic growth
15 and the safety of the public.
!6 Examples of other area resort-based communities that
L7 are somewhat similarly situated as the North VaIIey and
18 have built redundant transmission l-ines to support reliable
L9 utility service are:
20 o Vail, Colorado-served by redundant 115 kV
2l l-i-nes.
22 . Aspen, Colorado-served by redundant 115 kV
23 lines.
24 o Park City, Utah-served by two 138 kV l-ines
25 and a sJ-ngle 46 kV line. Rocky Mountain Power is not
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
7
Company
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
B
Y
capabl-e of serving the entire load after the loss of one
138 kV l-ine and is planning to buil-d an additional 138 kV
l-ine to Park City.
O. Why does the Company believe that it is
necessary to file for a CPCN at this time?
A. After the 2009 Christmas outage, where Wood
River customers were out of power between approximately 1-1
to 21 hours, Idaho Power met with citizens, businesses, and
city and county leaders. The Company committed that it
would move forward on two transmission projects identified
in the 2007 Wood River Electrical- Plan to improve
reliability in the area:
1. Reinforce the transmission service to
Ir'Iood River substation; and
2. Build a redundant line between Wood
River-Ketchum.
V0ith respect to the first commitment, Idaho Power
will- complete the rebuild of the King to Wood River 138 kV
Iine j-n 2071 (originally built in 7962, as was the Wood
River to Ketchum line). The Company has been abl-e to
rebuil-d the King to Wood River l-ine with the l-ine de-
energj-zed due to the existence of a second transmission
line serving the Wood River substation. This has resulted
in cost savlngs, improved reliability, and enhanced safety
for workers during the rebuil-d process when compared to
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
B
Company
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
trying to rebuil-d the l-ine while energized. This is the
exact same de-energized ability and benefits that would be
avail-abl-e when rebuil-dlng the existi-ng Wood River-Ketchum
line if the proposed redundant Wood River-Ketchum l-ine is
in pIace.
With respect to the second commitment, Idaho Power
has worked with the Community Advisory Committee ("CAC"),
community leaders, businesses, residences, etc., to develop
a practical solution that woul-d provide additional safety
and security to the North Va11ey. Idaho Power has looked
at other alternatives (e.9., so1ar, storage, diesels), but
the redundant l-ine is the least expensive and most viable
alternative to provide adequate reliability for al-l- North
Val1ey customers.
After all the discussions, meetings, open houses,
and many varying opinions, it is time that a decision is
made on the l-evel of reliabil-ity that ldaho Power is
required to provide its customers in the North Wood Rj-ver
Valley. One of the reasons for filing for this CPCN is to
get the stakehol-ders together and have the Commission make
a decision about whether the Company's obligation to
reliably serve as a public utility requires the
construction of a redundant transmission l-ine to the North
VaIley.
10
11
L2
1_3
L4
15
76
t7
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
9
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Idaho Power believes that, consistent with the
prudent planning, design, construction, and operation of
its entire system, its obligation to reliably serve as a
public utility requires the construction of a redundant
transmission l1ne to the North Val-Iey. While there are
several parties that disagree with this fundamental-
determination, there are al-so numerous parties that desire
and support the construction
Commission determi-nes that a
of a redundant line. If the
redundant
10 there are
11
significant issues related
and cost responsibility for
w111 discuss later 1n my
the
the
issue that
situation in North
redundant transmission
line is required,
the configuration,to
routi-ng,
which I
that redundant 1ine,
testimony. However, there
Commission must resolve:
Val1ey require the
line in order to
L2
13
t4
15
\6
L7
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
is this threshold
Does the present
construction of a
mitigate the risk to public safety, essential- services,
businesses, and property damage posed by an extended outage
of the current radial- transmission service and for Idaho
Power to meet its obligati-on to reliably serve that portion
of the public? Idaho Power, the CAC, as wel-l- as varj-ous
businesses and members of the North Va1ley community,
bel-ieve that a long-term power outage caused by the l-oss of
the single transmission line servj-ng the North Valley
during extreme weather conditions poses a risk to the
PORTER, REB
fdaho Power
10
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
community that is unacceptabl-e and requires construction of
a redundant transmission l-ine as proposed.
II. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING LII{E
O. Are there any problems with the existing line?
A. The existing transmission line, while
historically performing very wel-1, is aging and needs to be
rebuilt. It was buil-t in 7962 and passes through
mountainous areas that are extremely difficult to access,
particularly in the winter months. It is worthy of note
that Idaho Power has maintained the line well, resulting i-n
few outages. However, this wood-pole transmj-ssion l-ine is
aging and the risk of fail-ure is increasj-ng-driving the
need to take actj-on. Several- structures have been severely
damaged by woodpeckers and some have been replaced. It is
a mistake to assume that because the l-j-ne has performed
weII in the past that it wiII continue to do so, especially
10
11
12
13
74
15
t6
l1 as it ages.
18 As the line ages, the probability of fai1ure will
19 increase and therefore the Company must rebuild the
20 existing line. It is important to note that the rebuild of
27 the existing line is an independent j-ssue and does not
22 alleviate the need to build a redundant line. The rebuil-t
23 line will provide a "reset" on the strength and capability
24 of the existing l-ine; however, the North Valley would sti1l
25 be exposed to the risk and lmpacts of losing that single
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
11
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
line. In other words, the existing line will- need to be
rebuilt regardless of, and independent of, any
determination as to the construction of a redundant l-ine.
If the proposed redundant l-ine is authorized by the
Commission and constructed by the Company, then the rebuild
of the existing line can be coordinated with the redundant
l-ine, and completed with little to no interruption of
service in a much safer manner for work crews and the
public. If the redundant line is not authorj-zed or
constructed, the existing Iine wil-l- still need to be
rebuil-t. A temporary line will- need to be constructed to
10
11
L2 provide service to the North Va11ey whil-e the
13 is rebuilt,
This wou.l-d
and then removed once construction
existing line
is complete.
74 result in significant waster ds the resources
15 used for the temporary line could al-ternatively be applied
76 to constructing a permanent redundant solutj-on.
17 O. Staff witness, Mr. Morrison, recommended that
18 the Commission direct the Company to install a temporary
19 overhead transmission line as necessary to faci-Iitate the
20 repair of the existing transmission l-ine. What issues do
27 you see with bullding a temporary transmission line and
22 then rebuilding the existing Wood River-Ketchum l-ine?
23 A. As I stated, and as Staff recognized,
24 regardless of the Commission's determination as to the
25 necessity of a redundant transmission l-ine, the existi-ng
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
L2
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
U
9
l-ine wil-l- need to be rebuilt. The temporary line option
suggested by Staff j-nvolves building a temporary 138 kV
overhead transmisslon l-ine from Wood River to Ketchum 1n a
route separate from the existing line. This l-ine would
then be energi-zed whil-e the existing l-ine is rebuil-t.
After construction is complete, the temporary line would be
removed. It is estj-mated the "temporary" line will be in
place for approximately two years. On the surface this may
appear to be a simple viabl-e option, but severa1
prohibitive issues remain. First and foremost, Idaho
Power's overall objective of achieving adequate rellability
w1l-l not be achieved as there would still be a radial- l-ine
(albeit new) serving the North Va11ey. The other
prohibitive factor j-s the same routing barriers associated
with routing a permanent overhead Iine through Blaine
County and the city of Ketchum wil-l- be present when
attempting to route the temporary line. Idaho Power vj-ews
routing any overhead transmission line through the city of
Ketchum, whether new or temporary, as not viabl-e for many
of the same reasons a permanent overhead transmj-ssion l-ine
is not a vj-abIe option. In addition, the temporary J-ine in
the downtown Ketchum area could be nearly as costly as a
permanent overhead l-iner ds self-supporting steel poles
will be required due to street overhang and the numerous
angles and turns required in the route. Fina11y, Idaho
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
\7
18
!9
20
2L
22
23
24
13
Company
25
1 Power expects the same legal challenges and delays to be
2 experienced as well-.
3 At the end of this process, and after great effort
4 and expense, the communities in the North Va11ey will be
5 l-eft in the same compromised reliabili-ty situatj-on as they
6 are today-exposed to the potential risk to public safety,
7 essential services, and business and property damage that
8 could result with the loss of the single, radial
9 transmission line. Rather than waste resources on a
10 temporary Iine that would be removed and salvaged, it makes
11 sense to apply these efforts and resources to a more
L2 permanent and rel-i-able sol-ution for the
the redundant transmission
North Va11ey by
fine.13
1,4
constructing
rrr.APPROPRIATE BASE CASE FOR COST AILOCATION
15 O. Staff recommends that if the Commission
1,6 authori-zes the constructi-on of a redundant l-ine that it
L1 "order the Company to consider the Overhead Transmission
18 route through downtown Ketchum as the base case for
19 determining the cost to be borne by the Company's general
20 body of rate payers, and that any additional costs of
27 undergrounding be funded 1oca11y. "1 Staff stated that "the
22 Company has explored Overhead Transmissj-on options that are
23 technically feasibl-e, and that may not require easements.
24 The Company rejected these options because of local-
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
L4
Company
1 Morrison Dlrect, p. 2'7.
1 aesthetic concerns."2 Further, Staff was critical- of the
2 Company for selecting the Overhead Distribution routing and
3 configuration as a base case stating, "the Company's
4 proposed base case appears to be an inadequate, non-
5 standard alternative used to justify the high cost of its
6 preferred route. "3 Does Idaho Power agree with Staff's
7 recommendation and comments regarding the appropriate base
8 case line route and configuration?
9 A. No. Staff appears to have inappropriately
10 focused upon aesthetic and visual- impact conslderations,
11 and makes l-ittl-e to no mention of the several other factors
72 that are considered in selecting an appropriate base case
13 scenarlo from which to measure potential- incrementaf cost
L4 increases attributable to local- jurisdictions. Staff has
15 fail-ed to recognize any distinction with regard to an
16 overhead 138 kV transmj-ssion line routed through downtown
17 Ketchum in what is theoretically possible from an
18 engineering perspective and what is practj-caI, feasible,
t9 and prudent to route, permj-t, construct, and operate.
20 The Company does not disagree with the general
27 principles set forth by Staff: That typically overhead
22 construction of transmissj-on lines is the lowest cost, most
23 predominant method of construction, and that typically
2 Morrison Direct, p
3 Morrison Direct, p
20
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
15
Company
aa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
municipalities or local jurisdlctions
facil-ities to be l-ocated underground
aesthetic reasons are responsible for
that require
for their own
the incremental- cost
difference between those facilities and
However, this 1s
or order.
the cost of
not mandated by
There is no
overhead construction.
any partj-cular statute,
irrebuttable presumpt j-on
customers coul-d never be
underground facil-ities .
ru1e,
that
responsible
Idaho Power
Idaho Power's body of
for the cost of
frequently informs and
10 reminds local- municipal-ities and jurisdictions that such
11 local- requirements must be paid for by the l-ocal- customers
LZ and jurisdictions that benefit from them, and cannot be
l-3 passed on to the larger body of ldaho Power customers to
74 pay for. In fact, fdaho Power has informed North Va1ley
15 residents, specifically incl-udlng Ketchum, of this standard
76 and requirement. However, the situation here is different,
\7 in particular, because an overhead 138 kV transmission l-ine
18 through downtown Ketchum j-s not a viable route. As
19 previously stated in the Company's Application, testimoDy,
20 and discovery responses, an overhead transmissj-on route
27 through downtown Ketchum is nelther practical nor feasible,
22 and because of this, it is not equitable to consider this
23 as a "base case" for cost determination. The least-cost,
24 viable option is the
overhead distribution
Company's selected base case of an
configuration for cost25
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
\6
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
determinations. The Company's reconrmended route, that
includes underground transmission through the city of
Ketchum is cost equj-valent to the lowest cost base case of
overhead distribution, but requj-res extending the overhead
transmission portion further north than recommended by the
CAC.
It is important to note that the
the Company's
more typical
miles of the Company' s Underground Transmission-TP1 option
11 is overhead 138 kV transmlssion l-ine from the Wood River
12 substation to just outside of the city of
10
proposed redundant line is
overhead line construction.
the last two miles into the
great majority of
comprised of the
The initial 9.2
Ketchum, where
configuration for
Ketchum
13 numerous constraints require a different
74
15
t6
L1
22
23
approximately
substation.
a.
final- portion
simply to
Ketchum. "a
Could the Company's proposal to construct the
of the 138 kV redundant transmission l-ine
18 underground be considered "special treatment" for the
L9 Ketchum community?
20 Staff was critical ofA the Company, accusing
and unnecessary cost27 Idaho Power of incurring additional
provi-de "aesthetic benefits to the City of
24 irrelevant,
Staff implies that aesthetic consj-derations are
improper, and inappropriate to even mention,
PORTER, REB 11
Idaho Power Company
a Morrison Direct, pp. 3, 15, 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
which is not the case.
not irrelevant and is
doing for the City of
always considers when
other considerations.
The Company's proposal is a combination overhead and
underground 138 kV transmj-ssj-on project and is the result
of collaboration with the CAC, customers, and city and
county l-eaders. Routing a transmission line through cities
and towns is complex and there is definitely not a "one-
size-fits-al-l-" approach. When routing a new transmission
line, whether in Ketchum or anywhere else in the Company's
service territory, the Company l-ooks at many factors,
including:
Consideration of visual impacts is
not something special Idaho Power is
Ketchum. It is somethlng Idaho Power
routing a new line, along with many
10
11
72
13
74
15 o Land use (existing and future)
16 o Right-of-way availabili-ty (public or
1"7 private) and ability and costs to secure easements
18 o Devel-opment density
19 o Constructability-topography and terrain
20 o Access during construction and for future
21 mai-ntenance
22 . Appficabl-e codes and zoning requi-rements
23 o Public perception
24 . Impacts to businesses and homes
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
18
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
o Visual-
o Noise
o Radio
o Safety
towers on corners that
impacts and aesthetics
impacts
interference impacts
impacts (close to buil-dings, big
block vision, etc. )
o Existing el-ectrical facil-ities
o Existing l-inear facillties (roads,
railroads, canals, trails, etc. )
o Natural- resource areas
10 Man-made obstructions (buildings, signs,
11 etc. )
72 a Natural obstruction (vegetation, trees,
13 1akes, r j-vers, etc. )
L4 a Economics
15 a Schools
76 a Airports and heliports
t7 Military facilities
18 a Shooting ranges (high vandalism)
L9 o Cultural areas
20 o Threatened and endangered species and
2l habitat
22 When considering these factors, Idaho Power works
with communitj-es and city/county l-eaders to find the best
route that balances impacts with costs.
23
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
L9
Company
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O. why
transmission line
is building an overhead 138 kV
through downtown Ketchum not a
or viable solution and not appropriate to be used
baseline ?
Typically, the Company looks
center and minimize impacts.
practical
as the
for ways to build
Unfortunately,
vaIley and the
already being
line. Most
engr-neer
l-ine
around a city
the Ketchum-Sun Val-l-ey area is
one option for bui1ding around
used by the existing Wood River
cities have reasonable routing
A
10 options where a balance can
11 be found between impacts and costs. The North Val1ey does
!2 not.
l-n a narrow
the city is
to Ketchum
to Ketchum, it is true that anWith respect
could theoretically
13
t4
15
76
71
20
27
24
route an overhead transmisslon
streets, and design it so that it would meet
18 street. The Company
19 sidewal-ks and squeeze
requi-rements. Idaho Power coul-d
put the conductors out over the
couJ-d put poles in the middl-e of
energized conductors between
j-s not a practical solution in this
through the
applicable
design long
clearance
arms that
buildings.
case. Vflhen
But that
looking at all- the factors the Company
22 considers when siting a new transmission l-ine, it is
23 unreal-istic to try to force an
Ketchum. It woul-d be similar to to
overhead route
attempting
line today
through
site and
through
PORTER, REB
fdaho Power
20
Company
25 buil-d a new overhead transmission
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
downtown Boise. It j-s not reasonabl-e to expect this to
occur because of the impacts, not just visual- or aesthetic,
but impacts as a whol-e.
O. As the Vice President of Transmission and
Distribution Engineering and Construction, did you provide
any direction to Mr. Ange11 with regard to pursuing the
overhead transmlssion l-ine option through the downtown
Ketchum corridor?
A. Yes. Idaho Power investigated severa1 routes
and sol-utions for continuj-ng the overhead portion of the
138 kV transmission l-ine al-1 the way to the Ketchum
substation, including overhead transmj-ssion through
downtown Ketchum. In addj-tion to all- of the challenges of
providing an overhead transmission option that are fuI1y
described in the Company's Application, Mr. Angell's direct
testimony, and in dj-scovery responses, Idaho Power
considered the ability and probabl-e costs of securing the
necessary easements. Securing easements through the
residential and downtown areas of Ketchum will- be
problematic. The Company believes that it woul-d be
required to condemn property, potentially need to buy out
property, be subject to inverse condemnation claims, and
spend years in court. Idaho Power anticipates these Iega1
actions will delay the transmission l-ine project for
significant periods of time and perhaps indefinitely, and
10
11
t2
13
74
15
L6
L1
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
PORTER, REB 2L
Idaho Power Company
25
1 it woul-d be extremely difficult to estimate what the total
2 cost could be. The ultimate result will- be Idaho Power's
inability to
for the North
achieve the reliability improvements needed
ValIey.
The Company believes
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
viable to buil-d an overhead
that it is impractical and not
transmi-ssj-on line through
too many impacts and the costare
10
downtown Ketchum. There
and time (and associated
easements afone make the
references an estimated
legaJ- challenges) to secure
project infeasible. Staff
cost of $18.5 mi]]ion for the
conductors.
of the estimate.
11 downtown Ketchum overhead route option, and it is important
72 to note that a specifi-c cost estimate was not developed for
13 the downtown Ketchum portion of this route as it was deemed
14 to not be viable. A theoretical route through Ketchum
15 woul-d require the majorlty of overhead structures to be a
L6 variation of a larger steel corner or dead-end type of
77 structure required to make the numerous 90 degree turns,
12 and 18 foot18span buildi-ngs, and support the estimated
Davit arms which hol-d the insulators and
Generj-c costs were used for this portion
79
21, The actual cost could be much more and, more
22 importantly, to determine that cost wou1d requj-re
23 significant additional- engineering and design cost and
24 investigation, for something the Company determj-ned to not
25 be feasibl-e. Therefore, I instructed Mr. Angell and his
20
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
22
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
team to determine alternative cost-effective sol-utions for
providing a rel-iabl-e source of energy to the North Va1ley.
For all the reasons dj-scussed, I did not consj-der a 138 kV
overhead transmission line through Ketchum an appropriate
or viabl-e basel-ine solution. Idaho Power bel-ieves that the
most viable and practical
demands for the residents
approach for meeting the el-ectric
of the North Valley is with the
a 138 kV overheadCompany's proposal
transmission line
to construct
from the Wood Ri-ver Transmission
11
10 east to Buttercup Road, then north along the bike
Station,
path and
72
Highway 15 to Elkhorn Road, at which point the transmission
line woul-d be constructed underground and proceed along the
hJ-ghway and in road rights-of-way to the Ketchum
substation. Throughout the Company's testimony, this route
has been identified as the Underground Transmission-TP1
option, and is the solution the Company views as striking a
bal-ance between the Company's obligations to provide low-
cost, reliable service and the communities' interests.
This is the option for which the Company is seeking a CPCN.
Idaho Power can provide the North Valley community
the adequate reliabi1ity it needs and the Company stands
ready to do its part. Idaho Power respectfully requests
that the Commission issue an order: (1) specifically
finding that the present and future public convenience and
necessity requires the construction of a new l-38 kV
1_3
1-4
15
76
L1
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
23
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
transmission line and related facilities to provide
redundant transmission service from the Wood River
substatlon, near Hailey, into the Ketchum substation and
(2) specifically granting the Company a Certificate of
PubIic Convenience and Necessity for the construction of
such l-ine and facilitles identified in the Company's
Application as Underground Transmission-TP1. Such
facil-ities are required for Idaho Power to meet its
obligation to reliably provide service in the public
interest, including the porti-on of that lj-ne that must
traverse downtown Ketchum with an underground
configuration.
0. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
!6
77
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
PORTER, REB
Idaho Power
24
Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ATTESTAIION OE' TESTIMONY
STATE OF IDAHO
<!q
County of Ada
I, N. Vern Porter, 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 Vice
President of Transmission and Distributj-on Engineering and
Constructi-on and Chief Safety Officer and am competent to
be a witness in this proceeding.
I decl-are under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-fil-ed testJ-mony
j-s true and correct to the best of my information and
belief.
DATED this 23'd day of June 2077.
N ern Porter
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23'd day of
June 20L7.
l.SB
10
11
1,2
13
l4
15
L6
1-7
1B
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SstARy
rra,+Notary Publ c for Idaho
Residing at:Boi-se Idaho
My commission expires:02/04/2021:
PORTER, REB 25
Idaho Power Company
Ft-r
6 *,*Ip
I
.1
f.:ar
t
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23'd day of June 2017 I served a true and
correct copy of the REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF N. VERN PORTER upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Daphne Huang
Camille Christen
Deputy Attorneys General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-007 4
Sierra Club
Kelsey Jae Nunez
KELSEY JAE NUNEZLLC
920 North Clover Drive
Boise, ldaho 83703
Zach Waterman
Director, ldaho Sierra Club
503 West Franklin Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Michael Heckler
3606 North Prospect Way
Garden City, ldaho 83714
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83707
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
300 Let'er Buck Road
Hailey, Idaho 83333
X Hand Delivered
_U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
cam i I le. ch risten@puc. idaho.qov
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email michael.p.heckler@omai!.com
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1
Rock Rolling Properties, LLC, and
Rock Rolling Properties #2, LLC
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83707
Rock Rolling Properties, LLC
Rock Rolling Properties, LLC
c/o Kris Dondero
P.O. Box 739
Sun Valley, ldaho 83353
Rock Rolling Properties #2, LLG
Rock Rolling Properties #2, LLC
c/o John Dondero
P.O. Box 739
Sun Valley, ldaho 83353
City of Ketchum
Matthew A. Johnson
Wm. F. Gigray, !l!
WHITE PETERSON GIGRAY
& NICHOLS, P.A.
5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, ldaho 83687
lndividual
Laura Midgley
231 Valley Club Drive
Hailey, ldaho 83333
CoxCom, LLC
C. Tom Arkoosh
ARKOOSH IAW OFFICES
802 West Bannock Street, Suite 900
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ldaho 83701
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . 2
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAX_Email
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAX
Emai!
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mai!
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
FAXX Email tom.arkoosh arkoosh com
Christa Bearry, Legal Assistant