20060828IPC to Staff 1-5.pdf

IDAHO POWER COMPANY
O. BOX 70
BOISE, IDAHO B3707
RECEIVED BARTON L KLINE
Senior Attorney
An IDACORP Company 2006 AUG 25 PM 4: r.3
IDAHO PU8L1C;
August 25 , 20&lILlTIES COMMISSION
HAND DELIVERED
Jean D. Jewell , Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , Idaho 83720-0074
Re:Case No. IPC-06-
Petition For Modification of Load Growth Adjustment
Rate Within the Power Cost Adjustment Methodology
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Pleas~ find enclosed for filing an original and two (2) copies of Idaho Power
Company s Response to the First Production Request of Commission Staff regarding
the above-referenced matter.
I would appreciate it if you would return a stamped copy of this transmittal letter
to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Very truly yours
(J;JJtL-:-
Barton L. Kline
BLK:sh
Enclosures
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone], E-mail BKlinerwidahopower.com
RECEIVED
2006 AUG 25 PH 4: r.4
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
LISA D. NORDSTROM ISB #5733
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
bkline (g) idahopower.com
Inordstrom (g) idahopower.com
ID/\HO PUBLIC'.
UTILITiES COMMISSION
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Express Mail Address
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE LOAD
GROWTH ADJUSTMENT RATE WITHIN THE POWER COST
ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY
CASE NO. IPC-06-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "the Company ) and, in
response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff to Idaho Power
Company dated August 4 2006 , herewith submits the following information:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please provide the calculation of the $6.81/MWh contained in Mr. Said's testimony
on page 3, line 21. Include workpapers that show the development of the numerator and
denominator used in the calculation. If the power supply model run that produces these
numbers has been previously presented to the Commission identify the run. If it has not
been previously presented to the commission , please provide the electronic input files in
Aurora readable format and the electronic output files for all years along with a summary
of the results in excel format.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
The calculation of the $6.81/MWh contained in Mr. Said's testimony on page 3
line 21 is described in Mr. Said's testimony on page 13 lines 13 through 18. The
numerator, $100 916,495 is the sum of $46,284 338 in 2005 test year non-QF expenses
and $54 632 157 in 2005 test year QF expenses. Please see the Company s responses
to ICIP Requests for Production No.9 and No.1 O. The denominator, 14 819 152 MWh ,
represents the 2005 test year system load contained on page 1 Mr. Said's Exhibit No. 22
in Case No. IPC-05-28, a copy of which is attached hereto.
The response to this request was prepared by Gregory W. Said , Manager of
Revenue Requirement, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Barton L. Kline
Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please provide the same information for the $7.30/MWh number presented in Mr.
Said's direct testimony in Case No. IPC-03-13, on page 26, line 4.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
In the IPC-03-13 rate case, Mr. Said quantified the PCA base rate of 0.7315
cents per kilowatt hour by dividing $94.1 million of PCA expenses by 12 863,484 MWh of
2003 normalized system sales. Mr. Said's direct testimony in Case No. IPC-03-
quantifies PCA expenses as the sum of 2003 test year non-QF expenses at $47.7 million
and 2003 test year QF expenses at $46.4 million for a total numerator of $94.1 million.
The $7.30/MWh number appears to be a rounded equivalent to the 0.7315 cents per
kilowatt hour. A copy of Mr. Said's direct testimony in Case No. IPC-03-13 is attached
hereto.
The response to this request was prepared by Gregory W. Said , Manager of
Revenue Requirement, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Barton L. Kline
Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Were the two numbers referenced in requests 1 and 2 (6.81 and 7.30) calculated
using the same methodology? If they were not, what is the difference in methodology
and why is the methodology different?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Mr. Said's computation of $7.30/ MWh in Case No. IPC-93-13 was primarily
used to determine the PCA base rate which appropriately has a sales denominator.
Secondarily, Mr. Said proposed a load growth adjustment rate equal to the PCA base
rate. Since the completion of Case No. IPC-93-13 and upon further review of the load
growth adjustment issue, Mr. Said recognizes that the load growth adjustment factor is
applied to load growth, not sales growth, and therefore has moved to a load based
denominator for his recommendation.
The response to this request was prepared by Gregory W. Said , Manager of
Revenue Requirement, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Barton L. Kline
Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 4
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please provide the output summary for an Aurora power supply model run that is
identical to the Aurora power supply model run presented in the Company s most recent
general rate case, Case No. IPC-05-28, except that the normalized load is increased by
10 Wma in each hour of the test year. Please provide the output summary in the format
of page 1 of Exhibit No. 20 in the referenced case.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
The requested information is attached hereto.
The response to this request was prepared by Gregory W. Said , Manager of
Revenue Requirement, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Barton L. Kline
Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please provide the same information for a 10 MWa increment in load of the power
supply model run presented by the Company in the IPC-03-13 general rate case.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Providing the information requested would be difficult and burdensome for Idaho
Power. The version of the model Idaho Power used to create the supply model run has
been superseded by an updated version of the model. Replicating the older version
would be burdensome. Idaho Power has discussed this problem with Commission Staff
and Commission Staff has agreed that it is not necessary for Idaho Power to provide the
requested information.
The response to this request was prepared by Gregory W. Said , Manager of
Revenue Requirement , Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Barton L. Kline
Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
DATED this 25th day of August, 2006 , at Boise , Idaho.
BARTON L. KLINE
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th th day of August , 2006, I served a true and
correct copy of the within and foregoing upon the following named parties by the
method indicated below , and addressed to the following:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Post Office Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
(X) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
(X) Email Scott.woodburv(g)puc.idaho.qov
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
515 N. 2ih Street
Boise , Idaho 83702
(X) U.S. Mail , Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile [phone]
(X) Email peter(g) richardsonandoleary.com
William M. Eddie
Advocates for the West
O. Box 1612
Boise , Idaho 83701
(X) U.S. Mail , Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
(X) Email billeddie(g) rmcLnet
Nancy Hirsh
NW Energy Coalition
219 First Ave South, Suite 100
Seattle , Washington 98104
(X) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
( ) Email
Lawrence A. Gollomp
Assistant General Counsel
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington , DC 20585
(X) U.S. Mail , Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
(X) Email Lawrence.qollomp(g) hQ.doe.qov
Dale Swan
Exeter Associates, Inc.
5565 Sterret Place , Suite 310
Columbia, MD 21044
(X) U.S. Mail , Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
(X) Email dswan (g) exeterassociates.com
Dr. Don Reading
Ben Johnson Associates
6070 Gill Road
Boise, Idaho 83703
(X) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
) Hand Delivered
) Facsimile
(X) Email dreading (g) mindspring.com
(JA--JJ
Barton L. Kline
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF - Page 7
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O6-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.
" -
COMPUTATION OF
PCA FACTORS
1993 test year 2003 test year 2005 test year 2005 test year
+ Cloud Seeding
$73 079 128 $94 101,100 $106 607 357 $105 904 180
$48,039,000 $47 688 100 $51 975 200 $51 975 200
$34 114 160 $46,413 000 $54,632 157 $54 632 157
$9,074,032 nfa
nfa nfa 004 538 Idaho Cloud Seeding
nfa nfa 707 715 607 616.
$73,079,128 $94,101 100 $106 607 357 $105,904 180
Normalized PCA expense computation
Normalized PCA expenses
Normalized Power Supply expenses
Normalized CSPP
FMC revenues
Cloud Seeding expenses
Cloud Seeding revenues
Net
Normalized Base PCA rate computation
Normalized System Firm Load
Normalized System Firm Sales
Normalized Base PCA rate (centsIkWh)
Idaho Jurisdictional Percentage computation
Normalized System Firm Load
Idaho Jurisdictional Firm Load
Idaho Jurisdictional Percentage
Expense Adjustment Rate for Growth
Valmy Fuel Rate
Boardman Fuel Rate
Average
952 283 MWh
863,484 MWh 13,497 550 MWh
5238 7315 7898
952 283 MWh 107 573 MWh 14,819 152MWh
781 660 MWh 275,009 MWh 13,950,521 MWh
84.4%94.94.
20.14.
12.13.
16.13.
13,497 550 MWh
7846
14,819,152 MWh
950 521 MWh
94.
EXHIBIT NO. 22
CASE NO. IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPC
PAGE 1 OF 1
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O6-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 2
'----
The 2003 test year normalized QF expenses of
$46.4 million are $12.1 million greater than the $34.
However, themillion 1993 test year normalized QF expenses.
$46.4 million value is $1.2 million less than the value used
in the current PCA proj ection formula.
What is the base level of PCA expenses for
test year 2003?
As I stated earlier in my testimony, the base
level of PCA expenses is the sum of the normalized power
In thi s case,supply expenses and normalized QF expenses.
normalized power supply expenses amount to $47.7 million and
normalized QF expenses amount to $46.4 million.The SUfi,
$94.1 million, represents the new base PCA expense level.
exhibit that shows the derivation of the appropriate new PCA
Have you directed the preparation of an
regression formula to be used for proj ecting the next year
PCA expenses?
to show the derivation of the. new PCA regression formula.
Yes, I directed the preparation of EXhibit 35
the page.
from 1 75.
please describe Exhibit 35.
EXhibit 35 consists of six columns at the top
Column one shows the number of the observation
Column 2 contains the PCA year corresponding
to each observation; observation 1 is 1928, observation 2 is
1929, and so on through observation 75, which is 2002.
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
The first computation recaps the normalized
PCA computation that I have discussed thoroughly in my
The new normalized PCA expenses for 2003 testtestimony.
year amount to $94.1 million compared to the previous $73.
million value for the 1993 test year.
Please discuss the normalized Base PCA rate
computation contained in Exhibit 36.
First, I would point out that in my opinion,
the normalized Base PCA rate has been improperly determined
While expenses are incurred based upon loads,in the past.
they are recovered based upon sales.Historically, the
normalized Base PCA rate of 0.5238 was determined by
dividing the $73.1 million of normalized PCA expenses by the
normalized system firm load value.My recommendation for
the current computation of the normalized Base PCA rate is
that the $94.1 million normalized PCA expenses be divided by
the normalized system sales value of 12,863,484 MWh.The
resulting PCA base rate is 0.7315 cents per kWh.
Was a similar load/sales error previously
corrected by the Commission?
Yes, PCA true-up rate computations were
originally based upon Idaho jurisdictional firm loads rather
than Idaho jurisdictional firm sales levels.In 1996, the
Commission corrected that error in Order No. 26455.
Please discuss the Idaho jurisdictional
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O6-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 4
IP
C
O

P
O
W
E
R

S
U
P
P
L
Y

CO
S
T
S

FO
R

2
0
0
5

N
O
R
M
A
L
I
Z
E
D

L
O
A
D
S

O
V
E
R

7
8

W
A
T
E
R

Y
E
A
R

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
AV
E
R
A
G
E
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
Ma
r
c
h
8J
I
D
!
Ju
n
e
J!
!
!
y
Au
a
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
An
n
u
a
l
Hy
d
r
o
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
h
)
72
8
59
1
.
83
5
32
2
.
85
7
63
8
.
86
1
20
1
.
84
9
61
2
.
2
83
8
73
0
.
71
8
56
9
.
67
9
71
1
.
57
0
18
0
.
53
0
,
84
7
.
3
-
49
0
75
8
.
4
72
3
22
2
.
68
4
,
38
4
.
Br
i
d
g
e
r
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
45
1
75
9
.
39
5
74
1
.
4
45
2
51
6
.
32
4
34
4
.
32
8
93
7
.
34
5
,
4
7
1
.
45
3
,
4
2
5
.
45
4
45
0
.
4
43
8
52
1
.
45
4
,
58
2
.
43
9
93
4
.
45
4
63
2
.
99
4
31
6
.
Co
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
65
5
.
95
4
.
66
5
.
06
0
.
11
8
.
0
32
4
.
67
6
.
4
68
9
.
5,
4
8
9
.
69
0
.
50
7
.
69
1
.
52
3
.
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
95
4
.
28
4
.
27
6
.
53
3
.
33
6
.
40
,
35
6
.
07
4
.
59
2
.
07
7
.
71
3
.
09
6
.
43
2
29
5
.
Co
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
51
6
.
44
5
.
4
52
1
.
48
6
.
4
35
7
.
50
9
.
4
53
1
.
51
2
.
53
1
.
51
3
.
53
1
.
5,4
5
6
.
4
Va
l
m
y
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
16
1
36
3
.
13
3
,
68
6
.
16
4
09
4
.
11
9
73
0
.
4
10
9
06
0
.
13
8
,
53
2
.
16
6
,
4
7
5
.
16
8
,
30
6
.
16
1
34
0
.
4
17
0
,
4
5
7
.
16
0
97
0
.
4
17
0
05
2
.
82
4
07
0
.
Co
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
66
4
.
20
7
.
71
0
.
97
7
.
80
1
.
28
7
.
74
9
.
77
9
.
66
4
.
81
5
.
65
8
.
4
80
8
.
4
12
3
.
Da
n
s
k
i
n
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
47
.
6.4
94
5
.
62
5
.
99
1
.
60
7
.
93
.
4
31
6
.
Co
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
0.4
62
.
10
4
.
58
.
32
.
26
5
.
Fix
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

C
h
a
r
g
e

-

G
a
s

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
24
1
.
22
8
.
24
1
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
24
1
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
86
1
.
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
24
4
.
22
8
.
24
1
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
29
7
.
4
34
6
.
4
29
9
.
26
7
.
24
6
.
23
5
.
24
1
.
12
6
.
Be
n
n
e
t
t

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
30
5
.
28
2
.
16
5
.
20
.
09
1
.
02
7
.
4
08
1
.
45
4
.
62
1
.
18
5
.
42
.
36
,
28
9
.
Co
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
16
.
15
.
17
9
.
67
5
.
41
3
.
34
8
.
22
1
.
89
2
.
4
Fix
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

C
h
a
r
g
e

-

G
a
s

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
16
.
15
.
17
9
.
67
5
.
41
3
.
34
8
.
2
22
1
.
89
2
.
4
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d

P
o
w
e
r

(
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

C
S
P
P
)
Ma
r
k
e
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
30
1
.
81
3
.
58
4
.
13
2
.
09
4
.
52
1
.
62
1
.
46
,
18
2
.
05
3
.
4
48
9
.
27
0
.
92
0
.
39
0
98
4
.
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
40
0
.
33
,
4
8
0
.
33
,
4
8
0
.
36
0
.
To
t
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
x
c
l
.

C
S
P
P

(
M
W
h
)
30
1
.
81
3
.
58
4
.
13
2
.
09
4
.
11
8
92
1
.
13
2
10
1
.
66
2
.
05
3
.
4
48
9
.
27
0
.
92
0
.
49
0
34
4
.
Ma
r
k
e
t

C
o
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
66
0
.
68
.
28
.
22
3
.
43
9
.
58
0
.
53
3
.
31
2
.
18
7
.
25
.
32
3
.
1,
4
2
7
.
81
0
.
4
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t

C
o
s
t

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
44
1
.
1,4
8
9
.
1,4
8
9
.
4,4
2
1
.
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

E
x
c
l
.

C
S
P
P

(

$

x

1
0
0
0
)
66
0
.
68
.
28
.
3
22
3
.
43
9
.
02
2
.
02
3
.
80
2
.
4
18
7
.
25
.
32
3
.
1,4
2
7
.
23
1
.
Su
r
p
l
u
s

S
a
l
e
s
En
e
r
g
y

(
M
W
h
)
18
0
29
9
.
4
35
6
,
13
3
.
48
2
37
9
.
34
8
23
3
.
20
1
81
6
.
18
4
52
9
.
12
1
.
30
9
.
14
3
56
8
.
20
0
,
80
4
.
10
3
,
89
6
.
19
4
53
4
.
51
1
62
5
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e

I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
59
4
.
77
8
.
32
2
.
10
,
01
8
.
88
4
.
03
3
.
97
3
.
4
86
7
.
55
4
.
04
3
.
40
9
.
83
1
.
77
,
31
2
.
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
18
0
.
35
6
.
48
2
.
4
34
8
.
20
1
.
18
4
.
63
.
52
.
14
3
.
20
0
.
10
3
.
19
4
.
51
1
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e

E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
5,
4
1
4
.
9,4
2
2
.
14
,
84
0
.
4
67
0
.
68
2
.
84
9
.
91
0
.
81
4
.
4,
4
1
1
.
84
2
.
30
5
.
63
7
.
80
0
.
Ne
t

P
o
w
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

C
o
s
t
s

(
$

x

1
0
0
0
)
34
4
.
4
50
2
.
3)

$
66
5
.
4
)

$
68
8
.
2)

$
91
8
.
62
0
.
07
0
.
70
0
.
05
8
.
4
68
8
.
94
2
.
06
6
.
55
4
.
IP
C

O
u
t
p
u
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
s

2
0
0
5

R
a
t
e

C
a
s
e

I
P
U
C

D
R

P
L
U
S

1
0

M
W
x
l
s