20130122DIRECT I.Andrews.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY )
MOUNTAIN POWER'S ) CASE NO. PAC-E-13-02
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER )
AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN ) Direct Testimony of K. Ian Andrews
DEPRECIATION RATES )
APPLICABLE TO ELECTRIC )
PROPERTY )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-02
January 2013

I Q. Please state your name, business address, and position with PacifiCorp dlb/a

2 Rocky Mountain Power (the "Company").

3 A. My name is K. Ian Andrews. My business address is 1407 West North Temple,

4 Suite 210, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108. I am the Manager of Resource

5 Development in the Resource Development and Construction department at

6 PacifiCorp.
7 Qualifications

8 Q. Briefly describe your education and professional experience.

9 A. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering from the University

10 of Utah and a Masters degree in Business Administration from Brigham Young

11 University. Since joining the Company in September 1978, I have had multiple

12 roles including power plant training, project management, customer technical

13 services, resource planning, managing due diligence of asset acquisitions, power

14 plant performance improvement, emissions controls strategy development and

15 implementation, and most recently, manager of the resource development group

16 since August 2004. I am a registered professional engineer in the state of Utah. I

17 also represent the Company on a number of boards related to energy at the

18 University of Utah.

19 Q. Please explain your responsibilities as Manager of Resource Development.

20 A. The resource development group is responsible for developing Company-owned

21 generation resource options that the Company could potentially implement, if

22 those resources are determined to be least cost on a risk-adjusted basis. The

23 resource development group is responsible for developing and providing
Andrews, Di - 1
Rocky Mountain Power

I performance and cost information related to future resource options used in the

2 Company's integrated resource planning process, and maintains data on existing

3 resource capacities and performance. The resource development group also

4 provides cost and performance information on current and emerging

5 environmental regulations that may affect the operation of the Company's thermal

6 generation assets.
7 Purpose of Testimony
8 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
9 A. The purpose of my testimony is as follows:

10 • I provide an overview of the Company's current recommended depreciable

11 lives of the Company's generation resources. The Company reviewed its

12 hydro, thermal, and wind-based generation assets and performed an evaluation

13 of depreciable lives in support of this filing. Based on this assessment, the

14 Company proposes certain changes to currently ordered depreciable lives.

15 • I describe the process used by PacifiCorp to develop estimated plant economic

16 lives for the Company's thermal, wind and hydro generation resources that are

17 incorporated into the Company's new depreciation study submitted as Exhibit

18 No. 3)1 (the "Depreciation Study") in this filing. My testimony also provides a

19 summary of the proposed changes in depreciable plant lives and the basis for

20 those changes.

21 • I present the Company's recommendations regarding decommissioning costs

22 and the need to further evaluate decommissioning costs as the Company gains
1 Exhibit of Company Witness John J. Spanos of Gannet Fleming.
Andrews, Di - 2
Rocky Mountain Power

I more knowledge about the costs of plant demolition and removal based on its

2 own experience and that of others in the industry.
3 Background on the Development of Depreciable Plant Life

4 Q. Why is it necessary to estimate the economic life of a generation asset for

5 purposes of developing depreciation rates?

6 A. One major component of PacifiCorp's cost of service is the recovery of capital

7 investment. This recovery is accomplished through depreciation expense over the

8 life of each resource. From the standpoint of setting depreciation rates, it is

9 necessary to have a reasonable estimate of the economic life of a resource at the

10 time it is placed into service in order to calculate the depreciation expense The

11 estimated plant economic life of a generation asset is the period of time that

12 begins when the asset is placed in service and starts generating electricity and

13 ends when the asset is removed from service. In other words used and useful, it is

14 the period of time during which customers benefit from the asset.

15 Q. Is a plant's estimated economic life permanently set when the plant is placed

16 into service?

17 A. No. For depreciation purposes, all generation asset economic lives are estimates

18 that may be adjusted over time as circumstances warrant. The Company

19 reevaluates its economic life calculations each time it performs a depreciation

20 study. In this case, the Company calculated generation plant depreciable lives and

21 provided that information to Mr. John J. Spanos of Gannet Fleming, Inc. for his

22 use in preparing the Depreciation Study.
Andrews, Di - 3
Rocky Mountain Power
I Q. Have you provided the Company's estimated plant economic lives for its
2 generation assets?
3 A. Yes. Exhibit No. 4 accompanying my testimony contains a complete list of
4 PacifiCorp's generation plants and their recommended depreciable lives.
5 Depreciable Lives for Thermal Generation Resources
6 Q. Please describe the process the Company used to assess the depreciable lives
7 of its thermal generation assets.
8 A. The Company began with the estimated retirement years from the 2007
9 depreciation study and considered whether to recommend modifications. The
10 Company considered modifying its current practice of using a single retirement
11 year for a plant, rather than using separate retirement years for each unit at each
12 plant. As part of this process, the Company considered the impact of significant
13 events, defined as those resulting in major capital expenditures and/or ongoing
14 operating and maintenance expenses, on depreciable lives Significant events are
15 typically caused by one of the following three major factors: (1) major equipment
16 condition; (2) fuel availability; and (3) certain environmental compliance
17 obligations. Given the uncertainty associated with existing and potential
18 environmental regulations, however, the Company decided against making
19 changes to the asset lives of its coal-fired generation plants at this time.
20 Q. Please explain how major equipment condition can affect the depreciable life
21 of a thermal generation asset.
22 A. Major equipment condition is influenced by the planned outage schedule.
Andrews, Di -4
Rocky Mountain Power

1 Thermal resources, including the coal-fired, gas-fired, and geothermal resources

2 involving the production and transport of steam, normally undergo overhauls on

3 four-year cycle, eight-year cycle or 12-year cycles. For coal-fired resources,

4 outage schedules have been established by Company and industry operating

5 experience. For gas-fired combustion turbine based resources, overhaul schedules

6 are established based on the number of operating hours and starts of the units and

7 the recommendations of the original equipment manufacturer. It is at these

8 overhaul milestones that other major replacements may be required, such as

9 replacing cooling towers, condenser re-tubing, re-winding generators, or replacing

10 - steam generator components. These periodic milestone replacements are

11 significant and if capital investment is required, the resource may no longer be

12 economic to operate, depending on the level of investment and expected

13 remaining life.

14 Q. Please explain how fuel availability can affect the depreciable life of a

15 thermal generation asset.

16 A. Fuel availability and, to an extent, its quality, are factors that can influence the

17 economic life of a resource. In the event there is significant change in the

18 availability of fuel from the resource's original design fuel, it may be necessary to

19 switch to a different source of fuel. The use of this alternate fuel may require a

20 major capital expenditure that could make the resource uneconomic to operate.

21 Q. Please explain how environmental regulations can affect the depreciable life

22 of a thermal generation asset.

23 A. Environmental regulations which include both existing and emerging changes in
Andrews, Di - 5
Rocky Mountain Power

I air emissions standards, water intake and effluent discharge standards, and solid

2 waste regulations may have a major impact on the economics of operating an

3 asset. New regulations or changes to existing air, water or solid waste regulations

4 influence the timing of major capital expenditures and the subsequent operating

5 and maintenance costs for compliance. Major capital expenditures include air

6 pollution controls, water intake infrastructure modifications, discharge constraints

7 and cooling system changes, and new or upgraded coal combustion waste stream

8 infrastructure to transport and store bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber waste.

9 Capital expenditures, once made, must be recovered over the remaining life of the

10 asset. If a major capital investment is required to meet a new environmental

11 standard and the investment is not feasible or economic over the remaining life of

12 the asset, this could precipitate the early retirement of the resource.

13 Q. Do any capital additions for environmental controls actually extend plant

14 lives or do they just allow a plant or unit to operate through its existing life?

15 A. The Company has made capital additions on a number of its coal-fired generation

16 assets in order to comply with environmental regulations. In justifying the

17 prudency of these investments, the Company has assumed that the plant life

18 would not be extended, inasmuch as other material investments, but currently

19 unknown, may be required to extend the plant life.

20 Q. Have any new significant environmental regulations emerged since the

21 Company's last depreciation study that could affect depreciable plant lives?

22 A. Yes, two sets of environmental regulations have emerged since the previous

23 depreciation study was performed in 2007. First, the United States Environmental
Andrews, Di - 6
Rocky Mountain Power

I Protection Agency ("EPA") promulgated the Mercury Air Toxic Standards

2 ("MATS") regulations. These rules regulate mercury and other hazardous air

3 pollutants from stack emissions.

4 Second, proposed Coal Combustion Residual regulations as part of the

5 Resource Conservation and Reclamation Act have emerged in draft form. These

6 regulations, while not finalized, are expected to require utilities with coal-fired

7 generation facilities to meet certain compliance obligations for ash and coal

8 residue handling, infrastructure, and storage facilities by the 2019-2020

9 timeframe, depending on timing of the final ruling. The EPA is still reviewing

10 public comments related to these rules and a final decision on them is currently

11 not expected until 2014.

12 In addition, the EPA has partially approved and partially dis-approved

13 various components of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plans of Arizona,

14 Utah and Wyoming, which affect Company wholly-owned or partially-owned

15 generation resources. Furthermore, both the states of Utah and Wyoming have

16 issued state implementation plans that require that certain additional air pollution

17 control projects be installed at specific coal-fired generating units.

18 Q. Based on these considerations, what major changes did the Company

19 propose with regard to the depreciable lives of its thermal resources?

20 A. The Company has proposed several changes based on its analysis of the

21 depreciable lives of its thermal resources.

22 First, the Company recommends accelerating the retirement date of the

23 Carbon plant from 2020 to 2015. This change responds to the need to comply
Andrews, Di - 7
Rocky Mountain Power

I with EPA's MATS and other environmental regulations. The Company has

2 assessed the feasibility and economics of various options for compliance and

3 concluded that retiring the Carbon plant in 2015 is currently the least-cost

4 alternative, accounting for risk and uncertainty. Carbon units 1 and 2 will be 61

5 and 58 years old, respectively, in 2015. Mr. Henry E. Lay's testimony contains

6 the Company's recommendation for the accounting treatment of the retirement

7 and decommissioning costs of the Carbon plant.

8 The second major change is the recommendation to extend the retirement

9 date of the Gadsby gas-fired steam generation units from 2017 to 2022. The

10 Company extended Gadsby's plant life after determining that it could

11 economically operate the plant for another five years.

12 The third major change is a recommendation to extend the economic life

13 of the Blundell Unit 2 bottoming cycle from 26 years to 30 years based on a

14 determination of that unit's design life of 30 years; the new retirement date is

15 2033.
16 The fourth change is to note that the Company's Little Mountain gas-fired
17 plant was retired in 2011, consistent with its planned retirement date of 2011 after

18 40 years of service.
19 For the remaining coal-fired generating units, the Company maintained the
20 current depreciable lives consistent with prior depreciation studies. The Company

21 recommends that the existing depreciable lives be maintained. There is sufficient
22 uncertainty regarding the environmental regulations described above that

23 extending the current depreciable lives is not warranted at this time.
Andrews, Di - 8
Rocky Mountain Power

I Q. Has the Company changed the depreciable lives for its gas-fired simple cycle

2 combustion turbine resources?

3 A. No. The Company is not recommending any change to the depreciable lives of its

4 simple cycle gas combustion turbines. The simple cycle combustion turbines in

5 the Company's fleet are aero-derivative combustion turbines and operate when

6 economic and/or when required for system reliability purposes. Operating hours

7 related to outage schedule assumptions around these units have not changed.

8 Moreover, fuel availability and technology viability of the simple cycle gas

9 combustion turbine units have not changed. The original equipment

10 manufacturer's 30-year useful life recommendation has not changed and remains

11 consistent with the 2007 depreciation study.

12 Q. Has the Company changed the depreciable lives for its gas-fired combined

13 cycle combustion turbine resources?

14 A. No. The Company has not proposed changing the depreciable lives for the

15 combined cycle gas combustion turbines because the original equipment

16 manufacturer's 40-year useful life recommendation has not changed since the

17 2007 study. Likewise, these plants operate when economic and/or when required

18 for system reliability purposes. Since the 2007 study, these units continue to

19 operate with net capacity factors between 20 and 80 percent. As such, the

20 operating hours pertaining to the outage schedule assumptions around these units

21 have not changed. Moreover fuel availability and technology viability of the

22 combined cycle gas combustion turbine resources have not changed.
Andrews, Di - 9
Rocky Mountain Power
I Depreciable Lives for Hydroelectric Generation Resources
2 Q. What event did the Company consider in developing depreciable lives of
3 hydro facilities?
4 A. As discussed in the testimony of Company Witness Mr. Lay, the 2007
5 depreciation study based the hydroelectric plant terminal lives primarily on
6 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") hydroelectric plant license
7 expiration dates The Company made an assessment of major FERC licensed
8 hydro facilities and determined any changes necessitated by new licensing
9 information.
10 Q. What major changes did the Company make with regard to the depreciable
11 lives of its hydro resources?
12 A. The major change resulted from changes to license expiration dates for the
13 Merwin, Swift Yale, Lemolo, Toketee, and Prospect plants. Exhibit No. 4,
14 "PacifiCorp Estimated Plant Retirement, Lives - Hydro" lists both the estimated
15 retirement dates of the Company's hydro assets and the proposed changes.
16 Q. Did the Company reduce the depreciable life of any of its major hydro
17 facilities?
18 A. Yes. The depreciable lives of the two major projects on the Klamath River, J.C.
19 Boyle and Iron Gate, were reduced by 26 years. Consistent with the Klamath
20 Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, these facilities are scheduled for
21 decommissioning no earlier than 2020.
Andrews, Di - 10
Rocky Mountain Power
I Q. Could environmental issues affect the estimated plant economic life of hydro

2 resources in the future?
3 A. Yes. While no new significant environmental compliance issues have emerged

4 since the last depreciation study, the dynamic nature of evolving environmental

5 stewardship requirements coupled with asset specific attributes will continue to

6 impact the Company's ability to economically achieve license extensions. For

7 instance, assets located on United States Forest Service land, such as the North

8 Umpqua hydro project, may be subject to different environmental stewardship

9 requirements than a hydro project located on non-federal lands. On the other

10 hand, long-term investments the Company is making to comply with its current

11 licenses may positively influence future efforts to relicense these facilities. When

12 hydro assets are successfully relicensed in the future, the depreciable lives of

13 those assets will be adjusted accordingly.
14 Depreciable Lives for Wind Generating Resources

15 Q. Please describe the process the Company used to assess the depreciable lives

16 of its wind resources.
17 A. In the 2007 depreciation study, the Company proposed using a 20-year life for

18 wind resources based on a life-span technique. The life-span technique assumed
19 that any existing investment in property units plus any new property unit additions
20 will all be retired no later than a specific time from original installation of the

21 project. For example, if a wind-powered generation resource was constructed in
22 2007, it was anticipated that all investment in property units would be fully

23 depreciated and retired by no later than 2027. In the dockets to establish
Andrews, Di - 11
Rocky Mountain Power

I depreciation rates based on the 2007 depreciation study, some intervening parties

2 proposed using a longer depreciable life, pointing to wind purchased power

3 agreements with a term of 25 years or more. In response, the Company agreed to

4 extend the lives for its wind-powered generation resource property units to 25

5 years. Review of the operating history of the units installed over the last few years

6 and the expectations for future requirements has led the Company to propose to

7 extend the lives of its wind-powered generation resources to 30 years.

8 Q. What specific changes is the Company proposing with regard to the

9 depreciable lives of its wind resources?

10 A. The Company recommends extending the depreciable lives of wind turbines to a

11 maximum of 30 years from the previous estimate of 20 years due to the operating

12 history of the units installed over that last few years and the expectations for

13 future maintenance requirements. Additionally, the Company will apply an Iowa-

14 type curve adjustment to the maximum 30-year life for interim wind turbine

15 property retirements. Mr. Spanos' testimony explains what an Iowa-type curve is

16 and how the curve is used to adjust the service life of certain assets.

17 Q. Did the Company consider its ability to secure land rights for 30 years or

18 more when it increased the depreciable lives of wind resources?

19 A. Yes. Several of the Company's wind-powered resource projects are located on

20 land owned by third parties (including governmental lands) under long-term

21 leases with varying terms. Most of these leases are for terms of 30 years or more,

22 but in some cases the initial term is limited to 25 years. The Company will seek to
Andrews, Di - 12
Rocky Mountain Power

I prudently extend lease terms beyond the initial period, as required, to support the

2 longer depreciable lives of its wind resources.
3 Terminal Net Salvage/Decommissioning Costs

4 Q. What level of decommissioning costs has the Company included in the

5 Depreciation Study for its thermal generation plants?

6 A. The Company proposes to continue to use current decommissioning costs of $40

7 per kilowatt, with the exception of the Carbon plant. This rate is based on the cost

8 of decommissioning the Company's Hale Plant in the 1993 to 1995 time period.

9 Based on recent studies, the current estimate of the complete decommissioning

10 cost for the Carbon plant is $56.8 million, or $330 per kilowatt. This includes

11 demolition, ash pile and ash pond abatement, asbestos and other hazardous

12 materials abatement and final site cleanup and mitigation.

13 Q. Do the decommissioning costs estimated for the Carbon plant suggest the

14 need to evaluate the Company's current level of decommissioning costs for

15 use in future depreciation studies?

16 A. Yes. Recent estimates performed for the Carbon plant indicate that the actual costs

17 for future decommissioning of individual units and/or plant sites may be

18 significantly higher than the current rate of $40 per kilowatt. It is the Company's

19 position that the current rate of $40 per kilowatt reflects an absolute minimum

20 decommissioning cost but will continue to apply this rate as conservative

21 approach until a broader, up to date, base is established. As a result of the estimate

22 performed for the Carbon plant, the Company intends to perform and/or update

23 decommissioning cost studies on a selection of its resources to determine if the
Andrews, Di - 13
Rocky Mountain Power
I current rate needs to be modified in future depreciation studies. The Company
2 also plans to review available industry data on decommissioning costs to inform
3 its analysis.
4 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony?
5 A. Yes.
Andrews, Di - 14
Rocky Mountain Power
Case No. PAC-E-13-02
Exhibit No. 4
Witness: K. Ian Andrews
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Direct Testimony of K. Ian Andrews
Recommended Plant Lives
January 2013
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 4 Page 1 of 2
Case No. PAC-E-1 3-02
Witness: K. Ian Andrews
PacifiCorp Estimated Plant Retirement Lives - Steam, Gas & Wind
Net Dependable
Capacity (MW,
PacifiCorp
share)
Commercial
Operations Date
Current
Retirement Year
Life Span
(Years)
Current
Retirement Year
Recommended
Retirement Year
Life Span
(Years)
Recommended
Retirement Year
Life Span
Difference:
Recommended -
Current (Years)
Steam
Carbon-1 67 1954 66.0 2020 61.0 2015 -5
Carbon-2 105 1957 63.0 2020 58.0 2015 -5
Cholla-4 395 1981 61.0 2042 61.0 2042 0
Colstrip-3 74 1984 62.0 2046 62.0 2046 0
Colstrip-4 74 1986 60.0 2046 60.0 2046 0
Craig-1 84 1980 54.0 2034 54.0 2034 0
Craig-2 83 1979 55.0 2034 55.0 2034 0
Dave Johnston-i 106 1959 68.0 2027 68.0 2027 0
Dave Johnston-2 106 1960 67.0 2027 67.0 2027 0
Dave Johnston-3 220 1964 63.0 2027 63.0 2027 0
Dave Johnston-4 330 1972 55.0 2027 55.0 2027 0
Hayden-i 45 1965 65.0 2030 65.0 2030 0
Hayden-2 33 1976 54.0 2030 54.0 2030 0
Hunter-I 418 1978 64.0 2042 64.0 2042 0
Hunter-2 269 1980 62.0 2042 62.0 2042 0
Hunter-3 460 1983 59.0 2042 59.0 2042 0
Huntington-1 459 1977 59.0 2036 59.0 2036 0
Huntington-2 450 1974 62.0 2036 62.0 2036 0
Jim Bridger-I 354 1974 63.0 2037 63.0 2037 0
Jim Bridger-2 352 1975 62.0 2037 62.0 2037 0
Jim Bridger-3 349 1976 61.0 2037 61.0 2037 0
Jim Bridger-4 354 1979 58.0 2037 58.0 2037 0
Naughton-1 160 1963 66.0 2029 66.0 2029 0
Naughton-2 201 1968 61.0 2029 61.0 2029 0
Naughton-3 330 1971 58.0 2029 58.0 2029 0
Wyodak-1 268 1978 61.0 2039 61.0 2039 0
Gadsby-1 (Rankine) 57 1951 66.0 2017 71.0 2022 5
Gadsby-2 (Rankine) 69 1952 65.0 2017 70.0 2022 5
Gadsby-3 (Rankine) 105 1955 62.0 2017 67.0 2022 5 -
Blundell 1 (Geothermal) 23 1984 49.0 2033 49.0 2033 0
Blundell 2 (Geothermal) 1 10 2007 1 26.0 1 2033 30.0 1 2037 1 4
Gas
Currant Creek (CCCT) 550 2005 40.0 2045 40.0 2045 0
Chehalis (CCCT) 517 2003 40.0 2043 40.0 2043 0
Hermiston I (CCCT) 119 1996 40.0 2036 40.0 2036 0
Hermiston 2 (CCCT) 119 1996 40.0 2036 40.0 2036 0
Lake Side (CCCT) 558 2007 40.0 2047 40.0 2047 0
Gadsby-4 (CT) 40 2002 30.0 2032 30.0 2032 0
Gadsby-5 (CT) 40 2002 30.0 2032 30.0 2032 0
Gadsby-6 (CT) 40 1 2002 30.0 2032 30.0 2032 0
Camas(Co-gen) 14 1996 20.0 2016 20.0 2016 0
Wind
Foote Creek (Wind) 33 1999 25.0 2024 30.0 2029 5
Leaning Juniper I (Wind) 101 2006 25.0 2031 30.0 2036 5
Dunlap (Wind) 111 2010 25.0 2035 30.0 2040 5
Glenrock (Wind) 99 2008 25.0 2033 30.0 2038 5
Glenrock III (Wind) 39 2009 25.0 2034 30.0 2039 5
Rolling Hills (Wind) 99 2009 25.0 2034 30.0 2039 5
Goodnoe Hills (Wind) 94 2008 25.0 2033 30.0 2038 5
McFadden Ridge I (Wind) 29 2009 25.0 2034 30.0 2039 5
High Plains (Wind) 99 2009 25.0 2034 30.0 2039 5
Marengo I (Wind) 141 2007 25.0 2032 30.0 2037 5
Marengo II (Wind) 70 2008 25.0 2033 30.0 2038 5
Seven Mile Hill I (Wind) 99 2008 25.0 2033 30.0 2038 5
Seven Mile Hill 11 (Wind) 20 2008 25.0 2033 30.0 2038 5
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 4 Page 2 of 2
Case No. PAC-E-1 3-02
Witness: K. Ian Andrews
raciiiorp tsumateo i-'iant Ketirement Lives - 1-tyaro
Plant Year
Installed
Nameplate
Rating
(MM')
Location
License
. . Expiration
Date
Current
Useful Life
Current
Life Span
Useful Life
Based On
Current License
Proposed
Life Span Change
Ashton 1910 6.85 Ashton, ID 12/31/2027 2027 117 2027 117 -
St. Anthony 1915 0.50 Ashton, ID 12/31/2027 2027 112 2027 112
Cutler 1927 30.00 Logan, ID 3/31/2024 2024 97 2024 97 -
Grace 1908 33.00 Grace, ID 11/30/2033 2033 125 2033 125 -
Oneida 1915 30.00 Preston, ID 11/30/2033 2033 118 2033 118 -
Soda 1924 14.00 Soda, ID 11/30/2033 2033 109 2033 109 -
Pioneer 1897 5.00 Ogden, UT 8/31/2030 2030 133 2030 133 -
Stairs 1895 1.00 Salt Lake City, UT 6/30/2030 2025 130 2030 135 5
Weber 1911 1 3.85 Ogden, UT 5/31/2020 2020 109 2020 109 -
Big Fork 1910 4.15 Big Fork, MT 6/30/2053 2053 143 2053 143 -
Wallowa Falls 1921 1.10 Joseph, OR 2/28/2016 2016 95 2016 95 -
Merwin 1931 136.00 Areil,WA 5/30/2058 2046 115 2058 127 12
Swift 1958 240.00 Cougar, WA 5/30/2058 2046 88 2058 100 12
Yale 1953 134.00 Cougar, WA 5/30/2058 2046 93 2058 105 12
Lemolo No.1 1955 31.99 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 83 2038 83 -
Lemolo No.2 1956 38.50 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 1 2038 82 2038 82 -
Clearwater No.! 1953 15.00 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 85 2038 85 -
ClearwaterNo.2 1953 26.00 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 85 2038 85 -
Toketee 1949 42.50 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 89 2038 89 -
Fish Creek 1952 11.00 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 86 2038 86 -
Soda Springs 1952 11.00 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 86 2038 86 -
Slide Creek 1951 18.00 Toketee Falls, OR 10/31/2038 2038 87 2038 87 -
Prospect No. 1 1912 3.76 Prospect, OR 4/1/2038 2037 125 2038 126 1
ProspectNo.2 1928 32.00 Prospect, OR 4/1/2038 2037 109 2038 110 1
ProspectNo.4 1944 1.00 Prospect, OR 4/1/2038 2037 93 2038 94 1
ProspectNo.3 1932 7.20 Prospect, OR 12/31/2018 2018 86 2018 86 -
Keno Regulating Dam 1967 0.00 Klamath Falls, OR 2/28/2006 2046 Annual 79 2020 53 (26)
East Side 1924 3.20 Klamath Falls, OR 2/28/2006 2046 122 Annual 2016 92 (30)
West Side 1908 0.60 Klamath Falls, OR 2/28/2006 2046 138 Annual 2016 108 (30)
J. C. Boyle 1958 97.98 Keno, OR 2/28/2006 2019 61 Annual 2019 61 -
Klamath Lake Reservoir 1919 0.00 Klamath Falls, OR Unlicensed 2046 127 2020 101 (26)
Iron Gate 1962 18.00 Hombrook, CA 2/28/2006 2019 57 Annual 2019 57 -
COPCO No. 1 1918 20.00 Hombrook,CA 2/28/2006 2019 101 Annual 2019 101 -
COPCO No.2 1925 27.00 Hombrook, CA 2/28/2006 2019 94 Annual 2019 94 -
Fall Creek 1903 2.20 Hombrook, CA

Annual 2046 143 2020 117 (26)
LiftonPumpStation 1918 0.00 St.Charles,ID licensed 2033 115 2033 115 -
Paris 1910 0.72 Prestón,ID
J2/28/2006
Eemt 2010 100 2017 107 7
Last Chance 1984 1.73 Grace, ID Exempt 2025 41 2025 41 -
Granite 1896 2.00 Salt Lake City, UT licensed 2030 134 2030 134 -
Olmsted 1904 10.30 Orem,UT Unlicensed 2016 112 2016 112 -
Fountain Green 1922 0.16 Fountain Green, UT Exempt 2010 88 2011 89 1
Gunlock 1917 2.05 St. George, UT Exempt 2020 103 2020 103 -
Santa Clara 1920 St. George, UT Exempt 2020 100 2020 100 -
Veyo 1920 St. George, UT Exempt 2020 100 2020 100 -
Viva Naughton 1986 0.74 Kemmerer, WY Exempt 2040 54 2040 54 -
Bend 1913 1.11 Bend, OR Unlicensed 2010 97 2016 103 6
Eagle Point 1957 2.81 Shady Cove, OR Unlicensed 2025 68 2025 68 -
Total Capacity* 1,068.002
Notes: Total capacity includes Olmsted (not owned by PacifiCorp Energy) at 10.3 MW