UCAN's Fifth Set of Data Requests
A. 05-12-014

1. Assume the following hypothetical: In 2010, in a variation of SDG&E's Sunrise Case 00 (No Action Case), the cross-tripping scheme for Path 45 was modified so that an outage of SWPL caused cross-tripping of the cross-border transmission lines connected to the Imperial Valley substation, but did not cross-trip the Tijuana-Otay Mesa line. Further assume that Tijuana-to-Otay Mesa flows after a trip of SWPL would be controlled by CFE to be no more than 350 Mw. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please provide your calculations of what the resulting SIL and NSIL for the San Diego local area would be in that situation.

2. Assume the following hypothetical: In 2010, in a variation of SDG&E's Sunrise Case 00 (No Action case) one of the SCE-SONGS lines was looped into Talega, creating an SCE-Talega line and a Talega-SONGS #3 line. Which of the four SCE-SONGS lines would be most appropriate to loop in, what would the SIL and NSIL for the San Diego area be in that situation, and what is the basis for your answers? (If SDG&E has no basis for deciding which line would be best, then please treat this as four separate questions, one for each of the four SCE-SONGS lines, and indicate the SIL and NSIL for looping those lines into Talega.)

3. Same question as the preceding one, but for 2015?

4. Please identify any potential new generation that might come on-line prior to 2015 located in Baja California about which SDG&E is aware. In answering this question, please identify the generation entity involved, the nature of current activities (e.g., preliminary planning, licensing, etc.), and the currently planned size, type, location, and operation date of the new generation.

5. Please state whether SDG&E is aware of any potential Sempra-owned or constructed plants to be located in Baja California within the next 10 years.

6. Please provide the normal and emergency ratings in MVA for each of the nine 230 KV lines currently connected to the SONGS substation, and the length of each line in circuit miles.

7. Please indicate which, if any, of the 9 230 KV lines currently connected to the SONGS substation (4 to SCE, 2 to Talega, 3 towards San Luis Rey) are, in whole or in part, carried on double-circuit towers with only one circuit strung, and indicate how many miles of each line consist of a single circuit on a double-circuit tower.

8. Please indicate the cost of terminating one additional 230 KV line at SONGS, beyond those already terminated there.

9. Please provide the normal and emergency ratings of the existing Talega-Escondido 230 KV line, in MVA, and the length of the line in miles.

10. Please indicate how many miles of the existing Talega-Escondido 230 KV line are strung on double-circuit towers.

11. SDG&E's Valley-Rainbow transmission line application included the addition of a second Talega-Escondido circuit. Please provide:

a. SDG&E's estimate at the time of the Valley-Rainbow application of the cost of adding a 2nd Talega-Escondido 230 KV circuit (in dollars, specifying which year's dollars the estimate is in).
b. SDG&E's current estimate of the cost of adding a 2nd Talega-Escondido circuit for operation in 2010, expressed in 2010 dollars.

12. Please provide SDG&E's best current estimate of the cost of adding a new 230 KV line from SONGS to San Luis Rey, using existing double-circuit towers with only one circuit on them to the extent feasible.

13. Assume that SG&E's Sunrise Case 00 is modified such that by 2010 one of the existing SCE-SONGS lines is looped into Talega, and that a second Talega-Escondido 230 KV line is strung. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please provide your calculation of what would the resulting SIL and NSIL would be for the SDG&E local area.

14. Assume that SG&E's Sunrise Case 00 is modified such that by 2010 one of the existing SCE-SONGS lines is looped into Talega, and that a new SONGS-San Luis Rey 230 KV line is strung. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please provide your calculation of what would the resulting SIL and NSIL would be for the SDG&E local area.

15. Assume that SDG&E's Sunrise Case 00 is modified such that by 2010 one of the existing SCE-SONGS lines is looped into Talega, a 2nd Talega-Escondido 230 KV line is strung, and a new SONGS-San Luis Rey 230 KV line is strung. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please provide your calculation of what would the resulting SIL and NSIL would be for the SDG&E local area.

16. Please provide all information in SDG&E's possession regarding the current status of any and all portions of the Green Path proposal, including but not limited to the "Green Path Southwest" line from Imperial Valley to SDG&E, 230 KV lines within the IID service area, and the 500 KV line proposed to interconnect IID and LADWP. For each portion of the Green Path proposal for which SDG&E provides a response, please provide as available:

a. Current licensing status
b. Project proponent
c. Proposed construction start date
d. Proposed commercial operation date
e. Proposed line rating (230 KV, 500 KV, or other)
f. Intended carrying capacity, in Mw or MVA
g. Expected cost (specifying the year of the dollars for which the answer is given)
h. Copies of any communications in SDG&E's possession, including communications with IID, describing the proposal

17. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please indicate which portions of the Green Path proposals will be included in SDG&E's environmental studies underlying its PEA, and explain the basis for excluding any portions of the Green Path proposal which will not be analyzed in the PEA.

18. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please indicate which portions of the Green Path proposals will be included in SDG&E's revised economic studies of Sunrise which are currently in preparation (either as part of the No Action Case, as part of the Sunrise proposal, and/or as part of an alternative to Sunrise), and explain the basis for excluding any portions of the Green Path proposal which will not be included in the forthcoming economic analyses.

19. Please describe in detail or provide documents that describe each of the alternative transmission arrangements (e.g., No Action Case, Green Path Case, Sunrise Case, Full Loop Case, LEAPS case, in-basin Combined Cycle Case) which SDG&E has asked the CAISO to analyze as part of its review of SDG&E's Sunrise proposal.

20. Please describe in detail or provide documents that describe SDG&E's understanding of all the alternative transmission arrangements (e.g., No Action Case, Green Path Case, Sunrise Case, Full Loop Case, LEAPS case, in-basin Combined Cycle Case) that the CAISO has chosen to analyze as part of its review of SDG&E's Sunrise proposal.

21. Please confirm that SDG&E's economic analysis in its CPCN application for an in-basin combined cycle alternative is based on cost estimates for new combined cycles at Encina and Sycamore Canyon locations. If confirmed, please provide SDG&E's best estimate of the cost, in 2010 dollars, for a new combined cycle built at South Bay for operation in mid-2010, including:

a. Gas interconnection costs
b. Transmission interconnection costs
c. Capital costs
d. Fixed O&M costs in each of the years 2010-2015
e. Variable O&M costs in each of the years 2010-2015, in $/Mwh
f. Fuel costs in each of the years 2010-2015, in $/Mwh
g. Any construction or operation cost not covered by the above list

22. Please identify how many Mw of distributed generation solar interconnection requests SDG&E received in each month of 2005, and in each month of 2006 to date, rounded to the nearest 100 kilowatts.

23. Please identify how many Mw of distributed generation solar capacity SDG&E actually connected to its system in each month of 2005 and each month of 2006 to date, rounded to the nearest 100 kilowatts.

24. Please identify how many Mw of distributed generation solar were operating at the time of the monthly peak load in each month of 2005 and each month of 2006 to date.

25. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, please provide all Case descriptions and modeling results in SDG&E's possession for Sunrise Case 0, which UCAN understands is a No Action Case similar to the filed Case 00 but with lower amounts of renewable energy development in Imperial County.

26. Please describe the Imperial County renewable capacity included in each of Cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3 for each of the years 20101 and 2015.

27. To the extent Cases 1, 2, or 3 had a different number of Mw of installed renewable capacity in either 2010 or 2015 than Case 00, please provide revised results for that case with the amount of installed renewable capacity changed to match that in Case 00.

28. Please provide any modeling results in SDG&E's possession in which the proposed Green Path 500 KV interconnection between IID and LADWP is included.

29. To the extent SDG&E is intending to provide the CPUC with revised economic modeling of Sunrise or any alternatives in which the proposed Green Path 500 KV interconnection between IID and LADWP is not included, please state whether SDG&E will also provide a sensitivity case for each such non-Green Path case in which the proposed IID-LADWP 500 KV interconnection is included.

30. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of Cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate whether the following proposed facilities were included in SDG&E's modeling:
a. San Felipe 230/500 KV substation
b. Bannister-San Felipe 230 KV line
c. Bannister-San Felipe 500 KV line

31. Please confirm whether SDG&E intends to provide a revised economic impact modeling of Sunrise and various alternatives to it which will incorporate the transmission agreements contemplated by the March 2006 MOA between SDG&E and IID.

32. Please confirm that any SDG&E modeling which reflects the March 2006 MOA will account for IID's reservation of transmission rights on the easternmost (Imperial Valley-San Felipe) portion of the proposed Sunrise line. If confirmed, please provide the methodology to be used to account for IID's transmission rights.

33. SDG&E's response to UCAN data request 1-16.c. indicates that there have been 580 hours in the last three years combined when simultaneous imports into the SDG&E area exceeded 2500 Mw. Please provide a list showing, for each of those 580 hours:

a. The date and time
b. The Mw of import into the SDG&E service area via
c. SWPL
d. Path 45
e. South-of-SONGS
f. Total simultaneous import
g. The load in the SDG&E service area

34. SDG&E's response to UCAN data request 1-15d identifies 48 occasions during the last 11 years (1995-2005, inclusive) when a forced outage has occurred on the Imperial Valley-Miguel portion of SWPL. For each of those 48 occasions, please identify:

a. The imports over SWPL in the hour immediately preceding the forced outage
b. Total imports into the SDG&E area in the hour immediately preceding the forced outage
c. For outages lasting long enough for data to be available, the total imports into the SDG&E area during each hour during which Imperial-Valley Miguel was out of service for the entire hour.

35. Please provide a detailed description of any occasion within the last 15 years on which SDG&E has ever dropped load due to a SWPL forced outage, including:

a. The date, time, and duration of the load drop
b. The nature of the load dropped (firm, interruptible, etc.)
c. The Mw and Mwh of load dropped
d. Any event reports or other documentation describing the causes and consequences of the load drop
e. Other system conditions at the time of the load drop (e.g. system loads, import levels, other facilities out of service, etc.)

36. Please provide revised tables and texts showing the results if Case 3 was modified to omit the second combined cycle plant addition, which SDG&E has modeled as occurring in 2015.

37. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of Cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate the following:

a. SDG&E's expected system RA obligation, in Mw
b. SDG&E's expected local RA obligation, in Mw
c. SDG&E's expected RA supply, in Mw, from sources located inside the San Diego local area.
d. SDG&E's expected RA supply, in Mw, from sources located outside the San Diego local area
e. Capacity payments for RA supply inside the San Diego local area
f. Portion of the capacity payments for RA supply inside the San Diego local area included in SDG&E's economic analyses as:
i. RMR cost
ii. New generation capital cost
iii. Other (please identify
g. Portion of the capacity payments for RA supply inside the San Diego local area not included in SDG&E's economic analyses
h. Capacity payments for RA supply from outside the San Diego local area

i. Portion of the capacity payments for RA supply from outside the San Diego local area included in SDG&E's economic analyses as:
i. RMR cost
ii. New generation capital cost
iii. Other (please identify
g. Portion of the capacity payments for RA supply from outside the San Diego local area not included in SDG&E's economic analyses

38. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate:

i. What south-of-Lugo flow limit was enforced in SDG&E's Gridview modeling?
ii. How many hours in the year was the south-of-Lugo flow limit a constraint requiring limitations on generation?
iii. Was generation ever committed on by Gridview to prevent violations of the south-of Lugo flow limit?

39. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of the cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate:

a. What Humboldt area local generation requirement was enforced in Gridview?
b. What Humboldt area import limit was enforced in Gridview?
c. How many gwh of Humboldt area generation occurred in Gridview?

40. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of the cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate:

a. What Greater Bay Area local generation requirement was enforced in Gridview?
b. What Greater Bay Area import limit was enforced in Gridview?
c. How many gwh of Greater bay Area generation occurred in Gridview?

41. For each of the years 2010 and 2015, for each of the cases 0, 00, 1, 2, and 3, please indicate:

a. What LA Basin local generation requirement was enforced in Gridview?
b. What LA Basin import limit was enforced in Gridview?
c. How many Mw of LA Basin generation were on-line during the peak load hour of the year for SCE?

42. In SDG&E's CPCN application, please state how many miles of the proposed double-circuit Central-Sycamore Canyon 230 KV lines were assumed to be underground.

43. In SDG&E's CPCN application, please state how many miles of the proposed Penasquitos-Sycamore Canyon 230 KV line were assumed to be underground.

44. What is the average expected cost per mile of undergrounding portions of the proposed Central-Sycamore Canyon lines?

45. What is the average expected cost per mile of undergrounding portions of the proposed Sycamore Canyon-Penasquitos line?

46. Based on public comments to date and SDG&E responses to those comments, please provide a low and high range for the number of miles of the proposed Central-Sycamore Canyon double-circuit line which SDG&E now expects to be installed underground.

47. Based on public comments to date and SDG&E responses to those comments, please provide a low and high range for the number of miles of the proposed Penasquitos-Sycamore Canyon line which SDG&E now expects to be installed underground.

48. Please provide maps identifying those portions of the proposed 230 KV lines from Central to Sycamore Canyon to Penasquitos that SDG&E:

a. Planned to build underground as of the time of CPCN filing
b. Has identified to any member of the public as a candidate for undergrounding
c. Currently plans to underground, as a result of community feedback.

49. What is SDG&E's expected average cost for RMR capacity in 2006, in dollars per kw-year, for:

a. Units with Type 1 RMR contracts?
b. Units with Type 2 RMR contracts
c. All RMR units considered together

50. For each San Diego area unit with a 2006 RMR contract, please identify:

a. The 2006 RMR capacity cost for that unit
b. The RMR contract type (type 1, type 2, other)
c. The forecasted 2010 RMR capacity cost for that unit if it is available as an RMR unit in 2010 and is selected as one.
d. The forecasted 2015 RMR capacity cost for that unit if it is available as an RMR unit in 2015 and is selected as one.
e. SDG&E's projected RMR capacity cost for that unit included in SDG&E's Sunrise analyses in:
a. Case 00
b. Case 1
c. Case 2
d. Case 3

51. Assume the following hypothetical: The CPUC orders a deferral of Sunrise from 2010 to 2017. Based upon this scenario, please answer the following questions:
a. Confirm that the nominal cost of Sunrise would rise because of inflation but the NPV cost would fall because of increased discounting back to the present.
b. SDG&E's estimate of the qualitative impact of a Sunrise deferral on the capital and operating costs of Sunrise.
c. SDG&E's estimate of the quantitative change in the capital and operating costs of Sunrise for each year of deferral beyond 2010 through to 2017.
d. Confirm that the gross economic benefits of Sunrise (before netting out Sunrise capital and operations costs) would become zero in the period from 7/2010 to the new online date in 2017, would be unchanged from the new online date through the former end of the economic analysis, and then would increase above zero for a period equal to the length of the deferral.
e. SDG&E's estimate as to the qualitative impact on the gross economic benefits of Sunrise of a deferral of the project.
f. SDG&E's estimate as to the quantitative change in the gross lifecycle RMR benefits of Sunrise due to each year of deferral beyond mid-2010.
g. SDG&E's estimate as to the quantitative change in the gross dispatch and congestion benefits of Sunrise to CAISO ratepayers due to each year of deferral beyondmid-2010.

52. In its March 27 "Local Capacity Technical Analysis, Overview of 2006 Local Area Reliability Needs Study Report and Updated Results," the CAISO declares that "the CAISO [reliability] criteria generally allows for load shedding for the N-1, N-2 contingencies" but "to the extent a PTO's pre-CAISO standards did not allow for load shedding for common corridor and/or double circuit tower line outages, the CAISO has maintained that practice to assure that the level of reliability that prevailed before the CAISO was formed would be maintained." (pp. 6-7). In reference to this CAISO statement please indicate:

a. As a PTO whose existence predates the CAISO, please describe which SDG&E common corridor outages would have allowed for load shedding as a response prior to the creation of the CAISO, and which would not.
b. Please describe which SDG&E double circuit tower line outages would have allowed for load shedding as a response prior to the creation of the CAISO and which would not.
c. Please describe each portion of the SDG&E-owned transmission grid where load shedding would "generally" be allowed for N-1 or N-2 contingencies under applicable CAISO criteria if not for more stringent SDG&E reliability criteria that predate the creation of the CAISO.

53. Please provide copies of data requests tendered to SDG&E by all intervenors (including DRA) in this proceeding.