20260519Direct Sorenson.pdf

RECEIVED
May 19, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ) Case No. IPC-E-26-15
IDAHYDRO FOR IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY TO REDUCE ITS )
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE )
CHARGES APPLICABLE TO SCHEDULE )
72, GENERATOR INTERCONNECTIONS )
TO PURPA QUALIFYING FACILITY )
SELLERS. )
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
TED S. SORENSON
ON BEHALF OF
IDAHO HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCERS TRUST
d/b/a IDAHYDRO

1 I. INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
2 Q. Please state your name and address.
3 A.My name is Ted S. Sorenson.My address is 1633 Lake Blaine Road,Kalispell,Montana
4 59901.
5 Q. On whose behalf are you testifying?
6 A. I am testifying on behalf of the Idaho Hydroelectric Power Producers Trust, d/b/a
7 IdaHydro.
8 Q. Please summarize your educational background.
9 A. I received both a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and a Master of Engineering
10 in Civil Engineering from the University of Idaho in Moscow,Idaho,with an emphasis in sanitary
I I engineering and water resources.
12 Q. Please summarize your professional background.
13 A. I have practiced civil engineering for approximately 50 years. I am the founder and
14 principal of Sorenson Engineering, Inc. ("Sorenson Engineering"). My professional experience
15 includes developing, permitting, designing, constructing, owning, and operating hydroelectric
16 projects. I have designed approximately 50 hydroelectric-related projects, and all completed
17 projects are still operating. Sorenson Engineering owns, leases, or operates multiple hydroelectric
18 projects.
19 Q. Have you been registered as a professional engineer?
20 A.Yes. I have been registered as a professional engineer in Washington,Idaho,Wyoming,
21 Oregon, Montana, and Colorado, and I am currently in retired status.
22 Q. Are you familiar with small hydroelectric qualifying facilities and their
23 interconnections?
Sorenson, DI 2
IdaHydro

I A. Yes. I am familiar with the design, construction, cost, operation, and maintenance of
2 interconnections for small hydroelectric facilities operating under PURPA. Sorenson Engineering
3 has extensive experience with small hydroelectric PURPA projects and associated utility
4 interconnections.
5 Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits with your testimony?
6 A. Yes. I sponsor Exhibit A, which is a true and correct copy of my resume and
7 hydroelectric project list, and Exhibit B,which is a true and correct copy of a spreadsheet showing
8 Schedule 72 operation and maintenance ("O&M") payments made to Idaho Power for plants
9 operated by Sorenson Engineering that sell energy to Idaho Power.
10 II. EXPERIENCE WITH HYDROELECTRIC INTERCONNECTIONS
11 Q. How many hydroelectric-related projects have you designed?
12 A. I personally have designed approximately 50 hydroelectric-related projects. All
13 completed projects are still operating.
14 Q. How many projects has your company, Sorenson Engineering, designed, owned,
15 or operated?
16 A. Sorenson Engineering has designed, owned, and operated 19 hydroelectric projects.
17 Sorenson also owns or leases and operates an additional 11 hydroelectric projects that it did not
18 design.
19 Q. Does this experience include facilities that interconnect with utilities under
20 PURPA?
21 A. Yes. Sorenson Engineering owns, leases, or operates small hydroelectric PURPA
22 facilities that sell energy to utilities, including Idaho Power and other utilities.
23 Q.Based on your experience,are the interconnections for small hydroelectric PURPA

I facilities unusual or complex?
2 A. No. These interconnections are usual and simple in design. Many are commonly four-
3 pole interconnections.
4 Q. What is the typical construction cost for a four-pole interconnection?
5 A. Generally, a typical four-pole interconnection costs between approximately $140,000
6 and $180,000 to construct.
7 Q. How would you describe the technology used in these interconnections?
8 A. The technology is not new or experimental. It predates the passage of PURPA. The
9 design is established,proven, and reliable.
10 Q. How much maintenance do these interconnections generally require?
11 A. In my experience, these interconnections are reliable and stable and require little
12 attention. Many last 20 to 30 years or more without active work or preservation.
13 III. COMPARISON WITH OTHER UTILITIES
14 Q. Does Sorenson Engineering sell power from small hydroelectric PURPA projects
15 to utilities other than Idaho Power?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. How do other utilities charge Sorenson Engineering for interconnection O&M?
18 A. With utilities other than Idaho Power, Sorenson Engineering has experienced several
19 approaches. Sorenson Engineering has either paid annual O&M of approximately 2.5% to 3% of
20 original construction costs, paid actual O&M as incurred, paid a one-time O&M charge, or
21 operated and maintained the interconnections itself.
22 Q. How does PacifiCorp charge for O&M on comparable PURPA interconnections?
23 A. Different from Idaho Power's Schedule 72 approach, PacifiCorp charges actual O&M

I costs for PURPA plants if and when such costs are incurred.
2 Q. Are Idaho Power and PacifiCorp interconnection facilities materially different?
3 A. No. The technology and equipment used in Idaho Power and PacifiCorp
4 interconnections are materially the same.
5 Q. Why is the PacifiCorp comparison important?
6 A. It shows that actual-cost tracking and actual-cost billing for these types of
7 interconnection facilities can be done. If another utility can charge actual O&M when incurred for
8 materially similar interconnection facilities,that undercuts any suggestion that Idaho Power cannot
9 reasonably identify and bill actual O&M for Schedule-72-type expenses.
10 IV. SCHEDULE 72 CHARGES AND ACTUAL O&M COSTS
11 Q. What is your understanding of Idaho Power's Schedule 72 O&M methodology?
12 A. My understanding is that Idaho Power charges O&M based on a formula that assigns
13 PURPA projects a percentage of Idaho Power's overall transmission or distribution system O&M.
14 That percentage is based on the PURPA project's construction cost compared to overall system
15 construction costs.
16 Q.Does that formula accurately measure the actual O&M cost of small hydroelectric
17 four-pole interconnections?
18 A. No. In my opinion, that formula does not accurately measure, or even approximate, the
19 actual cost of operating and maintaining PURPA four-pole interconnections.
20 Q. Why not?
21 A. Because a typical four-pole interconnection is a simple, proven, reliable facility with a
22 long useful life and low maintenance requirements. Idaho Power's broader transmission and
23 distribution systems include many facilities, conditions, and operational demands that are not

I comparable to the small hydroelectric interconnections at issue here. Applying a system-wide
2 transmission or distribution O&M percentage to a simple four-pole interconnection does not reflect
3 the actual costs caused by that interconnection.
4 Q. What is the consequence of using that type of system-wide formula?
5 A. The consequence is an overcharge. Depending on who retains the benefit of the
6 overcharge, it creates an unreasonable windfall either to the utility or to ratepayers.
7 Q. What is your understanding of the applicable PURPA principle?
8 A. My understanding from years of involvement with small hydroelectric PURPA plants
9 and their regulation is that ratepayers should be left indifferent. They should not be harmed, but
10 they should also not benefit from charges to QFs that exceed the actual costs caused by the
11 interconnection.
12 Q.Do you believe the current Schedule 72 charges are consistent with that principle?
13 A. No. Based on my experience with small hydroelectric interconnections, the current
14 Schedule 72 charges appear to contravene that principle because they are not tied to the actual cost
15 of operating and maintaining the interconnections.
16 V. SORENSON PAYMENTS TO IDAHO POWER
17 Q. Have you reviewed the Schedule 72 payments made by Sorenson-operated plants
18 to Idaho Power?
19 A. Yes. Exhibit B is a spreadsheet showing payments to Idaho Power for O&M of
20 interconnections for Sorenson-operated plants that sell energy to Idaho Power.
21 Q. What does Exhibit B show?
22 A. Exhibit B shows that, as of July 2025, Sorenson-operated Idaho Power projects paid a
23 total of approximately $7,711 per month, or approximately $92,531 annually, in Schedule 72

I O&M charges.
2 Q. In your opinion, do those charges appear consistent with the actual maintenance
3 needs of these facilities?
4 A.No. Given the simple design,reliability,and long useful life of the interconnections,the
5 charges appear excessive when compared to the maintenance actually required for these facilities.
6 VI. IDAHO POWER'S FAILURE TO TRACK ACTUAL COSTS
7 Q. Does Idaho Power record the actual O&M costs incurred under Schedule 72?
8 A.My understanding is that Idaho Power reports it does not record the actual costs incurred
9 under Schedule 72.
10 Q. Why is that significant?
11 A. It is significant because,without tracking actual costs, Idaho Power cannot demonstrate
12 that Schedule 72 charges correspond to the actual costs of operating and maintaining the
13 interconnection facilities. In my opinion, a system-wide formula is not a substitute for actual cost
14 evidence.
15 Q. Is it surprising to you that Idaho Power does not record actual costs?
16 A. Yes. It is surprising because other utilities can and do record and bill for Schedule-72-
17 type expenses.
18 Q. From an engineering and operational perspective, should Schedule 72 O&M
19 charges be based on actual costs?
20 A. Yes. For these types of facilities, charges should be based on actual O&M costs
21 incurred, or at least on a methodology that reasonably approximates those actual costs. A system-
22 wide formula applied to small, simple,reliable interconnections does not do that.
23 VIL RECOMMENDATION

I Q. Based on your experience with small hydroelectric interconnections, what is your
2 recommendation to the Commission?
3 A. Based on my experience, I recommend that any O&M charge applied to small
4 hydroelectric PURPA interconnections should reasonably reflect the actual O&M costs of those
5 interconnections. Idaho Power's Schedule 72 formula does not accurately measure or approximate
6 the actual cost of operating and maintaining typical four-pole PURPA interconnections.
7 Q. Why do you make that recommendation?
8 A. These interconnections are usual in design, commonly consisting of a four-pole
9 interconnection. A typical four-pole interconnect generally costs between$140,000 and$180,000
10 to construct. The technology predates PURPA, and the interconnects are reliable and stable,
11 requiring little attention, and often lasting 20 to 30 years or more without active work or
12 preservation. For those reasons, applying a percentage of Idaho Power's overall transmission or
13 distribution system O&M costs does not reasonably reflect the actual O&M cost of these facilities.
14 Q. What approach would better reflect the actual cost of operating and maintaining
15 these interconnections?
16 A.An actual-cost approach would better reflect the cost of operating and maintaining these
17 facilities. Other utilities can and do charge actual O&M costs when incurred, and PacifiCorp
18 charges actual O&M costs for PURPA plants if and when such charges are incurred. The
19 technology and equipment in Idaho Power and PacifiCorp interconnects are materially the same.
20 Q.If the Commission does not adopt an actual-cost approach,what should it require?
21 A. If the Commission does not require actual-cost billing, then it should require any
22 Schedule 72 O&M methodology to reasonably approximate the actual O&M costs of the
23 interconnection facilities being charged. A system-wide formula that charges PURPA projects

I based on Idaho Power's overall transmission or distribution O&M expenses does not do that for
2 typical four-pole small hydroelectric interconnections.
3 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
4 A. Yes.
5 H

I DECLARATION OF TED SORENSON
2 I, Ted Sorenson, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Idaho:
3 1. My name is Ted Sorenson.I am the founder and principal of Sorenson Engineering,
4 Inc., which is a member of the Idaho Hydroelectric Power Producers Trust d/b/a IdaHydro. I am
5 also a Trustee of IdaHydro.
6 2. On behalf of IdaHydro, I present this pre-filed direct testimony and Exhibits A and
7 B in this matter.
8 3. To the best of my knowledge, my pre-filed direct testimony and exhibits are true
9 and accurate.
10 1 hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief,
11 and that I understand that it is made for use as evidence before the Idaho Public Utilities
12 Commission and is subject to penalty for perjury.
13 SIGNED this 13th day of May 2025, at Kalispell, Montana.
14
15 Signed- ID b%ESM7�ss m5wEu
16 Ted Sorenson

BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO.
IDAHO HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCERS TRUST
d/b/a IDAHYDRO
SORENSON, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT A

TED S. SORENSON, P.E.
Address:1633 Lake Blaine Rd, Kalispell, MT 59901
Cell:[phone]
Email:[e-mail]
WORK EXPERIENCE
September 1, 1980 to Present
Founder of Sorenson Engineering, Inc.. Designer of over 50 hydroelectric facilities. Ownership/operation of 30
hydroelectric facilities. Experience in developing, permitting, designing, constructing,owning, and operating hydro
projects. Determined to be qualified steward/transferee of numerous FERC licenses.
January 1976 to September 1, 1980
Project Engineer with H&V Engineers, Moscow, Idaho
May 1975 to August 1975
Engineer with U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Nespelem,Washington
EDUCATION
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho:
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Graduate Degree: Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering
Special Emphasis in University: Sanitary Engineering and Water Resources.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
National Society of Professional Engineers
Idaho Society of Professional Engineers
National Hydropower Association
REGISTRATIONS
Professional Engineer,State of Colorado#45130
A

SORENSON ENGINEERING-HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LIST
SUMMARY
Ted S. Sorenson P.E., principal of Sorenson Engineering, has designed nearly 50 hydroelectric
plants over the past 40 years.These projects are listed below. Projects which are owned, operated, and
designed by Sorenson are shown separately. Sorenson has also purchased several projects that he did
not design (also shown below). Project totals are below.
1. Hydroelectric Related Projects Designed by Sorenson (48)
-All Completed Projects are still Operating
2. Hydroelectric Projects Designed, Owned, and Operated by Sorenson (19)
3. Hydroelectric Projects not Designed but Owned/Leased and Operated by Sorenson (11)
DESIGNED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
1. Pueblo Dam Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2019
Capacity:8.1MW
Head:80-135'
Flow: 810 CFS
-Three Horizontal Francis Units
Location: Near Pueblo, Colorado
Construction Cost: $17,000,000
2. Beaver City Hydro#3 1
Commissioned 2018
Capacity:650 kW
Head: 350'
Flow: 25 CFS
Twin Jet Pelton
Location: Beaver, Utah
Construction Cost: $2,000,000
3. Littlewood River Ranch II Hydroelectric Project
Commissioned 2015
Capacity: 1.2MW
Head: 35'
Flow: 500 CFS
-Vertical Kaplan
Location: Near Gooding, Idaho

4. Eightmile Hydroelectric « Y
Commissioned 2014
Capacity:0.4MW -_ -
Head: 333'
Flow: 21 CFS s
-Twin Jet Pelton Turbine, Horizontal Shaft r_ „
Location: Near Leadore, Idahoter`-
. .. �
5. Ridgway Dam Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2014 � .
Capacity:8.OMW(7.2MW and 0.8MW) - '
Head: 150 ,
Flow: 500 CFS
-Two Vertical Frances
Penstock: 110'of 72"diameter steel
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
Construction Cost: $11,600,000
Overall Cost:$16,000,000
6. Fargo Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2013
Capacity: 1.1MW
Head: 140'and 81'
Flow: 75 CFS and 40 CFS
-Two Horizontal Frances Turbines connected a Single Generator
Penstock: 1,550' of 48"diameter steel
Location: Near Homedale, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,600,000
7. South Canal Drop 1 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2013
Capacity:4.OMW
Head: 54.2'
Flow: 1000 CFS
-Vertical Double Manual Regulated Kaplan
Penstock: 1,130' of 132" diameter steel
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
Construction Cost: $5,600,O000verall Cost:$6,600,000

8. South Canal Drop 3 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2013
Capacity: 3.5MWb 4, i
Head:47.3' �
Flow: 1000 CFS-Vertical Double Manual Regulated Kaplan
Penstock: 290'of 132" diameter steel pipe >�
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado ,
Construction Cost: $5,400,000 '$
Overall Cost: $6,600,000 -ti-
9. Arena Drop Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2010
Capacity:0.5MW
Head: 76'
Penstock:450'of 48" diameter pipe
Flow: 100 CFS
-Horizontal Frances
Location: Near Boise, Idaho
Construction Cost:$920,000
10. Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric(Pictured right)
Commissioned 2010
Capacity: 20MW, (two 10MW units)
Head: 150'
Penstock: Dual 150' of 96"diameter steel
Flow: 1500 CFS
-two Vertical Frances
Transmission Line: 5 miles
Detailed Computational Fluid Dynamics Study
(CFD) completed for project
Location: Near Boise, Idaho
Construction Cost:$28,500,000
Overall Cost:$38,000,000
11. Midway Hydroelectric(Pictured right)
Commissioned 2006
Capacity: 2.6MW
Head: 27'
Penstock: Dual 90'of 98" diameter steel
Flow: 1300 CFS +�
-Two Horizontal Manually Regulated Kaplans
Transmission Line: 1 mile
Location: Hansen, Idaho . \\
Construction Cost: $4,500,000
�Nlo o®

12. Mora Drop Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2006
Capacity: 1.6MW
Head: 38'
Penstock:90'of 120" diameter steel
Flow: 550 CFS
-Vertical Manually-regulated Kaplan
Transmission Line: 61 miles
Location: Kuna Idaho
Construction Cost: $2,200,000
13. Cove Flume Test Section for Pacific Power/Utah Power& Light
Completed 1998
Feasibility and Design for Test Section for Open Channel Flume
Flow: 1500 CFS
Cast-in-Place and Precast Concrete Sections
14. Mopan Hydroelectric
Completed 1996
Feasibility and power sales for 12 megawatt Facility to include 42-meter-high roller
compacted concrete dam and 92 kilometer transmission line in remote area
Location: State of Petan,Guatemala,Central America
15. Twin Falls Hydroelectric
Completed 1995
Fabrication drawings for penstocks for 30MW facility
Penstocks: 14'diameter '.
Location: Near Twin Falls, Idaho
16. Fall River Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1993
Capacity: 10MW(two 5MW units)
Head: 250' % �. �_■
Penstock: 2700'of 96" diameter steel
Flow: 550 CFS
Bouvier-Two Frances turbines
Location:Ashton, Idaho ` I
Construction Cost: $14,000,000
17. Milner Dam Hydroelectric
Completed 1992
Completed Design portion of design build contract for five
32'wide by 18' high radial gates
Location: Near Burley, Idaho
Fabrication Cost: $1,800,000

18. Friant Fish Release Hydropower
Commissioned 1992
Capacity:0.5MW
Head: 120'
Flow: 35 CFS
Gilkes-500 KW Francis Turbine on Fish Hatchery Release Waters-
-Friant Dam and Friant River Canal
Location: Near Fresno, California
Construction Cost: $800,000
19. Ingram Ranch Lower Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1990 _ +
Capacity:0.5MW
Head: 320' -
Penstock: 11,000' of 30" diameter steel
Canal: 20,000'of Trapezoidal
Flow: 25 CFS
Gilkes-Twin Jet Turgo, Induction Gen
Location: Near Challis, Idaho I __
Construction Cost: $600,000
1.
20. Smith Falls Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1990
Capacity: 38MW(3 units)
Head: 1,585'
Flow: 370 CFS
Penstock: 28,000' of 72", 69"and 57" diameter steel
Bouvier-Three Pelton Units;Two Twin Jets and One Single Jet
Location: Boundary County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $14,000,000
21. Faulkner Land & Livestock Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1989
Capacity:0.9MW
Head: 140'
Penstock:950'of 51"diameter steel through rough mountain canyon terrain
Flow:80 CFS
Gilkes-Frances Turbine, Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear, 2 miles of 14 KV transmission line
Location: Near Bliss, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,000,000

22. O.J. Power Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity:0.2MW
Head:410'
Penstock: 6,000'of 18" diameter steel
Flow: 7 CFS
Gilkes-Single Jet Turgo Turbine, Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Oneida County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $250,000
23. Mink Creek Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1987
Capacity: 3.OMW
Head:470'
Penstock: 11,000' of 50" diameter steel through rough mountain canyon terrain
Flow: 100 CFS
Gilkes-Twin Jet Turgo Turbine,Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Franklin County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $2,500,000
24. Amy Ranch Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1987 ° =
Capacity:0.7MW
Head: 940' -
� t
Penstock: 20,200' of 18" diameter steel
Flow: 11 CFS
Bouvier-Twin Jet Pelton Wheel
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Butte County, Idaho
-
Construction Cost: $850,000
25. Snedigar Ranch Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1986
Capacity:0.5MW
Head: 190'
Penstock 4,000'
Penstock: 30" diameter steel through rough canyon terrain
Flow: 35 CFS
Barber-Frances Turbine, Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Construction Cost: $650,000

26. Littlewood River Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1986
Capacity: 1.OMW
Head: 29'
Canal:3,000' in lava rock
Flow:460 CFS
Gilkes-Two Frances Open Flume Turbines
Industrial Grade Switchgear, 1/2 mile transmission line
Location: Near Gooding, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,400,000
27. Geo Bon II Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1986 £,
Capacity: 1.OMW --
Head: 31'
Penstock: 120'of 120" diameter steel
Canal: 3,000' in lava rock
Flow:480 CFS
Voith- Double Regulated Kaplan
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Near Shoshone, Idaho N
Construction Cost: $1,700,000
28. Ingram Ranch Upper Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1985
Capacity: 1.OMW
Head: 185'
Penstock:900'of 48" diameter steel
Canal: 20,000'trapezoidal
Flow:80 CFS
Gilkes-Frances Turbine,Synchronous Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Near Challis, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,100,000
29. Georgetown Irrigation Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1984
Capacity:0.5MW
Head: 220'
Penstock: 18,500' of existing irrigation main
30" diameter through 42" diameter steel
Flow: 30 CFS
Gilkes-Twin Jet Turgo Turbine, Induction Generator
Industrial Grade Switchgear
Location: Georgetown, Idaho
Construction Cost: $500,000

TED SORENSON-DESIGN/OWN/OPERATE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
1. Vinelands Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2023
Capacity:4.2MW
Head: 73'
Flow: 800 CFS
Vertical Shaft Kaplan Turbine
Location: Palisade, Colorado
2. Jim Knight Hydroelectric(rebuild)
Commissioned 2021 (Originally Commissioned 1986)
Capacity: 475KW
Head: 22'
Flow: 300 CFS
Vertical Shaft Kaplan Turbine
Location: Gooding County, Idaho
3. Sagebrush Hydroelectric(rebuild)
Commissioned 2021 (Originally Commissioned 1986)
Capacity: 475KW
Head: 27'
Flow: 300 CFS
Vertical Shaft Kaplan Turbine
Location: Gooding County, Idaho
4. MC6 Hydroelectric Protect
Commissioned 2021 \
Capacity: 2.2MW '
Head: 52'
Flow: 600 CFS
-Vertical Kaplan
Location: Near Kuna, Idaho
5. South Canal Drop 5 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2016
Capacity: 2.4MW -
Head: 38'
Flow: 840 CFS r
-Vertical Kaplan
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
Construction Cost: $7,000,000
Overall Cost: $7,300,000

6. North Gooding Main Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2016
Capacity: 1.2MW
MW Head: 60'
Flow: 280 CFS
-Vertical Double Regulated Kaplan
Location: Near Gooding, Idaho
7. South Canal Drop 4 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2015
Capacity:4.8MW
Head: 74.1'
Flow: 1000 CFS
-Vertical Double Regulated Kaplan
Penstock: 1,360' of 120" diameter used steel
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
8. Shavano Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2015 -
Capacity: 2.8MW
Head: 184.7' _.
Flow: 220 CFS
-Horizontal Francis
Penstock: 1,760' of 69"diameter steel
Location: Near Montrose, Colorado
9. St.Anthony Hydroelectric(rebuild)
Commissioned 2014(originally commission in 1914)
Capacity:0.7MW
Head: 14'
Flow: 700 CFS
Turbine-Two Francis Camelback w/GE generator
Location: Near St.Anthony, Idaho
10. C-Drop Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2012
Capacity: 1.1MW
Head: 23'
Flow: 700 CFS
-Vertical Kaplan
Location: Klamath Falls,Oregon
Construction Cost:$2,400,000
Overall cost: $3,200,000

11. Lower Turnbull Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2011
Capacity: 7.8MW
Head: 150'
Penstock: 2,215' of 108" diameter
Flow: 700 CFS
-Vertical Frances
Transmission Line: 1.7 miles
Location: Near Fairfield, Montana
Construction Cost: $7,000,000
Overall Cost: $8,500,000
12. Upper Turnbull Hydroelectric(pictured right)
Commissioned 2011
Capacity: 5.7MW
Head: 100'
Penstock:967'of 108" diameter _
Flow: 700 CFS
-Vertical Frances
Transmission Line: 1.3 miles
Location: Near Fairfield, Montana
Construction Cost: $5,000,000
Overall Cost: $6,500,000
13. Pancheri Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2010
Capacity:0.3MW
Head: 503'
Flow: 9 CFS
-Twin Jet Pelton, 290 KW
Penstock: 10,000' of 20"diameter
Location: Near Howe Idaho
Cost:$600,000
14. Belize Hydroelectric(Pictured right)
Commissioned 2007
Capacity: 3.4MW
Head: 120'
Penstock: 550'of 72"diameter
Flow: 375 CFS
-Two Frances Turbines connected to
Single 3.4 MW generator
Transmission Line: 61 miles
Location: Belize,Central America
Construction Cost: $4,000,000
Overall Cost: $5,500,000

15. Tiber Dam Hydroelectric(pictured right) - -
Commissioned 2004
Capacity: 7.5MW
Head: 175'
Penstock:90' of 96"diameter steel
Flow: 700 CFS
Gilkes-Vertical Frances Turbine
Transmission Line: 1 mile
Location: Liberty County, Montana
Construction Cost: $7,000,000
16. Marsh Valley Hydroelectric C
Commissioned 1993
Capacity: 1.9MW
Head: 100'
Penstock: 600'of 60"diameter steel
Flow: 250 CFS
Two Frances Turbines connected to
Single Generator
Transmission Line: 3 miles
Location: Bannock County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,800,000
17. Oregon North Fork Sprague River
Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity: 1.2MW
Head: 185'
Penstock:5,700' of 51"diameter steel
through rough mountain canyon terrain
Flow: 100 CFS
Bouvier-Twin Frances Turbines mounted
on Single Generator, Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear,6 miles of 14KV transmission
Location: Near Klamath Falls,Oregon
Construction Cost: $1,400,000
18. Schaffner Ranch Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1986
Capacity:0.4MW
Head: 1,230'
Penstock: 11,000' of 18" diameter steel
Flow: 5 CFS
Gilkes-Pelton Turbine, Induction Generator
Utility Grade Switchgear, 2.5 miles 46KV transmission
Location: Lemhi County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $1,600,000

19. Birch Creek Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1986
Capacity: 2.7MW
Head: 517'
Penstock: 22,000' of 51" diameter steel
Canal: 12 miles trapezoidal
Flow: 75 CFS
Gilkes-Twin Jet Turgo Turbine(1986)
-Pelton Wheel (re-powered in 2007)
Utility Grade Switchgear
Location: Clark County, Idaho
Construction Cost: $3,200,000
low—
T
WON NR•E! '..
1
icy � •

TED SORENSON- OWNED/LEASED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS, NOT
DESIGNED BY SORENSON ENGINEERING
1. Salmon Creek Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity:520 KW
Head: 500'
Flow:20 cfs
Turgo Wheel with Synchronous Generator
Location: Near Sierra City,CA
2. Upper Tule Hydroelectric
Re-sync 2025
Capacity: 6.4 MW
Head: 1,544'
Flow:66 cfs
Dual horizontal impulse turbines and generators
Location: Near Springville, CA
3. Barber Dam Hydroelectric
Recommissioned 1989
Capacity: 3.7 MW
Head: 21'
Flow:2,000 cfs
Twin Voith S-Turbines
Location:Ada County, ID
4. Kern Hydroelectric
Re-sync 2021 (Originally Commissioned 1921)
Capacity: 11.5 MW
Head: 264'
Flow: 622 cfs
Allis Chalmers vertical Francis turbine
Location: Kern River, near Bakersfield,CA
5. Lower Haypress Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity: 5 MW
Head:450'
Flow: 159 cfs
5 nozzle Pelton turbine
Location:Sierra County, CA

6. Upper/Middle Haypress Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity: 5MW
Head: 550'
Flow: 130 cfs
5 nozzle Pelton Turbine
Location:Sierra County, CA
7. Dry Creek Hydroelectric
Commissioned 2000
Capacity: 3.4MW
Head: 1,220'
Flow: 55 CFS
Gilkes-
Penstock: 60,000' of 42" diameter steel
Pigged the uncoated penstock to improve head loss
Location: Near Howe, Idaho
8. Mile 28 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1993
Capacity: 2.4MW
Head: 18'
Flow: 1,400 CFS
Single regulated Kaplan,Synchronous Generator
Location:Jerome County, Idaho
9. Dietrich Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1988
Capacity: 5.05MW
Head: 18'
10. Black Canyon No.3 Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1984
Capacity: 150KW
Head: 100'
Flow: 20CFS
Byron Jackson Reverse Pump
Location: Gooding County, Idaho
11. Magic Reservoir Hydroelectric
Commissioned 1989
Capacity:9MW
Head: 120'
Flow: 1500 cfs
Three Horizontal Frances Turbines
Location: near Jerome, Idaho

BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO.
IDAHO HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCERS TRUST
d/b/a IDAHYDRO
SORENSON, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT B

Sorenson Hydro Projects-Schedule 72 Fees as of July 2025
Total Annual
Project Monthly Charge Charge Capacity(MW) COD Utility
Barber $605 $7,265 3.70 1989 Idaho Power
Black Canyon $448 $5,380 0.10 1984? Idaho Power
Dietrich $1,496 $17,951 5.05 1988 Idaho Power
Jim Knight $185 $2,217 0.48 2021 Idaho Power
Lemhi $667 $8,004 0.45 1986 Idaho Power
Magic $867 $10,399 9.00 1989 Idaho Power
MC6 $1,349 $16,192 2.10 2021 Idaho Power
Mile 28 $972 $11,667 1.50 1994 Idaho Power
NGM $931 $11,178 1.20 2016 Idaho Power
Sagebrush $190 $2,279 0.58 2021 Idaho Power
Total Idaho Power $7,711 $92,531
Average Per Project $771 $9,253
PacifiCorp only charges our Sprague Hydro project in Oregon a Schedule 72 fee.

eSignature Details
Signer ID: bxEsM7N9tfHuMDss9fpm5wEu
Signed by: Ted Sorenson
Sent to email: [e-mail]
IP Address: 97.117.68.126
Signed at: May 13 2026,4:29 pm MDT