BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY S UNOPPOSED RESPONSE TO STAFF S COMMENTS

Similar documents
New Member Cost Allocation Review Process. Prepared by: COST ALLOCATION WORKING GROUP

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY WILLIAM A. GRANT. on behalf of

TRANSMISSION OWNER ZONAL PLACEMENT PROCESS

SPP New Member Communication and Integration Process. Mountain West Transmission Group. Background Information October 2017

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY RUTH M. SAKYA. on behalf of.

PJM & MISO Assumptions and Criteria for Testing of New Resources

SPP s Regional Review of SPP-MISO Coordinated System Plan Recommended Interregional Projects

2016 INTEGRATED TRANSMISSION PLAN COMPLIANCE REPORT

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

April 6, 2018 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL. Sheri Young, Secretary of the Board National Energy Board th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8

RR16 - Page 1 of

Studies, Study Results, & Project Cost Responsibility

Amendment to extend exceptional dispatch mitigated energy settlement rules and modify residual imbalance energy settlement rules

EIPC Roll-Up Report & Scenarios

Southwest Power Pool s Balanced Portfolio Approach for Economic Upgrades

Cost Allocation for Transmission Infrastructure

TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE ONE: RECITALS... 5 ARTICLE TWO: ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND DEFINITIONS... 6 ARTICLE THREE: OPERATING COMMITTEE...

Cost Allocation Principles for Seams Transmission Expansion Projects

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION RALEIGH DOCKET NO. E-100, SUB 84

Project Coordination and Path Rating

Transmission System Expansion Cost Allocation Alternatives for Renewable Resources. Cost Allocation Working Group March 26, 2008 OG&E Ver 2 3/20/8

NERC TPL Standard Overview

Expenditure Forecast Methodology

Transmission Planning Standards Industry Webinar: Footnote b. January 8, 2012 John Odom, FRCC, Standard Drafting Team Chair

October 29, The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C.

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY RUTH M. SAKYA.

Reliability Pricing Model

SPP-AECI Joint Projects

FIRST QUARTERLY PROJECT TRACKING REPORT 2018 January 2018

Entergy Arkansas, Inc Integrated Resource Plan. Follow-Up Materials June 18, 2018 entergy-arkansas.com/irp

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Policy Recommendation for the SPP Board of Directors and Members Committee. March 6, 2018 Mountain West Transmission Group

Mountain West Transmission Group (MWTG) Introduction and Process

Transmission Connection Procedures EB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ) Docket No. ER

153 FERC 61,249 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER REJECTING TARIFF REVISIONS. (Issued November 30, 2015)

Generation Retirement Scenario

Title Page Southern California Edison Company Tariff Title: Transmission Owners Tariff Tariff Record Title: First Revised Service Agreement No. 39 FER

NTTG REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN. December 30, 2015


BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY JANNELL E. MARKS. on behalf of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BERFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

February 23, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Southwestern Public Service Company. Attachment O - Transmission Formula Rate 2014 True-Up. Golden Spread Information Request No. 1.

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY RUTH M. SAKYA.

MISO Planning Process. May 31, 2013

RECITALS. Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS PROPOSED / NOT PROPOSED

May 28, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER15- Submission of Notice of Cancellation of Interconnection Agreement

BES Definition Implementation Guidance

Relationship-Based Member-Driven Independence Through Diversity Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary Reliability & Economics Inseparable

ITP Evaluation Process Plan

COLUMBIAGRID GEOMAGNETIC DISTURBANCE DRAFT STUDY REPORT

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE TO SPS CUSTOMERS

MISO Cost Allocation Response. RECBWG February 15, 2018

2017 Metrics with Historical Data

Network Loss Factor Methodology

Stakeholder Survey I Cross Border Cost Allocation for Economic Transmission Projects For Discussion September 24, 2008

July 15, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

SPP PLANNING AND COST ALLOCATION OVERVIEW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Submitted by Western Power

WECC Criterion PRC-003-WECC-CRT-1.3

133 FERC 61,062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Registration application fee to be paid by Small-Scale Embedded Generator Applicants

T-D Interconnections: Best Value Planning White Paper January 2016

5.14 Installed Capacity Spot Market Auction and Installed Capacity Supplier Deficiencies LSE Participation in the ICAP Spot Market Auction

Rate Schedules and Seams Agreements Tariff

Effective for SERC Region applicable Registered Entities on the first day of the first calendar quarter after approved by FERC.

Southwestern Public Service Company. Transmission Formula Rate 2013 True-up

FTR Credit Requirements Prevailing Flow Paths Affected by Transmission System Upgrades

Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on May 31, 2017, E STATE OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UTILITIES BOARD

Twelfth Revised Sheet No FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Cancels Eleventh Revised Sheet No INDEX OF CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff

2011 IRP Public Input Meeting. October 5, Pacific Power Rocky Mountain Power PacifiCorp Energy

Costs and Revenue Offsets Item # Description

POLICY NO I. INTRODUCTION

AC TRANSMISSION PUBLIC POLICY TRANSMISSION NEEDS PROJECT SOLICITATION Response due April 29, 2016

2018 ERO Enterprise Metrics

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY EVAN D. EVANS.

Standard Development Timeline

Southwestern Public Service Company Attachment O SPS Transmission Formula 2017 Projection Material Accounting Changes since January 1, 2016

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

AGENDA. 1. Call to Order and Administrative Items... Mike Wise. 2. Review of SPC s Policy Decision (4-Step Process)... Paul Suskie

45-day Comment and Initial Ballot day Final Ballot. April, BOT Adoption. May, 2015

Available In all territory served by the Company in the State of Wyoming.

1st Qua u r a ter e M e M e e t e in i g 2nd Qua u r a ter e M e M e e t e in i g

Regional Cost Allocation Review (RCAR II) July 11, 2016 SPP Regional Cost Allocation Review Report for RCAR II

SPP s Operating Region

Offshore Wind Transmission 2019 NASEO Energy Policy Outlook Conference Offshore Wind: The Giga Opportunity

Tariff and Business Rules. For Electric Service Provided by. Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.

OREGON STANDARD AVOIDED COST RATES AVOIDED COST PURCHASES FROM ELIGIBLE QUALIFYING FACILITIES Page 1

Stochastic Loss of Load Study for the 2011 Integrated Resource Plan

Summary of FERC White Paper on Bulk Power Market Design and Related Aspects of Senate Energy Bill No. S. 14

BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Newfoundland. Brunswick R1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Northern Tier Transmission Group Cost Allocation Principles Work Group. Straw Proposal. May 29, 2007

BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101

March 30, I.R.B.

Transcription:

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHWESTERN ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY S 2018 ) INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN FOR ) NEW MEXICO. ) CASE NO. 18-00215-UT ) SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE ) COMPANY, ) ) APPLICANT. ) SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY S UNOPPOSED RESPONSE TO STAFF S COMMENTS Applicant Southwestern Public Service Company ( SPS ) submits this unopposed response ( SPS s Response ) to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ( Commission ) Utility Division Staff s ( Staff ) Comments regarding SPS s 2018 Integrated Resource Plan ( the IRP ) that was filed by Staff on November 15, 2018, in accordance with 17.7.3.12 NMAC of the Commission s Integrated Resource Plans for Electric Utilities Rule (17.7.3 NMAC IRP Rule ). This response addresses the three items in the IRP that Staff avers require further clarification or elaboration by SPS. In relation to the submission of this response, SPS has conferred with Staff counsel and is advised that Staff does not oppose SPS s filing of the response. Further, SPS and Staff have conferred regarding whether SPS s response adequately addressed the concerns identified in Staff s Comments. In this regard, Staff informs SPS that its concerns have been resolved by the matters discussed in the response. Accordingly, Staff and SPS agree that the matters addressed in SPS s Response and Errata Notice should be filed as addenda to the IRP in the Commission s records and should be posted as addenda to the IRP on the Xcel Energy Inc. s website:

https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/resource_plans/sps_2019-2038_integrated_resource_plan In this response, SPS: (1) clarifies and further explains the IRP items discussed in Staff s Comments; and (2) commits to work with Staff to reach common understandings regarding the presentation of information in this IRP filing and SPS s future IRP filings. The following addresses each of the items identified by Staff in relation to the IRP requirements set forth in 17.7.3.9 NMAC of the IRP Rule: Deficiency 1: With respect to 17.7.3.9(D)(1)(b) which states: Response: The utility shall provide a load forecast for each year of the planning period; the load forecast shall incorporate the following information and projections: (b) annual coincident peak system losses and the allocation of such losses to the transmission and distribution components of the system SPS believes the IRP contains complete information responsive to this item. The IRP provides SPS s forecasted annual coincident peak system losses and allocates those losses to transmission and distribution components based on voltage level loss factors shown in Appendix D, Table D-5. The differences between the system peak and loss-adjusted system peak for each voltage level is the coincident peak system loss by voltage level provided in Table D-5. The general definition of losses is the difference between the total resources and total deliveries. Line loss levels used to calculate voltage level loss factors are as follows: Loss Level 2 Backbone Transmission 345 kv, 230 kv and 115 kv Transmission Lines 345/230 kv, 230/115 kv Autotransformers 2

Loss Level 3 Sub - Transmission 69 kv Lines 115/69 kv Autotransformers Loss Level 4 - Primary Distribution Distribution Substation Transformers Distribution Primary Lines (33 kv to 2.4 kv lines) Loss Level 5 - Secondary Distribution Transformer Distribution Line Transformers Loss Level 6 - Secondary Distribution Lines Distribution Secondary and Service Lines Transmission losses are those at Levels 2 and 3. Losses attributable to distribution facilities are those calculated for Levels 4, 5 and 6. In setting loss factors for rate classes, the losses calculated at Levels 5 and 6 are combined and a composite loss factor is determined. These levels correspond to the categories that are depicted in Table D-5. SPS will consult with Staff on how to present this information more clearly in future IRPs. Deficiency 2: With respect to 17.7.3.9(G)(2)(a) which states: Response: Each electric utility shall provide a summary of how the following factors were considered in, or affected, the development of resource portfolios: (a) load management and energy efficiency requirements SPS believes the IRP contains complete information responsive to this item and provides the following clarification. SPS s load management and energy efficiency requirements are discussed as Demand-Side Management ( DSM ) in Section 3.05 (Demand-Side Resources 3

pages 10-11) of the IRP, which describes in detail SPS s approved programs, past DSM achievements, and proposed DSM goals. Cost-effective DSM is included as an offset to the corresponding base, low, and high-load forecasts presented in SPS s 2018 IRP (see Section 6.01 Resource Options Considered page 69). In addition, Section 4.06 (Energy Load Forecast - page 51) discusses SPS s econometric models for the retail energy sales that are adjusted to reflect the expected incremental impact of DSM programs. Further, Section 4.10 (Demand-side Management page 55) discusses DSM program savings and explains how those projected DSM savings are calculated and used to adjust SPS s retail energy sales and coincident peak demand forecasts. In summary, SPS s incremental DSM program savings are calculated by subtracting embedded DSM savings from future DSM savings. SPS does not directly adjust its forecast models or model output for naturally occurring DSM savings that could be attributed to actions other than those of SPS. Naturally occurring DSM energy and peak demand savings are unquantifiable. However, theoretically the historical energy sales and coincident peak demand data used in SPS s forecast modeling process does have embedded in it any naturally occurring DSM savings. Therefore, the forecast models and model output do account indirectly, through the historical data, for naturally occurring DSM savings. Naturally occurring DSM energy and peak demand savings do not impact SPS s sponsored DSM resources. 4

Deficiency 3: With respect to 17.7.3.9(G)(2)(f) which states: Response: Each electric utility shall provide a summary of how the following factors were considered in, or affected, the development of resource portfolios: (f) transmission constraints SPS provides the following explanation regarding how transmission constraints are addressed in SPS s resource planning process. SPS is a member and stakeholder in the Southwest Power Pool ( SPP ) Regional Transmission Organization ( RTO ). The SPP oversees and coordinates the operation of members transmission systems and plans for upgrades to those transmission systems to ensure reliability of service to members customers and other stakeholders in the SPP RTO. The SPP is a member-driven organization which uses the stakeholder committee and working group process to implement major initiatives that improve or enhance SPP operations. The SPP ensures reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure and competitive wholesale prices of electricity. Figure 1 (next page) is a map of the SPP Consolidated Balancing Area ( CBA ) and SPS s service area in relation to the SPP CBA. 5

Figure 1 6

Additionally, the SPP conducts the Integrated Transmission Planning Assessment ( ITP Assessment ). The ITP Assessment is SPP s approach to planning transmission upgrades needed to maintain reliability, provide economic benefits, and achieve public policy goals for the SPP region in the near- and long-term horizons. The ITP Assessment works in concert with SPP s existing sub-regional planning stakeholder process and parallels the NERC transmission planning reliability standards compliance process. The ITP Assessment is designed to create synergies by integrating SPP transmission planning activities that incorporate reliability, economic, policy, and operational components in the overall assessment of the transmission grid. Section 6.2 of Appendix B to the IRP provides the 2017 ITP Near-Term Assessment, which lists transmission projects that are needed to mitigate potential reliability problems in the SPS service area. The ITP Assessment process also provides support in the development of resource portfolios by ensuring reliability of the transmission system and assurance for the deliverability of energy from the generation resource to the load. The amount of import capability allows for economic energy and/or potential firm capacity and associated energy to be considered as an additional resource when developing the resource portfolios. Section 3.07 (Existing Transmission Capabilities pages 20-22) of the IRP describes SPS s current transmission import capabilities. The amount of import capability into the SPS service area from others within the SPP is approximately 1,600 MW. There are currently 1,079 MW of firm imports leaving approximately 576 MW of import capability for potential economy purchases. Accordingly, SPS s Response addresses each of Staff s comments regarding the purported deficiencies in SPS s 2018 IRP filing and SPS s compliance with 17.7.3.9 NMAC of 7