20180216Steward 2nd Suppl Direct.pdf

•
•
•
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Office of the Secretary
R E C E I V E D
FEB 1 6 2018
Boise, Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) CASE NO. PAC-E-17-07
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR A )
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC ) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECT
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND ) TESTIMONY OF JOELLE R. STEW ARD
BINDING RA TEMAKING TREATMENT )
FOR NEW WIND AND TRANSMISSION )
FACILITIES )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
CASE NO. PAC-E-17-07
February 2018
• Q. Are you the same Joelle R. Steward who previously submitted testimony in this
2 proceeding on behalf of Rocky Mountain Power ("the Company"), a division of
3 PacifiCorp?
4 A. Yes.
5 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
6 Q. What is the purpose of your second supplemental direct testimony?
7 A. I update the expected costs and benefits proposed to be recovered through the Resource
8 Tracking Mechanism ("RTM"), to reflect the updated 20 l 7R Request for Proposals
9 ("2017R RFP") final shortlist described in the second supplemental direct testimony of
10 Company witness Mr. Rick T. Link. The Company proposed the RTM as part of its
1 1 request for approval of the Company's energy resource decisions for new wind
• 12 resources ("Wind Projects") and for the Aeolus-to-Bridger/ Anticline line and network
13 upgrades ("Transmission Projects") (collectively, the "Combined Projects").
14 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECT TESTIMONY
15 Q. Have you updated the exhibits from your first supplemental testimony to reflect
16 the updated economic analysis for the Combined Projects summarized in Mr.
17 Link's testimony?
18 A. Yes. My original exhibits have been updated and are presented as Exhibit No. 62, 1
19 Exhibit No. 63, Exhibit No. 64 and Exhibit No. 65. These exhibits reflect the updated
20 costs and benefits in the economic analysis in Mr. Link's testimony based on the
21 updated 20 I 7R RFP final shortlist. The exhibits are in the same format used in my
22 previous testimony. They calculate the monthly and annual revenue requirements and
• I Exhibit o. 62 is included but is the same as Exhibit o. 42 in supplemental direct testimony.
Steward, Di-Second Supp - 1 Rocky Mountain Power
•
•
•
2
3 Q.
4 A.
5
6
7
8
9
10 Q.
l l
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
show the overall net impact for the Combined Projects that would be reflected in rates,
including the proposed RTM.
Please provide a summary of the updates in your revised exhibits.
As in my previous supplemental update, my updated exhibits include changes m
Idaho's allocated share of the updated Combined Projects' capital costs, return,
depreciation, Production Tax Credits ("PTCs"), taxes, and operating costs and benefits.
Updated net power costs associated with the updated 2017R RFP final shortlist, system
dispatch, and revised wind generation projections have also been included in the
Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism ("ECAM") pass-through calculation.
What are the updated annual estimated rate impacts associated with the
Combined Projects that would be reflected in rates through the RTM, in
conjunction with the ECAM?
The Company is projecting the Combined Projects' updated annual revenue
requirement impact for the years 2020 to 2023 to be in the range of ($0.3) million to
$4.7 million in Idaho, as shown in Table l of Exhibit No. 63. The net rate impact would
be less than 1. 7 percent for the first full year of operation.
Has the Company's proposed ratemaking treatment for interim recovery of costs
through the RTM changed?
No. The Company continues to propose recovery of costs through the RTM to
concurrently match benefits and costs in rates. Absent recovery through the RTM, the
Company continues to recommend symmetrical treatment of the costs and benefits of
the Combined Projects by excluding net power cost benefits from the ECAM if costs
are not deferred or otherwise reflected in rates.
Steward, Di-Second Supp - 2
Rocky Mountain Power
• Q.
2 A.
•
•
Does this conclude your second supplemental direct testimony?
Yes .
Steward, Di-Second Supp - 3
Rocky Mountain Power