.

/^^^ Department of Commerce

^^;^'* Innovation is in our natiirc.

commerce.wa.aov/eia

Washington StateEnergy Independence Act

Application for Advisory Opinion andRenewable Energy Facility (WREGIS)Certification

All information provided in this application or any supplemental or additional materials is subject to public disclosure.

FACILITY NAME: Bonneville Dam

WREGIS Generating Unit ID (if already registered): W3996 - W4005

A separate Washington application is required for

each generating unit with a separate WREGIS GU

ID. Applicant must select Washington in WREGIS

generating unit registration.

Section 1: Agency Action Requested

Advisory Opinion and WREGIS Certification || Advisory Opinion Only

Section 2: Applicant Information

Applicant Contact: Debra Malin Title: Account Executive

Applicant Phone: 503-230-5701

Applicant E-mail: djmalin@bpa.gov

Applicant Company Name: Bonneville Power Administration

Company Address: P. O. Box 3621

City: Portland State/Province: OR

Zip Code:97208 Country: US

Section 3: Facility Information

Facility Owner

Name of Facility Owner: US Army Corps of Engineers

OR |_| The Facility Owner is the same as the Applicant.

Address: 1125 NW Couch St., Suite 500

City/State/ZIP: Portland/OR/97209

Contact Name, Phone, and Email: Francis (Beth) Coffey, Francis. E. Coffey@usace. army. mil, 503-909-3880

Facility Identification and Location

Unit Name: Unit 1-10

Facility Name: Bonneville Dam

Unit location (street address, legal description, or GPS coordinates):

City: Cascade Locks County: Multnomah

State/Province: OR Zip: 97014 Country: US

Provide a description of the facility.

Bonneville's hydropower facilities are composed of two powerhouses and a spillway. The turbine runner

replacement and generator rewind affected Units 1-10 which comprise all of the main generating units in the old

powerhouse (Powerhouse 1)

Facility Identification Numbers

Washington Application for Facility Certification and Advisory Opinion vl. 7 2016-09-20

WREGIS Generating Unit ID: 3996 - 4005

EIA Utility Code:

Other External ID:

EIA Plant Code: 3075

Section 4: Facility Eligibility

A. Facility Profile

Nameplate Capacity (MW): 596

If this value will change, please explain:

Commercial Operation Date (COD): 1 /1 / 1938Is your facility considered repowered by WREGIS? ̂ ] Yes II NoIf yes, please explain: Turbine runners and generator windings and cores were replaced and units brought onlinebetween 7/28/1999 and 9/28/2010

B. Facility Fuel

Indicate each energy source used by the facility. For definitions, refer to RCW 19. 285. 030. For multi-fuel generatingfacilities indicate all fuels used.

D Wind D Wave power

D Solar energy a Ocean power

Geothermal energy D Tidal power

a Landfill gas a Gas from sewage treatment facility

Biomass energy (must complete Section 5) Biodiesel fuel (must complete Section 6)

Water (must complete Section 7) a Other (please specify):

Wilt the facility use any fossil fuel or other non-qualifying fuel? Q Yes ̂ ] No. Type of fossil fuel or other non-qualifying fuel:. Average annual amount of non-qualifying fuel used (percent of net heat input):

Section 5: Biomass Energy Supplement (complete only if "biomass energy" is checked in Section 4)

Allowed Fuel Sources. Indicate each source of biomass energy used by the facility.

u Organic by-products of pulping and the woodmanufacturing process

u Food waste and food processing residuals

u Animal manure u Liquors derived from algae

u Solid organic fuels from wood u Dedicated energy crops

u Forest or field residues u Yard waste

u Untreated wooden demolition or construction debris

Prohibited Fuel Sources. The following materials will NOT be used as a source of biomass energy by the facility.

u Wood pieces that have been treated with chemicalpreservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol,

or copper-chrome-arsenic

u Wood from old growth forests

Municipal solid waste

Legacy Biomass. The Washington Energy Independence Act allows a biomass energy facility commencing operationbefore March 31, 1999 to qualify as an eligible renewable resource in certain circumstances. Contact Commerce to

obtain application requirements.

Washington Application for Facility Certification and Advisory Opinion vl. 7 2016-09-20

Section 6: Biodiesel Fuel Supplement (complete only if'biodiesel fuel" is checked in Section 4)

The biodiesel fuel used by the facility meets each of the identified conditions:

DThe fuel (a) is a mono alkyl ester of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats for usein compression-ignition engines and (b) meets the requirements of the American society of testing andmaterials specification D 6751 in effect as of January 1, 2003.

The fuel is NOT from crops raised on land cleared from old growth or first-growth forests where the clearingoccurred after December 7, 2006.

Section 7: Water/Hydroelectric Power (complete only if "water" is checked in Section 4)

The facility uses water as a fuel in the following manner:

M Incremental Hydro. Incremental electricity produced as a result of efficiency improvements completed after

March 31, 1999, to hydroelectric generation projects owned by a qualifying utility and located in the Pacific

Northwest where the additional generation does not result in new water diversions or impoundments.

Date efficiency improvement completed: between 7/28/1999 - 9/28/2010

Method of measuring incremental generation:

Incremental generation is separately metered or measured.

Incremental generation is modeled each year based on actual stream flows.

Incremental generation is modeled as a fixed percentage of total generation.

Fixed percentage: 4.2%

Incremental generation is modeled as a fixed generation amount.

Fixed amount: megawatt-hours

Note: If any box but the first is checked, the facility must register in WREGIS as a multi-fuel facility.

Non-incremental generation will be classified as Large Hydro (LHN) and excluded from certificatecreation.

u Canal or pipe. Hydroelectric generation from a project completed after March 31, 1999, where the

generation facility is located in irrigation pipes, irrigation canals, water pipes whose primary purpose is forconveyance of water for municipal use, and wastewater pipes located in Washington where the generation

does not result in new water diversions or impoundments.

Section 8: Eligibility for Washington Multipliers (Optional)

The facility qualifies for the following multipliers under the Washington Energy Independence Act:

D Distributed Generation. The facility has a generating capacity of 5 MW or less and is not part of anyintegrated cluster of facilities with an aggregate generating capacity of 5 MW or more.

DApprentice Labor. The facility commenced operation after December 31, 2005 and in construction used an

apprenticeship program approved by the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council.

NOTE: Commerce requests optional multiplier eligibility from facility owners for informational purposes only. Owners seekingcertification of a facility as eligible for a multiplier should contact Commerce for application requirements.

Section 9: Reservation

The Washington Department of Commerce makes a determination of resource eligibility under the WashingtonEnergy Independence Act based on the information provided by the applicant and does not independently verify

that information. An applicant must promptly notify Commerce of any changes to the information submitted for

certification that may affect the facility's eligibility. Commerce reserves the right to modify or withdraw a

designation if it determines that the information supplied by the applicant was incomplete or inaccurate.

Washington Application for Facility Certification and Advisory Opinion vl. 7 2016-09-20

Section 10: Attestation

I declare that the information provided in this application and any supplemental forms and attachments are trueand correct to the best of my knowledge, that the information contained in this submission is consistent withinformation on file with WREGIS unless otherwise indicated, that no information materially affecting the facility's

eligibility has been withh^h-1, and that I am authorized to file this submission on the facility owner's behalf.

t^~

'i-fct. f-zjffi^Signature:

Date Signedf

Authorized Officer/Agent: Debra Malin

Officer Title and Company: Account Executive and Bonneville Power Administration

Name of Facility: Bonneville Dam

Application Checklist for SubmissionApplicants must select the Washington program administrator in the generating unit's WREGIS static data.Applicants should ensure that the following documents are provided:

1. Electronic copy of entire application, including a signed attestation page.

2. WREGIS "static data" if the facility is already registered in WREGIS. A printout of your generator account

profile screen in WREGIS.

3. Optional project background documentation. Background documentation can be submitted or published inregulatory settings (FERC or state commission filings) or informal forums (websites, articles or factsheets).

4. Payment of advisory opinion fee of $1.250. A separate application and application fee are required for eachgenerating unit. However, if a facility owner has multiple WREGIS generating unit IDs for a single facility andall the static characteristics of the facility (other than the generating capacity) are identical, it may request

that Commerce treat the combined generating units as a single application. The owner must document at thetime of application that all GU IDs are part of a single facility in a single location. If GU IDs are added later, aseparate application will be required.

To submit your facility for certification, e-mail the application and any supplemental materials listed above to(wreRis@commerce.wa.gov). Submit payment of the advisory opinion fee to:

Department of Commerce

Attn: State Energy Office

P.O. Box 42525

Olympia, WA 98504-2525

Commerce will post each application on its website. Applications are subject to a public comment period.

Washington Application for Facility Certification and Advisory Opinion vl. 7 2016-09-20

May-2013, rev. May-2019

1

Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Major Rehabilitation

Calculation of Incremental

Efficiency Improvements for Renewable Energy Credits

Updated for Recertification

May 2019

Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 2

Unit Online Dates ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Unit Ratings ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Performance ................................................................................................................................................. 4

REC Calculation Method ............................................................................................................................... 7

Method Description .................................................................................................................................. 7

Summary of governing equations ............................................................................................................. 9

Metering Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 9

Summary of Results ................................................................................................................................ 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18

May-2013, rev. May-2019

2

Summary Renewable energy credits (RECs) are sought for ten units at Bonneville Powerhouse 1. These units were rehabilitated between 1998 and 2010 with new high efficiency Kaplan turbine runners and generator stator cores and windings. Calculations were performed to compare efficiency of the old units vs. the new units and are described herein. Unit rehabilitations have the potential to change operations and this was considered in the analysis. Changes in operations are not significant enough to require a correction to the results below. The total weighted average incremental efficiency improvement was estimated at 4.8% for all 10 units combined (2006 – 2011 data). ODOE approved the incremental efficiency value in 2014 and in 2019 a recertification was required. Upon review of the new operations data (2013-2018), it was discovered that incremental efficiency had decreased in recent years. Upon further investigation it was determined that this was due to a revision to the fish passage plan in 2014 that allowed operation above the upper 1% efficiency limit. Information was provided to ODOE and it was agreed to utilize the 2014-2018 data set for the recertification. Therefore the new incremental efficiency is estimated at 4.2%. Unit specific efficiency improvement is provided below for information only. Data is rounded to the nearest 1/10th of a percent to reflect accuracy in testing and analysis methods. Table 1: Incremental Efficiency Results

Unit # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 8 9* 10

Weighted avg. incremental effic. (2006–2011 data)

5.2% 4.9% 5.0% 4.8% 4.7% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8%

Weighted avg. incremental effic. (2014-2018 data)

4.6% 4.2% 4.3% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.7%

BPA proposes that Units 1-10 be registered in the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) as a group and that the weighted average incremental efficiency given above be multiplied by the actual monthly unit gross generation (MWh) and transformer efficiency to arrive at incremental generation for each month. The efficiency of the new transformers is tested to be 99.68% at full load (ABB factory test data). BPA Transmission will calculate the efficiency/loss factor at average load and update it whenever it experiences a significant change. This will become part of the Qualified Reporting Entity (QRE) agreement and logged with WREGIS.

Background

Project Description

Bonneville Powerhouse 1 is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the energy generated is transmitted and marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration. It is located in Cascade Locks, OR on the Columbia River and the flow below the dam is unobstructed to the Pacific Ocean. Ten main units were placed online between 1938 and 1943 and no significant

May-2013, rev. May-2019

3

rehabilitation occurred until the late 1990s and beyond. The turbine runners are Kaplan type with adjustable blades. The new units are controlled with digital governors which assure the runner blade position tracks the optimal (most efficient) position for all operating conditions. Units 1 – 10 underwent a major rehabilitation starting in the late 1990s. All ten generators were rewound with new stator cores and windings and turbine runners were replaced with new Voith minimum gap runners (MGR). The runners are the hydraulic prime mover (i.e. similar to a propeller) that converts the energy in the flowing water to rotational energy in the turbine shaft. The windings are the copper coils located in the stationary portion of the generator, the stator, which convert rotational energy to electrical energy by means of electromagnetic induction. The primary losses in hydro power generation occur within the turbine and generator, so they carry the most potential for efficiency improvements. In the case of Bonneville Powerhouse 1 the turbine runner replacements are the most significant contributor to efficiency improvements. Turbine runners contributed between 4% and 5%.

Unit Online Dates

The original ten main units at Bonneville went online between 1938 and 1943. The online dates of the new turbine runners and generator rewinds are listed below for each unit. These dates are used in this analysis to establish the pre-rehab and post-rehab time periods for each unit. The pre-rehab time period is excluded from this analysis because it is not considered to be reflective of current and future operations with the new runners. Table 2: New Runner/Generator Rewind Online Dates

Unit Online Date

1 September 7, 2004

2 March 13, 2007

3 January 21, 2002

4 December 17, 1999

5 November 9, 2002

6 July 28, 1999

7 June 2, 2010

8 August 1, 2008

9 September 28, 2010

10 April 25, 2007 (runner); April 28, 2000 (generator)

Unit Ratings

Generators were rewound but were not up-rated. The tables below list common unit parameters before and after rehabilitation. These parameters are not used in the analysis but are helpful to define the equipment.

May-2013, rev. May-2019

4

Table 3: Unit Ratings Pre-Rehabilitation

Unit Rated Net Head (ft)

Turbine rated power (hp)

Turbine rated power (MW)

Generator max power (MW) at 0.9 Power Factor

1 50 66000 49.2 49.7

2 50 66000 49.2 49.7

3 60 74000 55.2 62.1

4 60 74000 55.2 62.1

5 60 74000 55.2 62.1

6 60 74000 55.2 62.1

7 60 74000 55.2 62.1

8 60 74000 55.2 62.1

9 60 74000 55.2 62.1

10 60 74000 55.2 62.1

Table 4: Unit Ratings Post-Rehabilitation

Unit Rated Net Head (ft)

Turbine rated power (hp)

Turbine rated power (MW)

Generator max power (MW) at 0.9 Power Factor

1 60 76000 56.7 53.46

2 60 76000 56.7 53.46

3 60 76000 56.7 62.1

4 60 76000 56.7 62.1

5 60 76000 56.7 62.1

6 60 76000 56.7 62.1

7 60 76000 56.7 62.1

8 60 76000 56.7 62.1

9 60 76000 56.7 62.1

10 60 76000 56.7 62.1

Performance Refer to calculation spreadsheets for additional detailed information. For the purposes of this calculation, the pre and post-rehabilitation turbine performance curves shown below were assumed to be the same for all ten units. The curves were developed over many years, starting with in depth model tests that were performed in a laboratory on a scaled down model of the turbine which included the entire flow stream from intake to discharge. The model was scaled to a 12” diameter runner. The original model test was performed in 1935 by S. Morgan Smith, the original turbine manufacturer. The new model test was performed in 1997 by Voith. These model tests are the primary basis for the performance curves shown below, but field performance tests (index tests) were also performed on Units 5 and 6, pre and post-rehab, respectively. The results of those index tests were used to “calibrate” or adjust the model test data to account for any deviations seen in the index tests. The index tests were performed on Unit 5 and 6 in 1998 and 1999 before and after rehabilitation and show an incremental improvement

May-2013, rev. May-2019

5

of over 4% (with fish screens installed). The performance curves used in these REC calculations, shown below, are calibrated to the index test results. The generator efficiency was assumed to be 98% for the purpose of these index tests and to calibrate the model test results to the index test results. The curves are drawn from unit control flow tables that were provided by the Hydroelectric Design Center of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The detailed tables can be found in the calculations spreadsheet. In the curves below, note that each colored line represents an operating head (ft) ranging from 35 to 70 ft in five foot increments. Lowest heads are the leftmost curves. Fish screens were installed in the 1970’s and units were operated with fish screens seasonally from the period of March 1 until December 15. Pre-rehabilitation turbine performance data with both fish screens included and excluded are given below.

79.0%

80.0%

81.0%

82.0%

83.0%

84.0%

85.0%

86.0%

87.0%

88.0%

89.0%

90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

7.0 17.0 27.0 37.0 47.0 57.0 67.0

Turb

ine

Effi

cien

cy (

%)

Generator Output (MW)

BON 1 Original Efficiency Curves - No Fish Screens

35 ft 40 ft 45 ft 50 ft 55 ft 60 ft 65 ft 70 ft

Figure 1: Pre-Rehab No Fish Screens Curves. Refer to calculation spreadsheet for additional detail.

May-2013, rev. May-2019

6

79.0%

80.0%

81.0%

82.0%

83.0%

84.0%

85.0%

86.0%

87.0%

88.0%

89.0%

90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

7.0 17.0 27.0 37.0 47.0 57.0 67.0

Turb

ine

Effi

cien

cy (

%)

Generator Output (MW)

BON 1 Original Efficiency Curves - With Fish Screens

35 ft 40 ft 45 ft 50 ft 55 ft 60 ft 65 ft 70 ft

Figure 2: Pre-Rehab With Fish Screens Curves. Refer to calculation spreadsheet.

Post-rehabilitation turbine performance.

Figure 3: Post-Rehab No Fish Screens Curves. Refer to calculation spreadsheet.

The index test results are shown below for overall efficiency (turbine efficiency X generator efficiency) and assuming 98% generator efficiency. Unit 5 was tested in 1998 before

May-2013, rev. May-2019

7

rehabilitation and Unit 6 in 1999 after rehabilitation. Unit 5 was tested at an average gross head between 66 and 67 ft and Unit 6 between 60 and 64.5 ft. Note that the improvement measured by index testing is over 4% at these test heads (with fish screens in).

Figure 4: Index Test Pre and Post-Rehab Comparison. Source is the USACE Hydroelectric Design Center.

Generator performance pre and post-rehab is described in the table below. The basis of the increase in efficiency is from a calculation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers Hydroelectric Design Center (USACE HDC) dated September 14, 2012. The calculation is based on testing on Units 2 and 6 in Powerhouse 1. It was assumed that Units 1 and 2 and Units 3-10 had similar increases in efficiency, respectively. Table 5: Generator Efficiency Improvements*

*Reference memorandum dated 14 September 2012, “Bonneville Efficiency Comparison”, prepared by USACE Hydroelectric Design Center and attached to the “references” tab of the calculation spreadsheet.

REC Calculation Method

Method Description

The calculation spreadsheet will be made available to the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE) reviewers and contains additional detailed information. Post-rehabilitation hourly operations data was collected for all ten units for the years of 2006 to 2011. This data was readily available in the BPA PI Data System. Earlier years are not available, but this data is believed to be

May-2013, rev. May-2019

8

representative of expected operations into the future. It captures the most current unit operation and fish spill requirements. In Table 6 below, the total generation for the plant is compared with generation for a long term average water year. The data was collected from a propriety BPA database where the USACE reports actual monthly and annual generation. It can be seen that generation for 2006 and 2011 was above average, 2007 – 2009 was near but below average, and 2010 was considerably below average. The data collected includes Forebay elevation (ft), tailwater elevation (ft), and unit specific Generator Output (MW). In comparison to the average water year, the data represents a variety of flow and generation conditions. Table 6: Comparison of study period net generation to average water year*

Average Water Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Net Generation (GWh)

4945 5130 4633 4463 4465 4006 5443

*The source is BPA historical generation records, extracted from an FOUO (for official use only) internal BPA document. An excel spreadsheet was constructed and calculations were performed to arrive at the average annual delta efficiency for each year post-rehabilitation. The unit specific operating condition is established by gross head (forebay elevation – tailwater elevation) and generator output for each hour. Pre and post-rehab performance tables (see figure below for example) are used to look up turbine efficiency of the old turbines and new turbines at the same operating condition for each hour of operation. The performance tables are defined by generator output or power (MW) in the left most column, gross head (ft) in the top row, and turbine efficiency in the body. The tables contain a finite number of rows and columns, so tabular interpolation was utilized to calculate the efficiency if the operating condition fell between rows and columns in the table. The interpolate2Darray function used by Chelan PUD did not consistently function in BPA’s version of excel, so instead a bi-linear interpolation macro was utilized to perform the look up function. It uses the same logic for tabular interpolation as the method used by Chelan. The macro logic can be found in the reference spreadsheet.

Figure 5: Screenshot of a performance table, rows = power (MW), columns = gross head (ft), extracted from the calculation spreadsheet

May-2013, rev. May-2019

9

Graphs of the data and detailed annual results can be found in the calculation spreadsheet.

Summary of governing equations

The following equations are used within the calculations spreadsheet to determine the unit

specific incremental efficiency and generation.

Hourly generation (MW) = hourly data of unit specific generation, taken from BPA PI Data Link information database Gross head (ft) = forebay elevation (ft) – tailwater elevation (ft) Original turbine efficiency (%) = value interpolated from the appropriate table for either operations with or without fish screens depending on the time of year. Fish screens used 3/1 – 12/15 for original units. New turbine efficiency (%) = value interpolated from the new unit efficiency table(s). Original generator efficiency (%) = 97.64% for units 1-2 and 97.33% for units 3-10 New generator efficiency (%) = 97.77% for units 1-2 and 97.70% for units 3-10

- Generator efficiency was tested for Units 2 and 6 and predicted for the remainder of the units based upon those test results.

Total efficiency (%) = turbine efficiency (%) X generator efficiency (%) Delta total efficiency (%) = new total efficiency (%) – old total efficiency (%) Delta generation (MW or MWh) = delta total efficiency (%) X generation (MW or MWh) Average annual delta efficiency (weighted avg. %) = 100% X Sum of all hourly delta generation / Sum of all hourly generation Weighted Avg. Incremental Efficiency (avg. for all years of study) = sum of: (Average annual delta efficiency X annual delta generation) / (sum of annual delta generation)

Metering Discussion

Units 1-10 at Bonneville Dam are separately metered for gross generation at each unit. The

meters measure the gross generation from each unit with no unmonitored paths around the

meters. The meter data is collected by the plant SCADA system, also known as GDACS (Generic

Data Acquisition and Control System). The watt hour data is uploaded to the Corps of

Engineers Operations and Maintenance Business Information Line (OMBIL) database and

monthly gross generation reports are extracted from OMBIL by BPA. BPA also has direct access

to the GDACS data through the AGC (Automatic Generator Control) system. Either system

could be used to report generation data.

The unit gross generation meters measure total generation from each unit, and do not account for station service loads. However, in the case of renewable energy generation for incremental hydro projects, the station service loads are irrelevant to the calculation of incremental energy.

May-2013, rev. May-2019

10

The station service loads will not change as a result of the unit efficiency improvement, while the unit gross generation will increase due to the efficiency improvement. WREGIS agrees that in this case the station service load should not be included in the calculation of incremental generation. The station service load did not change as a result of the efficiency upgrade, so all of the incremental generation reaches the grid. The following example explains why station service load is irrelevant to the calculation of incremental generation. Gross Generation Before runner replacement:

-Let’s say that the gross generation is 500 MWh -Let’s say the station service and pumping load is 50 MWh. -Let’s say the transformer efficiency is 99.68%

After runner replacement:

-The gross generation would be 500 MWh X 104.8% = 524 MWh. So the incremental generation measured against the gross would be: (524 – 500 MWh) X 99.68% (transformer efficiency)* = 23.92 MWh. Net Generation Before runner replacement:

-The net generation is (500 MWh – 50 MWh) X 99.68% transformer efficiency* = 448.56 MWh.

After runner replacement:

-Assuming the same station service load of 50 MWh, the net generation would be (524 MWh – 50 MWh) X 99.68% (transformer efficiency)* = 472.48 MWh.

So the incremental generation measured against the net would be the same as if it were measure against the gross: 472.48 MWh – 448.56 MWh = 23.92 MWh. * The efficiency of the new transformers is tested to be 99.68% at full load (ABB factory test data). The incremental generation that reaches the grid for each unit will be equal to the incremental gross generation measured on the low side of the transformer multiplied by transformer efficiency or loss factor. BPA Transmission will calculate the efficiency/loss factor and update it whenever it experiences a significant change. This will become part of the Qualified Reporting Entity (QRE) agreement and logged with WREGIS. Meter Information: There are two different models of power meter currently installed on Units 1-10 at Bonneville

Dam, JEM10 and JEMSTAR. Both are Ametek brand meters. The JEM10s are the older model

and are slowly being replaced by JEMSTARs. The accuracy of the JEM10 is approximately +/-

May-2013, rev. May-2019

11

0.1%, and the JEMSTAR is approximately +/- 0.1%. Individual information about each meter is

listed below in Table 7.

Table 7: Detailed Generation Meter Information

BONNEVILLE UNITS 1-10 WATT HOUR METERS

UNIT MODEL MODEL NUMBER SERIAL NUMBER

1 JEMSTAR JS-05R6010-15 10 39 14262

2 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 00 041 034

3 JEMSTAR JS-05R6010-15 12 35 18380

4 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 01 018 002

5 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 00 041 033

6 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 00 041 014

7 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 00 041 015

8 JEMSTAR JS-05R6010-15 10 39 14261

9 JEM10 J10 12005R11-1120 00 041 029

10 JEMSTAR JS-05R6010-15 10 39 14263

Summary of Results

Efficiency gains were significant, in part because of the minimum gap runner design which

minimizes leakage flow past the runner blades at the hub and periphery. The data revealed

that the new units are operated somewhat differently than the old units because the peak

efficiency occurs at a different flow. The Bonneville project is outfitted with a Type 2

optimization system that controls unit operation near peak efficiency, so a different efficiency

table/curve will result in differences in unit operation. This had the potential to create

inaccuracy in the REC calculation, so the issue was investigated further.

Both pre and post-rehab operations data were available for Units 7, 8, and 9 because the

rehabs occurred within the 2006 – 2011 data window. It can be observed from the results

shown in Table 8 that the calculated weighted efficiency of the old units were approximately

equal when considering pre-rehab operations vs. post rehab operations. Despite the new

runners having a different design point, the efficiency of the old runners is nearly identical

under both operating regimes. This is due to the flatness (i.e. broadness) of the original

May-2013, rev. May-2019

12

efficiency curves. The old units were not very sensitive to the flow/power operating point so

their efficiency remains relatively flat over the operating range. So the method of using post-

rehab operating data to calculate both pre and post-rehab efficiency is valid in the case of

Bonneville Powerhouse 1.

If the difference shown in bold below had been consistently biased (i.e. always negative), a

correction factor would be recommended. The correction factor would reduce the incremental

efficiencies shown in Table 1 above. The correction factor would be the average of the unit

specific differences shown in the table below (Ex. (-0.22%+0.18%-0.10%)/3 = -0.05%). A

different correction factor would be recommended for each family of turbines. In the case of

Bonneville Powerhouse 1 there is only one family of turbines and the correction factor is so

small that it is within the noise of the calculation and is therefore omitted from the Table 1

incremental efficiency results.

Table 8: Calculated Old Unit Efficiency using either Pre-Rehab or Post-Rehab Operating Data

Year Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9

Old unit annual avg. weighted efficiency at pre-rehab operating conditions

2006 86.74% 86.60% 86.74%

2007 87.22% NA 87.14%

2008 NA NA 86.56%

Avg 86.98% 86.60% 86.81%

Old unit annual avg. weighted efficiency at post-rehab operating conditions

2008 NA 86.54% NA

2009 NA 86.68% NA

2010 86.83% 87.16% 86.64%

2011 86.70% 86.73% 86.77%

Avg 86.76% 86.78% 86.71%

Difference between average weighted efficiencies calculated with pre-rehab data vs. post-rehab data

Avg -0.22% +0.18% -0.10%

For recertification, all of the operating data used (2014-2018) is post-rehab.

Below is the tabular summary of results for the entire study period, extracted from the calculation spreadsheet. Areas highlighted in red indicate pre-rehab periods and are not included in the analysis.

May-2013, rev. May-2019

13

BON Powerhouse 1 Efficiency Improvements Post Rehab

Using Oregon DOE guidance, method similar to that used by Chelan PUD

Pre-rehab

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2006 4.81% 5.91% 4.97% 4.87% 4.64% 4.72% 4.22%

2007 4.52% 4.85% 4.81% 4.77% 4.34% 4.63% 4.77%

2008 5.56% 5.09% 5.26% 5.07% 4.96% 5.26% 5.82% 4.84%

2009 5.38% 4.93% 5.19% 4.76% 4.82% 5.11% 5.65% 4.57%

2010 5.18% 4.84% 5.26% 4.89% 4.91% 4.97% 5.03% 4.58% 5.57% 5.25%

2011 5.45% 4.71% 4.75% 4.61% 4.54% 4.65% 4.37% 4.41% 4.36% 4.77%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2006 11512 2 12976 11593 9711 10629 670

2007 7730 5097 11119 10290 6966 8988 1904

2008 11479 9727 12091 9656 7882 12161 832 6612

2009 13561 9214 10853 6709 6732 9714 3762 5160

2010 7141 3755 10225 4086 3761 6080 4285 2954 3305 5350

2011 14046 13784 14811 13297 11401 14109 11540 11737 10130 15836

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2006 87.49% 86.65% 87.22% 87.29% 87.36% 87.28% 86.74% 86.60% 86.74% 84.85%

2007 87.72% 87.12% 87.35% 87.38% 87.57% 87.48% 87.22% rehab 87.14% 86.90%

2008 87.06% 87.32% 87.22% 87.27% 87.32% 87.18% rehab 86.54% 86.56% 87.27%

2009 87.41% 87.61% 87.37% 87.57% 87.52% 87.38% rehab 86.68% rehab 87.64%

2010 87.66% 87.53% 87.27% 87.13% 87.12% 87.37% 86.83% 87.16% 86.64% 86.90%

2011 86.91% 87.22% 86.86% 86.85% 86.72% 86.80% 86.70% 86.73% 86.77% 86.80%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2006 92.31% 92.56% 92.18% 92.16% 92.00% 92.01% 89.07%

2007 92.25% 91.97% 92.16% 92.15% 91.91% 92.11% 91.68%

2008 92.62% 92.41% 92.47% 92.34% 92.28% 92.44% 92.36% 92.11%

2009 92.78% 92.54% 92.56% 92.32% 92.34% 92.49% 92.33% 92.21%

2010 92.84% 92.37% 92.53% 92.02% 92.03% 92.34% 91.85% 91.74% 92.21% 92.15%

2011 92.37% 91.92% 91.60% 91.46% 91.26% 91.46% 91.06% 91.14% 91.14% 91.58%

Unit # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Weighted avg. incremental efficiency 5.20% 4.88% 5.02% 4.81% 4.67% 4.88% 4.55% 4.74% 4.66% 4.82%

Total weighted avg. incremental

efficiency (all units 1-10 combined) 4.8%

Weighted Avg Efficiency

Old Unit

Weighted Avg Efficiency

New Unit

Considering that fish screens were removed as a result of new turbine runners: Screens 3/1 - 12/15 pre-rehab, No screens post-rehab

Delta Generation (MWh)

Unit #

Unit #

Delta Efficiency (weighted avg)

Figure 6: Screenshot of Original Results (2006–2011 data), extracted from calculation spreadsheet

May-2013, rev. May-2019

14

BON Powerhouse 1 Efficiency Improvements Post Rehab

Using Oregon DOE guidance, method similar to that used by Chelan PUD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2014 5.11% 4.90% 4.67% 4.53% 4.29% 4.71% 4.20% 4.23% 4.59% 5.13%

2015 4.89% 4.55% 4.54% 4.04% 3.94% 4.42% 3.49% 3.71% 3.51% 4.81%

2016 4.67% 4.49% 4.68% 4.53% 4.54% 4.73% 3.39% 3.52% 4.35% 4.79%

2017 4.00% 3.58% 3.75% 3.67% 3.51% 3.42% 4.18% 4.03% 3.26% 3.89%

2018 4.15% 3.59% 3.77% 2.99% 3.54% 3.63% 2.75% 2.78% 3.47% 5.09%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2014 14162 10150 11986 4929 7482 9497 6368 6832 6008 13471

2015 10065 7225 8907 6205 5579 8052 4051 4726 3383 8250

2016 12421 9929 11763 9316 7301 9712 442 575 7314 10726

2017 10533 8043 8717 8553 7346 7245 670 872 6640 11090

2018 7916 5979 8060 4370 6735 7217 3642 3776 6091 8458

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2014 87.48% 87.52% 87.03% 86.81% 86.88% 87.15% 86.67% 86.70% 86.96% 87.13%

2015 87.70% 87.95% 87.35% 87.53% 87.58% 87.42% 87.72% 87.65% 88.03% 87.39%

2016 87.44% 87.43% 87.06% 86.96% 87.08% 87.20% 88.93% 88.94% 86.71% 86.79%

2017 86.96% 87.07% 86.82% 86.69% 86.65% 86.71% 87.01% 87.22% 86.57% 86.48%

2018 87.53% 87.76% 87.12% 87.53% 87.18% 87.15% 87.58% 87.59% 87.19% 86.59%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2014 92.60% 92.42% 91.69% 91.34% 91.17% 91.86% 90.87% 90.94% 91.54% 92.27%

2015 92.59% 92.50% 91.89% 91.57% 91.52% 91.84% 91.21% 91.36% 91.54% 92.20%

2016 92.10% 91.92% 91.74% 91.49% 91.62% 91.92% 92.32% 92.47% 91.07% 91.57%

2017 90.96% 90.65% 90.56% 90.36% 90.16% 90.14% 91.20% 91.25% 89.84% 90.37%

2018 91.68% 91.35% 90.89% 90.52% 90.72% 90.78% 90.34% 90.36% 90.66% 91.68%

Unit # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Weighted avg. incremental efficiency 4.6% 4.2% 4.3% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.7%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2014 276913 207245 256930 108932 174471 201661 151472 161420 130975 262347

2015 205891 158700 196288 153550 141671 182037 115976 127291 96377 171646

2016 266240 221330 251316 205618 160818 205352 13041 16327 168007 224047

2017 263346 224768 232640 233044 209180 211695 16004 21657 203397 285380

2018 190790 166564 213949 146375 190285 198859 132320 136005 175496 166273

Unit # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total gen for entire period (MWh) 1,203,181 978,607 1,151,123 847,519 876,425 999,604 428,814 462,701 774,252 1,109,692

Incremental gen for entire period (MWh) 55097 41327 49434 33374 34442 41723 15172 16781 29436 51996

Avg. annual incremental gen. (MWh) 11019 8265 9887 6675 6888 8345 3034 3356 5887 10399

Avg. incremental gen. (aMW) 1.26 0.94 1.13 0.76 0.79 0.95 0.35 0.38 0.67 1.19

Avg. annual total gen. (MWh) 240,636 195,721 230,225 169,504 175,285 199,921 85,763 92,540 154,850 221,938

Per Unit Weighted avg. incremental effic.

(avg annual incremental gen/avg annual total

gen) 4.6% 4.2% 4.3% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.7%

Total weighted avg. incremental efficiency

(all units 1-10 combined) 2014-2018 4.2%

Total Generation (MWh)

Unit #

Weighted Avg Efficiency

Old Unit

Weighted Avg Efficiency

New Unit

Considering that fish screens were removed as a result of new turbine runners: Screens 3/1 - 12/15 pre-rehab, No screens post-rehab

Delta Generation (MWh)

Unit #

Unit #

Delta Efficiency (weighted avg)

Figure 7: Screenshot of recertification results (2014-2018 data), extracted from calculation spreadsheet

May-2013, rev. May-2019

15

Below is a sample screenshot (Unit 10, 2011) from the calculation spreadsheet that shows all of the input parameters and calculation results. Note that each row represents an hour of unit operation.

Figure 8: Screenshot of Unit Specific Detailed Results, extracted from calculation spreadsheet

The graphs below are also an output of the excel calculations and depict Delta Efficiency and Delta Generation for each hour of unit operation throughout the course of a year. It is observed that there are only minor seasonal variations in the Delta Efficiency, but there are more substantial variations in the Delta Generation. This is primarily due to seasonal head variations which alter unit capacity. These graphs are generated for each year of the study period and for each unit in the powerhouse. For a complete record of all the graphs, refer to the calculation spreadsheet.

May-2013, rev. May-2019

16

Figure 9: Example of Incremental Efficiency (New Units - Old Units) for each hour of a single year, extracted from calculation spreadsheet

May-2013, rev. May-2019

17

Figure 10: Example of Incremental Efficiency, after the operations change in 2014, extracted from the calculation spreadsheet

Figure 11: Example of Incremental Generation (New Units - Old Units) for each hour of a single year, extracted from calculation spreadsheet

May-2013, rev. May-2019

18

Conclusion The method described herein has been developed with review and participation from the

Oregon DOE, and has demonstrated an increase in efficiency at Bonneville Powerhouse 1. The

analysis includes between two and six years of historical data depending on the unit in

question. This is believed to be sufficient historical data to lend accuracy to the results. Annual

and unit specific differences are minor and the overall incremental efficiency improvement is

approximately equal to the difference in the peak efficiencies of the old vs. new units. Changes

in operations pre vs. post-rehab were examined to determine the validity of the methods used

in this analysis and it is believed that this method is valid for Bonneville Powerhouse 1 and no

correction factor is necessary. Upon recertification in 2019 it was discovered that a change to

the fish passage plan in 2014 resulted in a reduction in the average incremental efficiency. The

overall average plant efficiency improvement for all units is approximately 4.2% upon

recertification.

regon Department of Energy625 Marion St NE

Salem, OR 97301-3737Phone: 503-378-4040

Toll Free: 1-800-221-8035FAX: 503-373-7806

www.oregon. gov/energy

John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor

December 22, 2014

Debm MalinBonneville Power AdministrationP.O. Box 3621Portland, OR 97208

RE: Certificate of Oregon Eligibility and Vintage Date for BonneviMe Dam (W3996-4005)

Dear Ms. Malin:

The Oregon Department of Energy has approved your May 2014 request for Oregon Renewable PortfolioStandard~(RPS) eligibility for Bonneville Dam 1 -10. The Department has notified WREGISofthis approvaland the first eligible vintage date. Any Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sourced from generationfrom your facility from the vintage date described below will be eligible for RPS compliance in Oregon.

Project Name:Account Owner:WREGIS Number:Oregon Approval Number:First Eligible Vintage Date:Renewal Date:

Bonneville Dam I-10Bonneville Power AdministrationW3996-W400514alt001orMay 2014May 2019

Please note that the Department routinely requires an evaluation of incremental efficiency evaluation fiveyears. Based on your facility's approval date, Bonneville Dam 1-10 will need to attest to the sameincremental efficiency by May 2019 in order to maintain eligibility for the Oregon RPS. If any changesare made to your facility that could affect its eligibility for the Oregon RPS prior to the renewal date listedabove, the Department must be notified.

Bonneville Dam 1-10 has received approval under ORS 469A.025(4Xb), which allows hydroelectricfacilities that have installed efficiency upgrades on or after January 1, 1995, to receive RPS eligible creditfor the electricity attributable to the efficiency upgrade. The Department's approval is only for theincremental electticity attributed to efiTiciency upgrades calculated using tfae methodology proposed byBonneville Power Administration and on file with the Department and WREGIS. Any future changes tothe methodology in practice or with WREGIS must receive Department approval.

Please contact me with any questions about this letter or approval.

££$^^iacock

IG1S Program Administrator-Oregon625 Marion St. NESalem, OR 97300503.373.2125julie. peacock@state. or.us

UregonKale J^rovM'i. Cicivcii'ior1

May 30, 2019

Debra MalinBonneville Power AdministrationP.O. Box 3621Portland, OR 97208

RE: Updated Certification for Efficiency Upgrades at Bonneville Dam 1-10

Dear Ms. Malin:

The Oregon Department of Energy has approved Bonneville Power Administration's for an updatedincremental hydropower efficiency percentage in May 2019 for the following ten generating units.

OREGONDEPARTMENT OFENERGY

550 Capitol St. NESalem, OR 97301

Phone: 503-378-4040Toll Free: 1-800-221-8035

FAX: 503-373-7806www.oregon.gov/energy

Project Name:Account Owner:WREGIS Number:Oregon Approval Number:Incremental Percentage:Eligible Thru:

Bonne vi lie Dam (Units 1-10)Bonneville Power Administration

W3996 - W400514alt001or4. 2%May 2024

Please note that the Department routinely requires an evaluation of incremental efficiency evaluation everyfive years. Based on your facility's approval date, Bonneville Dam 1-10 will need to attest to the sameincremental efficiency by May 2024 in order to maintain eligibility for the Oregon RPS. If any changesare made to your facility that could affect its eligibility for the Oregon RPS prior to the renewal date listedabove, the Department must be notified.

Please contact me with any questions about this letter or approval.

Sincerely,

RebecciTSmith

WREGIS Program Administrator - OregonOregon Department of Energy550 Capitol St NESalem, OR 97301