The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070914PAC to Staff 56, 58, 60-66.pdf~ 2~;o ~OUNTAIN 201 South Main, Suite 2300 Salt lake City, Utah 84111 ~CEi September 13 2007 ')f. '1" C'C'" p,~ q: 22dJu i 0CJ' i+ r\ - Scott Woodbury Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 (jd1" ~;; ~Si(): Neil Price Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 RE:PAC-07- IPUC Production Data Request 56- Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power s Response to IPUC Production Requests 56 - 66, excluding 57 and 59. Provided on the enclosed CD are Attachments IPUC Production 56 , 62, and 64. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (801) 220-4975. Sincerely, 1Av~ b/~ Brian Dickman, Manager Regulation Enclosures cc:Jean Jewell/IPUC Randall C. Budge/Monsanto James R. Smith/Monsanto Maurice BrubakerlMonsanto Richard Anderson/Energy Strategies Eric Olsen/lIP A Tony Y ankellIIP A Conley Ward/Agrium Dennis Peseau/ Agrium Brad Purdy/CAP AI Timothy Shurtz P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 56 IPUC Production Data Request 56 Please provide a summary of all green tag or Renewable Energy Credit (REC) purchases or sales for the Wolverine Creek, Marengo, Leaning Juniper and Goodnoe Hills projects. For each project and for each purchase or sale, list the date of the transaction, the quantity of green tags or RECs purchased or sold, the price and the term of the purchase or sale. Please compare the actual purchase or sale price of the green tags or RECs to the price assumed in the economic analysis for the project. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 56 Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 56. (Paul 1. Johnson prepared this response and is the recordholder. It has not been determined who will sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. IDAHO P A C-07 - ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC PRODUCTION DATA REQUESTS 56- ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-07-05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 , 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 58 IPUC Production Data Request 58 The differential present value revenue requirement ofthe Goodnoe Hills project is $0 on the total project basis (inclusive of avoided market purchases) if the value of green tags or the cost of compliance with renewable portfolio standards (RPS) rise to approximately $6.37 per MWh during each year of the project's life. The comparative assumption in PacifiCorp s most recently published Integrated Resource Plan is $5 per MWh for 5-years or $1.79 per MWh during each year of the project's life. Please provide any evidence or analysis supporting a value for green tags or RPS compliance of $6.37 or greater over the next 20 years, Response to IPUC Production Data Request 58 The cost of non-compliance with the California, Oregon, and Washington RPS is $50/MWh. In addition, federal legislation has been introduced (the Bingaman Bill) that has a civil penalty equal to the greater of: (1) $20/MWh, or (2) 200% of the average market value of renewable energy credits during the year in which the violation occurred. (Rick T. Link prepared this response and is the recordholder. It has not been determined who will sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. PAC-07-05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 60 IPUC Production Data Request 60 Please provide information describing the BP A Conservation and Renewable Discount Program, the amounts of funding available under the program and the requirements for projects to qualify or be awarded funding. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 60 BP A's Conservation Rate Credit program (CRC) replaces the former Conservation and Renewable Discount (C&RD) program and provides funding, through the form of rate credits, for BP A customers to offer rebates, provide low- income weatherization, participate in renewable energy initiatives and pay for costs associated with administering and marketing energy conservation and renewable energy programs. In addition, investor owned utility Residential Exchange benefits qualified under the program under the same terms and conditions as BP A's Priority Firm Power, Industrial Power, and New Resource Firm Power customers. For the 2006-07 fiscal year of the program (year 1) PacifiCorp was eligible to receive $2 572 511 in BPA CRC rate credits. BPA's renewable subscription process set a maximum upper limit for qualifying renewable projects at 129 007. PacifiCorp s remaining CRC rate credits, $1 443 504, were to be utilized to fund qualifying conservation investments. BP A suspended the provision of rate credits under the CRC program to investor owned utilities in May 2007 following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions regarding residential exchange issues. Qualifying renewable energy must be generated using a renewable energy fuel, be approved and connected within the programs' state timeframes , and with three minor exceptions must be located in the Pacific Northwest. Qualifying conservation measures must be cost-effective under total resource cost and measure assumption methodologies as defined by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fifth Power Plan. Curtailment, fuel switching, or load building activities do not qualify for a CRC rate credit reimbursement. (Jeff W. Bumgarner prepared this response and is the recordholder. It has not been determined who will sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 61 IPUC Production Data Request 61 What is the typical length of time before an account is sent to an outside collection agency after it has gone through the automated customer match program? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 61 The typical length of time that an account takes to be assigned to a collection agency after it runs through the automated customer match program is overnight. The automated customer match program is part of the assignment process that is run on all past due accounts. This is done daily and when the batch job is processed nightly it sends the account, through a secure network, to the assigned collection agency. (This response was prepared under the direction of Carole A. Rockney who is also the recordholder. Carole A. Rockney is expected to sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. PAC-07-05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 62 IPUC Production Data Request 62 Please provide copies of tariff pages for Schedule 300 for California, Oregon Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 62 Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 62 on the enclosed CD. IDAHO P AC-07- ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC PRODUCTION DATA REQUESTS 56- ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION ON THE ENCLOSED CD P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 63 IPUC Production Data Request 63 In reference to the Company s response to IPUC Production Request No. 41 , how many after-hours reconnections require pole work? How many after-hours reconnections were performed on three-phase service? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 63 This breakdown is not available because pole work and work on three phase service are not tracked separately. (This response was prepared under the direction of Carole A. Rockney who is also the recordholder. Carole A. Rockney is expected to sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 64 IPUC Production Data Request 64 Please explain why collectors are not made available to perform after-hours reconnections? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 64 In investigating this request for information, Rocky Mountain Power has determined that collectors in Idaho do perform after-hours reconnections. Sixty- six percent of the after-hours reconnections are performed by a collector and 34 percent are performed by a journeyman lineman. A revised cost analysis for disconnect/reconnect activity costs indicates the average cost of an after hours reconnection is approximately $150. A revised cost analysis worksheet is provided as Attachment IPUC Production 64. This correction will be reflected in rebuttal testimony. (This response was prepared under the direction of Carole A. Rockney who is also the recordholder. Carole A. Rockney is expected to sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. IDAHO P AC-07- ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC PRODUCTION DATA REQUESTS 56- ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION ON THE ENCLOSED CD P AC-07-05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 65 IPUC Production Data Request 65 Please provide all analyses the Company conducted to deduce the Demand and Energy Loss Factors. If applicable, include all workpapers in executable' format. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 65 The demand and energy loss factors used in the class cost of service study are the result of an engineering analysis of the loss factors present in each state of the company s system. The loss factor percentages and the final report from this engineering study were previously provided in the company s response to lIP A Data Request 6.4. (Mark E. Tucker prepared this response and is also the recordholder. Mark E. Tucker is expected to sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response. P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 66 IPUC Production Data Request 66 With regard to Electric Service Schedules 6 and 23 a. Please state how the Company determines which schedule a customer would fall under. b. Please provide language in the tariff that would direct or dictate which schedule a customer may fall under? c. Did the Company transfer any customers from Schedule 23 to Schedule 6 during the test year, or vise versa? If so, how many, when and why? d. How many customers in each schedule qualified for the Voltage Discount in the test year 2006, and what was the associated dollar amount paid out during 2006? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 66 a. The rate schedule for a new site is determined by field personnel at the time of job completion, after the meter is set and when the customer is connected in the company s billing system (CSS). All new service connects are assigned a setup schedule for Idaho, which is 07 ACTSETUP. For existing services, the site is usually left on the same schedule as the previous customer. A "welcome aboard" letter is sent to new customers to inform them of the rates in their state. b. The Application section is identical in Schedules 6 and 23. Schedule 8 is required for customers with loads greater than 35 kW. For commercial or industrial customers with loads smaller than 35 kW either Schedule 6 or 23 could apply. However, Schedule 6 is designed to be suitable for larger customers, while Schedule 23 is designed for smaller customers. Schedule 6 is titled "General Service - Large Power " while Schedule 23 is titled "General Service." The Schedule 6 rates include a demand charge and relatively low energy charges, which would be suitable for larger power users. The Schedule 23 rates are more suitable for smaller users, containing no demand charge and relatively high energy charges. c. Counting customers in Idaho that were invoiced on both schedule 23 and 6, there were four customers where the rate change was made. They are listed below: P AC- E-07 -05/Rocky Mountain Power September 13, 2007 IPUC Production Data Request 66 Concat Agreement Rate Changed Rate Changed When Why Number From 08579561001004 07GNSVOO06 07GNSVO023 05-19-2006 Unknown 16913583001002 07GNSV023A 07GNSVO06A 04-11-2006 Customer Request 33064746052003 07GNSVOO06 07GNSVO023 07-26-2006 Customer Request 60648779002001 07GNSVO06A 07GNSV023A 05-19-2009 Customer Request d. During the test year 2006, the company issued 90 monthly bills to primary voltage customers on Schedule 6. This is 7.5 customers on an annual basis. These customers received a total voltage discount of $53 658. During the test year 2006, the company issued 214 monthly bills to primary voltage customers on Schedule 23. This is 17.8 customers on an annual basis. These customers received a total voltage discount of 325. This data is contained in Mr. Griffith's Exhibit 35 , page 2 (Schedule 6) and page 7 (Schedule 23). (Mark E. Tucker prepared this response and is also the recordholder. Mark E. Tucker is expected to sponsor this response at hearing. Please contact Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975 to discuss this response.