HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101116Gerrard Reb, Exhibits.pdfR r: t' r: H i i- i-toL. V i:~ ~.. VC: tj
zeia HOV l 6 AM 10: 17
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER FOR
APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO ITS
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
AND A PRICE INCREASE OF $27.7
MILLION, OR APPROXIMATELY
13.7 PERCENT
)
) CASE NO. PAC.E.IO.07
)
) Rebuttal Testimony of Darrell T. Gerrard
)
)
)
)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
CASE NO. PAC.E.IO.07
November 2010
1 Q.
2 A.
3 Q.
4
5 A.
6 Q.
7 A.
8
9
10
11
12 Q.
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Please state your name.
My name is Darell T. Gerrard.
Are you the same Darrell T. Gerrard who has testified previously in this
case?
Yes.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
The purose of my testimony is to provide evidence in rebuttal to the Direct
Testimony of Mr. Dennis E. Peseau, on behalf of Monsanto Company and
rebuttal to the Direct Testimony of Mr. Randy Lobb, on behal of the Idaho Public
Utilties Commssion staff, in regards to the Company's Populus to Termnal
transmission project.
Would you please summarize your rebutta testimony?
Yes. My testimony wil respond to the following items. First, statements by Mr.
Peseau that "most of the Gateway Central rate base wil not be used and useful at
the outset due to its over sizing,,,i and Mr. Lobb's statement that it is an
"undisputed fact that the project is oversized and wil not be fully utilized unless
or until Energy Gateway is completed."i The Company strongly disagrees with
both witnesses' conclusions that the project is oversized or overbuilt and does not
benefit customers and their recommendations that the project is not used and
useful and should not be fully allowed in rates. As explaied in more detail
below, the project is designed to meet the curent and futue electrcal needs of
the Company's customers and provides importnt and neeed reliabilty benefits
1 Pesea Dit Testiny page 3, lies 6-7.
2 Lobb, Dit Testimony page 27, lies 20-22.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 1
Rocky Mountan Power
1 immediately while also addressing futue system needs in a prudent and
2 reasonable manner.
3 Second, the Company vehemently disagrees with Mr. Peseau's statements
4 that the Company's strategy for Energy Gateway is to "domiate transmission
5 services thoughout the western U.S." and provide "the 'highway' to Caliornia
6 and southern Nevada for sales of PacifiCorp' s existing and developing wind
7 projects.,,3 This is a misstatement of the project and its intended purose, which
8 is to serve all of PacifiCorp's electric customers.
9 Third, the Company strongly disagrees with Mr. Peseau's statement that
10 "there is a real possibilty that Gateway South may be delayed or disapproved by
11 vire of other competig high voltage transmission line (sic L servicing simlar
12 markets.,,4 As explained more fully below, Energy Gateway is the only
13 , transmission project proposed in the region that wil connect the Company's load
14 centers to the Company's existing and futue resources. Reference to other
15 proposed projects in the region as being of potential benefit to PacifiCorp
16 customers is, therefore, irelevant.
17 Four, the Company disagrees with Mr. Peseau's statements regarding
18 project comparsons made between actual costs for Populus to Termal and
19 conceptual cost estimates made regarng other "simlar and competing" projects
20 planed for Nevada and elsewhere. As explaied below, such comparsons are
21 overly simplied and do not take into account the specific cost characteristics and
22 requirments of the project.
3 Peseu, Dirt Testiny page7, lies 5-10.
4 Peseau, Dit Testiony page II, lies 4-8.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 2
Rocky Mounta Power
1 Finally, the Company refutes varous witness claims related to the impact
2 of the Populus to Termnal project on disturbance events, system benefits of the
3 Populus to Termnal project for Path C capabilities, and the project as it relates to
4 MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company ("MEHC") transaction commtments.
5 In conclusion, my testiony and the evidence presented therein reaffirms that the
6 Populus to Termnal project is properly sized to meet our customers' needs, both
7 curent and futue, the specific project costs were justifed and prudent, and the
8 entire project is used and useful to the benefit of all the Company's customers.
9 Project Sizing
10 Q.
11
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Do you agree that the Populus to Terminal project is "over built" as alleged
by Mr. Peseau or agree that it is an undiputed fact that the project is
oversize as argued by Mr. Lobb in their respective testimonies?
No, I do not agree with either witness on ths point. The project is sized and
constrcted as the best cost alternative for customers to properly meet curent and
futue electrcal nees. The project addresses existing constraints across Path C,
eliminates the existing reliabilty concerns and constraits identied by the
Western Electrcity Coordiating Council ("WECC") following disturbances on
Path C and portions of the system ditly south, and provides an imedate
increase in capacity necssar to meet existing customer load service and reserve
obligations. The Company has achieved an appropriate balance between building
transmission infrastrctue to meet curnt service and reliabilty needs whie also
ensurng that futue nees are met which also support the transmission system as a
whole on a long-term basis. Ths "right-sizing" approach appropriately
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 3
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3 Q.
4
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
recognizes the inherent "lumpy" nature of transmission investment but limits the
impact by proceeding with the most reasonable, best cost alternative.
Please describe Path C and explain the reduction in constraits on Path C as
a result of the Populus to Terminal project.
Path C is a major transmission path that runs north/south between Idaho and Uta
and includes a mix of existing transmission lines at varous voltages. As noted,
the Populus to Termal project facilitates improved performance and reliabilty
of the entire system, including Path C. Curently, Path C capabilty is limited in
the winter and summer seasons; scheduled or real tie flows over this path may
not exceed these limits without violating reliabilty standards. Power flow
simulations used in planning and rating the project demonstrate that the addition
of the Populus to Termnal project wil result in the elination of the curent
seasonal limitations for Path C, also allowing flows to reach as high as 2800 MW
durng outages faciltating fir ratings for Gateway West or Gateway South.
Please refer to the Executive Summ (Section 1) of the October 6,2008 WECC
approved Phase 2 Study Report,5 which describes the facilities that must be added
to obta the necessar new capacity requirements for the Populus to Termal
project. Also refer to Exhibit No. 65, in which Figure 1 depicts Path C operating
limts before the Populus to Termnal project and Figure 2 shows the new Path C
operating limits after project is in-servce. I furter discuss these items later in
this testimony.
5 Provided as Attachment IPUC 202b in reponse to IPUC Pruction Data Reqest 202.
Gerr, Di - Reb - 4
Rocky Mounta Power
1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Q.
11
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Doe prudent planning requie consideration of future system needs when
developing a project like Populus to Terminal?
Yes. It would be imprudent of the Company to only consider the curent needs of
the system when makng such a significant investment. Please refer to the
September 2008 PacifiCorp Analysis of the Populus to Termnal Project,6 which
includes analysis and facts that clearly show this project and its planned capacity
are required in the futue. This project is sized and constrcted to meet those
requirements, in addition to the requirement to provide a significant capacity
benefit to Path C. I furter discuss this matter later in this testimony.
Why build the project now for future capacity rather than build a smaller
capacity project now and add another project later to meet future nee as
suggested through the testimony of Mr. Peseau and Mr. Lobb?
The project as planned, designed and constrcted has a lower cost to our
customers and lower impact on communities, the environment, and public and
private lands compared to an alternative proposing multiple projects. In order to
complete the project, a new transmission line corrdor was required between the
Populus and Ben Lomond substations and the use of an existing corrdor
previously established between Ben Lomond substation and Termnal substation.
There was significant public opposition and major chalenges to overcome in
obtaning the required new corrdor to accommodate one transmission line. It was
made very clear by al staeholders involved durg the siting and permttg
process that any additional or futue corrdors wil not be tolerated or approved.
6 Prvided as Confdential Attachment Monsanto 1.11 -2 in response to Monsanto Data Request 1.11.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 5
Rocky Mounta Power
1 Q:
2
3 A:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Would it have been more cost effective for the Company to build a smaller
project at this time and to then build a future expansion?
No. Had the Company made the decision to build a single circuit 345kV lower
capacity line in the new corrdor, the only option available to the Company to
gain the required future capacity would be to remove the line and replace it with a
higher capacity line, either 345kV double circuit or 500kV single circuit. The
Company estimates that, if it had pursued this option and had to replace the single
circuit345kV line with a double circuit 345kV line in the futue, the cost to
customers would be $1.24 bilion (see Exhibit No. 66), or 54 percent higher than
the total cost to datefor the Populus to Termnal project. Additionally, the
Company had formally rejected a 500kV alternative due to its high cost and
inabilty to effectively site and operate that voltage in the existing corrdor
between Ben Lomond and Termnal. The cost and environmenta and public
impacts of building multiple smaller projects over time to gain incrementa
capacity is significantly more than building a double-circuit 345 kV project once.
In addition to excess capital costs associated with multiple projects over time,
each would reuire extensive lie outages for a constrction period of more than a
year and would reduce Path C capacity back to today's levels or lower. Under
such alternatives, the Company would have to build additional generation or
purchase energy, if any was avaiable, to serve customers durng such
constrction outages. The aforementioned alternatives were al evaluated and
rejected as more costly and obviously imprudent approaches to address the needs
identied for the Populus to Termal project. Please refer to Sections 3 and 4 of
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 6
Rocky Mountan Power
1 the September 2008 PacifiCorp Analysis of the Populus to Termnal Project,7
2 where alternatives are discussed in detaiL.
3 Export Highway
4 Q.Was Energy Gateway proposed as aD "export highway to Californa and
5 southern Nevada," as claimed by Mr.Peseau?
6 A.No. The Energy Gateway project does not create any new transmission capacity
7 into Californa. The proposed Gateway South project provides a smal increase in
8 new transmission capacity (approxiately 300 MW) necessar to import energy
9 from Nevada into Uta required to serve customer load. The overall Gateway
10 project purose is to deliver resources as defined in PacifiCorp' s Integrated
11 Resource Plan to PacifiCorp customers and to provide resource options over the
12 long term as required for serving PacifiCorp' s loads. Contrar to Mr. Peseau's
13 assertion, PacifiCorp is not in the merchant transmission or generation business
14 and is not seeking to build an export highway.
15 Gateway South Delay
16 Q.Mr. Peseau states that "there is a rea possibilty that Gateway South may be
17 delayed or disapproved by virtue of other competing high voltage
18 tranmission line servcing similar makets."s Is that tre?
19 A.Absolutely not. A number of projects have been proposed in the region in and
20 around Energy Gateway; however, these projects do not connect the Company's
. 21 load centers to the Company's existing and futue resources, and therefore ar not
22 useful to the Company in serving its customers. These proposed projects are
7 Prvided as Confdential Attachmnt Monsanto 1.11 -2 in response to Monsanto Data Request 1.11.
S Pese, Dit Testimony page 11, lines 4-8.
Gerr, Di- Reb - 7
Rocky Mountan Power
1 neither similar to nor in competition with Energy Gateway. Please refer to my
2 Exhibit No. 67, which provides the "Foundational Projects by 2020" map from
3 the August 11, 2010 Subregional Planning Group Coordination Group's report to
4 WECC9 as par of its Regional Transmission Expansion Planning initiative. The
5 "Foundational Projects" list was developed though extensive planning and
6 collaboration efforts among subregional planning groups thoughout the Western
7 U.S., and wil be relied on heavily for WECC's Transmission Expansion Planning
8 Policy Commttee's efforts to develop plans for the entie western
9 interconnection. The projects shown on this map are those identified as having "a
10 very high probabilty of being in service in the 10-year timeframe. As the map
11 shows, the Energy Gateway projects are the only high voltage transmission lines
12 that connect to the Company's load centers in Idaho, Uta, Oregon and Wyoming.
13 Once again, the Gateway Project - and specifically Gateway Central- is
14 not being built to service external markets. It is totally inaccurate for Mr. Peseau
15 to state that "there is a distinct possibilty that Gateway Central would become a
16 largely stranded investment."io Gateway Central is needed to reliably transport
17 new and existing resources to the Company's customers to meet curent and
18 futue customer requirements. As stated above, no other projects proposed in the
19 region connect the Company's existing and futu resources to the Company's
20 load centers in Idao, Uta, Wyomig and the Pacific Nortwest. More
21 speifcaly, no other project provides increased transmission capacity in the
9 Reprt avaiable at
htq:lIwww.wec.bii/committccs/ODflPPCSCG/Shared%20DocumentslSCG%20Foundational %20Tra
nsmission%20Project%20List%20Rep.pdf
10 Pesea, Dit Testiny page 17, lies 2-4.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 8
Rocky Mountai Power
1 portion of the Company's trnsmission system in nortern Uta and southern
2 Idaho and between the Populus and Termnal substations, where additional
3 capacity is presently needed.
4 Project Cost
5 Q.
6
7
8 A.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Can you provide a justification as to why the cost per mile of the Populus to
Terminal project is higher than other projects sited by Mr. Lobb and Mr.
Peseau in their testimony?
Yes. A comparson was made by Mr. Lobb, stating that the Populus to Termnal
Project is nearly twice the cost per mile of the Company's Camp Wiliams to 90th
South 345kV transmission line ("Camp Wiliams line").
11 Both witnesses
provided cost comparisons using a very simple calculation to show cost-per-mie
basis only and concluding, therefore, that a project with longer line miles wil
result in an overall lower cost per mile. Comparson of these two projects is not
valid due to several factors discussed in detail in the Company's response to
IPUC Production Data Request 277, including the following:
. the Camp Wiliams line was a small-scale project, constrcted on a low-
cost existing right of way and it is located in the city on flat and accssible
terrin that required few if any access roads. By contrast, the Populus to
Termnal lie is a large-scale, mostly rual and remote project, with
signifcant hard-rock topography along the nortern segment and soil
conditions along the southern segment that required foundations to be
dred, on average, more than twice the depths required for the Camp
Wiliams line foundations. The drllng depths along the. southern segment
11 Lobb, Dit Testimony page 25, lies 8-17.
Gerrard, Di-Reb - 9
Rocky Mounta Power
1 required larger and more expensive dring equipment and drove a
2 significant difference in the volume of excavation and concrete required,
3 with an average volume of 134 cubic yards compared to an average of 53
4 cubic yards per foundation for the Camp Wiliams line; the Camp
5 Willams.line is located in the Salt Lake City valley where materials and
6 supplies can be acquired, delivered, stored and staged for constrction
7 with great efficiency. Constrction equipment is readily available such as
8 excavation equipment, erection cranes and cement trcks. Again by
9 contrast, the location of the Populus to Termnal project is far from
10 materials and supplies, requirng additional logistics storage facilities,
11 trcking costs and mobilization/demobilation from multiple sites in
12 remote locations;
13 . the Camp Willams line did not require any new substations or sites to be
14 established, only modication of two existig substation facilties. The
15 requirment for substation interconnection to load centers and to resource
16 centers wil signicantly influence the cost-per-mile of a transmission
17 project. The Populus to Termnal project has functional requirements
18 which necessitate the establishment of a totally new "green field"
19 substation at Populus where the project interconnects with several new and
20 existig high voltage lies. It also requires interconnection at the
21 Company's existig Ben Lomond substation load center and, fuer
22 south, interconnection to the existig Termnal Substation load center.
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 10
Rocky Mountan Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Q.
8
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
In summar, Mr. Lobb and Mr. Peseau's cost-per-mie comparsons are overly
simplistic and provide no real basis to assess or quantify system functionality,
capacity, performance or benefit to the system or to customers. By way of
example, their simple analysis would be akn to comparg the cost of two
vehicles based on their wheel-base dimension without any regard to respective
capabilty, performance or abilty to meet customer need.
How did the Company ensure that the costs to build the project as scoped
were justifed and reasonable?
The Company employed an open competitive process to control costs where 75
vendors were identified and recived an invitation to bid. The Company uses a
competitive blind-sealed bid process to contract for the development of each
project unless certai 4efined conditions apply, such as a restrction in the supply
of technology or design solutions that prevent an open competitive process. The
form of contract tendered is a tuey, fixed-price, date certin basis for delivery,
15 referred to as an engineer, procure and constrct approach. Furter detals on cost
16 controls are covered in my diect testiony.
17 Disturbance Events
18 Q.Mr. Lobb states that it is unclear what impact the Populus to Termina Line
19 would have had, had it been in place durng the diturbance events sited by
20 the Company in this case. 12 CaD you plea explain the impact?
21 A.Yes. The system distubances and significant impacts ar discussed in detail in
22 my Direct Testiony stag on page 9 lie 1. As explained in that testiony,
23 the addition of the Populus to Termnal line directly mitigates reoccurence of
12 Lob. Dit Testiony page 22, lies 7-12.
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 11
Rocky Mounta Power
1 such distubances. Mr. Lobb points out in his testimony that, according to the
WECC Abbreviated System Distubance Reports 13 the only customers curtailed2
3 during the October 15, 2007 event were NUCOR and Monsanto, and no other
4 customers were impacted. It is tre that these two were the only customers
5 curled durng this paricular event, but it is also tre that these customers faced
6 curailments multiple times in 2007, and as documented in a PacifiCorp System
7 Distubance Report14 and furer stated on page 10 of my diect testimony, more
8 than 1,450 additional customers were affected due to simiar system outages in
9 this par of the system on September 27, 2007. In addition, several of the
10 disturbances had significant and detrimental impacts to other interconnected
11 utilities due to overloading of multiple transmission lines and curlment of on-
12 line generation stations. With the advent of new FERC-mandated reliabilty
13 standards for Bulk Electrc Systems transmission owners and operators, such
14 entities are subject to significant fines and sanctions if they do not plan and
15 operate their interconnected systems reliably. Path C operating capacity was
16 substatially decreased in 2008 subsequent to these events.
13 Prvided as Confential Attchments 6.6-1 and 6.6-2 in response to Monsanto's Data Request 6.6.
14 Prvided as Confdential Attachmnt Monsato 6.6 1 st Supplemental.
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 12
Rocky Mounta Power
1 Q.
2
3
4
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Lobb states that the system benefits of the Populus to Terminal project
to improve Path C capabilties and meet North American Electric Reliabilty
Corporation ("NERC") WECC standards are "less than half of the 700 MW
currently provided by the project and less than 25 percent of the 1400 MW
capacity that the project could ultimately provide.,,15 Is this accurate?
No; Mr. Lobb's conclusion is not supported by the complete history and curent
capacity status of Path C. His statement does not fully reflect the capacity
contrbution to Path C provided by the Populus to Termal project, as it only
considered path reductions due to reliabilty issues that occured in 2008. Please
refer to my Exhibit No. 65 (Path C - Fir transmission capacity as a function of
ambient temperatue and loads). This figure, obtained from an Operational
Trasfer Capacity study approved by WECC, shows Path C Fir transmission
capacity as a function of ambient ai temperature and as a function of southeast
Idaho electrcal load prior to Populus to Termnal project in-service.
As set fort in the exhbit, the firm trnsmission capacity in summer is 575 MW at
100 degres F prior to Populus to Termnal depicted on lie "A". When Populus
to Termnal is placed in service, Path C capacity is no longer a function of
temperatu or loads and ths char is no longer vald. The Path C firm
transmission capacity increases to a set amount of 1600 MW. Therefore, the
capacity contrbution to the system, and specifcally to Path C, is nearly 1000
MW of its planned 1400 MW ratig and not 335 MW of 1400 MW as stated in
Mr. Lobb's testiony.
15 Lobb, Dirt Testimony page 22,lines 1-6.
Gerrd, Di-Reb - 13
Rocky Mountan Power
1 Q.
2
3
4 A.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Q.
27 A.
Mr. Lobb states that the Populus to Terminal Project does not "simply
fulfll" the MEHC transaction commitment made in 20.16 Do you agree
that is a fair criticism of the project?
No, I disagree with his statement. The project does meet the commtment made
by the Company while at the same time providing for additional system needs and
requirements that emerged after 2005 when the commtment was made and March
2006 when the commtment was approved by stakeholders. Transaction
Commtment No. 34 regardig "Transmission Investment" from Commssion
Order No. 29998 (Case No. PAC-E-05-08), aporton of which Mr. Lobb
references in his testimony (page 20, lines 17-22), clearly acknowledges the
potential need for the Company to re-examine each proposed investment and
modiy as appropriate to ensure each is optimal for customers, statig:
"While MEHC has imersed itself in the detals of PacifiCorp's
business activities in the short time since the announcement of the
transaction, it is possible that upon furer review a paricular
investment might not be cost-effective, optimal for customers or
able to be completed by the target date. If that should occur,
MEHC pledges to propose an alternative to the Commssion with a
comparable benefit. The Commssion may investigate the
reasonableness of any determation by MEHC/PacifiCorp that
one or more of the identified transmission investments is not cost-
effective or optial for customers." (Emphasis added.)
In addition, as I explained earlier, prudent planing and design of a project
of this size requires that the Company give consideration to futu as well
as current system reuiements.
Wht were the additional system nee and what drove them?
Subsequent to the commtment, business conditions drove a signicant change in
16 Lobb, Dit Testiny page 20, lie 25.
Gerrrd, Di- Reb - 14
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21
22 A.
23
transmission system requirements. In early 2007, the Company initiated its
annual load and resource study, required under its federa Open Access
Transmission Tarf ("OA TT"), which forecasts network customer loads and
resources for the next ten years. Compliance with the OATI requires the
Company to respond to network customers' forecast needs by upgrading the
transmission system to deliver network resources to reliably serve loads. The
results of the study fuer confired the need for additional long-term
transmission capacity and increased investment and upgrades in Path C well
beyond 300 MW. In addition, since 2005, severa significant operational
distubances occured which demonstrated that Path C was subject to significant
reliabilty limitations resulting from double line outage contingencies. Moreover,
operational events between Ben Lomond and Termnal substations occured that
demonstrated a clear need to improve capacity and reliabilty in the par of the .
system south of Path C, as explained in my direct testiony, pages 9-11. With
the announcement of Energy Gateway in 2007, the segment between Populus and
Termal (Segment B) became an integral par of the Energy Gateway program by
providig a critical link that connects Energy Gateway West and Energy Gateway
South, and supports designed capacity ratigs based on WEC and NERC
plang stadards and criteria.
Can you pleae stte how the project is ''ued and usful" and benefits the
Company's Customers?
As explaied fully herein, my testiony provides clea evidence that the project is
not only fully used and useful but also the most prudent approach for al of the
Gerr, Di-Reb - 15
Rocky Mountan Power
1 Company's customers based on its abilty to meet current system electrcal
2 demands and those forecasted in the futue. The project clearly provides
3 immediate reliabilty and capacity benefits to the system well in excess of the 700
4 megawatts suggested by both witnesses. The project and its resulting capacity is
5 required in order to reliably transport existing generation resources and those
6 included in the Company' scurent and subsequent integrated resource plans, and
7 to deliver those resources to our Customers. The project's used and usefulness is
8 furer evidenced through the proceedigs and supported though statements in
9 the Idaho and Utah Commssion Orders grantig Certficates of Public
10 Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") for the project in 2008. The Idao
11 Commssion Order states:
12 "Thus, Staff believes that the necessity of the Project should be
13 viewed in conjunction with energy resources that are constructed,14 under way or planned. PacifCorp elected to undergo a
15 transmission upgrade as par of its preferred resource portolio of
16 an additional 2,000 MWs of renewable resources by 2013 in the
17 Company's 2007 IRP. A signicant portion of these renewable
18 resources wil be located in Wyontng. Staff then listed more than
19 500 MW s of renewable resources that are either under constrction
20 or in the final stage of development. In response to a Staf data
21 request, PacifiCorp provided four alternatives that it rejected
22 because the Company did not believe that these would provide
23 sufficient capacity for the new resources. Sta agree that the
24 Prject was necessar in order for the Company to continue to
25 provide reliable service from these new resoures to growing load26 centers." 17
27 In its order grantig the CPCN for the Project, the Utah Commssion noted
28 several pares concured with the need for the project, includig the Division of
29 Public Utilities:
17 In the Mater of the Application of Rocky Mountai Power for a Certcate of Public Convenience and
Necsity Authoring Constrction of the Populus-to- Teral 345 KV Transmission Line Prject, Cas
No. PAC-E-08-03, Orer No. 30657 (Octobe 10,200) at pp. 3-4.
Gerrar Di-Reb - 16
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15
16 A.
17
18 Q.
19 A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
"The Division states it has examned underlying informtion upon
which a need for these additional trnsmission facilties may be
found and concludes it supports RMP's decision to build the
Transmission Line and confirs RMP's planned integration and
operation of the line with futue utilty operations and activities.
The Division agrees with RMP's conclusions that there is a need
for the Transmission Line and the Company's future utilty service
wil be more reliable and effcient with the Transmission Line's
addition."
18
I disagree with Mr. Lobb's reference to Idao Code 61-502A regarding the "used
and useful" standad and the implication that the Project includes unnecessar
capacity. The capacity of this project is required and it is necessar to meet the
energy needs of our customers, including those in Idaho.
If a facilty is not fully subscribed, does that mean it is not "used and
useful?"
No. The only prudent approach to designing and building utility facilties is to
consid~r both curent and futue requirements of that facilty.
Pleas summarize your testimony.
The Idaho Public Utilties Commssion has alady approved the need and
necssity of the Populus to Termnal project as recommended by Commssion
Staf. The Company planned, designed, engineered and constrcted the line in a
cost effective and prudent maer. The Populus to Termnal line is fully used and
useful; it meets current needs and wil meet expected futue needs of our
customers, and it complies with the madatory reliabilty standas and criteria
established by NERC and WEC entities. The project is properly sized and
is In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountai Power for a Certficate of Public Convenience and
Necessity Authoring Constrction of the Poplus to Tenal 345 KV Trasmission Line Prject, Docket
No. 08-035-42, Repo and Orer Grtig Certcate an Certcate of Public Nee and Necssity,
(Septembe 4, 2008) at p. 3.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 17
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3
4
5 Q.
6 A.
constructed as the best cost alternative for customers to meet performnce
requirements and to function with the interconnected bulk electric system. The
project is used and useful to the benefit of all of our customers, including those in
Idaho, and should be fully included in rates.
Does this conclude your testimony?
Yes.
Gerr, Di-Reb - 18
Rocky Mountan Power
Case No. PAC-E-I0-07
Exhibit No. 65
Witness: Darrell T. Gerrard
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWE~
Exhibit Accompanying Rebutta Testimony of Darell T. Gerrard
Path C Trasfer
November 2010
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 65 Page 1 of 2
Case No. PAC-E-10-07
Witness: Darrell T. Gerrrd
Exhibit No. 65 - Path C Transfer Capabilty as a function of ambient temperature and southeast Idaho
load BEFORE in-service of the Populus to Terminal Project.
FIGURE 1
Path C Southbound vs. Wheelan Area Ambient Temperture
805009 HS; SElL:SE Ida Loa Brdger West = 2100 MW, Wit Solor Gain (Day, 2 flseo wind
1100
1050
1000
950
~900
.,c 850"0D..
'5 800
dl
iS 750..
L 700
650
600
550
..................~""--,..,.....,...................~......'7~......
............... '".... -...~.....
I .... . ..J ....L ................. """'B SEIL=450
--~, ... ...........:-C''''-''.:.:.'ll:¡ll:l,i,l
"'.."'-"'''.,."-,'-''-",,,-.1 '""
--,~,---==-=--ç",~~~____.. _.:..=~-J
................ .....:...........................................:-'~-,,,: ................... --.--._......_"..~...l¡.................................::... ~'~~'~~"~~~~l.~~~~~'"_''~,:~~~~~''' ........ .......... . --''-. ,
:: '-'''--''''''''''~...........~'I.. -'''''''' i. ------ .__., - ---------_. ---------_._--........... ....._~~
.................................................. I
..A: SEIL=350
500
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
WheeOR Are Ambient Temprature, 'f
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 65 Page 2 of 2
case No. PAC-E-1O-Q7
Witness: Darrell T. Gerrard
Path C Transfer Capability as a function of ambient temperate and southeast Idaho load AFTER in-
service of the Populus to Terminal Project.
FIGURE 2
Path C Southbound vs. Wheelon Area Ambient Temperature and Idaho Load
1700
1600
Pah C,MW
1100
1200 .........
900
1000
800
750
700 ....
650
600
550
500
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11C
Wheelan Are Ambient Tempeure, 'F
Case No. PAC-E-I0-07
Exhibit No. 66
Witness: Darell T. Gerrard
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Rebuttal Testimony of Darell T. Gerrard
Alternative Cost Options
November 2010
Po
p
u
l
u
s
.
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
3
4
5
k
V
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
+
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
+
D
o
u
b
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
1l
j
¡
i
i
i
l
t
l
H
.
i
:
f
.
\
n
í
t
d
!
~
d
~
l
i
j
i
j
l
t
:
l
i
:
i
.
f
ø
.
I
~
~
"
Ø
l
R
i
f
t
:
~
:
g
¡
~
:
:
:
;
~
:
:
~
:
t
:
~
:
~
:
:
\
:
i
:
;
:
(
(
;
~
~
(
~
~
:
:
i
:
:
¡
C
:
:
)
:
:
:
C
:
;
?
t
b
:
:
~
.
.
.
:
:
t
:
:
¡
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
;
;
~
I
;
;
)
)
;
~
(
:
:
;
(
:
:
:
:
t
I
\
~
;
:
:
~
:
~
:
t
:
:
:
)
:
f
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
i
~
:
:
:
t
:
:
)
d
~
)
t
f
.
:
:
:
:
:
!
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
4
5
kV
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
I
D
e
s
c
r
l
p
t
i
o
n
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
bu
i
l
d
p
e
r
u
n
i
t
RO
W
co
s
t
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
Re
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
s
t
s
(
g
2
5
%
To
t
a
l
34
5
k
V
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
S
t
e
e
l
H
w
/
D
o
u
b
l
e
d
b
u
n
d
l
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
1
2
7
2
A
C
S
R
34
5
k
V
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
Su
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
$7
1
8
,
5
6
1
$6
0
1
,
9
8
0
$1
,
3
2
0
,
5
4
1
13
5
m
i
l
e
s
$1
7
8
,
2
7
3
,
0
3
5
$4
4
,
5
6
8
,
2
5
9
$2
2
2
,
8
4
1
,
2
9
4
$4
4
,
6
3
4
,
8
3
8
$4
4
,
6
3
4
,
8
3
8
3
s
u
b
s
$1
3
3
,
9
0
4
,
5
1
4
$3
1
2
,
1
7
7
,
5
4
9
$3
3
,
4
7
6
,
1
2
9
$7
8
,
0
4
4
,
3
8
7
$1
6
7
,
3
8
0
,
6
4
3
$3
9
0
,
2
2
1
,
9
3
6
Ij
j
M
U
I
W
U
l
t
l
t
¥
$
I
I
.
~
j
n
~
I
t
&
W
O
i
,
i
H
¡
M
f
$
i
j
l
i
~
¡
m
i
i
j
i
i
j
~
I
l
&
I
i
.
U
.
~
i
j
n
:
:
"
!
l
i
l
d
i
i
j
f
f
l
i
¡
l
i
.
:
:
~
~
:
:
~
:
i
/
/
?
:
:
;
;
;
~
;
~
:
;
~
;
(
~
;
;
\
\
;
~
:
;
~
i
i
~
(
~
i
:
i
:
:
:
:
:
.
.
:
:
:
:
:
;
:
:
:
:
;
:
;
:
:
:
:
m
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
~
:
:
~
;
;
'
:
Re
m
o
v
a
l
3
4
5
k
V
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
RO
W
Re
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
bu
i
l
d
p
e
r
u
n
i
t
co
s
t
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
co
s
t
s
(
g
2
5
%
To
t
a
l
34
5
k
V
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
S
t
e
e
l
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
H
w
/
D
o
u
b
l
e
d
b
u
n
d
l
e
d
re
m
o
v
a
l
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
12
7
2
A
C
S
R
$2
8
9
,
9
1
3
0
$2
8
9
,
9
1
3
13
5
m
i
l
e
s
$3
9
,
1
3
8
,
3
0
9
$9
,
7
8
4
,
5
7
7
$4
8
,
9
2
2
,
8
8
6
Su
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
34
5
k
V
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
re
m
o
v
a
l
p
e
r
s
i
t
e
Su
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
$1
7
,
8
9
9
,
6
6
1
0
$1
7
,
8
9
9
,
6
6
1
3
s
u
b
s
$5
3
,
6
9
8
,
9
8
3
$1
3
,
4
2
4
,
7
4
6
$6
7
,
1
2
3
,
7
2
8
To
t
a
l
$9
2
,
8
3
7
,
2
9
2
$2
3
,
2
0
9
,
3
2
3
$1
1
6
,
0
4
6
,
6
1
4
~~
~
~
:
t
~
~
r
(
.
:
:
?
~
:
~
:
t
r
r
:
.
:
:
r
t
:
~
~
;
~
~
~
;
~
f
:
;
.
)
.
.
:
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
\
f
:
~
;
~
~
~
~
r
t
t
t
/
t
f
~
r
r
~
~
:
~
:
f
:
:
:
:
.
:
r
f
f
.
)
r
t
~
:
~
:
~
:
~
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
.
;
.
;
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
;
.
;
.
:
.
;
.
;
.
;
.
;
.
:
.
:
.
;
.
:
:
:
.
:
.
:
:
:
$8
3
2
,
2
1
9
,
6
3
6
l.
n
:
i
i
.
I
1
H
M
ø
¡
:
:
$
I
i
r
j
l
¡
:
r
J
t
:
~
i
j
l
t
:
.
j
~
i
:
i
a
l
j
l
U
j
i
t
k
V
J
:
m
i
j
6
j
¡
~
:
a
i
i
j
'
:
i
.
i
j
i
:
:
i
i
i
j
:
:
$
.
i
j
¡
i
i
j
í
t
ô
.
i
j
~
¡
:
J
:
t
:
)
)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
)
:
~
:
:
f
:
:
~
:
:
:
:
:
d
~
:
:
;
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
;
~
:
;
:
;
;
;
;
;
;
~
~
:
;
;
t
:
(
;
:
~
~
~
:
;
:
:
t
~
~
~
~
:
¡B
u
i
l
d
/
R
e
m
o
v
e
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
3
4
5
k
V
&
B
u
i
l
d
3
4
5
k
V
D
o
u
b
l
e
C
i
r
c
u
i
t
L
i
n
e
a
n
d
S
u
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
I
I
i
Re
m
o
v
e
D
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
R
O
W
C
o
s
t
i
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
IN
e
t
C
o
s
t
I
I
I
:::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:::
:
:
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
;
:
:
:
1
$1
,
3
3
8
,
4
8
8
,
1
8
7
-$
1
0
1
,
5
8
4
,
1
2
5
$1
,
2
3
6
,
9
0
4
,
0
6
2
:E
(
)
m
;
;
::
~
~
0
¡¡
C
D
õ
'
~
g¡
Z
:
:
'
C
"9
Z
S
:
°-
0
0
0
e¡
~
o
,
§
l~
~
~
;-
~
~
-
0
G)
O
C
D
0
CD
6
~
~
ii
"
-
S
.
.
,
a.
~
Case No. PAC-E-I0-07
Exhibit No. 67
Witness: Darell T. Gerrard
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhbit Accompanying Rebutt Testimony of Darell T. Gerrard
Foundational Project Map
November 2010
r.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
'
T
S
B
Y
2
0
'
2
t
l
'
")
"
"
'
"
,
.
"
-
'
.
c
~
-
.
-
-
~
7
~
.
-
-
.
'
-
~
:
_
.
_
.
_
.
_
.
.
_
_
.
:
.
j
j
.
.
.
.
.
J
.
.
;
.
~
~
.
.
/
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
I'
,
;
.
.
'.
¡
f
\
/
t
)
f
¡
~
,
J
_
~
¿
~
;
~
:
"
'
(
~
:
J
'
i
"
j
..
.
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
1
I
~
.~
:
.
"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
:
.
'
.
.
,
'
I
I
.
S
.
\
"
.
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;
l
I
i
..
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
/
'
\
'
.
~
.
í
L
a
n
g
d
+
f
..
.
.
.
,
,
¡
\
,
(
.
.
.
~
I
&
.
.
.
.
.
í
_
\
.
M
e
r
d
i
a
n
l
"
f
,.
_
_
-
,
_
_
.
,
.
,
~
.
.
'
.
:
~
"
.
.
.
.
.
W
e
s
t
Br
o
o
k
s
/
~
.
.
.
.
'
,
'
.
,
'
.
'
~
;
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
I
n
g
l
e
d
C
N
\
i
L:
l
l
~
:
i
;
-
~
r
C
-
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
=
-
"
-
'
\
.;
:
~
,
'
;
~
~
-
i
!
c
e
n
l
1
\
:
,
"
9
.
"
.
'
l
"
.
'
..
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
:
:
~
.
'
:
F
e
n
"
i
4
-
í
.1
'
'
,
'
.
.
'
K
n
l
~
t
-
;
.
.
,
.
tr
c
"
.
M
C
.
.
.
.
t
i
:
!
.
C
o
o
t
l
I
\
.
~
¡
e;
~
D
a
S
.
/
i
.
.
.
-
,
:
j
,
~
'
$
:
.
~
:
:
:
:
:
;
:
:
:
:
~
,
.
.
.
~
.
.
,
.
,
;
;
.
:
:
~
:
t
'
,
:
:
:
~
t
:
;
:
:
:
~
:
:
\
.
\
"
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
f
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
i
.
'
.
.
~
.
.
'
.
'
.
H
e
m
l
n
g
W
l
Y
"
t
.
:
:
(
T
"
'
~
;
.
.
.
.
M
i
d
p
o
n
t
¡
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
"
.
.
.
\
!
¡
.
.
.
+
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
i
.
.
.
.
,
.
:
f
:
.
~
.
,
~
.
:
:
~
J
¡
:,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
i
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
¡
A
e
o
u
s
.
;
1
..
.
.
.
.
.
~
'
.
'
,
.
~
*
,
r
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'i
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
_
.
.
I
;
.
'
(
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
'
1
I
.
.
"
(
.
"
,
'
r
'
/
J
¿
l
'
/
¡
j
;
'
I
'
.
,
q
.
'
,
:
,
.
.
.
;
'
j
i
:
'
:
r
i
k
v
~
'
j
:
:
i
..
j
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
_
h
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
T
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+
~
.
.
.
.
.
'
i
:
:
.
;
~
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
)
\
.
:
'
:
,
~
.
.
:
:
.
,
:
:
,
'
d
~
'
~
'
.
.
'
.
'
:
'
/
'
.
.
i
!
i
l
'
.
'
"
.
"
t
.
.
~
'
5
:
.
~
~
-
;
~
)
A
~
/
~
f
:
;
~
:
-
.
.
:
.
;
.
t
r
.
r
;
.
.
f
.
.
_
,
:
.
.
.
-
:
f
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
;
:
.
.
.
.
\,
:
l
j
T
e
r
l
n
a
~
~
L
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
'
(
'
~
;
:
~
~
;
:
.
:
:
:
:
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
j
.
.
.
.
.
,
-
,
.
.
.
\
.
.
~
,
.
:
:
~
.
.
.
.
'
,
"
~
'
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
0
.
.
"
.
.
.
"
'
.
,
"
'
.
r
;
i
f
.
~
.
O
q
u
i
r
r
¡
;
-
#
a
w
e
e
t
(
A
.
;
~
/
(
.
j
U
4
~
:
~
(
~
n
L
;
J
.
:
S
'
.
.
¡
~
;
H
:
H
Y
(
.
.
.
L
i
m
b
e
r
.
"
,
.
/
j
:
T
"
.
¡
r
~
;
;
;
;
z
"
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
:
:
~
~
i
"
'
M
;
;
'
:
t
-
t
'
\
.
.
R
o
b
l
n
s
c
:
.
.
;
.
.
1
\
c
'
'
.
.
.
.
í
:
f
¡
W
i
i
e
r
t
~
'
:
'
.
"
$
m
O
k
y
H
l
i
i
;
'1
~
"
:
l
~
\
i
.
~
.
,
.
.
.
.
'
.
~
~
9
0
S
;
,
:
,
,
:
'
:
:
:
:
:
.
:
I
~
~
~
'
~
i
i
e
~
~
l
,
~
~
:
;
t
.
:
I
:
:
:
X
.
k
:
:
:
;
:
l
~
:
:
;
:
:
;
:
:
.
M
l
d
.
:
.
.
.
*
\
..
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
i
C
8
I
u
m
e
t
.
;
.
.
:
.
'
C
o
m
a
n
c
h
e
\
c.
.
~
I
~
~
"
.
4
;
:
:
:
:
:
:
'
:
~
~
'
-
:
.
Å
Î
i
~
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
l
:
,
,
~
.
"
'
.
.
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
T
.
.
,
.
.
l
'.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
*
~
l
e
l
O
p
e
"
"
.
i
i
f
~
"
,
.
,
-
.
.~
W
i
n
d
h
u
b
"
'
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
¡
'
.
.
¡
,
.
J
'
\
i
.
_
E
l
d
.
.
&
¡
¡
1
¡
tR
a
J
l
~
n
c
e
n
l
~
.
.
.
~
.
~
\
;
:
:
:
.
:
:
:
:
A
:
:
:
a
~
..
,
.
D
e
e
r
\
.
.
M
.
.
g
a
n
¡
..
.
.
.
,
~
.
B
I
y
~
.
.
,
"
T
:
-:
,
.
.
y
v
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
~
;
j
B
n
g
'
.
'
.
~
Pe
/
e
s
~
~
l
m
;
£
l
I
.
.
.
.
.
!
~
~
:
;
,
:
:
:
'
:
~
:
:
:
.
M
:
:
:
:
;
:
,
:
;
:
V
:
:
.
\
\"
~
/
~
~
.
:
~
.
.
.
P
a
o
V
e
r
d
e
"
"
-
'
:
L
¡.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
l
.
.
"
P
l
n
a
i
c
e
n
t
¡
.
\.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
,
/
,
.
"
"
.
.
,
'
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T
a
t
o
~
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
j
Fi
n
a
l
-
V
e
r
.
7
.
0
,
J
u
l
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
0
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
L
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
j
tn
:
I
J
å
~~
\
f
r
'
r
c
7
0
'
1
(3
(
~
t
Æ
?
:
v
v
Æ
r
y
~
3
(
)
u
t
h
l
)
h
:
.
~
s
ø
'
~
~,
C
.
;
l
d
~
:
~
(
)
:
:
J
.
~
~
'
:
~
3
u
n
r
~
:
:
~
,
:
:
:
~r
.
.
~
.
r
r
.
.
r
(
;
0
2
(
;
f
3
.
t
Ø
V
y
'
~
l
Y
(
;
f
.
:
n
t
r
-
E
i
~
F
/
h
;
;
~
s
~
~
1
;.
f
"
l
r
i
"
r
(
3
0
~
J
(
;
;
;
;
_
:
t
~
3
v
'
¿
f
i
y
\
.
!
V
ø
:
~
;
t
F
~
l
'
;
~
3
.
S
ø
"
l
~-
C
~
:
.
/
;
:
~
:
:
'
)
:
(
)
:
)
.
:
"
5
E
:
:
;
y
~
.
h
;
:
.
~
.
"
.
f
)
(
:
.
(
.
/
~
.
~
r
.
s
~r
\
;
'
'
T
r
;
r
(
;
G
!
j
l
"
1
£
;
r
n
i
n
f
j
V
v
;
:
i
y
.
.
.
8
(
)
(
~
r
(
j
r
n
a
n
;',
'
C
:
/
d
:
:
:
:
:
(
)
C
t
:
t
.
r
\
:
.
:
:
h
3
:
:
:
.
:
:
~
:
:
.
:
~
:
:
p
~
t
.
J
P
:
~
:
.
;
n
.
:
:
,
:
:
.
~
:
:
.
:
:
?r
'
.
.
j
1
"
'
r
(
;
O
f
~
(
;
(
3
.
s
c
~
3
.
d
e
C
;
r
(
)
S
S
i
n
9
SS
P
G
.S
S
P
G
0
2
S
W
I
P
S
o
u
t
h
(,
,
/
.
.
;;
£
!
;
~
.
r,
(
~
(
3
0
1
;.
.
.
t
j
(
;
c
)
r
r
h
:
l
c
?
r
.S
S
P
G
0
5
r
c
p
H
a
r
r
y
Al
l
e
n
-
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
.S
S
P
G
0
6
r
c
p
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
-
A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a
,,
(
;
(
3
0
2
V
"
¡
€
3
S
t
t
-
.
.
!
1
c
t
"
'
1
:
'
3
.
r
y
~(
;
(
3
0
~
;
t
3
l
f
J
E
d
d
y
.
.
.
~
(
n
;
9
h
t
r,
(;
(3
0
4
.
L
J
t
U
f
;
C
3
0
(
)
s
e
P
~
r
f
;
(
~
f
:
'
!
.
f
3
i
n
f
c
H
'
c
ø
r
n
f
3
n
t
t~
:
'
3
Ô
:
r
.
\
J
~
r;
(
;
H
'''
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
I
'
P
','
;
:
:
~
;
v
V
/
\
"
'
f
'
C
:
.
~
r.)
,
\
/
'
.
"
,
r
'
,
,
~
~
(
\
:
:
:
:
;
:
)
~
f
3
C
~
t
,
,
;
r
)
1
f"
)
j
~
C
(
)
~
Æ
"
3
.
.
,
f
v
1
~
:
r
i
d
i
;
:
i
.
~
.
~
"'.
:
:
~
:
;
;
\
:
V
)
\
"
;
'
C
~
f
¡
,
¡
.
:
:
:
~
~
.
~
~
:
:
,
~
:
'
C
:
:
:
.
~
~
.
:
:
t
:
'
ü
;
.
.
"
;
G
;
'
r
(
)
;
:
:
:
.
"
~
:
~~
3
C
;
~
1
1
0
3
ß
C
;
.
,
,
;
.
)
f
;
~n
t
~
~
(
1
j
e
-:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
.
:
"
v
(
.
\
.
r
n
~
'
:
:
:
:
:
:
e
,
u
t
h
:
'
:
:
~
;
E
:
,
H
:
:
\
/
:
:
.
~
g
:
:
.
~
y
.
£
:
:
:
:
;
:
¡
:
:
:
\
/
'
;
(~
l
l
"
~
:
'
t
l
~
Æ
H
:
'
:
t
"
-
t
(
'
\
.~
~
~
~
'
2
.
.
~
~
~
~
P
:.
~
:
:
:
:
~
t
/
ß
~
,
,
'
"
r
c
:
.
ß
.
F
)
\
/
..
.
r
V
k
y
:
-
q
.
:
:
:
:
n
.,
A
E
S
0
0
3
1
2
0
~
?
L
.
C
o
n
v
m
s
i
o
n
5¿
;
.
e
g
~l
\
E
f
)
C
)
0
4
.
;
"
1
~
~
E
i
r
t
,
~
~
a
n
(
i
~l
\
r
~
~
)
O
O
f
)
V
V
o
s
t
r
l
l
\
í
i
J
C
;
'/
-
,
E
S
O
O
f
.
E
a
s
t
H
V
D
C
r,
/
~
~
.
E
£
~
(
)
(
)
7
F
(
H
l
~
t
l
1
c
r
\
t
1
u
r
r
a
y
~
.
.
E
:
~
s
t
t
J
n
ø
.,
A
E
S
0
0
8
F
o
i
t
M
c
M
u
r
r
a
y
.
.
\
/
V
e
s
t
U
r
w
..
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
S
u
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
~
Q
~
;
o
::
(
/
:
:
0
CD
C
D
e
'
!
l
gi
z
;
:
'
"
..
9
z
s
:
f¡
-
u
9
g
.,
)
=
0
)
:
:
al
C
1
'
i
5
i
=
i
-
u
-
'
-i
i
;
I
I
:
:
.
.
.
(
C
-
u
(j
O
C
D
0
CD
ó
.
.
~
~"
I
a
"
"
a
.
.
(1
)
M
a
p
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
2
3
0
o
r
2
4
0
k
V
l
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
i
s
.
(2
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
f
o
r
c
l
a
r
i
t
y
.
l'
i
\
i
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
¥
_
.
.
l
l
l
.
.
.
.
4
o
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
o
F
.
.
.
.
.
r
;
.
.
.
.
1
I
;
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
4
o
l
.
.
.
.