Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090113PAC to Staff 68, 71-79, 83-85, 87, 89.pdf. ',. ~~~l~OUNTAIN RECEI n 2U09 JAN , 3 AM II: " 201 South Main, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Janua 12,2009 ~-:;,~,!,; Scott Woodbur Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilties Commission 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 RE: PAC-E-08-07 IPUCyroduction Data Request (68-101) Please find enclosed an original and three copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IlYC_Production Data Request Numbers 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 87, and 89. Provided on the enclosed CD are Attachments IPUC_Production 83,84, and 85. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (801) 220-2963. Sincerely, T-LJ.~(~ Ted Weston, Manager Regulation Enclosures P AC:.E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 68 IPUC Production Data Request 68 On page 5, line 13, of Jeff Bumgamer's pre-fied testimony is the statement that "...a great many (customers) have directly benefitted from the programs offered." Please provide an estimate for the number of different customers by customer class who have paricipated in one or more of Rocky Mountain Power's energy efficiency programs from 2006 through 2007. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 68 The table below provides the number of customers, by customer class, that have participated in one of more of Rocky Mountain Power's energy efficiency and load management programs for program years 2006 and 2007. Customer 2006 2007 Program Class Sector Participants Participants Low Income Weatherization 2 Residential 93 52 Home Energy Savings 2 Residential 1,141 2,693 See Ya Later Refrigerator 2 Residential 796 684 Commercial & Energy FinAnswer 2 Industrial 0 0 Commercial & FinAnswer Express 2 Industrial 33 54 Irrigation Effciency 2 Industrial 159 157 Irrigation Load Control i Industrial 931 1,129 P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 71 IPUC Production Data Request 71 For each Idaho-funded DSM program please provide a breakdown of anual and 2-year total costs, including incentive payments to paricipants, direct program administrative costs, direct program evaluation costs, and allocated indirect administrative and evaluation costs with a description of how such allocations were made. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 71 Allocated Indirect Direct Direct Admin Program Program and Eval Pro2ram Total Cost Incentives Credits Admin Evaluation Cost Low Income Weatherization $144,262 $130,996 $13,091 $175 $0 Home Energy Savings $102,693 $24,578 $75,436 $2,679 $0 See Ya Later Refrigerator $143,044 $31,840 $111,204 FinAnswer Express $163,789 $60,560 $103,229 $0 $0 Irrigation Energy Savers $245,857 $188,686 $57,171 Irrigation Load Control $361,235 $0 $996,135 $358,812 $2,423 $0 Prior program loan Admin $1,604 $0 $1,604 Prior program - engineering $2,674 $0 $2,674 $0 $0 NEEA $359,137 $359,137 Total 2006 $1,524,295 $436,660 $996,135 $1,082,358 $5,277 $0 Allocated Indirect Direct Direct Admin Program Program and Eval Pro2ram Total Cost Incentives Credits Admin Evaluation Cost Low Income Weatherization $101,287 $90,449 $10,428 $410 $0 Home Energy Savings $229,135 $127,861 $99,835 $1,439 $0 See Ya Later Refrigerator $123,294 $23,730 $97,426 $2,138 FinAnswer Express $181,556 $107,848 $73,708 $0 Irrigation Energy Savers $274,982 $170,872 $104,111 Irrigation Load Control $846,007 $1,640,488 $843,738 $2,269 $0 Prior program -loan Admin $3 $3 Program development - Energy FinAnswer $3,846 $0 $3,846 $0 NEEA $360,534 $360,534 Total 2007 $2,120,643 $520,759 $1,640,488 $1,589,783 $10,102 $0 Total 2006 & 2007 $3,644,938 $957,419 $2,636,623 $2,672,141 $15,378 $0 Explanatory notes for the table: 1. Incentives for the low income weatherization program represent payments made by Rocky Mountain Power to the agencies. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 71 2. Incentives for Home Energy Savings and FinAnswer represent incentives paid to customers for the savings reported in 2006 and 2007. Some of these incentives were paid outside the savings reporting period. 3. Credits for the irrigation load control program are recovered through the company's net power cost filings instead of the tariff rider collection mechanism. 4. Irrigation load control program expenses (other than credits) are those in the balancing account for the calendar year periods. They are different the amounts listed in the annual program reports which cover the period from October 1 through September 30. 5. Direct program evaluation expense for 2007 includes development expenses for the Energy FinAnswer program that was filed in early 2008. 6. See Ya Later incentive expenses include only the cash incentives to customers. It does not include the savings measure kit or the service incentives, i.e., appliance removaL. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 72 IPUC Production Data Request 72 For each Idaho-funded DSM program please provide the pre-implementation estimated post-implementation evaluation budget, the amount actually spent on post-implementation evaluations through 2007, and the amount spent for such evaluations in 2008 YTD. Where Idaho costs are an allocation of larger costs, explain how the allocation was determined. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 72 As noted in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 58, there have been no independent evaluations of the Idaho programs since implemented in 2006. However the Company has assessed program cost effectiveness during 2006 and 2007. The Company defines cost effectiveness assessments as the process of determining program cost effectiveness using actual costs and actual savings from program operation during the period. These assessments occur during preparation of the annual reports and for the two cases described below. For the See Ya Later program, additional cost effectiveness assessment analysis was performed in 2007 as par of the filing to adjust the incentive level and reported savings. Durng 2008, costs effectiveness assessments were performed in preparation for the filing adjustment in February 2008. The expenditures included here are for assessing program cost effectiveness during these periods. Program Budget 2006 2007 Irrigation load control $2,200 $2,423 $2,269 See Ya Later $20,000 $0 $2,138 Home Energy Savings $15,000 $2,679 $1,439 Low income weatherization $10,000 $175 $410 FinAnswer Express $ 10,000-$ i 5,000 $0 $2,138 Irrigation Energy Savers $3,000-$20,000 $0 $0 In 2008, a total of$9,621 was spent on program evaluation or cost effective analyses. $8,525 was direct program or cost effective analyses and the balance of $1,096 was indirect allocated evaluation and cost effective analyses costs. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 73 IPUC Production Data Request 73 Please list and briefly describe all post-implementation evaluations of Idaho- funded DSM programs or general DSM management completed by or for Rocky Mountain Power from 2006 through 2008 to date. Include in the descriptions the evaluation costs and the names and affiiations of the primary evaluators and the process(es) by which any 3rd pary evaluators were chosen. Also provide copies of, or easily accessible references to, each report listed. Include both internal and external evaluations of direct energy and peak demand impacts, program processes, portfolio management, and educational and/or market transformation effects. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 73 As noted in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 58, there have been no independent evaluations of the Idaho programs since implemented in 2006. Evaluations for three of the programs offered in Idaho have however been completed in Utah and Washington. Details regarding those evaluations as well as the evaluations were provided as part of the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 58. Now that the Idaho programs have been ruing for nearly three years and sufficient program paricipation data has been accumulated the Company plans to commission, through a competitive bid process, third-party evaluators in 2009 to begin post program delivery evaluations of the Idaho programs. Despite not having completed third-party evaluations of the Idaho programs to date, the Company has completed and provided the Idaho Public Utilty Commission Idaho demand-side management program reports for the 2006 and 2007 reporting periods, complete with post implementation information such as savings acquired, number of participants by program, and cost benefit analysis information in support of the program's post implementation cost-effectiveness. In addition the Company also provided the Idaho Public Service Commission program specific reports for the irrigation load management program for program years 2003-2008. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 74 IPUC Production Data Request 74 Please describe how post-implementation evaluations have been used by Rocky Mountain Power to improve its DSM programs and/or to improve its overall resource planing. Include supporting discussion notes, letters and memorandums, all whether on paper or electronically distributed. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 74 As described in more detail in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 58, the following actions were taken in response to the findings of the Washington and Utah program evaluations completed of three programs which are also offered in Idaho: Utah and Washington "See ya later refrigerator" evaluations and post program changes: . Adjusted the expectation with delivery contractor regarding scheduling of appliance pick-ups, even in remote areas, to within 21 days of receiving the customer's call for service; · Adjusted the customer incentive level down from $40 to $30; · Re-negotiated the delivery contract reducing implementation costs by approximately thirteen percent; . Adjusted the assumed savings per unit e.g. refrigerator and or freezer (pre- evaluation value) down for near-term reporting purposes to be in line with Utah program post delivery evaluation savings. Utah and Washington Energy FinAnswer and FinAnswer Express evaluations and post program changes: . 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); · Complete copies of the evaluations and more specific details on their findings were provided in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 58 and referenced above. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 12, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 75 IPUC Production Data Request 75 Please provide post-implementation benefit/cost (B/C) ratios estimated by or for Rocky Mountain Power with electronically executable cost-effectiveness formulae. Include complete descriptions of, and bases for, all assumptions (e.g. net-to-gross savings ratios), values (e.g. demand, energy and non-energy savings) and calculations used in estimating the B/C ratios. Describe all sensitivity analyses of any non-firm variables and assumptions used in estimating B/C ratios. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 75 Exhibit No. 28 in Docket P AC-E-08-07 provided a portfolio calculation of post implementation B/C ratios for programs delivered by Rocky Mountain Power in Idaho in 2006 and 2007. During preparation of this response, it was discovered the analysis utilzed a ten year measure life instead of four years for the 2006 Irrigation Energy Savers program. The analysis has been updated and provided as revised Exhibit No. 28. Program specific B/C ratios supporting this portfolio analysis are provided below: 2006 program post implementation Die ratios Program TRC + adder TRC UCT RIM PCT Home Energy savings 0.827 0.752 1.81 0.468 2.671 See ya later 3.586 3.260 2.534 0.587 NA Low Income Weatherization 3.007 2.734 2.734 0.628 NA FinAnswer Express 3.048 2.771 6.850 0.680 6.166 Irrigation Energy Savers 2.742 2.493 4.042 0.998 4.909 Irrigation Load control 6.790 6.790 1.957 1.957 NA 2007 program post implementation Die ratios Program TRC+ adder TRC UCT RIM PCT Home Energy savings 1.367 1.242 1.444 0.504 11.461 See ya later 2.535 2.304 1.861 0.546 NA Low Income Weatherization 1.212 1.102 1.102 0.468 NA FinAnswer Express 1.800 1.636 5.002 0.658 3.209 Irrigation Energy Savers 1.475 1.34 i 2.021 0.800 3.00 Irrigation Load control 5.994 5.994 1.928 1.928 NA PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 75 Information about the source of the assumptions used in the analysis is listed below: Assumptions Source Benefit cost ratio equation inputs California Stadard Practices ManuaL. Oct 2001 Discount rate 2007 Integrated Resource Plan Line losses (all classes)1991 PacifiCorp Electric Operations line loss study Energy rates (all classes)Calculated from Table A using rates in PAC-E-07-05. Decrement value for energy.2007 Integrated Resource Plan $/MWH Capacity value- $kW-yr Proposed Valuation Methodology for Idaho Irrigation Load Control Prof.ram. Prepared by PacifiCorp - December 2007 Home Energy Savings .Program is operated using deemed savings. Basis for the.Energy savings - kWh deemed savings assumptions includes Regional Technical.Net to gross ratio Forum (RTF) for appliances, CFLs, insulation, duct sealing,.Measure life HV AC tune-ups; Energy Star for fixtures and ceilng fans; and the Rocky Mountain Power Cool Cash program for unitar and evaporative HV AC equipment..Net to gross ratio is from the 2006 fiing and comes from the 2005/2006 version of the Database for Energy Effciency Resources ( DEER) "all other residential programs"..Measure life is specific to measures and is drawn from a number of third part data bases including RTF and DEER. To simplify cost effectiveness analysis, measures are categorized as either lighting or non-lighting. Low Income Weatherization .Program is operated using deemed savings. Savings are.Energy savings - kWh from 2005 fiing and were updated in 2007 fiing..Net to gross ratio .Net to gross ratio for this program 1.0, (i.e., no free-.Measure life ridership). This program targets income qualified customers and it is safe to assume customers would not have under- taken any of this work outside the program..Measure life is from fiing information. See ya later refrigerator .Program is operated using deemed savings. Deemed savings.Energy savings - kWh were based on the initial filing and Utah evaluation.Net to gross ratio information. Advice 07-09 revised the deemed savings in .Measure life 2007..Net to gross ratios for this program originate from the Utah program evaluations, both initial filing and the 2007 revision. ...Measure life follows from original fiing in 2005. FinAnswer Express .Program is operated using a combination of deemed and.Energy savings - kWh calculated savings. Lighting savings are calculated for each.Net to gross ratio project using project specific pre- and post-installation.Measure life fixture inventories and operating schedules and deemed fixture wattages. Unitar HV AC equipment savings is calculated using project specific effciency ratings and equipment capacities with deemed equivalent full load hours and baseline effciency ratings. For premium efficiency motor and other non-lighting measures listed in the incentive tables, savings are based on deemed values. Savings for other measures is calculated on a project PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 75 Assumptions Source specific basis. .Net to gross ratio is from the 2005 filing and is based on DEER and Express Effciency program (similar program in California)..Measure life is by measure and is drawn principally from DEER infonnation. Program cost effectiveness is perfonned on a weighted measure life basis. Irrigation Energy Savers .Program is operated using a combination of deemed and.Energy savings - kWh calculated savings. Deemed savings per unit are the.Net to gross ratio equipment exchange measures and prescriptive measures..Measure life Savings for other measures is calculated on a project specific basis..Net to gross ratio is from the 2005 fiing which is based on 2005 DEER ("Agricultural and Dairy Incentives") and professional judgment of Fazio Engineering..Measure life is from the 2005 fiing and contained in the original market characterization perfonned by Fazio Engineering. Irrigation load control .Program is operated using site specific calculated capacity.Capacity savings reductions based on an average of three years of biling data.Net to gross ratio as specified in the Schedule 72 and 72A..Measure life .The NTG ratio for the program cost effectiveness analysis is 1.0. Free-ridership is managed prior to program sign-up through Item NO.9 in the Special Conditions of Schedule 72 and 72A..Measure life is not used in calculating cost effectiveness of load management programs. Beyond the" 1 0% avoided cost adder" used the in the PTRC (or TRC with 10% adder) calculation, non-energy benefits are not included in these calculations. As such, these results are conservative and including additional non-energy benefits would improve the benefit cost ratios provided here. When performing post implementation cost benefit analysis, the Company typically does not perform sensitivity analysis since all inputs are based on "as implemented," "as fied" or "as evaluated" information for energy savings, costs, net to gross ratios, etc. The Company typically would not adjust inputs such as measure life or NTG ratios between filing and post implementation analysis absent updated evaluation information. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 76 IPUC Production Data Request 76 To the extent that assumptions and variable values of post-implementation B/C ratios differ from those used in pre-implementation DSM "potential" studies, please describe and explain those differences. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 76 The Company's system wide potential study utilzed a Total Resource Cost (TRC) calculation for measures to assess the percentage of the technical potential that was economic. The potential study did not bundle these measures into programs at a state leveL. The individual state level program filings combined measures into a state level program and included state specific estimates for items such as administration. These revised inputs were the basis of the program fiings that were provided to the IPUC for approvaL. The Company interprets this request as asking the Company to ilustrate differences between program fiing ratios and post implementation ratios by program and has responded consistent with interpretation. Global changes in assumptions are outlined below: Decrement value for energy ($/kWh): values used in the 2005 filing were from the 2005 update of the 2004 IRP. Values used for this analysis are from the 2007 IRP. Capacity value ($kW-yr): values used in the initial assessment of the load management program were based on values from the 2004 IRP. Values used in this analysis are from the source cited above. Discount rate(s): Program filings utilized a lower discount rate for the TRC calculation. The current analysis utilzes the 2007 IRP discount rates for all calculati ons. Retail rate(s): retail rates by customer class used in the original analysis were updated in the curent analysis. Die ratios comparisons Program TRC+ adder TRC UCT RIM PCT Home Energy savings - 2006 fiing 1.227 1. 16 1.78 0.487 7.870 Home Energy savings - 2006 actual 0.827 0.752 1.81 0.468 2.671 Home Energy savings - 2007 actual 1.367 1.242 1.444 0.504 11.461 See ya later - 2005 fiing 2.837 2.579 1.739 0.696 NA See ya later - 2006 actual 3.586 3.260 2.534 0.587 NA See ya later - 2007 fiing 1.683 1.530 1.096 0.527 NA See ya later - 2007 actual 2.535 2.304 1.861 0.546 NA PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 76 Program TRC + adder TRC UCT RIM PCT Low Income WX - 2005 fiin!!0.936 0.851 1.063 0.544 NA Low Income WX - 2006 actual 3.007 2.734 2.734 0.628 NA Low Income WX . 2007 actual 1.212 1.102 1.102 0.468 NA FinAnswer Express - 2005 fiin!!1.544 1.404 2.032 0.649 2.857 FinAnswer Express - 2006 actual 3.048 2.771 6.850 0.680 6.166 FinAnswer Express - 2007 actual 1.800 1.636 5.002 0.658 3.209 Irrigation Energy Savers - 2005 filin!!1.224 1. 13 1.383 0.720 2.81 i Irrigation Energy Savers - 2006 actual 2.742 2.493 4.042 0.998 4.909 Irrigation Energy Savers - 2007 actual 1.475 1.341 2.021 0.800 3.00 Irrigation load control - 2003 annual report NA 3.11 1.09 0.58 NA Irrigation Load control -2006 actual 6.790 6.790 1.957 1.957 NA Irrigation Load control -2007 actual 5.994 5.994 1.928 1.928 NA Filed program B/C ratios are typically based on multiple years to normalize for the effects of ramp years and routine changes in participation levels. Comparison between anual performance and multiple year forecasted performance is likely to show some variations. The Home Energy Savings program results in 2006 reflect a ramp up year which include start up costs and 2007 performance approximates the fiing forecast. In 2006 the Irrigation Energy Savers and FinAnswer Express programs benefited from slightly higher savings and lower costs than with the multiple year forecast indicated. 2007 performance more closely approximates the multiple year forecasts. The change in Low Income results in between 2006 and 2007 are the result of updated unit savings assumptions made as par of the 2007 fiing. Changes in the irrigation load control program reflect changes in the avoided capacity values which have evolved as the program has moved from scheduled to disptachable and increased in size. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 77 IPUC Production Data Request 77 Please describe any post-implementation DSM program evaluations that are not yet completed, but are currently in progress. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 77 As stated in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 73, there are no third-pary evaluations of Idaho demand-side management programs curently underway. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 78 IPUC Production Data Request 78 Please describe any post-implementation DSM program evaluations that are curently in a planing stage. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 78 As stated in the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 73, the Company feels it has sufficient data after nearly three years of program operations to undertake meaningful program evaluations. The Company intends to commission, through a competitive bid process, third-pary evaluators beginning in 2009 and plans to have completed Idaho program evaluations by the end of the 2010 calendar y~ar. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 79 IPUC Production Data Request 79 Beginning on page 18, line 14, of Jeff Bumgamer's pre-fied testimony is an implication that if DSM benefits exceed DSM costs, then the DSM is de facto prudent. Is a B/~ ratio greater than 1.0 Rocky Mountain Power's sole criterion for determining the success of a DSM program? Or does the Company also evaluate program success based on possible alternative demand-side costs, e.g. whether DSM administration and overhead is reasonable and whether a program's customer incentives are set to maximize net utilty benefit? If so, please provide documented exanples of the use of such. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 79 A B/C ratio greater than 1.0 is the primar economic or cost benefit metric in determining prudence of investment however it is not the only metric the company considers in evaluating program success. The Company also looks at customer awareness, customer satisfaction, and ease of paricipation which in the short-term are equated to growth in program participation, acquired savings, and load under management. In the longer term these metrics are complimented by program evaluation results once suffcient paricipation data becomes available to make third-pary, process and impact evaluations meaningfuL. While the Idaho program participation and acquisitions results for 2006 and 2007 were restricted by the initial 1.5% fuding cap program paricipation and results ramped up quickly over this period and demand for program services grew resulting in the Company's request and Idaho Public Service Commission's approval (effective May 1, 2008) to increase the revenues collected to fud the demand-side programs from 1.5% to 3.72%. Information presented in the 2006 and 2007 anual demand-side management program reports provided the Idaho Public Service Commission at the conclusion of each program ¡year indicate that administration expenses remained in reasonable alignient with the Company's pre-implementation estimates. While the Company thihks administration costs are meaningful to monitor and manage they are rarely as importt as looking at the program's overall costs verses the savings acquired! or load available for management in determining prudence of investment. How dollars are invested to encourage savings is more important if spending them in a certain way isn't getting the job done, are not necessar in getting the job døne, or if spending them differently would result in greater savings. These fi;ctors are taken into consideration as par of third-pary program evaluation process. As the Idaho program offerings, with the exception of the Irrigation Energy Savers and Irrigation Load Management programs, are mature offerings having benefited from being offered, evaluated and evolved in other jurisdictions the Company believes the Idaho program designs won't markedly change following Idaho specific evaluations. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januay 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 79 The Commission Staffs questioning of whether programcustomer incentives are set to maximize utilty benefit is a valid question and one curently under examination by the Company, especially in light of the current state of the national economy. It may be required to increase programcustomer incentives or increase the ceilng on programcustomer incentives allowed as a percentage of total project costs in order to maintain the competitiveness of customer investments in energy efficiency in relation to other possible investments during this time of reduced incomes and tight capital markets. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 83 IPUC Production Data Request 83 Please provide copies of all demand side management (DSM, e.g. energy efficiency, conservation or demand response) business plans prepared by or for Rocky Mountain Power from 2005 through 2008 in which its Idaho service area is included. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 83 The Company's integrated resource plan is the foundational document used in the development of company business plans. Just like supply-side resource planning, demand-side is done on a system-wide basis leveraging specific state opportunities as identified e.g. Irrigation Energy Savers and Irrigation Load Management in Idaho and air conditioner load control in Utah. Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 83, which provides the relevant documents and excerpts from documents as they relate to DSM planing in Idaho. Excerpts from the following Company integrated resource plan documents 1. 2003 IRP and update documents: o file "2003 IRP documents.pdf' o file "2003 IRP update documents.pdf' 2. 2004 IRP and update documents: o fie "2004 IRP documents.pdf' o file "2004 IRP update documents. pdf' 3. 2007 IRP and update documents (update incorporates findings of 2007 DSM Potential Assessment): o fie "2007 IRP documents.pdf' o fie "2007 IRP update documents.pdf' o fie "2007 IRP update DSM Resource Assumptions by state. doc" Copies of relevant program specific planing materials 1. Rocky Mountain Power's Februar 2, 2006 Petition for Clarification and Motion of Unconditional Approval (Provides Idaho program plans under a 1.5% annual funding cap) o file "ID PAC-E-05-10 DSM Petition 2-06.pdf' 2. PacifiCorp's Februar 14,2008 fiing to increase the DSM surcharge and enhance program set (Provides Idaho program plans absent a funding cap however doesn't incorporate irrigation program paricipation credit fuding in Schedule 191 revenues) o fie "Regulatory Testimony79460 FINAL FILING.pdf' PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 83 3. Sumary level of products sought through soon to be released 2008 DSM RFP o fie "08 DSM RFP Summary of products sought.doc" Web link to DSM Potential Study http://ww.pacificorp.com/Article/ Article7553 5 .html Documents relevant to planning previously provided the Idaho Public Utilties Commission 1. Copies of anual irrigation load management program reports, 2003 through 2008. 2. Copies of anual Idaho DSM state reports, 2006 and 2007. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (68- 101) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 83 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 84 IPUC Production Data Request 84 Please provide an organization char of the Demand Side Management unit, including its placement within the larger organization. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 84 Please refer to Attachment IPUC Production 84. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (68- 101) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 84 ON THE ENCLOSED CD PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power Januar 12, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 85 IPUC Production Data Request 85 Please provide names and job titles with descriptions of duties for all Rocky Mountain Power employee positions in the Demand Side Management unit. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 85 Please refer to Attachment IPUC_Production 85, and the Company's response to IPUC Production Data Request 84; specifically Attachment IPUC_Production 84. IDAHO PAC-E-08-07 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IPUC_PRODUCTION DATA REQUEST (68- 101) ATTACHMENT IPUC PRODUCTION 85 ON THE ENCLOSED CD P AC-E~08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 87 IPUC Production Data Request 87 Please provide resumes of all employees in the Demand Side Management unit. (Home addresses and telephone numbers and other personal information may be redacted). Response to IPUC Production Data Request 87 Current resumes of employees in the Demand Side Management unit are not readily available. As the deparment staffing has been stable for several years, resumes have either not been necessary or are currently out of date. If additional information beyond department organizational chart, job descriptions and salary ranges is needed, more time wil be required to develop and/or update employee resumes for submission in this case. P AC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 89 IPUC Production Data Request 89 Please provide a line item detail showing the amount and how each component (e.g. Return on Capital, Recovery of Capital, State and Federal Income Taxes, Local Property Taxes, Operations and Maintenance, Administrative and General, Other Taxes, Customer Accounts and Services, and Capital Replacement Annuity) in the Facilties Charge contributes to 0 & M expenses. In your response please make it clear what is included. For example, is the 0 & M component based on average 0 & M expense for the entire Company, average 0 & M expense for distribution facilties only, or 0 & M expense for the distribution facilties associated with each paricular project. a. Please explain how the 0.67 percent customer contribution was determined and how each component included in the calculation relates to this percentage. b. Similarly, please explain how the 1.67 percent Company contribution was determined and how each component included in the calculation relates to this percentage. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 89 Annually the Company provides an internal report of its Use of Facilities Charges. The 2008 Use of Facilities Charges (Based on 2007 Data) for the Company's Idaho jurisdiction for distribution plant are as follows: Company provides Initial Capital Investment 1 Retur on Capital 5.05%2 Recovery of Capital 2.70% 3 State & Federal Income Taxes 1.94%4 Local Property Taxes 0.92% 5 Operation & Maintenance 4.45% 6 Administrative & General 1.05%7 Other Taxes 0.04% 8 Customer Accounts & Services 1.96%TOTAL 18.1 1% Customer Provides Initial Capital Investment9 Subtotal Lines 4 - 8 8.42% 10 Capital Replacement Annuity 1.21 %TOTAL 9.63% These values are anual values. The percentages given in a. and b. are monthly or I/1th of the annual value. The facilties charges are made up of the components given above, of which O&M is only one component. As noted the components are for all Idaho distribution plant. PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 12,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 89 a. The 0.67% is one-twelfth of 8%, which is less than the actual value. However the Company chose to devalue items 6 and 8 sufficient to reach a round number less than actual. This has the advantage of not requiring adjustment of the charge when it changes, as there is no compensating credit as given in b. below. b. When the facilities charge percentages were fied the total for Company provided capital was approximately 20%, one-twelfth of 20% is 1.67%. Although this is greater than the existing percent, it is balanced by the 20% revenue credit that fully offsets the facilties charge at the revenue amount used to calculate the allowance, which allowance is used to calculate the 1.67% facilities charge.