200410132004IPR Comparative Analysis.pdf

EXECUTIVE OFFICES
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY I! F L)
r\~;
~ ,",,
r~:Ej EO
555 SOUTH COLE ROAD. p,O, BOX 7608 . BOISE, IDAHO 83707 . [phone] . FAX: 37
~fffn~70CT i 3 PH I: 41
. '
..' ;", ,c-- ~
September 28 , 2004 IiLlT it~) Cl i"
j:j:)
. H
Mr. Michael Fuss
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , I D 83720-0074
Rt; t, CatJe i\jO.. TN'T- (4 - 64,- \
Dear Mike:
Attached is the RP Comparative Analysis you requested.
You will note from the attached tables we limited the measurement of several of the specific
quantitative differences to the "over lapping " years between the two I RP'
Please call me if you have any questions at 377-6168.
Sincerely,
ichael P
Director
Market Services & Regulatory Affairs
MPG/slk
Attachment
INTERMOUNT AIN GAS COMPANY
2005-2009 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
CO MP ARA TIVE ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2004
Residential and Commercial Growth Forecast
The methodology used to calculate residential and commercial customers for the 2004 RP is
consistent with that used in the 2002 IRP. Customer growth in the 2004 IRP is forecast to
remain strong but some significant changes were evident in the underlying data used to
calculate customer growth. First, the 2004 IRP projects an 10 increase over the 2002 filing in
the new household market share in the area impacting the Sun Valley lateral. Secondly, the
2002 IRP customer growth forecast for Canyon County predicted very low economic
population and customer growth in 2002 and 2003. Actual growth was more robust and
therefore the 2004 IRP forecast for Canyon County begins with a much higher beginning
customer balance and also shows higher growth rates in the 2005-2007 period than does the
2002 filing.
The end result of these two issues is that even though overall company-wide customer
growth rate of approximately 40/0 is similar for 2005-2007 in both forecasts , the 2004 IRP
projects more customers in regions with potential capacity constraints on Intermountain
distribution system (discussed in more detail below).
Usage per Customer With Design Degree Days
The 2004 IRP used the same design degree day calculations as the 2002 IRP filing. As noted
in the 2004 filing, Intermountain has now installed new meter index devices in order to
enhance the Company s ability to correlate usage with weather on the Idaho Falls and Sun
Valley laterals.
Industrial Forecast
Overall , the 2004 IRP industrial load forecast is not as robust as the 2002 filing particularly
the Potato Processing and Chemical/Fertilizer group (see Attachment No., tables 1.1 and
3). The decline in potato processing reflects lower demand for processed potato products
lower prices for the raw potato product (thereby reducing supply) and natural gas prices that
have risen relative to those experienced prior to 2003 thereby encouraging the use
alternative fuels. The decrease in the chemicals segment largely reflects higher costs of
feedstock inputs and the low-cost of competing foreign products. A second factor affecting
the 2004 industrial contract demand ("CD") is the economic and operational value of the
Company s interruptible T-3 transportation tariff as several industrial customers were able to
realize lower costs and still meet their energy needs by shifting load from firm tariffs to
interruptible T -3. Consequently, the industrial "firm" CD is lower in all years in the 2004 filing.
The 2004 RP industrial CD forecast reflects the Company s belief that the market factors
underlying the industrial demand decline in the past few years have "bottomed-out" and that
future economic conditions will now have the greatest affect on projected industrial CD levels.
The Company is active in managing this market as in general , a reduction in industrial CD
may forestall the timing of capital enhancements to Intermountain s distribution system and
also may provide the Company with an alternative to purchasing new interstate capacity to
serve the growing core market.
Load Duration Curves
The total company core market volumes forecast for 2005-2007 are only slightly higher (10/0)
than the 2002 IRP (See Attachment 1 , table 1.3). Peak day delivery capacity has increased
by 540 000 therms in 2005 as Intermountain has increased the Northwest Pipeline delivery
capacity (See Attachment No., table 2.3). The overall peak day deliverability in 2006-07 is
up by 446 630 therms over that assumed in the 2002 filing.
Idaho Falls lateral. Peak loads increase by more than 100/0 in the 2004 IRP each year as
compared to the 2002 IRP although a decline in firm industrial CD offset those increases
somewhat. The "beginning balance" of Idaho Falls lateral customers was higher than that
used in the 2002 IRP and growth , attributable to the expansion at BYU - Idaho in Rexburg, is
also more robust in the 2004 IRP. Absent any additional capacity, the number of days over
capacity increases in every year as compared to the 2002 RP as does the total winter deficit
(See Attachment No., Table 3.3 and Attachment No., Table 4.3).
Sun Valley lateral. Peak loads increase between 50/0 and 60/0 for 2005-2007 and industrial CD
has grown as well (See Attachment No., Table 5.3). However, additional capacity added
since the 2002 RP has lowered the peak deficit to 1.50/0 of Design load and the total winter
deficit by 25 344 MMBtu in 2005 (See Attachment No., Table 6.3).
Canyon County. Peak loads continue to grow in Canyon County in the 40/0 range. A small
variance in existing distribution capacity between the two filings reflects a more refined
calculation for the 2004 filing. The growth in core market peak day is almost entirely offset by
reduction in industrial CD (See Attachment No.Table 7.3). Absent any additional
capacity, no deficit occurs in 2005 but does in 2006-07 (See Attachment No., Table 8.3).
Traditional Gas Supply Related Resources
Interstate transport resources have been enhanced in the past two years based on a need as
demonstrated by the 2002 IRP (See Attachment No., Table 9.3). With these additions
interstate capacity is forecast to be sufficient though 2009.
The supply resources used in the 2004 filing are essentially unchanged as compared to those
included in the 2002 IRP including a mix of term and spot supplies and storage withdrawals
as well as other nontraditional resources (see below). In addition , a new type of supply
resource utilizing third-party interstate "citygate" capacity was first utilized in the 2004 IRP.
Non-Traditional Resources
The 2004 IRP included similar non-traditional resources options as used in the 2002 filing.
These options included portable LNG on the Sun Valley lateral and industrial sited fuel-oil
and propane-air alternatives on the Idaho Falls lateral.
Distribution System
Intermountain utilized the same software to model the pressure and capability of the
distribution system. Again when load growth and available system enhancements were
considered (e.g. various pipe and compression upgrades), the resultant overall system
capacity was forecast to be adequate to serve all firm loads , and eliminate any capacity
deficit thru the 5-year horizon.
The Efficient Use of Natural Gas
Intermountain continues to embrace and support the need for efficient use of natural gas and
since the 2002 IRP, has enhanced its conservation efforts on behalf of its residential
commercial and industrial customers.
By way of example , Intermountain has 1) mailed brochures outlining conservation tips and
low income assistance , 2) upgraded its website to include information on residential and
commercial conservation measures to include the ability to view the customers historical
therm usage , 3) implemented a new and detailed video conservation tool available by request
on DVD as well as the company s website , 4) held public meetings in conjunction with the
IRP Planning Process meetings that emphasize conservation , 5) recently introduced
industrial website designed to provide real-time and historical consumption data to better
enable those customers to make wise energy management decisions.
In support of high efficiency standards, Intermountain has notified Parade of Homes
participants that the Company will only partner with builders installing high efficiency space
and water heating equipment. Intermountain is also partnering with the Idaho Department of
Water Resources to develop a training program to assist those retrofitting older homes to
comply with efficiency standards. And of course, Intermountain continues to encourage
homeowners to replace older, inefficient heating equipment through the furnace rebate
program.
Resource Optimization
Intermountain utilized the same consultant and software vendor to run the 2004 optimization.
The 2004 model was enhanced over the prior program to allow for additional supply and
transport resource options and to better mirror operations between Northwest Pipeline and
Intermountain.
The results of the optimization runs indicate that the Company s current resource portfolio of
interstate transport and storage capacity along with its term and spot gas supplies , are
adequate to meet the natural gas demands of southern Idaho. As well , the optimization
model indicates that the projected distribution system upgrade options for 2005-2009 are
sufficient to meet firm the forecast requirements of Intermountain s customers,
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 1,
2004 IRP LOAD DURATION CURVE - TOTAL COMPANY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
NWP Firm Pea k D a v Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CO Total
FY05 2,403 300 3,499 800 223 890 723 690
FY06 2,463 300 632 070 223 890 855,960
FY07 2,463 300 825 120 223 890 049 010
Future growth in transport CD is limited to T-, which does not affect Intermountain s interstate pipeline capacity requirements.
Table 1,
2002 IRP LOAD DURATION CURVE - TOTAL COMPANY DESIGN BASELINE
(Volumes in Therms)
NWP Firm Pea k D a V Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FY05 863 300 3,474 790 408 680 883,470
FY06 863 300 629 920 408 680 038 600
FY07 863 300 789 040 408 680 197 720
Future growth in transport CD is limited to T-, which does not affect Intermountain s interstate pipeline capacity requirements.
Table 1.
2004 IRP LOAD DURATION CURVE - TOTAL COMPANY DESIGN BASE CASE
Over! (Under) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
NWP Firm Pea k Day Send out
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CO Total
FY05 540 000 010 (184 790)(159.780)
FY06 540 000 150 (184 790)(182 640)
FY07 540 000 080 (184 790)(148 710)
Future growth in transport CD is limited to T-, which does not affect Intermountain s interstate pipeline capacity requirements.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 2.
2004 IRP PEAK DAY FIRM DELIVERY CAPABILITY
(Volumes in Therms)
Maximum Daily Storage Withdrawals:
Nampa LNG
Plymouth LS
Jackson Prairie SGS
Total Storage
Maximum Deliverability (NWP)
Total Peak Day Deliverability
FY05 FY06-FY07
600 000
720 000
150,000
1,470 000
2,463,300
873 300
600 000
720 000
150,000
1,470 000
2,463.300
933 300
Table 2,
2002 IRP PEAK DAY FIRM DELIVERY CAPABILITY
(Volumes in therms)
Maximum Daily Storage Withdrawals:
Nampa LNG
Plymouth LS
Jackson Prairie SGS
Total Storage
Maximum Deliverability (NWP)
Total Peak Day Deliverability
FY05 FY06-FY07
600 000
720,000
150,000
1,470 000
863,300
333 300
600 000
720 000
303,270
1 ,623 370
863.300
3,486 670
Table 2,
2004 IRP PEAK DAY FIRM DELIVERY CAPABILITY
Over!(Under) 2002 IRP
FY05 FY06-FY07
Maximum Daily Storage Withdrawals:
Nampa LNG
Plymouth LS
Jackson Prairie SGS
Total Storage
Maximum Deliverability (NWP)
Total Peak Day Deliverability
(153.370
(153 370)
600.000
446.630
540,000
540 000
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 3,
2004 IRP LOAD DURATION CURVE - IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 690 000 546 650 243 040 789 690
FYO6 690 000 566 380 243 040 809,420
FYO7 690 000 594 240 243 040 837 280
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 I and Idaho Falls Compressors Station requirements.
Table 3,
20021RP LOAD DURATION CURVE -IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASELINE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution
Transport
Capacity
Core
Market
Peak Day Sendout
Industrial
Firm CD Total
FYO5
FYO6
FYO7
690 000
690 000
690 000
486 640
509,420
534 040
250 630
250 630
265 630
737 270
760 050
799 670
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
Table 3,
20041RP LOAD DURATION CURVE -IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASELINE
Over/(Under) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution
Transport
Capacity
Core
Market
Peak Day Sendout
Industrial
Firm CO Total
FYO5
FYO6
FYO7
010
960
200
590)
590)
590)
270
370
610
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 4.
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 690 119,420 147 280
Total Winter Deficit 240 720 313 900 395 940
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter send out in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 4,
2002 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASELINE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 272 055 109 671
Total Winter Deficit 091 130 068 266 275
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 4,
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - IDAHO FALLS DESIGN BASELINE
Over/(Under) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 52,418 365 609
Total Winter Deficit 175 629 183 832 129 665
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 5,
20041RP LOAD DURATION CURVE - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Send out
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 144 000 137 980 150 146 130
FYO6 144 000 141 ,780 150 149 930
FYO7 144 000 147 750 150 155 900
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
Table 5.
20021RP LOAD DURATION CURVE - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 120 000 131 180 680 136 860
FYO6 120 000 135 360 680 141 040
FYO7 120 000 139 590 680 145 270
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
Table 5,
20041RP LOAD DURATION CURVE - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
Over/(Under) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 000 800 2,470 270
FYO6 000 6,420 2,470 890
FYO7 000 160 2,470 630
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 6.
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 130 930 11 ,900
Total Winter Deficie 130 590 17,450
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter send out in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 6,
20021RP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 860 037 269
Total Winter Deficit 504 41 ,822 005
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 6.
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - SUN VALLEY DESIGN BASE CASE
Over/(Under) 20021RP
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit (14 730)(15 107)(13 369)
Total Winter Deficie (25 344)(34 323)(38 555)
Days Requiring Additional Capacity (2)(1)(2)
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 7.
2004 IRP LOAD DURATON CURVE - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 595 000 495 720 140 589 860
FYO6 595 000 518 510 140 612 650
FYO7 595 000 550 540 140 644 680
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
Table 7.
20021RP LOAD DURATON CURVE - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASELINE
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Sendout
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 600 000 466,430 121 130 587 560
FYO6 600 000 492,400 121 130 613 530
FYO7 600 000 519 010 121 130 640 140
Existing firm contract demand includes T -, T -2 and T -4 requirements.
Table 7,
2004 IRP LOAD DURA TON CURVE - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASE CASE
Oyer/(Under) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
Existing
Distribution Pea k Day Send out
Transport Core Industrial
acit Market Firm CD Total
FYO5 000)290 (26 130)300
FYO6 000)110 (26 130)(880)
FYO7 000)31 ,440 (26 130)540
Existing firm contract demand includes T-, T-2 and T-4 requirements.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 8.
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASE CASE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 650 680
Total Winter Deficie 730 740
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 8,
2002 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASELINE
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 531 138
Total Winter Deficit 531 540
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
Table 8,
2004 IRP FIRM DELIVERY DEFICIT - CANYON COUNTY DESIGN BASE CASE
Over/(U nder) 2002 IRP
(Volumes in Therms)
FYO5 FYO6 FYO7
Peak Day Deficit 119 542
Total Winter Deficit 199 200
Days Requiring Additional Capacity
Equal to the total winter sendout in excess of distribution capacity.
ATTACHMENT NO.
Table 9.
Intermountain Gas Company
2004 IRP Firm Receipt Point Capacity Through 2007
Volumes in MMBtu
Receipt Point 2005 2006 2007
Sumas 41 , 146 41 ,146 ~'!e
Stanfield 800 800 800
Rockies 384 384 384
Storage 000 000 000
Citygate 25 000 25,000 25.000
Total 333,330 333.330 333.330
Table 9,
Intermountain Gas Company
2002 IRP Firm Receipt Point Capacity Through 2007
Volumes in MMBtu
Receipt Point 2005 2006 2007
Sumas 41 , 146 41 , 146 41 ,146
Stanfield 800 800 800
Rockies 384 78,384 384
Storage 000 102 337 102 337
Citygate
trotal 273 330 288 667 288 667
Table 9.
Intermountain Gas Company
2004 IRP Firm Receipt Point Capacity Through 2007
Over/(Under) 2002 IRP
Volumes in MMBtu
Receipt Point 2005 2006 2007
Sumas
Stanfield 000 000 20,000
Rockies 000 000 000
Storage (15,337)(15,337)
Citygate 000 000 000
trotal 000 663 663