[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6193617,"mediaKeyId","3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec","parentId",3866181,"title","Company describes market‑purchase limits, EDAM/WRAP impacts and a proxy cost escalation correction in avoided‑cost filing","audioSeconds",1248,"startMs",2272000,"endMs",3520000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec&start=2272&end=3520","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec/thumbnail_2272000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6193617/Utah/Company-describes-marketpurchase-limits-EDAMWRAP-impacts-and-a-proxy-cost-escalation-correction-in-avoidedcost-filing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193617-523c4a9794c2babaec3ba563ad568300/orig.mp4?Expires=1773619442&Signature=bJKhSNNzTGAK~Suo34MnhmZp8SHEz9ecKnM2WQsOJOPCPB0sEu9cJocQekDtSJ-gjN~FPzqHVesgo7d3R5tnTKqQ0RzfAp5bGb3i45-GZqJ0xkUjioG-z9Vj~L~GeKKq6BPvvWBoaIne9C5paIvedhz88RtdS0qKODE-Wyy611yV3JA3BWvrv1NiFNxn4alqaqtYdzPf2JGm~NnUCy-RABEWiUuoOwCZKmEFPRZI6DboUuu33RBfbTD8r6oVMJw6dab6i2FIq-j5dd~iGbmEW~Srrx8Aq-IaGk4cO3fkqWa89aspdDM705rrFIvgXI1tWh0jwf-Gg6Sdscxt-EBnMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-19T09:18:42Z","article","Rocky Mountain Power said the 2025 IRP reflects a downward trend in using market purchases for capacity and that expected changes under the Western Resource Adequacy program (WRAP) and entry to an enhanced day‑ahead market (EDAM) will require more physical resources rather than relying on short‑term market capacity.

Dan McPhail told the technical conference that market capacity purchases — often called front‑office transactions — are expected to become harder to count as capacity under WRAP by 2028, and that EDAM participation requires a day‑ahead balancing showing. He said the IRP therefore reduced modeled reliance on market purchases in the 2028 time frame and incorporated restrictions on when market purchases can be used in high‑risk hours.

The company explained procedural differences between Schedule 37 and Schedule 38: Schedule 37 excludes unsigned QFs and uses smaller proxy sizes (10 MW examples), while Schedule 38 treats signed contracts differently and the proxy starting points and megawatt assumptions differ (company cited an 80‑MW Schedule 38 proxy in recent analyses). Rocky Mountain Power illustrated how changes in queue activity (Schedule 38 QFs) and signed contracts moved avoided‑cost prices up and down across filings.

Separately, the company identified an error found after the IRP filing that misaligned dollar year and technology year escalation rates in proxy resource cost inputs. McPhail said the correction would \"lower wind costs a smidge\" in 2028 and raise solar proxy costs a bit in 2032 because of a real/nominal mix‑up with the NREL Annual Technology Baseline inputs. The company said the changes are modest and will be corrected in the final workpapers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Virtual Technical Conference (25-035-T03, Schedule 37 Revisions)","oneSentenceSummary","Rocky Mountain Power told the commission it is reducing reliance on market capacity purchases in the IRP due to WRAP/EDAM expectations and identified a post‑filing correction to proxy escalators that modestly lowers wind costs and raises solar proxy costs in later years.","taxTitle","Utah Public Service Commission, Utah Subcommittees, Commissions and Task Forces, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",72399,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6193622,"Company details how qualifying facilities’ capacity replaces proxy resources and why avoided megawatts differ",176,1363000,1539000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec&start=1363&end=1539","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec/thumbnail_1363000.jpg","/articles/6193622/Utah/Company-details-how-qualifying-facilities-capacity-replaces-proxy-resources-and-why-avoided-megawatts-differ","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193622-b867a2e996652aa2c211ae63493dcce2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773619442&Signature=i9L~nH206a4w3xjq1z0wq~A-DcE4w7OKLck8XZb4TC05-C5TUDk1pnjRuYw-evmxiS3GqMC3w1PM7NrsZoQ9bdjjG8GixodA7gqWNQPoQq3607PvEfALowvbtMcOCekmSbGD5ykCcsLMUcSxmk2LHtTryHBnVf4Xf3dduKSMBj-JoxaFMwWgUIN7VwlBkkT0v0e9O~tODswFRSbxTrmVT-kStjO7kL2PfnyirZ1KB8-IdLk0X3RgOh4WbXAirXl4nUn4Psa~5-ApjphkWtq7dGJCFyj2FSSmodwGD6-kU7-2ZkQPWUkXj2peLeCQRSlnWD5ZYBvoD-h5OGwTl2CqoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rocky Mountain Power told the commission that, under the partial displacement differential revenue requirement (PDDRR) used in the Schedule 37 methodology, the company compares a QF's capacity contribution to the contribution of a like‑for‑like proxy resource in the preferred portfolio and displaces the proxy by the equivalent capacity contribution.

As Dan McPhail described it: \"We displace a capacity contribution equivalent amount of a proxy resource... we look at the capacity contribution of the QF, and we look at the capacity contribution of the next like for like resource. So for solar, find the next solar resource. For wind, find the next wind resource.\" He said the company measures capacity contribution against the hours identified in its loss‑of‑load study, not against annual average capacity factors.

Rocky Mountain Power gave numerical examples demonstrating the effect. For a 10‑MW tracking solar QF in Utah North, the company used a proxy solar resource in Central Oregon with a comparable contribution that resulted in a 9.7‑MW proxy displacement. By contrast, a 10‑MW wind QF in Utah had an 18.9% contribution while a Wyoming wind proxy had a 30.6% contribution, leading to only about 6 MW of proxy wind displaced for a 10‑MW Utah wind QF. The company explained that differences arise from local capacity factors and, more importantly, how the resource performs during hours the system identified as at risk in the loss‑of‑load analysis.

Intervenors asked whether the schedule 37 proxy resource shapes would be changed from prior filings; the company said it generally uses the same IRP shapes when available, noted an enhancement to use nearly 20 years of historical hourly shapes for the 2025 IRP, and confirmed fixed‑tilt versus tracking technology differences materially alter capacity contributions.","Rocky Mountain Power explained at the technical conference that the Schedule 37 avoided‑cost method displaces a proxy resource by an amount equal to a QF's measured capacity contribution; differences in capacity contribution between locations and technologies produce non‑linear MW equivalencies.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6193626,"Rocky Mountain Power explains IRP 'jurisdictional integration' that limits which system resources Utah may defer to QFs",628,256000,884000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec&start=256&end=884","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec/thumbnail_256000.jpg","/articles/6193626/Utah/Rocky-Mountain-Power-explains-IRP-jurisdictional-integration-that-limits-which-system-resources-Utah-may-defer-to-QFs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193626-69e2411674223440df7becf0bebe1b4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773619442&Signature=IRjOBn2LetLhn4diPl35jEPL6hyRMl7oMhbHkfwZfMwHWHGnX7GnBtRwnyvr0IC9fkBo4lW8h7Qt7NkJnn~iAU95EqPBModfEt8SI7l1qCmZi4DT9185pk0MvUmkcltmf3Q6X~3lD46zN1WnZyV8qD4EAGyMrmaH1UhBJ4BGlGNksBDZGDAXwW1sH656tUp4C7WMunOXm5ghXKeIP8QgTnoY2BX9SoOA3m48BQMk9FGSLDZjNuyxNe695eyx~40wgytRLqVTgpbiYoB-iDDzl2CFuD-tbPA3Iya7kTEkQhnG~~HH1p48Hqt1ZmPMLJqq9NPrwP893L9LVv5wnFneww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rocky Mountain Power told the Utah Public Service Commission technical conference that its 2025 IRP uses a systemwide run to identify a preferred portfolio and then applies an \"integration\" step that attributes specific resource additions to the jurisdictions that chose them.

Dan McPhail explained the methodology: \"We run the entire system, the civil core system, and we look at all the choices that are made... then the integration process says we only take the decisions that are relevant to that jurisdiction.\" He said that approach allows the company to identify, for each resource, \"which 1 was for Oregon, which 1 was for Washington, and which 1 is for Utah and black and white.\"

The company said the method is intended to prevent resources driven by another state's policy from being treated as deferrable for Utah customers. Rocky Mountain Power showed that some solar and wind additions in the preferred portfolio are located on the West Side and were selected for Oregon and Washington; those resources are not available to be deferred by Utah qualifying facilities because they were not selected for Utah's jurisdictional needs.

Several participants asked clarifying questions about the draft versus final IRP treatment and the implications for deliverability, cost allocation and whether Utah ratepayers could ultimately carry cost for resources located outside the state. The company responded that the final Utah version constrained east/west sharing more tightly than the draft to avoid allocating out‑of‑state resources to Utah customers if those resources were not deliverable to the customers who would pay for them.","Company presenters said their 2025 IRP runs the full PacifiCorp system then allocates resource choices back to jurisdictions so that Utah only takes resources that were cost‑effective for Utah; the approach affects which proxy resources are eligible for deferral by qualifying facilities.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6193630,"Rocky Mountain Power keeps TerraPower 'Natrium' in 2025 IRP; company says plant not relied on for reliability",283,4631000,4914000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec&start=4631&end=4914","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3866181-5a7bc0bfd543d5081e1f6e39b780c5ec/thumbnail_4631000.jpg","/articles/6193630/Utah/Rocky-Mountain-Power-keeps-TerraPower-Natrium-in-2025-IRP-company-says-plant-not-relied-on-for-reliability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193630-e539eef336373fd74fa558cb0979edea/orig.mp4?Expires=1773619442&Signature=kosLZ-AC2D4cZuJrUPXCgQ9-QubmI4D-oG5sVLOT4VqZrTq1WRbKOq0Z146RyD5ICXGwArXJMOu2KaUqITrsxTbEi7lE3cN4Yp4kKcYuATKKRXM7dkg9-veRfoKAN-F3b0ChTGnjCDpokxaHoSQnMQQUNXV6GqZqPhsHASDFNToTKNiTnvOcn-UNO4H2HeHYqS3cFTsaLFZAAGFQHcVvGDk-kHU0reTcV4VzeYewd7iaVWlnt3Ajxz7d06embnlOhKH3jNYRIcFGxDrCOSoXI9~VrIQVFrLPcC~9ULmTrV8FahC067tutid94r8N4eJBYnKmG3cDf~ylLNieeNh6tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rocky Mountain Power included TerraPower's Natrium demonstration project in the utility's preferred portfolio for the 2025 integrated resource plan (IRP), but said the company is negotiating a unique commercial off‑take structure and is not treating the plant as a guaranteed reliability resource.

Dan McPhail, the presenter for Rocky Mountain Power at the Utah Public Service Commission technical conference, told parties the company \"is currently negotiating an off day commitment with TerraPower so we would take the megawatts that they produce and pay them for the megawatts they produce\" and described the arrangement as \"an innovative commercial energy acquisition structure, you know, ensuring benefits for customers without risk.\" He added the company is \"not planning to, to count on them for reliability or count them towards compliance and so forth. We can we can make do without it.\"

The utility said the project appears in the IRP as a distinct, identified resource with a commercial‑operation date that moved in the final filing from 2030 toward 2031–2032, and that the company is negotiating terms through 2025. Rocky Mountain Power said the Natrium entry is treated differently from the routine proxy resources used elsewhere in the IRP because it is a specific technology and an active commercial negotiation rather than a cost‑and‑performance proxy.

Salt Lake City Corporation's Christopher Thomas expressed concern about treating Natrium like a contracted resource before a contract is finalized, asking: \"I'm concerned that the Natrium Resource is kind of being treated like a contracted resource when it hasn't been contracted yet.\" Rocky Mountain Power replied that the company included Natrium as a placeholder in the preferred portfolio because management expects the negotiated structure to be cost‑effective for customers, but that the IRP also contains variants that examine the portfolio without the nuclear entry.

Rocky Mountain Power said that, if Natrium did not proceed, the model replaces the nuclear entry with more wind, solar and battery resources and that doing so would change the value of wind and solar in the plan. The company described the Natrium modeling as a non‑cost‑based placeholder — not a conventional proxy resource — and said contract negotiations remain ongoing.","Rocky Mountain Power told the Utah Public Service Commission technical conference it included TerraPower's Natrium demonstration in its preferred 2025 integrated resource plan but is negotiating an off‑take structure and will not count the plant toward reliability or compliance requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Company describes market‑purchase limits, EDAM/WRAP impacts and a proxy cost escalation correction in avoided‑cost filing

Company details how qualifying facilities’ capacity replaces proxy resources and why avoided megawatts differ

Rocky Mountain Power explains IRP 'jurisdictional integration' that limits which system resources Utah may defer to QFs

Rocky Mountain Power keeps TerraPower 'Natrium' in 2025 IRP; company says plant not relied on for reliability