200311141st Response of Hewlett Packard to Idaho Power.pdf

Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY PLLC
99 East State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter~ri chardsonando I eary. com
Attorneys for Kimball Properties Limited Partnership
RECEIVED II)FILED
2003 tiDV 12 AM 9: 23
10/" PUBLIC
UTILITIES Cm1~lISSIOt1
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Kimball Properties Limited Partnership, and
Hewlett Packard Company,
Complainants
vs.
Idaho Power Company, an Idaho Corporation
CASE NO. IPC-00-
RESPONSE OF
HEWLETI - PACKARD
COMPANY TO THE FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF THE
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
The following answers were prepared by Mr. Pike Teinert in consultation with legal
counsel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please provide the basis for the assertion of Stuart AT. Trippel ("Trippel") on page 4, 11
10-, of his testimjony in this section in which Trippel testifies that "HP was. . . unfairly
singled out to partially pay for the construction of a new substation know (sic) as the Bethel
Court Substation.
1 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I:
Idaho Power does not charge to provide service to Schedule 19 customers for additional
facilities not provided under Rule H when, in its opinion, there are existing facilities of adequate
capacity to serve new Schedule 19 customers. In this instance Idaho Power asserted that there
was not delivery capacity available to serve the HP load and that the least cost alternative to serve
HP was the construction of the Bethel Court Substation. Had HP chosen to locate in a different
part of Idaho Power s service territory where delivery and substation capacity was available, it
would not have been charged for substation upgrades. Hence, HP was unfairly singled out to pay
for a portion of the Bethel Court Substation.
INTERROGATORY NO 2:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's assertions on Page 4, II 22-, of his testimony in
this action that Idaho Power allegedly has not consistently applied its policy of recovering the
pro-rata costs for the construction of substation and transmission lines form industrial customers.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Not all Schedule 19 customers in similar situations are treated similarly. Please refer to
Hewlett Packard's request for production relating to the WestFarm Foods facility in Jerome
Idaho.
INTERROGATORY NO 3:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's conclusion on page 5, 1118-, of his testimony in
this action that "Idaho Power determined that it was necessary to construct a new substation to
provide electric service to HP.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
Please refer to Idaho Power s answer to Hewlett-Packard's Interrogatory No.
2 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
INTERROGATORY NO 4:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's conclusion on page 5, II 20-, of his testimony in
this action that it was necessary for Idaho Power Copany to construct a new substation to "serve
future loads in the area.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
See the answer to Interrogatory No.
INTERROGATORY NO 5:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's conclusion on page 5 L21, of his testimony in this
action that it was necessary for Idaho Power to construct a new substation "to readjust some
existing loads.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
See deposition of Kip Sikes at page 74 beginning on line 15 through 22.
INTERROGATORY NO 6:
Please describe the basis for Trippel's statement on page 6, L9-, of his testimony in this action
that construction of the substation was the best solution to providing power to the area.
(Emphasis added.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Please see Kip Sikes' deposition page 5, LI5-23.
INTERROGATORY NO 7:
Please identify the alternative to what Trippel identifies as a "time-clustered pattern" of
constructing substations as referenced on page 8, L 20, of his testimony in this action.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
3 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
The identification of a "time-clustered pattern" is a factual observation. Alternatives to
clustered construction activities were not explored by Hewlett-Packard's witness.
INTERROGATORY NO 8:
Please further describe what is meant by "an excessive cost to the load that comes on-line
nearest the time of construction" on page 10, 1120-22 of Trippel's testimony in this action.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
Hewlett-Packard is paying what are commonly known as fully loaded rates, that is
embedded in HP's retail rates are Idaho Power s costs of generation, transmission and
distribution of electric power and energy. By specifically charging HP the cost of constructing
the substation used to serve it, Idaho Power is collecting excessive rates from HP because Idaho
Power s substations are already being recovered in its retail rates. Although it is true that the
Bethel Court Substation was constructed between general rate cases, the principle remains valid.
It is also excessive compared to the zero dollars paid by other customers after a Bethel Court
Substation or other substation is built from which they are served.
INTERROGATORY NO 9:
Please describe the characteristics of a "uniform system based upon objective cost
allocation criteria" as identified on page 10 1124-, of Trippel's testimony in this action by
which Trippel asserts Idaho Power Company allocated costs.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
A "uniform system" is one in which all inputs and outputs are equitable and consistent.
Therefore a uniform system of cost allocation criteria for substation construction costs would be
one in which all customers utilizing substations would be required to pay for that utilization on a
consistent and equitable basis.
4 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
An "objective cost allocation criteria" is one in which costs are allocated on an unbiased
and nondiscriminatory manner. Therefore, an objective cost allocation criterion would allocate
costs based on a nondiscriminatory unbiased basis that, in the end, would charge all similarly
situated customers similar costs.
INTERROGATORY NO 10:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's assertions on page 11 , 1113-, in his testimony in
this action that customer reimbursement for substation construction based upon "timing" is an
inherently arbitrary policy.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
It is inherently arbitrary because ifHP had not requested service in the Bethel Court
substation area, the next Schedule 19 customer that chose to take service in the Bethel Court area
would have had to pay a CIAC (contribution in aid of construction) for the construction of the
Bethel Court substation. That is arbitrary.
INTERROGATORY NO 11:
Please further describe the "accident of timing" referred to by Trippel on page 12 114-
of his testimony in this action.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Please refer to Response to Interrogatory No.1 O.
INTERROGATORY NO 12:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's assertions on page 16, 11 16-17 of his testimony in
this action that "HP is a minor player in creating the need for additional electrical capacity in the
area. (sic)
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
5 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Please refer to Exhibit No.9 in Trippel's testimony.
INTERROGATORY NO 13:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's assertions on page 17 , 1119-21 of his testimony in
this action that "HP is subsidizing other ratepayers by paying for a portion of a substation used to
support Idaho Power s overall system.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Please see response to Interrogatory No.
INTERROGATORY NO 14:
Please provide the basis for Trippel's assertions on page 187, 1120-, that Idaho Power
Company s alleged "decision to assess the first customer and not any subsequent customer has no
relationship to cost causation.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
All customers that take serviced from a substation like Bethel Court benefit from more
reliable and higher quality service. The selection of HP to pay and not other customers being
served from the new facilities in Bethel Court substation and benefiting from improved service
then or in the future has no relationship to coast causation.
INTERROGATORY NO 15:
Please identify any instance(s) to the Complainant's knowledge in which Idaho Power
Company failed to request a contribution in aid of construction from an industrial customer for a
new substation built to meet the loads of that customer when inadequate capacity existed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Any schedule 19 customer who has to negotiate special arrangements who hasn t been
requested to pay.
6 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents the Complainants relied upon in preparing their response to
Interrogatory No.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please refer to the attachment to Idaho Power s response to Hewlett-Packard's Request
for Production No.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents Trippel relied upon in concluding on page 5, 1118-, of his
testimony in this action that "Idaho Power determined that it was necessary to construct a new
substation to provide electric service to HP.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please refer to the attachment to Idaho Power s response to Hewlett-Packard's Request
for Production No.3. Please refer to Kip Sikes' deposition Page 5 , L15-23 and page 74, LI5-22.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents the Complainants relied upon in preparing their response to
Interrogatory No.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please refer to the attachment to Idaho Power s response to Hewlett-Packard's Request
for Production No.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents Trippel relied upon in concluding on page 5, 1120-, of his
testimony in this action that it was necessary for Idaho Power to construct a new substation to
serve future loads in the area.
7 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO .4:
Please refer to the attachment to Idaho Power s response to Hewlett-Packard's Request
for Production No.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents the Complainants relied upon in preparing their response to
Interrogatory No.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
See deposition of Kip Sikes at pages 5 and page 74 beginning on line 15 through 22.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce documents Trippel relied upon in concluding on page 5, L 21 , of his
testimony in this action that it was necessary for Idaho Power to construct a new substation "
readjust some existing loads.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please refer to the attachment to Idaho Power s response to Hewlett-Packard's Request
for Production No.3. Please refer to Kip Sikes ' deposition Page 5 , Ll5-23 and page 74, LI5-22.
1:'/
DATED this
( 0 day of November 2003.
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY PLLC
B~
Peter J. Richardson, ISB #3195
Attorneys for Kimball Properties
Limited Partnership and Hewlett
Packard
8 - HP'S ANSWER TO IPCo FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 10, 2003, I served a true and correct copy of the within
and foregoing RESPONSE OF HEWLETI -ACI(ARD COMPANY TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF THE IDAHO POWER
COMPANY upon the following named individuals in the manner shown:
Barton L. Kline
Monica Moen
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, ID 83707
First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid
Scott Woodbury, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POBox 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid
Brian Graham
Hewlett Packard Company LIS
11311 Chinden Blvd., MS 782
Boise, Idaho 83714-1021
First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid
cW\ Ih.s
Administrative Assistant
Certificate of Service