20121023PAC to Staff 1-5.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A OMSION OF PACWJCORP
REF '• '•- -.
0112UCT23 PM 1:12
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
UTLIT
I t
October 23, 2012
VIA EMAIL
Neil Price
Deputy Attorney General
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5918
Neil.Pricepuc.idaho.ggv
RE: ID PAC-E-12-12
IPUC Data Request (1-5)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's responses to IPUC Data Requests 1-5. Also
provided electronically is Attachment IPUC 4.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. Ted Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
Enclosure
C.c.: Jean Jewell/IPUC Jean.jewell(lpuc.idaho.gov
Ted Weston/RMP [e-mail]
Daniel E. Solander/RMP [e-mail]
Data Request Response Center/PacifiCorp datareguest(pacificorp.com
Randall C. Budge/Monsanto [e-mail]
Brubaker & Associates! Monsanto bcollins(onsultbai.com
James R. Smith/Monsanto [e-mail]
Tim Buller/PIIC TBulIeragrium.com
Ronald L. Williams/PIIC ron(williamsbradbury.com
Don Schoenbeck/PIIC [e-mail]
PAC-B-12-l2IRocky Mountain Power
October 23, 2012
IPUC Data Request 1
IPUC Data Request 1
On page 2 of Joelle Steward's Testimony, she discusses a recent customer inquiry
that led the Company to evaluate Schedule 17 in comparison to its partial
requirements service options in other states. Following the evaluation, it was
determined that Idaho may benefit from a similar option. Please describe the
Company's evaluation and the benefits to Idaho customers of being on Schedule
31 as compared to Schedule 17. As part of your response, please provide a billing
example using the two tariffs and similar usage profiles.
Response to IPUC Data Request 1
Company's evaluation and the benefits to Idaho customers of offering Schedule
31 as compared to Schedule 17 were based on the followings:
• Schedule 17 is limited to Contract Demand no greater than 2,500 kW. The
customer who presented the inquiry for Standby Service or Partial
Requirement Service would not be eligible for Schedule 17 based on the
customer's potential demand.
Canceling Schedule 17 would not adversely affect any customers since there
have been no customers on Schedule 17 for at least the last 15 years, based on
readily available data. Based on this lack of participation, it appears that the
current Schedule 17 was not a desirable option for customers. Whereas in
Wyoming, the partial requirements tariff, which Idaho Schedule 31 was
modeled after, has had a reasonable amount of participation and has the
support of the industrial customer group.
• Under the proposed Schedule 31, the customer who inquired about Standby
Service or Partial Requirements Service would have the option to choose
either Schedule 9 or Schedule 31. Other similar customers would also have
the option to choose either Schedule 9 or Schedule 31.
A billing example showing a comparison between Schedule 17 and the proposed
Schedule 31 would not produce meaningful results, and therefore has not been
prepared. First, since no customer has ever taken service on Schedule 17, the
rates have not been updafed for the last several rate cases and therefore would
likely undervalue the costs. Second, the usage profiles for a customer on
Schedule 17 versus Schedule 31 would not be comparable because of the different
customer eligibility requirements.
Record holder: James Zhang
Sponsor: Joelle Steward
PAC-E-12-12/Rocky Mountain Power
October 23, 2012
IPUC Data Request 2
IPUC Data Request 2
Please explain the method used to calculate the Back-Up Power Rates. As part of
your response, please explain how the Company evaluated Schedule 9 customer's
loads to develop the rates.
Response to IPUC Data Request 2
As explained in the Company's witness Ms. Joelle Steward's prefiled testimony,
the Back-up rates are based on the Company's most recently flied cost of service
study in Idaho, Case No. PAC-E-1l-12. The specific method, which is modeled
after the Company's Wyoming Schedule 33 that was developed in collaboration
with the Wyoming industrial customer group, is as follows:
First, the Back-up Facilities Rate is calculated based on the high voltage service
allocation of the demand-related transmission costs, on a per unit basis, plus 13
percent of the demand-related generation costs, on a per unit basis, from the cost
of service study. The seasonal split is based on the ratio of the summer and
winter Power Rates on Schedule 9.
Second, after the Back-up Facilities Rate is calculated, the Back-up Power Rate is
calculated as a per day rate for the difference between the Supplementary Power
Rate and the Back-up Facilities Rate assuming that the total demand on a daily
basis is approximately 80 percent of the total demand on a monthly basis. The 80
percent assumption was developed by taking a ratio of the average maximum
hourly loads by day, by month, to the maximum hourly load by month for
Schedule 9 customers. This rate design ensures consistency with what a customer
would pay under Schedule 9.
Please refer to the accompanied Attachment PIIC 1.1 in the Company's response
to PIIC Date Request 1.1 in this case for the detailed calculations.
Record holder: James Zhang
Sponsor: Joelle Steward
PAC-E-12-12fRocky Mountain Power
October 23, 2012
IPUC Data Request 3
IPUC Data Request 3
On page 5 of Joelle Steward's Testimony, after discussing the portion of demand-
related generation costs used to calculate the Back-Up Facilities Rate, she states:
"The 13 percent for demand-related generation is based on the Company's
generation planning reserve margin and represents the costs incurred by the
Company to back-up the customers generation." Please explain how the
Company's generation planning reserve margin is representative of the costs
incurred to provide back-up service.
Response to IPUC Data Request 3
In the Company's integrated resource plan (IRP), the planning reserve margin
accounts for operating reserves, load forecast errors and other long-term resource
adequacy planning uncertainties (see the 2011 IRP, page 99). Back-up Service,
which is designed for service during unplanned outages at the customer's
generation facility, is not reflected in the Company's load obligation for resource
planning and therefore the provision of this service would be captured through
planning reserves. Accordingly, the Company believes that the 13 percent reserve
margin used in the IRP applied to the demand-related generation costs reasonably
approximates the costs incurred by the Company to back-up the customer's
generation, in the absence of other readily available cost information for partial
requirements customers in Idaho.
Record holder: James Zhang
Sponsor: Joelle Steward
a
PAC-E-12.-12/Rocky Mountain Power
October 23, 2012
IPUC Data Request 4
IPUC Data Request 4
For each month in 2011, please provide the maximum hourly load for each
Schedule 9 customer. Additionally, please provide each Schedule 9 customer's
average maximum hourly load by day and by month.
Response to IPUC Data Request 4
Please refer to Attachment IPUC 4 for the requested information.
Record holder: James Zhang
Sponsor: Joelle Steward
PAC-E-12-l2fRocky Mountain Power
October 23, 2012
IPUC Data Request 5
IPUC Data Request 5
On page 3 of the Application, the Company states: "The proposed Schedule 31
rates are based on and aligned with Schedule 9 and the cost of service results from
the last general rate case, Case No. PAC-E-1 1-12." When developing the tariff,
did the Company consider the cost of service results for other eligible schedules,
such as Schedules 6 and 35? If not, why not?
Response to IPUC Data Request 5
No, because the proposed Schedule 31 is for customers taking service at high
voltage only.
Record holder: James Zhang
Sponsor: Joelle Steward
ID PAC-E-12-12 Attachment IPUC 1.4
IPUC 1.4
Idaho Schedule 009 Customers
Maximum Hourly Load By Month
2011
Customer Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 490 480 450 450 440 360 360 360 360 430 470 480
2 600 580 490 510 490 470 480 470 470 480 490 540
3 250 260 230 240 220 220 220 230 220 220 230 230
4 1,925 1,950 2,146 2,173 2,154 2,093 2,104 2,062 2,168 2,206 2,189 1,851
5 147 152 142 219 302 297 262 261 268 270 150 128
6 2,185 2,193 2,214 2,214 2,220 2,245 2,253 2,254 2,185 2,192 2,194 2,199
7 34 36 29. . . . . .
8 1,594 1,590 1,661 1,507 1,571 1,584 1,627 1,517 1,613 1,611 1,667 1,589
9 22 20 20. . . . . .
10 2,614 2,564 2,686 2,743 2,664 2,530 2,673 2,659 2,657 2,600 2,640 2,749
11 72 69 54 55 55 64 60 52 46 64 65 65
12 258 288 499 488 481 481 470 471 167 187 143 161
13 2,472 2,550 2,088 2,058 2,370 2,370 2,532 2,556 2,328 2,262 2,538 2,586
14 5,750 5,964 6,010 6,072 6,846 8,323 8,554 6,840 7,528 7,089 6,055 6,202
Total 18,411 18,697 18,720 18,730 19,813 21,036 21,596 19,732 20,009 19,611 18,831 18,781
Average 1,315 1,335 1,337 1,561 1,651 1,753 1,800 1,644 1,667 1,634 1,569 1,565
Idaho Schedule 009 Customers
Average Maximum Hourly Load By day, By Month
2011
Customer Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 161 122 68 106 153 71 85 162 162 98 96 260
2 355 234 89 142 216 101 137 255 252 169 162 355
3 158 112 42 84 96 51 70 117 120 80 76 160
4 1,788 1,778 1,672 1,916 1,617 1,156 1,619 1,732 1,977 1,653 1,610 1,535
5 112 120 118 128 211 228 195 191 188 167 113 69
6 2,095 2,097 1,992 2,081 2,169 2,104 1,988 2,143 2,057 2,109 2,149 1,966
7 30 31 1 . . . . . .
8 1,324 1,307 1,274 1,292 1,208 895 1,274 1,311 1,313 1,357 1,323 1,329
9 21 20 1 . . . . .
10 2,507 2,476 1,665 2,513 2,049 2,396 1,674 2,395 2,535 2,427 2,397 2,374
11 60 56 53 53 52 51 45 42 42 48 55 55
12 244 249 323 446 456 434 419 259 149 157 135 144
13 2,081 2,118 1,924 1,866 2,068 1,184 2,294 2,360 2,202 2,022 2,259 2,298
14 5,121 5,307 5,430 5,153 5,775 6,494 6,884 6,069 6,425 5,782 5,361 5,074
Total 16,056 16,028 14,650 15,780 16,070 15,163 16,684 17,035 17,421 16,069 15,737 15,620
Average 1,147 1,145 1,046 1,315 1,339 1,264 1,390 1,420 1,452 1,339 1,311 1,302
AVERAGE
Ratio - Total 876A 86% 78% 84% 81% 72% 77% 86% 870A 82% 84% 83%
Attach IPUC 4 (2).xlsx (Month Load) page 1 of 1