20180712PAC to Staff 8-12.pdf

Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HP,H.E^.*"-,
U ,l--a rJ-u-to^. / p-aJ
J. Ted Weston
Manager, Regulation
Enclosures
iT.[Cf IVED
2t13 "jUL l2 PH 3: 30
1407 W North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
July 12, 2018
Diane Hanian
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5918
[e-mail]. gov (C)
RE: ID PAC-E-18-04
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request (8-12)
Please find enclosed Rocky Mountain Power's Responses to IPUC Data Requests 8-12.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone]
Sincerely,
PAC-E-I8-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
July 12, 2018
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request 8
IPUC Data Request 8
Regarding the Company's response to Production Request No. 3, were there any
expenses, such as estimator, accounting, finance, regulation, or legal, related to
this transaction?
Response to IPUC Data Request 8
The cost for the estimator would be included in the separation costs.
Recordholder: Nathan Bailey
Sponsor: TBD
PAC-E-I8-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
July 12,2018
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request 9
IPUC Data Request 9
Regarding the Company's response to Production Request No. 3, please explain
the separation costs of $2,474.
Response to IPUC Data Request 9
Separation costs were provided by the estimator in the area and are the costs to
separate the assets being sold from the assets the Company retains. The
estimator's charges would be included in these costs.
Recordholder: Nathan Bailey
Sponsor; TBD
PAC-E-18-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
July 12, 2018
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request l0
IPUC Data Request 10
Regarding the Company's response to Production Request No. 3, please describe
the source of the "Reconstruction Cost New" costs, listed in Column L of tab
Pioneer Rd in Attachment 3.
Response to IPUC Data Request 10
"Reconstruction Cost New" is the same as "Replacement Cost". This is referring
to what the cost would be to install the assets new today. These costs were
provided from the Retail Construction Management System (RCMS).
Recordholder: Nathan Bailey
Sponsor: TBD
PAC-E-I8-04 / Rocky Mountain Power
July 12, 2018
IPUC 2nd Set Data Request 11
IPUC Data Request 1l
In the Company's response to Production Request No. 4, the Company stated that,
"The customers in Exhibit B will be notified of their new provider and their
customer accounts will be closed with a final billing as per final meter read for
their electric usage." Please explain if this is the first time customers are notified.
If not, please described how initial customer notification is managed.
Response to IPUC Data Request ll
In all cases, the Company requires customers who are annexed into the city and
wish to be served by Idaho Falls Power to approach the city first and express their
interest in being served by Idaho Falls Power. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP)
does not approach customers and ask them if they want to go elsewhere. If the
city agrees, the city then brings a letter(s) to RMP, signed by affected customers,
and makes a formal request. The customers are making the request, not RMP. The
customer is first "notified" by virtue of the customer's desire and formal request
to change providers. In this particular case, the city annexed Prestwich Estates -
comprised of Nina, Charles, and Merlin Streets/Drives. A portion of the residents
wanted to be served by Idaho Falls Power and a portion wanted to remain with
RMP. The service allocation agreement between RMP and Idaho Falls dictates
that any asset purchase must be comprised of the whole and not just parts. In other
words, "all or nothing" of an annexed area must be served by Idaho Falls Power.
Before and after the agreement for Presturich was finalized, the city had the hurdle
of getting everyone to sign on or the asset purchase could not proceed. It wasn't
until March of this year, nearly 12 months after the initial discussion began, that
the final customer signed. Again, this was a customer request, not an RMP
request. Ultimately, all customers knew and understood that they were asking to
be served by Idaho Falls Power.
Recordholder: Brent Dewsnup
Sponsor: TBD
PAC-E-I8-04 lRocky Mountain Power
July 12, 2018
IPUC 2'd Set Data Request l2
IPUC Data Request 12
In the Company's response to Production Request No. 7, the Company explained
that all the affected property was purchased by a commercial developer who
requested to be served by Idaho Falls. Therefore, notification had taken place.
Please explain the response, because it appears that the affected property consists
of individual residential properties.
Response to IPUC Data Request 12
Pioneer Road was purchased by a developer, as noted in Data Response 11 the
city needed to get all of the home owners to agree with the request to purchase the
assets and transfer serve to Idaho Falls Power.
Recordholder: Brent Dewsnup
Sponsor: TBD