Pub. 6 2016 Issue 1

26 AT THE CENTER OF UTAH INDUSTRY INTERMOUNTAIN POWER continued from page 25 that the energy can be delivered to people who use it – often hundreds of miles away. The enormous investments made three decades ago to construct the Intermountain Power Project’s northern and southern transmission systems have turned out to be magnets attracting other energy projects to the vicinity. Furthermore, the transmission corridors established early on by this project have become useful for other types of energy resources, such as natural gas pipelines. After operating for a quarter century as a major coal-fueled electricity generating station, IPP faced the loss of its Cali- fornia electricity purchasers who were compelled by state law to abandon coal-fueled energy at the expiration of power purchase agreements in 2027. Project participants could have chosen to begin preparing for shutdown and dismantling. Instead, they undertook the complex and difficult task of re - configuring the Project to allow for development of numerous new energy technologies utilizing existing infrastructure. The Intermountain Power Agency is committed to continu- ing the positive economic contributions of the Intermountain Power Project well beyond the original power purchase agree- ments that will expire in 2027. IPA has succeeded in changing Utah law to allow longer operation of the Project using a more diverse array of energy resources. The Agency is now complet- ing a multi-year project to “Renew IPP” through negotiations with IPP’s large and diverse group of Project participants. The “Renew IPP” initiative recognized that the Intermountain Power Project needs to expand and diversify if it is to contin - ue its contribution to Utah communities. Project participants have negotiated revisions to Project agreements and drafted renewal contracts that will allow diversification to move for - ward. These negotiations were completed in 2015 and “IPP Renewed” is now moving forward. IPP’s renewal has enabled the emergence of a hub for devel- opment of a wide array of energy resources to take advantage of the Project’s location and existing infrastructure, which may include: •Wind Energy. 306 megawatts of generating capacity from 165 wind turbines located in Millard and Beaver counties already connect to the grid at IPP’s switch- yard. Potential exists for connecting additional wind energy to utilize the Project’s long distance electricity transmission network. •Gas Storage. Gulf-style salt dome caverns for stor- age of natural gas and other fuel products have already been constructed immediately adjacent to IPP. •Solar Energy. A group of solar energy developers has announced plans for a 300 megawatt solar farm on 1,754 acres of state land near IPP. •Natural gas electricity generation. Intermountain Power Agency is now subscribing participants for the development of between 600 and 1,200 megawatts of new natural gas fueled electricity generation on the IPP site. Primary users of this resource would be the California utilities that are prohibited from using coal- fueled electricity after 2027, but Utah entities will be able to participate with the same favorable “lay off’ provisions that exist in current Project relationships. •Compressed air energy storage. An IPP participant is investigating constructing salt dome caverns to store renewable energy during periods of high production for use during other times of high demand. Decisions about potential use of the coal-fueled generating units after 2027 are expected to be made in the near future as the potential for new customers for electricity from the units is determined. Looking Forward to Another Three Decades The substantial and forward-looking investments made by IPP’s founders three decades ago are still proving valuable in a rapidly changing energy world today. IPP is accustomed to working cooperatively with diverse groups of people. Project participants now look forward to continuing this spirit of coop- eration so that 30 years from now, another magazine article will discuss how foresight and good planning led to more de- cades of reliable energy supplies and economic benefits for Project stakeholders. X • Murray City • Logan City • City of Bountiful • Kaysville City • Heber Light & Power Company • Hyrum City • Fillmore City • City of Ephraim • Lehi City • Beaver City • Parowan City • Mount Pleasant • Price • City of Enterprise • Morgan City • City of Hurricane • Monroe City • City of Fairview • Spring City • Town of Holden • Town of Meadow • Kanosh • Town of Oak City • Moon Lake Electric Association • Mt. Wheeler Power • Dixie-Escalan - te Rural Electric Association • Garkane Power Association • Bridger Valley Electric Association • Flowell Electric Association Utah participants in the Intermountain Power Project (in order of their entitlement shares) include: