20040521Responses of Avista to Staff.pdf

Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission PO Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-3727
Telephone [phone]
Toll Free 800-727-9170
HECE IV ED (1)
H""EO
2fiUl.t1A 121 AM 9:
~~'
'V'STA~
Corp.
March 20, 2004
iLl (IU (uuL!e
UTiLiTIES COi"if'1fSStOM
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
4 72 W. Washington St.
Boise, ill 83720-0074
1\ttn: Scott Woodbury
Deputy 1\ttomey General
Re:Production Request of the Commission Staff
in Case Nos. 1\ VU-04-01 and 1\ VU-04-
Mr. Woodbury,
I have attached an original and three copies of 1\ vista s response to Staff Data Request
No(s). 96b-Supplemental, 246 through 253, 259, 262, 263 , 264, 248(C), 249(C), and
252(C).
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Mike Fi
Rate i\nal yst
Enclosures
Enclosures
Copy: C. Ward (Potlatch)
D. Peseau (Utility Resources, Inc)
A. Yankel (Yankel & Assoc., Inc)
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENTS FILED
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
96B Supplemental
D 1\ TE PREP 1\RED:
WITNESS:
RES PONDER:
DEP AAT1\1ENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/20/2004
Don Falkner
Katherine Mitchell
Rates
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a report listing the amounts posted to account 1903 - Customer Records
Collection Expenses for Gas Operations in 2000. Please include amount posted document
number and date. Please also describe the events that resulted in an approximately 15%
($500,000) increase in those expenses over the 1999 amount. (Formerly 1\udit Request No. 89,
dated on-site September 10, 2003).
RESPONSE:
1\s noted in the company s initial response to this Data Request, the increase in Idaho Gas
account 903 expense between 1999 and 2000 was approximately $139 000 and over half of the
expenses in this account consist of labor and loadings. Preliminary analysis has not indicated any
one material individual item that resulted in this increase. However, approximately $31 000 of
the increase was due to increased benefit loadings.
1\dditionally, please refer to Witness Falkner s Exhibit No. 15, Page 8 of 8. It's important to
note that during 1998 to 2002 average customers increased 18.18%. During this same time
period, 1\ vista benefit loading rate increased from approximately 25% to 43.5%, also
contributing to cost increases. While activity in individual FERC accounts may fluctuate in
amount from year to year, the overall increase in O&M and 1\&G, excluding Depreciation and
Taxes, on a per customer basis from 1998 to 2002, is 5.32%.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
AVU-O4-01 / AVU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 246
DATE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
. RESPONDER:
DEP AAT1\1ENT:
TELEPHO NE:
5/15/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Were any reviews of the Boulder Park project s continued economic feasibility conducted after
June 2001? If so, please provide:a. a copy of each analysisb. a summary of the results , andc. the detail of Company actions taken based upon those results.
RESPONSE:
The Company performed an assessment of a potential suspension of the Boulder Park project on
August 9, 2001 due to cash flow concerns, which is attached. While an economic review
compared to current market conditions was not performed at that time, the suspension
assessment concluded that the Company was obligated to pay for approximately $22 million
which represents a major portion of the total project cost at that time. Given the dollar
commitment at the time of the suspension assessment, the decision was not to suspend the
Boulder Park project.
~J="'ST
Corp.
DA TE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Interoffice Memorandum
Energy Resources
August 9 2001
Lloyd Meyers
Jason Thackston
Potential Cash Deferrals Associated with Suspension of Boulder Park or SIP
Per your request, I worked with Tom Barker to estimate how much cash we could defer if we suspended
construction of the Boulder Park and Spokane Industrial Park projects (Construction at Devil's Gap and
Kettle Falls is complete - no cash savings available). .
Boulder Park
Most of the equipment has been ordered and is enroute to the site. If we were to delay the project and
suspend all activity, we would be obligated to pay for most of the $23.million in project costs. The
following costs might be delayed if the project is suspended:
Building Installation
Equipment Installation
Commission Equipment
Electrical Work
Substation Work
Other
Storage for Materials and Equipment Received
Total
$ 200 000
550 000
150 000
000 000
200 000
300 000
(200 000)
$ 2 200 000
Spokane Industrial Park
This project is not as far along as Boulder Park, so there are opportunities to defer a more significant
amount of cash payments on this project. Of the estimated $9.9 million in project costs, the following cost
might be delayed if the project is suspended:
Construction MgmtlEngineering
Buildings
Ventilation
Sound Cens
Exhaust
Radiator Containment
Air Compressor
Misc Equipment
Equipment Installation
Commission Equipment
Electrical Work
Landscaping
Site Grading
Gas System Upgrades
Substation Work
Transmission/Distribution Work
Communications System Work
Storage for Materials and Equipment Received
Total
$ 360 000
650 ,000
250 000
150 000
220 000
1 0 000
80 I 000
300 000
250 000
000
500 ,000
000
000
100 000
200 000
000
000
(50 000)
$ 3 225 000
Summary
These are estimates that could vary widely either way. If the projects were both suspended today, we
estimate a total cash obligation of $27.7 million will have been paid or accrued, while an additional $5.4
million would be deferred until the projects are reinstated.
Ow- -h L-tL-f.!A +tfJ"0S' f
S(p pro
It\.~e:P.~,'1
~~~,
ha~
Jfi
Page 2
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
REQUEST:
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Idaho
AVU-O4-01 / AVU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 247
DATE PREP 1\RED:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEP 1\RTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/15/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
Were any changes made to the Boulder Park project based upon the economic reviews
performed? If so, please provide a detailed description of those changes including costs that may
have been reduced to improve the economics of the project.
RESPONSE:
No.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 248
DATE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
. RESPONDER:
D EP AR TMENT:
TELEPHONE :
5/11/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a detailed analysis of the costs that exceeded the June 2001 estimated project cost
of $23.7 million. Include within your response:
the reason for the costs,
the amount of the costs
any project reports or other documents discussing these costs, and
an accounting/plant report that includes the transaction detail (amount posted
date posted, work order number, vendor description , transaction description, and
document number) for the project costs exceeding the estimated project cost of
$23.7 million.
RESPONSE:
Attached is a spreadsheet summarizing the Boulder Park project cost components and comparing
the approximate actual cost components totaling $32 million to the project costs of $23.7 million
as of July 17, 2001. 1\ccompanying the cost comparison spreadsheet is a narrative discussion of
the reasons for the major project cost component variances. Also attached is a sheet labeled
Boulder Park Generating Station CAR data-backup 2-02" which provides an assessment of
project costs and variances projected at that time compared to the original project cost estimate.
The excess costs for the Boulder Park project generally stemmed from the fast track design-build
approach that the Company chose in order to bring small generation on line as quickly as
practical in order to mitigate the high prices and volatility in the electric power market during the
energy crisis. Although not new technology for the power industry, the natural gas fired
Response to Staff Request No. 349
Page 2
reciprocating engine-generators were the first project of its kind for A vista, which contributed in
part to actual construction costs being higher than the original estimate.
1\lso attached is an internal audit summary of certain Boulder Park Generating Units contractor
costs as of 10/10/02. Those materials are being provided with Avista s data response to Staff
Request No. 248(C). The materials provided contain TRADE SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL
information and are separately filed under illi\PA 31.01.01 , Rule 067 , and Section 9-340D,
Idaho Code.
Summary of Costs
Boulder Park Generating Station
Part I - Wartsila Costs 17 est.actual difference
Wartsila Recipricating Engine/Generators (Units 1 - 6)13,300,000 13,300,000
Change orders 208,000 208,000
Wartsila Subtotal 300 000 508 000 208,000
Part II - Contractor Construction Costs
Construction Management (KBI)960 000 159,000 199 000
Buildings and Sound Enclosures (Furnish and Install)1 ,250,000 228,000 978,000
Ventilation/Exhaust/Duct System (fabricate & install)1 ,170,000 299,000 129,000
Mechanical equipment Installation and commissioning 130,000 712 000 1 ,582 000
Electrical equipment Installation and commissioning 720,000 546,000 826,000
Contract Construction Subtota 230 000 944 000 4, 714 000
Part III - Avista Construction Costs
Site Work 220,000 410,000 190,000
Gas System 160,000 103,000 (57 000)
S u bsta ti onfT ransmi ss i on/D istri buti on/Commu n cation 1 ,136,000 1 ,488,000 352 000
Permits/Property Acquisition/Legal Fees 450,000 280 000 (170,000)
Miscellaneous Items
Fire Detection & Suppression Systems 237 000 237 000
Electrical and mechanical systems 415 000 415,000
Emission Testing 000 35,000
Spare Parts and Tools 100 000 100 000
Avista Commissioning/Management/Engineering 110,000 110 000
vista Subtotal 966 000 178 000 212,000
Subtotal (Wartsila, Contractor, and Avista)21,496,000 28,630 000 134,000
Washington State Sales Tax (8.1 %)1 ,772 546 080,000 307,454
B&O Tax 000 000
AFUDC 387 286 300,000 912 714
TOTAL (Units 1 to 6)23,655,832 32,064 000 408,168
Boulder Park Generating Station
Cost Summery Variance Details
Part I - Wartsila
The project had 13 Change orders issued for a total of $208 000. The major cost increase was
$123 000 to cover the additional time Wartsila had to spend on the site over and above that
which they contracted for.
Part II - Contractor Construction Costs
The total contractor construction cost over run was $4 714 000. This was primarily the extra cost
associated with the following:
a. Construction Management. The project took much longer than anticipated to complete
thereby increasing the construction management costs by approximately $600 000 for
supervision labor and $400,000 for additional purchasing and construction markups on the
overruns on materials and subcontractors. Change orders for engineering changes totaled
approximately $200,000. Total overrun from estimate is $1 199 000.b. Buildings and Sound Enclosures. The original estimate did not include the consumables
building ($150,000), special inspections ($80,000), nor control room building ($500,000).
The original building estimate from the consultant was lower than the actual cost by
$400 000. The sound enclosures overran $60 000 due to design changes. The total overrun
on buildings was $978 000.c. Ventilation/Exhaust/Duct systems. Change orders to add ventilation air louvers and
piping/sheeting changes added $129,000 total.
d. Mechanical equipment installation and commissioning. This was the single largest overrun
on the project. The mechanical piping work ran $977,000 over due to the complexity of the
piping as required versus the simple piping runs as bid from the minimal design prints. The
exhaust stack was not in the original design and added $200 000. The exhaust duct
insulation was not known in the original design and added $195,000. The foundation work
associated with the auxiliary work outside the main building was not in the original estimate
due to unknowns and underestimates of what was actually needed thereby adding $275 000.
Commissioning costs were less here than estimated but resulted in increased A vista
commissioning costs in Part TII. Total cost overrun here was $1 582 000.e. Electrical equipment installation and commissioning. The total overrun was $826 000. This
was due to additions to the scope of work (ie. fire detection system) as well as the lack of
electrical design especially in the control wiring.
Part III - A vista Construction Costs
The total A vista construction cost over run was $2 212 000. This was primarily the extra cost
associated with the following:
a. Site work. Road work was larger and more difficult than expected because Spokane County
required a 24' road instead of a 20' road ($35,000). Site work was larger and more difficult
than expected due to rocks, larger footprint of buildings and auxiliaries, as well as fire and
water system increases ($130 000). The fence work was overlooked in original estimate
($25,000). Total overrun here was $190,000.
b. Gas system. Relocating the station further east shortened the gas run and was $57,000 less
than estimated.c. SubstationlTransmissionlDistribution/Communication systems. The substation transformer
was more expensive than expected, the substation work was more extensive, but the
transmission/distribution work was not as extensive as predicted for a total overrun of
$220 000. The communication system was far more extensive and complicated than
originally anticipated due to microwave not feasible and fiberoptic being required to handle
the load thereby costing an additional $132 000.d. Permits/Property/Legal. The land was $150 000 less than expected and the legal was
$20,000 less than expected for a cost underrun of $170 000.e. Miscellaneous. These were not included in the original estimate. The fire detection and
suppression systems were $237,000; electrical and mechanical system work was $415,000
(broken down to control systems (g) $160 000; larger power cables and terminations
(g)
$35 000; extra grounding inside station (g) $20,000; work platforms (g) $150 000; handicap
access ramp (g)$50 000); emission testing was $35,000; spare parts and tools was $100 000;
and the 1\vista commissioning/management/engineering was $1,110 000. The extra labor
costs were due to the fact that to get this project completed, 1\ vista essentially took over from
the construction management firm the commissioning and final engineering.
Taxes - The extra sales tax was from the increase in the cost of the project. The B&O taxes
were not included in the original estimate. The extra AFUDC was accrued due to the extra time
the project took to complete.
Boulder Park Generation Station
CAR data-backup 2-
Major Changes from original handwritten CAA form:
Original estimate = $23.
Est. 1-30-02 $31.
$ 8.0M required to complete project.
Major changes in scope of work:
' ..
Extra time on project for Wartsila, KBI, contractors, and 1\ vista construction personnel
Extra i\FUDC accumulated due to increase in length of construction process
Control building size increased 25%
Handicapped access required by Spokane County
Complete cooling system containment and oil system containment required by Spokane
County
Air Handling system added to achieve cooling and charge air requirements
Extra catalyst required to achieve acrilyn and formaldehyde limits for SCi\PA
Quieter radiator fans and silencers from Wartsila to meet sound limits
Additional piping required to handle unforeseen complexity of mechanical systems
Additional electrical work to handle unforeseen complexity of electrical systems(especially
control systems)
Road building changed from 14' driveway to 24' road complete with paving to satisfy
Spokane County requirements /plus extra rock problems encountered
Site grading size increased 20%/ extra rock problems encountered
Added 115 Kv transmission line work
Increases in Washington State Sales Tax and B&O tax
Estimated total increase for above section = $5
,..
7 M
Major portions of work not included in original estimate;
Communication system to tie plant into remote operating facility
Work platforms and cell hoists
Fire & gas detection system
Fire suppression system
10" fire line and hydrants/ " water line
Remote and air handling computer control systems
Security system
Annunciator system
Interior painting and insulation
4/0 power cable & terminations
emergency shutdown generator and connections
interior building grounding system
emission testing
Commissioning (1\ vista labor)
Operations training for 1\ vista personnel
. A vista Management and Engineering time
Estimated total increase for above section = $2.3 M
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU - E-04-0 1 / A VU -04-0 1
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 249
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
5/17/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
D1\TE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
RESPOND ER:
DEP AA TMENT:
TELEPHONE:
REQUEST:
Please provide a detailed description of the reasons for the delay in Boulder Park becoming
operational. Please include in your response any project reports, memorandums, e-mails, or other
documents that relate to the project's delayed completion.
RESPONSE:
In addition to the description already provided in Pre-filed Direct Testimony of witness Robert
Lafferty, the following provides additional infonnation concerning Boulder Park project timeline
delays.
The initial schedule for installation of the six reciprocating engine-generator units was based upon
design and construction concepts provided by the engine-generator manufacturer, incorporated
extensive use of overtime labor and included an accelerated shipment schedule based on airfreight of
the engine-generator units from the manufacturer in Europe.
As forward power prices declined through the summer of 200 1 , plans for use of airfreight
shipment of engine-generator units and the extensive use of overtime construction labor were
dropped. These changes extended the project completion by at least an estimated 8 weeks.
Construction pennits and associated air pennit processes took longer than anticipated. The
main building construction pennit was not issued until early August 2001 and caused a delay
to project construction start date adding approximately 4 weeks to the project timeline.
addition, the associated pennit for construction of emission control facilities and other
facilities exterior to the main building (i.e. exhaust and radiator piping systems) was not
granted until the end of September 2001 thereby delaying start of construction on exterior
systems until October. This resulted in an estimated additional 4 weeks of delay. Pennitting
issues therefore resulted in approximately 8 weeks of delay time.
Design changes were made as a result of the pennit requirements resulting in additional time
and costs for engineering, construction and equipment. Examples included double wall
Response to Staff Request No. 249
Page 2
radiator piping, radiator spill containment system, additional emission equipment and testing,
and sound abatement enclosures. Additional design changes were required in order to add an
air handling system to draw in cooler combustion air during periods of high ambient
temperature. In addition, the engine-generator manufacturer required systems to be checked
and cleaned several times prior to initiating testing. The additional design and construction
associated with these items delayed completion by approximately 6 weeks.
Pre-commissioning problem solving (i.e. engine crankshaft alignment, debris in the high
pressure tanks, and insulation design) added approximately 4 weeks to the project completion
schedule.
During the commissioning process for the engine-generator units, complex control and
software problems required solutions that required coordination with the European
manufacturer technical support staff. Due to control wiring termination problems and
difficulties in dealing with the manufacturer s proprietary control system software
approximately 6 weeks was added to the project completion timeline.
In total, the factors described added approximately 32 weeks to the Boulder Park project completion
schedule.
The excess costs for the Boulder Park project generally stemmed from the fast track design-build
approach that the Company chose in order to bring small generation on line as quickly as practical in
order to mitigate the high prices and volatility in the electric power market during the energy crisis.
Although not new technology for the power industry, the natural gas fired reciprocating engine-
generators were the first project of its kind for A vista, which contributed in part to actual
construction costs being higher than the original estimate.
Copies of memos and e-mails that relate to the delay in the project's completion are being provided
with Avista s data response to Staff, Request No. 249(C). The materials provided contain TRADE
SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL information and are separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01 , Rule
067, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
AVU-04-01 / AVU-04-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 250
DATE PREPARED:
WITNES S
RESPONDER:
DEP ARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/18/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Were any reviews of the Kettle Falls project's continued economic feasibility conducted after
September 2001 using forward price information as of the date of the review? If so, please
provide:
a copy of each analysis
a summary of the results, and
the detail of Company actions taken based upon those results.
RESPONSE:
Further economic feasibility studies were not conducted after September 2001. Commitments
had been made to major project equipment at that point in time.
1\t the time of the September 12, 2001 analysis, which is included in witness Robert Lafferty
Exhibit 9, Schedule 36, the Company decided to delay the construction schedule for the Kettle
Falls project to move the projected start-up date from April 2002 to July 2002. The reason for
this change was because forward power prices for the second quarter time period were projected
to be relatively low and studies showed little or no value to the project being on line in second
quarter 2002. An e-mail is attached describing this decision.
::;.' '
roce
. .
rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Meyers, Lloyd
Friday, September 14, 2001 8:41 AM
Wenke, Steve; Parmentier, Jerry
Kalich, Clint; Lafferty, Bob; Groce, Ed; Gorton, Pat; Norwood, Kelly; Warne, Sandee; Morris,
Scott; Peterson, Ron
Kettle Falls CT
I asked Clint Kalich to review the economics of proceeding with the Kettle Falls CT. His study and memo to me dated
September 12, 2001 , show the gas turbine and steam generator to have a Net Present Value of nearly $4 million over the
life of the project. For the first 6 years, projected cash flow averages a negative $90 000 annually before becomingpositive in year 7 and all subsequent years.
The September 12 study reflects current forward power and natural gas prices. We have no way of knowing if forward
prices will go up or down from today s estimates. If power prices go up, the project becomes more economic, if down theproject is less economic. What we know is that prices can go up much more than they can go down. For example, in ayear that the forward price is $40/mwh , future forward prices for the same year could drop some, in the extreme into the
high teens, but could exceed $40 by several times even with price caps imposed.
The decision to start or stop a project can be made in a very short amount of time. Construction on a project can be
stopped in a short amount of time. But it take time from the decision to start to finish a project. Because the project is
economic with todays projected prices and the economic risk of prices going up is greater than the risk of prices going
down, the project will not be terminated.
However, the current schedule calls for start-up in April 2002. Power prices typically are relatively low in April, May and
June. Our studies show little or no value to the project being on line in these months. For this reason we will delay the
Commercial Operation date to July and adjust the construction schedule accordingly.
Gary Ely has reviewed this change and approved it.
Please make sure that all studies, budgets, etc. reflect the new start date and resulting cash flow requirements.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-04-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 251
DATE PREP i\RED:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
D EP AR TMENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/18/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Were any changes made to the Kettle Falls project based upon the economic reviews performed?
If so, please provide a detailed description of those changes including costs that may have been
reduced to improve the economics of the project.
RESPONSE:
Not applicable.
The requested materials are being provided with Avista s data response to Staff, Request No.
246(C). The materials provided contain TRADE SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL information
and are separately filed under IDi\PA 31.01.01 , Rule 067, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQ DES TER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
AVU-O4-01 / AVU-04-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 252
DATE PREP 1\RED:
WITNES S
, RESPONDER:
DEP 1\RTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/19/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a detailed analysis of the costs that exceeded the estimated project costs of $8.
million. Include within your response:
the reason for the costs,
the amount of the costs,
any project reports or other documents discussing these costs , and
an accounting/plant report that includes the transaction detail (amount posted,
date posted, work order number, vendor description, transaction description, and
document number) for the project costs exceeding the estimated project cost of
$8.5 million.
RESPONSE:
The requested materials are being provided with A vista s data response to Staff, Request No.
252(C). The materials provided contain TRADE SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL information
and are separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code.
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
REQUEST:
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Idaho
AVU-04-01 / AVU-04-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 253
DATE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
5/11/2004
Lafferty
Lafferty
Energy Resources
[phone]
Please provide a detailed description of the reasons for the delay in Kettle Falls becoming
operational. Please include in your response any project reports, memorandums, e-mails, or
other documents that relate to the project's delayed completion.
RESPONSE:
Please see response to Staff Data Request No. 250.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 262
D1\TE PREPi\RED:
WITNESS:
, RESPONDER:
DEP AATMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/17/2004
Don Falkner
Kelly Irvine
Resource 1\ccounting
[phone]
REQUEST:
What expenses for the Plymouth LNG facility are included in the Company s filing? Please
identify, on a system basis and an Idaho jurisdictional basis, and by FERC account, all expenses
associated with the Plymouth LNG facility. Specifically include capacity and deliverability
expenses.
RESPONSE:
For the year 2002, 1\vista paid Northwest Pipeline $394 567 for capacity and deliverability from
the Plymouth LNG facility for Washington and Idaho. Idaho s allocated portion is $104 087.
These costs are expensed in FERC account 804.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
C1\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-O4-
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 263
D1\ TE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
RESPOND ER:
DEP AATMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/17/2004
Don Falkner
Kelly Irvine
Resource 1\ccounting
[phone]
REQUEST:
What amounts for the Plymouth LNG facility are included in rate base in the Company s filing,
other than Company 1\djustment E, Gas Inventory 1\djustment. Please identify, on a system
basis and an Idaho jurisdictional basis, and by FERC account, all amounts included in rate base
associated with the Plymouth LNG facility.
RESPONSE:
There are no costs included in rate base for the Plymouth LNG facility in the Company s filing
other than Company 1\djustment E, Gas Inventory 1\djustment. 1\1l costs for the Plymouth LNG
facility are related to capacity and deliverability as detailed in Staff Request No. 262.
VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
Ci\SE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU - E-O4-0 1 / A VU -O4-0 1
IPUC
Data Request
Staff - 264
Di\ TE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
RESPOND ER:
D EP AA TMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/17/2004
Kelly Irvine
Resource i\ccounting
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide a schedule showing any injections or withdrawals to the Plymouth LNG facility
since January 1 , 1989. Please provide the information by month and year, showing the amount
inj ected and amount withdrawn.
RESPONSE:
Company records for the Plymouth facility only go back to 1998. The following list shows the
facilities utilization from that year forward.
'FACILITY NAME 1100607 AVA
Sum of
DLVRD AMT
RAN TYPE
INJECTION
DATE
05-28-1999
07-01-199
07-02-1999
07-03-1999
07 -04-1999
07 -05-1999
07-06-1999
07-07-199
07-08-1999
07 -09-1999
07-10-1999
07-11-199
07-12-1999
07-13-1999
07-14-1999
07-15-1999
07-16-1999
07-17-1999
07-18-1999
07-19-1999
07-20-1999
07-21-1999
07 -22 -1999
07-23-1999
116
1993
1164
996
996
996
136
124
07 -24-1999
07-25-199
07-26-199
07-27-199
07-28-199
07-29-199
07 -30-199
07-31-1999
08-01-1999
08-02-1999
08-03-199
08-04-1999
08-05-1999
08-06-199
08-07 -199
08-08-1999
08-09-999
08-1 0-1.999
08-11-199
08-12-199
08-13-1999
08-14-1999
08-15-1999
08-16-199
08-17-1999
08-18-1999
08-19-1999
08-20-1999
08-21-1999
08-22-199
08-23-1999
08-24-199
08-25-1999
08-26-1999
08-27 -199
08-28-1999
08-29-199
08-30-199
08-31-199
09-04-1999
09-05-1999
09-06-999
09-07-1999
09-08-1999
09-09-999
09-1 0-1999
09-11-1999
09-12-1999
09-13-1999
09-14-1999
09-15-1999
09-18-1999
09-19-1999
Response to Staff Request No. 264
Page 2
996
138
1381
1381
142
774
1358
297
2288
2288
297
477
1086
837
836
09-20-1999
09-26-1999
09-27 -199
1 0-09-199
10-10-1999
1 0-11-1 99
10-12-199
10-16-199
10-17-199
10-18-199
11-06-199
11-07-1999
11-08-1999
03-06-2001
03-07-2001
03-08-2001
03-09-2001
03-10-2001
03-11-2001 '
03-12-2001
03-13-2001
03-14-2001
03-15-2001
03-20-2001
03-22-2001
03-23-2001
03-27-2001
06-01-2002
06-02-2002
06-03-2002
06-04-2002
06-05-2002
06-06-2002
06-07 -2002
06-08-2002
06-09-2002
06-10-2002
06-11-2002
06-12-200
06-13-2002
06-14-2002
06-15-2002
06-16-2002
06-17 -2002
06-18-2002
06-19-2002
06-20-2002
06-21-2002
06-22-2002
06-23-2002
06-24-2002
06-25-2002
06-26-2002
Response to Staff Request No. 264
Page 3
198
198
198
196
882
827
198
1983
1983
1155
1532
1044
7571
12499
12556
12578
1214
573
513
118
853
8537
8894
4953
4953
4953
4953
4953
4953
309
4953
4953
4953
4953
4952
4953
4953
4953
4953
4953
4953
4411
2476
2434
2434
2434
247
2476
06-27 -2002
06-28-2002
06-29-2002
06-30-2002
07-01-2002
07 -02-2002
07 -03-2002
04-04-200
04-05-200
04-06-200
04-07 -200
04-08-200
04-09-2003
04-10-2003
04-11-200
04-12-200
04-13-200
04-14-2003
04-15-2003
04-16-2003
04-17 -2003
04-18-2003
04-19-200
04-20-2003
04-21-200
04-22-2003
04-23-2003
04-24-200
04-25-200
04-26-2003
04-27 -2003
04-28-200
04-29-2003
04-30-2003
05-01-2003
05-02-2003
05-03-2003
05-04-2003
05-05-2003
05-06-2003
05-07 -2003
05-08-2003
05-09-2003
05-10-2003
05-11-2003
05-12-2003
05-13-2003
05-14-2003
05-15-2003
05-16-2003
05-17-2003
05-18-2003
05-19-2003
Response to Staff Request No. 264
Page 4
Response to Staff Request No. 264
Page 5
05-20-200
05-21-200
05-22-2003
05-23-2003
05-30-2003
05-31-200
INJECTION Total 50008
ITHDRAWAL 12-20-1998 2200
12-21-1998 2200
12-22-1998 2200
12-23-1998 1000
12-24-199 22000
12-25-1998
12-26-1998
12-27-1998
12-28-1998
12-29-1998
02-08-200
01-15-2001 14678
01-16-2001 5061
01-18-2001
01-24-2001 607
01-25-2001 750
01-26-2001 7500
01-27-2001 7592
01-28-2001 0000
02-08-2001 10122
02-09-2001 16049
02-10-2001 104
02-11-2001 104
02-12-2001 104
02-13-2001 1380
02-14-2001 7333
02-26-2001 2049
02-01-2002 14451
02-13-2002 22000
02-24-2002 2200
02-25-2002 2200
02-26-2002 907
03-06-2002 1220
03-13-2002 4000
03-20-2002 22000
03-21-2002
04-07 -2002 1015
02-25-200 2200
02-26-2003 22000
02-27 -2003 22000
02-28-2003 2200
03-01-2003 1100
03-02-2003 11 000
03-03-2003 11000
03-04-2003 11 000
03-05-2003
ITHDRAWAL Total
Grand Total
Response to Staff Request No. 264
Page 6
03-06-2003
03-07 -2003
03-05-200
03-06-200
03-07 -200
03-08-200