20100927PAC to Staff 302-306, 309-317.pdf

~~;:OUNTAIN
RE('t:i _ ,j,_~
September 24,2010 2010 Sf? 27 AMID: 27
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City. Utah 84111
Scott Woodbur
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washigton
Boise, ID 83702-5918
Neil Price
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, il 83702-5918
RE: ID PAC-E-I0-07
IPUC Data Request (302-317)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC Data Requests 302-317,
excluding IPUC 307 and 308. These responses will be provided separately. Provided on the
enclosed CD are Attchments IPUC 302 and 310.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J: Tè4/t-d / ~
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
Enclosure:
cc: Jean JewelllIPUC (C)/ 3 copies
Eric 0 lsen/IP A (C)
Ben OttolICL (C)
Randall Budge/Monsanto (C)
James R. Smithonsanto (C)
Richard Anderson/onsanto (C)
George C. Carer, III/Monsato (C)
Dennis Peseau/onsanto (C)
Gareth R. Kajander/Monsanto (C)
Maurce Brubaker/Monsato (C)
Brian Collins/Monsanto (C)
Michael Gormanonsanto (C)
Kath Iverson/onsanto (C)
Mark Widmer/Monsanto (C)
PAC-E- I 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 20 10
IPUC Production Data Request 302
IPUC Production Data Request 302
Please provide a spreadsheet containing the following information for each
customer and each measure incented;underthe Energy FinAnswer and FinAnswer
Express programs for 2008 and 2009 program years: Customer ID #, Customer
City, Measure(s) implemented, Energy savings, Demand reduction, Method of
energy savings and demand reduction calculation, Incentive amount, Customer
investment, Measure Implementation date, Incentive date, Invoice Date,
Installation verification date.
Response to IPUC Production Data Rrqtltst 302
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 302. Please refer to table below for descriptions
and explanations.
Requested Data Description, notes
Program name Program name
Customer il #Project/application number
Customer City City for the customer site where the measures are
installed
Measure(s) implemented The measures implemented are described via measure
type andsiibtype.cassifications followed by a measure
name.. iTh~ rØata:comes from two databases which use
slightly different classification systems.
Energy savings Annual kilowatt-hour savings
Demand reduction Average monthly demand savings
Savings calculation Please refer to the 2009 Demand Side Management
method Annual Report for descriptions of savings calculation
methods (page 14 for Energy FinAnswer, page 17-18 for
FinAns'Y~~Express). No further data on savings
calculatiorl method is included in the spreadsheet.
Incentive amount Incentive amount paid
Customer investment Measure cost.Note in cases such as new construction,
the measure cost is an incremental cost (difference in cost
between standard and high effciency equipment).Note
in some cases the costs are deemed values.The measure
cost is before incentive.
Measure implementation Final Inspection Report date or the incentive application
date postmark date.These dates are after the customer has
completed measure implementation.
Incentive date Date the savings is reported and incentive check is
requeste~:LijTheiqate on the incentive check is tracked in
separateslYstems, '
Invoice date Not rt1adilýjavailable. Note that for many projects there
are multiple invoices.
P AC-E-l 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 302
Requested Data Description, n.òtes
Installation verification Final Inspection Report date or the date for the
date completion of the review of the project or application.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 303
IPUC Production Data Request 303
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE IDENTIFIED EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED
OR DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO IDAHO.
Please provide total Rocky Mountain Power personnel-related expenses for the
Company's DSM efforts in 2008 and in 2009 in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 303
Costs related to the Company's DSM efforts may be either: 1) charged to specific
DSM programs and directly assigned to an individual state; or 2) allocated
amongst each of the Company's six jurisdictions because they are not directly
related to a specific program. Costs directly attributed to Idaho DSM programs
are deferred in a regulatory asset for later recovery through Schedule 191.
Allocated costs not related to a specific program are included in FERC Account
908. The tables below show the personnel-related costs in 2008 and 2009 that
were either directly attributed to Idaho DSM programs or allocated to Idaho.
Allocated costs were calculated using test year factors as fied in Steven R.
McDougal's Exhibit NO.2
148,782
Allocated
192,675
7,485
200
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
t" 149,821
Allocated
389,499
15,130
2009
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
". I
PAC-E-10-071R0cky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 304
IPUC Production Data Request 304
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE IDENTIFIED EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED
OR DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO IDAHO.
Please provide total Rocky Mountain Power office-related expenses for the
Company's DSM efforts in 2008 and in 2009 in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 304
Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Data Request 303.
The tables below show the office-related costs in 2008 and 2009 that were either
directly attributed to Idaho DSM programs or allocated to Idaho. Allocated costs
were calculated using test year factors as fied in Steven R. McDougal's Exhibit
NO.2
386
Allocated
2,624
102
200
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
1,096
Allocated.
3,686
143
200
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
, .~. i
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined. .
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 305
IPUC Production Data Request 305
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE IDENTIFIED EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED
OR DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO IDAHO.
Please provide total Rocky Mountain Power travel-related program expenses for
the Company's DSM efforts in 2008 and in 2009 in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 305
Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Data Request 303.
The tables below show the travel-related costs in 2008 and 2009 that were either
directly attributed to Idaho DSM pr()grams or allocated to Idaho. Allocated costs
were calculated using test year factors as fied in Steven R. McDougal's Exhibit
NO.2
14,391
Allocated
12,959
503
2008
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
9,097
Allocated
22,821
943
2009
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
;1
,"
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
¡ '~
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 306
IPUC Production Data Request 306
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE IDENTIFIED EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED
OR DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO IDAHO.
Please provide total Rocky Mountain Power employee training expenses for the
Company's DSM efforts in 2008 and in 2009 in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 306
Please refer to the Company's response to IPUC Data Request 303.
The tables below show the employee training-related costs in 2008 and 2009 that
were either directly attributed to Idaho DSM programs or allocated to Idaho.
Allocated costs were calculated using test year factors as filed in Steven R.
McDougal's Exhibit No.2
94
Allocated
900
35
2008
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
669
Allocated
685
27
2009
Total Company
Idaho
Directly Attributed
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 309
IPUC Production Data Request 309
Please identify the person or persons who ultimately decide whether or not Rocky
Mountain Power wil implement, change eliminate or add new DSM programs or
measures to existing programs after Rocky Mountain Power has determined such
programs or measures wil likely be cost-effective in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 309
Char A shows the current process the Company utilzes to identify cost effective
energy efficiency and demand response resources. This process is designed to
ensure demand-side resources are: (1) fully identified; (2) evaluated
comparatively to supply side alternatives; (3) considered in the Company's
resource planing process; (4) competitively delivered; (5) fairly evaluated for
their impact and effectiveness; (6) cost-effective; and (7) compliant with state,
regulatory and Company requirements.
As noted on Char A the planing process begins with an assessment of the
potential opportunities and costs associated with demand side acquisitions
(potential study). In 2007 the potential study identified 12,500 distinct Class 2
measure types as well as a number ofload management opportunities that could
be modeled using a supply curve metho~910gy within the planing process.
Demand-side management resources var in their dispatchability, reliabilty of
results, term of load reduction benefit and persistence over time. Each has its
value and place in effectively managing utilty investments, resource costs and
system operations. Based on the significant number of measures and product
types identified in the potential study it is impossible to handle them all
individually within the Company's integrat~d resource planing models. To
address this issue, Class 2 energye,f-i,ciericymeasures are bundled by their
weighted-average load shape, liveS, ~d còsts to reduce the number of
combinations to a more manageablet'umlier. Despite this bundling, 930 supply
cures were required to capture the rnajority of resource opportunities identified
for consideration in the 2008 integrated resource plan.
The evaluation of the demand side resources within the integrated resource plan is
also informed by state specific evaluation criteria that must align between the
planning and resource acquisition fu1l~tiQH~' While all states generally use the
commonly accepted tests some stâtesdr~qllìre variations in how they are calculated
and prioritize the tests differently in' evaluating cost-effectiveness of demand side
resources.
Once the targets for demand-side management are identified through the
integrated resource planing action plan existing programs are re-evaluated to
determine if actions can be taken to increase performance or whether additional
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 309
programs are required. If it is determined that additional programs are required to
satisfy the integrated resource planning targets a request for proposal is issued for
measures include in the bundles selected by the integrated resource modeL. The
results of the request for proposal arê:eva.luated and if it is determined that the
resources are cost effective a plan:for theiinplementation of the program across
Rocky Mountain Power and Pacific 'Power's (excluding Oregon) service territory
is developed.
State specific cost effectiveness evaluations are completed prior to the final
application for approval to the relevant commission. Requests for new programs
are reviewed and approved by the vice president responsible for demand-side
management and by Rocky Mountain Power's president.
ChartA
Demand-side Management
Program process/lRP relationship
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 309
The effectiveness of the programsisevaluated on a biennial basis and informs the
Company's anual performance evaluation of the programs. This information
along with market information and information regarding codes and standards can
lead to the elimination or modification of programs and of specific measures.
Minor modifications to specific measures are reviewed and approved by the vice
president responsible for demand~side management. While major changes have
not occurred, decisions to discontinue'aprogram would be addressed by the vice
president responsible for demand-síde.inanagement and Rocky Mountain Power's
president.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarner
To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24,2010
IPUC Production Data Request 310
IPUC Production Data Request 310
Please provide a matrix showing Rocky Mountain Power's expenditures in 2008
and in 2009 for post-implementation DSM program evaluations of impacts,
processes, market effects and cost-effectiveness in Idaho.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 310
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 310 for a workbook detailing those costs
allocated in 2008 and 2009 for post-implementation program evaluation efforts.
The costs in the workbook reflect third-party costs associated with cost-
effectiveness analysis used in the production of the 2008 and 2009 Irrigation load
control program qualitative reviews (Credit Rider Initiative Final Report) and also
costs to attend the IPUC staff workshop on evaluation standards for prudency
determination. There were no third-party demand side management program
impact or process evaluations completed for 2008 and 2009 post
implementation in this period. However, as noted in the 2009 Demand Side
Management Annual Report (Anual Report) third-pary post implementation
evaluations are currently underway for six Idaho demand side management
programs of post implementation periods ranging from 2006 through 2009; the
costs associated with these evaluations wil be noted in the 2010 Annual Report
and results available later this year. Since the publication of the 2009 Annual
Report a third-party evaluation of the Irrgation load control program has been
added to the list of programs noted in the Annual Report scheduled for third-pary
review. The results of this evaluation wil also be available later the year (2010).
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer i';
To Be Determined
I .
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 311
IPUC Production Data Request 311
Please provide a detailed description of all changes made to all lighting measures'
cost-effectiveness assumptions and calculations in consideration of federal
standards changes.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request311
Lighting is a qualifying measure contributing savings in five of Rocky Mountain
Power's Idaho demand side management programs; 1) the residential Home
Energy Savers program; 2) the residential refrigerator recycling program; 3) the
low income weatherization program; 4) the business FinAnswer Express program;
and 5) the business Energy FinAnswer programs. No specific changes have been
made to date to lighting measure cost-effectiveness assumptions and calculations
in consideration of federal standards changes. It is worth noting however that the
Company has assumed conservatively on business program lighting baselines in
the determination of savings and measure cost-effectiveness used for planing
puroses. As noted in Rocky Mountain Power's 2009 Demand Side Management
Report - Idaho, adjustments associated with the changing federal lighting
standards will be addressed in advance of the changing standards, scheduled to be
phased-in over three years beginning in 2012.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 312
IPUC Production Data Request 312
Please explain why some customers pay into the tariff rider but are not eligible to
paricipate in Company DSM incentive programs.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 312
As noted with respect to IPUC Production Data Request 309, demand-side
management incentive programs are the result of the Company's integrated
resource planing process and serve as an alternative to supply-side options. As
such the cost of acquiring demand-side resources are in effect par of the cost of
providing service to all customers.
Recordholder: Jeff Bumgarner
Sponsor: To Be Determined
l.
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 313
IPUC Production Data Request 313
Please explain why all programs wiU',be evaluated by a third-pary vendor with
the exception of the Irrigation Load Control program?
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 313
The Company understands and appreciates the contribution of third-party reviews
of Company sponsored programs, even their periodic use in validating the results
of Company performed evaluations such as is tyically the case for some load
management programs such as Idaho's and Uta's irrigation load control
program. In fact, following the publication of the 2009 Demand Side
Management Annual Report the Cómpanyadded Idaho's irrigation load control
program to the list of programs scheduled for third-pary evaluations in 2010.
Evaluation protocols and objectives for energy effciency and load management
program evaluations are similar however the evaluation approach for load
management programs is often more program specific. Results can fluctuate
widely both in a given year and between years depending on a host of factors
ranging from changing weather and paricipating crop types to market prices,
available generation, and timing of program dispatch. In addition, some load
management programs have the adv~ta&~.ofhaving impact data available and/or
sample data available from the COnlpany'smetering systems (distribution and
transmission metering) to assist'in program evaluation. For these reasons and to
be as effcient as possible in managing program costs, Rocky Mountain Power has
generally assumed the role of evaluator for its irrigation load control programs.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
L .0
P AC-E-1 0-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 314
IPUC Production Data Request 314
Please explain why the field expenses for the Irrigation Load control program
have increased so significantly in 2009.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 314
In fact costs, on a kW (load basis), have actually been reduced (marginally) in
2009. Furher reductions are diffcult as the technology currently being used is
unstable and requires significant attention to maintain units in operational
condition.
year paricipating load .fie.ld/back office/equip
(MW) ($MM)
205,000
245,000
$2.77
$3.30
$/kW
13.51
13.47
2008
2009
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 315
IPUC Production Data Request 315
Please provide all analysis completed by or on behalf of the Company relative to
the implementation of DSM measures recommended in the NWPCC's 6th Power
Plan.
Response to IPUC Production Data Request 315
Rocky Mountain Power has yet to complete or have completed an analysis
relative to the implementation of demand side management measures
recommended in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's 6th Power Plan
(6th Plan) in Idaho. Preliminar work istmderway however that wil provide the
foundational data necessar for this type ()fanalysis, the refresh of the Company's
2007 Assessment of Long-Term System-Wide Potential for Demand-Side and
Other Supplemental Resources, expected to be completed later this year.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
d
¡j
,., .~, '.',
,"I..
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 316
IPUC Production Data Request 316
Please explain why the Company has not included cost-effectiveness evaluations
at the measure level for 2009 DSM programs as specified in Section 4 of the
December 2009 DSM Evaluation MOU.
Response to IPUC Production Data Reqaest 316
Paragraph 4 of the December 2009 Memorandum of Understanding for Prudency
Determination of Demand Side Management Expenditures states "Each DSM
annual report wil include a Cost-Effectiveness section and table listing individual
programs/measures and the basis for estimates of their cost effectiveness". The
Company prepared Appendix 1 to the 2009 Annual Report in response to this
directive. Appendix 1 contains sections for each program. Within each section
the basis for estimating the program Cost effectiveness is listed by measure or
measure group. The Company do;es not interpret the directive to indicate that cost
effectiveness should be calculated atthe measure/measure group leveL.
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined
¡t
.. r
PAC-E-10-07/Rocky Mountain Power
September 24, 2010
IPUC Production Data Request 317
IPUC Production Data Request 317
Please explain the measures taken to reduce the instance of "free ridership"
relating to your Irrigation Load Control program.
Response to IPUC Production Data ReqUest 317
Rocky Mountain Power has incorporated several program design features that
either directly or indirectly contribute in helping control for "free ridership"
in the Irrigation Load Control program. Rocky Mountain Power's Schedule 72A
Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program tariff contains these
features:
Page 72A.1 - Provides for Company discretion in allowing irrigation motor sizes
less than 30 Hp to participate in the program.
Page 72A.3 and 72A.4 - Provision for liquidated damages for opt-outs and opt-
out limit.
Page 72A.4 - Provision to prohibit load shifting.
Page 72A.4 - Provision to control against Control Equipment Damage / Sabotage.
Page 72AA - Provision to specifically Iüiiit Free Riders from program
paricipation.
The challenge is defining "free ridership" in a environment where so many factors
can impact the value of a participating site at any given point in time, i.e.,
weather, soil types, participating crops, crop/field rotations, changes in watering
cycles, and when a curailment event is exercised. For this reason, the Company
focuses managing for free ridership on an overall program basis rather than on a
curailment by curtailment basis.
';f
Recordholder:
Sponsor:
Jeff Bumgarer
To Be Determined. ,~
! ;,1