2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 1 Meeting Report 2013 Integrated Resource Plan Third Public Input Meeting Meeting Date: July 13, 2012 Meeting Time: 9:00 am – 3:00 pm (Pacific) / 10:00 am – 4:00pm (Mountain) Location: Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; and telephone conference Organizations Attending The list of individual meeting attendees is provided as Appendix A. Alpern Myers Stuart LLC (Interwest Energy Alliance) Office of Consumer Services Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon (CUB) Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) CRD Management Inc. (Encana) PacifiCorp Customers Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) Energy Strategies, LLC Synapse Energy Economics enXco Utah Clean Energy (UCE) E-Quant Consulting Utah Division of Public Utilities (DPU) First Wind Utah Office Of Consumer Services (OCS) Hatch, James & Dodge (For UAE) Utah Public Service Commission (UT-PSC) Idaho Conservation League (ICL) Western Resource Advocates (WRA) Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) Magnum Energy Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocates (WY-OCA) Monsanto Company Wyoming Public Service Commission - Staff Northwest Pipeline GP Meeting Overview Agenda items for this public meeting included (1) review and discussion of the strawman set of portfolio development cases distributed to IRP stakeholders on June 28, 2012, (2) a presentation and discussion on PacifiCorp’s proposed approach for analyzing transmission expansion benefits, and (3) continued discussion on the Company’s proposed Energy Gateway scenarios presented for the June 20 public input meeting. Strawman Portfolio Development Cases Pete Warnken, Manager of Integrated Resource Planning, provided the meeting participants with a walk-through of the strawman portfolio development cases (See Appendix A). He covered the different sets of scenario attributes, categorized as ―environmental regulations‖, ―fuel prices‖, ―state/federal energy policies‖, ―load forecasts‖, ―technology game-changers‖, and ―resource selection constraints‖. PacifiCorp requested that stakeholders provide initial case
12
Embed
2013 IRP PIM 3 - Meeting Report for July 13, 2012 - PacifiCorp
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 1
Meeting Report
2013 Integrated Resource Plan
Third Public Input Meeting
Meeting Date: July 13, 2012
Meeting Time: 9:00 am – 3:00 pm (Pacific) / 10:00 am – 4:00pm (Mountain)
Location: Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; and telephone conference
Organizations Attending The list of individual meeting attendees is provided as Appendix A.
Alpern Myers Stuart LLC (Interwest Energy Alliance) Office of Consumer Services
Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon (CUB) Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC)
CRD Management Inc. (Encana) PacifiCorp
Customers Renewable Northwest Project (RNP)
Energy Strategies, LLC Synapse Energy Economics
enXco Utah Clean Energy (UCE)
E-Quant Consulting Utah Division of Public Utilities (DPU)
First Wind Utah Office Of Consumer Services (OCS)
Hatch, James & Dodge (For UAE) Utah Public Service Commission (UT-PSC)
Idaho Conservation League (ICL) Western Resource Advocates (WRA)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC)
Magnum Energy Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocates (WY-OCA)
Monsanto Company Wyoming Public Service Commission - Staff
Northwest Pipeline GP
Meeting Overview
Agenda items for this public meeting included (1) review and discussion of the strawman set of
portfolio development cases distributed to IRP stakeholders on June 28, 2012, (2) a presentation
and discussion on PacifiCorp’s proposed approach for analyzing transmission expansion
benefits, and (3) continued discussion on the Company’s proposed Energy Gateway scenarios
presented for the June 20 public input meeting.
Strawman Portfolio Development Cases
Pete Warnken, Manager of Integrated Resource Planning, provided the meeting participants with
a walk-through of the strawman portfolio development cases (See Appendix A). He covered the
different sets of scenario attributes, categorized as ―environmental regulations‖, ―fuel prices‖,
―state/federal energy policies‖, ―load forecasts‖, ―technology game-changers‖, and ―resource
selection constraints‖. PacifiCorp requested that stakeholders provide initial case
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 2
recommendations and comments by August 1, 2012—preferably using the Excel template
already provided to stakeholders—along with an explanation as to how the resource selection
outcomes from proposed cases should differ from other cases. The Company plans to distribute
the final list of cases to stakeholders by mid-September, 2012. Mr. Warnken also reminded
attendees that PacifiCorp may revisit case definitions and consider stakeholder changes after
initial portfolio development are distributed for review.
Transmission Benefit Analysis Mr. Darrell Gerrard, Vice President of Transmission System Planning, presented the proposed
framework for evaluating transmission expansion benefits that are not captured using the IRP
models. Mr. Gerrard first provided background and context for developing the benefit analysis
framework, highlighting past stakeholder input, regional planning reforms outlined in Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 1000, and the benefit metrics being considered
by the Northern Tier Transmission Group (NTTG). Mr. Gerrard then summarized seven potential
transmission benefit metrics that PacifiCorp is planning to incorporate in the framework:
Reliable customer load service and generation delivery
Operations improvements
System energy loss reduction
Transmission reliability standard compliance
System flexibility, including access to reserve resources
Resource integration, PacifiCorp and third-party
Third-party cost sharing
Mr. Gerrard then provided a qualitative benefit valuation example using the three segments
constituting the Windstar to Populus transmission project (Windstar to Aeolus, Aeolus to
Bridger, Bridger to Populus). The general process is to evaluate benefit metrics unique to each
segment and then assess combined benefits and synergies of the multiple segments. In response
to participant’s questions regarding the purpose of the benefits analysis framework, PacifiCorp
stressed that in addition to assimilation in the IRP portfolio evaluation process, the framework’s
other main purpose is to support the justification of moving from the permitting/approval stages
of a transmission project to full implementation. PacifiCorp asked for stakeholder input on the
overall concept, and will continue to develop the approach, quantify benefits based on the
identified metrics and new ones if applicable, develop a results ―dashboard‖ reporting tool, and
keep stakeholders informed on the analysis results.
Transmission Scenario Follow-up Mr. Brian Fritz, Director of Transmission Services, facilitated a discussion on the five Energy
Gateway scenarios presented at the June 20 IRP public input meeting. Participants questioned the
rationale behind PacifiCorp’s grouping of transmission segments into the various scenarios, and
recommended that certain segments be isolated and analyzed separately. PacifiCorp explained
that segment groupings reflect certain scenario themes as well as the Utah Commission’s
acknowledgment order directive on treating resource expansion options without a certificate of
public convenience and necessity (CPCN) or a signed final procurement contract. PacifiCorp
stated that it will consider the recommendations and encouraged more stakeholder feedback on
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 3
the Energy Gateway scenarios as well as submission of thoroughly developed alterative
transmission scenarios.
Discussion Highlights
Strawman Portfolio Development Cases
1. PacifiCorp stated it would compile comments and responses on portfolio development
cases into a table for distribution to IRP stakeholders.
2. A number of participants recommended that PacifiCorp provide more than five slots for
stakeholder-defined core cases. PacifiCorp responded that participants should see what
stakeholder-defined core cases are actually proposed, and if, in combination with the
other core cases, sufficient resource diversity across portfolios is not obtained, then the
Company would consider additional case proposals. The Company reiterated the concern
regarding increasing the number of core case portfolios beyond those defined in the
strawman case list.
3. A participant requested that PacifiCorp include system emissions charts that show
emission quantities in relation to 1990 levels.
4. Several participants recommended that the core cases should allow for portfolio
comparisons incorporating differences in the stringency of non-air environmental
regulations. The Company agreed that pairing such regulations (i.e., for coal combustion
residuals and cooling water intake structures) with air-related regulations was reasonable.
5. A participant requested that PacifiCorp include a case that assumes that the requirement
for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment installation for coal units be eliminated
in return for early unit retirement (For example, Jim Bridger units 1 and 2). The
stakeholder cited a 2021 retirement date assumption. Another participant suggested that
this case should be paired with a high natural gas price scenario. PacifiCorp requested
that the stakeholder define and provide a detailed case proposal.
6. A participant recommended that the Company look into scenarios where Energy Gateway
investment dollars are redirected to support other objectives such as improved access to
renewable generation. PacifiCorp stated that a well-defined proposal would be needed
prior to further consideration of the concept.1
7. Participants discussed the rationale for including a physical (―hard‖) cap on carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions as a substitute for, or an addition to, the high CO2 cost scenario.
After the Company described the concept of shadow prices and how a hard cap has been
modeled, participants agreed that a hard cap would need to be specified on a federal basis
as opposed to a PacifiCorp system basis. Other participants suggested that the rationale
for a high CO2 cost scenario, in combination with a high natural gas price scenario, is to
force retrofitting the entire coal fleet. The CO2 cost would be set to an electricity sector
specific level that climate scientists suggest is necessary to stabilize climate change.
1 This concept was discussed at the Oregon stakeholder input meeting held on July 19, 2012. Parties at that meeting
agreed that defining such an analysis was too complex to address in this IRP cycle and is best handled as part of an
on-going dialogue with the Company.
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 4
8. A Utah participant suggested that the Company incorporate a more extreme weather
event scenario than the one-in-20 (5th
percentile) sensitivity case included in the
strawman list. A one-in-100 (1st percentile) probability sensitivity was recommended.
9. Participants discussed a solar mandate case where financial incentives and regulatory
requirements result in a high distributed solar penetration rate. PacifiCorp called on the
clean energy advocacy groups in attendance to help define appropriate assumptions for
such a portfolio development case.
10. PacifiCorp briefly described the general approach for analyzing renewable portfolio
standards and compliance strategies, and developing an RPS-compliant renewable
resource capacity floor for all core cases. Wind was cited as the default (or ―base‖)
resource for RPS compliance because it is a relatively mature and cost-effective
renewable technology. Participants suggested that a mix of renewable types is more
appropriate. One participant suggested that at least one RPS scenario should be
developed with an optimized base renewable resource mix as determined by a System
Optimizer run. PacifiCorp explained that a base RPS resource mix needs to be
determined outside of System Optimizer due to modeling limitations including handling
REC banking and interstate trading rules.
11. Participants discussed the Company’s base assumption for the renewable production tax
credit (PTC), which is that no extension is enacted. PacifiCorp stated that it would
consider alternative PTC extension scenarios.
12. Participants raised the issue of state cost assignment and how renewable energy credit
(REC) prices would be estimated. PacifiCorp emphasized that cost allocation for
incremental resources is an issue best dealt with as part of Multi-state Protocol
discussions.
13. A participant asked if the Company had plans to allow System Optimizer to select cost-
effective resources from energy efficiency supply curves based on technical potential
rather than achievable potential. PacifiCorp explained that the 85 percent achievable
potential target assumed for IRP modeling is already exceptionally high.
14. Utah Clean Energy stated it would send the latest Lazard generation technology levelized
cost of energy (LCOE) report.
Transmission Benefit Analysis and Energy Gateway Scenarios
1. Some stakeholders recommended that Segment G of Energy Gateway (Sigurd to Red
Butte) be moved from Scenario 2, ―System Improvement‖, to Scenario 1, ―Reference‖
because the main purpose of the segment was to meet loads. The Company explained that
segment G does not have a CPCN or signed final procurement contract, and therefore
does not meet the Utah Commission’s standard for inclusion in a base portfolio. Utah
Commission staff suggested that the Company ask the Commission for a waiver of the
CPCN/contract requirement for this segment and others with a similar function. Another
participant questioned why Segments E and H (Populus-Hemingway-Boardman-Bethel)
is not address as a separate scenario. The Company agreed to reconsider how the
segments would be grouped into the scenarios.
2. While participants did not take issue with the effort to assess additional benefits of
Energy Gateway, some questioned how the Company would use this analysis to justify
investments and seek regulatory approvals. Some participants also thought that the
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 5
analysis should be expanded to include relative costs and benefits of alternatives to
Energy Gateway (both transmission and non-transmission related). PacifiCorp stated that
in addition to supporting the IRP, the analysis supports decisions to pursue and continue
with the segment permitting process in light of the long lead-time for transmission
planning and scalability of the Energy Gateway design. The Company also performs
more detailed evaluations to support CPCNs.
3. Participants made recommendations for additional benefits to include in the analysis.
Examples include facilitation of renewable grid integration and portfolio standard
compliance, compliance with FERC Order 1000, and other quantifiable societal benefits
such as what is done for energy efficiency.
Action Item Follow-up
1. PacifiCorp prepared and distributed a ―stakeholder portfolio development
recommendations log‖ for discussion at the August 2, 2012 public input meeting.
2. The Lazard LCOE report was received from Utah Clean Energy on July 13, 2012.
2013 IRP – July 13, 2012, Public Meeting Report 6
Appendix A:
PacifiCorp’s Strawman Portfolio Cases
June 27, 2012 7
2013 IRP Strawman Portfolio Development Cases
The accompany Excel Workbook, named “2013IRP_Scenario-Case Matrix_Strawman”,
provides a list of portfolio development cases for stakeholder review and discussion at the next
2013 IRP public input meeting, scheduled for July 13, 2012.
Nomenclature
Portfolio Development Case (“case” for short): A set of model input assumptions that the System
Optimizer model uses to derive an optimal resource expansion plan (or portfolio). Cases are
divided into two major groups:
Core – Those defined for broad portfolio comparability on the basis of portfolio
performance criteria (various cost, risk, and supply reliability measures). All core cases
would be simulated for each Energy Gateway scenario.
Sensitivity – Those defined specifically for comparison to a base case, focusing on
changes to resource-specific assumptions and alternative load growth forecasts.
Resource Constraints: Pertains to specifying upper or lower bounds on resource capacity
selection in the System Optimizer model for a given year or range of years.
Fixing a Resource: “Fixing” a resource means that the model is forced to select a given resource
for a specific year and capacity amount, effectively meaning that upper and lower bounds on
resource selection are equal.
Scenario Attributes: Pertains to the individual elements that define a portfolio development case.
The attributes are currently grouped into the following categories:
Environmental Regulation1
Fuel Cost
State/Federal Energy Policy
Load Forecast
Technology Game-changers
Resource Selection Constraints
Total Number of Core and Sensitivity Cases
PacifiCorp is limiting the number of core cases to no more than 20 given the total number of
portfolios that will need to be developed when considering multiple Energy Gateway scenarios.
The final number of sensitivity cases will be determined after a review of core case results and
after considering time availability, stakeholder recommendations, and the Company’s analytical
priorities.
1 Note that CO2 tax values in the strawman case definition list are indicative and could change based on stakeholder
discussions in forthcoming public input meetings.
June 27, 2012 8
Stakeholder Defined Cases
PacifiCorp has set aside up to five “slots” for portfolio core cases that will be defined by
stakeholders. These portfolio cases can be defined through a combination of alternative resource
constraints and scenario attributes. In proposing a stakeholder-defined case, the Company will
expect a description of the rationale for the case as well as the specific model input values or
instructions for deriving the input values. Stakeholders may provide their case proposals prior to
portfolio development in August-September, 2012, or may choose to wait until after portfolio
results are distributed for public review.
In selecting the stakeholder-defined cases among proposals received, the Company is proposing
to use the following criteria:
1. Cases proposed by Staff of each state utility commission will be prioritized first.
Commission Staff may collaborate with other state stakeholders to develop one or more
“consensus” case proposals.
2. Both PacifiCorp and other stakeholders will consider the merits of the stakeholder case
proposals (overall reasonableness and value-added), and may offer modification
suggestions prior to final consideration of the case proposals.
Coal Investment Sensitivities
In each of the core and sensitivity cases, incremental coal investments required to achieve
compliance with known and emerging environmental regulations will be incorporated into the
portfolio development process by allowing the System Optimizer model to choose investment
alternatives. In as much as Scenario Attributes lead to portfolios that reflect selection of early
retirement or gas conversion alternatives, PacifiCorp will develop sensitivity cases, focusing on
potential early retirement or gas conversion outcomes that occur in the first ten years of the
planning period, to calculate the present value revenue requirement differential (PVRR(d)) of the
selected investment alternative and to account for other cost adjustments that cannot be
accounted for directly in the System Optimizer model. This would include adjustments
associated with a change in the fueling plan for a coal plant in which only a portion of the
individual generating units retire early or are otherwise converted to natural gas.
PacifiCorp - 2013 Integrated Resource Plan Strawman Portfolio Development Cases