20121011Ehrbar DI.pdf

DAVID J. MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COUNSEL FOR
REGULATORY & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AVISTA CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
[e-mail]

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) CASE NO. AVU-E-12-08
OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR THE ) CASE NO. AVU-G-12-07
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND )
NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC ) DIRECT TESTIMONY
AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS IN THE ) OF
STATE OF IDAHO ) PATRICK D. EHRBAR
)

FOR AVISTA CORPORATION

(ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)

Ehrbar, Di 1
Avista Corporation
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Q. Please state your name, business address and 2
present position with Avista Corporation? 3
A. My name is Patrick D. Ehrbar and my business 4
address is 1411 East Mission Avenue, Spokane, Washington. 5
I am presently assigned to the State and Federal 6
Regulation Department as Manager of Rates and Tariffs. 7
Q. Would you briefly describe your duties? 8
A. Yes. My primary areas of responsibility include 9
electric and natural gas rate design, customer usage and 10
revenue analysis, and tariff administration. 11
Q. Please briefly describe your educational 12
background and professional experience? 13
A. I am a 1995 graduate of Gonzaga University with 14
a Bachelors degree in Business Administration. In 1997 I 15
graduated from Gonzaga University with a Masters degree in 16
Business Administration. I started with Avista in April 17
1997 as a Resource Management Analyst in the Company’s DSM 18
department. Later, I became a Program Manager, responsible 19
for energy efficiency program offerings for the Company’s 20
educational and governmental customers. In 2000, I was 21
selected to be one of the Company’s key Account 22
Executives. In this role I was responsible for, among 23
other things, being the primary point of contact for 24
Ehrbar, Di 2
Avista Corporation
numerous commercial and industrial customers, including 1
delivery of the Company’s site specific energy efficiency 2
programs. 3
I joined the State and Federal Regulation Department 4
as a Senior Regulatory Analyst in 2007. Responsibilities 5
in this role included being the discovery coordinator for 6
the Company’s rate cases, line extension policy tariffs, 7
as well as miscellaneous regulatory issues. In November 8
2009, I was promoted to my current role. 9
Q. What is the scope of your testimony in this 10
proceeding? 11
A. My testimony in this proceeding will cover the 12
spread of the proposed annual electric revenue increase of 13
$11,393,000, or 4.6%, in base and billed revenues among 14
the Company’s electric general service schedules. With 15
regard to natural gas service, I will describe the spread 16
of the proposed annual revenue increase of $4,561,000, or 17
7.2% in base1 revenues (7.3% in billing revenues) among the 18
Company’s natural gas service schedules. My testimony 19
will also describe the changes to the rates within the 20
Company’s electric and natural gas service schedules. 21
In addition, I will describe the Company’s proposed 22
Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment and the I will provide 23

1 When noted in testimony, base tariff revenue includes Schedule 150,
Purchased Gas Cost Adjustment.
Ehrbar, Di 3
Avista Corporation
an overview of the items required of the Company in Order 1
No. 32371, and the related Settlement Stipulation, in Case 2
Nos. AVU-E/G-11-01. 3
Q. Are you sponsoring any Exhibits that accompany 4
your testimony? 5
A. Yes. I am sponsoring Exhibit No. 13, Schedules 6
1 through 3 related to the proposed electric increase, and 7
Schedules 4 through 6 related to the proposed natural gas 8
increase. Finally, I am sponsoring Schedule 7 relating to 9
the Company’s proposed Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment. 10
These exhibits were prepared by me or under my 11
supervision. 12
Table of Contents Page 13
I. Introduction 1 14
15
II. Rate Spread/Rate Design Executive Summary 4 16
17
III. Proposed Electric Revenue Increase 18
Summary of Rate Schedules and Tariffs 7 19
Proposed Rate Spread (Increase by Schedule) 9 20
Proposed Rate Design (Rates within Schedules) 11 21
22
IV. Proposed Natural Gas Revenue Increase 23
Summary of Rate Schedules and Tariffs 19 24
Proposed Rate Spread (Increase by Schedule) 21 25
Proposed Rate Design (Rates within Schedules) 23 26
27
V. Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment 27 28
29
VI. Summary of Compliance with AVU-E/G-11-01 Order 30
No. 32371 Requirements 37 31
32
33
Ehrbar, Di 4
Avista Corporation
Table 1 - Proposed % Electric Increase by Schedule
Rate Schedule
Increase in Base
Rates
Increase in
Billing Rates
Residential Schedule 1 5.2%5.3%
General Service Schedule 11/12 4.1%4.1%
Large General Service Schedule 21/22 4.9%4.8%
Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 3.9%3.9%
Clearwater Paper Schedule 25P 3.3%3.3%
Pumping Service Schedule 31/32 5.7%5.7%
Street & Area Lights Schedules 4.6%4.5%
Overall 4.6%4.6%
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Proposed Electric Increase 2
Q. What is the proposed electric revenue increase 3
in this case and how is the Company proposing to spread 4
the total increase by rate schedule? 5
A. The proposed electric increase is $11,393,000, 6
or 4.6% over present base tariff rates in effect. The 7
proposed general increase over present billing rates, 8
including all other rate adjustments (such as DSM and 9
Residential Exchange), is also 4.6%. The Company utilized 10
the results of the electric cost of service study, 11
sponsored by Company witness Ms. Knox, as a guide in 12
spreading the overall revenue increase of $11,393,000 to 13
its electric service schedules. The proposed percentage 14
increase by rate schedule is as follows: 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This information is shown with more detail on page 1 23
of Exhibit No. 13, Schedule 3. 24
Ehrbar, Di 5
Avista Corporation
Q. What is the proposed increase for a residential 1
electric customer with average consumption? 2
A. The proposed increase for a residential customer 3
using an average of 930 kWhs per month is $4.20 per month, 4
or a 5.3% increase in their electric bill. The present 5
bill for 930 kWhs is $78.69 compared to the proposed level 6
of $82.89, including all rate adjustments. 7
Q. Is the Company proposing any changes to the 8
present rate structures within its electric service 9
schedules? 10
A. No. The Company is not proposing any changes 11
to the present rate structures within its electric 12
schedules. 13
Q. Where do you show the proposed changes in rates 14
within the electric service schedules? 15
A. This information is shown on page 3 of Exhibit 16
No. 13, Schedule 3. 17
Proposed Natural Gas Increase 18
Q. How is the Company proposing to spread the 19
overall natural gas increase of $4,561,000, or 7.2% by 20
service schedule? 21
A. The Company is proposing the following base and 22
Ehrbar, Di 6
Avista Corporation
Table 2 - Proposed % Natural Gas Increase by Schedule
Rate Schedule
Increase in Base
Rates
Increase in
Billing Rates
General Service Schedule 101 7.7%7.8%
Large General Service Schedule 111/112 5.6%5.7%
Interruptible Sales Service Schedule 131/132 5.9%5.9%
Transportation Service Schedule 146 12.8%12.8%
Overall 7.2%7.3%
billing revenue changes by rate schedule2: 1
2
3
4
5
6
This information is also shown on page 1 of Exhibit 7
No. 13, Schedule 6. The Company utilized the results of 8
the natural gas cost of service study, sponsored by 9
Company witness Ms. Knox, as a guide in spreading the 10
overall revenue increase of $4,561,000 to its natural gas 11
service schedules. 12
Q. What is the proposed monthly increase for a 13
residential natural gas customer with average usage? 14
A. The increase for a residential customer using an 15
average of 60 therms of natural gas per month would be 16
$4.12 per month, or 7.8%. A bill for 60 therms per month 17
would increase from the present level of $52.55 to a 18
proposed level of $56.67. 19

2 For Schedule 146, including an estimate of 40.0 cents per therm for
the cost of gas and pipeline transportation, the proposed increase to
Schedule 146 rates represents an average increase of 2.8% in those
customers’ total gas bill.
Ehrbar, Di 7
Avista Corporation
III. PROPOSED ELECTRIC REVENUE INCREASE 1
Summary of Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs 2
Q. Would you please explain what is contained in 3
Schedule 1 of Exhibit No. 13? 4
A. Yes. Schedule 1 is a copy of the Company’s 5
present and proposed electric tariffs, showing the changes 6
(strikeout and underline) proposed in this filing. 7
Q. Could you please describe what is contained in 8
Schedule 2 of Exhibit No. 13? 9
A. Yes. Schedule 2 contains the proposed (clean) 10
electric tariff sheets incorporating the proposed changes 11
included in this filing. 12
Q. What is contained in Schedule 3 of Exhibit No. 13
13? 14
A. Schedule 3 contains information regarding the 15
proposed spread of the electric revenue increase among the 16
service schedules and the proposed changes to the rates 17
within the schedules. Page 1 shows the proposed general 18
revenue and percentage increase by rate schedule compared 19
to the present revenue under base tariff and billing 20
rates. Page 2 shows the rates of return and the relative 21
rates of return for each of the schedules before and after 22
application of the proposed general increase. Page 3 23
shows the present rates under each of the rate schedules, 24
Ehrbar, Di 8
Avista Corporation
the proposed changes to the rates within the schedules, 1
and the proposed rates after application of the changes. 2
These pages will be referred to later in my testimony. 3
Q. Would you please describe the Company's present 4
rate schedules and the types of electric service offered 5
under each? 6
A. Yes. The Company presently provides electric 7
service under Residential Service Schedule 1, General 8
Service Schedules 11 and 12, Large General Service 9
Schedules 21 and 22, Extra Large General Service Schedule 10
25, Schedule 25P, Clearwater Paper’s Lewiston Plant, and 11
Pumping Service Schedules 31 and 32. Additionally, the 12
Company provides Street Lighting Service under Schedules 13
41-46, and Area Lighting Service under Schedules 47-49. 14
Schedules 12, 22, 32, and 48 exist for residential and 15
farm service customers who qualify for the Residential 16
Exchange Program operated by the Bonneville Power 17
Administration. The rates for these schedules are 18
identical to the rates for Schedules 11, 21, 31, and 47, 19
respectively, except for the Residential Exchange rate 20
credit. 21
The following table shows the type and number of 22
customers served in Idaho (as of June 2012) under each of 23
the service schedules: 24
Ehrbar, Di 9
Avista Corporation
Rate Schedule No. of Customers
Residential Schedule 1 100,675
General Service Schedule 11/12 19,982
Large General Service Schedule 21/22 1,227
Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 9
Clearwater Paper Schedule 25P 1
Pumping Service Schedule 31/32 1,369
Table 3 - Customers by Service Schedule - Idaho 1
2
3
4
5
6
Proposed Electric Rate Spread 7
Q. How does the Company propose to spread the total 8
general revenue increase request of $11,393,000 among its 9
various rate schedules? 10
A. The Company used the results of the electric cost 11
of service study (sponsored by Ms. Knox) as a guide to 12
spread the general increase. The spread of the proposed 13
increase generally results in the rates of return for the 14
various electric service schedules moving approximately 15
15% closer to the overall rate of return (unity). While we 16
believe it is reasonable and appropriate to use the cost 17
of service study results as the basis for rate spread, we 18
have tempered the amount of movement toward unity proposed 19
in this case due primarily to the impact such movement 20
would have between the rate schedules. The Company may 21
propose additional movement toward unity in future 22
proceedings. 23
Ehrbar, Di 10
Avista Corporation
Present Proposed
Relative Relative
Rate Schedule ROR ROR
Residential Schedule 1 0.78 0.82
General Service Schedule 11/12 1.40 1.34
Large General Service Schedule 21/22 1.15 1.13
Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 0.97 0.97
Clearwater Paper Schedule 25P 1.20 1.16
Pumping Service Schedule 31/32 0.95 0.96
Street & Area Lights Schedules 0.75 0.75
Overall 1.00 1.00
Table 5 -Present & Proposed Relative Rates of Return
Table 4 - Proposed % Electric Increase by Schedule
Rate Schedule
Increase in
Base Rates
Increase in
Billing Rates
Residential Schedule 1 5.2%5.3%
General Service Schedule 11/12 4.1%4.1%
Large General Service Schedule 21/22 4.9%4.8%
Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 3.9%3.9%
Clearwater Paper Schedule 25P 3.3%3.3%
Pumping Service Schedule 31/32 5.7%5.7%
Street & Area Lights Schedules 4.6%4.5%
Overall 4.6%4.6%
The relative rates of return before and after 1
application of the proposed increases by schedule are as 2
follows: 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This information is shown in detail on Page 1, Schedule 3 11
of Exhibit No. 13. 12
Table 5 below shows the relative rates of return 13
before and after application of the proposed general 14
increase: 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ehrbar, Di 11
Avista Corporation
Proposed Rate Design 1
Q. Where in your Exhibit do you show a comparison 2
of the present and proposed rates within each of the 3
Company’s electric service schedules? 4
A. Page 3, Schedule 3 of Exhibit No. 13 shows a 5
comparison of the present and proposed rates within each 6
of the schedules, which I will describe below. Column (a) 7
shows the rate/billing components under each of the 8
schedules, column (b) shows the present base tariff rates 9
within each of the schedules, column (c) shows the present 10
rate adjustments applicable under each schedule, and 11
column (d) shows the present billing rates. Column (e) 12
shows the proposed general rate increase to the rate 13
components within each of the schedules, column (f) shows 14
the proposed billing rates and column (g) shows the 15
proposed base tariff rates. 16
Q. Is the Company proposing any changes to the 17
existing rate structures within its rate schedules? 18
A. No, the Company does not believe that changes to 19
the current rate structures are necessary as I will 20
discuss later in my testimony in reference to the 21
September 2012 Cost of Service/Rate Design workshop. 22
Q. Turning to Residential Service Schedule 1, could 23
you please describe the present rate structure under this 24
Ehrbar, Di 12
Avista Corporation
schedule? 1
A. Yes. Residential Schedule 1 has a present 2
customer or basic charge of $5.25 per month and two energy 3
rate blocks: 0-600 kWhs and over 600 kWhs. The present 4
base tariff rate for the first 600 kWhs per month is 7.848 5
cents per kWh and 8.764 cents for all kWhs over 600. 6
Q. How does the Company propose to spread Schedule 7
1’s proposed general revenue increase of $5,142,000 to the 8
rates within that schedule? 9
A. The Company proposes to keep the monthly 10
customer charge at $5.25 per month. The revenue increase 11
for the schedule is proposed to be recovered through a 12
uniform percentage increase of approximately 5.5% applied 13
to the two energy block rates. The proposed increase for 14
the first 600 kWhs used per month under the schedule is 15
0.433 cents per kWh, and an increase of 0.484 cents per 16
kWh for usage over 600 kWhs per month. 17
Q. What is the average monthly electric usage for a 18
residential customer, and what is the effect of the 19
proposed increase on a customer’s bill? 20
A. The average monthly usage for a residential 21
customer is 930 kWhs. Based on the proposed increase, the 22
average monthly increase would be $4.20, or 5.3%. The 23
present monthly bill for 930 kWhs of usage is $78.69 and 24
Ehrbar, Di 13
Avista Corporation
the proposed monthly bill would be $82.89. 1
Q. Turning to General Service Schedules 11/12, 2
could you please describe the present rate structure and 3
rates under that schedule? 4
A. Yes. General Service Schedule 11/12 is the 5
service schedule typically applicable to customers with an 6
average demand of less than 20 kW per month, such as small 7
retail establishments (Schedule 11), or shops for 8
residential customers which requires a separate service 9
(Schedule 12). The present rate structure under the 10
schedules includes a monthly customer charge of $10.00, an 11
energy rate of 9.338 cents per kWh for all usage up to 12
3,650 kWhs per month, and an energy rate of 6.958 cents 13
per kWh for usage over 3,650 kWhs per month. There is 14
also a demand charge of $5.25 per kW for all demand in 15
excess of 20 kW per month. There is no charge for the 16
first 20 kW of demand. 17
Q. How is the Company proposing to apply Schedule 18
11/12’s proposed general revenue increase of $1,340,000 to 19
the rates within those schedules? 20
A. The Company is proposing that the customer 21
charge and the demand charges remain at their present 22
levels of $10.00 and $5.25. The revenue increase for the 23
schedules is proposed to be recovered through a uniform 24
Ehrbar, Di 14
Avista Corporation
percentage increase of approximately 4.6% applied to the 1
two energy block rates. The proposed increase for the 2
first 3,650 kWhs used per month under the schedules is 3
0.432 cents per kWh, and an increase of 0.321 cents per 4
kWh for usage over 3,650 kWhs per month. 5
Q. Turning to Large General Service Schedule 21/22, 6
would you please describe the present rate structure under 7
that schedule and how the Company is proposing to apply 8
Schedule 21/22’s increase of $2,495,000 to the rates 9
within the schedule? 10
A. Yes. Large General Service Schedule 21/22 are 11
the service schedules applicable to customers with monthly 12
demands over 50 kW, but less than 3,000 kW. Typical 13
customers served under Schedule 21 are grocery stores, 14
schools, and office buildings, and retirement homes and 15
other qualified residential load for Schedule 22. 16
These schedules consists of a minimum monthly charge 17
of $350.00 for the first 50 kW or less, a demand charge of 18
$4.75 per kW for monthly demand in excess of 50 kW, and 19
two energy block rates: 6.039 cents per kWh for the first 20
250,000 kWhs per month, and 5.154 cents per kWh for all 21
usage in excess of 250,000 kWhs. 22
The Company is proposing that the present minimum 23
demand charge (for the first 50 kW or less) remain at 24
Ehrbar, Di 15
Avista Corporation
$350.00, and the demand charge remain at $4.75. The 1
revenue increase for the schedule is proposed to be 2
recovered through a uniform percentage increase of 3
approximately 6.2% applied to the two energy block rates. 4
The proposed increase for the first 250,000 kWhs used per 5
month under the schedule is 0.375 cents per kWh, and an 6
increase of 0.319 cents per kWh for usage over 250,000 7
kWhs per month. 8
Q. Turning to Extra Large General Service Schedule 9
25, would you please describe the present rate structure 10
under that schedule, and how the Company is proposing to 11
apply Schedule 25’s increase of $632,000 to the rates 12
within the schedule? 13
A. Yes. Schedule 25 is applicable for customers 14
with demands in excess of 3,000 kVa per month, such as 15
large industrial customers and universities. Extra Large 16
General Service Schedule 25 consists of a minimum monthly 17
charge of $12,500.00 for the first 3,000 kVa or less, a 18
demand charge of $4.50 per kVa for monthly demand in 19
excess of 3,000 kVa, and two energy block rates: 5.047 20
cents per kWh for the first 500,000 kWhs per month and 21
4.275 cents per kWh for all usage in excess of 500,000 22
kWhs. 23
The Company is proposing that the present minimum 24
Ehrbar, Di 16
Avista Corporation
demand charge under the schedule and the excess demand 1
charge remain unchanged. The revenue increase for the 2
schedule is proposed to be recovered through a uniform 3
percentage increase of approximately 4.8% applied to the 4
two energy block rates. The proposed energy rate increase 5
for the first 500,000 kWhs used per month is 0.241 cents 6
per kWh and the increase for usage over 500,000 per month 7
is 0.204 cents per kWh. 8
Q. Could you please describe the service the 9
Company provides to Clearwater Paper’s Lewiston Plant? 10
A. Yes. In Commission Order No. 29418, dated 11
January 15, 2004, the Commission approved a ten-year Power 12
Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) between Avista and 13
Clearwater, applicable to its Lewiston Plant. The 14
Agreement became effective July 1, 2003 and expires June 15
30, 2013. The Agreement provides for the purchase by 16
Avista of Clearwater’s on-site generation of up to 62 17
average megawatts per year at a price of $42.92 per 18
megawatt-hour. Power purchased from Clearwater under the 19
Agreement is a directly-assigned resource to Idaho (no 20
allocation to Washington). Avista serves Clearwater’s 21
entire load requirement at the Plant, approximately 100 22
average megawatts, under Schedule 25P. 23
Avista and Clearwater have begun discussions to 24
Ehrbar, Di 17
Avista Corporation
address the structure of the contract following the end of 1
the current contract which expires on June 30, 2013. 2
Q. Could you please describe the application of the 3
proposed Schedule 25P increase of $1,351,000 to the rates 4
within the schedule? 5
A. Yes. Like Schedule 25, the Company is proposing 6
to leave both the monthly minimum demand charge of $12,500 7
and the excess demand charge $4.50 unchanged. The revenue 8
increase for the schedule is proposed to be recovered 9
through an increase of 0.157 cents per kWh to the energy 10
charge. 11
Q. Turning to Pumping Schedules 31/22, would you 12
please describe how the Company is proposing to apply 13
Schedule 31/32’s increase of $277,000 to the rates within 14
the schedule? 15
A. The Company is proposing that the customer 16
charge remain at $8.00 per month, and that the revenue 17
increase be spread on a uniform percentage basis of 18
approximately 5.9% to the two energy rate blocks under the 19
schedule. The proposed increase in the first block rate 20
is 0.524 cents per kWh and the increase in the second 21
block rate is 0.447 cents per kwh. 22
Q. How is the Company proposing to spread the 23
proposed revenue increase of $156,000 applicable to Street 24
Ehrbar, Di 18
Avista Corporation
and Area Light schedules to the rates contained in those 1
schedules (Schedules 41-48)? 2
A. The Company proposes to increase present street 3
and area light (base) rates on a uniform percentage basis. 4
The proposed increase for all lighting rates is 4.6%. The 5
(base tariff) rates are shown in the tariffs for those 6
schedules, contained in of Exhibit No. 13, Schedule 2. 7
8
IV. PROPOSED NATURAL GAS REVENUE INCREASE 9
Q. Could you please explain what is contained in 10
Schedule 4 of Exhibit No. 13? 11
A. Yes. Schedule 4 of Exhibit No. 13 is a copy of 12
the Company’s present and proposed natural gas tariffs, 13
showing the changes (strikeout and underline) proposed in 14
this filing. 15
Q. Could you please describe what is contained in 16
Schedule 5 of Exhibit No. 13? 17
A. Schedule 5 of Exhibit No. 13 contains the 18
proposed (clean) natural gas tariff sheets incorporating 19
the proposed changes included in this filing. 20
Q. Could you please explain what is contained in 21
Schedule 6 of Exhibit No. 13? 22
A. Schedule 6 of Exhibit No. 13 contains 23
information regarding the proposed spread of the natural 24
Ehrbar, Di 19
Avista Corporation
gas revenue increase among the service schedules and the 1
proposed changes to the rates within the schedules. Page 2
1 shows the proposed general revenue and percentage 3
increase by rate schedule. Page 2 shows the rates of 4
return and the relative rates of return for each of the 5
schedules before and after the proposed increases. Page 3 6
shows the present rates under each of the rate schedules, 7
the proposed changes to the rates within the schedules, 8
and the proposed rates after application of the changes. 9
These pages will be referred to later in my testimony. 10
11
Summary of Natural Gas Rate Schedules and Tariffs 12
Q. Would you please review the Company's present 13
rate schedules and the types of natural gas service 14
offered under each? 15
A. Yes. The Company's present Schedules 101 and 16
111 offer firm sales service. Schedule 101 generally 17
applies to residential and small commercial customers who 18
use less than 200 therms/month. Schedule 111 is generally 19
for customers who consistently use over 200 therms/month 20
and Schedule 131 provides interruptible sales service to 21
customers whose annual requirements exceed 250,000 therms. 22
Schedule 146 provides transportation/distribution service 23
for customer-owned natural gas for customers whose annual 24
Ehrbar, Di 20
Avista Corporation
requirements exceed 250,000 therms. 1
Q. The Company also has rate Schedules 112 and 132 2
on file with the Commission. Could you please explain 3
which customers are eligible for service under these 4
schedules? 5
A. Schedules 112 and 132 are in place to provide 6
service to customers who at one time were provided service 7
under Transportation Service Schedule 146. The rates 8
under these schedules are the same as those under 9
Schedules 111 and 131 respectively, except for the 10
application of Temporary Gas Rate Adjustment Schedule 155. 11
Schedule 155 is a temporary rate adjustment used to 12
amortize the deferred natural gas costs approved by the 13
Commission in the prior PGA. Because of their size, 14
transportation service customers are analyzed individually 15
to determine their appropriate share of deferred natural 16
gas costs. If those customers switch back to sales 17
service, the Company continues to analyze those customers 18
individually; otherwise, those customers would receive 19
natural gas costs deferrals which are not due them, thus 20
the need for Schedules 112 and 132. There are only 5 21
customers served under these schedules as of June 30, 22
2012. 23
Q. How many customers does the Company serve under 24
Ehrbar, Di 21
Avista Corporation
Rate Schedule No. of Customers
General Service Schedule 101 73,857
Large General Service Schedule 111/112 1,338
Interruptible Sales Service Schedule 131/132 1
Transportation Service Schedule 146 7
Table 6 - Customers by Service Schedule - Idaho
Table 7 - Proposed % Natural Gas Increase by Schedule
Rate Schedule
Increase in
Base Rates
Increase in
Billing Rates
General Service Schedule 101 7.7%7.8%
Large General Service Schedule 111/112 5.6%5.7%
Interruptible Sales Service Schedule 131/132 5.9%5.9%
Transportation Service Schedule 146 12.8%12.8%
Overall 7.2%7.3%
each of its natural gas rate schedules in Idaho? 1
A. As of June 30, 2012, the Company provided 2
service to the following number of customers under each of 3
its schedules in Idaho: 4
5
6
7
8
9
Proposed Rate Spread 10
Q. How does the Company propose to spread the 11
overall revenue increase of $4,561,000, or 7.2%, among its 12
natural gas general service schedules? 13
A. The Company is proposing the following 14
revenue/rate changes by rate schedule: 15
16
17
18
19
20
Q. Is the proposed percentage increase for 21
Transportation Schedule 146 comparable to the increase for 22
the other service schedules? 23
A. No. The proposed percentage increase for 24
Ehrbar, Di 22
Avista Corporation
Transportation Schedule 146 is not comparable to the 1
proposed increases for the other (sales) service schedules, 2
as Schedule 146 revenue does not include an amount for the 3
cost of natural gas or pipeline transportation. 4
Transportation customers acquire their own natural gas and 5
pipeline transportation. Including an estimate of 40.0 6
cents per therm for the cost of natural gas and pipeline 7
transportation, the proposed increase to Schedule 146 rates 8
represents an average increase of 2.8% in those customers’ 9
total natural gas bill. 10
Q. What information did the Company use to develop 11
the proposed spread of the overall increase to the various 12
rate schedules? 13
A. The Company used the results of the cost of 14
service study (sponsored by Ms. Knox) as a guide to spread 15
the general increase. The spread of the proposed increase 16
generally results in the rates of return for the various 17
service schedules moving approximately one-quarter closer 18
to the overall rate of return (unity). The relative rates 19
of return before and after application of the proposed 20
increases by schedule are as follows: 21
22
Ehrbar, Di 23
Avista Corporation
Present Proposed
Rate Schedule Relative ROR Relative ROR
General Service Schedule 101 0.92 0.94
Large General Service Schedule 111/112 1.37 1.28
Interruptible Sales Service Schedule 131/132 0.92 0.94
Transportation Service Schedule 146 0.80 0.85
Overall 1.00 1.00
Table 8 -Present & Proposed Relative Rates of Return 1
2
3
4
5
Page 2 of Exhibit No. 13, Schedule 6 shows this 6
information in more detail. 7
Proposed Rate Design 8
Q. Could you please explain the present rate design 9
within each of the Company’s present natural gas service 10
schedules? 11
A. Yes. General Service Schedule 101 generally 12
applies to residential and small commercial customers who 13
use less than 200 therms/month. The schedule contains a 14
single rate per therm for all natural gas usage and a 15
monthly customer/basic charge. 16
Large General Service Schedule 111 has a four-tier 17
declining-block rate structure and is generally for 18
customers who consistently use over 200 therms/month, such 19
as schools, restaurants, and office buildings. The 20
schedule consists of a monthly minimum charge plus a usage 21
charge for the first 200 therms or less, and block rates 22
for 201-1,000 therms/month, 1001-10,000 therms/month and 23
usage over 10,000 therms/month. 24
Ehrbar, Di 24
Avista Corporation
Interruptible Sales Service Schedule 131 contains a 1
single rate per therm for all natural gas usage. The 2
schedule also has an annual minimum (deficiency) charge 3
based on a usage requirement of 250,000 therms per year. 4
The lone customer served on this schedule is a hospital 5
which has standby facilities with an alternate fuel, as 6
required by tariff. 7
Transportation Service Schedule 146 contains a $225 8
per month customer charge and contains a single rate per 9
therm for all natural gas usage. The schedule also has an 10
annual minimum (deficiency) charge based on a usage 11
requirement of 250,000 therms per year. 12
Q. Is the Company proposing any changes to the 13
present rate structures contained in its natural gas 14
service schedules? 15
A. No, it is not. 16
Q. Where in your Exhibits do you show the present 17
and proposed rates for the Company’s natural gas service 18
schedules? 19
A. Page 3 of Schedule 6 shows the present and 20
proposed rates under each of the rate schedules, including 21
all present rate adjustments (adders). Column (d) on that 22
page shows the proposed changes to the rates contained in 23
each of the schedules. 24
Ehrbar, Di 25
Avista Corporation
Q. You stated earlier in your testimony that the 1
Company is proposing an overall base rate increase of 7.7% 2
to the rates of General Service Schedule 101. Is the 3
Company proposing an increase to the present 4
basic/customer charge of $4.25/month under the schedule? 5
A. No, it is not. 6
Q. What is the proposed change to the rate per 7
therm under Schedule 101 in order to achieve the total 8
proposed revenue increase for the schedule? 9
A. The proposed increase to the energy rate under 10
the schedule is 6.867 cents per therm, as shown in column 11
(d), page 3, Schedule 6 of Exhibit No. 13. 12
Q. What would be the increase in a residential 13
customer’s bill with average usage based on the proposed 14
increase for Schedule 101? 15
A. The increase for a residential customer using an 16
average of 60 therms of natural gas per month would be 17
$4.12 per month, or 7.8%. A bill for 60 therms per month 18
would increase from the present level of $52.55 to a 19
proposed level of $56.67. 20
Q. Could you please explain the proposed changes in 21
the rates for Large General Service Schedules 111? 22
A. Yes. The present rates for Schedules 101 and 23
111 provide guidance for customer placement: customers 24
Ehrbar, Di 26
Avista Corporation
who generally use less than 200 therms/month should be 1
placed on Schedule 101, customers who consistently use 2
over 200 therms per month should be placed on Schedule 3
111. Not only do the rates provide guidance for customer 4
schedule placement, they provide a reasonable 5
classification of customers for analyzing the costs of 6
providing service. 7
The proposed increase to the minimum charge for 8
Schedule 111 (for 200 therms or less) of $13.73 per month 9
is typically a function of the basic charge increase under 10
Schedule 101 as well as the increased Schedule 101 11
variable rate3. This methodology maintains the present 12
relationship between the schedules, and will minimize 13
customer shifting. The remaining revenue requirement for 14
the schedule is proposed to be recovered through a uniform 15
percentage increase of approximately 5.0% to blocks 2, 3 & 16
4. 17
Q. How is the Company proposing to spread the 18
proposed increase of $12,000 to the rates under 19
Interruptible Schedule 131? 20
A. The Company proposes to increase the usage charge 21
under the schedule by 2.982 cents per therm. 22

3 The Company did not propose an increase to the Basic Charge for
Schedule 101. Therefore, the Schedule 111 Minimum Charge increase
equals the $0.00 change in Schedule 101 Basic Change plus 200 therms
multiplied by the change in the variable rate (200*$0.06867 = $13.73).
Ehrbar, Di 27
Avista Corporation
Q. How is the Company proposing to spread the 1
proposed increase of $37,000 to the rates under 2
Transportation Schedule 146? 3
A. The Company is proposing to increase the per 4
therm charge under the schedule by 1.435 cents per therm. 5
Q. Is the Company proposing any other changes to 6
its natural gas service schedules? 7
A. No, it is not. 8
9
V. ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOAD ADJUSTMENT 10
Q. Would you briefly describe the Company's 11
proposed Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment? 12
A. Yes. Avista’s Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment 13
(“EELA” or “Load Adjustment”) restates the weather-14
normalized test year loads of the Company's retail 15
electric customers to reflect the impact of the Company’s 16
programmatic electric energy efficiency efforts. The 17
purpose of this adjustment is to directly address the 18
reduction of retail revenues associated with the Company-19
sponsored conservation that occurred during the test year 20
(ending June 2012), as well as the level of conservation 21
savings that will occur in-between the test year and the 22
rate year, and the rate year itself. 23
Ehrbar, Di 28
Avista Corporation
We know with certainty that we will assist our 1
customers to use less energy through our energy efficiency 2
programs. In a general rate case, we begin with 3
historical test period kWh sales, and then erroneously 4
assume that all of those retail sales, and revenues, 5
continue into the future rate year, when we know with 6
certainty that part of that revenue will not occur, 7
because customers have taken steps to use less energy. 8
Q. Is this adjustment similar to the one filed in 9
the Company’s previous case? 10
A. Yes, it is. 11
Q. Why is the Company proposing this adjustment in 12
this case? 13
A. The Company’s approach to electric energy 14
efficiency is based on two key principles. The first is 15
to pursue all cost-effective kilowatt hour savings by 16
offering financial incentives for most energy saving 17
measures. The second key principle is to use the most 18
effective “mechanism” to deliver energy efficiency 19
services to customers. While the Company has been very 20
successful in its implementation of energy efficiency 21
programs, the reduction in kWh’s sold due to energy 22
efficiency results in lost margin for the Company. 23
Ehrbar, Di 29
Avista Corporation
Q. Did the Company consider an electric decoupling 1
mechanism in lieu of the Energy Efficiency Load 2
Adjustment? 3
A. Yes, it did, but the Company believes that the 4
EELA is a far simpler adjustment than the potential 5
complexities of a decoupling mechanism. Many of the 6
mechanisms that the Company is aware of can be quite 7
complex in terms of development and implementation. The 8
Company’s decision to simply restate weather-normalized 9
test year loads for the levels of conservation the Company 10
has and will obtain from the test year through the rate 11
year represents a much more straight-forward lost margin 12
recovery program. 13
Q. How were the energy efficiency savings for the 14
Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment determined for this 15
case? 16
A. For 2011, the Company used its actual verified 17
electric programmatic savings. For 2012, the actual year-18
to-date results through July 31, 2012 were used and 19
extrapolated out for the entire year. These savings were 20
then adjusted from “unverified” to “expected verified” 21
using the 2011 DSM verification realization rates. For 22
2013, the Company used its 2012 Business Plan estimate, as 23
Ehrbar, Di 30
Avista Corporation
the Company is not forecasting any material changes from 1
its 2012 targets for 2013. 2
Q. Does the IPUC Staff, in addition to other 3
parties, participate in the process of determining the 4
Company’s energy efficiency targets? 5
A. Yes, the IPUC Staff participates on the 6
Company’s DSM Advisory Group (formerly known as the 7
Triple-E or External Energy Efficiency Board). In 8
addition, IPUC Staff participates in the various technical 9
advisory committees that provide guidance and oversight to 10
the Company in the development of the electric and natural 11
gas Integrated Resource Plans. 12
Q. Does the Company have the necessary funding to 13
obtain the conservation targets? 14
A. Yes, it does. In fact, on July 30, 2012, the 15
Company filed with the Commission a request to reduce the 16
electric energy efficiency tariff rider by approximately 17
$3.5 million. In its application, the Company notes that 18
the “reduction will not impact the Company’s ability to 19
fund and pursue cost-effective DSM resources; it will 20
merely adjust revenues to move the tariff rider balance 21
towards zero”.4 The Company is forecasting that it will 22

4 AVU-E-12-07, Application at page 3.
Ehrbar, Di 31
Avista Corporation
have the necessary funding to meet the conservation 1
targets even with the proposed rate decrease. 2
Q. Does the Company have the programs in place in 3
order to meet its conservation targets? 4
A. Yes. The Company’s energy efficiency offerings 5
include over 300 measures that are packaged into over 30 6
programs for customer convenience. The Company has the 7
necessary funding and program offerings in place in order 8
to meet its electric conservation targets. 9
Q. How is the Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment 10
calculated? 11
A. As previously noted, the purpose of the Load 12
Adjustment is to adjust the test year billing determinants 13
to reflect the impact resulting from the Company’s 14
programmatic energy efficiency efforts. The first step in 15
the calculation of the Load Adjustment is to determine the 16
level of electric energy efficiency savings from the 17
Company’s DSM programs. 18
With a test year in this case of July 2011 through 19
June 2012, and because customers installed energy 20
efficiency measures throughout 2011, approximately three-21
fourths of the 2011 calendar-year savings are already 22
included in the normalized test year usage. Therefore, 23
for the 2011 calendar-year, only 9,734,749 kWh’s would 24
Ehrbar, Di 32
Avista Corporation
need to be adjusted out of the test year billing 1
determinants to reflect the other one-fourth of the kWh’s 2
that customers saved. 3
For 2012, because customers installed energy 4
efficiency measures throughout the first half of 2012, 5
approximately one-fourth of the 2012 calendar-year savings 6
are already included in the normalized test year usage. 7
Therefore, for 2012, 15,044,250 kWh’s would need to be 8
adjusted out of the test year billing determinants to 9
reflect the other three-fourths of the kWh’s customers 10
will save for calendar-year 2012. 11
For 2013, because customers will install energy 12
efficiency measures throughout the rate year, thereby 13
reducing the Company’s rate effective period billing 14
determinants, the Company adjusted out 10,029,500 kWhs, or 15
one-half of the savings, from the test year billing 16
determinants. 17
Q. How were 2011, 2012 and 2013 electric energy 18
efficiency savings determined? 19
A. Illustration 1 below includes a chart showing 20
the savings included in this adjustment by year: 21
22
Ehrbar, Di 33
Avista Corporation
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
2011 2012 2013
9,734,749
15,044,250
10,029,500
Idaho Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment -Savings by
Year (kWhs)
Illustration No. 1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. How were 2012 and 2013 electric energy 10
efficiency savings spread by rate schedule? 11
A. For purposes of spreading the energy savings by 12
rate schedule, for Residential Schedule 1, the Company 13
used the expected residential savings from the 2012 Demand 14
Side Management Business Plan for both 2012 and 2013. 15
Given that the Company’s residential electric energy 16
efficiency program offerings are only valid for customers 17
on Schedule 1, the identification of residential savings 18
was straightforward. 19
The Company also used the DSM Business Plan for 2012 20
and 2013 expected non-residential savings. The DSM 21
Business Plan, however, does not break down the expected 22
savings by individual, non-residential rate schedule. As 23
such, a proxy was used to allocate the 2012 and 2013 24
Ehrbar, Di 34
Avista Corporation
Rate Schedule
2011 Savings
(1/4 of Year)
2012 Savings
(3/4 of Year)
2013 Savings
(1/2 of Total)
Schedule 1 4,630,250 2,750,250 1,833,500
Schedule 11 1,671,524 4,025,806 2,683,870
Schedule 21 2,468,366 5,944,969 3,963,313
Schedule 25 943,355 2,272,037 1,514,691
Schedule 31 21,253 51,188 34,126
9,734,749 15,044,250 10,029,500
expected savings to the various non-residential rate 1
schedules. The proxy used was actual 2011 electric 2
savings. For example, as shown on Exhibit No. 13, 3
Schedule 7, at line 4, Schedule 21 customers saved 48.4% 4
of all non-residential electric energy savings in 2011. 5
Therefore, for 2012 and 2013, 48.4% of the expected non-6
residential savings were allocated to Schedule 21. Table 7
9 below shows the savings by rate schedule that have been 8
incorporated into the Load Adjustment: 9
Table 9 – Load Adjustment Electric Energy Savings by Rate 10
Schedule (kWhs) 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q. Is the use of 2011 results by rate schedule 18
appropriate for purposes of allocating 2012 and 2013 19
estimated savings for non-residential rate schedules? 20
A. Yes. The Company continues to have similar 21
energy efficiency programs in place, as it had in 2011, 22
and does not have plans to significantly alter the mix of 23
electric energy efficiency programs as it relates to non-24
residential customers. Therefore, the 2011 actual results 25
Ehrbar, Di 35
Avista Corporation
provide a reasonable basis upon which to spread the 2012 1
and 2013 energy savings. 2
Q. Did the Company factor in demand savings as a 3
part of the adjustment? 4
A. Yes. For the demand savings component of the 5
Company’s energy efficiency programs, the Company 6
developed an Excess Demand Ratio. The ratio for each 7
Schedule (11, 21 and 25) was calculated by taking the 8
excess billed demand (beyond the demand embedded in the 9
fixed demand charges) and dividing that by total 10
normalized energy usage. This ratio, when applied to the 11
kWh savings by rate schedule, provides an estimate of the 12
demand savings that correspond with the electricity 13
savings. For example, with Schedule 21, the calculated 14
Excess Demand Ratio of 0.187% multiplied by the total 15
2011-2013 calculated savings of 12,376,649 kWh’s results 16
in a reduction in customer demand of 23,142 kW. Further 17
information regarding the calculation of the Excess Demand 18
Ratio, and resulting demand reductions, are provided in 19
Exhibit No. 13, Schedule 7. 20
Q. Please continue with your discussion of how the 21
Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment was calculated? 22
A. Having calculated the reduction in demand (kW) 23
and energy (kWh) by rate schedule, the results were then 24
Ehrbar, Di 36
Avista Corporation
input into the Company’s rate design model. Average 1
retail rates were then applied to those units in the same 2
manner they are applied to the “Unbilled Adjustment” and 3
the “Adjustment to Actuals”, both components of the 4
Company’s Revenue Normalization Adjustment. This provides 5
a revised Pro Forma Revenue at present rates of 6
$248,719,508 million versus the Revenue Normalization 7
Adjustment sponsored by Company witness Ms. Knox which 8
shows normalized Pro Forma Revenue at Present Rates of 9
$251,323,026. The difference is ($2,603,518), which is 10
the energy efficiency revenue adjustment, prior to any 11
change in power supply costs. 12
Q. Did the Company include an adjustment for the 13
corresponding change in power supply costs? 14
A. Yes. The Company multiplied the total savings, 15
by rate schedule, by the “Average Market Sale and Purchase 16
Price per MWh” that is included in Company Witness Mr. 17
Johnson’s Exhibit 5, Schedule 3. That price is $0.02803 18
per kWh. The resulting “Power Cost Adjustment” as shown 19
on line 17 of Exhibit 13, Schedule 7 is a decrease of 20
$975,682. 21
Taking into account the reduction in retail revenues 22
due to DSM, and the resulting savings in Power supply 23
expense, and including all of the other revenue related 24
Ehrbar, Di 37
Avista Corporation
Normalized with EELA Adjustment
Pro Forma Revenue at Present Rates 251,323$ 248,719$ (2,604)$
Pro Forma Purchase Power Expense -$ 976$ 976$
Revenue Related Expenses 13$
Total Expense Adjustment 989$
Net Income Before Taxes (1,615)$
State Income Tax (24)$
Federal Income Tax (557)$
Total Taxes (581)$
Net Operating Income (1,034)$
Revenue Requirement 1,623$
expenses and taxes, the impact of this adjustment is a 1
reduction to Net Operating Income of $1,034,000. Table 10 2
below shows a summary of the Energy Efficiency Load 3
Adjustment (in thousands): 4
Table 10 – Energy Efficiency Load Adjustment Summary 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
This adjustment was provided to Ms. Andrews for 16
purposes of her final Revenue Requirement calculation. 17
18
VI. SUMMARY OF AVU-E-11-01 & AVU-G-11-01 ORDER 32371 19
REQUIREMENTS 20
Q. There were several requirements the Company 21
agreed to in the Settlement Stipulation in Case Nos. AVU-22
E-11-01 & AVU-G-11-01 and which were approved by the 23
Commission. Would you please provide a summary of those 24
Ehrbar, Di 38
Avista Corporation
Item Requirement
Page Number in
Settlement
Stipulation
Witness
1
The Company agrees that it will not seek to make effective a change in base
electric or natural gas rates prior to April 1, 2013, by means of a general
rate filing. (Any filing of a general rate case, however, may be made prior
to April 1, 2013, but shall not request an effective date prior to April 1,
2013.)
Page 5, Paragraph
8 Ehrbar
2
The Parties have agreed to exchange information and convene a public
workshop, prior to the Company’s next general rate case, with respect to
the method of allocation of demand and energy among the customer classes
such as the possible use of a revised peak credit method for classifying
production costs, as well as consideration of the use of a 12 Coincident
Peak (CP) (whether “weighted” or not) versus a 7 CP or other method for
allocating transmission costs. This workshop will also address the merits of
inclining or declining block rates for service schedules 11, 21, 25 and 31.
Page 5-6,
Paragraph 10
Knox &
Ehrbar
3
The Company and interested parties will meet and confer prior to the
Company’s next general rate filing in order to assess the Low Income
Weatherization and Low Income Energy Conservation Education Programs
and discuss appropriate levels of low-income weatherization funding in the
future.
Page 8, Paragraph
13(b)Kopczynski
Settlement Stipulation Approved in Order No. 32371
AVU-E-11-01 & AVU-G-11-01
items and how they have been addressed by the Company in 1
this rate case? 2
A. Yes. Table 11 below lists the items that the 3
Company committed to as a part of the Settlement 4
Stipulation approved in Order No. 32371. The list details 5
the requirement, the page number and paragraph where the 6
item is located in the Stipulation, and the witness that 7
addresses the issue in this rate case filing. 8
Table 11 – AVU-E/G-11-01 Settlement Stipulation Requirements 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ehrbar, Di 39
Avista Corporation
Q. Please provide an update with respect to the 1
Item 1 listed in Table 11 above? 2
A. With respect to item 1, the Company has 3
requested an effective date of November 10, 2012, but, as 4
stated in the Company’s Application as Section XII, Avista 5
is requesting that the Commission suspend the Company’s 6
filing for 30 days plus 5 months from the proposed 7
effective date of November 10, 2012. Doing so recognizes 8
the fact that new rates cannot go into effect prior to 9
April 1, 2013 pursuant to Order 32371. 10
Q. Can you provide an overview of Item 2, the Cost 11
of Service/Rate Design Workshop? 12
A. Yes, I can. Ms. Knox in her direct testimony 13
provides an overview of the Cost of Service related 14
workshop discussions, and provides as Schedule 4 in 15
Exhibit 12 a copy of the materials Avista presented at the 16
workshop (see pages 2-10 in that Schedule). 17
As it relates to the Rate Design aspect of the 18
workshop, specifically the “merits of inclining or 19
declining block rates for service schedules 11, 21, 25 and 20
31”, pages 11-14 of Knox Exhibit 12, Schedule 4 are the 21
materials Avista presented at that workshop. It is 22
Ehrbar, Di 40
Avista Corporation
Avista’s view that the current rate design for service 1
schedules 11, 21, 25 and 31 is reasonable.5 2
Q. Which Company witness provides an update with 3
respect to Item 3 listed in Table 11 above? 4
A. Company Witness Mr. Kopczynski addresses Item 3 5
in his direct testimony. 6
Q. Are there any other issues you would like to 7
address? 8
A. Yes, there is. In the Settlement Stipulation in 9
Case Nos. AVU-E-10-01 & AVU-G-10-01, at Paragraph 6(c)(i), 10
the Company agreed to review its policies and address in 11
its next general rate case the appropriateness of charging 12
for services it now provides without charge to customers 13
or other parties. 14
In my testimony filed in Case No. AVU-E-11-01 and 15
AVU-G-11-01, I stated that beginning in early 2011, the 16
Company started some preliminary analysis in terms of 17
looking at whether there were items that Avista should be 18

5 Generally, the incremental fixed costs required to provide service to
commercial and industrial customers do not increase proportionately
with increasing energy usage. As most of the Company’s fixed costs of
service are recovered through the energy charges (and demand charges
where applicable), larger use customers are generally less costly to
serve than smaller use customers on an embedded cost per kWh basis, as
fixed costs are spread over a larger base of usage. Within the
Company’s commercial and industrial schedules, there is also a
substantial range of energy usage. Therefore, declining block rates
for commercial and industrial customers generally reflect the cost of
providing service within rate schedules, as well as across rate
schedules.
Ehrbar, Di 41
Avista Corporation
charging for that it currently was not charging for, as 1
well as reviewed the size and scope of existing charges. 2
Later, I stated that it was the Company’s expectation at 3
that point to propose changes to these fees in its next 4
general rate case (i.e., this case) or by special tariff 5
filing. 6
While the Company has conducted preliminary analysis 7
specific to its Idaho jurisdiction, it has not yet 8
completed an analysis for its Washington or Oregon 9
jurisdictions. The Company believes that if such changes 10
should be made, they should be done so in all of its 11
jurisdictions roughly at the same time to minimize 12
customer and employee confusion. It is the Company’s 13
expectation that, once the analysis is complete, and if 14
changes to fees are warranted, it would propose such 15
changes in all three states. Avista will continue to keep 16
Idaho Commission Staff informed on our progress. 17
Q. Does this conclude your pre-filed, direct 18
testimony? 19
A. Yes, it does. 20
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 1 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 2 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 3 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 4 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 5 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 6 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 7 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 8 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 9 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 10 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 11 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 12 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 13 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 14 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 15 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 16 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 17 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 18 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 19 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 20 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 21 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 22 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 23 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 24 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 25 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 26 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 27 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 28 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 29 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 30 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 31 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 32 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 33 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 34 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 35 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 36 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 37 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 38 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 39 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 40 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 41 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 42 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 43 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 44 of 44
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 1 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 2 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 3 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 4 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 5 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 6 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 7 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 8 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 9 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 10 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 11 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 12 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 13 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 14 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 15 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 16 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 17 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 18 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 19 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 20 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 21 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 22 of 22
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 1 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 2 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 3 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 4 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 5 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 6 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 7 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 8 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 9 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 10 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 11 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 4, Page 12 of 12
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 1 of 6
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 2 of 6
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 3 of 6
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 4 of 6
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 5 of 6
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU-E-12-08
P. Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 5, Page 6 of 6
Avista Utilities
Pro Forma Energy Efficiency Load Adjustmen
Twelve Months Ended June 201
Idaho
Line No. Rate Schedule Sch 1 Sch 11/12 Sch 21/22 Sch 25 Sch 31/32 Total
1 2011 First Year Saving kWhs 18,521,00     6,686,09     9,873,46          3,773,421         85,01             38,939,00     
2 Embedded in Normalized Test Year kWhs 13,890,75     5,014,57     7,405,10          2,830,06         63,761             29,204,251     
3 2011 Full Year Adjustmen kWhs 4,630,25        1,671,52     2,468,36          943,355             21,253             9,734,749        
4 Non‐Res Estimated schedule savings % assignment 32.7% 48.4% 18.5% 0.4% 100.000
5 2012 First Year Saving kWhs 3,667,00        5,367,741     7,926,62          3,029,382         68,251             20,059,00     
6 Embedded in Normalized Test Year kWhs 916,75           1,341,935     1,981,65          757,345             17,063             5,014,75        
7 2012 Full Year Adjustmen kWhs 2,750,25        4,025,80     5,944,969          2,272,03         51,188             15,044,25     
8 1/2 2013 First Year Saving kWhs 1,833,50        2,683,87     3,963,313          1,514,691         34,126             10,029,50     
9 Total 2013 Savings Adjustment (Lines 3 + 7 + 8)kWhs (9,214,000)      (8,381,200)   (12,376,649)      (4,730,083)        (106,567)         (34,808,499)    
Excess Demand Adjustment Sch 1 Sch 11/12 Sch 21/22 Sch 25 Sch 31/32 Total
10 12 ME June 2012 normalized Excess Demand ‐                    209,01        1,287,869          353,847              ‐                   1,850,73        
11 12 ME June 2012 normalized kWh 1,135,095,93 339,756,74 688,774,32     304,821,88      56,551,392     2,525,000,29
12 Excess Demand Ratio 0.000% 0.062% 0.187% 0.116%
13 Total 2013 Savings Adjustmen Demand ‐                  (5,156)           (23,142)              (5,491)                 ‐                 (33,789)            
Sch 1 Sch 11/12 Sch 21/22 Sch 25 Sch 31/32 Sch 25P
Street & Area 
Lights Total ID Electric
14 Total Present Revenue (Normalized) E‐RN‐14 100,258,46$  33,192,26$ 52,245,575$      16,262,992$      4,867,662$      41,091,27$    3,404,78$   251,323,02$      
15 Total Present Revenue (with EELA) 99,496,425$    32,432,06$ 51,400,14$      16,036,072$      4,858,73$      41,091,27$    3,404,78$   248,719,50$      
16 Revenue Adjustment (762,043)$          (760,200)$       (845,431)$            (226,920)$          (8,924)$             (0)$                      (0)$                   (2,603,518)$         
17 Power Cost Adjustment (1) 0.02803 per kWh$    (258,268)$          (234,925)$       (346,917)$            (132,584)$          (2,987)$             (975,682)$             
Note (1)Power Cost of Saved kWhs is Average Market Sale and Purchase Price per MWh from Johnson Exhibit Schedule 3, expressed as $ per kWh.
Exhibit No. 13
Case No. AVU‐E‐12‐08
P Ehrbar, Avista
Schedule 7, Page 1 of 1