The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080624AVU to Staff 72, 109.pdf. . . Avista Corp. 1411 East Mission P.O. Box 3727 Spokane. Washington 99220-0500 Telephone 509-489-0500 Toll Free 800-727-9170 ~~~'V'STA. Corp. (~; E.l 2:*Q-O.. -1y I June 23,2008 Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington St. Boise, ID 83720-0074 i\ttn: Scott Woodbury Deputy i\ttorney General Re: Production Request of the Commission Staff in Case Nos. i\ VU-E~08-01 and i\ VU-G-08-01 Dear Mr. Woodbury, Enclosed are an original and three copies of i\vista's responses to IPUC Staffs production requests in the above referenced docket. Included in this mailing are i\vista's responses to production requests 072 & 109. The electronic versions of the responses were emai1ed on 6/09/08 and are also being provided in electronic format on the CDs included in this mailing. i\lso included is i\vista's CONFIDENTlAL response to PR~109C. This response contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and is separately filed under IDMi\ 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9~340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the Protective i\greement between i\vista and IPUC Staff dated March 13, 2008. It is being provided under a sealed separate envelop, marked CONFIDENTlAL. If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact me at (509) 495~ 8620 or via e~mai1 at pat.ehrbarêavistacorp.com Sincerely,(,~~ Patrick Ehrbar Regulatory Ma1yst Enclosures . . . JUSDICTION: Ci\SE NO: REQUESTER: TYPE: REQUEST NO.: AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ID.AO i\ VU-E-08~01 1 i\ VU-G~08-01 IPUC Production Request Staff~072 Di\TE PREPi\D: WITESS: RESPONDER: DEPAATMENT: TELEPHONE: 06/23/08 Bruce Howard Bruce Howard Environmental i\ffairs (509) 495~2941 REQUEST: Please provide all materials prepared and presented regarding the cost benefit of the Spokane River Re1icensing capital project. Please include within your response the ongoing licensing costs referenced by Company witness Howard on page 11 of his direct testimony. In addition to printouts, please also provide any materials in Excel format on CD with formulas activated. RESPONSE: The capital project requested in this case derives from the costs-to-date to secure a new license to operate the Spokane River Project which continues to benefit our customers with low cost energy resources, as discussed further in the Company's response to S taff~ 109. The number of documents related to the Spokane River re1icensing is voluminous, numbering in the thousands of pages and are available upon site visit. In addition, the information on record with FERC is also available at Avista's re1icensing website: http://www.avistauti1ities.com/resources/re1icensing/ spokanel default. asp The existing license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) expired i\ugust 1, 2007, and FERC issued an anual license for the Project. It is very likely that FERC wil be required to issue another annual license, as key elements of the proceeding (noted below), continue. These elements are anticipated to be completed this year, and that FERC wil issue a new license in the 4th quarter of 2008. The 1ife-to-date costs as of June 10, 2008 is approximately $21.8 milion. i\s a part of the Company's initial filing of this case, the costs by year though 2007 were provided in electronic format. i\ summary of those costs is provided on Page 1 of the attached fie (StafCPR_072~i\ttachment Ax1s). Page 2 of the attachment shows the costs for 2008. These costs represent relicensing efforts related to a number of different procedural requirements. Pre filing consultation began with stakeholder outreach as early as 1999; fonna1 consultation was initiated in 2002, leading to a number of technical studies, scoping under the National Environmental Policy i\ct, hundreds of stakeholder meetings, and finally development of a Preliminary Draft Enviromnenta1 i\ssessment, and applications for licenses, submitted to FERC in 2005. Post filing procedural costs have related to required responses to FERC's i\dditiona1 Information Requests; in addition, a number of parties (including the Coeur d i\lene Tribe, the state of Idaho, Washington State agencies, and the United States Deparment of Interior (DOl)) filed either recommended terms and conditions, pursuant to Sections 1 O( a) and 10(j) of the Federal Power i\ct (FP i\), or mandatory conditions related to the Post Falls application, pursuant to Section 4( e) of the FP A The Company evaluated and responded to these conditions, and requested Page i of2 . a tria1~type hearing on facts in front of an i\dministrative Law Judge (i\LJ) related tothe DOl's mandatory conditions for Post Falls. This led to a legal proceeding, culminating in the i\LJ's ruling in January 2007. The relicensing process also triggered review under the Endangered Species i\ct. In the DEIS, the FERC analyzed potential project impacts on listed and threatened endangered species, and has determined that the proposed action and continued operation of the Post Falls and Spokane River projects, is not likely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. The Company prepared a draft Biological i\ssessment in 2005. The FERC has issued a Biological i\ssessment and formally requested concurrence from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS responded by letter, concurrng with regards to bald eagles, and requesting additional information regarding bull trout. The Company filed a supplemental report to address the USFWS information request. On May 15, 2007, FERC issued a supplement to the Biological i\ssessment, and once again requested concurrence from the USFWS with its opinion that the Post Falls Project was not likely to adversely affect bull trout. i\vista has continued consultation with the USFWS. In addition, the Company must receive Clean Water i\ct Certifications from the states of Idaho and Washington for the Projects. The Company made applications in 2006 to each state; and, at the States' request, withdrew and reapplied for those applications in 2007. Both Idaho and Washington issued draft certifications for public review. Idaho issued its fina1401 certification on June 5, 2008. Each of these ongoing procedural matters has required the Company's active paricipation in additional studies, responses to comments and drafts, and in ongoing dialogue. . For the 2008 Spokane River Relicensing capital budget, the costs are as follows: . Loaded Labor Legal Non-Labor Overheads AFUDC (calculated on current & prior yrs actuals) Total $ 572,506 $ 500,000 $1,500,000 $ 7,717 $1,730,833 $4,311,056 Loaded labor includes the ongoing internal staff costs to manage the relicensing process, including technical review, negotiations, filings with FERC and other agencies, and management of current license obligations. Legal costs represent an estimate for support in ongoing negotiations regarding 4(e) conditions, 401 certifications, and ESi\ consultation. These costs could be higher should litigation within any of these categories occur this year. . Non~labor includes primarly consultant costs, as we have continued to provide technical review of agency documents, and have developed further scientific analysis and modeling, and conducted monitoring, either to comply with curent license requirements or as part of ongoing consultation with regulators in Idaho and Washington. Page 2 of2 AVISTA UTILITIES SPOKANE RIVER RELICENSING COSTS.Year Work Order/Project Amount 1999 5970 57,958.83 2000 - 2004 5970 9,686,077.42 2005 - 2007 20304113 10,259,171.66 2005 - 2007 30005011 629,062.67 10-Jun-08 20304113/30005011 1,141,922.00 21,774,192.58 Summary of Expenses by Category and Year: Expenditures Year Non-Labor Overheads Labor AFUDC YTDTotal 1999 $32,385 $$14,537 $11,037 $57,959 2000 $146,576 $$93,106 $43,693 $283,375 2001 $263,627 $717 $313,866 $96,521 $674,731 2002 $2,778,095 $34,542 $508,500 $243,692 $3,564,829 2003 $245,635 $1,211 $171,491 $49,698 $468,035 2004 $3,387,056 $16,936 $662,989 $628,008 $4,694,989.2005 $2,707,340 $6,353 $666,014 $367,812 $3,747,519 2006 $2,687,056 $4,402 $793,438 $637,488 $4,122,384 2007 $1,403,308 $4,074 $604,632 $1,006,319 $3,018,333 1999-2007 Total $13,651,078 $68,235 $3,828,573 $3,084,268 $20,632,154 10-Jun-08 $442,119 $1,545 241,193 $457,065 $1,141,922 Total thru 6/10108 $14,093,197 $69,780 $4,069,766 $3,541,333 $21,774,076 . Summary StafCPR_072-Attachment A.xls Page 1 of 3 . . . AVISTA UTILITIES River Relicensing Cost January 1 - June 10, 2008 Sum of Transaction Amt SUM Expenditure Categc Expenditure Type Project Number Project Desc Total AFUDC 535 AFUDC - Debt 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 194,182.53 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 10,939.47 535 AFUDC - Debt Total 205,122.00 540 AFUDC - Equity 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 238,506.77 30005011 Hvdro Relic Post Falls 13,436.55 540 AFUDC - Equity Total 251,943.32 AFUDC Total 457,065.32 Contractor 005 Legal Services 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 118,469.48 130005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 158,569.27 005 Legal Services Total 277,038.75 010 General Services 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv (33,316.05) 010 General Services Total (33,316.05) 020 Professional Servic420304113 I Hydro Relic Spo Riv 167,168.74 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 22,114.90 020 Professional Services Total 189,283.64 Contractor Total 433,006.34 Employee Expense 205 Airfare 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 1,566.09 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 15.00 205 Airfare Total 1,581.09 210 Em ployee Auto Miiel20304113 Hydro Relic Spa Riv 1,217.97 30005011 I Hydro Relic Post Falls 664.00 210 Employee Auto Mileage Total 1,881.97 215 Employee Business 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 2,158.04 215 Employee Business Meals Total 2,158.04 220 Employee Car Rent 20304113 Hydro Relic Spa Riv 19.11 220 Employee Car Rental Total 19.11 225 Conference Fees 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 475.00 130005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 475.00 225 Conference Fees Total 950.00 230 Employee LodginQ 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 1,476.13 230 Em ployee Lodging Total 1,476.13 235 Em ployee Misc Exol20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 397.35 235 Employee Misc Expenses Total 397.35 Employee Expenses Total 8,463.69 Labor 340 Regular Payroll - NU 20304113 Hvdro Relic Spo Riv 96,181.15 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 47,172.72 340 Regular Payroll- NU Total 143,353.87 Labor Total 143,353.87 Overhead 505 Capital Overhead - A 20304113 IHydro Relic Spo Riv 968.48 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 576.74 505 Capital Overhead - A & G Total 1,545.22 510 Payroll Benefits loa~ 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 41,357.92 30005011 I Hydro Relic Post Falls 20,284.31 510 Payroll Benefits loading Total 61,642.23 515 Payroll Tax loading 20304113 Hydro Relic Spo Riv 8,415.81 30005011 Hydro Relic Post Falls 4,127.62 515 Payroll Tax loading Total 12,543.43 520 Payroll Time Off loal20304113 I Hydro Relic Spa Riv 15,869.91 Detail-Pivot-2008 Staff_PR_072-Attachment A.xls Page 2 of 3 . . . AVISTA UTILITIES River Relicensing Cost January 1 - June 10, 2008 Sum of Transaction Amt SUM Expenditure Categc Expenditure Type 1 Project Number I Project Desc Total Overhead 520 Payroll Time Off loal30005011 1 Hydro Relic Post Falls 7,783.52 520 Payroll Time Off loading Total 23,653.43 Overhead Total 99,384.31 Vehicle 710 Rental Expense - Vd20304113 THydro Relic Spo Riv 94.71 710 Rental Expense - Vehicle Total 94.71 720 Vehicle Fuel Gasolid 20304113 THydro Relic Spo Riv 24.96 720 Vehicle Fuel Gasoline Total 24.96 Vehicle Total 119.67 Voucher 1885 Miscellaneous 120304113 I Hvdro Relic Spo Riv 529.44 885 Miscellaneous Total 529.44 Voucher Total 529.44 Grand Total 1,141,922.64 Note: Payroll Overheads are included in Labor Costs on Summary. Detail-Pivot-2008 Staff_PR_072-Attachment A.xls Page 3 of 3 . . . JUSDICTION: Ci\SENO: REQUESTER: TYPE: REQUEST NO.: REQUEST: A VISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ID.AO i\ VU-E~08-01 1 i\ VU~G-08-01 IPUC Production Request Staff~109 Di\TE PREPi\D: WITESS: RESPONDER: DEPAATMENT: TELEPHONE: 06120108 Bruce Howard Bruce Howard Environmental Affairs (509) 495-2941 In addition to the costs requested for recovery in this case, Company witness Howard states on page eleven that the estimated costs over the 50 year life of the license could be $400 to $500 milion for the Post Falls project and $175 to $225 milion for the downstream Spokane River project. Please provide all economic analysis showing the estimated 1eve1ized costs per kWh for the two projects over the life of the license and how those costs compare to expected resource alternatives. RESPONSE: Please see i\vista's response 109C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL infonnation and exempt from public view and is separately filed under IDMi\ 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9~340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the Protective i\greement between i\vista and IPUC Staff dated March 13,2008. Page i of i