20051206Final report.pdf

PAC~E-o3-1'f
PACIFICORP
Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control Program
2005 Credit Rider Initiative Final Report
'..,- -",, ","-' :'' --
(J;'
, " , "
Co ..' U"I C::J
'=2
=:;C'1. r"
v; "CJ(n i:::J
..:..
Background
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Order No. 29209 and Order No, 29416 in Case No. PAC-03-14 requires
Pac~iCorp (dba Utah Power-the Company) prepare an annual report on the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Program
(Program). Reporting requirements are as follows:
1. The number of irrigation customers who were eligible to participate in the Program
2. The number of irrigation customers who filed a letter of 'Intent-to-Participate' in the Program
3. The number of irrigation customers who entered into a load control Service Agreement
4. The number of irrigation customers who participated in the Program for the full three and one-half months
5. The number of irrigation customers who are not eligible to participate in the following year Program
6. The total dollar amount of credits provided under the Program identified by month
7. Proposed changes and/or recommendations to improve the Program
8. An evaluation of Program related load shifting for the 2003 and 2004 irrigation season
9. An assessment of uncertainty factors used in calculating the Load Control Service Credit
(N/A uncertainly factors are no longer used in the calculation of the Load Control Credit)
2005 Results
Table One details the eligible 2005 Schedule 10 sites and customers (requirement #1). Table One also contains counts
of customers and sites that entered into an actual load control contract (requirement #3). Details for Program years
2003 and 2004 are provided for comparison. There were zero participant discontinuances (requirement #4). The data
presented in Table One reflect the number of irrigation customers and s~es that participated in the Program for the full
three and one-half months, In 2005, 22.9% of total available sites and 23.7% of the total available customers
participated in the Program. Table One further reflects the customers NOT eligible to participate in 2005 (requirement
#5).
Table One
Schedule 10 Eligible Sites & Customers
2003 Actual Participants
2004 Actual Participants
2005 Actual Participants
Eligible 2005 Counts
Customers NOT eligible to participate 2006
Participant Sites
401
734
065
631
NIA
Partici ant Customers
207
340
489
059
Following the 2003 Program season the Company petitioned the Commission to adopt an 'expedited' customer
enrollment procedure. In so doing, the Company eliminated the requirement to file an Intent-lo-Participate. Accordingly,
in 2004 and, again, in 2005 the Program had zero customers who tiled an Intent-ta-Participate letter (requirement #2).
Monthly amount of Participation Cred~ issued to 2005 Program participants is presented in Table Two (requirement
#6). Table Two further presents the total amount of resource under contract as of 10 October 2005. Table Three
presents a comparative analysis of credits issued for the 2004 and 2005 Program years. The reader should note that
the Commission approved a 26% increase in participation credits over the 2004 Program year. The approved increase
coupled with the increase in participation resulted in a net 53% increase in total participation credits over the 2004
Program year.
Further it should be noted that 2005 Program year -end report statistics are based on the Program transactional
database. The database does not take into consideration Program participants who may have elected to discontinue
participation prior to 15 September (these data are presented in Tables Four and Five). Hence the statistical
information may, ~ anything, understate Program impacts (in particularly avoided kW). The design of the database did
not take date.of instantaneous values into consideration. What is provided throughout this report is a summary of
program discontinuances by month and control day. Changes to the database s initial design will be made and readied
for the 2006 Program year to reflect discontinuances by date-of.
Table Two
2005 Participation Credits x Month
Credits
kW Under Contract
June
$246,707.
105,601.70
July
$283,657.
100,804.
August
$258,061.10
99,243.
September
$54 240.
863.
Table Three
2004/2005 Comparative Participation Credit Analysis
Year
2004
2005
Total Participation Credits Issued
$406,002.
$842,666.
Table Four
2005 Program Discontinuances by Month and Dispatch Option
June July August
Dispatch Ct.Dispatch Ct.Dispatch Ct.
lion Discontinue TotkW 0 lion Discontinue TotkW 0 lion Discontinue TotkW
mw3-167.t th 3-6 37.t th 2-11.3
t th 3-6 214.tth4-710.m t w th 3-35.
mtwth3-79.t th 2-427.total 47.
m w 2-8 264.mw2.883.
tth2-675.total 058.
mtwth4-408.
total 810.
Table Five
2005 Program Discontinuances MfW and TfTH Dispatch Options
Girt. Option Avoided kWmw 3,576.
,-..-..-.,........."...." ----..-,-..-..-,-.--".....
I Ih 2 339.
.. ,."
.0" ......-.......,..-....--..-..-,---..-....,..
,.,------
Table Six introduces 2005 Program costs. 2003 and 2004 Program costs are represented for comparative purposes. It
should be noted that 'field expenses were significantly above expectation as a function of (1) having to dispatch
troublemen due to timer failure and (2) the removal of =491 the old radio-based load control devises. The timer failure
issue is discussed in detail under the subheading Technical challenges.
Table Six
Comparative Load Control Program Costs 2003, 2004 & 2005
2003 Costs 2004 Costs 2005 Costs
Cost Category (April 'O3-Sept '03) Oct '03-Sept '04 Oct 'O4-Sept '
. , .~~~ ,
i ~..i ~,!~~!i
" ~.
~Pp~ r!....,-" - ,,-.- -"---' J~c ,
, ~,: ~.~. -., -.,.., ,-, _.._- ._? ~,? ~"',.- -, _. -"-'--" -.." -.. ~~~ ~ : ??- ,--- ,
J!~JI~~I!1~.~~I~~t~!1_...._..
._---,. ..,.,
J~~3.?~
~~_....._......_.._
$8 , 36
~:,~~._,---- ,
...- .... J~.
!'?:.
~Q.._.._._-
~i~I~.xpe~
~~-~.._. .." "..._____
!2~.
~~?.~:~..~", ,.." ...._._--
~~~~Q?:Q~.._.. ....
~~~~!..~~~.
2!.m
Participation credits $277 583.72 $410,325.49 $842,666.
=P;~
~;-~~~.
~~~~~i'
.~.~-...~..,.. ..,
..i~~~~~ii'
=="...~'.=~~,
....~~Bi~.~29~
:..----'...._~~~'
;~~..6!..~=..
..'......~...
m---~~E.~~l~~L.._,_......'m"'.
.' ,." ,.,,-,,--,-,-- ,..?~"--"..._,-,,_
J!,
~~.
P..Q.-,.._._,_.._.._---,,-,......
,-,~g_......., ,...."..._.._._.__
!E~~Jpr9gra
,!!_qg.~~-_..!~~~~~~j,_.__.._--_
J!?!,L4!Y~-_.,____??478q:
~~,_-_...
Note: 2003 costs over 6 month period: 2004 and 2005 costs are calculated over a 12 month period
Table Seven provides avoided kW statistics and participation site counts based on participation option, A couple of
observations are noteworthy. First, the three hour option was not a popular offer. This may be a function of the
participation credits (roughly half that of the six hour dispatches) or may be due to irrigation agri-practices where the
credit did not offset the inconvenience of having to accommodate a three-hour interruption. However, the three hour
dispatches were important in demonstrating 'load shaping' capabilities. If it turns out that the 'load shaping' capabilities
are sufficient to result in additional resource value it may lead to further enhancements to the valuation methodology
used to establish yearly participation credits. Second, the six hour dispatch blocks were, by far, the most popular
option, representing the lion s share of Program participation.
Table Seven
Program Impacts by Participation Option
Participation Count of June July Aug SeptOpUon Participating Sites Avoided kW Avoided kW Avoided kW Avoided kW
!v12"- ~~-
~,,_.......... ."..
~ 9
----.,,-... -.-". _
4:.4. ~ ~Q.
!' -.- ,.... - ,?-, ~~~- _.". -_.
~ ' 08 ~
~ - -- '..." ~ ...-.._-
~ TTH..?
~~p_
rT1..._-_.__._.._
~~?_,._---_._---~!'~??:!"-"'"_,.~g:.~-_..._._
46 ,
!~_,_. . ."..~?-,~~?.:._,_.,..,.__.,.,
3-6
~"___._.,_...._.~,_..._,,. ..,.. ,,' - ,.",...,--,.~~~---____
~~L,."
"..",.._..."~~~--,--"-,,,.,,.._.._
9~~..._,,--,
....~~~~~~_......... ",.. ."..._.,___-"..-.-,-....,!,
UL__..,..
"..
~6~:Q,__._.____12~.__,_._-_.
~g!?~~-_...
~I!.~~:~PrT1,..._--"...,.""..."!E_.,-,...,_.
""-,,.,,.."_,
~!.6..~
_...",,,-, "".' ',. ..!~~.:.~..._--_..,,_.!-,~:,~,_.,.. ....
J!?:
..!n:,~~?P.
'!'._,._,.-,-",-,_..._,,!~......,...,._.,,_.,, ~,?~:~..".,"-_..__.!~?:?..,'-,_...,.. "" ".",.
!?3
~..",,_..__.,.
..3~Q:
.,_,.........
~~1:!_3':~rT1....__.._-", ,~O
._-_.__.,-_
tI~~:.!.._.....~~6
.:....._........._.
Y~~~._..._._--
~,!~~~~.._."".
C MWl2~~:!erT1, '
. "---".,,_.~~._--_.___._~?~:._--._.!~~.;!...._---,,.,!.:~~,~_..,...",
9?,
Table Eight transposes the data presented in Table Seven into the dispatch schedules. Table Eight indicates the
avoided kW by month, control day (Tuesday Thursday) and by hour. Here also the reader should take into
consideration that Program participants who discontinued participation prior to the 15 September time horizon are NOT
reflected in these data. Hence these data understate the avoided kW that was actually realized. Table Nine mirror
images data presented in Table Eight with the exception that Table Nine reflects the Monday Wednesday control
period.
Table Eight
2005 Avoided kW by Month, Tuesday Thursday Ctrl. Day & Hour
JUNE Tuesdayrrhursday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00.2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
,-----.-...,.....,-..-,..'" ..'...',.. """""""-'-"""."-""-"-"-"'-'-"'--""'-'-""""'" """""'-"--'-'---""""""'-"'-"-""""" ,.... ,'...-,-,~~,
?~d
~~..~~...,...."
, 4?!
-,.,__",.",...",-,.~~,~~~:? " .. ._"
?~~2.~~,--,,,.,...,829
~_...... ,~ :~,....",~?-,,~?!.:!_,-,-
JULY Tuesdayrrhursday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
.. """""-"-"."-'-'---"-"""-"'-""""" "....,
--.---,.,..-..,-,.o-..-..-..--.,-....-.-....-.-...,..".,....
.. ..._-,-,_.,-_...."...'...'..........._-
Avoided kW 48 350.0 51 431.7 53 800.5 53,800.5 50,718.8 48,350.
...______,
m",..,m ..' """---"--,-",
,,,--,,,,"'-"--'-"-'.....,-..-__
_..'.m..'m..' m "'---"'-"""""'--'--,--._...".m_"_"__m....m"....' , ..
",..",
AUGUST Tuesdayrrhursday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00.2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
_.""", .."..",.."-"-----_.,-,---,_........,_,..
..,m,..,...",_..,,,,..o.""'-.o.-..--..-'-'--""'-""'----"-'-'-'
--'" """"""""""""...."""'" ,,-,- '..' ,...,...,-,-,,-
Avoided kW 46,373.8 49,126.9 51,259,6 51,259.6 48,506.5 46,373.
'-'--"--'-"_"_
"""""..,.o..".,..,...., ,......",_.o "
,..,.".-..-,-..-..-.---.-....,.-,-"-..--..,,-,,.....,,-
.o.,..,-, ".,...,
'..-
.."",-,,-.o........,...--,,-..,----.-..-,-
SEPTEMBER Tuesdayrrhursday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00.7:59
- -..- '.. ..,..-....,....
..... ...'. m.... ..m.
-, ,_.. ."..
-" -.o-.. _... ."- '._m___.. -,_...... ,.., -,....,.., .m..
_" ,.., -, -' --. -. _.."" --..',,- '-"-""'" ..-.-..
....o.." ..,
""', , ..-,
.. m..
,..",. ,_.. "...
A voi
~~~,.,~'!.'!..._,_.",,~.?,
9..8L~_...,,_....,
~g.~~~'~..__
i~?.
~~:.~,."..._,_.
is~~.:
?_"""...._~q" ~" ...,...".~?,~~?:~".
Table Nine
2005 Avoided kW by Month, Monday Wednesday Ctrl. Day & Hour
JUNE MondaylWednesday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
--.-,.."",....."",...-"---,,.-..-.-'--'--'-"'-""""""."...' " .. "-"-"-,,-,-,--,-,-,,-,--,,,,,,,,"'.."""-"'----'-""",,-,,-'-'--""'---'.'.",.."..
~yoJ~~~
.,.._,_.~~.!.
~Q.:~._,....".,. ."'
~~~~-'-""_-~!,~._---~~~: ~",-"""
~6,7Q?
~".,.._--~!.
.2.~,
!._,,-
JULY MondaylWednesday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
-,--_._-,,-- "'-""""- -"-"-..-..-.--..-,,-,--,-,-,.----.-.-,.,,,,,.., "-""",,,---,----------'-"'-""""--""" '-'"- - -
~ ~ .?~1J(j - .
~~... -- ~~
4 2 23
__. --, ,-~.!.?.~? ~_.. --- ~
~ ~~ 9 ~
!_- - _?~~.: ~--- _.~~, ~~,,
:. 6 -.. -,
~~ ~~ ~_..
AUGUST MondaylWednesday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00,,2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
",-,-,-'-"'--"-"---'-'---"-' ,- ,..'".,.., .',...,., ,,-- ..",-,_....,....----,--,." """",.",,""""..'---'--'-""'--'---'---'-"-"'-
yoi de ~w...__._
~:,~,-,,____~~_~"---,._
.2.~~,,
g,.,' ._._,.,,
~~J:
~.__._-
~?l.~.2.:.2.,_.._-
~~,~~,~, "
SEPTEMBER MondaylWednesday Avoided kW by Hour
Hour 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59
..,---,..,...,.......,.",..... ",--'.-"---'-'--'.---"-'----.'--".'-'-""""-"'""""""'-"'--'-"'.---'-"-'-"'--"- ",.....'", ,., "..,..,..._.,,_....,..._,---,-,-,,"
A v~ ~ ~~ ~ -
-- ~,~:,~?- ~,~. '" -, -""'. ,~~ ~,~ ~,.? ,." .- -_.!..! "~~!.:, ~., -.,. ,,..,',..,~ !.~ ! -' '!..,-,--~~!.~!:....- ..... -, ~?,~ g~.:, ~--
Load profile data
Throughout the control period, available SCAD A data were collected and used in preparing impact analyses.
Transmission Circuit Breaker-57 (CB-67 (Big Grassy)) aggregates four distribution substations (Hamer, Sandune,
Camas and Dubois) which were known to have a significant number of Program participants, SCADA values were
taken and logged at 120 second intervals. Log files from CB-67 were culled and subsequently plotted for the control
season. A pivot table was prepared and data averaged for day-of-week as well as for control vs. non-control periods.
Illustration One depicts the average for all control days (Monday through Thursday, inclusive) verses the average for all
non-control days (Friday through Sunday, inclusive).
Illustration One
Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control-Average Daily Load Curve:
Control vs. Non-Control Periods (CB 67-Big Grassy)
35
.. ."~'
Sii 20'
July AuOU8t:i0cJ5
5 ' ~:=s~L:J
0 .
~~-
E. ~~.~~~Cttl. Q~r;.
~ ..
~M'~~;;N~::-ci~"D~1
Illustration Two plots Big Grassy 120.second interval load data by day-day-of-week (ctrl days). Average control and
non-control data is also included in Illustration Two: Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control-Daily Load Curve:
Control VS. Non-Control Days (CB 67-Big Grassy). Highlighted is the effect of the three-hour dispatch blocks and the
resulting 'shaping' impacts.
Illustration Two
Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control-Daily Load Curve:
Control Day-of-Week vs. Non-Control Day Average (CB 67-Big Grassy)
~ 20
"h.
_"_-
0 .
~~~
Ctrl.~ays
..
- M.a." NO~:C.0:D~~~:~ :ii.O~day..
. ..
d;;Y
~..
. we~;;eSci;;y
:~:'-::
- :fu~~~,,~ I
Illustration Three
Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control-Daily Load Curve:
Control Average vs. Non-Control Days (CB 67-Big Grassy)
40 ..--...-.,--..-
- ---.- --..----.-.. ,';"
~it\i!t~1s
li&~~trieF'itI!a,~day
~ 20
2:001) II:OOP
July AUQUSt
-..
kfaho Load Control
(SGR ea I67~Bf. GraSsy)2"""""""'81-
l' .. M,ean ~ri.n
___~-;'~~~~:
Ctrlg~~~~
:~ :~~~~~~; . -
' F
~~~--::.
-;; s~I~7da~
Illustration Four
Schedule 72 Idaho Irrigation Load Control-Daily Load Curve:
Control Average & Control Dispatch Schedule (MIW vs. TTH) Averages (CB 67-Big Grassy)
0:(
!i! 20
15 .
E Moon riW'Ct;~Da~M~a,,- TlTH.!:tri.O;Y;; ---~:;rSlI Mean Clrtc oaySJ
Load Shift VS. Load Avoidance (Requirement #8)
During the 2003 and 2004 irrigation seasons the Company studied the extent and effect of load shifting and specifically
addressed whether Program participants 'load shift' or 'load avoid'. The results of this analysis indicated that the p
value failed to reach significance (p ..::0.05), hence there is no statistical basis to reject the Ho and accept the alternative
(HA) that there is a statistically significant difference between Program participants when they were involved with the
Program and when no such Program was offered. It appears, therefore, that participants are principally 'load shifting
not 'load avoiding
These analyses were repeated by the Company s Load and Revenue Forecasting organization. The results of these
analyses were identical to that performed by the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Operations Management Team. Based
upon these results it was determined that further analysis on this research topic was not required.
Technical challenges
During the 2005 irrigation season, field technicians experienced an unusually high frequency of timer malfunctions. A
conference call was made with the Load Control Management Team, field technicians, Consolidated Electrical
Distributors (the distributors supporting the Load Control initiative) and the clock manufacturer, Grasslin (U.
headquarters in NJ) 1. Grasslin s U.S. Engineering group requested and were provided with a half of dozen of the failed
un~s. Their evaluation was inconclusive other than that the batteries had clearly failed. The U.S. Engineering group
was not able to determine, however, if the charging system itself had failed or if it was simply battery failure.
Subsequently, this group forwarded the clocks to their European counterparts for further analysis. At the time of the
drafting of this report the discovery process is still inconclusive as to the root cause for timer failure.
Measurement & Verification (M&V) Processes
Consistent with the previous two irrigation seasons, field technicians prepare random, unannounced site visits for the
purpose of ensuring (1) integrity of timer performance and (2) the absence of fraud. Each year five timer parameters
(tape seal, meter lock, battery, clock calendar and pump panel) are considered in the evaluation. Field technicians are
also asked to confirm the presence of PacifiCorp Site 10 stickers for inventory purposes. Where it is suspected there
are variances field technicians are asked to report said variances to the Irrigafton Load Control Management Team for
adjudication. The results of the 2005 M&V activities are indicated in Table Eight.
There were two sites reported to the Irrigation Load Control Management Team for adjudication. In the first instance,
evidence pointed to a lighting strike on the service panel in Aug. 2004, The strike required electrical repairs to the site.
State inspection labels supported this to be correct. Apparently, the service electrician did not properly reconnect Utah
Powers timer leaving the system disabled until inspection in August of 2005. At the second site the wiring disconnect
appeared to be questionable. However the customer reported the system operated correctly. Inspection of additional
participating sites operated by this same customer produced no variances. This finding, coupled by the fact that the
customer has been a Program participant since 2003 with no previous questionable behavior led the Management
Team to conclude that fraud was not evident. The customer intends on participating in 2006 and has agreed to have
his site monitored for the 2006 Program year.
Table Eight
Results of the 2005 Measurement & Verification
QA Parameter Failures Count of Units Inspected Percent Failure
--- -..-.- ~~~~ ~~_._- _.
g "..m_
",'" - -.-- "." ~~.. ...._."-"". ---. -..- - ?:~ - -. ..--
Meter Lock 88 0.
'. ".,...,..,....,.,.. ....,..,.,.,...-......"....,..-..-.,."......-,.,.....--.."-'-"-..-""-'--'-'-"'.-'.----'-.-'.-'---.'""'-."--,-,----...----.,-,-"..-..,-..--. ,... - .
'- ,-, ~~~e'Y....
--, ,.-.- ,g..... -.. - .--.... .--... -.- --" -~~.._- - - .--. ... .....-.
- _...m.
-- ".........
Clock Calendar 88 5.
.----'-"-.---'-'--'-...'--..""..-"""'-"'-."'.-'-..-"'.,.- ,
m," ~ ~.'.1:1 e~ ~ ~~!. -
'"" _", -., --, - .... - -"- -. ~ ~ - -.--, -.-. - ...- -. -
-... 1: l. ....,......
SitelD Sticker 13 88 14.
. --... --..... -..- "-.'- _. -.. ----.,-... -, - - ._. ,- .-..-.. -.,.".,. -. .,... .-. - ",".. ,- .'",-,-,_. -. - -, -'.' _. .'-- . ..... .... -.. .-"...,."... -... -" ",'
1 Grasslin Is a European timer manufacturer who was acquired by GE in 2002.
Program Enhancements under Consideration (requirement 7)
Over the course of the three years the Load Control initiative has been available to Schedule 10 customers the
Company has attempted to consider and implement operational changes to enhance delivery, improve efficiencies,
provide for greater data integrity / accuracy and grow customer participation through alternative dispatch schedules.
While there are no specific proposals for changes to the 2006 Program, the Management Team is currently evaluating
the following options that may be proposed for piloting or implementation in the future:
1. The installation and use of Time-of-Use (TOU) meters rather than timers. This suggestion effectively shifts
the responsibility for pump control to the irrigator. The potential benefits of such an alternative are that field
expenses could, following initial capital expenditure, be virtually eliminated. Measurement and Verification
(M&V) is self-evident in the meter data. The Company is removed from any and all liability for irrigation
equipment. The irrigator has improved and increased flexibility in managing equipment to meet their
agricultural requirements, The down-side of this suggestion is that it is likely the Company would 'down-
grade' the participation credit because the actual control of the loads is less-firm.
2. Drop the 15-day September control period altogether. The September period is not particu larly central to the
Company s core load peak during June, July and August. By dropping September there is the sense that
additional and perhaps substantial potato acreage may likely be motivated to participate in the Program. The
Pumper s Association and other agri-business organizations and groups may provide insight into if or how
this may best be considered and evaluated.
3. Prepare a change in the name of the dispatch offerings 'A, B, C' to dispatch offerings '1, 2, 3'(or something
similar). The ', B, C' denotation is confusing to a number of irrigators who perceive the Load Control
in~iative as the same as the now-defunct irrigation program offered by the Company.
4. Adjust dispatch options offerings to attract the participation of surface-water irrigators. There are sign~icant
surface-water loads that are currently not participating in the Program. Preliminary discussions have been
held with several canal companies but definitive dispatch-option alternatives have not yet been crafted to
sufficiently attract their participation.