20160906AVU to Staff 47 Supplemental.doc

AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 09/02/2016
CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Karen Schuh
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: David Machado
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 047 Supplemental TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:

Table No. 1 in Heather Rosentrater’s testimony lists several distribution-related capital projects with system-wide costs. Please explain how these costs are allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction by account. Please also provide a five year history (2011-2015) by account of these system costs illustrating how each was allocated to the Idaho and Washington jurisdictions.

RESPONSE:

The distribution-related capital projects included in Table No. 1 in Heather Rosentrater’s testimony (Rosentrater, Di, page 13) represent system-wide costs. The investment balances allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction and included in Avista’s revenue requirement in this case are generally allocated based on the expected investment that is specific to Idaho for each given business case. For business cases where the expected investment is planned at the allocate north (AN) level (general to both Washington and Idaho), the allocation between Idaho and Washington is based upon historical trends of transfer to plant percentages between Idaho and Washington for that specific business case (with the exception of business cases for which the system-wide balance is less than $500,000, which were allocated between Idaho and Washington using the net direct electric plant ratio between Idaho and Washington).

Staff_PR_047 Attachment A includes the five year history (2011-2015), by business case, of investment in plant in service, separated by Idaho and Washington jurisdictions. This attachment also includes the allocation between Idaho and Washington of the 2016 and 2017 expected investment included in this case.

Supplemental Response (September 2, 2016):
This response is being supplemented to correct that distribution plant balances less than $500,000 were allocated using the net direct electric plant ratio, which is one factor of the jurisdictional four-factor.