The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090731Comments.pdfSCOTT WOODBURY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PO BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074 (208) 334-0320 BARNO. 1895 n'-I"'-Ct\'Cnl\ C. \..ll.. I" _._, 1009 JUL 3 I AM l1: 38 Street Address for Express Mail: 472 W. WASHINGTON BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983 Attorney for the Commission Staff BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY ) PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) POWER OF ITS 2009 ELECTRIC INTEGRATED)RESOURCE PLAN (IRP). ) ) ) CASE NO. P AC-E-09-6 COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Filing and Notice of Comment Deadline issued on June 24, 2009, in Case No. PAC-E-09-6, submits the following comments. BACKGROUND On May 29,2009, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp; Company) fied its 2008 Electric Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)l with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission). PacifiCorp is a multi-jurisdictional utility and provides electric service to over 69,000 customers in eastern Idaho. The Company's fiing is a biennial planing document that sets forth how the Company intends to meet the energy requirements of its customers over the 1 Though submitted on May 29, 2009, PacifiCorp's IRP is entitled "2008 Integrated Resource Plan". Staffwil refer to the document as the 2008 IR, acknowledging that its submission comports with Commission directives aligning the timing of electric IRP fiings beginning in 2009. STAFF COMMENTS 1 WLY 31, 2009 next 10 years. In Order No. 22299, the Commission directed PacifiCorp to fie a biennial IRP that analyzes its customer base, load growth, supply-side resources, and demand-side management (DSM) resources. The Company's IRP was developed through a collaborative public process with involvement from regulatory staff, advocacy groups and other interested paries and, along with its 10-year business plan, provides a framework of future actions to ensure PacifiCorp continues to provide reliable service at a reasonable cost with manageable risk to its customers. The key elements of the PacifiCorp 2008 IRP include a finding of resource need, focusing on the 10-year period 2009-2018, a preferred portfolio of supply-side, demand-side and transmission resources to meet this need, and the resultant action plan that identifies the steps the Company wil take during the next 2 to 4 years toward implementation of the plan. The resources identified in the 2008 IRP preferred portfolio are considered proxy resources that guide procurement efforts, and do not constitute the actual resources that would be acquired as par of future procurement initiatives. As has been the case recently, the 2008 IRP has undergone significant changes in order to portray an accurate representation of the planing environment and fulfill IRP obligations from various jurisdictions. Some of the changes from the 2007 IRP include: . Alignment of its 10 year Business Plan with its IRP process . Acquisition of the 520 megawatt (MW) Chehalis gas plant and 175 MWof additional wind resources added in 2008. . New IRP guidelines issued by the Oregon Public Utilty Commission on the treatment of carbon dioxide (C02) regulatory risk. . Incorporation of the Energy Gateway Transmission Project in the portfolio analysis. . State commission 2007 IRP acknowledgement orders callng for modeling methodology changes and the expansion of resource options to consider, including energy efficiency measures (Class 2 Demand-Side Management programs) and additional renewable energy technologies such as solar and geothermaL. An additional planing challenge for the Company has been to respond to and predict the demand response impacts of the economic recession and financial crisis. The Company states STAFF COMMENTS 2 WLY 31, 2009 that it is curently seeing a continuation of significant industrial and commercial sector demand reduction. This will translate, it states, into a reduction of resource need for the near-term. Volatile economic conditions and commodity prices are requiring the Company to continuously re-evaluate input assumptions and resource acquisition strategies. Significant price drops in fuels and forward wholesale power in late 2008 and early 2009 signal near-term opportities to lower power supply costs through market purchases before the Company needs to commit to a large new thermal power plant. If construction markets continue to soften, as several experts predict, this will create additional cost-saving opportunities through lower plant prices. The resource need accounts for load growth, sales obligations, existing resources, and a 12% planing reserve margin. Based on a November 2008 load forecast, PacifiCorp experiences a capacity deficit beginning in 2011, when the system wil be short by 498 MW. The 2007 IRP forecasted deficits to occur in 2010 rather than 2011. The Company attributes the difference to lower demand, especially in the industrial sector, due to the economic downturn. The deficit increases to 1,936 MW in 2012 and 3,528 MW by 2018. The capacity deficit is driven by a coincident system peak load growth rate of2.5% for 2009-2018, and expiration of major power contracts such as the Bonnevile Power Administration peaking contract in August 2011. On an energy basis, the system begins to experience summer short positions by 2012. To determine how best to address the capacity deficits, PacifiCorp developed 57 resource portfolios using a cadre of models that optimize resource choice according to both stochastic and deterministic variations of input assumptions and capacity planing criteria. PacifiCorp's state utility commissions require the Company, though its IRP standards and guidelines, to develop a portfolio that is least-cost after accounting for risk, uncertainty, and the long-ru public interest. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed PacifiCorp's 2008 IRP and commends the Company in its efforts to produce a sophisticated planing document amidst uncertain economic and political times. Staff had acknowledged in the previous IRP fiing that integrated resource planing for PacifiCorp is becoming increasingly constrained by state and federal initiatives, and conventional 'least cost/least risk' portfolios are not necessarily the appropriate choice for the Company. In meeting its stated IRP goals and requirements, PacifiCorp continues to expand its technical analysis of potential portfolios, applying an aray of stochastic and deterministic STAFF COMMENTS 3 WLY 31, 2009 scenarios in order to identify what it believes is the preferred portfolio in which to base its action plan on. The Company developed 29 core cases and 19 initial sensitivity cases that were used to determine optimal resource portfolios. These portfolios were then assessed using Monte Carlo production cost simulations to test for sensitivity to key variable changes in order to pare down portfolios for a secondar analysis. The top-performing portfolios underwent deterministic risk assessment to ascertain the top performing portfolio, which wil be discussed later. Staff notes that amid the 2008 IRP planing process the nation faced, and is stil facing, unprecedented economic turoiL. This has convoluted the process in numerous ways. For one, the Company is dealing with lower than expected load growth, especially in the commercial and industrial sector. In fact, there is evidence of load degradation among several large customers throughout its service terrtory. Also, the downtu has impacted the electric and natual gas markets to the extent that recent price escalation has diminished appreciably. Finally, there has been a recent softening of construction input markets, making capital cost estimates cumbersome as well. Adding to the complexity of the planing is the evolving state and federal initiatives directed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The Company notes that it finds itself subject to increasing regulation among its states as compared to the 2007 IRP. Oregon, Washington, and Uta (California as well, though PacifiCorp is not required to fie an IRP in that state) have standing or have recently passed greenhouse gas standards and renewable energy targets. On a federal level, the Waxman-Markey bil has received as much support on Capitol Hil as any other energy and climate bil in recent history. It is generally considered that some form of federal legislation affecting energy policy will occur under the curent administration. Given these state initiatives and looming federal mandates, the IRP planing process continues to be increasingly diffcult to perform in terms of risk adjusted least cost planing in the near and long term. Additionally, state Commissions continue both implicitly and explicitly, to enact enhancements to the IRP planing guidelines in order to satisfy compliance requirements within their respective states.2 Staff believes these additional requirements result in a more thorough level of scrutiny for portfolio selection while fuher convoluting the planning process. 2 See Appendix C of the 2008 IR for PacifiCorp's view of state regulatory compliance. With the exception of California (where PacifiCorp is exempt from fiing an IRP due to its low market penetration), all jurisdictions have added Company-specific requirements to the IRP, specifically in recent years. STAFF COMMENTS 4 WLY 31, 2009 Staff is disappointed that, to this point, there have been no intervening paries or public comments filed in this proceeding. This is the first such occurrence since the PacifiCorp's 2001 IRP filing. Following the 2001 fiing, and the western energy crisis, the Commission had six intervening parties for the Company's 2003 IRP. Staff believes that given the long economic downturn curently occuring, combined with the large capital investments the Company is undertaking, public involvement is critical for producing a robust action plan for the near and long term. Nevertheless, Staff respectfully submits the following comments in regard to PacifiCorp's 2008 IRP. Staff does not intend for these comments to be all-inclusive of the document, but rather wil focus on a number of issues it deems important in determining the Company's action plan. On a sumar level, Staff finds that PacifiCorp has done its due diligence according to prior Commission findings in developing a preferred portfolio and subsequent action plan. That said, Staff believes that the preferred portfolio was derived in a more 'deterministic' manner than in the past, and questions the methodology that led to the final result. Resource Options PacifiCorp continues to make strides in model flexibilty toward resource selection. A substantial number of supply side resources were initially screened prior to inclusion in the System Optimizer ru. Staff commends the efforts of the Company for its dilgence in reasonably portaying capital and O&M costs, plant characteristics, and associated emissions, among other resource attributes. The Company continues to refine modeling of non-traditional supply-side resources, such as distributed generation, energy storage and geothermal by taking into consideration siting attributes like transmission savings and local investment credits. Staff believes that the Company has put forth an exceptional effort in modeling demand- side resources in its IRP. The Company's curent DSM programs are included in the model, along with additional opportnities developed through a DSM potential study, on a supply cure basis to allow the optimization models to select programs and quantities on a least-cost basis STAFF COMMENTS 5 WLY 31, 2009 alongside of supply-side resources. Class 1 and Class 3 DSM programs3 were modeled as discrete supply cures for each individual program (four Class 1 Programs were included, and ten Class 3 programs were modeled). Accounting for the various jurisdictions, 24 Class 1 DSM supply cures and 50 Class 3 DSM supply curves were included for selection. One of the main deficiencies in prior IRPs is the manual selection of so-called Class 2 DSM programs4 preceding actual portfolio analysis. In the past, Class 2 DSM was included as a load decrement, and the system optimizing model did not have an opportity to select additional levels of this particular resource. For this IRP, PacifiCorp has utilzed the supply cure methodology for Class 2 DSM. The Company offers many such programs throughout its service territory, and including them individually would result in 12,500 distinct supply curves. See 2008 IRP, p. 127. To reduce this to a more manageable number, the Company bundled resources with comparable attributes and costs for each of its jursdictions. Each bundle resulted in a series of supply curves available for resource selection. Staff believes that the Company continues to improve on the modeling of demand side resources, and commends its efforts for including Class 2 DSM options in resource selection. Staff fuher notes that the Company has taken steps toward putting supply-side and demand-side resources on equal footing by accounting for the lack of transmission necessar for demand-side resources and distributed generation located within load centers. For the 2008 IRP, the Company applies a discount factor of 7.4% to calculate the present value of future resources. This rate represents the after-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and was chosen to comply with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon's guidelines from 2007. Using a set discount rate faciltates comparison between portfolios, but Staff believes that this may bias resource selection and timing within portfolios. Basic mathematics demonstrates that capital intensive resources would best be deferred to the end of the planing horizon simply because it is 'cheaper' than in a less heavily discounted period earlier in the horizon. Resources with low or no capital costs (such as market purchases) would tend to be added early in the planing period. Staff recommends that the Company conduct sensitivity analyses on the choice of discount rates on resource timing and selection. A stadard inflation or 3 PacifiCorp classifies Class i programs as fully dispatchable, such as the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Program. Class 3 programs represent 'buydown' programs such as critical peak pricing and commerciaVindustral demand buyback.4 Class 2 DSM programs are defined as non-dispatchable programs, namely energy efficiency measures such as See Ya Later Refrigerator and CFL giveaways that have lifetime load reduction impacts. STAFF COMMENTS 6 JULY 31, 2009 Treasur bond rate may serve as a potential lower bound, and the afer-tax W ACC may serve well as an upper bound. Wind Integration For the past several years, wind resources have factored heavily into the integrated resource and business planing environments for PacifiCorp. The 2008 IRP is no different, as the Company continues to improve upon its methods for representing diverse wind resources. The Company includes several sites and sizes for wind projects that can be selected by the models. Staffis satisfied that the Company, given its extensive knowledge of wind projects, has adequately portrayed its potential wind generation. Staffnotes that the Company included a wind integration cost of$II.75/MWh in its resource assumptions. The Company stated that it had not completed its own wind integration study for this IRP, and based its value on a study conducted by Portland General Electric. See 2008 IRP, p. 162. Staff agrees that integrating wind into its system does impose a cost, but does not necessarily agree with the value chosen by the Company. Given its geographic and resource diversity, PacifiCorp is in a comparatively good position to add wind resources at a lower integration cost than most Northwest utilities. Staf would put the chosen value as on the high side compared to studies performed by utilties such as BC Hydro and entities like Bonnevile Power Administration. The $11.75/MWh integration cost is more than double what was used in the 2007 IRP.5 Furthermore, the Company argued before the Commission that its cost of wind integration hovers around $5.00. See Case No. PAC-E-07-07. Staff believes that there is a range of wind integration costs that var by utilty and percentage of wind on a utility's system. Prior to its next IRP fiing, Staff requests that the Company explain and justify why its integration costs have more than doubled.6 Staff fuher recommends that the Company perform stochastic modeling to ascertain a value as part of its next IRP.7 5 PacifiCorp calculated a cost of$5.10/Mwh for a penetration of200MW of wind.6 Staff notes that the Company included a Wind Integration Cost Update as Appendix F of its 2008 IRP. Staff does not believe the information sufficiently supports the Company's use of $ 11. 75/MWh, given the immense disparity from its previous findings less than two years ago.7 Staff differs to the thoughtful comments of the Utah Division of Public Utilties on discussion of whether there were statistical errors in modeling wind integration. Staff has reviewed and generally concurs with the Division's findings, but would rather address the issue in the context of a wind integration study review. See Utah Public Service Commission; Docket No. 09-2035-01. STAFF COMMENTS 7 WLY 31, 2009 Portfolio Modeling PacifiCorp relies on a number of models to produce its preferred portfolio. Many of the models, such as MIDAS and PROSYM, are used to develop resource and input assumptions that are ultimately used by the System Optimizer and Planing and Risk (PaR) models for portfolio modeling and selection. These models, by in large, are proprietary and are not subject to review.8 The Company provides its overview of the System Optimizer and PaR models to the planing paricipants in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. While Staff appreciates the Company's efforts, Staff nonetheless believes that, at a minimum, hands-on sessions with the two main models would be a beneficial addition to the planing review process. For the 2008 IRP, PacifiCorp has incorporated current state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) as a constraint in portfolio selection. RPS commitments were modeled on a system basis, presumably due to technical limitations. An advantage to this process is the abilty to 'ban' surlus credits for sales or meeting of out-year targets. The Company notes that a key assumption to this representation is that through the Multi-State Protocol (MSP), trading rules would be adopted by its multiple jurisdictions. See 2008 IRP, p. 161. Each portfolio is then re- ru against an expected and high RPS requirement to determine what eligible resources would be added to achieve compliance. Staff concurs that RPS requirements should be considered as a constraint placed upon the model, and at this time believes that the Company has included its best effort in doing so. However, Staff does not believe that PacifiCorp has adequately quantified the costs associated with meeting an RPS. Doing so would necessitate setting a base portfolio with no RPS constraint rather than curent requirements, and comparing the costs of the resulting portfolios. Staff believes comparing portfolios with and without RPS constraints may facilitate discussions regarding cost allocation and trading rules for Renewable Energy Credits. PacifiCorp created its 29 core and initial 19 sensitivity cases9 under the pretense that the Company would complete an expansion of its Lake Side CCCT facilty. The Company has subsequently decided to defer construction on the project. Staff is aware that the decision was 8 The Company has indicated to the Utah Commission that model review would require confidentiality agreements with the vendors, which Staff believes is burdensome enough to basically preclude thorough investigation of the models within the confines of the comment period, and a high level of coordination during the planing period. 9 Two of the sensitivity cases were based on the Company's 2008 Business Plan. These portfolios contained fixed resources, business planning assumptions that differ, somewhat slightly, from the IRP assumptions, and October 2008 price forecasts. STAFF COMMENTS 8 WLY 31, 2009 made in Februar of this year, a period between the finalization of the planng document and its submission and commends the Company for providing additional portfolio analysis of this decision. However, the initial analysis has to be viewed with some skepticism without knowing the level of influence the inclusion of Lake Side II had on preliminar portfolio selection. PacifiCorp chose the eight top scoring portfolios from the previous modeling rus and conducted a secondary portfolio selection process with a handful of additional assumption changes. 10 Again, Staff is uncertain how the selected portfolios would have fared in initial modeling had Lake Side II not been included. For both the initial and secondar portfolio screenings, eight metrics were used to score candidates for performance. The Company applied a weighting scheme to the metrics representing its view of relative importance. The metrics chosen, risk adjusted present value of revenue requirement and C02 cost exposure to name two, are generally satisfactory measures for the Staff. Staff does take issue with the weighting schemes. While the choice of metrics was clearly explained, the weighting scheme was devoid of any rationale. Staff is concerned that the weights were chosen arbitrarily, and may ultimately impact the selection of a portfolio over another equal or exemplary option. Staff requests that the Company discuss both during the planing process and within its final document, the development of the weighting scheme used. Portfolio Selection As noted earlier, PacifiCorp selected a handful of portfolios for secondar analysis with updated assumptions for final selection. The resultant preferred portfolio consists of a wide array of supply-side resources, including substantial amounts of renewables, resource upgrades, DSM, non-traditional resources (such as distributed standby generation), and market purchases. The Company has developed a plan that acknowledges the benefits of a diversified resource mix while adhering to imposed and impending environmental regulations. Unlike the 2007 IRP, no additional transmission capacity was included in the selected portfolio, namely due to the fixed transmission resources (Gateway project) included in the System Optimizer modeL. Also, Staff finds it noteworthy that coal-fired generation did not appear in the chosen portfolio. The preferred portfolio (labeled 5 in the IRP) is summarized below. 10 Beyond the removal of the Lake Side II CCCT, PacifiCorp made updates to its topology and market depths used in modeling. STAFF COMMENTS 9 JULY 31, 2009 PacifiCorp 2008 Preferred Portfolio 200 3 44 33 25 2 14 S 35 99 249 100 100 100 150 100 100 50 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 .;4 4 4 4 4 25 50 4Q 30 10 10 10 10 10 10.-l . 42 51 49 52 55 55 56 51i 58 ;1) 75 50 150 394 493 200 202 228 117 BO !l !l 12 12 15 25 25 45 20 200 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 ~.-j:- 35 36 39 39 3S 3!l ~.39 39 29 6S!l 2&.Q 582 Staff believes the selected portfolio satisfactorily meets the Company's forecasted load requirements at the 12% planing reserve margin 11, but questions the methodology that led to the selection of the portfolio. As Staff noted, a major planned resource was removed from initial portfolio screening, which leads to questioning of whether the portfolio (or any of the eight selected) would have made the initial cut. Another anomaly in the modeling is that portfolio 5 had been manually adjusted to include either a 570 MW wet-cooled CCCT or 536 MW dry-cooled CCCT with an online date of 2014 (giving a total of 10 finalist portfolios). Other than stating that this reflects the Company's CCCT deferral strategy (p. 235), there is no other rationale used to support this "fixing" of resources. Staff is fuher confused as to why that paricular portfolio was chosen for resource fixing, and not any or all of the others. The Company further adjusted the preferred portfolio by manually distributing the selected wind resources throughout the planning period in a maner differing from the system optimizer rus. The preferred portfolio selected large additions of wind in certain years and none i i In fact, due to the inclusion of distributed standby generation, the given planning reserve margins may be slightly understated due to the nature of the resource. STAFF COMMENTS 10 JULY 31, 2009 in others. PacifiCorp revised the wind acquisition schedule to reflect a smoother and more suitable schedule for additional wind. The Company justifies doing so by stating that the "pattern, while optimal from the model's perspective, is not desirable from a business planing perspective." See 2008 IRP, p. 240. Staff finds merit in the Company's assertion, though this manual adjustment fuher evidences the deterministic aspect of the preferred portfolio. Ultimately, the modeling exercise did not produce a portfolio that truly outperformed all others. Depending on the metrics and weighting scheme used, as few as three portfolios and as many as ten could have been selected by the Company. Staff is not endorsing one portfolio over another, rather pointing to inadequacies in the selection process. The following table reflects the differences between the 2008 preferred portfolio and the preferred portfolio from the 2007 IRP update fied June 11, 2008. The large reduction in gas- fired resources in 2012 can be attributed to the acquisition of the Chehalis facility. The purchase defers the expansion of gas-fired generation to 2014, representing the manually fixed wet-cooled CCCT inserted by the Company into the ultimate preferred portfolio. For the years inclusive of both studies, Staff finds it noteworthy that reliance on market purchases is significantly lower under the 2008 IRP, which may be the result of pessimistic near term load forecasts as much as resource selection. Staff assumes that, in practice, the Company will undertake purchase opportunities as it sees fit to take advantage of the recently depressed wholesale electric market. STAFF COMMENTS 11 JULY 31,2009 Difference In 2008 IRP Selected Resources and 2007 IRP Update Selected Resources (MW) s 150 1003 S ~ (m) SwiW'md 45 20 104DmÌ1~ 2 2 2 3 3 25F:ìMaÙlPi (40) (1557) (fi7) (100 (333) NAElgyEf ~ 2 Ds'\fJ 2 i (2) 3 2 (55)ii Acmimoftl Cbs ~ MW coo-q pU ía W~ ll For 20011, ll w. ad ~ 545 MW, aim tl pWml oBTQ MW m tl 207Wl Up'" ~ oflliWUtCoKe~ im~~~ Ifiæed as Wt:ÆSft. Re-e to tl 200 WlUp qwti tb ~ DSM pl ex tæ 52 lWby :218. 4i For tl 2007 IPJ) Up, Cl. 2 D9£ wa.tr 11 a delf fl li ml thas a_ ûi iitl.¡n~. Relationship to 2008 Business Plan The 2008 IRP reflects an evolution in PacifiCorp's corporate resource. planning approach. The Company has embarked on a strategy to more closely align IRP development activities and the annual 10-year business planing process. The purose of the alignment is to adopt consistent planning assumptions, to ensure that business planning is informed by the IRP portfolio analysis and that the IRP accounts for near-term resource affordabilty, and to improve resource planing transparency for public stakeholders. The Company notes that to an extent the alignment process was unsuccessfuL. See 2008 IRP, p. 20-21. Two specific objectives were not met: 1) the Company intended to conduct alternative portfolio development for the Business Plan utilzing different input assumptions and production cost simulations to compare portfolio stochastic costs and risks; and 2) public reporting goals on the progress of the Business Plan were not provided. Staff understands that due to input assumptions frequently changing and model enhancements, the Company simply ran out of time and could not perform such analysis and provide input prior to the MEHC board of directors approving the 2008 Business Plan.12 Staff does not believe that the Company 12 The Business Plan was approved in December 2008, prior to the fmal portfolio modeling and selection for the 2008IRP. STAFF COMMENTS 12 JULY 31, 2009 purosely failed in coordinating the two planing documents, though Staff does expect that the coordination of the two will be improved by the 2011 filing. 2008 IRP Action Plan PacifiCorp's 2008 Action Plan is included in Staffs comments as Attachment A. The Action Plan details the steps that the Company intends to take in order to acquire the identified resources and further improve the IRP process. While not endorsing the selected portfolio, Staff nonetheless believes the identified course of action is reasonable given the analysis and conclusions of the Company. Staff fuher notes that new to this IRP, PacifiCorp has included an additional action plan devoted solely to transmission expansion. Staff commends the Company for providing additional discussion on its transmission planning, which describes eight segments of the proposed Gateway Transmission Project, including sizing and rough in-service dates for the lines. Acknowledgement In Idaho, as in most states, the Commission "acknowledges" or "accepts for filing" rather than "approves" a utility's IRP. Other states where PacifiCorp serves have similar IRP requirements and provisions for acknowledgement: however, "acknowledgement" may be viewed differently in some states than in others. Staff believes it is helpful to explain what it presumes is meant by acknowledgement in Idaho. The following policy on integrated resource planning, adopted by the Commission in Order No. 25260, Case No. GNR-E-93-03 is provided as a way of explanation: POLICIES ADDRESSING INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING. Each electric utility regulated by the Idaho Public Utilties Commission with retail sales exceeding 500,000 kilowatt hours in a calendar year shall employ integrated resource planing. Each electric utilty's integrated resource plan must be updated on a regular basis (no later than biennially), must provide an opportunity for public paricipation and comment, and must be implemented. This plan constitutes the base line against which the utilty's performance will ordinarily be STAFF COMMENTS 13 WLY 31, 2009 measured. The requirement for implementation of a plan does not mean that the plan must be followed without deviation. The requirement of implementation of a plan means that an electric utility, having made an integrated resource plan to provide adequate and reliable service to its electric customers at the lowest system cost, may and should deviate from that plan when presented with responsible, reliable opportunities to furer lower its planed system cost not anticipated or identified in new existing or earlier plans and not undermining the utility's reliabilty. In order to encourage prudent planng and prudent deviation from past planng when presented with opportunities for improving upon a plan, an electric utilty's plan must be on fie with the Commission and available for public inspection, but the filing of the plan does not constitute approval or disapproval of the plan having the force and effect of law, and the deviation from the plan would not constitute violation of the Commission's orders or rules. The prudence of a utilty's plan and the utilty's prudence in following or not following a plan are matters that may be considered in a general rate proceeding or other proceeding in which those issues have been noticed. Furhermore, the Commission explicitly stated in Order No. 22299 its role in the IRP process: "... the Resource Management Report (now the IRP) is not designed to turn the IPUC into a planing agency nor shall the Report constitute pre-approval of a utility's proposed resource acquisitions." It is through these orders that Staff constitutes its view of acknowledgement. The 2008 IRP represents PacifiCorp's continued effort to plan according to what is known at this point in time. Given the significant differences between the 2007 IRP, 2007 IRP update and the 2008 IRP, along with events noted in the 2008 IRP which have transpired between the document preparation and submission, Staff recognizes that the IRP process is a fluid one, and commends the Company for keeping the Commission apprised of the dynamic planing environment. While not convinced that the preferred portfolio represents the 'lowest system cost' portfolio when adjusted for risk, Staff nevertheless believes the Company did its due dilgence in ariving at its conclusion. Staff reiterates its position from the 2007 IRP comments that resource procurement is relying less on cost/risk metrics, and more on political STAFF COMMENTS 14 WLY 31, 2009 constraints. Staff believes that PacifiCorp and the IRP paricipants should reevaluate the IRP process to identify the cost of jurisdictional mandates. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the Company has adequately met the Commission's requirements in regard to the 2008 IRP. While not endorsing the proposed action plan, Staff believes that PacifiCorp has performed extensive analyses, given equivalent consideration of supply- and demand-side resources, provided acceptable opportunities for public input, and that the end result is representative of the Commission's directives toward integrated resource planing. Staff therefore recommends that the Commission acknowledge the Company's 2008 IRP. Respectfully submitted this j' 31 day of July 2009. cXtfúh~Scott Woodbur Deputy Attorney General Technical Staff: Bryan Lanspery i:umisc:comments/pace09.6swbl comments STAFF COMMENTS 15 WLY 31, 2009 Pa c i f i C o r p - 2 0 0 8 I R P Ch a p t e r 9 - A c t o n P l a n a n d R e s o u r c e R i s k M a n a g e m e n t Ta b l e 9 . 2 - 2 0 0 8 I R A c t i o n P l a n s~ n ~ i __ l ' l ' : : ~; : ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' , "0 S " 0 g 'l ' ( l ~ (J : : n ~ (l . . I _ ' " t n i o 0 .. \ 0 VI 0 . 1 Re n e w a b l e s on d t h e n e x t t w o v e a r s . o r o c c u r a f t e r t h e n e x t t w o v e a r s . a r e i n d i c a t e d i n i t a l i c s Ac q u i r e a n i n c r e m e n t a l 1 , 4 0 0 M W o f re n e w ab I e s b y 2 0 1 8 , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a l e a d y p l a n n e d 7 5 M W o f ma j o r hy d r o e l e c t r c u p g r d e s i n 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 4 ; P a c i f i C o r p ' s p r o j e c t e d r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e i n v e n t o r y b y 2 0 1 8 e x c e e d s 2, 5 4 0 M W w i t h t h e s e r e s o u r c e a d d i t i o n s · S u c c e s s f u l l y ad d 1 4 4 M W o f wi n d r e s o u r c e s i n 2 0 0 9 t h a t a r e c u r r e n t l y i n t h e p r o j e c t p i p e l i n e , i n c l u d i n g Pa c i f i C o r p ' s 9 9 M W H i g h P l a i n s f a c i l i t y i n W y o m i g , an d 4 5 M W o f po w e r p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t . ca p a c i t y · S u c c e s s f u l l y a d d 2 6 9 M W o f w i n d r e s o u r c e s i n 2 0 1 0 t h a t a r e c u r r e n t l y i n t h e p r o j e c t p i p e l i n e , i n c l u d i n g 11 9 M W o f po w e r p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t c a p a c i t y a l r e a d y c o n t r a c t e d · P r o c u r e u p t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 5 0 0 M W o f c o s t - e f f e c t i v e r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e s f o r c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n , su b j e c t t o t r a n s m i s s i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y , s t a r t i n g i n t h e 2 0 0 9 t o 2 0 1 1 t i m e f r a m e u n d e r t h e c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 I r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e R F P ( 2 0 0 8 R - I ) a n d t h e n e x t r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e R F P ( 2 0 0 9 R ) e x p e c t e d t o b e i s s u e d in t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r o f 2 0 0 9 Th e C o m p a n y i s e x p e c t e d t o s u b m i t c o m p a n y r e s o u r c e s ( s e l f bu i l d o r o w n e r s h i p t r a n s f e r s ) i n th e 2 0 0 9 R R F P · P r o c u r e u p t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 5 0 0 M W o f c o s t - e f f e c t i v e r e s o u r c e s f o r c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n . s u b j e c t t o tr a n s m i s s i o n a v a i l a b i l t y . s t a r t i n g i n t h e 2 0 1 2 t o 2 0 1 8 t i m e fr a m e v i a R F P s o r o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s Pr o c u r e a t l e a s t 3 5 M W o f vi ab l e a n d c o s t - e f f e c t i v e g e o t h e r m a l o r o t h e r b a s e - l o a d r e n e w a b l e s · M o n i t o r s o l a r a n d e m e r g i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s . g o v e r n m e n t f i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e s . a n d p r o c u r e s o l a r o r o t h e r co s t - e f f e c t i v e r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e s d u r i n g t h e 1 0 - y e a r i n v e s t m e n t h o r i z o n · C o n t i n u e t o e v a l u a t e t h e p r o s p e c t s a n d i m p a c t s o f R e n e w a b l e P o r t f o l i o S t a n d a r d r u l e s a t t h ~ s t ~ t e a n d fe d e r a l l e v e l s . . a n d a d j u s t t h e r e n e w a b l e a c q u i s i t i o n t i m e l i n e a c c o r d i n g l y Im p l e m e n t a b r i d g i n g s t r a . t e g y t o s u p p o r t a c q u i s i t i o n d e f e r r a l o f l o n g - t e r m i n t e r m e d i a t e l b a s e - I o a d r e s o u r c e ( s ) i n th e e a s t c o n t r o l a r e a u n t i l n o s o o n e r t h a n t h e b e g i n n g o f s u m m e r 2 0 1 4 · A c q u i e t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s o u r e s : Up t o 1 , 4 0 0 M W o f e c o n o m i c f r o n t o f f c e t r a n s a c t i o n s o n a n a n n u a l b a s i s a s n e e d e d t h o u g h 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 3 I 2 0 1 3 , t a g a d v a n t a g e o f f a v o r a b l e m a r k e t c o n d i t i o n s ' ' At l e a s t 2 0 0 M W o f l o n g - t e r m po w e r p u r c h a s e s Co s t - e f f e c t i v e i n t e r r p t i b l e c u s t o m e r l o a d c o n t r a c t o p p o r t n i t i e s ( f o c u s o n o p p o r t n i t i e s i n Ut a h ) · R e s o u r c e s w i l l b è p r o c u r e d t h o u g h m u l t i o l e m e a n s : ( 1 ) r e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e s u s o e n d e d 2 0 0 8 A l l - S o u r c e . 2 Fi r m M a r k e t Pu r c h a s e s 25 5 Po c i f ì C o r p - 2 0 0 8 I R P C h a p t e r 9 - A c t i o n P l a n a n d R e s o u r c e R i s k M a n a g e m e n t 4 Pl a n t Ef f c i e n c y . Im p r o v e m e n t s 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 RF P i n l a t e 2 0 0 9 , w h i c h s e e k s t h i r d q u a r t e r s u m m e r p r o d u c t s a n d c u s t o m e r p h y s i c a l c u r t a i l m e n t co n t r a c t s a m o n g o t h e r r e s o u r c e t y p e s , ( 2 ) p e r i o d i c m i n i - R F P s t h a t s e e k r e s o u r c e s l e s s t h a n f i v e y e a r s i n te r m , a n d ( 3 ) b i l a t e r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s · C l o s e l y " m o n i t o r t h e n e a r - t e r m n e e d f o r f r o n t o f f c e t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d r e d u c e a c q u i s i t i o n s a s a p p r o p r i a t e i f lo a d f o r e c a s t s i n d i c a t e r e c e s s i o n a r y i m p a c t s g r e a t e r th a n a s s u m e d f o r th e F e b r u a r 2 0 0 9 l o a d f o r e c a s t · A c q u i r e i n c r e m e n t a l t r a n s m i s s i o n t h r o u g h T r a n s m i s s i o n S e r v i c e R e q u e s t s t o s u p p o r t r e s o u r c e ac q u i s i t i o n Pr o c u r e l o n g - t e r m f i n n c a p a c i t y a n d e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s f o r c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e i n t h e 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 t i m e f r a m e · T h e p r o x y r e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e f e r r e d p o r t f o l i o c o n s i s t o f ( i ) a U t a h w e t - c o o l e d g a s c o m b i n e d - cy c l e p l a n t w i t h a s u m m e r c a p a c i t y r a t i n g o f 5 7 0 M W , a c q u i r e d b y t h e s u m m e r o f 2 0 i 4 , a n d (2 ) a 2 6 1 MW e a s t - s i d e i n t e r c o o l e d a e r o d e r i v a t i v e s i m p l e - c y c l e g a s p l a n t a c q u i r e d b y t h e s u m m e r o f 2 0 1 6 · P r o c u r e t h r o u g h a c t i v a t i o n o f th e s u s p e n d e d 2 0 0 8 a l l - s o u r c e R F P i n l a t e 2 0 0 9 Th e C o m p a n y p l a n s t o s u b m i t C o m p a n y r e s o u r c e s ( s e l f - b u i l d o r o w n e r s h i p t r a n s f e r s ) o n c e t h e su s p e n s i o n i s r e m o v e d · I n r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e u n s e t t l e d u . s . e c o n o m y . e x e c t e d c o n t i n u e d v o l a t i l t y i n n a t u r a l g a s m a r k e t s , a n d re g u l a t o r y u n c e r t a i n t y , c o n t i n u e t o s e e k c o s t - e f f e c t i v e r e s o u r c e d e f e r r a l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n o p p o r t u n i t e s i n li n e w i t h n e a r - t e r m u p d a t e s t o l o a d / p r i c e f o r e c a s t s . m a r k e t c o n d i t i o n s . t r a n s m i s s i o n p l a n s , a n d re g u l a t o r y d e v e l o p m e n t s . Pu r s u e e c o n o m i c p l a n t u p g r a d e p r o j e c t s - s u c h a s t u b i n e s y s t e m i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d r e t r o f i t s - a n d u n i t av a i l a b i l i t y i m p r o v e m e n t s t o l o w e r o p e r a t i n g c o š t s a n d h e l p m e e t t h e C o m p a n y ' s f u t u r e C O 2 a n d o t h e r en v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l i a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s · S u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e t h e d e n s e - p a c k c o a l p l a n t t u r b i n e u p g r a d e p r o j e c t s b y 2 0 1 6 , w h i c h a r e e x p e c t e d to a d d 1 2 8 M W o f in c r e m e n t a l i n t h e e a s t a n d 4 2 M W i n t h e W e s t w i t h z e r o i n c r e m e n t a l e m i s s i o n s · S e e k t o m e e t t h e C o m p a n y ' s a g g r e g a t e c o a l p l a n t n e t h e a t r a t e i m p r o v e m e n t g o a l o f 2 1 3 B t u / k W h b y 20 1 s J 5 3 Pe a k i n g / In t e r m e d i a t e / Ba s e - l o a d Su p p l y - s i d e Re s o u r c e s 20 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 5 Cl a s s 1 D S M 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 · M o n i t o r t u r b i n e a n d o t h e r e q u i p m e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s f o r c o s t - e f f e c t i v e u p g r a d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t i e d t o f i i t u r e pl a n t m a i n t e n a n c e s c h e d u l e s Ac q u i r e a t l e a s t 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 M W o f c o s t - e f f e c t i v e C l a s s 1 d e m a n d - s i d e m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n in t h e 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 t i m e f r a m e · P u r s u e u p t o 2 0 0 M W o f e x a n d e d U t a h C o o l K e e p e r p r o g r a m p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y 2 0 1 8 · P u r s u e u v t o 1 3 0 M W o f a d d i t i o n a l c o s t - è f f e c t i v e c l a s s 1 D S M v r o d u c t s ( 9 0 M W i n t h e e a s t s i d e a n d 3 0 o c : ( J ~ -i . . ~ g 9 ~ ~ n , 5 5 P a c i f i C o m E n e r g y H e a t R a t e I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n , M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 . -- ( J Z ¡ : , . 00 0 i 3 \0 S ' ( 1 "' S ; e a : , ~ å n ~ ti t I N i o 0 .. \ 0 i VI ~ 25 6 ~ ~ ( J ~ i __ l : l : : : ~: : ~ ~ I Õ ( J Z e ' , 1 1. 0 0 8 ' §. ( ' 1 " " ; : 1 , ," " " ' . . l: ( ' . . " ' , (J ; : ( J . . ' ~ ¡ ¡ m i o 0 .. 1 . -i v . ~ Pa c i f i C o r p - 2 0 0 8 I R P Ch a p t e r 9 - A c t i o n P l a n a n d R e s o u r e e R i s k Ma n a g e m e n t .. . 6 Cla s s 2 D S M 7 Cl a s s 3 D S M 8 Di s t r i b u t e d Ge n e r a t i o n MW i n t h e w e s t s i d e ) t o h è d g e a g a i n s t t h e r i s k o f f i g h e r g a s p r i c e s a n d a f a s t e r - t h a n . e x p e c t e d r e b o u n d in l o a d g r o w t h r e s u l t i n g f r o m e c o n o m i c r e c o v e r y P r o c u r e t h r o u g h t h e c u n o e n t l y a c t i v e 2 0 0 8 D S M R F P an d s u b s e q u e n t D S M R F P s . · F o r 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 , i m p l e m e n t a s t a n d a r d i z e d Cl a s s 1 D S M s y s t e m b e n e f i t e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g y f o r pr o d u c t s m o d e l e d i n t h e I R . T h e m o d e l i n g w i l c o m p l i m e n t t h e s u p p l y c u r e w o r k b y p r o v i d i n g ad d i t i o n a l r e s o u r c e v a l u e i n f o r m a t i o n t o b e u s e d t o e v o l v e c u r e n t C l a s s 1 p r o d u c t s a n d e v a l u a t e n e w pr o d u c t s w i t h s i m i l a r op e r a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d b e t w e e n p l a n s . Ac q u i r e 9 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 M W o f c o s t - e f f e c t i v e C l a s s 2 p r o g r a m s b y 2 0 1 8 ( p e a k c a p a c i t y ) , e q u i v a l e n t t o a b o u t 4 3 0 t o 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 I 4 8 0 M W a · P r o c u r e t h r o u g h t h e c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e D S M R F P a n d s u b s e q u e n t D S M R F P s Ac q u i r e c o s t - e f f e c t i v e C l a s s 3 D S M p r o g r a m s b y 2 0 1 8 · P r o c u r e p r o g r a m s t h r o u g h t h e c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e D S M R F P a n d s u b s e q u e n t D S M R F P s · C o n t i n u e t o e v a l u a t e p r o g r a m a t t r i b u t e s . s i z e / d i v e r s i t y . a n d c u s t o m e r b e h a v i o r p r o f i l e s t o d e t e r m i n e th e e x t e n t t h a t s u c h p r ò g r a m s p r o v i d e a s u f f c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e f i r m r e s o u r c e f o r l o n g - t e r m p l a n n i n g · P o r t f o l i o a n a l y s i s w i t h C l a s s J D S M p r o g r a m s i n c l u d e d a s r e s o u r c e o p t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a t l e a s t 10 0 M W m a y b e c o s t - e f f e c t i v e ; c o n t i n u e t o e v a l u a t e p r o g r a m s p e c i f c a t i o n a n d c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n th e c o n t e x t o f I R P p o r t f o l i o m o d e l i n g Pu r s u e a t l e a s t 1 0 0 M W o f d i s t r i b u t e d g e n e r a t i o n r e s o u r c e s b y 2 0 1 8 · P r o c u r e a t l e a s t 5 0 M W o f c o m b i n e d h e a t a n d p o w e r ( C H P ) g e n e r a t i o n : 3 0 M W f o r t h e e a s t s i d e an d 2 0 M W f o r t h e w e s t s i d e . t o i n c l u d e p u r c h a s e o f f a c i l i t y o u t p u t p u r s u a n t t o P U R P A r e g u l a t i o n s su p p l y - s i d e R F P s ( r e n e w a b l e s h e l f R F P s a n d A l l S o u r c e R F P s . w h i c h p r o v i d e f o r Q F s w i t h a ca p a c i t y of 1 0 M W o r g r e a t e r ) . a n d o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t e s ; f o c u s o n r e n e w a b l e f u e l a n d q t h e r " c l e a n " fa c i l i t i e s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t fe d e r a l a n d s t a t e R e n e w a b l e P r o d u c t i o n T a x c r e d i t r u l e s p r o v i d e ' ad d i t i o n a l R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y C r e d i t v a l u e t o s u c h f a c i l t i e s . · P r o c u r e at l e a s t 5 0 M W o f c o s t - e f f e c t i v e c u s t o m e r s t a n d b y g e n e r a t i o n : 3 8 M W f o r t h e e a s t s i d e (s u b j e c t t o a i r p e r m i t t i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d o t h e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s ) a n d 1 2 M W f o r t h e w e s t si d e . P r o c u r e m e n t t o b e h a n d l e d b y c o m p e t i t i v e R F P f o r d e m a n d r e s p o n s e n e t w o r k s e r v i c e a n d / o r in d i v i d u a l c u s t o m e r a g r e e m e n t s · S e e k u p t o an a d d i t i o n a l 40 M W o f c u s t o m e r s t a n d b y g e n e r a t i o n i f th e e c o n o m i c r e c e s s i o n a n d ma r k e t c o n d i t i o n s c o n t i n u e t o s u p p o r t e l i m i a t i o n o f s i m p l e . c y c l e g a s u n i t s o r o t h e r p e a k i n g re s o u r c e s a s i n d i c a t e d b y I R p o r t o l i o m o d e l i g f o r t h e 2 0 1 0 b u s i n e s s p l a n / 2 0 0 8 I R P u p d a t e 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 8 9 Pl a n n i n g Pr o c e s s 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 an s i on m o d e l e n h a n c e m e n t s f o r . 25 7 Po c i f i C o r p - 2 0 0 8 I R P Ch a p t e r 9 ~ A a i o n P l a n a n d R e s o u r c e R i s k M a n a g e m e n t oc n n ~ ~ S - ~ ; : , ! ~~ t D ~ l ; èn Z e o -. ° 0 8 3' G . "t 3 ~ a i .~ g n ~ G . . i ~ e n t I i ° 0 .. - . Vl 0 . Im p r o v e m e n t s 10 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 20 0 9 - 2 0 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 im p r o v e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f C O 2 a n d R P S . r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l le v e l · C o n t i n u e t o i m p r o v e w i n d r e s o u r c e m o d e l i n g b y r e f i n i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n t e r m i t t e n t w i n d re s o u r c e s ; a t t i b u t e s t o c o n s i d e r i n c l u d e i n c r e m e n t a l r e s e r v e r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d o t h e r c o m p o n e n t s t i e d t o sy s t e m i n t e g r a t i o n , g e o g r a p h i c a l d i v e r s i t y i m p a c t s , a n d p e a k l o a d c a r i n g c a p a b i l i t y e s t i m a t i o n · R e f i n e m o d e l i n g t e c h n i q u e s f o r D S M s u p p l y c u r v e s / p r o g r a m v a l u a t i o n , a n d d i s t r i b u t e d g e n e r a t i o n · I n v e s t i g a t e a n d i m p l e m e n t , i f be n e f i c i a l , t h e L o s s o f Lo a d P r o b a b i l i t y ( L O L P ) r e l i a b i l i t y c o n s t r a i n t fu c t i o n a l i t y i n t h e S y s t e m O p t i m i z e r c a p a c i t y e x p a n s i o n m o d e l · C o n t i n u e t o c o o r d i n a t e w i t h P a c i f i C o r p ' s t r a n s m i s s i o n p l a n i n g d e p a r m e n t o n i m p r o v i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n in v e s t m e n t a n a l y s i s u s i n g t h e I R m o d e l s · C o n t i n u e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o x y i n t e r m e d i a t e - t e r m m a r k e t p u r c h a s e re s o u r c e s f o r p o r t f o l i o m o d e l i n g , c o n t i n g e n t o n a c q u i r i n g s u i t a b l e m a r k e t d a t a Es t a b l i s h a d d i t i o n a l p o r t o l i o d e v e l o p m e n t s c e n a r i o s f o r t h e b u s i n e s s p l a n t h a t w i l b e c o m p l e t e d b y t h e e n d o f 20 0 9 , a n d w h i c h w i l s u p p o r t t h e 2 0 0 8 I R u p d a t e · A f e d e r a l C O 2 c a p - a n d - t r a d e p o l i c y s c e n a r i o a l o n g t h e l i n e s o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d f o r t h i s I R · C o n s i d e r d e v e l o p i n g o n e o r m o r e s c e n a r i o s i n c o r p o r a t i n g p l u g - i n e l e c t r c v e h i c l e s a n d S m a r t G r i d te c h n o l o g i e s Ob t a i n C e r t i f i c a t e s o f Pu b l i c C o n v e n i e n c e a n d N e c e s s i t y f o r U t a h / y o m i n g I o r t w e s t s e g m e n t s o f th e E n e r g y Ga t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t P a c i f i C o r p l o a d g r o w t , r e g i o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s , a c c e s s t o ma r k e t s , g r d r e l i a b i l t y , a n d c o n g e s t i o n r e l i e f . O b t a i n C e r t i f i c a t e o f Pu b l i c C o n v e n i e n c e a n d N e c e s s i t y f o r a 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n M o n a T o O q u i r r h . O b t a i n C e r t i f i c a t e o f Pu b l i c C o n v e n i e n c e a n d N e c e s s i t y f o r 2 3 0 k V a n d 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e ~ n W i n d s t a r an d Po p u l u s . O b t a i n C e r t i f i c a t e o f Pu b l i c C o n v e n i e n c e a n d N e c e s s i t y f o r a 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n P o p u l u s a n d He m i n g w a y Pe r m t a n d b u i l d U t a h l d a o l N e v a d a s e g m e n t s o f t h e E n e r g y G a t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t Pa c i f i C o r p l o a d g r o w t , r e g i o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s , a c c e s s t o m a r k e t s , g r d r e l i a b i l i t y , a n d c o n g e s t i o n re l i e f . P e r m t a n d c o n s t r c t a 3 4 5 k V l i e b e t w e e n P o p u l u s t o T e r m n a l Pe r m i t a n d b u i l d U t a h s e g m e n t of th e E n e r g y G a t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t P a c i f C o r p l o a d g r o w t h . re g r o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s . a c c e s s t o m a r k e t s . g r i d r e l i a b i l t y . a n d c o n g e s t i o n r e l i e f . P e r m i t a n d c o n s t r c t a 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n M o n a a n d O q u i r r h 11 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 12 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 25 8 Pa c i f C o r p ~ 2 0 0 8 I R P Ch a p t e r 9 - A a i o n P l a n a n d R e s o u r c e R i s k M a n a g e m e n t 13 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 20 1 4 20 1 6 20 1 7 Pe r m i t a n d b u i l d s e g m e n t s o f t h e E n e r g y G a t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t P a c i f C o r p l o a d g r o w t h , re g i o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s . a c c e s s t o m a r k e t s , g r i d r e l i a b i l t y , a n d c o n g e s t i o n r e l i e f · P e r m i t a n d c o n s t r u c t 2 3 0 k V a n d 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n W i n d s t a r a n d P o p u l u s · P e r m i t a n d c o n s t r u c t a 3 4 5 k V l i n e b e t w e e n S i g u r d a n d R e d B u t t e Pe r m i t a n d b u i l d N o r t h w e s t / U t a h l e v a d a s e g m e n t s o f t h e E n e r g y G a t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t Pa c i f C o r p l o a d g r o w t h , r e g i o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s , a c c e s s t o m a r k e t s , g r i d r e l i a b i l t y , a n d c o n g e s t i o n re l i e f · P e r m i t a n d c o n s t r u c t a 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n P o p u l u s a n d H e m i n g w a y Pe r m i t a n d b u i l d W y o m i n g / U t a h s e g m e n t o f t h e E n e r g y G a t e w a y T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t t o s u p p o r t P a è i f C o r p lo a d g r o w t h , r e g i o n a l r e s o u r c e e x p a n s i o n n e e d s , a c c e s s t o m a r k e t s , g r i d r e l i a b i l i t y , a n d c o n g e s t i o n r e l i e f · P e r m i t a n d c o n s t r c t a 5 0 0 k V l i n e b e t w e e n A e o l u s a n d M o n a !S ~ ( " ; : \: e i e i ~ , .. i - t D ~ i o ( " Z e o "' 3 ? ~ "t S " t : : i: ( Ð ; : : : ¡¡ : : ( " . . (' i ! I Vl ' " t i i o 0 .. ' " Vl i 0\ 14 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 15 Tr a n s m i s s i o n 25 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 31sT DAY OF WLY 2009, SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF, IN CASE NO. PAC-E-09-06, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING: PETER WARNKIN MGR INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN PACIFICORP 825 NE MUL TNOMAH STE 600 PORTLAND OR 97232 DATA REQUEST RESP CENTER PACIFICORP STE 2000 825 NE MUL TNOMAH PORTLAND OR 97232 ,10 ~ffSECRETAR ~ '" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE