20180226Crane 2nd Direct - Corrected.pdf

Corrected Second Supplemental Direct Testimony
Cindy A.Crane
1 projects with interconnection queue positions higher than a certain point were not
2 viable without Energy Gateway South,a PacifiCorp transmission project that is not
3 scheduled to be built before the expiration of production tax credits ("PTCs")in 2020.
4 McFadden Ridge II has a queue position higher than the cutoff point,so the Company
5 removed it from the final shortlist.
6 Second,the restudy identified 1,510 MW of total interconnection capacity for
7 projects in eastern Wyoming,up from 1,270 MW.The Company updated its System
8 Optimizer ("SO")model simulations taking into account these findings.The SO model
9 continued to select TB Flats I and II,Cedar Springs,and Uinta,but replaced McFadden
10 Ridge II with Ekola Flats for the 2017R RFP final shortlist now that more
11 interconnection capacity was identified.
12 Q.Did the Company update its SO and Planning and Risk ("PaR")studies to reassess
13 the economic benefits of the Combined Projects?
14 A.Yes.As explained by Company witness Mr.Link,the Company updated the SO and
15 PaR studies for all nine price-policy scenarios.Mr.Link's updated economic analysis
16 demonstrates increased customer benefits of $167 million in the medium case through
17 2050 (as compared to $137 million in the original filing and $151 million in the first
18 supplemental filing),and an increased benefit range of $357 million to $405 million in
19 the medium case through 2036.Moreover,the updated economic analysis demonstrates
20 the Combined Projects continue to provide net customer benefits under all scenarios
21 studied through 2036,and in seven of the nine scenarios through 2050.
CORRECTED Crane,Di-Second Supp -3
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 projects with interconnection queue positions higher than a certain point were not
2 viable without Energy Gateway South,a PacifiCorp transmission project that is not
3 scheduled to be built before the expiration of production tax credits ("PTCs")in 2020.
4 McFadden Ridge II has a queue position higher than the cutoff point,so the Company
5 removed it from the final shortlist.
6 Second,the restudy identified 1,510 MW of total interconnection capacity for
7 projects in eastern Wyoming,up from 1,270 MW.The Company updated its System
8 Optimizer ("SO")model simulations taking into account these findings.The SO model
9 continued to select TB Flats I and II,Cedar Springs,and Uinta,but replaced McFadden
10 Ridge II with Ekola Flats for the 2017R RFP final shortlist now that more
11 interconnection capacity was identified.
12 Q.Did the Company update its SO and Planning and Risk ("PaR")studies to reassess
13 the economic benefits of the Combined Projects?
14 A.Yes.As explained by Company witness Mr.Link,the Company updated the SO and
15 PaR studies for all nine price-policy scenarios.Mr.Link's updated economic analysis
16 demonstrates increased customer benefits of $‡96 million in the medium case
17 through 2050 (as compared to $137 million in the original filing and $4-772 million
18 in the first supplemental filing),and an increased benefit range of $-3332 million to
19 $405 million in the medium case through 2036.Moreover,the updated economic
20 analysis demonstrates the Combined Projects continue to provide net customer benefits
21 under all scenarios studied through 2036,and in seven of the nine scenarios through
22 2050.
Crane,Di-Second Supp -3
Rocky Mountain Power
Corrected Second Supplemental Direct Testimony
Rick T.Link
l available to serve the company's customers by meeting both near-term and long-term
2 needs for additional resources.My second supplemental direct testimony explains the
3 following:
4 The Combined Projects continue to provide net customer benefits under all
5 scenarios studied through 2036,and in seven of the nine scenarios through
6 2050.
7 Customer benefits increase to $167 million in the medium case through 2050
8 (as compared to $151 million in the supplemental direct filing),and range from
9 $357 million to $405 million in the medium case through 2036.
10 The analysis reflects consideration of an interconnection-restudy process,that:
11 1)eliminated certain bids,including the company's McFadden Ridge II
12 benchmark bid,from consideration in the 2017R RFP;and 2)supported an
13 increaseto the assumed level of interconnection capacity in the constrained area
14 of PacifiCorp's system in eastern Wyoming.
15 Sensitivity analysis continues to show substantial benefits of the Combined
16 Projects persist when paired with PacifiCorp's wind repowering project and are
17 not displaced or reduced when considering the potential procurement of solar
18 PPA bids,updated with best-and-final pricing,submitted into the on-going RFP
19 for solar resources,the 2017S RFP.
20 UPDATED 2017R RFP FINAL SHORTLIST
21 Q.Did the company update the list of winning bids from the 2017R RFP?
22 A.Yes.The company's 109 MW McFadden Ridge II benchmark resource was removed
23 from the final shortlist and replaced with the company's 250 MW Ekola Flats
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -2
Rocky Mountain Power
l CORRECTED Table 2-SS Updated SO Model and PaR PVRR(d)
(Benefit)/Cost of the Combined Projects ($million)
Second Supplemental Direct Supplemental Direct
(Und:ited Final Shrrtlistì (Orivinni Finni Shcrtlist3
PaR PaR
Stochastic PaR Risk-Stochastic PaR Risk-
SO Model Mean Adjusted SO Model Mean Adjusted
Price-Policy Scenario PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Low Gas,Zero CO2 ($185)($150)($156)($145)($126)($131)
Low Gas,Medium CO2 ($208)($179)($188)($186)($146)($152)
Low Gas,High CO2 ($370)($337)($355)($297)($280)($294)
Medium Gas,Zero CO2 ($377)($319)($334)($306)($268)($280)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2 ($405)($357)($386)($343)($333)($349)
Medium Gas,High CO2 ($489)$(448)($469)($430)($409)($428)
High Gas,Zero CO2 ($699)($568)($596)($619)($531)($557)
High Gas,Medium CO2 ($716)($603)($633)($636)($561)($588)
High Gas,High CO2 ($781)($694)($728)($696)($627)($658)
2 Over a 20-year period,the Combined Projects reduce customer costs in all nine
3 price-policy scenarios.This outcome is consistent in both the SO model and PaR
4 results.Under the central price-policy scenario,when applying medium natural gas,
5 medium CO2 price-policy assumptions,the PVRR(d)net benefits range between $357
6 million (up from $333 million),when derived from PaR stochastic-mean results,and
7 $405 million (up from $343 million),when derived from SO model results.Net benefits
8 increase relative to those shown in my supplemental direct testimony.This is driven by
9 the increased interconnection capacity associatedwith the Aeolus-to-Bridger/Anticline
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -14
Rocky Mountain Power
l CORRECTED Table 3-SS.Updated Nominal Revenue Requirement PVRR(d)
(Benefit)/Cost of the Combined Projects ($million)
Second
Supplemental Supplemental
Direct Direct
(Updated Final (Original Final
Price-Policy Scenario Shortlist)Shortlist)
Low Gas,Zero CO2 $184 $195
Low Gas,Medium CO2 $127 $159
Low Gas,High CO2 ($147)($79)
Medium Gas,Zero CO2 ($92)($34)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2 ($167)($151)
Medium Gas,High CO2 ($304)($275)
High Gas,Zero CO2 ($448)($41l)
High Gas,Medium CO2 ($499)($453)
High Gas,High CO2 ($635)($559)
2 When system costs and benefits from the Combined Projects are extended out
3 through 2050,covering the full depreciable life of the owned-windprojects included in
4 the updated 2017R RFP final shortlist,the Combined Projects reduce customer costs in
5 seven out of nine price-policy scenarios.Customer net benefits range from $92 million
6 in the medium natural-gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario (up from $34 million)to
7 $635 million in the high natural gas,high CO2 price-policy scenario (up from $559
8 million).Under the central price-policy scenario,when applying medium natural gas,
9 medium CO2 price-policy assumptions,the PVRR(d)benefits of the Combined
10 Projects are $167 million (up from $l51 million).The Combined Projects provide
11 significant customer benefits in all price-policy scenarios,and the net benefits are
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -17
Rocky Mountain Power
l CORRECTED Figure 1-SS Updated Total-System Annual Revenue Requirement
With the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
$80
$60
:Jo
$20
g so
2 The data shown in this figure for the updated economic analysis have the same
3 basic profile as the data from the economic analysis summarized in my supplemental
4 direct testimony.Despite a reduction in PTC benefits associatedwith changes in federal
5 tax law,the reduced costs from winning bids from the 2017R RFP continue to generate
6 substantial near-term customer benefits and continue to contribute to customer benefits
7 over the long term.The Combined Projects produce net benefits in 23 years out of the
8 30 years that the proposed owned-wind resources selected to the 2017R RFP final
9 shortlist are assumed to operate.
10 As noted in my supplemental direct testimony,the year-on-year reduction in net
11 benefits from 2036 to 2037 is driven by the company's conservative approach to
12 extrapolate benefits from 2037 through 2050 based on modeled results from the 2028-
13 through-2036time frame.This leads to an abrupt reduction in the benefits in 2037,and
14 a subsequent year-on-year reduction to net benefits,which breaks from the trend
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -20
Rocky Mountain Power
1 CORRECTED Table 4-SS Updated Solar Sensitivity with Solar PPAs Included
in lieu of the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO,
SO Model ($343)($405)$61
PaR Stochastic Mean ($228)($357)$129
PaR Risk Adjusted ($237)($386)$149
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($196)($185)($11)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($139)($150)$11
PaR Risk Adjusted ($145)($156)$11
2 In this sensitivity,the SO model selects 1,122 MW of solar PPA bids in the low
3 natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario and 1,419 MW of solar PPA bids in the
4 medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario.All of the selected solar PPA
5 bids are for projects located in Utah.
6 In the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario,a portfolio with
7 the Combined Projects delivers greater customer benefits relative to a portfolio that
8 adds solar PPA bids without the Combined Projects.Customer benefits are greater
9 when the resource portfolio includes the Combined Projects without solar PPA bids by
10 $149 million in the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario based on
11 the risk-adjusted PaR results.In the low natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario,
12 the portfolio with the Combined Projects delivers slightly greater customer benefits
13 relative to a portfolio that adds solar PPA bids without the Combined Projects when
14 modeled in PaR,and slightly lower customer benefits when analyzed with the SO
15 model.The decrease in net benefits in the solar PPA portfolio is $ll million based on
16 the risk-adjusted PaR results.
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -22
Rocky Mountain Power
l CORRECTED Table 5-SS Updated Solar Sensitivity with Solar PPAs Included
With the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO,
SO Model ($647)($405)($242)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($519)($357)($163)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($543)($386)($157)
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($312)($185)($127)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($250)($150)($100)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($259)($156)($103)
2 In this sensitivity,the SO model continues to choose the winning bids included
3 in the updated 2017R RFP final shortlist as part of the least-cost bid portfolio.In
4 addition to these wind resource selections,the SO model selects 1,042 MW of solar
5 PPA bids in the low natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario and 1,419 MW of solar
6 PPA bids in the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario.Again,all of
7 the selected solar PPA bids are for projects located in Utah.
8 When the solar PPAs are assumed to be pursued in addition to the Combined
9 Projects,total net customer benefits increase.This result is consistent with the
10 company's expectation expressed during the technical conference conducted on
11 January 17,2018 that cost-effective solar opportunities would not displace the
12 Combined Projects,but would only potentially add to incremental resource
13 procurement opportunities that might provide net customer benefits.Importantly,this
14 sensitivity produces net benefits that are greater than the net benefits from the
15 Combined Projects without the solar PPAs.This confirms that near-term renewable
16 procurement is not a matter of whether the company should pursue the Combined
17 Projects or the solar PPAs,but whether the company should consider both
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -24
Rocky Mountain Power
l opportunities.At this time,it is clear that the Combined Projects provide significant net
2 benefits,and that these benefits are not eliminated if the company were to also pursue
3 solar PPA bids through the 2017S RFP.
4 WIND-REPOWERING SENSITIVITY
5 Q.Has the company updated its sensitivity analysis related to the wind repowering
6 project?
7 A.Yes.The wind repowering sensitivity was updated to reflect the updated final shortlist
8 and to reflect the most recent cost-and performance estimates for the wind repowering
9 project as described in my supplemental direct testimony filed in Case No.
10 PAC-E-17-06.
11 Q.What were the results of the updated wind-repoweringsensitivity?
12 A.Table 6-SS summarizes PVRR(d)results for this wind-repowering sensitivity.This
13 sensitivity was developed using SO model and PaR simulations through 2036 for the
14 medium natural-gas,medium CO2 and the low natural-gas,zero CO2 price-policy
15 scenarios.The results are shown alongside the benchmark study in which the Combined
16 Projects were evaluated without wind repowering.
17 CORRECTED Table 6-SS Wind-Repowering
Sensitivity (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
I Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)|PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2
SO Model ($608)($405)($204)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($541)($357)($184)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($567)($386)($181)
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($334)($185)($149)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($281)($150)($131)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($295)($156)($138)
CORRECTED Link,Di-Second Supp -25
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 availableto serve the company's customers by meeting both near-term and long-term
2 needs for additional resources.My second supplemental direct testimony explains the
3 following:
4 The Combined Projects continue to provide net customer benefits under all
5 scenarios studied through 2036,and in seven of the nine scenarios through
6 2050.
7 Customer benefits increase to $496167 million in the medium case through
8 2050 (as compared to $1WS million in the supplemental direct filing),and
9 range from $-3BM million to $405 million in the medium case through 2036.
10 The analysis reflects consideration of an interconnection-restudy process,that:
11 1)eliminated certain bids,including the company's McFadden Ridge II
12 benchmark bid,from consideration in the 2017R RFP;and 2)supported an
13 increaseto the assumedlevel of interconnection capacity in the constrained area
14 of PacifiCorp's system in eastern Wyoming.
15 Sensitivity analysis continues to show substantial benefits of the Combined
16 Projects persist when paired with PacifiCorp's wind repowering project and are
17 not displaced or reduced when considering the potential procurement of solar
18 PPA bids,updated with best-and-final pricing,submitted into the on-goingRFP
19 for solar resources,the 2017S RFP.
20 UPDATED 2017R RFP FINAL SHORTLIST
21 Q.Did the company update the list of winning bids from the 2017R RFP?
22 A.Yes.The company's 109 MW McFadden Ridge II benchmark resource was removed
23 from the final shortlist and replaced with the company's 250 MW Ekola Flats
Link,Di-Second Supp -2
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 CORRECTED Table 2-SS Updated SO Model and PaR PVRR(d)
(Benefit)/Cost of the Combined Projects ($million)
Second Supplemental Direct Supplemental Direct
(Und:ted Final Shrrtlist)(Orio nal Final Shrrtlist)
PaR PaR
Stochastic PaR Risk-Stochastic PaR Risk-
SO Model Mean Adjusted SO Model Mean Adjusted
Price-Policy Scenario PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Low Gas,Zero CO2 ($185)($‡2612)($B21_56)($145)($444126)($4091)
Low Gas,Medium CO2 ($208)($4-55179)($464_lg)($186)($4-24146)($½‡2)
Low Gas,High CO2 ($370)($3D_337)($331¾_5)($297)($268_280)($272294)
Medium Gas,Zero CO2 ($377)($295_319)($31033_4)($306)($246261)($268280)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2 ($405)($331¾7)($3G226)($343)($1‡&3_31)($327¾9)
Medium Gas,High CO2 ($489)$(424448)($4454 )($430)($3884_09)($406428)
High Gas,Zero CO2 ($699)($64GM8)($-572_596)($619)($50921)($-53621)
High Gas,Medium CO2 ($716)($-57960)($6096Â1)($636)($639561)($-5675_8_8)
High Gas,High CO2 ($781)($674g94)($706221)($696)($406622)($436gg)
2 Over a 20-year period,the Combined Projects reduce customer costs in all nine
3 price-policy scenarios.This outcome is consistent in both the SO model and PaR
4 results.Under the central price-policy scenario,when applying medium natural gas,
5 medium CO2 price-policy assumptions,the PVRR(d)net benefits range between
6 $3-3-3D million (up from $¾‡U million),when derived from PaR stochastic-mean
7 results,and $405 million (up from $343 million),when derived from SO model results.
8 Net benefits increase relative to those shown in my supplemental direct testimony.This
9 is driven by the increased interconnection capacity associated with the Aeolus-to-
Link,Di-Second Supp -14
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 CORRECTED Table 3-SS.Updated Nominal Revenue Requirement PVRR(d)
(Benefit)/Cost of the Combined Projects ($million)
Second
Supplemental Supplemental
Direct Direct
(Updated Final (Original Final
Price-Policy Scenario Shortlist)Shortlist)
Low Gas,Zero CO2 $4651__4 $44919_5
Low Gas,Medium CO2 $98122 $43Al_5_9
Low Gas,High CO2 ($-W4_141)($44629)
Medium Gas,Zero CO2 ($m@ ($934)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2 ($496161)($-lWR)
Medium Gas,High CO2 ($333304)($30‡U)
High Gas,Zero CO2 ($4774 )($437411)
High Gas,Medium CO2 ($-5284_99)($479¾3)
High Gas,High CO2 ($6G4635)($-5852)
2 When system costs and benefits from the Combined Projects are extended out
3 through 2050,covering the full depreciable life of the owned-windprojects included in
4 the updated 2017R RFP final shortlist,the Combined Projects reduce customer costs in
5 seven out of nine price-policy scenarios.Customer net benefits range from $4-2-1-L
6 million in the medium natural-gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario (up from $40¾
7 million)to $464 million in the high natural gas,high CO2 price-policy scenario (up
8 from $-58-58 million).Under the central price-policy scenario,when applying
9 medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy assumptions,the PVRR(d)benefits of
10 the Combined Projects are $-196 million (up from $-1-771million).The Combined
11 Projects provide significant customer benefits in all price-policy scenarios,and the net
12 benefits are unfavorable only when low natural-gas prices are paired with zero or
Link,Di-Second Supp -17
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 CORRECTED Figure 1-SS Updated Total-System Annual Revenue Requirement
With the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
$80
$60
$40
$20
g so
IIa ($40)
2 The data shown in this figure for the updated economic analysis have the same
3 basic profile as the data from the economic analysis summarized in my supplemental
4 direct testimony.Despite a reduction in PTC benefits associatedwith changes in federal
5 tax law,the reduced costs from winning bids from the 2017R RFP continue to generate
6 substantial near-term customer benefits and continue to contribute to customer benefits
7 over the long term.The Combined Projects produce net benefits in 23 years out of the
8 30 years that the proposed owned-wind resources selected to the 2017R RFP final
9 shortlist are assumedto operate.
10 As noted in my supplemental direct testimony,the year-on-year reduction in net
11 benefits from 2036 to 2037 is driven by the company's conservative approach to
12 extrapolate benefits from 2037 through 2050 based on modeled results from the 2028-
13 through-2036 time frame.This leads to an abrupt reduction in the benefits in 2037,and
14 a subsequent year-on-year reduction to net benefits,which breaks from the trend
Link,Di-Second Supp -20
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
1 CORRECTED Table 4-SS Updated Solar Sensitivity with Solar PPAs Included
in lieu of the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO,
SO Model ($343)($405)$61
PaR Stochastic Mean ($20G228)($333357)$-127129
PaR Risk Adjusted ($2-16237)($362386)$-146149
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($196)($185)($11)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($-123139)($426150)$311
PaR Risk Adjusted ($-130145)($-1-32156)$311
2 In this sensitivity,the SO model selects 1,122 MW of solar PPA bids in the low
3 natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario and 1,419 MW of solar PPA bids in the
4 medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario.All of the selected solar PPA
5 bids are for projects located in Utah.
6 In the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario,a portfolio with
7 the Combined Projects delivers greater customer benefits relative to a portfolio that
8 adds solar PPA bids without the Combined Projects.Customer benefits are greater
9 when the resource portfolio includes the Combined Projects without solar PPA bids by
10 $-1461_million in the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario based
ll on the risk-adjusted PaR results.In the low natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario,
12 the portfolio with the Combined Projects delivers slightly greater customer benefits
13 relative to a portfolio that adds solar PPA bids without the Combined Projects when
14 modeled in PaR,and slightly lower customer benefits when analyzed with the SO
15 model.The decreasein net benefits in the solar PPA portfolio is $311 million based on
16 the risk-adjusted PaR results.
Link,Di-Second Supp -22
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
l CORRECTED Table 5-SS Updated Solar Sensitivity with Solar PPAs Included
With the Combined Projects (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)PVRR(d)PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO,
SO Model ($647)($405)($242)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($455519)($333357)($‡22163)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($479543)($-362386)($-144157)
Low Gas,Zero COy
SO Model ($312)($185)($127)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($497250)($‡26150)($-N100)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($206259)($4-32156)($-74103)
2 In this sensitivity,the SO model continues to choose the winning bids included
3 in the updated 2017R RFP final shortlist as part of the least-cost bid portfolio.In
4 addition to these wind resource selections,the SO model selects 1,042 MW of solar
5 PPA bids in the low natural gas,zero CO2 price-policy scenario and 1,419 MW of solar
6 PPA bids in the medium natural gas,medium CO2 price-policy scenario.Again,all of
7 the selected solar PPA bids are for projects located in Utah.
8 When the solar PPAs are assumed to be pursued in addition to the Combined
9 Projects,total net customer benefits increase.This result is consistent with the
10 company's expectation expressed during the technical conference conducted on
11 January 17,2018 that cost-effective solar opportunities would not displace the
12 Combined Projects,but would only potentially add to incremental resource
13 procurement opportunities that might provide net customer benefits.Importantly,this
14 sensitivity produces net benefits that are greater than the net benefits from the
15 Combined Projects without the solar PPAs.This confirms that near-term renewable
16 procurement is not a matter of whether the company should pursue the Combined
17 Projects or the solar PPAs,but whether the company should consider both
Link,Di-Second Supp-24
Rocky Mountain Power
REDLINE
l opportunities.At this time,it is clear that the Combined Projects provide significant net
2 benefits,and that these benefits are not eliminated if the company were to also pursue
3 solar PPA bids through the 2017S RFP.
4 WIND-REPOWERING SENSITIVITY
5 Q.Has the company updated its sensitivity analysis related to the wind repowering
6 project?
7 A.Yes.The wind repowering sensitivity was updated to reflect the updated final shortlist
8 and to reflect the most recent cost-and performance estimates for the wind repowering
9 project as described in my supplemental direct testimony filed in Case No.
10 PAC-E-17-06.
11 Q.What were the results of the updated wind-repoweringsensitivity?
12 A.Table 6-SS summarizes PVRR(d)results for this wind-repowering sensitivity.This
13 sensitivity was developed using SO model and PaR simulations through 2036 for the
14 medium natural-gas,medium CO2 and the low natural-gas,zero CO2 price-policy
15 scenarios.The results are shown alongside the benchmark study in which the Combined
16 Projects were evaluated without wind repowering.
17 CORRECTED Table 6-SS Wind-Repowering
Sensitivity (Benefit)/Cost ($million)
Sensitivity Benchmark Change in
PVRR(d)|PVRR(d)|PVRR(d)
Medium Gas,Medium CO2
SO Model ($608)($405)($204)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($¾54_ll)($¾357)($184)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($54322)($3mg)($181)
Low Gas,Zero CO2
SO Model ($334)($185)($149)
PaR Stochastic Mean ($257 )($‡26150)($131)
PaR Risk Adjusted ($242 )($‡32156)($138)
Link,Di-Second Supp -25
Rocky Mountain Power