20060803PAC to Staff 1-7.pdf

~ ~\;co
~OUNTAIN
RECEIVED
200G AUG - 3 AM 9:
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City. Utah 84111
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
August 2, 2006
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
RE:ID PAC-06-
IPUC Production Data Requests (1-
Please find enclosed PacifiCorp s responses to IPUC Production data requests 1-
Provided on the enclosed CD is Attachment IPUC Production 7
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~J)(~p.
Brian Dickman, Manager
Regulation
Enclosures
cc:Dean Brockbank/PC
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 1
Please discuss the temperature adjustment process implemented by the Company
in calculating the billing determinants for Schedule 10 customers as referred to in
Company witness Larsen s Exhibit No.3. Please provide all associated
workpapers.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 1
The company has not found statistically significant weather related variables with
the Schedule 10 sales. Exhibit No.3 was prepared from a template used with
other billing determinants that are temperature normalized, and the titles carried
over. The billing determinants in the exhibit are not temperature normalized; the
title is in error.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 2
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 2
Please provide the weather normalization analysis leading to adjustments as
documented in Larsen Exhibit No. page 3.1. Also, please indicate the associated
adjustment to expenses (variable power supply costs) due to weather
normalization.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 2
Please see Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 1.
There are no associated adjustments to expense due to weather normalization of
Schedule 10.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 3
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 3
Please explain the methodology used to determine the $450 000 refund to
participants in the Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider program. Provide all
workpapers that support the refund amount.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 3
The $450 000 refund referenced above is a negotiated amount that resulted from
settlement discussions between the company and the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association. No workpapers were prepared.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 4
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 4
Has the Company determined what the necessary increase would be in the
Irrigation Load Control Credit to be equivalent, both in participation and
curtailment levels, to the refund amount of $450 000? If so, please provide any
supporting documentation and workpapers.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 4
, the company has not made such a determination.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 5
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 5
Please elaborate on the statement made in Company witness Larsen s testimony
that the $450 000 refund is designed to be an incentive to encourage additional
participation in the Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider program. Specifically,
explain why the parties agreed in the Stipulation on a rated refund rather than a
monetary increase in the credit.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 5
The $450 000 refund is designed to encourage additional program participation in
two ways. First, the company and the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
believe that, among other factors, the program participation rate is sensitive to the
level of the credit. Increasing the total amount of incentive payments will provide
an incentive to participate in the program. Second, the rated refund structure
mitigates the impact of the Schedule 10 price increase for those who choose to
participate in the curtailment program.
The company agreed to a rate refund rather than an increase in the credit because
it sees these as separate types of incentives and wanted to maintain a separation
between them. In addition, the company did not want to disturb the methodology
currently in place for determination of the credit.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
PAC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 6
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 6
Regarding the statement made in Company witness Larsen s testimony that the
$450 000 refund is designed to be an incentive to encourage additional
participation in the. Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider program, has the
Company analyzed how many additional participants the refund would attract? If
, please provide supporting documents detailing the analysis.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 6
, the company has not made such a determination.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
P AC-06-4/Rocky Mountain Power
August 2, 2006
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 7
IPUC Staff Production Data Request 7
Please provide documentation detailing the Company s Irrigation Load Control
Credit Rider Program for the previous five years. Include information as outlined
on page one in the Company s 2005 Load Control Credit Rider Program Report
with the exception of items 7 through 9.
Response to IPUC Staff Production Data Request 7
Please see Attachment IPUC Production 1.7 on the enclosed CD.
Jeffrey K. Larsen will sponsor this response at hearing.
IDAHO
PAC-O6-
RA TE ADJUSTMENT
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 7
ON THE ENCLOSED CD