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.