20180326Brief in Support of Motion.pdf

Ronald L.Williams,ISB No.3034 RE E ED
Williams Bradbury,P.C.
P.O.Box 388 25 AM 9:59
Boise ID,83701
Telephone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for PIIC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )Case No.PAC-E-17-07
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC )PACIFICORP IDAHO INDUSTRIAL
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND )CUSTOMERS'BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
BINDING RATEMAKING TREATMENT )MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
FOR WIND AND TRANSMISSION )RESPONSES
FACILITIES
The PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial Customers ("PIIC"),submits this Brief in
Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses,in accordance with IDAPA
31.01.01.056,221 -225,to compel Rocky Mountain Power (RMP or "PacifiCorp")to
fully answer PIIC's Fifth Production Request,Requests No.30,31,34(d)and 34(h).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 26,2018,PIIC timely served RMP with its Fifth Request for
Production in the above referenced case -PIIC Request Nos 21 -40.On Monday,March
19,2018,PacifiCorp timely served its response to PIIC's Fifth Request for Production.
(See Exhibit A,which includes both requests and responses).In its response,PacifiCorp
objected,and did not respond to,PIIC Data Requests 30,31,32,33,34,35,and 36.
PacifiCorp alleged that those requests were "not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence."On Tuesday March 20,2018,PIIC
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 1
contacted PacifiCorp and asked that if PacifiCorp would respond to only PIIC Data
Requests 30,31,34(d)and 34(h),PIIC was willing to withdraw the other requests.(See
Exhibit B).The request also asked that PacifiCorp reply "at its earliest convenience"and
that PIIC would appreciate "knowingASAP if [PacifiCorp]would amend its answer."
Otherwise,PIIC stated it would need "to file a motion to compel"answers.PacifiCorp
has not responded to this request and PIIC interprets PacifiCorp's failure to respond as its
continued objection to providing responses to PIIC Data Requests 30,31,34(d)and
34(h).
STATEMENT OF LAW
Idaho PUC Rule 221.05 provides that the scope and procedure of discovery (other
than statutory examination and audit)shall be governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure ("IRCP").Rule 26(b)(l)of the IRCP broadly defines the scope of discovery
as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense,including the existence,
description,nature,custody,condition,and location of any
documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter.For good cause,the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action.Relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
I.R.C.P.26(b)(l)(2016)(emphasis added).Therefore,under IPUC Rule 221,the
Commission may order discovery that is "relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action"and the "relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears to reasonably calculate to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 2
ARGUMENT
I.PIIC's Requests 30,31,34(d),and 34(h)are calculated to lead to
admissible evidence.
With respect to RMP's objection that discovered information may not be
"admissible,"such an objection is essentially prohibited by Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure ("Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.")See
I.R.C.P.26(b)(l).
The standard for admissibility of evidence before the Commission is also
significantlyless than the standard applicable in Idaho courts,to which I.R.C.P 26(b)(l)
also applies.Idaho PUC Rules state that the Commission is not bound by the Idaho Rules
of Evidence,but the "rules as to the admissibility of evidence used by the district courts
of Idaho in non-jurycivil cases are generally followed"and "evidence may be admitted if
it is a type generally relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs."
IDAPA 31.01.01.261.The evidence that will be obtained through PIIC's requests is
information that would be reasonably relied up by a prudent customer of RMP in the
conduct if its affairs.In essence,the information requested is important to understanding
the costs and benefits associated with the 2017R RFP short list resources identified in
PacifiCorp's SupplementalDirect Testimony,as discussed below.
II.PIIC's Requests 30,31,34(d),and 34(h)are relevant.
A.Overview
PIIC's production requests 30,31,34(d)and 34(h)are not only relevant,but are
essential to understandingthe costs and benefits associated with the 2017R RFP short list
resources identified in PacifiCorp's SupplementalDirect Testimony.In particular,these
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 3
production requests are relevant in understanding whether PacifiCorp has appropriately
considered the costs and benefits of energy imbalance market ("EIM")transactions
which are imputes or variables used by RMP in developing its estimated benefit
projections in Corrected Table 2-SD and Corrected Table 3-SD in the Supplemental
Direct Testimony of Rick Link.'
In response to PIIC Data Request 21,PacifiCorp confirmed that the economic
analyses in the SupplementalDirect Testimony of Rick T.Link included a modeling
assumption it refers to as an "Energy Imbalance Market ("EIM")Benefit."2 In both the
System Optimizer and PaR models,the transmission topology3 includes a new 300 MW
transmission link between Jim Bridger and Walla Walla.This new transmission link
does not exist today,and PacifiCorp has no plans to build it.Notwithstanding,
PacifiCorp believes that this incremental 300 MW of transmission capability will be
made available when Idaho Power joins the EIM.Within its models,this assumption has
the effect of reducing congestion out of Wyoming at Bridger (the terminating end of the
proposed Gateway sub-segment D2)and increasing the purported economic benefits of
the short list resources identified in the SupplementalDirect Testimony of Rick T.Link.
In Direct Testimony,PIIC witness Mr.Mullins testified that the EIM does not
operate in a way that allows a utility to effectuate firm transmission of electricity,as
PacifiCorp has modeled with respect to its EIM benefit adjustment.4 In contrast,Mr.
Mullins testified that the EIM is likelyto result in a net cost to Wyomingwind resources,
i See Corrected Supplemental Direct Testimony of Rick Link,Pages 27 and 30.
2 See Exhibit A page 14.
For an illustration of the transmission topology used in the IRP see PacifiCorp,2017 Integrated
Resource Plan,Page 147,Figure 7.2.
4 Direct Testimony of Bradley G.Mullins,page 28,line 1 -page 29,line 2.
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 4
since those resource will be subject to uninstructed imbalance charges,which PacifiCorp
acknowledged was not considered in its economic analysis."
In Rebuttal Testimony,RMP never actuallyresponded to the propriety of the new
300 MW transmission link between the Jim Bridger and Walla Walla.Mr.Link
apparently disagreed with the way Mr.Mullins has characterized the Supplemental GRID
studies that were prepared as a part of the 2017 IRP.6 He noted that the GRID model
studies were only used in the 2017 IRP,and not in subsequent analyses presented in this
docket.'Mr.Mullins,however,acknowledgedthat PacifiCorp only used the
Supplemental GRID studies in the 2017 IRP,and that PacifiCorp had since incorporated
the adjustments into the SO and PaR models."The only reason that the Supplemental
GRID studies were considered was due to the fact that,as can be noted in PacifiCorp's
response to PIIC Data Request 21,PacifiCorp has been unwillingto isolate the impact of
the 300 MW link between Jim Bridger and Walla Walla in economic studies performed
using the SO and PaR models."Since PacifiCorp has been unresponsive,the
Supplemental GRID studies are the best information available estimating the economic
impact of the new,300 MW transmission link between Jim Bridger and Walla Walla
included in PacifiCorp's economic analyses.
Further,in response to Mr.Mullins allegation that the EIM is likely to represent
an additional ancillaryservice cost,Mr.Vail testified that "there is no basis to assume
that uninstructed imbalance will result in a net cost and,in fact,the expectation is that
5 Id.
6 Rebuttal Testimony of Rick Link,page 27,line 19 -page 28,line l.
7 Id.
8 Direct Testimony of Bradley G.Mullins,page 6,lines 7 -10.
9 See Attachment A,page 14.
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 5
over time there will be no net impact associated with uninstructed imbalance"'°Mr.Vail,
however,did not provide any supporting data-such as actual uninstructed imbalance
charges for existing Wyomingwind resources-to support his claim that the uninstructed
imbalance of Wyomingwind resources will net to zero.
B.PIIC Data Request 30
In Data Request 30,PIIC requested PacifiCorp identify whether PacifiCorp is
"required to submit independently balanced EIM Base Schedules for PACE and PACW
balancing area pursuant to the CAISO's EIM tariff or PacifiCorp Transmission's EIM
tariff."PacifiCorp objected to this request alleging that it was not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
PIIC believes that it is not possible to use the EIM to achieve new,firm
transmission rights on another EIM participants system because each EIM participant is
required to submit a balanced EIM Base Schedule.To the extent that each balancing area
must be independently balanced,as questioned in PIIC Data Request,PacifiCorp would
not be able to utilize the EIM to effectuate firm transmission between PACE and PACW
in an amount exceeding PacifiCorp's existing firm transmission capability.If true,it
would suggest that the 300 MW of link between Jim Bridger and Walla Walla is not
appropriately included in the SO and PaR model studies presented in the Supplemental
Direct Testimony of Rick T.Link.
10 Rebuttal Testimony of Rick Vail,page 23,lines 12 -14.
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 6
C.PIIC Data Request 31
In Data Request 31,PIIC requested PacifiCorp identify whether the EIM provides
"PacifiCorp with the ability to schedule firm energy between balancing areas in an
amount exceeding the firm transmission rights that PacifiCorp possesses between the two
balancing areas."PacifiCorp objected to this request on the basis that the request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
PIIC is aware of no tariff provisions within the California IndependentOperator
EIM tariff that would allow for the type of transmission capability between Jim Bridger
and Walla Wall that the Company has included in the SO and PaR model studies
presented in the Second Supplemental Direct Testimony of Rick T.Link.Data Request
31 requests PacifiCorp identify those provisions.Thus,it is appropriate,and relevant,to
the consideration of the Company's purported benefits of the 2017R RFP short list win
resource for PacifiCorp to identify,with specificity,how it intends to use the EIM to
achieve the incremental 300 MW of new transmission capability between Jim Bridger
and Walla Walla.
D.PIIC Data Request 34(d)and 34(h)
In Data Request 34,PIIC requested PacifiCorp provide the monthlyuninstructed
imbalance charges associated with a list of existing wind resources located in Wyoming.
In an effort to reduce the potential burden of responding to this request,PIIC was willing
to limit the data requested to two existing wind facilities:McFadden Ridge (PIIC Data
Request 34(d))and Dunlap I (PIIC Data Request 34(h)).
Mr.Vail's Rebuttal Testimony confirmed that the economic studies presented in
the Supplemental Direct Testimony of Mr.Link did not consider any ancillaryservices
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 7
costs associated with acquiring EIM imbalance services applicable to the 2017R RFP
short list wind resources.As noted above,Mr.Vail has testified that his expectation is
the net uninstructed imbalance will be zero for Wyomingwind resource.PIIC does not
share Mr.Vail's expectation.PIIC's expectation is that imbalance services will be a net
cost to the 2017R RFP short list wind resources,since imbalance ancillaryservices
typically represent a net cost to non-dispatchableresources and loads (the resources
causing the imbalance),and a net benefit to dispatchable resources (the resources
responding to the imbalance).
A simple way to test the accuracy of Mr.Vail's testimony is to look at the actual
uninstructed imbalance data associated with existing wind resources in eastern Wyoming,
as requested in PIIC Data Request 34.If the uninstructed imbalance for existing wind
resources represents a net cost,then Mr.Vail's testimony on this issue,and the modeling
supporting the 2017R RFP shortlist,is not accurate.Accordingly,the information sought
with respect to Data Request 34 is relevant to this case.
III.Confidential Information.
Any confidential or highly confidentlyinformation that is provided to PIIC
pursuant to these request is protected by a Protective Agreement signed by all parties and
will be respected and treated as confidential.Thus,pursuant to IRCP 26(b)(l),the data
requested by PIIC is discoverable and PacifiCorp should be compelled to respond in full.
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 8
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons,PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial Customers request of the
Commission as follows:
1.To set a schedule with respect to this Motion and consider its merits on an
expedited basis.PIIC waives oral argument and agrees that the Commission can
consider and rule based on written materials submitted by PIIC and RMP.
2.To compel Rocky Mountain Power to respond in full to PIIC Requests 30,31,
34(d)and 34(h),
3.If the relief requested is granted,to direct Idaho PUC Staff,in conjunctionwith
the Parties,to re-establish a delayed procedural schedule in this case that will
allow PIIC to receive the requested information,analyze it,prepare and file its
prefiled testimony,and provide adequate time for all parties to prepare for
hearing,and
4.To provide other relief as deemed necessary by the Commission.
Dated this dayS of March,2018.
Res tfully
Ronald L.Williams
Williams Bradbury,P.C.
Attorneys for PIIC
PIIC MOTION TO COMPEL,Page 9
Ronald L.Williams,ISB No.3034
Williams Bradbury,P.C.
P.O.Box 388
Boise ID,83701
Telephone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
ron @ williamsbradbury.com
Attorneys for PIIC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE )Case No.PAC-E-17-07
AND NECESSITY AND BINDING )RATEMAKING TREATMENT FOR WIND )
AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES )
EXHIBIT A
ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER
A DnnSIONOFPACŒlCORP 1407 W North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
March 19,2018
Ronald L.Williams,ISB No.3034
802 W.Bannock Street,Suite 900
Boise,ID 83702
[e-mail](C)
RE:ID PAC-E-17-07
PIIC 5th Set Data Request (21-42)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responsesto PIIC 5th Set Data Requests 21-42.
Also provided are Attachments PIIC 25-(1-2)and 29-1.Provided on the enclosed Confidential
CD are Confidential Attachments PIIC 26,29 -(2-3),and 38.
Confidential information is provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective
agreement in this proceeding.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J.Ted Weston
Manager,Regulation
Enclosures
C.c.:Brad Mullins/PIIC [e-mail] (C)
Jim Duke/PIIC [e-mail] (W)
Kyle Williams/PIIC [e-mail] (W)
Val Steiner/[e-mail] (W)
Brian C.Collins/Brubaker&Associates [e-mail] (C)(W)
James ILSmith/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)(W)
Maurice Brubaker/[e-mail] (C)(W)
Katie Iverson/[e-mail] (C)
Eric Olsen/IIPA [e-mail] (C)
AnthonyYankel/IIPA [e-mail](C)
Randall C.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)
Thomas J.Budge/Monsanto [e-mail] (C)(W)
Diane Hanian/IPUC [e-mail] (C)
PAC-E-17-07/Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 5th Set Data Request 30
PIIC Data Request 30
Is PacifiCorp required to submit independently balanced EIM Base Schedules for
PACE and PACW balancing area pursuant to the CAISO's EIM tariff or
PacifiCorp Transmission's EIM tariff?If yes,please provide a citation to the tariff
corresponding to the requirement.If no,please explain how the EIM base
schedules are determined for the respective balancing areas.
Response to PIIC Data Request 30
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Determined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 563 Set Data Request 31
PIIC Data Request 31
Does the EIM provide PacifiCorp with the ability to schedule finn energy
between balancing areas in an amount exceeding the firm transmission rights that
PacifiCorp possesses between the two balancing areas?If yes,please explain,
with references to specific tariff provision,how transfers of such firm energy
transfers may be accomplished.
Response to PIIC Data Request 31
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Determined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 5"Set Data Request 32
PIIC Data Request 32
Please identify the all scheduling information that PacifiCorp submits to the
CAISO on an hour-ahead basis.
Response to PIIC Data Request 32
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Deternined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 5th Set Data Request 33
PIIC Data Request 33
Please provide a sample of the EIM Base Schedules that PacifiCorp submitted to
the CAISO,including the most granular level of load and resource data available,
corresponding to the followinghours:
(a)June 26,2017,HE 1700.
(b)January 16,2017,HE 800.
(c)November 30,2016,HE 800.
(d)July28,2016,HE 1700.
Response to PIIC Data Request 33
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Determined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,20 18
PIIC 5th Set Data Request 34
PIIC Data Request 34
Please provide uninstructed imbalance charges for the followingwind facilities on
a monthlybasis (or the greatest level of granularity available)over the period
January 1,2015 through June 30,2017:
(a)Glenrock.
(b)Glenrock III.
(c)Foote Creek.
(d)McFadden Ridge.
(e)Seven Mile Wind.
(f)Seven Mile 11 Wind.
(g)Top of the World Wind.
(h)Dunlap Wind.
(i)High Plains Wind.
(j)Mountain Wind I.
(k)Mountain Wind II.
(1)Rock River 1.
(m)Rolling Hills Wind
Response to PIIC Data Request 34
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Determined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 5th Set Data Request 35
PIIC Data Request 35
Please provide the 5 and 15 minute uninstructed imbalance associated with the
followingwind facilities over the period July 1,2016 through June 30,2017:
(a)Dunlap Wind.
(b)McFadden Ridge.
(c)Top of the World Wind.
Response to PIIC Data Request 35
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Detennined
PAC-E-17-07 /Rocky Mountain Power
March 19,2018
PIIC 5e'Set Data Request 36
PIIC Data Request 36
For each PNode in PacifiCorp's PACE and PACW balancing area,please provide
5-and 15-minuted EIM prices over the period July 1,2016 through June 30,
2017.
Response to PIIC Data Request 36
PacifiCorp objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
Recordholder:Yvonne Hogle
Sponsor:To Be Determined
Ronald L.Williams,ISB No.3034
Williams Bradbury,P.C.
P.O.Box 388
Boise ID,83701
Telephone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
ron @ williamsbradbury.com
Attorneys for PIIC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE )Case No.PAC-E-17-07
AND NECESSITY AND BINDING )
RATEMAKING TREATMENT FOR WIND )AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES )
EXHIBIT B
From:Ron Williams
Sent:Tuesday,March 20,2018 12:41 PM
To:Hogle,Yvonne
Cc:Bradley G.Mullins ([e-mail]);[e-mail];
Michelle Williams
Subject:Discovery
Yvonne,
I noticed that you elected not to answer PIIC discovery requests 30 -36 as not relevant of admissible.
Brad needs answers to requests 30,31,34(d)and 34(h),in preparation of his testimony.The rest we can
let go.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience if and when you can answer these requests.I would
also appreciate knowing ASAP if you will not amend your answer,in order to file a motion to compel,
and have it timely considered.Scheduling a motion could also impact the schedule.
Regards,
(w)208.344.6633
(c)208.890.4620