Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090107PAC to Staff 68-101.pdf~~~;co~OUNTAIN RECE r:ni..,. ",..~. 201 South Main, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Uth 84111 2009 JAN..1 AM II: 49 Janua 6, 2009 Scott Woodbur Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilties Commission 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 RE: P AC-E-08-07 IPUC_ProductionData Request (68-101) Please find enclosed an original and three copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC_Production Data Request Numbers 68-101, excluding 68, 70-80, 83-85, 87, 89, 91, 92, and 96-100. These responses are in process and wil be provided when available. Provided on the enclosed CD is Attachments IPUC Production 69. Enclosed on the Confdential CD is Confdential Attachment IPUC _Production 86. The Confidential Attachment is being provided to paries who have signed a confdentiality agreement pursuat to the protective order in this case. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (80 I) 220-2963. Sincerely, ~(u.t4~(~ Ted Weston, Manager Regulation Enclosures ~ .. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 69 IPUC Production Data Request 69 Please provide a copy of all the customer communications materials currently used by Rocky Mountain Power to promote customer paricipation in its energy efficiency and demand response programs. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 69 Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 69. IDAHO P AC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (68- 101) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 69 ON THE ENCLOSED CD P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 81 IPUc Production Data Request 81 Please provide copies of customer and vendor complaints to Rocky Mountain Power or its contractors from 2006 through 2008 regarding any of its DSM programs. Response to IPUc Production Data Request 81 During the 2006-2008 period, there were no Idaho DSM program complaints registered through the corporate offce complaint line by either vendors or customers. Rocky Mountain Power tum-keys the delivery of four of the seven primary DSM programs offered in Idaho through contractors. Those programs include the low income weatherization program, home energy savings incentive program, refrigerator recycling program, and irrigation efficiency program. While customers and or vendors can lodge a complaint with the Company directly on any DSM programs, as noted above, no complaints were received. The Company checked with the delivery contractors to see if they had received complaints during the 2006-2008 period and received the following reports: Program:Low income weatherization (Contractor - Local community agencies) No recorded complaintsReport: Program: Report: Refrigerator recycling (Contractor - Jaco Environmental) Two complaints recorded (both in late 2007). Complaint 1: Customer 1 expected a customer incentive of $40 but only received $30 (initially the program was fied with a $40 incentive but in 2007 the company fied to reduce the incentive to $30). JACO sent the additional $10 to satisfy the customer. Complaint 2: Customer 2 waited over 6 months to have her refrigerator picked up because of a number of issues. Customer lives in a very remote area that the drivers were unable to locate. They couldn't contact the customer while in the area because there wasn't cell phone reception. The customer's appliance pick-up appointment had to be rescheduled several times before the actual pick-up occurred. This customer too had expected a $40 incentive (which was the amount offered by the program when they first called and scheduled their appliance pick-up) but only received $30 initially. JACO sent the additional $10 and apologized for their inconveniences and problems with our service. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 81 Program: Report: Program: Report: Home energy savings incentive (Contractor - PEei) No recordable complaints were captured in PECI's database however over the 2006-2008 period there were customer calls received by PECI regarding the program and rebate handling questions and comments. The inquiries were generally associated with the customers rebate form being rejected (rebate requests for non-qualifying equipment or incomplete rebate forms) and were precipitated by the contractor requesting additional information from customers prior to rebate processing. Another was received over the perceived safety of the compact fluorescent bulbs promoted through the program however after a call back and explanation from PECI the customer was satisfied that the benefits outweighed the possible risks, assuming responsible disposal practices are followed. As these types of inquiries are considered operational in nature they are not logged and therefore tracked as program complaints. Irrigation effciency program (Contractor - Franklin Soil and Water Conservation) F our customer complaints. Complaint 1: Received in December, 2007. Demand savings were over-stated in preliminar assessment. The available incentive was reduced during the subsequent analysis. During the final inspection, as-built information and conditions increased the incentive slightly. Overall, customer was pleased with the final Rocky Mountain Power incentive. Complaint 2: Received in April 2008. Eligibilty for program was initially denied by program administrator based on complex pumping and water distribution configuration(s). Upon further investigation and site specific engineering project eligibilty was approved. Detailed engineering analysis is on-going. Complaint 3: Received September, 2008. Demand savings were over-stated in preliminar assessment. The available incentive was reduced during the detailed analysis. Customer ultimately elected not to take the revised Rocky Mountain Power incentive. * Complaint 4: Received September, 2008. Demand savings were over-stated in preliminar assessment. The available incentive was reduced during the detailed analysis. Customer installed the equipment but decided not to take the revised Rocky Mountain Power incentive. * * Following these two complaints the program administrator moved their analysis work away from the staff employee who was responsible for the preliminar assessments to a third-part engineer more experienced in complex irigation systems. PAC-E-08-07/RockyMountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 81 While there have been other customer inquiries with the Company's DSM programs that required Company or contractor action, none have been elevated to a level to be characterized or recorded as a complaint or dissatisfaction with the programs or manner in which the programs are being delivered. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 82 IPUC Production Data Request 82 Please specifically identify and quantify any Tarff Schedule 191 funds that have been used for personnel, administration and/or marketing expenses related to promotion of renewable energy resources (e.g. Blue Sky and/or Tariff Schedules 70 and 135) or expenses related to bil payment assistance (e.g. Lend A Hand). Response to IPUC Production Data Request 82 None of the Schedule 191 fuds are used for any expenses related to the Lend-A- Hand program, bil payment assistance or the Blue Sky program. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 86 IPUC Production Data Request 86 Please provide the salar range, bonus range, and total compensation range including benefits for each employee in the Demand Side Management unit. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 86 Please refer to Confidential Attachment IPUC Production 86. This confidential information is provided subject to the terms and conditions of the protective order in this proceeding. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (68- 101) CONFIDENTIAL (LEVEL YELLOW) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 86 ON THE ENCLOSED CONFIDENTIAL CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 88 IPUC Production Data Request 88 Please explain how the Company determined that a ~ mile or greater line extension constituted a remote line extension justifying an annual service charge. Are they any circumstances where the service charge would be waived? Please explain. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 88 The Company assumes Commission Staff is referring to the ongoing facilties charge, aka remote facilties charge, either monthly or anual, when they refer to the "anual service charge." The following response is based on that assumption. The full definition of a remote service includes a provision for isolated facilties less than ~ mile from existing facilties. The justification of an ongoing facilities charge as provided by the remote definition is that the revenue received by the Company from that extension does not support the ongoing costs to the Company associated with that investment. The intent of the curent line extension tariff, Regulation No. 12, is to be rate neutral, meaning new extensions wil be supported by the revenue from those extensions, and thereby not cause an upward pressure on general rates by growing rate base more than associated revenue. There are two pars to achieving this objective. One, the extension allowance is set at or near this revenue neutral point so the customer advances all capital in excess of the revenue supported investment. Two, since there are ongoing costs associated with all Company owned facilities, the facilties charge is the means of maintaining the revenue neutral balance with the ongoing costs of the investment. If the revenue is not sufficient to support the ongoing costs of the investment, the customer pays the Use of Facilties Charges. As described above, a customer pays an advance when the investment in the line is not supported by the associated revenue for providing service. However very often there is subsequent revenue growth that supports the investment. In an effort to balance the revenue neutral approach with practical realities of administering such a tariff it was determined to not implement an ongoing facilties charge for facilities less than ~ mile from the existing utilty grid, with an exception for isolated facilities less than ~ mile. An example of less than Yz mile isolated facilities would be a communication tower within ~ mile of a rual distribution line, but not near existing or future buildings. The facilities charge for remote customers, i.e. customers in excess of ~ mile from the existing grid when they make a line extension request, may be discontinued if other homes or business subsequently connect creating a density of more than one customer per ~ mile. Once an area achieves a density level of more than one customer per ~ mile it is no longer considered remote for puroses of this tariff. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 90 IPUC Production Data Request 90 For a residential line extension in a remote area, the Company's curent Utah tariff states "the Applicant shall pay a Contract Minimum Biling for as long as service is taken, but in no case more than 15 years nor less than five years." The Company's current tariff in Idaho states "the Applicant shall also pay a Contract Minimum Biling for as long as service is taken, but in no case less than 5 years." a. Why is it that Idaho does not have a time limitation for the Contract Minimum Biling provision stated in its tariff? Please explain and provide supporting information as necessary. b. In Idaho, does the Contract Minimum Biling provision terminate at some point? Please explain. c. Does the Company re-calculate the charges when additional load is added to a line for which a customer is curently paying a facilties charge to determine whether a Contract Minimum Biling/Facilties Charge is stil needed to cover o & M expense on that line? Please explain. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 90 a. The Company fied for the remote facilties charge to continue for as long as service is taken in all six states in which it serves. In all states, except Utah, it was approved. The Utah Commission ordered that charges end after 15 years. This was not a Company proposal or determination. b. Other than as explained in the response to IPUC Production Data Request 88, the remote facilties charge goes on for as long as service is taken. c. If a given customer adds load, it increases their revenue and increases the revenue offset, so no adjustment is made. If other customers connect to the extension and the extension remains remote (please refer to the explanation in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 88 for when a line ceases to be remote) the facilities charge is adjusted as given in the tariff, under the sections for refunds. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 93 IPUC Production Data Request 93 As a condition of the transfer of the Site Certification Agreement from Chehalis Power to PacifiCorp, Washington State Energy Facilty Site Evaluation Council Order No. 836 requires PacifiCorp to provide $1.5 millon in funding for greenhouse mitigation projects. Does PacifiCorp intend to add or modify equipment at the plant, or change its historic operations, such that it will emit more greenhouse gases than it has historically? If so, is this the basis for requiring PacifiCorp to provide the $1.5 milion? If not, what is the justification for providing the $1.5 milion? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 93 Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 65. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 94 IPUC Production Data Request 94 On page 8 lines 7-8 of the testimony of Stefan 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 Currant Creek plant? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 94 Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 66. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 6,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 95 IPUC Production Data Request 95 With the recent global credit crisis and the dramatic downtum in the economy, does PacifiCorp believe that the estimated costs for constructing new combined cycle plants wil be higher or lower than the costs used for comparison purposes in the Chehalis analysis (i.e., combined cycle costs that were based on results of the Company's 2012 RFP)? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 95 Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 67. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 6, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 101 IPUC Production Data Request 101 What efforts, if any, are being made to reduce the number of payment arangement agreement defaults? Response to IPUC Production Data Request 101 In Idaho, the Company offers two types of payment arrangements, a Time Payment Plan (TPP) and Equal Time Payment Plan (ETP). The Company explains both types of payment arrangements to customers for them decide which type of payment plan would work best for their scenario. The TPP and ETP can be set up to allow the customer to pay 1/12 of the past due amount with their current monthly bilL. To star these plans, the Company asks the customer how much they are able to pay today. This payment is applied directly to the past due and the rest of the past due amount is spread over a 12 month period. The main difference between these two plans is that the ETP will levelize their monthly bilings using the average bil for the last 12 months, plus the payment arangement amount. The Company also actively refers all customers that are in a past due status to contact their local energy assistance offce for potential assistance. Customers are given energy effciency tips as an effort to assist them on future monthly bilings. If for some reason the customer cannot or does not make their monthly payment according to the arangements made, they are asked to call Rocky Mountain Power at 888-221-7070.