20040218Motion to Compel.pdf

ECE1VEO r:-l
,-::~J
MONICA B, MOEN ISB # 5734
Idaho Power Company
p, O. Box 70
Boise , Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
, . .:; C' :". H"
'7:: ,r;:-' ~j r 0 rH.. L r-L"',viij ri'!'1'-Jo
, .., ,. ,
u T;L;; ,..::) LUr;:jjSS1JN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Kimball Properties Limited
Partnership and Hewlett
Packard Company,
Respondent.
CASE NO. IPC-OO-
Complainants,
vs.
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
FROM THE COMMISSION STAFF
Idaho Power Company,
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or the "Company
and herewith files this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from the Commission
Staff pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or the "Commission ) Rules
of Procedure 221 and 222.
BACKGROUND
On February 2 , 2004, Idaho Power served the Commission Staff with the
Company first set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production in the above-
MOTION TO COMPEL - 1
referenced matter. See Exhibit 1 , attached. The Staff timely served its responses to
those discovery requests on Idaho Power on February 13 , 2004.See Exhibit 2
attached.
In Interrogatory No.7 to the Commission Staff, Idaho Power requested the
following information:
On Page 15 of Mr. Sterling testimony, he states
, "
It is
discriminatory whenever one customer has to pay for substation
facilities and another customer, who may require the same or even
larger substation capacity, does not have to pay just because extra
substation capacity is already available.
(a) Would Staff also contend that it is discriminatory whenever one
customer has to pay for distribution facilities and another
customer, who may require the same or even larger
distribution capacity, does not have to pay just because extra
distribution capacity is already available?
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, does the Staff believe that Rule H isdiscriminatory?
(c) If the answer to (a) is yes and the answer to (b) is no , please
explain why Rule H is not discriminatory,
The Staff objected to Idaho Power s Interrogatory No, 7 on the basis that
distribution facilities and Rule H are not at issue or relevant to this proceeding. The
issue in this case is payment for substation facilities not distribution facilities.Staff
Response at 6, Therefore , the Staff did not respond to that discovery request.
conformance with the Commission s rules concerning the scope and procedure of
discovery and for the reasons set forth below, Idaho Power hereby respectfully requests
that the IPUC compel the Commission Staff to respond to Idaho Power s Interrogatory
No, 7,
MOTION TO COMPEL - 2
ARGUMENT
Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) governs the scope and procedure of
discovery before the Commission.See IPUC Rule of Procedure 221,05, Idaho Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states that
(u)nless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with
these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: (1) Parties may
obtain discovery reqardinq any matter, not privileqed. which is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pendinq action
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking
discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including
the existence, description , nature, custody, condition and location
of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter, It is not qround for objection that the information souqht willbe inadmissible at the trial if the information souqht appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Idaho Rule of Procedure 26(6)(1) (2003)(emphasis added), Thus , in accordance with
IPUC Rule of Procedure 221 , discovery requests that are relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence are discoverable.
The key phrase defining the scope of discovery that discovery must be
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action" has been construed
broadly by the U,S, Supreme Court to encompass any matter that bears on , or that
reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on , any issue that is or may be in
the case. See Hickman v, Taylor 329 U.S, 495 , 67 S. Ct. 385 (1947), Consistent with
the notice-pleading system established by the Rules of Procedure, discovery is not
limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define
1 Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is identical to the fITst paragraph of Federal Rule 26(b)(1). The second
paragraph of the federal rule specifically details when the court may limit the frequency of use of the discovery
methods. See Notes following Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
MOTION TO COMPEL - 3
and clarify the issues. Id. at 388-, 500-501,
Rule 26(b)(1) requires only that the information sought be "relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action." This is an explicit recognition that the
question of relevancy is to be more loosely construed at the discovery stage than at trial
or hearing where the relevance question for purposes of admissibility is governed by the
Idaho Rules of Evidence.2 "Indeed , in many cases , the issues will not be clearly defined
at the time discovery is sought, and one of the purposes of discovery is to identify and
narrow the issues.8 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure Civ, 2d 2008 (2003),
The information sought by Idaho Power in its Interrogatory No.7 to the
Commission Staff is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, The
Staff correctly states that the subject matter of the pending action "is payment for
substation facilities not distribution facilities." Staff Response at 6. However, by way of
this response , the Staff dodges responding to the larger question raised by the
Company concerning the similarity between the Company s methodology in calculating
payments from customers who have requested service at locations where inadequate
substation facilities exist and the payments authorized by Commission-approved Rule H
for the installation or alteration of Company-owned distribution facilities where
inadequate distribution facilities exist.
In fact, the procedure used by Idaho Power to determine the payment due
from the Complainants in this action mirrors the Commission-approved procedure by
2 IPUC Rule of Procedure 261 indicates that the "presiding officer at hearing is not bound by the Idaho Rules of
Evidence." IPUC Rule of Procedure 261. "Rules as to the admissibility of evidence used by the district courts of
Idaho in non-jury civil cases are generally followed.Id. The presiding officer may admit evidence "if it is a type
generally relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs" and that the "Commission s expertise
technical competence and special knowledge may be used in the evaluation of the evidence./d.
MOTION TO COMPEL - 4
which the Company seeks contributions in aid of construction from customers seeking or
requiring new distribution facilities in accordance with Rule However, the
Complainants allege that Idaho Power discriminatorily charged them for the cost of the
substation facilities that were required as a result of the Complainants' proposed
improvements. Furthermore, the Commission Staff asserts that "(i)t is discriminatory
whenever one customer has to pay for substation facilities and another customer, who
may require the same or even larger substation capacity, does not have to pay just
because extra substation capacity is already available," Rick Sterling Direct Testimony
at 15,
On the bases of Staff's Direct Testimony and the fact that the procedure
the Company uses to determine substation costs mirrors the procedure permitted under
Commission-approved Rule H for the cost of installing distribution facilities at the
request of a customer in locations where inadequate distribution facilities exist, the
Company seeks to know from the Commission Staff whether it regards the Rule H
methodology of calculating costs to be discriminatory, The Company seeks to obtain
information from the Staff that is "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action" and in conformance with the scope of discovery permitted by the Commission.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons , Idaho Power respectfully requests that the
Commission compel the Commission Staff to respond to Idaho Power s Interrogatory
No, 7,
MOTION TO COMPEL - 5
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of February 2004.
f3.
MONICA B, MOEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of February 2004, I served a true
and correct copy of the within and foregoing APPLICATION upon the following named
parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utility Commission
472 West Washington Street
O, Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
---2L Hand Delivered
S, Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
99 E, State Street
P, 0, Box 1849
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Hand Delivered
S, Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Brian Graham
Hewlett Packard Company
11311 Chinden Blvd,
Boise, Idaho 83714
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
(b~ ~-L-
MONlCA B. MOEN
MOTION TO COMPEL - 6
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-OO-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT
MONICA 8, MOEN IS8 # 5734
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise , Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
KIMBALL PROPERTIES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AND HEWLETT
PACKARD COMPANY
Complainants
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY, an
Idaho Corporation
Respondent.
CASE NO. IPC-00-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
TO THE COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW , Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or the "Company ) and
herewith files its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission Staff in the above-referenced matter. Please provide the
responses and the requested documents and information on or before Friday,
February 13, 2004,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
THE COMMISSION STAFF - 1
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.: Based upon Mr. Sterling s statement on Pages 6-7 of
his testimony that "HP/Kimball is (and has been) paying for this share of substation costs
through its rates as a Schedule 9 customer " is it Staff's contention that HP/Kimball has
been paying its specific cost of service or that HP/Kimball has been paying the cost of
service attributed to the Schedule 9 class cost of customers?
INTERROGATORY NO.: Does the Staff have an opinion as to the relative cost
service for a new customer requiring additional substation facilities as opposed to the cost
to serve the incumbent customer within the same customer class? If so , please state the
Staff's opinion and the basis for said opinion.
INTERROGATORY NO.: Is it the Staff's position that any refund to HP/Kimball
will then be considered an investment of Idaho Power that will be an increase to rate base?
If yes , which customers does the Staff believe will pay the return on investment on that
rate base?
INTERROGATORY NO.: Please describe the Staff's understanding of who pays
for the return on investment for the unused capacity of substations included in rate base,
INTERROGATORY NO.: Does the Staff believe that it is in ratepayer s interest
that new customers be encouraged to locate in area where unused substation capacity
already exists? If not, please explain,
INTERROGATORY NO.: In Mr. Sterling s testimony on Page 11 , he states that
HP/Kimball will effectively pay twice.
(a)Has the Staff performed an HP/Kimball-specific cost of service study
that would demonstrate that HP/Kimball would be paying twice its cost of service?
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
THE COMMISSION STAFF - 2
(b)Is it Staff's position that HP/Kimball would be paying twice its cost of
service?
(c)If the answer to (b) above is "" to what does the word, "twice
refer?
INTERROGATORY NO.: On Page 15 of Mr. Sterling s testimony, he states
, "
It is
discriminatory whenever one customer has to pay for substation facilities and another
customer , who may require the same or even larger substation capacity, does not have to
pay just because extra substation capacity is already available,
(a)Would Staff also contend that it is discriminatory whenever one
customer has to pay for distribution facilities and another customer , who may require the
same or even larger distribution capacity, does not have to pay just because extra
distribution capacity is already available?
(b)If the answer to (a) is yes , does the Staff believe that Rule H is
discriminatory?
(c)If the answer to (a) is yes and the answer to (b) is no, please explain
why Rule H is not discriminatory,
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.: Has the Staff performed any studies to
determine if HP/Kimball's cost of service is greater or less than the cost of service for the
Schedule 9 class? If so, please provide such studies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.: In the Staff Attorney s question on Page 10
of Mr. Sterling s testimony is a statement that "Certainly at least some of the unused
capacity that HP/Kimball originally requested is now being used to serve new customers.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
THE COMMISSION STAFF - 3
If HP/Kimball requested 4 MW and Idaho Power added 20 MW, is it the Staff's position that
other new customers are utilizing both the 16 MW that Idaho Power funded for use by
customers other than HP/Kimball and a portion of the 4 MW for which HP/Kimball paid?
, please provide the analysis that supports that position,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.: Please produce any Staff studies that
demonstrate that , by paying an upfront contribution for substation costs, HP/Kimball will
pay higher than its costs of service.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.: Please produce any Staff analyses that
demonstrate that after having made a contribution in aid of construction , HP/Kimball has a
lower cost of service than other Schedule 9 customers.
DATED at Boise, Idaho , this 2nd day of February 2004.
(f5~
MONICA 8, MOEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
THE COMMISSION STAFF - 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 2nd day of February 2004 , I served a true
and correct copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COMMISSION
STAFF on the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to
the following:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , Idaho 83720-0074
--L Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
99 E. State Street
P. O. Box 1849
Eagle, Idaho 83616
--L
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Brian Graham
Hewlett Packard Company
11311 Chinden Blvd.
Boise , Idaho 83714
--L
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
(13.
MONICA B. MOEN
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
THE COMMISSION STAFF - 5
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-OO-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT 2
SCOTT WOODBURY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
BAR NO, 1895
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W, WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
KIMBALL PROPERTIES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AND HEWLETT PACKARD
COMPANY,
COMPLAINANTS
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. IPC-OO-
RESPONSE OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF'TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record
Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General, hereby responds to the First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production ofIdaho Power Company to the Commission Staff filed February 2, 2004.
Staff notes by way of preface to its.lnterrogatory responses that Idaho Commission Rule of
Procedure 225.01.a clearly states
, "
Production requests or written interrogatories should not be
used to obtain statements of opinion or policy not previously written or published and may be
objected to on that grounds," IDAP A 31.01.01.225,Ol.a, Despite the objectionable nature of some
of the Company s Interrogatories, Staff voices no objection,
ST AFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13 2004
INTERROGATORY NO.1: Based upon Mr, Sterling s statement on pages 6-7 ofhis
testimony that "HPlKimball is (and has been) paying for this share of substation costs through its
rates as a Schedule 9 customer " is it Staffs contention that HPlKimball has been paying its
specific cost of service or that HPlKimballhas been paying the cost of service attributed to the
Schedule 9 class cost of customers?
, RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1: Based on Mr, Sterling s statement
identified in the interrogatory, Staff makes no contention whatsoever concerning cost of service
either for HPlKimball individually or for the Schedule 9 customer class, Staffhas not prepared and
is not aware of any cost of service study that detennines cost of service for HPlKimball
specifically.
HP/Kimball is billed by the Company and is paying for service as a Schedule 9 customer.
Rates for Schedule 9 customers were set at cost of service in Idaho Power s last general rate case;
therefore, HPlKimball is paying the cost of service attributed to the Schedule 9 customer class.
Mr. Sterling s statement "HPlKimball is (and has been) paying for this share of substation
costs through its rates as a Schedule 9 customer " means that Schedule 9 rates include a component
for substation costs, and since HPlKimball is paying Schedule 9 rates, it is therefore paying a
portion of substation costs as are all other Schedule 9 customers,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
INTERROGATORY NO.2: Does the Staff have an opinion as to the relative cost of
service for a new customer requiring additional substation facilities as opposed to the cost to serve
the incumbent customer within the same customer class? If so, please state the Staffs opinion and
the basis for said opinion,
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2: Staff believes that the relative cost of
service for a new customer requiring additional substation facilities will generally always be higher
than the cost to serve the incumbent customer within the same customer class due to the tendency
of new plant to be higher cost than existing plant.
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13, 2004
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
INTERROGATORY NO.3: Is it the Staffs position that any refund to HPlKimball will
then be considered an investment of Idaho Power that will be an increase to rate base?
If yes, which customers does the Staff believe will pay the return on investment on that rate base?
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3: Yes. Staff agrees that any refund to
HP/Kimball is an investment ofIdaho Power that is eligible for rate base treatment. Any change in
rate base must be authorized in a general rate case. The return on investment on that rate base
would be paid by the general body of ratepayers in accordance with the portion of costs allocated to
each customer class.
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,, Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff.
INTERROGATORY NO.4: Please describe the Staffs understanding of who pays for the
return on investment for the unused capacity of substations included in rate base,
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4: The return on investment for the unused
capacity of substations included in rate base is paid by the general body of ratepayers in accordance
with the portion of costs allocated to each customer class,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P ,, Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: Does the Staff believe that it is in ratepayer s interest that
new customers be encouraged to locate in area( s J (sic) where unused substation capacity already
exists? If not, please explain,
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
lNTERROGA TORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13, 2004
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5: Generally, yes, To the extent that
, substation cost is a ratepayer expense, Staff believes that it is in ratepayers' interest that new
customers be located in areas where unused substation capacity already exists, Fewer facilities
generally means less cost must ultimately be recovered through rates, The only tariff or rule that
addresses payment for substations is Schedule 19 wherein it states
, "
To the extent that additional
facilities not provided for under Rule H, including transmission and/or substation facilities, are
required to provide the requested service, special arrangements will be made in a separate
agreement between the Customer and the Company." The provision itself does not encourage
Schedule 19 customers to locate in areas where unused substation capacity already exists; it is
Idaho Power s application of the provision that provides encouragement, if any. Staffis aware of
no other provisions in Idaho Power s rules or tariffs that encourage customers, or allow Idaho
Power to encourage customers, to locate in areas where unused substation capacity already exists,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
INTERROGATORY NO.6: In Mr. Sterling s testimony on page 11 , he states that
HPlKimball will effectively pay twice,
(a) Has the Staffperfonned an HPlKimball-specific cost of service study that would
demonstrate that HPlKimball would be paying twice its cost of service?
(b) Is it Staffs position that HPlKimball would be paying twice its cost of service?
(c) If the answer to (b) above is "" to what does the word "twice" refer?
ST AFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13,2004
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
(a) In its full context, the statement in Mr, Sterling s testimony states the following:
Q, If the Commission decides that Idaho Power should not refund
any substation costs to HPlKimball, and HPlKimball
continues to take service as a Schedule 9 customer and thus
pay for substations through a portion of its rates, won
HPlKimball pay twice and Idaho Power collect twice for the
cost of the substation?
A. Yes, HPlKimball will effectively pay twice, but no, Idaho
Power won t collect twice, HPlKimball will have paid once
through up-front charges and will effectively pay a second
time for a share of substation costs built into the rates paid by
it and all other Schedule 9 customers.
Idaho Power won t collect twice, but it will, however, have to
collect less in the future from its other Schedule 9 customers if
it retains HP/Kimball's contribution, HP/Kimball'
contribution will reduce rate base, and the substation revenue
requirement for all other Schedule 9 customers will be less by
the amount of HPlKimball's contribution.
In response to the interrogatory, no, Staff has not performed an HPlKimball-specific cost of
service study, Furthermore, Staff makes no allegation concerning HP IKimball' s cost of service in
the cited testimony.
(b) No, Staff does not know the cost of service for HP IKimball or any other individual
Schedule 9 customer.
(c) The word "twice" is clearly explained in Mr. Sterling s testimony as repeated above
in the sentence "HPlKimball will have paid once through up-front charges and will effectively pay
a second time for a share of substation costs built into the rates paid by it and all other Schedule 9
customers," Pay twice means pay two times; it does not necessarily mean pay double the amount.
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff.
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13, 2004
INTERROGATORY NO.7: On Page 15 ofMr, Sterling s testimony, he states
, "
It is
discriminatory whenever one customer has to pay for substation facilities and another customer
who may require the same or even larger substation capacity, does not have to pay just because
extra substation capacity is already available,
(a) Would Staff also contend that it is discriminatory whenever one customer has to pay
for distribution facilities and another customer, who may require the same or even larger
distribution capacity, does not have to pay just because extra distribution capacity is already
available?
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, does the Staff believe that Rule H is discriminatory?
(c) Ifthe answer to (a) is yes and the answer to (b) is no, please explain why Rule His
not discriminatory.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7: Staff objects to this request on the grounds
that distribution facilities and Rule H are not at issue or relevant to this proceeding, The issue in
this case is payment for substation facilities not distribution facilities, Rule Hclearly states
, "
This
rule does not apply to transmission or substation facilities, or for requests for electric service that
are of a speculative nature." See Said direct testimony pp, 5, 6,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: Has the Staffperfonned any studies to
detennine ifHP/Kimball's cost of service is greater or less than the cost of service for the Schedule
9 class? If so, please provide such studies,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: No, Staff has not perfonned
any studies to detennine ifHP/Kimball's cost of service is greater or less than the cost of service for
the Schedule 9 class,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P., Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13 , 2004
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: In the Staff Attorney s question on page 10 of
Mr. Sterling s testimony is a statement that "Certainly at least some of the unused capacity that
HPlKimball originally requested is now being used to serve new customers," IfHPlKimball
requested 4 MW and Idaho Power added 20 MW, is it the Staffs position that other new customers
are utilizing both the 16 MW that Idaho Power funded for use by customers other than HPlKimball
and a portion of the 4 MW for which HPlKimball paid? If so, please provide the analysis that
supports that position,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: The direct testimony ofIdaho
Power witness Sikes in this case at page 14, lines 8-23 states as follows:
Q, Given the current loads at these locations versus what was
originally requested, is the Bethel Court substation being
adequately utilized?
A. Yes. The summer 2003 load on the Bethel Court feeders was
BCRT - 011 at 8.1 MW and BCRT - 012 at 8;3 MW.
Q. Isn t that a significant amount ofload when you say the Company
would not have built the substation absent Hewlett Packard'
request?
A. As I previously testified, when Idaho Power constructs new
capacity, the Company attempts to fully utilize that capacity as a
means of offsetting proj ects in other areas so the Company can
manage its overall budget. By shifting existing loads to these
newer facilities, the Company is able to unload other facilities
where the growth is occurring to enable those facilities to
continue to provide safe and reliable services.
Based on this testimony, 16.4 MW of Bethel Court's capacity was utilized in 2002,
Mathematically, it is possible that new customers are utilizing only the 16 MW that Idaho Power
funded for use by customers other than HPlKimball and that Idaho Power is preserving the
unutilized portion of HPlKimball's 4 MW request. However, Staff believes it would be unwise to
continue to preserve HPlKimball's unused remaining capacity since Staff is not aware of any
indication being given that HPlKimball intends to utilize the capacity in the future, In fact, Idaho
Power witness Sikes testimony at page 9, lines 1-3 states that HPlKimball would likely operate its
call center at this location for only about three years, Given that new development continues to
occur in the vicinity of the Bethel Court substation, and that vacant property still exists , it seems
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13 , 2004
inevitable that new customers will eventually use the remaining capacity of the Bethel Court
substation,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,, Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Please produce any Staff studies that
" demonstrate that, by paying an upfront contribution for substation costs, HPlKimball will pay
higher than its costs of service,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Staff has prepared no such
study. Moreover, as stated previously, Staff does not know the cost of service for HPlKimball
specifically,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,E" Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce any Staff analyses that
demonstrate that after having made a contribution in aid of construction, HPlKimball has a lower
cost of service than other Schedule 9 customers,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: As stated previously, Staff
does not know the cost of service for HPlKimball specifically, thus it has no way of knowing how
HP/Kimball's cost of service compares to other Schedule 9 customers,
The response to this request was prepared by Rick Sterling, P,, Staff Engineer, in
consultation with Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff.
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13, 2004
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this
/.5'
day of February 2004,
Technical Staff: Rick Sterling
sw:gdk/urnisc/prdreq/ipceOO 12.swrpsresponse 1
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF IDAHO POWER FEBRUARY 13 , 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2004
SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMISSION STAFF'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO
POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION, IN CASE NO, IPC-00-, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF
POSTAGE PREP AID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
PETER J RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY
PO BOX 1849
EAGLE ID 83616
GREGORY W SAID, DIRECTOR
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
IDAHO PO~R CO~ ANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
B RIAN GRAHAM
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
11311 CHINDEN BLVD
BOISE ID 83714
MONICA MOEN
IDAHO POWER CO~ ANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE, ID 83707-0070
'?iJto Ie
SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE