Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090102PAC to Staff 39-67.pdf~ ~ ~~;co~OUNTAIN RECE ri 201 South Main, Sue 2300 Salt Lake City. Uth 84111 , 2009 JAN -2 AM 10: 19 December 31, 2008 IDAHO UTILITIES Scott Woodbur Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 RE: PAC-E-08-07 ¡PUC_Production Data Request (39-67) Please fid enclosed an onginal and three copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC_Production Data Request Numbers 39-67, excluding 65 and 67. These responses are in process and will be provided when available. Provided on the enclosed CD are Attchments IPUC_Production 47 -(a-b), 51, 55, 56, 57, 58 -(1-19),60, and 64. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (801) 220-2963. Sincerely, Ted lAa fv I ~ Ted Weston, Manager Regulation Enclosures P AC-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 39 IPUC Production Data Request 39 Please provide all analysis in executable electronic format that supports the Company's decisions on rate design and rates (e.g, - elasticity analysis, customer sureys and findings or conclusions, load shifting data, cost/benefit studies). Response to IPUC Production Data Request 39 The Company did not prepare any specific studies in developing its rate design proposals. The Company applied the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last GRC, Docket PAC-E-07-05. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 40 IPUC Production Data Request 40 In the Company's most recent 200TIRP Update, Table 9, titled "Load Resource Capacity Balance" ilustrates an immediate "East Position" deficit of which Idaho is par. Aside from Schedules 35, 35A, and 36, please provide a detailed explanation of how the Company's curent and proposed Idaho rate design provides an incentive for customers to conserve and use energy wisely in order to reduce this deficit. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 40 Aside from Schedule 35, 35A, and 36, all schedules, other than lighting schedules, have seasonal rates where summer rates are higher than the winter rates, providing customers the incentive to conserve during the summer months when the demand for power is at its highest. Additionally, in the previous general rate case the Company enhanced its Irrigation Load Control Program by giving irrigators a larger incentive to curail their loads during peak times, PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUc Production Data Request 41 IPUC Production Data Request 41 For the schedules with available tIme-of-use (TOU) meteóng capability, please provide an explanation of how long this metering capabilty has been available and the extent to which it has been used by the Company and customers. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 41 Time of use (TOU) metering capability has been available since the 1980's. As of November 30, 2008, there are 16,692 Schedule 36 Optional Time of Day Residential Service customers and three Schedule 35 Optional Time-of-Day General Service - Distóbution Voltage customers. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 42 IPUC Production Data Request 42 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating why the Company has not chosen to implement mandatory time-of-use (TOU) or tiered rates for each Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Schedule in Idaho but has determined to implement these designs in some other states. Include in this response how the Company differentiates its mandatory and voluntary rate design policy decisions and priorities across the states it serves. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 42 F or this rate case fiing, the Company has proposed to maintain the same rate structures approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket P AC- E-07-05. The existing rate structures have good customer acceptance and the Company chose not to revise them. If the Company were to introduce new time of use (TOU) rates going forward, it believes mandatory TOU rates for all customers on a specific rate schedule are most appropóate. Voluntary programs result in free ridership where customers who curently benefit from the proposed program, without making any usage changes, would signup for the program and see lower bils, while those other customers, whose bils would be higher, would choose to remain on the non-TOU rate. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUcProduction Data Request 43 IPUC Production Data Request 43 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating how the Schedule 36 optional residential time-of- use (TOU) rates have been successful in remediating peak load deficits in Idaho compared to Oregon and Utah. Include any electronically formatted data or analysis on load profies and load shifting. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 43 There has been no analysis of this type prepared by the Company. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 44 IPUC Production Data Request 44 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating how optional time-of-use (TOU) rates for Schedules 35 and 35A have been successful in remediating peak load deficits and how they have grown over the life of the program. Include any electronically formatted data or analysis on load profies and load shifting. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 44 There has been no analysis of this type prepared by the Company. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 45 IPUC Production Data Request 45 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating why the Company has chosen not to implement a Mid-Peak time-of-use (TOU) rate for its applicable schedules. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 45 The Company chose to apply the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket PAC-E-07-05. Also, please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 42. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 46 IPUC Production Data Request 46 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executåble electronically formatted analysis ilustrating how the Company has determined the summer and non-summer biling seasons for each schedule. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 46 The summer (May through October) and non-summer (November through April) biling seasons became effective on September 29, 1977 for residential customers receiving service on Schedule 1. The seasonal split was developed to offset the larger loads that started to come online in May and continued on through the summer. Each additional schedule, redesigned for seasonal rates, applied the same summer/non-summer seasonal split as Schedule 1. P Ac-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 47 IPUC Production Data Request 47 On page 5, lines 13-15, Zimmerman says "For residential customers (Schedule 1 and 36), the Monthly Biling Comparisons show that the Company's rate design proposals produce uniform percentage impacts across usage levels", how has the Company determined that uniform percentage impacts across usage levels are appropriate when greater impacts across higher usage levels might encourage the efficient use of energy? (Zimmerman Testimony, page 5, lines 13-15) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 47 For this case, the Company's proposed rate changes apply the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket PAC-E-07-05. The Company believes that seasonal rates provide appropriate price signals to customers about the cost of energy. The Company does not believe that inverted rates in general have been effective in influencing customer behavior. Please refer to Attachment IPUC_Production 47a, which provides a copy of Willam R. Griffith's testimony in the Company's 2007 Utah general rate case in which the effectiveness of inverted rates is discussed. Please refer to Attachment IPU C _Production 47b, which provides a copy of the survey results referenced in the Utah testimony. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC_PRODUCTION 47 -(a-b) ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 48 IPUC Production Data Request 48 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating why the Company has chosen its Schedule 1 proposal to keep "the present differentials between summer and winter energy charges." (Zimmerman Testimony, page 5, lines 3-5) Include any electronically formatted data and analysis on energy price differentials between the two seasons. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 48 The Company proposed to keep the present differentials between sumer and winter energy charges as approved by the Commission in the last GRC, Docket PAC-E-07-05. The Company believes that seasonal rates provide appropriate price signals to customers about the cost of energy. Also, please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 47. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 49 IPUC Production Data Request 49 Please provide all bil frequency analysis completed by the Company in executable electronic format. To the extent possible, please convert these to actual usage months. Provide the usage in as small of increments as possible. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 49 The Company does not prepare bil frequency analyses as par of standard procedures; however, an analysis was prepared by the Company in response to IPUC Production Data Request 36 for Schedules 1 and 36. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 50 IPUC Production Data Request 50 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating why the Company has proposed "to implement the Schedules 6, 6A, and 9 price changes on a uniform percentage basis to each of three components; customer, demand, and energy charges, and to maintain the current relationships between the energy blocks and the current ratio of on-season and off-season revenues." (Zimmerman Testimony, page 6, lines 8-12) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 50 The Company has proposed to apply the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket PAC-E-07-05. These rates have good customer acceptance, and the Company did not believe that additional changes were necessary. P Ac-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 51 IPUC Production Data Request 51 Has the Company done analysis on elasticity given different summer/winter energy differentials or between other biling component differentials in order to design rates to encourage efficient energy use? If so, please explain and provide all executable electronically formatted copies of the analysis. If not, please explain why not. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 51 Please refer to Attachment IPUc_Production 51 for pricing elasticity presentations prepared by the Company. These were not used to develop proposed rates. The Company chose to apply the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket PAC-E-07-05. These rates have good customer acceptance, and the Company did not believe that additional changes were necessary. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 51 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 52 IPUC Production Data Request 52 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis of how the Company has monitored the changes in load associated with Schedule 36 customers both prior to and following the transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 36. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 52 The requested analysis has not been performed by the Company. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 53 IPUC Production Data Request 53 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating how the Company expects to utilze the Schedule 35, 35A, and 36 load research information to structure and determine the Company's future rate design initiatives. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 53 The Company currently has not performed any analyses to determine future rate design initiatives for these schedules. P Ac-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 3 i, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 54 IPUC Production Data Request 54 Please provide a detailed explanation and all supporting executable electronically formatted analysis ilustrating the Company's Schedule 36 decision "to keep the present ratios between summer/winter energy charges and on-peakoff-peak energy charges." (Zimmerman Testimony, page 5, lines 5-9) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 54 The Company chose to apply the rate design and rates methodology approved by the Commission in the last general rate case, Docket PAC-E-07-05. Additionally, please refer to Wiliam Griffth's Direct Testimony fied in Docket PAc-E-07-05 pages 10-11, which discussed the justification for the rate differentiaL. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 55 IPUC Production Data Request 55 Please provide the supporting data and analysis in executable electronic format used to support Zimmerman's response to the question, "Including the effects of the requested increase, how have the Company's rates in Idaho changed over time?" (Page 4, lines 9 & 10) Specifically, include the supporting data and analysis on the following: A. Less than a 1 % historical overall base rate increase over the last three rate increases; B. Less than a 5% historical overall base rate increase since 1986. (including the Company proposal); C. 96% increase in the Consumer Price Index over 22 years; D. 46% overall "real basis" decline in base rates since 1986. (including the Company proposal); E. 43% "real basis" decline in base residential rates since 1986. (including the Company proposal); F. 40% "real basis" decline in base irrigation rates since 1986. (including the Company proposal); G. 58% "real basis" decline in base general service rates since 1986. (including the Company proposal); H. 56% "real basis" decline in base large general service base rates since 1986. (including the Company proposal). Response to IPUC Production Data Request 55 Please refer to Attachment IPUcProduction 55. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 55 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUc Production Data Request 56 IPUC Production Data Request 56 Please provide a list of the rate designs for the commercial and industral schedules for each jursdiction. If the general design has changed in the past 3 years, please sumarze in what ways. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 56 Please refer to Attchment IPUC Production 56. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 56 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 57 IPUC Production Data Request 57 With respect to the Company's Load Research data, please provide for each sample customer, in executable electronic format, with valid data that was sampled between Januar 2007 and the most recent month available the following: A. Customer identification number; B. Customer rate schedule; C. Strata to which it belongs and weighting factors of each strata; D. Raw hourly usage data (Le., unadjusted, simply the data originally gathered for each sample); E. Raw hourly usage data modified to reflect losses; F. On an hourly basis, any additional calibrations that are applied to the Load Research data before it is applied to develop the allocation factors used in the Company's cost of service study in this case; G. Please provide copies of the methodologies used to extrapolate the Load Research data to the entire rate schedule as used in the class cost of service study in this case. This information should include number of customers in the population of each class. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 57 Load research estimates have been developed for the test period only and therefore wil be provided for January 2007 to December 2007. Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 57. A. Customer identification number is contained in column A, tabs SchOO 1, Sch036, Sch006, Sch023 and SchlO of the attchment. B. Customer rate schedule is contained in column C, tabs SchOOl, Sch036, Sch006, Sch023 and Sch10 of the attachment. C. Strata to which each customer belongs are contained in column D, tabs SchOOl, Sch036, Sch006, Sch023 and Sch10 of the attachment. D. Raw hourly usage data (Le., unadjusted, simply the data originally gathered for each sample) is contained in columns E - AB, tabs SchOOl, Sch036, Sch006, Sch023 and Sch10 of the attachment. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 57 E. Because of the large volume of data involved, the Company is providing the factors necessary to adjust the data supplied in Par D to estimates plus losses. Multiplying the data by these factors wil satisfy the requirements of this request. Hourly loss factors for each sampled rate schedule are detailed below: Rate 001 Rate 036 Rate 006 Rate 023 Rate 010 Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondar Secondary Secondar loss factor 14.668% Primar loss factor 10.418% Transmission loss factor 5.697% F. Because of the large volume of data involved, the Company is providing the factors necessary to adjust the data supplied in Part D to estimates plus losses. Multiplying the data by these factors will satisfy the requirements of this request. One adjustment is made to the load research hourly data prior to input into the cost of service study. Sample data is adjusted on a monthly basis by an Annual Adjustment Factor to match the kWh energy figures that have been adjusted by the Regulation Group. Please refer to Attachment IPUC _Production 57, tab Adjustment Factors, for a comparison of the estimated kWh energy as derived from the sample against the actual kWh energy figures that have been adjusted by the Regulation Group. Factors developed and shown in the attachment are applied to every hour for each month for each rate. Note: because the irrigation season only runs from June 1 st to September 15th the irrigation sample data is adjusted on a monthly basis according to a monthly adjustment factor rather than an anual adjustment factor. P AC-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 57 G. Formulas as requested: For any given time interval the load research estimate (y) is equal to the sum of the weighted stratum averages (W nYh). y=~ WhYh Monthly biling adjustments are derived using the following formula: Y m=(Y*(Y m IYm)*(YalYa)) Where Y= adjusted load research estimate Where Y= unadjusted load research estimate Where Y m= Biled calendar monthly customer energy Where Ya = Regulatory annual adjusted customer energy Strata weight factors and populations are detailed for each load research sample in the header of Attachment IPUC Production 57. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 57 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 58 IPUC Production Data Request 58 Where the Company hired independent third-party evaluators to assess DSM program operations, savings contributions and cost effectiveness, please provide a detailed explanation of each third-part evaluator, what the evaluation findings were, and how the Company used these findings. With this, please provide all executable electronically formatted cost!enefit analysis related to each program and the Company's decision of implementation. (Bumgarner Testimony, page 3, lines 11-14) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 58 DSM program introductions began in Idaho in 2006, and the filing included a general evaluation plan for each of the programs. According to these plans, the Company typically targets programs on an anual basis while waiting for 12-24 months of program data to be available before staring the first evaluation. During the filing process, fuding levels were capped which directly affected paricipation in the business customer programs and reduced the overall available funding for utility expenses such as evaluations. Therefore no independent evaluations of the Idaho programs have been commissioned yet by the Company. The Company has commissioned evaluations on three of the programs offered within Idaho's demand-side portfolio of offerings ruing in other company jurisdictions. The following table catalogs the evaluations work over the last two years relevant to programs offered in Idaho. Program State Report Program Years Evaluation Third-party Date Type evaluator See ya later UT Jul. 2007 Jul. 2005 to Jun.Impact and KEMA refrigerator 2006 process See ya later WA Aug. 2007 Apr. 2005 to Impact and KEMA refrigerator Mar. 2006 process Energy UTand February 2004.2005 Impact and ADM Assoc. Inc I FinAnswer and WA and August Process Innovologie, Inc. FinAnswer 2007 (draft) Express It is the Company's practice to select third-pary evaluators through a competitive bid process, which was the case for KEMA, ADM Associates, Inc. and Innovologie, Inc., who performed the above referenced work. Founded in 1927, KEMA is a commercial enterprise, specializing in high-grade business and technical consultancy, inspections and measurements, testing and certification. Much of the company's work centers round innovative technology. As an independent organization, KEMA supports clients concerned with the supply and use of electrical power and other forms of energy. Additional information on KEMA can be found on their website at http://ww.kema.com/. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 58 ADM Associates, Inc. is a professional services corporation providing research and consulting services in applied engineering and economics. Since 1979, ADM has conducted literally hundreds of energy-related studies and projects for utilty companies, governent agencies, and other clients throughout the U.S. Additional information on ADM Associates, Inc can be found on their website at http://ww.adm-energy.com/index.htmL. Innovologie, Inc. is a market research and evaluation firm located in Rockvile, Maryland. Their goal is to help clients energize markets, products, and programs through knowledge. They have a reputation for doing innovative research that is frequently years ahead of the industry. Additional information on Innovologie, Inc. can be found on their website at http://ww.innovologie.com/index.html. Highlights of the evaluation results from the Uta "See ya later refrigerator" program included: . High overall satisfaction with the program . Greatest source of dissatisfaction was the length of time between the appliance pick-up request and the appliance pick-up (winter months and rural locations) . Television and radio being the primar sources of program information . Lower gross savings per unit than in prior evaluations Please refer to Attachment IPUc_Production 58 -1, which provides a copy of the evaluation results from the Utah "See ya later refrigerator" program; a complete list of key findings can be found on pages 1-2 to 1-4. Washington "See ya later refrigerator" evaluation findings were similar to those of the Utah program; please refer to Attachment IPUc_Production 58 -2. Idaho's "See ya later refrigerator" program is the mirror program to the offering in these two states. The principal actions taken by the company in response to the evaluation findings were to: . Adjust expectation with delivery contractor to schedule appliance pick-ups, even in remote areas, to within 21 days of receiving the customer's call for service . Adjust the customer incentive level down from $40 to $30 (in all states where the program is offered) . Re-negotiated the delivery contract reducing implementation costs by approximately thirteen percent P Ac-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 58 . Adjusted the assumed savings per unit e.g. refrigerator and or freezer (pre- evaluation value) down for near-term reporting puroses to be in line with Utah program post evaluation savings (in all states where the program is offered) Results from the Energy FinAnswer and FinAnswer Express programs impact evaluation performed by ADM indicated the program(s) are cost effective using project specific realization and net-to-gross data. For additional details, see the Executive Summar section of Attachments IPUC_Production 58 -3 through IPUc Production 58 -19. The Company viewed these findings as continued support for program investments in high quality energy engineering for projects and prescriptive measures. The process evaluation performed by Innovologie gave the programs high marks for organization, performance, quality control and customer satisfaction. From a program delivery standpoint, the primar recommendation was to continue the programs with same structure and approaches. Minor adjustments were listed and the following are highlights of the recommendations the Company has implemented: . Continue focus on one-to-one contact for sellng (program marketing recommendation) . Revised the energy analysis report format (energy assessment report recommendation) . Project managers are providing additional information on commissioning requirements (commissioning recommendation) The Company has also reviewed the process evaluation feedback regarding sources of financing for projects and used that information to develop portions of our 2008 DSM request for proposals issued in November, 2008. For complete details, please refer to the Executive Summar section of Attachments IPUc_Production 58 -3 through IPUc_Production 58 -19. As with the "See ya later refrigerator" program, the program evaluations for the Utah and Washington Energy FinAnswer and FinAnswer Express programs should prove representative of the program performance in Idaho as the programs are generally standard across all PacifiCorp states where offered. Please refer to Attchments IPU C _Production 58 -3 through IPU C _Production 58 -19. With Idaho DSM program paricipation increasing and the recent removal of the program fuding caps, the Company plans on issuing a request for proposals for the evaluations of the Idaho programs in 2009. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC_PRODUCTION 58 -(1- 19) ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 59 IPUC Production Data Request 59 Please provide a detailed explanation of what "other delivery support is provided by the Company's business centers, corporate deparments (legal, procurement, etc.), local trade ally networks, and contracted program delivery vendors Le. Jaco Environmental, PECI, low income community action agencies, energy engineering contractors, etc." (Bumgarer Testimony, page 15, lines 9-13) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 59 The 13 dedicated demand-side management (DSM) employees identifying, implementing and administering DSM programs across Pacificorp's six state service territory are assisted by other Company deparments. Call centers help direct customer calls to appropriate program delivery personnel, provide customer information and data exchanges needed by delivery vendors to validate customer program eligibilty and help manage the DSM tariff rider recovery mechanisms that appear as line item charges on customer bils. Depending on the program, they may issue bil credits in lieu of direct cash rebates or incentives. A specialized irrgation service desk was established to help agricultural customers with their electrical service requirements; the service desk also assists the Idaho and Utah load management programs by providing limited enrollment services leading into the agricultural seasons. Company legal departments help develop and produce DSM vendor and customer agreements as well as provide assistance in program tariff development, revisions and Commission filings. PacifiCorp delivers the majority of demand-side programs through third-pary competitively bid program delivery vendors as well as contracts with engineering companies and independent program evaluation vendors in the delivery of programs, program services and in evaluating program effectiveness. The Company's procurement deparment supports the DSM team in procuring for these services ensuring a fair and competitive procurement process. The Company leverages local trade alles e.g. heating and ventilation contractors and retailers, motor rewind shops and lighting vendors in the delivery of program services to customers. Program information, forms and personal account management assistance is provided to these local trade allies/companies to ensure customer point-of-purchase decision making favors energy effcient decisions. The Company works with these local companies to integrate utilty program service and financial assistance into their sales process. For many ofPacificorp's residential programs turn-key program delivery is the preferred model whereby competitively selected vendors provide all major program services from retailer management and program marketing to customer incentive processing. Programs such as the "See ya later refrigerator" program PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 3 i, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 59 delivered by Jaco Environmental Services and Utah's "Cool Keeper" air conditioning load management program delivered by Comverge, Inc. are two such examples. Business programs like the "Energy FinAnswer" and "FinAswer Express" use more of a hybrid delivery model where in-house talent is used to work with customers on project management/oversight duties associated with energy effciency projects and outsourced vendors are used to provide trade-ally coordination and engineering services (comprehensive energy modeling/audits). The Idaho irrigation load management program is delivered through contracting with local electrical companies for field installation and servicing of load control equipment, an equipment vendor for control equipment, and a software developer for the development of program management softare and provider of back- office services. The model fits the paricular need leveraging experienced market vendors and or local companies to the extent possible in an attempt for delivery excellence at the most competitive price. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 60 IPUC Production Data Request 60 Please describe page 11, lines 13-15 of Bumgamer's testimony in more detail, specifically describing the measures where the Energy FinAnswer Program availabilty and incentive levels var and to what degree these vary for retrofit and new construction installations according to codes, standards, and standard practices. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 60 Lines 13-15 referenced in this request relate to FinAnswer Express. FinAnswer Express has separate incentive tables for retrofits, new construction and major renovation projects. In some cases, measures are eligible for retrofits only because the measure is required by energy code for new construction projects. In some cases, incentives are lower for new construction because incremental costs are lower. Some examples are provided in Attachment IPUC_Production 60. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 60- ON THE ENCLOSED CD . PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 61 IPUC Production Data Request 61 Please provide a detailed explanation and any supporting executable electronically formatted analysis of the Company's decision to utilize a one year simple payback to limit the available incentive on a project specific basis? (Bumgarer Testimony, page 12, lines 5-9) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 61 The Company did not perform a numerical analysis to support limiting program incentives within the Energy FinAnswer program to the one year simple payback criteria. The criteria is in recognition that if the customer's payback is less than one year that the customer's reliance on the utility program incentive to make the investment diminishes (cost of investment is recoverable by the customer in bil savings within a current budget cycle). Since programs are designed to encourage and assist customers to make investments in energy efficiency that they wouldn't likely make absent utilty program assistance, the one year simple payback is used as a control to minimize investing in projects that may occur regardless of the program incentives. The Company also notes this feature (incentives not available for paybacks less than one year) is included in other energy efficiency programs. PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 62 IPUC Production Data Request 62 Please provide evidence of where "Irrigators are showing an interest in the installation of drives on their systems" and how "requests for system consultation and system analysis increased substantially between 2006 and 2007." (Bumgarner Testimony, page 17, lines 3-6) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 62 The data used to compile the first anual report for Idaho demand side management activities for the period January i 2, 2006 through March 3 i, 2007 did not include any system consultations. There were 69 system consultations in the data for the second annual report covering the period from January i, through December 3 i, 2007. "" PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 63 IPUC Production Data Request 63 Please elaborate on the second bullet point regarding the drop in the NEEA's results between 2006 and 2007, despite almost identical program expenditures. (Bumgarer Testimony, page 17, lines 7-14) Response to IPUC Production Data Request 63 The Company is working with NEEA on an explanation of the reported savings and assumptions which were the basis of Mr. Bumgarer's testimony. The Company wil provide a supplemental response to IPUc before January 12,2009. P AC-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power December 3 i, 2008 IPUc Production Data Request 64 IPUC Production Data Request 64 Please provide a detailed explanation of all education programs initiated for customers, including but not limited to those treated as a component of DSM programs, specifically targeting energy efficiency through rate design structures. An example of some key educational program points might be a description of, (1) the rates and usage levels within tiers of the Company's rate structure (2) the purpose of the rate structure; and (3) the steps customers can take to reduce usage. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 64 Nearly all of the Company's DSM programs, most notably in the residential sector, contain a component of customer education within the program design. In the "See ya later refrigerator" program customers receive as par of their incentive for paricipating an instant savings kit that contains two compact fluorescent light bulbs, instructions where to install them for the greatest savings, a copy of the company's "Bright Ideas" booklet (full of energy savings ideas) as well as a helpful fact sheet on another popular residential offering, the Home Energy Savings program. The irrigation load management program provídes growers education on how to; i) use the remote control equipment for actions outside of the operation of the program; 2) how to interface with the Company during the management of dispatch events (specífically opt-outs); 3) schedule their natural irrigation turns at times other than peak times (most likely control periods) in order to minimize evaporation and maximize benefit derived from energy (pumping) expenses; and 4) how to minimize field operating fuel expenses through remote monitoring of their irrigation equipment operation. In addition to program specific communications the company utilzes the following tools to educate customers on energy effciency and how to maximize their energy dollars spent: . Customer newsletters such as Voices, Energy Insights and Energy Connections include energy efficiency advice and resources along with program information. Bil inserts also help educate customers on using energy wisely. . Newspaper ads include energy efficiency tips and program information. , (I' , PAc-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUc Production Data Request 64 . The company's "Bright Ideas" booklet includes several pages of energy efficiency tips. . Other brochures for businesses and residents are available that contain energy efficiency advice and education materials along with program information. These brochures are distributed when customers request information, at events and through other outreach. . In addition the company web site includes several pages of energy efficiency tips and advice along with program information. Please refer to Attachment IPUc _Production 64 for Idaho 2007 DSM program communications. " f. ..Jl IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (39-67) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 64 ON THE ENCLOSED CD ~ .: " PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power December 31, 2008 IPUC Production Data Request 66 IPUC Production Data Request 66 On page 8, lines 7-8 of the testimony of Stephan Bird, a comparison is made between the cost of the Chehalis plant and Pacificorp's Lake Side plant. What was the cost per kW for PacifiCorp's Curant Creek Plant? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 66 The Curant Creek plant capital cost was $341.46 milion. The unfired net combined cycle capacity of the Currant Creek plant at the average ambient temperature is 435 megawatts. The fired net capacity of the Curant Creek plant at the average ambient temperature is 540 megawatts. On the fired capacity basis of 540 megawatts, the installed capital cost for Currant Creek on a cost per kilowatt of capacity is $632 per kilowatt. It should be noted that a cost per kilowatt comparison between Chehalis and Currant Creek should consider the 105 megawatts of duct firing capacity at Currant Creek inasmuch as the duct firing capacity is not as efficient as the unfired combined cycle capacity. The Chehalis plant does not have duct firing capacity; so from a performance perspective, its capacity of 500 megawatts, and associated performance, more closely matches Curant Creek's unfired combined cycle capacity of 435 megawatts.