Production Response to ICA.pdf

It e
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of September, 1980, I served
the foregoing responses to a Request for Production of Documents and
Informtion filed by Harold C. Miles of Idao Consumr Affairs, Inc. in
Intermountain Gas Company's Case No. U-I034-88 upon the following:
For J. R. Simplot Company For the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion
Melvin D. Alsager, Esq. and
N. Rady Smith, Esq.
P.O. Box 27
Boise, ID 83707
Mary Am Johnson
Deputy Attorney General
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83720
For FMC Corporation
R. Michael Southcombe, Esq.
Clemons, Cosho & Humhrey
1110 Bank of Idao Building
Boise, ID 83701
Larry D. Ripley, Esq.
Elam, Burke, Evans, Boyd & Koontz
P.O. Box 1559
Boise, ID 83701
For Idao Consumer Affairs, Inc.
Harold C. Miles
316 Fifteenth Avenue South
Nama, ID 83651
For Beker Industries Corporation
Mr. Gary D. Greer
P.O. Box 37
Conda, ID 83230
by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
in envelopes addressed to said attorneys and parties of record at the
above addresses.~?ri
Tom N. Amrose, Esq.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton
Chartered
e e
CAE NO. U-1034-88
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUS AN INFORMTION
REQUEST #1
A copy of the 1979 Form 1 IGC has filed with FERC.
RESPONSE
A copy of Form 2 for the year 1979 for Intermountain Gas çompany
is attached. (Form 1 is for electrical utilities).
"
-- -..
e e
CAE NO. U-I034-88
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUS AND INFORMATION
REQUEST #2
A true and accurate copy of the correspondence between Intermountain Gas
Co. and Beker Industries, Corp., El Paso Natural Gas Co., Southern Union
Gas Co. and Northwest Pipeline Corporation regarding the subj ect of Beker's
receiving any surplus gas from Southern Union for use in its (Beker's)
Conda, Idaho anonia plant.
RESPONSE
,,
See attached information.
e
r:::g l~=-r-,41 NATURAL GAS
L.:.. ~ 'Q;: ~ COr.'IP/4.NY
M. C. HOLLAND ASSISTANT ViCE PRESIDENT
\Intermountain Gas Company
P. O. Box 7608
Boise, Iòaho 83707
Attention:Mr. David H. Hawk
Gentlemen:
e
PO BOX ìt92
EL PASO, lEXAS 79978
PHONE: 9ìS SO 7&00
June 13, 1980
-.
In response to your letter of June 3, 1980 to Mr. Melvin A.
Ehrlich, EI Paso does not, as a general proposition, transport gas for
noncustomers, except for those instances hhere reciprocity exists or
could reasonably be eÀ~ected, such as our arrangements \~i th other pipe-
line compani es drawing gas suppli es from areas of common interest.
In your case, Qf course, neither you nor your customers are
customers of EI Paso. Further, it is very unlikely that Intermountain
Gas could ever reciprocate by transporting gas suppl i es that El Paso
might have available in its pipeline area.
Accordingly, in the event suppl ies of gas become avai 1 abl e to
Intetmountain Gas in the area you have mentioned, it would not be appro-
priate for you to rely on El Paso's system to move .these volumes. \ilil e
,,'e can certainly appreciate and understand what you are trying to dccom-
plish, we hope that you understand our objective in preserving our
pipel ine capacity and gas handl ing capabi 1 i ties for the ul timate benefit
of our existing customers.
pm
Very truly yours,~~
(
¡
I
i
i
i
1
e _I NT E R M 0 U NT A I N GAS Co 1.- PAN Y
BOISE, IDAHO
REED PENNING P. O. BOx 1608
21P 8:,.07
IZ061377-605'"
'\ier PR(SlD(NT
July 8, 1980
\
Mr. Ben McColl um
President, Minerals and
Chemicals Division
J. R. Simp10t Company
P. O. Box 912
Pocatello, Idaho 83201 :
Dear Ben:
After reviewing our drscussion of last week on gas you
are able to.acquire from Southern Union to serve your Pocatello
fertilizer plant, Intermountain is not only .interested in buying
gas for your plant at the lowest possible price, but would be
interested in paying for gas which you can purchase and transport
in excess of your individual needs. Intermountain Gas Company
would propose to pay you the following for gas delivered into
Intermountain's system:
The ODL commDd i ty rate, cur rent 1 y
37.666~ per therm of gas delivered, up to
the lesser of your usage or the volume of
gas del ivered into our system for your account.
Intermountain wi 11 also purchase,
at its option, any or all gas delivered into
our system over your usage at a price equal
to your cost including transportation charges.
Your Company will continue to be billed by Intermountain
Gas Company for its usage at the IPUC approved LV-1 tariff which
. currently is 61.630C for the fi rst 10,000 therms per day of demand,
35.738C per therm for all dai ly. demand over 10,000 therms and a
commodity rate for all therms of 40.263C. The demand level will
be determined by the peak daily demand at your facility during the
last 12 months.
e e
Mr. Ben McColl um
July 8, 1980
Page 2
Any agreement we reach concerning this gas del ivery is
subject to the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.~,~:7eed Penn i ng
Vice Pre.tdent ....
\RP/dp
cc: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
WalterH. Smith
Box 37, fonda. Idaho 83230
Te!ep,~one: 208/547-4381. TWX 810.9785768
e e
July 21, 1980
Mr. Reed Penning
Vice President
Intermountain Gas Company
P. O. Box 7608
Boise, Idaho 83707
Dear Mr. Penning:
Beker Industries Corp. has carefully reviewed your letter of July 8, 1980,
ana we ,regret to inform you that we find your proposal unacceptable. As we
understand your response, you would propose to continue charging Beker the
full LV-l demand charges and LV-l commodity charges for all gas consumed at
our Conda facil i ty, and then provide a credit for only your avoided commodity
cost of natural gas from NDrthwest Pipeline. By our calculations this would
resul t in IGC imposing a charge in excess of 40 cents per MCF on Beker for all
natural gas consumed at Conda. Beker is only seeking transportation of the
gas from Northwest Pipeline i s line to the Conda facility - a distance of
approximately six miles. In comparison, Northwest Pipeline has agreed to
move this same gas several hundred miles for 23 cents per MCF.
If as a part of your July 8, 1980 letter and proposal you mean to imply that
Intermountain will guarantee firm service to Beker, irrespective of Southern
Union deliveries, we would agree that some charge in excess of a mere trans-
portation charge would be appropriate. However, we cannot agree that a rate
of 40 cents per MCF is at all reasonable for such a guarantee and the six
miles of transmission.
I believe to ascertain a starting point, that it would be very helpful if
you will provide a rate proposal which reflects only a charge for transmission
from Northwest's pipeline to our Conda facility. Then I believe we can discuss
a rate for any back-up service or guaranteed availability of a portion of our
natural gas requirements.
We request your immediate attention to this matter so that we can apply for
IPUC approval of a transmission rate and conclude our agreement with Southern
Union.~---)
/ Si~~ereiy y~n
fi. ¡¿,Ct- /U/l
Ga~ Greer
. Pl~l l-1anager
GDG/gg
..
cc: Idaho Public utilities Commission
¡I " ,.-. .: i r:
í. c ~.. .,
¡-- ~-
.i ;.. ~.,.~
¿e e
J R SI'JPLOT coi:,PANY ! POBOX 912 ¡ POCATELLO. IDAHO 83201
[phone] (PLANT) ¡ [phone] (DIVISiON OFFICES)
MINERALS & CHEMiCAL DIVISION
BEN D. McCOLLUM
President
J u 1 y 22, 1 980
Mr. Reed Penni ng
Vi ce Pres i dent
Intermounta in Gas Company
P. O. Box 7608
B~i se, Idaho 83707
Dear Mr. Penning:
After review of your proposal of July 8, 1980, the J. R. Simplot Company
wishes to inform you that we cannot accept the proposal, as we understand it.
It appears that you propose to continue to charge the J. R. Simplot Company
the full LV-l demand charges and LV-l commodity charges for all gas consumed.
We would then receive a credit (against that charge) for your avoided commodity
cost of natural gas from Northwest Pipeline. We have calculated that formula
to result in a transportation charge in excess of forty (40) cents per MCF.
A transportati on charge of that magni tude is unreasonable, es peci ally gi ven
(1) the distance you will have to transport the natural gas; and (2) the
Northwest Pipeline charge of twenty-one (21) cents per MCF to transport the
same product for far greater distances.
It is of great difficulty to us, to understand the reasoning behind your
proposal. If, by your proposal, you also intend to provide back-up service to
J. R. Simplot Company or, in some fashion, guarantee the J. R. Simplot Company
a supply of natural gas, we do attach some importance to those issues. However,
in this request, we are only seeking a transportation charge for natural gas.
These other issues may be discussed later.
The J. R. Simplot Company, therefore, respectfully requests that you again
provide us with a natural gas transportation proposal which reflects only a
charge for transportati on of natural gas from Northwest i s pi pel i ne to ourfad 1 ity.
We await your prompt response.
S~viy,
~4'V1
Ben D. HcCollum
c1
e
G7:~ COMPAN OF NEW MEXICO
.
July 28, 1980
Mr. David Hawk
Intermountain Gas Company
P. O. Box 7608
Boise, Idaho 83707 \,
Dear Mr. Hawk:
This\will acknowledge your telephone contact on June 30, 1980, in
which you indicated Intermountain's interest in availability of gas
from the Southwest. This will further acknowledge your telephone con-
tact on July 25, 1980, in which you indicated Intermountain's interest
in beginning negotiations for purchase of surplus New Mexico gas.
'..:;-.
We continue to have a surplus volume available in New Mexico and would
be interested in discussing this prospective sal~.
Our proposal to you is strictly. a best efforts arrangement whereby the
base cost of the gas to be sold would be the system average cost not
including New Mexico price controlled intrastate gas. To this we would
add an ~~propria te margin.
The sale would probably be subject to the jurisdiction of the New Mexico
Public Service Commssion and, in any case, the sale can only be con-
sumated after approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
under provisions of the Natural Gas Act relati~g to the Henshaw Amend-
ment.
We are looking forward to further discussions in this regard, and if
in the meantime we can provide you with any further information, please
advise..,.~ .,
Yours very truly,~ /'-~d¿'~~.,d
C. R. Saunders
Manager - Pipeline Sales
CRS:mh
cc: '. Mr. W. F. Bahls - President, Pipelines
Mr. W. T. Barnhouse - President, Gas Company of New Mexico
Mr. A. G. Prasil - Senior Vice President, Utility Operations
First Inlern:itionaJ Building, Dallas, Texas 75270, [phone]
e INTERMOUNTAIN GAS clt-1PANY
BOISE, IDAHO
REED PENNING
VICt PRE:SIO(NT
August 6, 1980
\
Mr. Ben D. McCollum.President
Minerals & Chemical Division
J. R. Simp10t Company
P.O. Box 912
Pocatello, Idaho 83201
Dear Ben:
We have reviewed your letter of July 22,
1980 regarding the cost of transporting natural
gas from Northwest Pipeline to your Pocatello
plant. The charges set forth in _our earlier
letter of July 8, 1980 accurately reflect our
cost of service to your plant. Our offer is
fair and reasonable as we are merely recovering
that cost of service in accordance wi th our
currently filed tariff.
Sincerely,
Reed Penning
RP/dp
cc: I daho Public Util it ies Commiss ion
Walter H. Smith
~
P. O. eox 7608
21.P 63707
(7061 J77~ 00544
-~ '.-=
'., -JO
e INTERMOUNTAIN GAS .MPANY
BOISE. IDAHO
REED PENNING P. o. eox 700&
;ZiP 63707
(zoe) 377-e05'-4
viCE. PR(SID(NT
August 6, 1980
\
Mr. Gary Greer
Manager
Beker Industries Corpor~tion
P.O. Box 37
Conda, Idahri 83230 . -'6'
Dear Gary:
We have reviewed your letter of July 211
1980 regarding th~ cost of transporting natural.
gas from Northwest Pipeline to jour Conda plant.
The charges set forth in our earlier letter of
July 8, 1980 accurately reflect out cost of
service to your plant. Our offer is fair andreasonable as weare merely rec~vering that cost
of seivice in accordance with ~ut currently filedtariff.
Sincerely,
(Reed Penning
RP/dp
cc: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Wal ter H. Smi th
,
I.RMOUNTAIN GAS cOMP'-
BOISE, IDAHO
viei: PFòCSIO(NT
P. 0_ "0. 1001S
21P e3ì'07
'Z081377.605"
Ri:ED PENNING
Augus t 29, 1980
Beker Industries Corp.
Conda, Idaho 83230
and
J. R. Simplot Company
Pocatello, Idaho 83201
Gent 1 emen:,... ~:,: c.. :-..
Intermountain Gas Company hereby proposes four different
methods for del ivering gas purchased from Southern Union Gas Company
by Beker Industries Corp. and J. R. Simplot Company to the Beker
Conda plant and the Simplot Pocatello plant. Such gas would be
delivered from Southern Union to Northwest Pipeline Corporation on
a "best-efforts" basis by El Paso Natural Gas Company, and then
del ivered by Northwest to Intermountain on a "best-effortsll basis.
Certain terms described herein are included in all four proposals.
I. Terms included in all proposals.
A. Intermountain shall only transport gas on a"best-efforts" bas is.
B. Any gas owned by Beker or Simplotthat is
delivered to Intermountain on any day and
not used by Beker or Simp 1 at on that day
shall be placed in storage at either Nampaor Plymouth. Such gas shall then be del ivered
to Beker or Simplot when El Paso, Northwest or
Intermountain cannot deliver gas on a 'Ibest-
efforts" basis, with Beker or Simplot paying
Intermountain the liquification and vaporiza-
tion charges, which currently equal 1.265ë
per thermo
c. Beker and Simplot shall contract with Inter-
mountain under rate schedule LV-1 for an
amount of gas at least equall ing thei r peakday del ivery in 1980. .
,
Letter to Beker4ldustries Corp.
and J. R. Simp10t Company
Page 2
e
Augus t 29, 1980
D. Any agreement shall be subject to any requi red
regulatory apptovals, including, but not limited
to those of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
New Mexico Publ ic Service Commission.
E. Intermountain shall have the right to purchase
any gas owned by Simplot and Beker that is sur-
plus to their annual requirements at their cost
including transportation charges of El Paso and
Northwest.
\F. Beker and Simplot shall dismiss their current
appeals before the Idaho Supreme Court arising
from Intermountain's 1978 general rate and
October 1978 tracker proceeding.
l~
G. Beker and Simplot shall support Intermountain's
presently pending general rate case appl ication.
i i. Proposals
A. Intermountain shall bill Beker and Simplot for
their therm consumption at the current LV-l
tariff rate, with a per therm credit equal to
Intermountain's current ODL commodity rate for
each therm delivered to Intermountain by North-
west for accounts of Beker and Simplot.
B. Intermountain is assuming that 50% of the gas
del ivered to the Beker plant and the Pocatello
Simplot plant is used for the production of
ammonia. Using this assumption, Intermountain
shall bill Beker and Simplot therm consumption
for each therm del ivered to Intermountain by
Northwest. for accounts of Beker and S implot at
the current LV-l tariff rate, with a per therm
c red it on the ha 1 f of the gas used in the ammon i a
plants equal to twice the difference between
current ODL-l and LV-l commodity rates. Under
current rates this would result in a 5.194~ per
therm reduction in the price of gas used to
manufacture ammonia.
.
Letter to sllr Industries Corp.
and J. R. Simplot Company
Page 3
e
Augus t 29, 1980
C. I ntermounta i n sha 11 transport the gas for 2. 5ç per
therm and retention by Intermountain of 5% of such
gas.
*'
D. Intermountain has performed a prel iminary cost of
se rvi ce study us i ng the methodo logy adopted by
the I daho Pub 1 i c Ut i 1 it i es Commi ss i on and segre-
gating Beker and the Pocatello Simplot plants as
a separate class. This study shows this "rate
class" to be overcharged by $lli7,000 under cur-
rent ratio. Therefore, Intermountain shall
allocate this $147,000 between Beker and Simplot
on the bas i s of therm cons umpt i on of the two
plants, and further reduce the annual bi 11 ings
set forth in pa rag raph I I (A) above by these
a~ounts. Intermountain shall recover this $lli7,000
by spreading it over the rates of ei ther:
1. All other LV-l customers; or
2. All other customers
'"
By
RP/dp
cc: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
e e
GENERAL OFFICES
INTERrviouNTAIN GAS COMPANY
555 SOUTH COLE ROAD' P.O. BOX 7608. BOISE, IDAHO 83707' [phone]
September 15, 1980
Mr. Gary Greer
Manager
Beker Industries Corp.
P.O. Box 37
Conda,' Idaho 83230
and
Mr. Ben D. McCollum
President
~linerals & Chemical Division
J. R. Simlot Company
P.O. Box 912
Pocatello, Idaho 83201
.--,1 ;.. -~
Gentlemen:
Intermountain Gas Company hereby sets forth two alternative methods
of delivering gas purchased from Southern Union Gas Company by Beker
Industries Corp. and J. R. Simlot Company to your plants. Such gas
would be delivered from Southern Union to Northwest Pipeline Corporation
on a "best-efforts" basis by El Paso Natural Gas Company, and then
delivered by Northwest to Intermountain on a '~est-efforts" basis.
Method A ìvould result in no impact on other existing customers and
Method B ìvould result in maim imact on other existing customers.
C.ertain term described herein are included in any agreement made.
I. Term included in any agreement IT2de:
A. Intermountain shall only transport gas on a
"best -efforts" basis.
B. Beker i and Simlot shall contract with Intennuntain
under rate schedule LV-l for an amount of gas at
least equalling their peak day delivery in 1980.
C. Any agreement shall be subject to any required
regulatory approvals, including, but not limited
to those of the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commssion and the
New Mexico Public Service Commssion.
e e
Mr. C,ny Greer
l-1r. Ben D. ~.lcCol J um
September J5, 1980
page two
D. IntelTIOw1tain shall have the right, but not the
duty, to purchase any gas ovmed by Simp lot and
Beker that is sui~lus to their ffU1ual requirements
at their cost including transportation charges of
El Paso and Northwest.
E. Beker and Simplot shall dismiss tJ;eir current
appeals before the Idaho Supreme Court arising
from In telTIounta in 's 1978 general rate case and
October 1978 tracker.
IÌ\Methods:
A. IntelTIountain shall bill Beker and Simplot for
their therm consumtion at the current LV-I
tariff rate, with a per therm credit equal to
Intermuntain's current ODL commodity rate for
each therm delivered to Intei~untain by North-
west for accounts of Beker and Simplot. This is
Intermountain's original proposal to you. Under
this proposal Intermuntain would maintain its
current margin on .LV-I sales, other customer
classes would not have their rates increased and
your companies would save approximtely $2,500,000 .
at current rates, based on a gas cost to you at our
border station of 35~ per thermo After October 1,
1980, our ODL commdity rate will be 34.249~ per thermo
B. Intermountain has taken figures provided by your
companies and computed the lost recovery of fixed
charges that would result if your amonia plants
closed. Using your figures, the closing of the
Beker plant would cause a loss of $1,199,982 and
the closing of the Simplot plant would cause a loss
of $1,502,681. If the amnia plants were closed,
and assumng the accuracy of your figures, Intermoun-
tain would be forced to petition the Idao PublicUtili ties Commssion for rate relief in an amunt
equal to the lost recovery of fixed charges, which
\vould be $2,702,663 under this examle. If this
amunt were spread evenly over all remaining therm
sales, rates would increase by 1.028~ per thermo If
it were spread over just remaining LV- I, S-L and P-L
therm sales, rates to those customer classes wouldincrease by 1. 94~ per thermo Intermuntain does not
propose to transport gas under this method and canot
propose it to the Commssion. If your companies desire
\
l.lr. G3l)' Greer
:,lr. Ben D. ?kColl urn
September ) 5, 1980
page three
e e
to pursue rate shifting of this type, or of any
lesser amoiint, before the Commssion, Intermountain
,,,ill assist by verifying numbers and computations.
It must be empJiasized that Interrnoiintain is not offering to become
ei ther a common carrier or a pipeline corporation. IntelTIountain is a
gas distribution company and has absolutely no intent or desire to
transport gas for the general public. Any agreement made with your
companies is solely for a private contract, and is made solely because
of your current economic disadvantages in ~he production of amonia.
IntelTIountain reserves the right to review any agreement made ,,,i th your
corn~ies regarding gas transportation at any time that the economics of
aronià production change.;.":-.
1~e would also be willing to discuss any proposal set forth in ourletter of Augut 29, 1980. Since the second altei~ative set forth in
this letter '''ould increase rates to other customers by an amount equal
to the loss caused by the complete closure of your amonia plants,
Intermountain' canot agree to any lower rate.
RPJkm
preSide7
cc: Idaho Public Utilities Commssion
N. Rady Smi th
Dan L. Poole
------
e e
CAE NO. U- 1034-88
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUS AN INFORMATION
REQUET #3
A revised Exhibit No. 110-Schedule 1 showing the true cost of Residential
heating energy in Southern Idaho comparing a gas assisted heat pum or an
electric heat pum used in conjunction with natural gas as a back-up heat
source when compared with the various energy sources as listed on said exhibit.
REPONSE
Seè attached informtion.: ~~
..I-
0 i(e§0 II I:
i(N i(0 e i(q ir
r-~N q'ir 0
i i i
.J W 0'--.J a.00002
)-~ Ôa. w:: !!o ~ü w!!II I: ~
q' a: irc: i q'V 0 ::~ 8= ~q' i - WI- :: 0 :iZ ZB 0 ~ iñ:: Z I- :: IIir mOWW w- w Z
I- II :i :i I-~5i'~~
)-(!0:..WZc:W-l-Z (!0Wz:i0-c:-tt 0enww0::i
LL Z000:
W WN:il--l-..en -::0 l-0U::en
.jr"
ir I-:i w Æq'~cOI-0 -::a..J
§0 .J ~4
co CI-0 cr II--..IL
ir I-a.:i w l-I'¡:~cO
:i c:::c:
ã)0 w ::::a..J :i a.
0 ir:i w
ia c:~-0 0
co -a.
~
;:
v §i
o.(\iD IIco ~~ir ,Zir~IIw.~ .~I-Z c:Z ::c:-0
~ cooir ~::
ir r- .i r"II
W r-
~r-ir
~
.J w?~01 Zq'.J o 0::I'c:cn i-Z c: cr ::Z ~.. Z (\0 o. II
c:o.Ü --itWr" Zw~ 0 c: c:0 c: i c:
w :: I- irII.J Z w 81 ~0 c:W w~o.0 .0a.:: II ir 0 000Z c: ir 0 0 \011irZ ü ::\0 ~a.c: ü'-..IL
Z00~6 0 ir I-a.:i wo ::i(c:~c:::a. 0 .¿wOw00:i ::
IE ir
v -a.a.
irwI-enii\0 0c:ai :i .J
c:.JN0tf-
0 ~ I- a.v :i
a:ci .J ci ::-Q it ~ i?
(/w(/c:wa:uz
ow(/oa.oa:a.
I
g
~.,
..N
¡IL:loo
~.,
¡;
i
!..~
::I-en a:ir
I I I I i I I.ci ir
8..J W0i(0 II 0 II 0 .J a.
ia C'q I'II C'q 8 0
Q
'\
fORM 404
eTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY e
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Chuc k Hed ema rk - Reed Penn i ng DATE September 23, 1980
FROM Mi ke Anderson
SUBJECT: Gas Assisted Heat Pump Operating Cost
The following is a summary of the calculations of energy costs of a
natural gas assisted heat pump.
\. .. ~-I
42.3it Cost per 100,000 Btu's of heat del ivered to
a Boi se customer.
47.H Cost per 100,000 Btu's of heat delivered to
a Pocatello customer.
These may be plotted directly on Exhibit No. 110 (Revised) of Case
U-1034-88.
Notes:II Rates applied Idaho Power CompanySChedul e 1
Intermountain RS-2 proposed after rate
decrease from Case U-1034-90
21 Seasonal Performance Factor Boise 1.74
Pocatello 1. 56
31 Based on Average Boi se and. Pocatello Consumptions.
)tL.\w
MLA/jd
e e
CAE NO. U- 1034-88
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF OOCUNTS AND INFORMATION
REQUEST #4
A copy of any studies which have been made by IGC relative to the numer
of residential users of natural gas in IGC's service area using electricity
as the primary source of energy for domestic water heating.
RESPONSE
Informtion not available.
\. -
~ -:.ø
e e
CAE NO. U- 1034-88
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUTS AN INFORMATION
REUEST #5
A reliable estimate of the savings an average famly of four could
experience in each of the regions or divisions of IGC's system if natural
gas were used for domestic water heating as the principal heat source,
under IGC' s proposed RS- 2 rate shcedule, using the electrical rate
prevailing in its various regions or divisions as of September 1, 1980.
Savings computed on an average monthly or anual basis, whichever
would be most convenient for IGC to compute.
""
RESPONSE
See attached information.
~E R M 0 U NT A I N G A $ COM rAN Y e
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Chuck Hedemark - Reed Penning DATE September 23, 1980
FROM Mi ke Anderson
SUBJECT:Hot Water Heating - Savings with natural gas
Estimated Annual Cost of Water Heating
Natural Gas 275 Therms/Year $152.00
El ectri city:
,Idaho Power 5513 KWH/Year $146.00
Utah Power &Light - 5513 KWH. Year $277.00
These calculations are based on heating 60 gallon of water per day 1000 F.
'.
Notes:1/ Rates Applied Intermountain Gas RS-2 proposed after rate
decrease from Case U-I034-90
Idaho Power Company - Schedul e 1
- Utah Power and Light - Schedul e 1
Natural Gas Hot Water Heating - 65%
Electricity - 95%
2/ Effie; ency
j~
MLA/jd