20161206PAC to Staff 1-7.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A OMSION OF PACJFICORP
December 6, 2016
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
4 72 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5918
RE: ID PAC-E-16-13
IPUC 1st Set Data Request (1-7)
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC Data Requests 1-7. Also
provided is Attachment IPUC 1.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
P AC-E-16-13 I Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC Set Data Request 1
IPUC Data Request 1
On page 4 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "The Company is proposing
to lower Facilities Charges to an average rounded value of 0.6 percent for
facilities installed at customer expense and 1.3 percent for facilities installed at
the Company expense."
Please explain how these percentages were calculated and provide the executable
electronic workpapers supporting the calculations.
Response to IPUC Data Request 1
The percentages are the Use of Facilities Charges in the 2014 Depreciation study.
The values in the study are annual values. The filed monthly values are the annual
values divided by 12. Please see Attachment IPUC I for the executable electronic
workpaper supporting the calculations. This is the same document provided in
the filing ID PAC-E-16-13 Application and Testimony Sch 300 Rule 12 (9-30-
16).pdf, as Exhibit No. 3.
Recordholder: Mark Paul
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-13 I Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC 1st Set Data Request 2
IPUC Data Request 2
On page 5 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "Idaho is the only Rocky
Mountain Power jurisdiction in which the Company lists the extension advances
in Schedule 300." Please describe how extension advances are managed in other
Rocky Mountain Power jurisdictions and include copies of applicable tariffs.
Response to IPUC Data Request 2
Rocky Mountain Power's line extensions are managed through the Regulation 12
tariffs. The referenced portion of the testimony only address the reasoning for
removing the reference to the allowance from Schedule 300, and does not address
management of extension advances. Below are links to the line extension tariffs
for Rocky Mountain Power's other jurisdictions:
Utah, Regulation 12: ~~:.!._!!...!.!_!~=~==~~~~~'.Y~=~=~~'
Wyoming, Rule 12: ~~.!..!!...!.!2~~12.!2~~~~~~~~~'::!!..-!.~~!±!;·
Recordholder: Rob Stewart
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-13 / Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC 1st Set Data Request 3
IPUC Data Request 3
On page 9 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "If the Company fails to
include the refund as part of the amount to be collected from the new ( additional)
customer, it becomes uncollectable by the Company." Please describe how this
scenario contributes to overall uncollected expenses as a percentage for the last
five years. Please include a supporting executable electronic workpaper.
Response to IPUC Data Request 3
There were no line extension refunds that weren't collected during the last five
years.
Recordholder: Michael Mueller
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-12 I Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC 1st Set Data Request 4
IPUC Data Request 4
On page 11 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "The Company proposes this
change in order to align Idaho's line extension allowance with PacifiCorp's other
retail jurisdictions." Please explain why Idaho's line extension allowance should
be aligned with PacifiCorp's other retail jurisdictions, particularly given the
unique characteristics ofldaho's service territory. Furthermore, please explain
differences between the current and proposed line extension allowances in Idaho
and line extension requirements in PacifiCorp's other jurisdictions.
Response to IPUC Data Request 4
From an operational perspective, consistent line extension rules contribute to
efficiencies. The proposed changes to the allowances were determined by looking
at Idaho's cost of service. As long as changes are being made to adjust for costs,
the Company thought it was rational and practical to move toward alignment of
policies.
The residential allowance in the other jurisdictions are dollar allowances which,
when applied to residential subdivisions, are split between the developer who
brings secondary to the lot line and the home builder. While the dollar amount
differs in each state Idaho's proposed allowance of $1,550 is more than any other
state.
The non-residential allowance is a multiple of revenue in the other states, with
four of the five having an allowance of one times the estimated annual revenue,
the same as proposed for Idaho.
Recordholder: Rob Stewart
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-12 I Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC 1st Set Data Request 5
IPUC Data Request 5
On page 12 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "The $550 is the cost of an
80 foot service plus the meter. Services vary greatly in length but an 80 foot
service will cover most residences building within a development." Please
provide data showing actual residential service lengths within developments for
the last five years.
Response to IPUC Data Request 5
The Company does not track that data. A design is not required when a customer
or contractor requests service to a home a subdivision with power to the lot
line. Section 4(b) of Regulation 12 requires power to the lot line for a residential
development. The Company's standard design is to place the power at a junction
point located at the front comer of the lot, so as to serve two lots whenever
possible. But a design is not required to run the service from that junction point
to the customer's meter base.
The statement that 80 feet will cover most services is based on experience,
observation of developments, and Rocky Mountain Power's meter placement
requirement contained in the Electric Service Requirements manual found online
at In chapter 7 Residential
Single-Family and Duplex Buildings (Dwellings), figures 18 and 19 show the
meter has to be within 10 feet of the front of the house or on the front of the
house. In standard developments, few lots have a frontage in excess of 200 feet.
A meter placed within 10 feet of the front of house on the side nearest the power
source will be within 80 feet of the power source.
Recordholder: Rob Stewart
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-12 / Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC I st Set Data Request 6
IPUC Data Request 6
On page 24 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states: "The line could become
overloaded within the contracted capacities, and an upgrade would not be charged
to the customer causing the upgrade but would be a Company expense." Please
provide the number of times this scenario has occurred in Idaho each year over
the last five years. Please also include the Company's costs for each occurrence.
Response to IPU C Data Request 6
The Company is not aware of any instances of this scenario occurring in Idaho.
However, the Company has had situations in Utah and Wyoming where line
capacity was contracted for but there was available capacity with regard to actual
loading.
Recordholder: Vance Witbeck, Tony Perkins
Sponsor: Rob Stewart
PAC-E-16-12 I Rocky Mountain Power
December 6, 2016
IPUC l st Set Data Request 7
IPUC Data Request 7
On page 26 of Robert Stewart's testimony, he states:" ... its position of not
making a development line extension unless there is reasonable assurance of
actual applicants for service within five years." Please describe how the Company
defines reasonable assurance including all associated policies, procedures, and
work instructions.
Response to IPUC Data Request 7
For residential and non-residential applicants the Company's general practice is to
require evidence that the customer will construct the building or load for which
the customer is requesting an extension. Showing ownership of property and a
building permit are accepted evidence. For developments of the speculative nature
being addressed in the referenced section of testimony, showing ownership and
providing proof of interest of buyers and future customers is the evidence the
Company is looking for. The Company's policy is to not make investments unless
they can be "used and useful", even if financed by CIAC.
Recordholder: Rob Stewart
Sponsor: Rob Stewmi