20111114ICIP to Idaho Power 1-15.pdf

Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
Gregory M. Adams ISB # 7454
RICHASON & O'LEARY PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter(ßchardsonandolear.com
gre g(ßchardsonandolear. com
RCCCI\í!::n\1- 1_1.. è,.\d
2011 Nmi I 4 P~112: I 5
. ..'",
I',....;
Attorneys for the Industal Customers of Idao Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) CASE NO. IPC-E-ll-08
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO ) INDUSTRAL CUSTOMERS OF
INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHAGES ) IDAHO POWER'S RESPONSES TO
FOR ELECTRC SERVICE TO ITS ) THE FIRST PRODUCTION
CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO ) REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
Pursuat to Rule 225.03 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilties
Commssion (the "Commssion"), the Industral Customers of Idaho Power ("ICIP") hereby :fles
its Responses to the First Production Request of Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or the
"Company").
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: Please provide the naes of the members of the
ICIP.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1
The followig Companes are members of the ICIP:
Ash Grove Cement Company; Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC; Basic American Foods,
Inc.; CTI Foods, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard, Inc.; Crookh Company; LambWeston (a division of
ConAgra Foods, Inc.) - American Falls; LambWeston (division ofConAgra Foods, Inc.) - Twin
Falls; J.R. Simplot Company; and Glanbia Foods, Inc.
This response was prepared by Peter J. Richardson.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC- E-II-08
PAGE 2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: Of the ICIP members listed in response to Request
for Production No.1, please list the ICIP members that are among the paries that are actively
parcipatig in Case No. IPC-E-II-08.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2
ICIP provided the followig response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.2 on the grounds of relevance. The inormation requested is not
likely to lead to information that will make any material factu issue more or less likely
regarding whether the facilties charge is fai, just and reasonable.
ICIP also objects on the ground that Request No.2 is vague because it does not defie "actively
parcipating. "
ICIP also objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Communcations between ICIP
members and ICIP's attorneys in formulatig a position and fiings in Idaho Power's general rate
case are privileged. Request No.2 asks for privileged communcations.
Finally, the ICIP objects pursuat to Rule 225(b) of the IPUC Rules of Procedure which provides
that "Production requests or wrtten interrogatories should not be used to obtan statements of
opinon or policy not previously wrtten or published." The ICIP has no wrtten statement of
policy or opinion as to which of its members are actively parcipatig in Case No. IPC-E-II-08.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Of the ICIP members listed in response to Request
for Production No.1, please provide a list ofICIP members that are curently paying a facilties
charge to Idao Power.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3
ICIP provided the followig response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.3 on the grounds of relevance. The information requested is not
likely to lead to information that will make any material factu issue more or less likely
regardig whether the facilties chage is fai, just and reasonable.
ICIP also objects on the ground that Request No.3 is burdensome. Idao Power possesses the
inormation requested, and requirig ICIP to compile such data in a request for production is
burdensome.
Finally, the ICIP objects because no such list exists as it is not previously wrtten or published
pursuat to Rule 225(a).
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 4
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Of the ICIP members listed in response to Request
for Production No.1, please list which members support the modi:fcation to the curent
Commssion-approved facilties charge methodology.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.4 on the grounds of relevance. The information requested is not
likely to lead to information that will make any material factu issue more or less likely
regarding whether the facilties charge is fair, just and reasonable.
ICIP also objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Communcations between ICIP
members and ICIP's attorneys in formulating a position and :flings in Idaho Power's general rate
case are privileged. Request No.4 asks for privileged communcations regarding which
members do or do not support a parcular position.
Finally, the ICIP objects because no such list has been compiled and it is not previously wrttn
or published pursuant to Rule 225(a).
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: Of the ICIP members listed in response to Request
for Production No.1, please list which members would age to purchae facilties owned by
Idaho Power that are curently subject to the facilties chage if Idao Power ageed to sell those
facilties but if Idao Power did not offer to maita those facilties.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.5 on the grounds of relevance. The information requested is not
likely to lead to information that will make any material factual issue more or less likely
regarding whether the facilties charge is fai, just and reasonable.
ICIP also objects on the ground that Request No.5 is vague because it does not describe the
terms under which the sale would tae place. Even if it were requied to do so, there is no way
for ICIP to compile the requested inormtion without describing for ICIP members the terms of
the sale, e.g., at fair market value, depreciated book value per individua piece of equipment,
whether there will be a credit to customers who have been paying for fully depreciated
equipment, etc.
ICIP also objects on the grounds that the requested information does not exist and hence canot
be produced. See Rule 225(a)
ICIP also objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Communcations between ICIP
members and ICIP's attorneys in formulating a position and fiings in Idaho Power's general rate
case are privileged. To the extent Request No.5 asks for privileged communcations regarding
which members would elect to purchase equipment if given the option, ICIP objects.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 6
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: Please describe the ICIP's decision makng process
generally in proceedings before the Commssion, and in parcular, ICIP's decision makng
process among the members actively involved in Case No. IPC-E-II-08.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.6 on the grounds of relevance. The information requested is not
likely to lead to inormation that will make any material factual issue more or less likely
regardig whether the facilties charge is fair, just and reasonable.
ICIP also objects on the ground that Request No.6 is vague because it does not de:fne "decision
makng process among members actively involved in Case No. IPC-E-II-08."
ICIP also objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Communcations between ICIP
members and ICIP's attorneys in formulatig a position and fiings in Idaho Power's general rate
case are privileged. Request No.5 asks for privileged communcations.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 7
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:
(a) Please describe whether J.R. Simplot ("Simplot") has removed Idao Power-owned
equipment from any Simplot location and replaced those facilties with Simplot-owned
equipment.
(b) If the response to Request for Production No. 7(a) is yes, please list the date, piece of
equipment, and Simplot location for each piece of equipment removed by Simplot.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7
(a) Curent J.R. Simplot Company maagement is not aware of any recent removals of Idao
Power-owned equipment from any Simplot location and replacement with Simplot-owned
equipment.
(b) Please see the Response to Request 7(a).
Ths response was prepared by Don Stuevant, Corporate Energy Manager for the J.R. Simplot
Company, in consultation with Gregory Adams, attorney for the ICIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC- E-II-08
PAGE 8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: Please describe your understadig of how a change
to the curent Commssion-approved facilties charge methodology or a change in propert
ownership of facilties subject to the facilties charge would impact Idao Power's tota revenue
requirement per paragraph 11 of the Stipulation signed by ICIP and submitted to the Commssion
in Case No. IPC-E-II-08.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8
ICIP recommends that the Company assign ownership to customers who have paid 2.5 times the
original value of their facilties charge equipment, and offer to sell to remaining customers at the
remaig book value of the equipment. Reference Direct Testimony of Dr. Don Readig, page
26, fied October 7, 2011. ICIP does not agree that either scenaro would warant raising any
other customers' rates.
For sales at remaining book value, Reference Direct Testimony of Dr. Don Reading, page 22,
fied October 7, 2011. The revenue to the Company from the sale should be credited back to
reduce the revenue requirement. A sale would fuer decrease the revenue requirement because
the sold facilties would be removed from the rate base, as well as all associated expenses for
taxes, insurance, operation, maintenance, adstrative, general, and workig capita. Even if
the Commssion found Idaho Power's maagement of the facilties charge prudent, no increase
in revenue requiement will occur uness Idao Power makes a sale to customers from whom, in
the aggregate, Idaho Power expected to collect facilties charge revenue in ths year that exceeds
the sum of double the remaining book value of the sold equipment, and the anua authorized
recovery for taxes, insurance, operation, maitenance, admnistrative, general, and working
capita.
Ths response was prepared by Dr. Don Reading, in consultation with Gregory Adas, attorney
for the ICIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 9
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: Please descrbe your understadig of whether
paragraph 11 of the Stipulation submitted in Case No. IPC-E-II-08 would requi an increase to
the rates and/or a diect charge to other Schedule 19 customers if Idaho Power were to
experience a revenue loss in the event it reduced the amount of the facilties charge for Simplot
and/or relinquished ownership to Simplot ofIdaho Power owned facilties that were subject to
the facilties charge.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No.9 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Without
providing a legal interpretation of the stipulation, ICIP is unble to respond and therefore objects.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please describe how ICIP envisions
implementation of its proposed changes to Idaho Power's facilties charge provisions.
Speci:fcally address ownership of facilties, the monthy facilties charge rates, and any
varations between plant locations/equipment/rate classes, replacement of failed equipment,
customer-requested instalation of new or additional equipment, and operation and maitenance
responsibilties. Please produce any and all work papers supportg ths implementation plan.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
ICIP provided the followig response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No. 10 to the extent that it calls for ICIP to conduct new analysis not
already conducted, or included in its testimony. ICIP will respond to Request No. 10 on due date
to the extent it is able without producing new work papers or analysis, without waiving ths
objection.
Without waiving its objections, ICIP responds as follows:
Please see pages 26-30 of Dr. Reading's Direct Testmony fied October 7, 2011, and the
attched excel fies. The testmony includes ICIP's recommendations to make the facilties
charge fair to customers, but ICIP does not possess an "implementation plan" for Idaho Power.
However, it should be noted that Avista Utilities developed an implementation plan without
assistace oflCIP or other thrd pares when J.R. Simplot Company approached Avista with the
same concerns. Reference Direct Testimony of Don Stuevant, page 9, fied October 7, 2011.
Ths response was prepared by Dr. Don Readng and Don Stuevant, Corporate Energy Manager
for the J.R. Simplot Company, in consultation with Gregory Adams, attorney for the ICIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please describe in detal how ICIP proposes to
calculate each cost component of the facilties charge based on its recommendations provided in
the case. Please provide all work papers, includig electronic spreadsheets, of all such
calculations.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No. 11 to the extent that it calls for ICIP to conduct new analysis not
aleady conducted, or included in its testimony. ICIP will respond to Request No. 11 on due date
to the extent it is able without producing new work papers or analysis, without waiving ths
objection.
Without waiving its objections, ICIP responds as follows:
For the purose of responding to ths request, ICIP assumes "cost component" means the nine (9)
speci:fc items that the Company uses to calculate its overall facilties charge percentage rate. No
speci:fc method has been developed by the ICIP, and no work papers are available.
ICIP's testiony suggests tht the principal amount used in the charge should depreciate, and
therefore the sum of the nine (9) components associated with the facilties would also decrease
just as they do in the overall revenue requirement. ICIP fuer suggests that the nie (9)
components be updated to be consistent with the changes in the stipulation. Reference Direct
Testimony of Dr. Don Readng, page 22, lines 6-18.
ICIP also recommends either in the next rate case, or in a special docket, each of the nine (9)
"cost component" needs to be thoroughly examned for cost appropriateness. Reference Direct
Testimony of Dr. Don Reading, page 22, line 19 to page 23, line 9. For example, because each
customer's facilties are speci:fc to that customer, the charge for maitenance could be allocated
to that customer on a tie and material basis rather than allocated by FERC accounts for Idaho
Power's system as a whole.
Ths response was prepared by Dr. Don Reading, in consultation with Gregory Adams, attorney
for the ICIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC- E-II-08
PAGE 12
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Is ICIP aware of any discrepancies between its
customers and the Company concernng mixed ownership of facilties that are instaled beyond
the Company's point of delivery? If so, please explai the natue of each of those discrepancies;
Le., tracking, accounting, ownership, removal, and replacement. Please provide all work papers
showing these discrepancies.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12
ICIP provided the following response on November 4, 2011:
The ICIP does not have "customers." It is assumed for puroses of ths question that the word
"customer" actuly means member of the ICIP.
ICIP objects to Request No. 12 on the ground that it is vague to extent tht it does not describe
which customers for which Idaho Power requests ICIP to explain the natue of such
discrepancies.
ICIP also objects on the ground that ICIP has no way to reasonably obtan information regarding
the Company's records for its distrbution facilties equipment ownership for customers other
than ICIP members.
ICIP also objects on the ground that Request No. 12 requests information not already compiled
by ICIP and would be burdensome to produce. To describe the natue of such discrepancies for
ICIP member companes, ICIP would fit need to compile lists of such discrepancies for each
individua ICIP member. ICIP objects because such lists of discrepancies in mixed ownership
have not been compiled by ICIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 13
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: IfIdaho Power were to sell Company-owned
facilties instaled beyond its point of delivery, please explai ICIP's recommendation for
determning a sales price tht satis:fes the requiements ofIdao Code § 61-328. Speci:fcally,
describe how ICIP's sales price recommendation is: (1) in the public interest, (2) that the costs
and rates for supplyig servce will not increase by reason of such traction, and (3) that the
acquirig customer has both the intent and abilty to operate and maita the utility assets.
Please provide all fies and work papers supportng your recommendation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
ICIP provided the following response on November 4,2011:
ICIP objects to Request No. 13 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion.
ICIP also objects to the extent that ths Request calls for production of new work papers and
analysis not already within ICIP's possession.
ICIP will respond to Request No. 13 on due date to the extent it is able without producing legal
conclusions, new work papers or analysis, and without waiving ths objection.
Without waiving its objections, ICIP responds as follows:
Please see ICIP's Response to Idaho Power Request NO.8 and Direct Testimony of Dr. Don
Readng, pages 3, 22, fied on October 7, 2011. ICIP possesses no work papers addressing
compliance ofa sale with Idaho Code § 61-328.
This response was prepared by Dr. Don Reading, in consultation with Gregory Adams, attorney
for the I CIP.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC- E-II-08
PAGE 14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Does ICIP believe that Idao Power's decision
whether or not to provide maitenance on customer-owned equipment is a reguated business
activity subject to the rues of the Commssion?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14
ICIP provided the following response on November 4,2011:
ICIP objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. ICIP canot
respond without providing a legal conclusion.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: If the ICIP's answer is "yes" to Request for
Production No. 14, please provide all statutory and/or Commssion rues supportng ths answer.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15
ICIP provided the followig response on November 4, 2011:
ICIP objects to Request No. 15 on the ground tht it calls for a legal conclusion. ICIP canot
respond without providing a legal conclusion.
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 16
Sincerely yours,
gi~
RICHASON & O'LEARY, PLLC
ICIP'S RESPONSES TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-II-08
PAGE 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
¡ltlf
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the it day of November, 2011, a tre and correct copy of the
withn and foregoing RESPONSES TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION TO THE INDUSTRAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER IN CASE
NO.IPC-E-l 1-08 was served in the maner shown to:
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commssion Seceta
Idao Public Utities Commssion
POBox83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
jean.jeweiirguc.idao.gov
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Lisa D Nordstrom
Jason B Wiliams
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
lnordstrom~idahopower.com
jwillams~idahopower.com
_ Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
-- Electronic Mail
Donovan Walker
Greg Said
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
dwalker~idahopower.com
gsaid~idahopower.com
_ Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
jLElectronic Mail
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge &
Bailey, Charered
P.O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
elocgacinelaw.net
_Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Anthony Yanel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, Ohio 44140
tony~yanei.net
_Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
K- Electronic Mail
Donald L Howell, II
Karl Klein
Idaho Public Utilities Commssion
472 W Washington
Boise ID 83702
don.howell~puc.idaho.gov
karl.klein(ßuc.idaho. gov
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, poste pre-paid
Facsimle
K- Electronic Mail
Arur Perr Bruder
US Deparent of Energy
1000 Independence Ave SW
Washington DC 20585
Arur.bruderWig.doe.gov
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Dwight Etheridge
Exeter Associates, Inc.
5565 Sterrett Place Ste 310
Columbia MD 21044
detheridge~exeterassociates.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
-A Electronic Mail
Steven A Porter
Electrcity & Fossil Energy
US Deparent of Energy
steven.porter~g.doe.gov
(email only)
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
-A Electronic Mail
John R Hamond Jr
Batt Fisher Pusch & Alderman LLP
PO Box 1308
Boise ID 83701
jrh~battsher.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
-A Electronic Mail
KurJBoehm
Boehm Kur & Lowery
36 E Seventh St Ste 1510
Cincinnti OR 45202
kboehm~bkllaw:rm.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postae pre-paid
Facsimile
-A Electronic Mail
BradMPurdy
CAPA
2019 N 17th St
Boise ID 83702
bmpurdyi'hotmail.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X- Electronic Mail
Richard E Malmgren
Micron Technology Inc
800 South Federal Way
Boise ID 83716
remalmgren~micron.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Mar V York
Thorvald A Nelson
Mark A Davidson
Fred Schmidt
Holland & Har
6380 Fiddlers Green Circle Ste 500
Greenwood Vilage CO 80111
myorkWiollandhar.com
tnelson~ollandhar.com
madavidson~hollandhar.com
fschmidt~ollandhard.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Benjamin Oto
Idaho Conservation League
POBox 844
Boise ID 83701
botto~idahoconservation.org
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Ken Miler
Snake River Alliance
POBox 1731
Boise ID 83701
kmiler~snakeriveralliance.org
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Kevin Higgins
Energy Strategies
215 S State St Ste 200
Salt Lake City UT 84111
khggins~energystrat.com
_ Hand Delivery
~ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
Nancy Hirsh, Policy Director
NW Energy Coalition
8111st Ave Ste 305
Seatte W A 98104
Nancy~wenergy.org
_ Hand Delivery
-" U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
X Electronic Mail
¡~