20241127Grant Anderson Rebuttal.pdf

RECEIVED
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-07
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE RATES FOR )
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO RECOVER )
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH )
INCREMENTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS )
AND CERTAIN ONGOING OPERATIONS )
AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES . )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF
GRANT T . ANDERSON

1 Q. Please state your name, business address, and
2 present position with Idaho Power ("Idaho Power" or
3 "Company") .
4 A. My name is Grant T. Anderson. My business
5 address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702 . I am
6 employed by Idaho Power as a Regulatory Consultant in the
7 Regulatory Affairs Department.
8 Q. Please describe your educational and pre-Idaho
9 Power employment background.
10 A. In May of 2013, I received a Bachelor of
11 Science degree in Microbiology from Oregon State
12 University. In May of 2015, I earned a Master of Business
13 Administration degree from Boise State University. In March
14 2015, I accepted a role as a Corporate Development Analyst
15 for Albertsons, and in 2017, I was promoted to Corporate
16 Development Manager. After joining Idaho Power, I attended
17 the electric utility ratemaking course "Practical
18 Regulatory Training for the Electric Industry, " offered
19 through the New Mexico State University' s Center for Public
20 Utilities, and the "Utility Finance and Accounting" course
21 offered through the Financial Accounting Institute .
22 Q. Please describe your work experience with
23 Idaho Power.
24 A. In 2018, I was hired as a Regulatory Analyst
25 in the Company' s Regulatory Affairs Department. My primary
ANDERSON, DI-REB 1
Idaho Power Company

1 responsibility as a Regulatory Analyst included supporting
2 the Company' s Commercial and Industrial customer classes'
3 rate design and general support of tariff rules and
4 regulations . In 2021, I was promoted to my current position
5 as a Regulatory Consultant. My responsibilities have
6 expanded to include the development of complex cost-related
7 studies, pricing strategies, and the Company' s cost-of-
8 service studies .
9 Q. Have you had the opportunity to review the
10 pre-filed testimony of Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11 Staff ("Staff") witness Mr. Michael Eldred, Micron
12 Technology, Inc. ("Micron") witness Ms . Jessica York, City
13 of Boise witness Mr. Steve Hubble, Industrial Customers of
14 Idaho Power ("ICIP") witness Dr. Don Reading, Idaho
15 Irrigation Pumpers Association ("IIPA") witness Dr. Lance
16 Kaufman, and Federal Executive Agencies ("FEA") witness Dr.
17 Larry Blank?
18 A. Yes, I have .
19 Q. What is the scope of your rebuttal testimony?
20 A. My testimony will focus on the issues raised
21 by parties regarding the proposed revenue spread. I will
22 also provide an updated revenue spread proposal based on
23 the Company' s revised revenue requirement, as explained by
24 Company witness Mr . Matt Larkin. It should be noted that
25 any omission on my part in addressing issues raised by
ANDERSON, DI-REB 2
Idaho Power Company

1 intervening parties should not be construed as an
2 endorsement of or agreement with an intervening party on
3 such matters .
4 I . REVENUE SPREAD
5 Q. Please summarize the party positions related
6 to revenue spread.
7 A. Staff, Micron, and City of Boise support the
8 Company' s proposed revenue allocation method. More
9 specifically, Staff witness Mr. Eldred recommended using
10 the Company' s proposed revenue spread, noting its
11 consistency with the Settlement Stipulation in the 2023
12 General Rate Case ("GRC") .1 Micron witness Ms . York supports
13 the Company' s revenue allocation proposal in this case and
14 notes the approach makes meaningful movement toward cost-
15 of-service while also recognizing the ratemaking principal
16 of gradualism in a manner consistent with the prior
17 settlement.2 City of Boise Witness Mr. Hubble supports Idaho
18 Power' s proposed rate spread and acknowledges that it moves
19 closer to cost-of-service in an incremental and thoughtful
20 manner.3
21 However, ICIP, IIPA, and FEA propose alternative
22 revenue allocation methods or changes to the proposed cap
23 and spread parameters . As more fully described below, ICIP
1 Eldred DI at 7, 11. 14-16.
2 York DI at 4, 11. 19-23.
3 Hubble DI at 3, 11. 18-20.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 3
Idaho Power Company

1 witness Dr. Reading recommends a pro rata revenue
2 allocation relative to the Settlement Stipulation in the
3 2023 GRC;4 IIPA witness Dr. Kaufman recommends a uniform
4 rate increase for all customer classes;5 and FEA witness Dr.
5 Blank recommends modifying the cap and spread by expanding
6 the parameters to range from 0% to 1900 . 6
7 ICIP Revenue Spread Recommendation
8 Q. What revenue spread methodology does Dr.
9 Reading recommend?
10 A. Dr. Reading recommends that the percentage
11 difference between the overall rate increase and each
12 customer class' s rate increase be the same relative
13 proportion as the Settlement Stipulation in the 2023 GRC.
14 As I understand Dr. Reading' s testimony, he is describing a
15 pro rata increase.
16 Q. Does Dr. Reading propose an alternative
17 percentage revenue increase by customer class?
18 A. Yes . Dr. Reading included a table on page 14
19 of his direct testimony with the proposed percentage
20 revenue increases by customer class .
21 Q. Do you agree with the results of Dr. Reading' s
22 proposed method?
4 Reading DI at 13, 11. 8-10.
5 Kaufman DI at 5, 1. 21.
6 Blank DI at 19, 11. 2-10.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 4
Idaho Power Company

1 A. No. The table Dr. Reading presents incorrectly
2 calculates a percentage increase by class without
3 considering the test year revenue requirement . As a result,
4 Dr. Reading' s proposal results in an overall revenue
5 requirement increase higher than the 7 . 31% initially
6 requested by the Company. As shown in Figure 1, the
7 percentages Dr . Reading has proposed result in a total
8 revenue requirement increase of $106 . 7 million, or
9 approximately $7 . 5 million above the Company' s filed
10 request .
11 Figure 1
12 ICIP Proposed Revenue Spread Percentages
t m ODD$ �perkwh
(A) (B) (C) (N) (4
1 1
Rats 21D24 IdahePowr-Fed ICIP-Progn ed
Schedule Rolm Rerrerare Perearrt Rwarwre Punt
Roar TwffDe m*fion Bracher Sale. Charge Cherge Charge Charge
(1) Talel ResiderAul Servioe Sch 1A S 629,812 S 45,673 725% S 50j= 9.49%
(2) Talal&ea•Gerreral Service Sch 7A 18.713 1,366 7.30% 1,496 9A9%
(3) Lage General Service Sch 9-8 273,615 10,775 6.86% 19.460 3.65%
(4) Lage Gerreral Service Sch 94'Ir 46AIS 3,161 6.74% 37M 3.65%
(5) Arm Li0ig Sch 15 1AH 48 3.6 % 48 0.00%
(6) Lage lbserServioe Sch 19--iffT 156,418 11,108 7.1095 l ifim 4.78%
m rripion Service Soli 24-S iwaj 5 15AM 9.50% 17,54 9.49%
(8) Norr Metered General Service Sch40 1�= 101 746% 101 0.36%
(9) lia:oPa1 Steel 1-911fig Sch 41 3J661 218 5.96% 218 0.00%
(10) Tia<icCarid Lr� Sdr42 219 21-------97_50%. 23 9.49%
(11) Total Idaho Rates $1,298,859 $ 96,321 .42% $ 103,623 7.969i,
(12) RFKZM Sch 26 S 34JIM S 1,928 5.53% S 2AN 6.28%
(13) Sinplol Sch 29 10.130 464 4.58% 480 3.65%
(14) DO[#L Sch 30 15.103 501 3�L% 617... 6 31%
----------------- ---
(15) Total Special Contract $ 60,113 $ 2,972 4.94% $ 3,147 5.24%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) --Totalldaho-Retailales S --------------------------------------$1,358,973---------99,293-------7.3 % --1 ------ --106,770------7.86%-- -
---- ------ --------- -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17) Total OverlSUnder!Filed Request........................................................................................7,477
13 -JlCF pmw~d=Vebf'dinasfoarfilmo rgEcactar44=4-17_
ANDERSON, DI-REB 5
Idaho Power Company

1 Q. Have you considered how the calculation of a
2 pro rata share of the revenue increase from the Commission-
3 approved Settlement Stipulation would more accurately be
4 considered?
5 A. Yes . The below figure summarizes the
6 calculation of a pro rata method applied to the Company' s
7 filed revenue increase. Instead of calculating the
8 allocation factor on the percentage increase, as proposed
9 by Dr. Reading, Figure 2 allocates the $99 . 293 million
10 incremental revenue requirement from the Company' s filed
11 request by each customer class' s pro rata share of the 2023
12 GRC Settlement Stipulation as approved by the Commission.
13 The resulting percentages are calculated in Column E.
14 Figure 2
15 2023 GRC Settlement Pro Rata Revenue Spread
sir,000%k ex0aW nZffB PBrk"%
Cokiran (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
IT C'To" 1
2A2E GRC
Rb 2t124 Salllaraart Pro Rate�latlrod
Schadda Rbi Rwarwra Pro Rad Rwarara Parcarrt
Roar TariFDnacripion Mraa64W Sakra Irrcraasa Share Irmroaaa Chang.
(1) To&A Reaiderifiall Service Sdr 116 S 62%,812 $ 31,88S 5827% = 57.857 9.19%
(2) Total Srrrat GerxmA Service Sdr 718 18,713 981 1 79% 1,780 9.51%
(3) Large General Service Sdr 9-S 273,615 5,708 10.43% 10.358 3.79%
(4) L$ge General Service Sdh 943IT 46,878 921 1.68% 1,671 3.56%
(5) Area I_iglig Sdr 15 1,327 - 0.00% - 0.00%
(6) L EZW Lbwer Service Sdr 19-S M 156.418 4252 7.7796 7,716 4.93%
(7) krigafion Service Sdr 24-S 166,865 8,937 16.33% 16.217 9.72%
(8) N�ed Gerrerat Service Sdr 40 1,350 3 0.01% 5 0.37%
(9) M--3p i Skeet LVhkrg Sdr 41 3.661 - 0.00% - 0.00%
(10) TrafcCaridLVirB Sdr42 219 11 0.02% 20 9.07%
.. .. _....... ......... ---- --
(11) Total Idaho Rates $1.298.859 $ 52.698 96.31% $ 95.625 7.36%
(12) kiQon Sdr 26 : 34,880 s 1.329 243% $ 2,412 6.92%
(13) Sknpkd Sdr29 10.130 207 0.38% 376 3.71%
(14) . ....... ............................. Sdr 30 15,103 485 0 89%...............
.. W 5
(15) ;___TotalSpeeialCartraet_______________________________________5___.60,113 .. 2022, 3.69% $....._3:669 6.1096 E
............................................................................................................................................
16 1 Total Idaho Retail Saks $1,358,973 $ 54,720 100.00% $ 99 93 7.31%
( 61 ......................................................................... '�--------------
ANDERSON, DI-REB 6
Idaho Power Company

1 Q. Did the Company consider this allocation
2 method?
3 A. Yes . As described in Mr. Tim Tatum' s direct
4 testimony, the Company considered allocating the requested
5 increase to the customer classes based on a pro rata share
6 of the revenue increase from the Commission-approved
7 Settlement Stipulation in the 2023 GRC.'
8 Q. Why did the Company not recommend the pro rata
9 share method?
10 A. This approach does not recognize the cost
11 drivers specific and unique to this case and would result
12 in additional inter-class subsidization.
13 Q. Can you explain why the pro rata share method
14 does not recognize the cost drivers unique to this case?
15 A. Yes . If the composition of the revenue
16 requirement were the same as the 2023 GRC Settlement
17 Stipulation, then a pro rata method would be appropriate .
18 However, to the extent that the composition is different,
19 the Company believes it is more appropriate to assign costs
20 directly to customer classes and/or allocate based on the
21 composition specific and unique to the incremental rate
22 base and labor included in the instant case . The Company' s
23 proposed method does this by utilizing the CCOS study from
' Tatum DI at 30, 11. 12-18.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 7
Idaho Power Company

1 the 2023 GRC Settlement Stipulation for the incremental
2 rate base and labor in this case.
3 IIPA Revenue Spread Recommendation
4 Q. What revenue spread methodology does Dr.
5 Kaufman recommend?
6 A. Dr. Kaufman recommends a uniform rate increase
7 for all customer classes .
8 Q. What rationale does Dr. Kaufman present in
9 support of his recommendation?
10 A. Dr. Kaufman argues that customer classes with
11 a cost-of-service ("COS") index within a five percent
12 margin of error are not materially different and,
13 therefore, should receive the same rate increase .8
14 Q. Do you agree with Dr. Kaufman' s conclusion?
15 A. No. Dr. Kaufman' s underlying assumptions are
16 inaccurate and result in a flawed outcome. Due to the
17 incremental nature of this case, the COS index does not
18 reflect how close or far apart base revenue for individual
19 customer classes is from the CCOS results . In this case,
20 for purposes of the COS index calculation, the base revenue
21 is treated as if fully aligned with CCOS results and then
22 is blended with the CCOS results for the incremental rate
8 Kaufman DI at 3 11. 1-2.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 8
Idaho Power Company

1 base and labor. This is a modeling nuance unique to the
2 limited issue and incremental nature of this case .
3 The Company recommends omitting the use of the COS
4 index in this case. The COS index in this context only
5 compares how close each customer class' s final revenue
6 allocation is to the base revenue collection plus the CCOS
7 results for only the incremental rate base and labor at
8 issue in this case.
9 In summary, the index Dr. Kaufman used to reach his
10 conclusion does not correlate to the percentage increase by
11 customer class and therefore should have no relation to the
12 relative percentage increase in revenue requirement by
13 class . The COS index simply compares each customer class' s
14 mill rate, or revenue divided by energy sales, based on the
15 sum of base revenue in the test year and the CCOS results
16 for incremental rate base and labor against the final
17 revenue allocation mill rate for each customer class .
18 Q. Can you provide an example that illustrates
19 this point?
20 A. Yes . I will use an example where Customer
21 Class A has a CCOS percent increase of 200, and Customer
22 Class B has a CCOS percent increase of 50 . For this
23 simplified example, we will assume there is no change due
24 to cap and spread. Therefore, Customer Class A would
25 receive a 20o increase, and Customer Class B would receive
ANDERSON, DI-REB 9
Idaho Power Company

1 a 5% increase. The COS Index for both would be 1 . 0, or 1000
2 because there is no variance between the COOS-informed
3 revenue change and the final revenue allocation. As I
4 understand the logic presented by Dr. Kaufman, both
5 customer classes should receive the same percentage
6 increase because the COS index for both is within 50 . Dr.
7 Kaufman' s conclusion is flawed and does not recognize the
8 index' s relevance - or lack thereof in this case .
9 Q. Did the Company consider a uniform percentage
10 increase as a method for allocating the revenue increase?
11 A. Yes . As described in Mr. Tatum' s direct
12 testimony, the Company considered allocating the requested
13 increase to the customer classes based on a uniform
14 percentage increase. 9
15 Q. Why did the Company not recommend the uniform
16 percentage increase method?
17 A. The Company did not recommend a uniform
18 percentage increase method for the same reasons it did not
19 recommend the pro rata share method. Neither of these
20 methods recognize the cost drivers specific and unique to
21 this case and would result in additional inter-class
22 subsidization.
9 Tatum DI at 30, 11. 12-18.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 10
Idaho Power Company

I FEA Revenue Spread Recommendation
2 Q. What revenue spread methodology does Dr. Blank
3 recommend?
4 A. Dr. Blank recommends a cap and floor of 1900
5 and 0%, respectively. This recommendation compares to the
6 Company' s proposed 130o cap and 50o floor, which are
7 consistent with the Commission-approved 2023 GRC Settlement
8 Stipulation.
9 Q. Have you compared the results of the Company' s
10 request under both cap and spread parameters?
11 A. Yes, I have summarized the results in Figure
12 3 . The percentage increase in the Company' s filed position
13 is shown in Column C, Dr. Blank' s recommendation is in
14 Column E, and the variance between the two methods is shown
15 in Column G. All classes would see a decrease relative to
16 the Company' s filed position except for Schedule 24,
17 Irrigation Service, and Schedule 42, Traffic Control
18 Lighting.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 11
Idaho Power Company

1 Figure 3
2 FEA Cap and Spread Comparison
smoov4 �P��
Cok. (A) P1 R N) 09 (9 R
Rats 2= lcbhn Pbr -wad PbA RaeararaarrdaOar .►.rune.
Schad& Ralai Rwarara Parent Rwarara pwr Rwarara Pareant
Raar TwffD==*im Nraahar Silas ChmmW Ch—W ChaMs ChznW Chrya Ch-W
(1) Tcul Resderid Service Sdh 116 S 649.812 S 4kM 725% S 45.106 7.16% S (568) (O.09%)
(2) Talrl Scd Ger=W Service sdr 718 18.713 1,366 7.30% 1" 721% (17) (Q09%)
(3) LmW Gerrard Service sdr" 273.615 18.775 sin% 18,528 6 77% (247) (O.09%)
(4) LuW Gerawd 9ervirE Sdr 94,f 46.878 3.161 6.74% 3.118 &as% on (OM%)
(5) Area Liglig sdr 15 1.327 48 3 65% 1 0.06% (48) ( -%%)
(6) LagePowers� Sdr19SAW 15k418 11.108 7.10% 10.967 701% (141) (DM%)
(1) tii9- service Sdr 24-S 165jM 15AN 9,50% 16,967 10.17% 1.117 0b7%
(8) Nw"MeksadGenwdService Sdh40 1AW 101 746% 99 737% (1) (0M%)
(9) MarrMPd Shed Lgh&Q Sdh 41 3A61 218 596% 215 5.87% (3) (OA9%)
(10) TrafeCa Li0lir Srh42 219 21 91iO76..................25 1L78%................... .....1: ....
(11) ; Total Idaho Rates $1,298,859 $ 96,321 7.42% $ 96,375 7A2% $ 54 0.00%
(12) Miam Sdh 26 S 34JM S 1,928 553% S 1 jW-1 5-44% S (31) (OA9%)
(13) Simpinl S&29 10.130 464 4.98% 454 449% (9) (OM%)
(14) DOC#L Sdr 30 15.108 501 324% 557 3.759i (11) (0A9%)
---------------------- -------------------
(15) Total Speeiel CoMraet $ 60,113 $ 2,972 4.94%......$.....2,918 4.85% $ (54) (OA9N
3 (16) Total Idaho Retail Sales 57,358,973 $ 99 293 7.31% $ 99 293 7.31% $ 0.00%
4 Q. Did the Company consider this method?
5 A. No. As I understand Dr. Blank' s Revenue Spread
6 recommendation, it was based on the Commission' s decision
7 in Case No . IPC-E-08-10 . 10 In this case, the Company relied
8 on its most recent rate case, the 2023 GRC, to inform its
9 recommendation.
10 Revenue Spread Conclusion
11 Q. Based on your review of the methods presented
12 by ICIP, IIPA, and FEA, does Idaho Power propose to modify
13 its filed position?
14 A. No. As supported by Staff, Micron, and the
15 City of Boise, the Company maintains that its proposed
16 revenue allocation and cap and spread method is reasonable
10 Blank DI at 18, 11. 17-19.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 12
Idaho Power Company

I and should be approved. The revenue spread is consistent
2 with the 2023 GRC, which reflected gradual movement toward
3 cost of service. Additionally, given the recency of the
4 2023 GRC and the limited issue nature of this rate case it
5 is appropriate to maintain a consistent methodology.
6 II . UPDATED REVENUE SPREAD
7 Q. Has the Company prepared a revised incremental
8 revenue requirement?
9 A. Yes . Mr. Larkin' s rebuttal testimony describes
10 the revised incremental revenue requirement increase
11 requested by the Company, which includes adjustments to
12 rate base, labor expense, and revenue growth offset.
13 Q. Mr. Larkin describes the derivation of the
14 updated revenue growth offset. Can you please explain how
15 you assigned the revenue growth offset to customer classes?
16 A. Yes . As explained by Mr. Larkin, in the
17 Company' s initial filing, a system mill rate was applied
18 against system 2024 incremental sales to determine the
19 revenue growth offset. Because a class-specific mill rate
20 had not been utilized, when the Company spread the
21 initially proposed revenue growth offset of $5 . 5 million to
22 classes, it was apportioned to customer classes based on
23 the final revenue allocation in the 2023 GRC Settlement
24 Stipulation. This method resulted in all customer classes
25 receiving a portion of the incremental sales growth offset.
ANDERSON, DI-REB 13
Idaho Power Company

1 The updated revenue offset of $15 . 2 million was
2 allocated in a manner consistent with the approach in the
3 Company' s Application. Therefore, all customer classes
4 received a revenue growth offset in proportion to their
5 respective revenue allocation in the 2023 GRC Settlement
6 Stipulation.
7 Q. Did you consider apportioning the revenue
8 growth offset to classes based on class-specific
9 increases/decreases in sales?
10 A. Yes, it was considered. However, I ultimately
11 decided that maintaining the allocation method with what
12 was initially filed was reasonable. Because the Company
13 relied on the results of the 2023 CCOS to spread costs,
14 spreading the revenue in the same manner alleviates a
15 mismatch between costs and revenues that would otherwise
16 occur. Further, no party opposed how the revenue growth
17 offset was spread in the Company' s initial filing.
18 Q. Do you have an exhibit that details the class
19 revenue requirement determination?
20 A. Yes . Exhibit No. 15 provides a detailed
21 walkthrough of the revenue requirement allocation process .
22 This includes the derivation of the class cost-of-service
23 results, the application of the cap and spread parameters,
24 and the final revenue allocation by customer class . This
ANDERSON, DI-REB 14
Idaho Power Company

1 exhibit replaces Exhibit 4 filed with Mr. Tatum' s direct
2 testimony.
3 III . CONCLUSION
4 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
5 A. Yes, it does .
6
ANDERSON, DI-REB 15
Idaho Power Company

1 DECLARATION OF GRANT T. ANDERSON
2 I, Grant T . Anderson, declare under penalty of
3 perjury under the laws of the state of Idaho:
4 1 . My name is Grant T . Anderson.
5 2 . On behalf of Idaho Power, I present this
6 pre-filed rebuttal testimony in this matter.
7 3 . To the best of my knowledge, my pre-filed
8 rebuttal testimony is true and accurate.
9 I hereby declare that the above statement is true to
10 the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand
11 it is made for use as evidence before the Idaho Public
12 Utilities Commission and is subject to penalty for perjury.
13 SIGNED this 27th day of November 2024, at Boise,
14 Idaho .
15 //
16 Signed: �. ,tQN A"4,
17 RANT T . ANDERSON
18
19
20
21
22
ANDERSON, DI-REB 16
Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-24-07
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ANDERSON , DI-REB
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 15

IDAHO POWER COMPANY
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
REVENUE ALLOCATION SUMMARY
TWELVE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,2024
FINAL REVENUE ALLOCATION
REVENUE ALLOCATION
$in 000's,except mills per kWh
Column (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (1) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (0) (P) (Q)
Class Cost-of-Service Revenue Allocation Cap and Spread
Rate 2024 Sales 2024 First Pass Revenue Allocation Second Pass Revenue Allocation Final Revenue Allocation
Schedule Normalized Retail Revenue Revenue Percent Average Over Below Revenue Shortfall Allocation Average COS
Row Tariff Description Number (MWh) Sales Change Allocation Change Mills/kWh Cap Floor Change Y/N % $ $ Mills/kWh Index %
(1) Uniform Tariff Schedules
(2) Residential Service Sch 1 5,656,456 $ 618,424 $ 34,470 $ 652,894 5.57% 115.42
(3) Residential Service On-Site Gen Sch 6 162,198 18,042 1,290 19,332 7.15% 119.19
(4) Total Residential Service 5,818,654 $ 636,466 $ 35,760 $ 672,226 5.62% 115.53 $ $ $ 35,760 Y 52.7% $ 731 $ 36,490 115.66 100% 5.73%
(5) Small General Service Sch 7 137,712 $ 18,545 $ 1,027 $ 19,572 5.54% 142.12
(6) Small General Service On-Site Gen Sch 8 335 48 8 55 16.17% 164.97
(7) Total Small General Service 138,047 $ 18,592 $ 1,035 $ 19,627 5.57% 142.18 $ $ $ 1,035 Y 1.5% $ 21 $ 1,056 142.33 100% 5.68%
(8) Large General Service Sch 9-S 3,358,941 $ 278,597 $ 16,731 $ 295,328 6.01% 87.92 16,731 Y 23.1% 320 17,051 88.02 100% 6.12%
(9) Large General Service Sch 9-P/T 663,932 48,594 2,823 51,417 5.81% 77.44 2,823 Y 4.0% 56 2,878 77.53 100% 5.92%
(10) Area Lighting Sch 15 1,997 1,327 (1) 1,326 -0.06% 664.15 40 40 N 40 684.66 103% 3.03%
(11) Large Power Service Sch 19-S/P/T 2,454,066 164,253 9,717 173,970 5.92% 70.89 - 9,717 Y 13.6% 189 9,905 70.97 100% 6.03%
(12) Irrigation Service Sch 24-S 1,811,134 165,274 14,433 179,707 8.73% 99.22 1,424 13,009 N 13,009 98.44 99% 7.87%
(13) Non-Metered General Service Sch 40 14,513 1,363 94 1,457 6.93% 100.41 - 94 Y 0.1% 2 96 100.52 100% 7.05%
(14) Municipal Street Lighting Sch 41 20,442 3,654 210 3,865 5.75% 189.05 - 210 Y 0.3% 4 214 189.25 100% 5.87%
(15) Traffic Control Lighting Sch 42 3,027 222 20 243 9.07% 80.13 3 18 N 18 79.24 99% 7.87%
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(16) Total Idaho Rates 14,284,754 $ 1,318,344 $ 80,822 $ 1,399,166 6.13% 97.95 $ 1,427 $ 40 $ 79,436 $ 1,322 $ 80,758 97.94 100%
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Special Contracts
(17) Micron Sch 26 531,897 $ 34,016 $ 1,545 $ 35,561 4.54% 66.86 $ $ $ 1,545 Y 2.8% $ 39 $ 1,584 66.93 100% 4.66%
(18) Simplot Sch 29 171,647 9,942 391 10,333 3.93% 60.20 391 Y 0.8% 11 402 60.27 100% 4.05%
(19) DOE/INL Sch 30 202,979 11,889 443 12,331 3.72% 60.75 443 Y 0.98% 14 456 60.82 100% 3.84%
..................................................................................................................................................................4'7' .........................................................................6....................'2"3' ..............................................................................................................................................................................................4' ....................................................................,
(20) € Total Special Contract 906,523 $ 55,847 $ 2,379 $ 58,225 4.26% 64.23 $ - $ - $ 2,379 $ 64 $ 2,443 64.30 100% 4.37% €
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(21) Total Idaho Retail Sales 15,191,277 $ 1,374,191 $ 83,201 $ 1,457,391 6.05% 95.94 $ 1,427 $ 40 $ 81,815 $ 1,386 $ 83,201 95.94 100% 6.05%
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
First Pass Shortfall: $ 1,386
Cap: 130% 7.87%
Floor: 50% 3.03%
In this limited issue case,the COS Index(Column P)compares the Final Revenue Allocation(Column N+C)to a Base Revenue Collection primarily composed of 2024 Retail Sales.
Exhibit No. 15
Case No. IPC-E-24-07
G.Anderson, IPC
Page 1 of 1