HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060301Lobb direct.pdf:. ::.
BEFORE THE --: r;;2:09
'j : ,
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISsfet.tiT~::) CC'::':i;:;S!C:!
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS BASE
RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.
) CASE NO. IPC-O5-
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MARCH 1 , 2006
Please state your name and business address for
the record.
My name is Randy Lobb and my business address is
472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
By whom are you employed?
I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission as Utilities Division Administrator.
What is your educational and professional
background?
I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Agricultural Engineering from the University of Idaho in
1980 and worked for the Idaho Department of Water Resources
from June of 1980 to November of 1987.I received my Idaho
license as a registered professional Civil Engineer in 1985
and began work at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission in
December of 1987.My duties at the Commission currently
include case management and oversight of all technical Staff
assigned to Commission filings.I have conducted analysis
of utility rate applications, rate design, tariff analysis
and customer petitions.I have testified in numerous
proceedings before the Commission including cases dealing
with rate structure, cost of service , power supply, line
extensions, regulatory policy and facility acquisitions.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this
case?
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06
LOBB, R
STAFF
(Di) 1
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the
process leading to the filed Stipulation (the Proposed
Settlement) signed by all parties in this case and to
explain the rationale for Staff's support.
Please summarize your testimony.
Based on its review of Idaho Power s rate case
filing, a comprehensive audit of Company test year results
of operations and consideration of outstanding rate case
issues, Staff believes that the comprehensive Proposed
Settlement agreed to by all parties is in the public
interest and should be approved by the Commission.The
Company originally proposed a revenue increase of $43.
million with a uniform rate increase of 7.8% to all customer
classes.The Proposed Settlement specifies an annual
revenue requirement increase of $18.1 million or 3.
spread uniformly across all customer classes without
accepting any specific class cost of service study.
The primary issues considered in arriving at the
stipulated revenue requirement included use of actual test
year costs in place of estimates, proper pension expense
levels, methods and magnitude of employee compensation,
cloud seeding costs and benefits and the derivation of net
power supply expenses.Staff -proposed adj ustments for these
and numerous other smaller issues established the basis for
the stipulated annual revenue requirement, which represents
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06
LOBB , R
STAFF
(Di) 2
a $26.9 million (or more than 60%) reduction from that
originally proposed by the Company.
Staff supports the rate design relationships
originally proposed by the Company along with certain
exceptions specified in the Proposed Settlement: to increase
the Schedule 1 and 7 customer charge to $4., and to limit
the increase in the energy rate component for Schedule
Staff deems these exceptions to be reasonable under existing
circumstances.
The Stipulation
What are the key components of the Proposed
Set tlement?
The key components include: 1) recommending an
annual revenue requirement increase of $18.1 million or
2%; 2) agreement on an 8.1% overall rate of return without
specifically identifying return on equity; 3) continued use
of the previously approved normalized annual net power
supply cost of $45.3 million including $1.9 million in cloud
seeding benefits; and 4) set aside of the filed cost of
service study in lieu of a uniform revenue increase across
all customer classes.
The Stipulation also covers a variety of other
issues including employee incentive pay concepts, the use of
proposed rate relationships with exceptions, Service
Reversion Charges for landlords or property managers, and
CASE NO. IPC-05-
03/01/06
LOBB , R
STAFF
(Di) 3
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program review.The Stipulation is
attached as Staff Exhibit No. 101.
Revenue Requirement
How did Staff identify revenue requirement issues
and what were the primary considerations in reaching
agreement on the stipulated revenue requirement?
Staff identified issues in this case by reviewing
the Company s rate case filing, conducting a comprehensive
audit of Company test year results of operations and
reexamining issues, recommendations and Commission Orders
associated with the Company s last general rate case, Case
No. IPC-03-13.Staff identified over 30 potential issues
with annual revenue requirement impacts ranging from $6,000
to $11 million for each issue.Many of the issues such as
pension expense, forecast vs. actual costs, return on equity
and incentive pay were similar to those addressed in the
previous general rate case.Other issues such as cloud
seeding benefits , normalized net power supply costs and
lease expenses were new to this case.
Staff evaluated each of these issues and the
justification for the proposed revenue requirement
adj ustment to determine at what level they could be
successfully supported at hearing.Staff established an
overall revenue requirement target that it believed could be
achieved with reasonable certainty and then negotiated
CASE NO. IPC-E- 05 -
03/01/06
LOBB , R
STAFF
(Di) 4
additional less certain adjustments to arrive at an overall
revenue requirement compromise.Staff believes that the
stipulated increase in revenue requirement of 3.2%, or some
$27 million less than that originally proposed by the
Company represents a reasonable Settlement in this case.
Staff believes that the $18.1 proposed revenue increase
balances the needs of the Company for more revenue with
insuring that ratepayers pay rates based upon reasonable
costs.
What was Staff's rationale for supporting the
incentive pay concept described in the Stipulation?
Staff agreed to accept the employee pay-at-risk or
incentive pay" concept because it represents a reasonable
shift from a shareholder based incentive plan to a customer
satisfaction- and cost efficiency-based plan.The employee
incentive goals proposed by the Company in this case are
directed at cost efficiencies and customer service
considerations that align the incentives with customer
interests consistent with Commission Order No. 29505.
Senior management or executive pay incentives were excluded
from the revenue requirement.Staff will continue to
evaluate the customer satisfaction obj ecti ves, expense
reduction goals and target incentive levels to assure that
they are reasonable.
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06 (Di) 5LOBB, R.
STAFF
Return On Equi
What is the return on equity specified in the
Proposed Settlement?
The Proposed Settlement does not provide a
specific return on equity; rather it specifies an overall
rate of return of 8.1%.The overall rate of return approved
by the Commission in the last general rate case was 7.85%.
Why have the parties agreed to establish an
overall rate of return but not specifically state a return
on equity?
Of all the revenue requirement issues addressed by
the parties in the Proposed Settlement, return on equity
(ROE) was the most contentious.The Company had proposed a
ROE of 11.25% and Staff believed the current ROE of 10.25%
was all that was warranted.Specifying an overall rate of
return is a compromise that serves all parties interests by
eliminating the precedent of specifically stating the return
on equity.
Net Power Supply Cost
Please explain how net power supply costs were
established at stipulated levels.
As a result of its review of the Company s filing,
Staff determined that the net annual power supply costs of
$52 million proposed by the Company could not be supported
by its power supply cost methodology.In fact the
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06
LOBB , R.
STAFF
(Di) 6
methodology seemed to support net power supply costs
significantly lower than the $47.5 million currently
included in rates.Staff also recognized the considerable
discrepancy in calculated net power supply costs with modest
changes in input variables and the lack of verified
methodology results using above-normal water conditions.
Consequently, Staff could neither support the
Company s power supply cost proposal nor reliably propose
power supply costs below those previously approved by the
Commission.A reasonable compromise was to continue using
the $47.5 million net power supply cost level and attempt to
reevaluate and verify the power supply cost methodology
under above-normal water conditions.
When might evaluation and verification be
sufficiently completed to establish a more accurate and
reliable net power supply cost level?
Both the Staff and the Company believe that water
conditions at "normal" or "above-normal" levels such as
those expected for 2005/2006 may provide an opportunity to
either verify the current power supply cost methodology or
provide insight as to how it might be modified.It is
anticipated that revised or verified methodology will be
available for the next general rate case.In the meantime,
the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) mechanism will continue to
true-up annual power supply costs to the extent actual costs
CASE NO. IPC-E- 05-03/01/06 LOBB, R.
STAFF
(Di) 7
vary from those collected in base rates.
Are there any other issues associated with power
supply cost that are addressed in the Stipulation?
Yes , there are several other issues addressed by
the Stipulation.The first is an additional reduction in
annual net power supply costs of $1.9 million to reflect the
power supply cost benefits of the Company s cloud seeding
activities.Including this amount consistently applies the
expected cloud seeding benefit to cost ratio to cloud
seeding expenses already proposed for inclusion in
normalized base power supply costs.
The second issue agreed to as part of the
Stipulation simply updates the normalized annual load used
in the PCA to reflect a 2005 load level of 14 819,152 Mwh.
Finally, modification of the PCA load growth adjustment,
raised by the Staff in this case due to its connection with
normalized net power supply costs, was agreed to be
addressed in the 2005/2006 PCA case.Idaho Power has agreed
to file testimony on this issue.The parties recognize that
a determination whether to modify the current growth
adjustment of $16. 84/Mwh will not be completed before
June 1, 2006.
Cost Of Service And Rate Design
What have the parties agreed to as part of the
Stipulation with respect to cost of service?
CASE NO. IPC-05-
03/01/06
LOBB , R
STAFF
(Di) 8
The parties have agreed to spread the revenue
requirement increase on a uniform basis to all customer
classes rather than try to apply the results from the
various cost of service studies provided by the Company.
The parties have further agreed that none of the cost of
service studies provided in this case will constitute
precedent in any future rate case.
Why have the parties chosen to disregard the
results of the filed cost of service studies?
The parties could not agree that the methodology
used in the studies properly allocated costs to the
individual classes.Although modifications in the study
proposed by the Company generally reduced the allocation to
the irrigation class, the irrigation class was still shown
to be charged rates well below cost of service even though
the class received a larger than average increase in the
last general rate case.
Moreover , the cost shift away from the irrigation
class resulted in higher cost allocation to the large
industrial and special contract customers.Parties
representing these classes did not believe an increase in
cost allocation to high load factor customers was
reasonable.The compromise was to agree to a small uniform
increase for all customer classes in this case.The Summary
of Revenue Impact by customer class is attached as Staff
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06
LOBB , R.
STAFF
(Di) 9
Exhibit No. 102.
Given recent attempts to resolve cost of service
differences among the parties, is it reasonable to delay
consideration of cost of service in this case.
Yes, I be 1 i eve t ha t it is.Cost of service was a
contentious issue in the last general rate case , Case No.
IPC-E- 03 -13 and yet the Commission applied a non-uniform
rate spread based on cost of service results.None of the
parties believed that cost of service studies filed in this
case sufficiently improved on the class allocations
previously approved by the Commission.Despi te recent
attempts to reach consensus on cost of service methodology,
disagreement continues in this case and will likely continue
in the next general rate case.All parties including Staff
agree that a uniform spread is reasonable under the
circumstances.However, in preparation for future electric
rate cases including those of Idaho Power , Staff intends to
intensify its evaluation of various cost of service
methodologies for presentation and recommendation to the
Commission.
Do the parties to the Stipulation agree with the
rate relationships proposed by the Company in its direct
case?
Yes, with a few exceptions.The parties have
agreed to increase the Schedule 1 and 7 customer charge from
CASE NO. IPC-05-03/01/06
(Di) 10LOBB , R.
STAFF
$3.30 per month to $4.00 per month.Al though the percentage
is relatively large the monthly rate impact is relatively
small.In addition , the charge mirrors that assessed
Avista s electric residential customers in Idaho and is
consistent with Staff's position that customer charges
should attempt to recover costs associated with meter
reading and billing.The $4.00 amount is still well below
the $5 to $6 level that could be justified on that basis.
The second exception to the uniform rate component
increase is the change proposed in the stipulation for
Schedule 9.As a compromise in this case, the parties have
agreed to limit the increase in the energy rate by
increasing the other rate components within the class to
levels originally proposed by the Company in its
Application.The energy rate component would only be
increased to achieve the overall 3.2% increase in the
Schedule 9 revenue requirement.Staff does not oppose this
exception originally proposed by a Schedule 9 party to the
case.
Miscellaneous Provisions
Are there any other provisions in the Stipulation
that you wish to address?
Yes, there are two.The first is a Staff-
requested provision for a 60-day delay in the Company-
proposed implementation of a $10 Continuous Service
CASE NO. IPC-E- 05 -03/01/06
LOBB , R
STAFF
(Di) 11
Reversion Charge.This proposal represents a new charge for
landlords and property managers who request continuous
service when tenants leave and the property becomes
temporarily unoccupied.While Staff agrees with the purpose
and supports the amount of the charge, we believe that these
customers should be made aware of the changes prior to
implementation.
The second prOVlSlon provides for review of the
Company s Irrigation Peak Rewards Program.The review to
address current operation, program results and program
parameters such as incentive payments and irrigation system
size eligibility was proposed by the Idaho Irrigation
Pumpers Association (IIPA) and supported by Staff.Staff
believes that the review is both timely and appropriate
given that the program has been in place for a full
irrigation season.
Does this conclude your testimony in this
proceeding?
Yes, it does.
CASE NO. IPC-05-
03/01/06
LOBB , R.
STAFF
(Di) 12
" "---, '---
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
MONICA B. MOEN ISB #5734
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise , Idaho 83707
Telephone: (208) 388-2682
FAX Telephone: (208) 388-6936
BKline (Q? idahopower.com
MMoen (Q? idahopower.com
- ."
i ::'
:, ....
i--
LI: C':: eLi
! ;
i~:~;:L:
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise , Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS BASE
RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. IPC-05-
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
STIPULATION
COMES NOW , Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company ), the
Commission Staff and the other Parties to the settlement Stipulation , and hereby move the
Commission for an Order accepting the settlement Stipulation filed herewith. This Motion
is based on the following:
On October 28, 2005 , Idaho Power filed an Application in this case
seeking authority to increase the Company s rates an average of 7.8%. If approved, the
Company s revenues would increase $43 948 189 annually. Idaho Power proposed
that the rate increase be spread equally among all major customer groups and special
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION , Page
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01/06 Page 1 of 16
contract customers. The Company requested that new rates become effective on
June 1 , 2006.
Petitions to inteNene in this proceeding were filed by the Idaho
Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA"), the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
ICIP"), Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron ), the United States Department of Energy
DOE"), the Northwest Energy Coalition ("NWEC") and the Kroger Company ("Kroger
These entities are collectively referred to as the "Parties." By various orders, the
Commission granted these inteNentions. IPUC Order Nos. 29919, 29926, 29931
29935.
On January 5, 2006 , the Parties attended an informal scheduling
conference to devise a proposed schedule for holding hearings and completing
discovery in this proceeding. During the informal conference , the Parties agreed to
engage in settlement discussions in accordance with RP 272 with a view toward
resolving the issues in this case. The Parties conducted settlement discussions on
February 7, 2006 and February 14, 2006.
Based on the settlement discussions, the Parties whose signatures
appear on the Stipulation have agreed to resolve and settle all of the issues in the case. A
copy of the signed Stipulation evidencing that settlement is enclosed as Attachment 1.
The Parties recommend that the Commission grant this Motion and
approve the Stipulation in its entirety, without material change or condition, pursuant to
RP 274.
Staff and inteNenor testimony is due March 3, 2006. Rebuttal
testimony is due March 27 2006. Idaho Power and the Commission Staff each intend to
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION , Page 2
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 2 of 16
file testimony supporting this Motion and recommending approval of the Stipulation. Other
Parties may choose to file supporting testimony as well. As noted in Paragraph 14 of the
Stipulation , all of the Parties agree that the Stipulation is in the public interest and that all of
its terms and conditions are fair, just and reasonable. The Parties stand ready to support
the Stipulation at the Commission s technical hearings scheduled for April 1 0-, 2006.
NOW , THEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Commission
issue its Order:
Granting this Motion and accepting Attachment 1 , the Stipulation, in
its entirety, without material change or condition; and
Authorizing the Company to implement revised tariff schedules
designed to recover $18.1 million in additional annual revenue from Idaho jurisdictional
base rates consistent with the terms of the Stipulation; and
Authorizing that the revised tariff schedules be made effective June 1
2006.
t4,
. .
' c ,I "-'
Respectfully submitted this 0! t day of February, 2006.
GJ=i BARTON L. KLINE
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION, Page 3
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01/06 Page 3 of 16
TT A CHMENT
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01/06 Page 4 of 16
- "-
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
MONICA B. MOEN ISB #5734
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise , Idaho 83707
Telephone: (208) 388-2682
FAX Telephone: (208) 388-6936
BKline~idahopower.com
MMoen~idahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
~- ~:" .-, "., ,~: !'.", ', ,. ',. , ')\:y::~:!.:, ""
3,-
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS BASE
RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. IPC-05-
STIPULATION
This stipulation ("Stipulation ) is entered into by and among Idaho Power
Company ("Idaho Power" or the "Company ), the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Staff"), the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association , Inc. ("II PA") , the
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power ("ICIP"), Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron ), the
United States Department of Energy ("DOE"), the Northwest Energy Coalition ("NWEC"
and the Kroger Company ("Kroger ). These entities are collectively referred to as the
Parties.
STIPULATION , Page
Exhibi t No. 101
Case No. IPC-E-05-
R. L6Bb, Staff3/01/06 Page 5 of 16
I. INTRODUCTION
The terms and conditions of this Stipulation are set forth herein.
The Parties agree that this Stipulation represents a fair, just and reasonable
compromise of the issues raised in this proceeding and that this Stipulation is in the
public interest. The Parties maintain that the Stipulation and its acceptance by the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or the "Commission ) represents a
reasonable resolution of multiple issue$ identified in this matter. The Parties , therefore
recommend that the Commission , in accordance with RP 274 , approve the Stipulation
and all of its terms and conditions without material change or condition.
il. BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2005, Idaho Power filed an Application in this case
seeking authority to increase the Company s rates an average of 7.8%. If approved
the Company s revenues would increase $43 948 189 annually. Idaho Power proposed
that the rate increase be spread equally among all major customer groups and special
contract customers. The Company requested that new rates become effective on
June 1 , 2006.
Petitions to inteNene in this proceeding were filed by IIPA, ICIP
Micron , DOE, NWEC and Kroger. By various orders, the Commission granted these
inteNentions. IPUC Order Nos. 29919 , 29926 , 29931 , 29935.
On January 5 , 2006, the Parties attended an informal scheduling
conference to devise a proposed schedule for holding hearings and completing
discovery in this proceeding. During the informal conference, the Parties agreed to
engage in settlement discussions in accordance with RP 272 with a view toward
STIPULATION , Page 2
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 6 of 16
resolving the issues in this case. The Parties conducted settlement discussions on
February 7, 2006 and February 14, 2006.
Based upon the settlement discussions among the Parties , as a
compromise of the positions in this case, and for other consideration as set forth below
the Parties agree to the following terms:
III. TERMS OF THE STIPULATION
Revenue Requirement.The Parties agree that Idaho Power shall be
allowed to implement revised tariff schedules designed to recover $18.1 million in
additional annual revenue from Idaho jurisdictional base rates. In determining the $18.
million additional revenue requirement, the Parties agreed on certain revenue
requirement inputs to be explicitly identified in this Stipulation. These are as follows:
(a)Net Power Supply Costs . The system net power supply cost
used to determine the $18.1 million of additional revenue requirement increase is
$45 279 800. This $45 279 800 total amount is determined by including power supply
benefits associated with the Company s cloud seeding program in the amount of $1.
million from the total net power supply costs of $47 179 800, reflecting the inclusion of the
Bennett Mountain Power Plant (Case No. IPC-05-10).
(b)In determining the agreed-upon revenue requirement, the
Parties agreed to use system 2005 loads in the amount of 14 819 152 MWh as proposed
by the Company in this case.
(c)In determining the agreed-upon revenue requirement, the
Parties agreed to utilize an overall rate of return of 8.1 %.
STIPULATION , Page 3
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01/06 Page 7 of 16
(d)The Parties discussed the need for further analysis and
possible future adjustments to a number of power supply related matters. These include
but are not limited to , power supply cost modeling methodology and the power cost
adjustment ("PCA") load growth rate. The Parties agree that the PCA load growth rate
issue will be addressed contemporaneously with the Company s upcoming PCA
proceeding, which will be filed on or about April 15 , 2006. Given the expedited nature of
the PCA proceeding, the Parties recognize that conclusion of the PCA load grovvth rate
issue may not occur before June 1 , 2006. The Parties further agree that the power
supply methodology issue will be addressed in the Company s next general rate case.
(e)The Parties agree conceptually that it is reasonable to include
an employee pay-at-risk or employee incentive component in test-year revenue
requirements so long as such incentive component is based on goals that benefit
customers and the amounts payable for achieving the goals are limited to reasonable
target" or medium goals. Senior management pay-at-risk is appropriately excluded from
the test year revenue requirement.
Rate Spread . The Parties agree that the above-described $18.
million revenue requirement should be recovered by implementing tariffs which increase
the rates for each customer class (except Dusk-to-Dawn Lighting and Unmetered
SeNice) and special contracts by a uniform percentage amount of approximately 3.2%.
In agreeing to the 3.2% uniform percentage increase , the Parties also agree that the
underlying class cost-of-seNice models as filed by the Company in this proceeding will
not constitute precedent in a subsequent general rate case. Moreover, a Party's failure to
ecifically object to any portion of the class cost-of-seNice analysis presented by the
STIPULATION , Page 4
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 8 of 16
Company in this case will not constitute a waiver of a Party's right to challenge future class
cost-of-seNice models and proposals presented by the Company in future general rate
case proceedings.
Rate Desiqn. Except for those items specifically identified in sub-
sections (a) and (b) below, the Parties agree that the rate design proposals and the rate
design relationships presented by the Company in its direct case should be implemented
as presented by the Company. The specific, agreed-upon exceptions are as follows:
(a)The seNice charge for Schedule 1 and Schedule 7 will be $4.
per month. Idaho Power agrees not to file for an increase in the $4.00 seNice charge for at
least two years from the date of the Commission s final Order in this matter if the true-up
mechanism proposed by the Company in Case No. I PC-04-15 is accepted by the
Commission.
(b)Idaho Power will increase Schedule 9 non-energy rate
components as proposed in its original application and increase the energy related rate
components as necessary to achieve an overall revenue requirement increase of 3.2% for
the class.
Miscellaneous Provisions . The Parties agree that implementation of
the $10 Continuous SeNice Reversion Charge as described in the testimony of Company
Witness Tatum will be delayed for a period of sixty (60) days following the issuance of the
Commission s final Order in this proceeding to allow landlords and property managers to
be notified of the change prior to its actual implementation.
10.Idaho Power agrees that no later than November 1 , 2006 , it will
convene a working group to review the current operation and results of the Irrigation
STIPULATION , Page 5
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 9 of 16
Peak Rewards Program ("Program ), including consideration of suggested
modifications to improve the Program. Issues to be considered would include the
amount of incentive payments and the size of irrigation facilities eligible for participation
in the Program. The working group s participants would include representatives of the
IIPA. It is Idaho Power s intention that any proposed modifications to the Program
developed by the working group would be presented to the Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group and the Commission in time for such modifications to be in effect for the 2007
irrigation season.
11.The Parties agree that this Stipulation represents a compromise of
the positions of the Parties in this case. As provided in RP 272 , other than any testimony
filed in support of the approval of this Stipulation , and except to the extent necessary for a
Party to explain before the Commission its own statements and positions with respect to
the Stipulation , all statements made and positions taken in negotiations relating to this
Stipulation shall be confidential and will not be admissible in evidence in this or any other
proceeding.
12.The Parties submit this Stipulation to the Commission and
recommend approval in its entirety pursuant to RP 274. Parties shall support this
Stipulation before the Commission , and no Party shall appeal a Commission Order
approving the Stipulation or an issue resolved by the Stipulation. If this Stipulation is
challenged by any person not a party to the Stipulation , the Parties to this Stipulation
reseNe the right to file testimony, cross-examine witnesses and put on such case as
they deem appropriate to respond fully to the issues presented , including the right to
raise issues that are incorporated in the settlements embodied in this Stipulation.
STIPULATION , Page 6
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb , Staff
3/01106 Page 10 of 16
Notwithstanding this reseNation of rights, the Parties to this Stipulation agree that they
will continue to support the Commission s adoption of the terms of this Stipulation.
13.If the Commission rejects any part or all of this Stipulation , or
imposes any additional material conditions on approval of this Stipulation , each Party
reseNes the right, upon written notice to the Commission and the other Parties to this
proceeding, within 14 days of the date of such action by the Commission, to withdraw
from this Stipulation. In such case , no Party shall be bound or prejudiced by the terms
of this Stipulation , and each Party shall be entitled to seek reconsideration of the
Commission s order, file testimony as it chooses , cross-examine witnesses , and do all
other things necessary to put on such case as it deems appropriate. in such case, the
Parties immediately will request the prompt reconvening of a prehearing conference for
purposes of establishing a procedural schedule for the completion of the case. The
Parties agree to cooperate in development of a schedule that concludes the proceeding
on the earliest possible date, taking into account the needs of the Parties in
participating in hearings and preparing briefs.
14.The Parties agree that this Stipulation is in the public interest and
that all of its terms and conditions are fair, just and reasonable.
15.No Party shall be bound , benefited or prejudiced by any position
asserted in the negotiation of this Stipulation , except to the extent expressly stated
herein , nor shall this Stipulation be construed as a waiver of the rights of any Party
unless such rights are expressly waived herein. Execution of this Stipulation shall not
be deemed to constitute an acknowledgment by any Party of the validity or invalidity of
any particular method , theory or principle of regulation or cost recovery. No Party shall
STIPULATION , Page 7
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01/06 Page 11 of
be deemed to have agreed that any method , theory or principle of regulation or cost
recovery employed in arriving at this Stipulation is appropriate for resolving any issues
in any other proceeding in the future. No findings of fact or conclusions of law other
than those stated herein shall be deemed to be implicit in this Stipulation.
16.The obligations of the Parties under this Stipulation are subject to
the Commission s approval of this Stipulation in accordance with its terms and
conditions and upon such approval being upheld on appeal by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
17.This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and each signed
counterpart shall constitute an original document.
STIPULATION , Page 8
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 12 of 16
\ "I JC..J
DATED this ,-f-'!day of February 2006.
Idaho Power Company
By
rU-:t~
~rton L. Kline
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association , Inc.
Randall C. Budge
Attorney for Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association , Inc.
Micron TechnOl09Y, Inc.
By ~LzY 0v -
Conley ~Ward
Attorney or Micron Technology, Inc.
Northwest Energy Coalition
By
William M. Eddie
Attorney for NW Energy Coalition
STIPULATION , Page 9
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
n -L
j '
By 1f.d.u; jkdle~~
Peter J. Richardson
Attorney for Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
S. Department of Energy
Lawrence A. Gollomp
Attorney for U.S. Department of
Energy
The Kroger Company
Michael L. Kurtz
Attorney for the Kroger Company
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 13 of 16
DATED this day of February 2006.
Idaho Power Company
Barton L. Kline
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association , Inc.
d, 2-21-
Randall C. Budge
Attorney for Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association , Inc.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Conley E. Ward
Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
Northwest Energy Coalition
William M. Eddie
Attorney for NW Energy Coalition
STIPULATION , Page 9
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Donald L. Howell , II
Attorney for IPUC Staff
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
Attorney for Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
S. Department of Energy
Lawrence A. Gollomp
Attorney for U.S. Department of
Energy
The Kroger Company
Michael L. Kurtz
Attorney for the Kroger Company
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 14 of 16
. ' FEB-23-200B THU 05: 52 PM BOEHM, KURTZ &: LOWRY FAX NO. 513 421 2'(04 p, Ui:
DATED this day of February 2006.
Idaho Power Company
Barton L. Kline
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Randall C. Budge
Attorney for Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association, Inc.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Conley E. Ward
Attorney 'for Micron Technology, Inc.
Northwest Energy Coalition
William M. Eddie
Attorney for NW Energy Coalition
STIPULATION, Page 9
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Donald L. Howell , II
Attorney for IPUG Staff
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
Attorney for Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
S. Department of Energy
Lawrence A. Gollomp
Attorney for U.S. Department of
Energy
The Kroger Company/L~
Michael L. Kurtz
Attorney for the Kroger Company
\(vr+ \f. ~o~~W\
A--t+O(V'I~'H,,~ lLv~~( ~-M~Y\ i
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 15 of 16
V..., ....U,...vvv .Lv..LU ._V-U"'V'1'V
DATED this day of February 2006.
Idaho Power Company Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Barton L. Kline
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Randall C. Budge
Attorney for Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association , Inc.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Conley E. Ward
Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
Northwest Energy Coalition
William M. Eddie
Attorney for NW Energy Coalition
STIPULA TlaN, Page 9
Donald L. -!-lowell, II
Attorney for IPUC Staff
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
Attorney for Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power~~t
~~~
L: w nee A. Gollom
Attorney for U.S. Department of
Energy
The Kroger Company
Michael L. Kurtz
Attorney for the Kroger Company
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-05-
R. Lobb, Staff
3/01106 Page 16 of 16
Li
n
e
Ta
r
i
f
f
D
e
s
c
r
i
Q
t
i
o
n
Un
i
f
o
r
m
T
a
r
i
f
f
R
a
t
e
s
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sm
a
l
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
La
r
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Du
s
k
t
o
D
a
w
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
La
r
g
e
P
o
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Un
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
10
To
t
a
l
Un
i
f
o
r
m
Ta
r
i
f
f
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
:
11
Mi
c
r
o
n
12
J
R
S
i
m
p
l
o
t
13
D
O
E
14
To
t
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
15
To
t
a
l
I
d
a
h
o
Re
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
:;
;
d
tr
1
'
~
~
..
.
.
.
.
.
t
"
'
"
CI
J
i
:
J
"
'
--
-
0
(t
)
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
~c
r
"
Z
g
:
cr
"
0
...
.
.
.
r/J
.
Z
..
.
.
.
.
0
!"
+
)
...
.
.
.
.
f-
+
j
I
tr
1
t
V
Id
a
h
o
P
o
w
e
r
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
St
a
t
e
o
f
I
d
a
h
o
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
1
2
-
Mo
n
t
h
s
E
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
5
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
(3
)
20
0
5
Sa
l
e
s
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
(k
W
h
)
(4
)
06
/
0
1
/0
5
Ba
s
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(
2
)
(5
)
(6
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ba
s
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(7
)
(8
)
(1
)
(2
)
Ra
t
e
20
0
5
A
v
g
.
Sc
h
.
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
No
.
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
(1
)
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
(t
/
k
W
h
Ch
a
n
o
e
35
9
,
80
2
50
3
,
86
5
,
23
0
$2
5
8
,
38
0
,
59
6
$8
,
34
6
,
59
4
$2
6
6
,
72
7
,
19
0
23
%
30
,
89
9
21
8
,
60
5
,
82
5
15
,
53
8
,
24
9
$5
0
1
,
9
4
0
$1
6
,
04
0
,
18
9
23
%
20
,
99
8
22
7
,
11
8
,
62
2
12
6
,
27
5
,
4
7
8
$4
,
07
9
,
13
8
$1
3
0
,
35
4
,
61
6
23
%
93
3
,
90
6
93
8
,
95
6
$9
3
8
,
95
6
15
.
00
%
11
5
05
6
,
65
8
,
50
4
61
,
56
3
,
4
6
6
$1
,
9
8
8
,
7
1
4
$6
3
,
55
2
,
18
0
23
%
15
,
08
5
1,
5
7
4
,
10
0
,
11
7
69
,
54
0
,
88
4
$2
,
24
6
,
4
1
3
$7
1
,
7
8
7
,
29
7
23
%
31
0
16
,
20
2
,
7
0
7
87
3
,
38
7
$8
7
3
,
38
7
00
%
12
9
18
,
70
4
,
63
6
89
2
,
96
9
$6
1
,
1
4
9
$1
,
9
5
4
,
11
8
10
.
4
5
23
%
84
2
17
3
26
1
63
3
$8
,
4
5
2
$2
7
0
,
08
5
3.
4
4
23
%
42
9
,
4
1
0
11
,
6
2
9
,
03
1
,
7
2
0
$5
3
5
,
26
5
,
61
8
$1
7
,
23
2
,
4
0
0
$5
5
2
,
4
9
8
,
01
8
4.
7
5
3.
2
2
%
67
3
,
76
0
,
25
0
$1
7
,
35
7
,
08
8
$5
6
0
,
69
4
$1
7
,
91
7
,
7
8
2
23
%
18
7
,
63
2
,
19
9
4,
4
9
9
,
93
0
$1
4
5
,
36
3
$4
,
64
5
,
29
3
2.
4
8
23
%
20
4
,
7
3
8
,
94
3
00
0
,
77
7
$1
6
1
,
5
4
3
$5
,
16
2
,
32
0
23
%
06
6
,
13
1
,
39
2
$2
6
,
85
7
,
7
9
5
$8
6
7
,
60
0
$2
7
,
72
5
,
39
5
23
%
42
9
,
4
1
3
12
,
69
5
,
16
3
,
11
2
$5
6
2
,
12
3
,
4
1
3
$1
8
,
10
0
,
00
0
$5
8
0
,
22
3
,
4
1
3
22
0
%
NO
T
E
S
:
(1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
k
W
h
,
a
n
d
b
a
s
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
re
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
7
t
o
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
9
.
(2
)
B
a
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
m
o
u
n
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
n
e
-
ye
a
r
t
a
x
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
O
r
d
e
r
N
o
.
2
9
7
8
9
.
Th
i
s
o
n
e
-
ye
a
r
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
e
x
p
i
r
e
s
Ma
y
31
,
20
0
6
.
24
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2006
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB, IN CASE
NO. IPC-05-, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
BARTON L KLINE
MONICA B MOEN
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
MAIL: bkline~idahopower.com
mmoen(Q:2idaho12ower. com
RANDALL C BUDGE
ERIC L OLSEN
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE, BAILEY
201 E CENTER
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO, ID 83204-1391
MAIL: rcb~racine1aw.net
elo(Q:2racinelaw.net
PETER J. RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY LLP
515 N 27TH ST
PO BOX 7218
BOISE ID 83702
MAIL: peter(Q:2richardsonandolearV com
CONLEY E WARD
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 WBANNOCKST
PO BOX 2720
BOISE ID 83701-2720
E- MAIL: cew(illriv~:m;pursl~y. com
LA ~NCE A. GOLLO~
ASSIST ANT GENERAL COUNSEL
UNITED STATES DEPT OF ENERGY
1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20585
MAIL: lawrence.gollomp~hq.doe.
paul. phillip s (Q:2hq .dQ~.gov
JOHN R GALE
VICE PRESIDENT REGULATORY
AFF AIRS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
MAIL: rgale(2V,idahopower.com
ANTHONY Y ANKEL
29814 LAKE ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
MAIL: vankelcQlattbi.net
DR. DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE ID 83703
MAIL: dreading(Q:2mindspring com
DENNIS E. PESEAU, PH.
UTILITY RESOURCES INC
1500 LIBERTY STREET S.
SUITE 250
SALEM, OR 87302
MAIL: dennytemp(Q:2yahoo.com
DENNIS GOINS
POTOMAC MANAGEMENT GROUP
PO BOX 30225
ALEXANDRIA VA 22310-8225
MAIL: dgoinspmg~aol.com
dswan(Cllex eteras soci a tes. com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WILLIAM M EDDIE
ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST
PO BOX 1612
BOISE ill 83701
MAIL: beddieCW,advocateswestorg
KEN MILLER
NW ENERGY COALITION
5400 W FRANKLIN STE G
BOISE ill 83705
MAIL: kenmiller 1 (l3),cableone.net
MICHAEL L KURTZ ESQ
KURT J BOEHM ESQ
BOEHM KURTZ & LOWRY
36 E SEVENTH ST STE 1510
CINCINNATI OH 45202
MAIL: mkurtz~bkllawfirm.com
kboehm~bkllawfirm.com
NEAL TOWNSEND
ENERGY STRATEGIES
215 S STATE ST
SUITE 200
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MAIL: ntownsend(l3),energystratcom
~ .
\C(
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE