Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060302Yankel direct.pdfJean Jewell, Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 LOUIS F. RACINE (1917-2005) WILLIAM D. OLSON W. MARCUS W. NYE RANDALL C. BUDGE JOHN A. BAILEY, JR.JOHN R. GOODELL' JOHN B. INGELSTROM DANIEL C. GREEN" BRENT O. ROCHE KIRK B. HADLEY FRED J. LEWIS MITCHELL W. BROWN ERIC L. OLSEN CONRAD J. AIKEN RICHARD A. HEARN , M. DAVID E- ALEXANDERtt LANE V. ERICKSON" LISA M. CHRISTONttt PATRICK N. GEORGE SCOTT J. SMITH LISA A. WOOD, CPA STEPHEN J. MUHONEN BRENT L. WHITING LISA R. TANNER; JUSTIN R. ELLIS JOSHUA D. JOHNSONttt JONATHON S. BYINGTON Re: Dear Mrs. Jewell: LAW OFFICES OF RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE Be BAILEY CHARTERED BOISE OFFICE 101 SOUTH CAPITOL BOULEVARD, SUITE 208 BOISE, IDAHO 83702 TELEPHONE' (208) 39S-001 I FACSIMILE, (208) 433-0167 201 EAST CENTER STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1391 POCATELLO. IDAHO 83204-1391 TELEPHONE (208) 232-6101 FACSIMILE (208) 232-6109 IDAHO FALLS OFFICE www.racinelaw.net 477 SHOUP AVENUE SUITE 203A IDAHO FALLS, 1083402TELEPHONE, (208) S28-6101 FACSIMILE, (208) S28-6 I 09 SENDER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS, elo(!j)racinelaw.net 'ALSO MEMBER WY "' IL BARS **ALSO MEMBER UT BAR tALSO MEMBER D. C. BAR ttALSO MEMBER MO BAR tttALSO MEMBER IL BAR .ALSO MEMBER CA BAR March 1 , 2006 .- .., ., -, ,...., . IPC-O5-Co) Enclosed herewith, please find the original and nine copies of Anthony J. Yankel's Direct Testimony on behalf of the Idaho Irrigation Pumper s Association, Inc. ELO:rr Enclosurescc: Service List :..~: f.;,S:~~3 " \:,-,:.':' u: ;, ", ,,:: BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY) TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE TO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO. CASE NO. IPC-05- DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. YANKEL IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INc. MARCH 1, 2006 PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND EMPLOYMENT. I am Anthony J. Yanke!. I am President of Yanke I and Associates, Inc. My address is 29814 Lake Road, Bay Village, Ohio, 44140. WOULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE? I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1969 and a Master of Science Degree in Chemical Engineering from the University ofIdaho in 1972. From 1969 through 1972, I was employed by the Air Correction Division of Universal Oil Products as a product design engineer. My chief responsibilities were in the areas of design, start-up, and repair of new and existing product lines for coal-fired power plants. From 1973 through 1977, I was employed by the Bureau of Air Quality for the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environment. As Chief Engineer of the Bureau, my responsibilities covered a wide range of investigative functions. From 1978 through June 1979, I was employed as the Director of the Idaho Electrical Consumers Office. In that capacity, I was responsible for all organizational and technical aspects of advocating a variety of positions before various governmental bodies that represented the interests of the consumers in the State ofIdaho. From July 1979 through October 1980, I was a partner in the firm ofYankel, Eddy, and Associates. Since that time, I have been in business for myself. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the states of Ohio and Idaho. I have presented testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as well as the Yankel, DI Irrigators State Public Utility Commissions ofIdaho , Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia. (Irrigators). ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU TESTIFYING? I am testifying on behalf of the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING? My testimony supports the Stipulation in this case. In support ofthe Stipulation, I address the following areas that were reviewed by the Irrigators and that the Irrigators believe the Stipulation adequately addresses the competing issues in this case. Power supply costs Disproportionate growth and allocation of growth between classes The Irrigation Load Curtailment Program Yankel, DI Irrigators POWER SUPPLY COSTS WERE POWER SUPPLY COSTS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS CASE? Yes. The Irrigators put fort a great deal of effort addressing the calculation of power supply costs in this case. The concerns raised in the Company s filing centered around needing a higher rate of return, because (according to the Company) the actual results ofthe 90: 1 0 sharing mechanism were not symmetrical. From the Irrigators perspective, the Power Supply Cost model appeared bias, resulting in an inappropriate test year cost and thus, a bias in the 90: 1 0 sharing mechanism. DOES THE STIPULATION SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS POWER SUPPLY ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE IRRIGATORS IF THIS WERE A CONTESTED CASE? The issues that would have been raised by the Irrigators are not directly addressed in the Stipulation. However, Paragraphs 6a and 6d adequately serve as compromises for purposes of this case. Yankel, DI Irrigators DISPROPORTIONATE GROWTH ON THE SYSTEM HAS GROWTH ON THE IDAHO POWER SYSTEM BEEN UNIFORM? No. For more than two decades there has been a major imbalance in the growth on the Idaho Power system between customer classes. UPON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR STATEMENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN IMBALANCE OF GROWTH ON THE SYSTEM FOR DECADES? Even the most casual observer should note that there has been strong and persistent growth on the Idaho Power system for years and this growth has not occurred in the Irrigation load. This is most easily demonstrated by observing the following graph! 000 500 000 500 000 ::I: ~ 3 500 000 500 000 500 000 Historic Growth Comm. & Ind 4:,- Aw. rngabon 1980 2000198519901995 I Historic usage data taken from Appendix B ofIdaho Power s 2004 IRP. Yankel, DI Irrigators Over the last 25 years, the Irrigation load has been basically flat, Residential load has increased 45% and the combined Commercialllndustrialload has doubled. All customer classes, except the Irrigation class, have caused the phenomenal growth on the Idaho Power system. HAS THIS GROWTH IN LOAD BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY GROWTH IN UTILITY PLANT-IN-SERVICE? In order to keep up with this growth, there have been significant increases in Plant-In-Service at all functions as demonstrated by the following graph Historic Plant in Service 600 1 ,400 Generation 200 ~ 1 000 800 "r'" 600 400 Transmission200 1980 1995 200019851990 In the last 25 years, Generation plant has increased $660 million or 80%, Transmission plant has increased $313 million (more than doubled its 1980 level), and Distribution plant has increased the most by adding an additional $685 million (over tripled its 1980 level). 2 Data taken from FERC Form 1 for years 1980-2004. Yankel, DI Irrigators Given the huge growth in Distribution Plant In Service, it is worthwhile to look at these accounts in more detail: 200 150 .... 100 Distribution Account Values 300 250 "~~:~~"~' ~,~," d UG conductor,o" ,. -' "..-'" "------ " :conductor "~"" o.d.. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 As can be seen from the above graph, the increase in plant in service has occurred in all aspects of Distribution Plant. What is not readily apparent from the above graph is the percentage change in various accounts. The Overhead Conductor account has doubled while the Poles and Line Transformer accounts have tripled in the last 25 years. However, the Underground accounts have gone up to 700% of its level from 25 years. DOES THE COMPANY'S ALLOCATION METHODS AND COST OF SERVICE STUDIES PROPERLY REFLECT THE IMP ACT OF THESE GROWTH RATES ON COSTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES? Yankel, DI Irrigators No. Inappropriately, the Company s cost of service study not only allocates this growth to the Irrigation class but, in some cases it actuallv allocates a higher percenta!!e of this growth than what is allocated to non-irri~ation customers. This result is on its face counter- intuitive. WAS THE WORKSHOP THAT WAS INITIATED AS A RESULT OF THE LAST RATE CASE ABLE TO COME TO ANY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF THIS GROWTH? Although there was general consensus among the workshop participants on a number of issues, the only agreement regarding the treatment of growth in the Company s cost of service study is that there is a disconnect between the classes that were growing and causing the costs to be incurred and the allocation of those costs. Regarding whether new growth was properly covering its cost of service , " The Parties' Final Report in IPC-04-23" stated: Most of the workshop time was devoted to discussion of this issue. The parties agreed that there was something inherently troubling with the wav costs. associated with growth. were allocated. This is evidenced by the relatively large increase in revenue requirement allocated to customers whose load and energy requirements were unchanged or Ip"ew only slightly. While there was agreement that the cost of growth did not necessarily get allocated to the customer classes that Ip"ew.we were unable to devise a technical remedy to the allocation procedure that would also satisfy the courts. The parties were unable to devise and agree to a cost-of-service allocation methodology that would properly allocate the cost of growth, without making a distinction between new and old customers. Even a search of what others, around the country, were doing produced little in the way of an acceptable solution. Therefore, it was concluded that the only remedy is a policy solution. The parties were not willing to agree to the particulars of such a policy and recommend that the Commission formulate such a policy in the next rate proceeding. (Emphasis added) Yankel , DI Irrigators WERE THE WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ABLE TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS POSITION THAT DEFINED THE COST IMPACTS OF GROWTH? No. As pointed out above, the workshop participants were not able to develop a consensus method for allocating the cost of growth in a manner that was acceptable to all parties. The problem with attempting to develop a consensus was recognized by various participants at the workshop. Although there was general consensus that there was something inherently very wrong with the present allocation scheme as related to its ability to allocate the cost of growth no one felt that they could go back to their clients and admit that they agreed to a methodology that would cost their client more money-this decision was left to the Commission. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE RESULTS OF THE COMPANY'S CLASS COST OF SERVICE STUDY ARE COUNTER-INTUITIVE. The Company s last rate case was only two years ago. Following the trend that has been in place for more than two decades, the non-Irrigation load has increased, while the Irrigation load has either stayed even or decreased. The following is a comparison of the coincident demand data utilized in both this case and the last case: Sum of 12 CP'2003 2005 % Chan Irrigation 376 732 153 061 93.4% Non-Irrigation 540 493 071 766 102. 2003 data comes from Case No. IPC-03-, Company Exhibit 40, the unweighted data on page 1, while 2005 data comes from Case No. IPC-05-, Company Exhibit 41 , the unweighted data on page 1. Yankel Irrigators From the above, it can be seen that during the last two years the coincident demand (MW's) of the Irrigation load has decreased , while the Non-Irrigation coincident demands have increased 2.5%. A similar pattern can be seen with respect to the annual system peak demand that occurs in July: Annual System Peak 2003 2005 % Chan 676 221 86. 048 404 104. Irrigation 783 467 Non-Irrigation 959 000 As can be seem from above, the changes in load at the time of the single annual system peak are even more striking. During the last two years, the annual coincident demand of the Irrigation load has decreased 13., while the Non-Irrigation annual coincident demands have increased 6%. A similar pattern can be seen with respect to the annual energy consumption: Annual Ener Usa 2003 2005 % Chan Irrigation 797 613 745 679 97. Non-Irrigation 477 393 204 846 106. As can be seem from above, the changes in annual energy usage follow the same pattern. Over the last two years the Irrigation usage has decreased 2.9% while Non-Irrigation usage has increased 6.3%. Contrary to this outright reduction in demand and energy responsibility for the Irrigation customers over the last two years the Company s cost of service studv produced counter- intuitive results. A comparison of the allocated demand related production costs between this case and the case from just two years ago reveals the following: Yankel Irrigators Production costs x$IOOO 2003 2005 % Chan Irrigation $116 616 $124 965 107. Non-Irrigation $581 685 $589 525 101.3% The following chart depicts the fact that the that these billing determinants have all decreased for the Irrigators since the last case, but the percentage increase in production related costs have gone up more for the Irrigators than the rest of the customers on the system-basically, the Irrigators are being allocated more while using less: 110% Comparison of Allocator Changes 105% ----- ---- CI)100% C'CI 95% (.) 90%CI) ... CI) Q.,85% 80% 75% '1.-'1.- ::j crq' f..~ f..0 ~ Thus, in spite of the fact that over the last two year the Irrigation demand has decreased (both on a 12-CP basis as well as a peak month basis), while the Non-Irrigation demand has increased and overall energy use has followed the same pattern; the Company s cost of service study assigns an increase in demand related production cost to the Irrigators of 7% while the rest of the customers (that actually increased demand and energy consumption) only get an increase of 1 %. 2003 data comes from Case No, IPC-03-, Company Exhibit 39, page 3 lines 70 and 71 , while 2005 data comes from Case No. IPC-05-, Company Exhibit 37, page 3 lines 60 and 61. Yankel, DI Irrigators This result is not only absurd, but it demonstrates the inability of the Company s cost of service model to address the imbalance of growth that has been taking place on the Idaho Power system for decades. DID THE WORKSHOP P ARTICIP ANTS RECOGNIZE OR ADDRESS THE ABSURDITY OF THIS RESULT IN THE COMPANY'S COST OF SERVICE STUDY? No. It should be pointed out that the workshop participants did not have before them the information showing that since the last rate case the Irrigation load had decreased while its allocated percentage increase in costs was larger than that of the system as a whole. Even without this information, the workshop participants recognized that there was a problem regarding the allocation of growth related costs that needed to be addressed. DOES THE COMPANY'S COST OF SERVICE STUDY ATTEMPT TO REFLECT BOTH ACTUAL AS WELL AS MARGINAL COSTS IN ITS ALLOCATION OF PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION RELATED COSTS? Yes. It is the Company s position that the use of both actual and marginally weighted monthly peak demands and energy usage levels is appropriate for the allocation of Generation and Transmission related costs. Ms. Brilz testified: The use of marginal cost weighting is intended to strike a balance between backward-looking costs already incurred and forward-looking costs to be incurred in the future. Yankel, DI Irrigators I agree with the Company s approach to strike a balance between backward-looking costs already incurred and forward-looking costs to be incurred in the future. Given the uneven growth on the Idaho Power system, I recommend that the Commission adopt a similar position. However, as has been demonstrated above the Company s present cost of service study does not accomplish this goal. The balance between historic and forward looking costs that is struck in the Company study is based upon half of the allocation being based upon an unweighted 12-CP allocation that is designed to reflect today s share of cost causation on the system . It is the other half of the allocation that purports to reflect forward-looking cost where the major problem occurs. The Company s method inappropriately takes the same test-year 12-CP usage characteristics (present dayusage) and combines it with marginal weighting factors that reflect "forward-looking costs to be incurred in the future" in order to meet growth. Thus, the Irrigators (as well as all classes) get assigned costs, based upon weighting factors designed to reflect growth that is going to be incurred by the System in the future, but not based upon the usage/growth that is going to create those costs. Thus, unrealistic results occur where the Irrigation load is decreasing, but the cost of the system growth is being assigned to it not based upon future growth of the Irrigators over the next five years, but based upon the historic usage of the Irrigators and all other classes. HOW COULD THE COMPANY'S ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY BE BETTER ALIGNED TO REFLECT ITS STATED PURPOSE OF USING "BACKW ARD- LOOKING COSTS ALREADY INCURRED AND FORWARD-LOOKING COSTS TO BE INCURRED IN THE FUTURE" 5 Brilz direct testimony at page 19, Yankel, DI Irrigators The simplest way to correct the Company s existing study would be to continue to define "backward-looking costs" as test year costs and "forward-looking costs" as those anticipated in the Company s IRP for the next five years (the same five years as presently used in developing the Company s weighting factors). The "backward-looking costs" would simply be costs as they exist today and allocated on the basis of to day s energy or 12-CP as is presently done in the Company s cost of service study. The "forward-looking costs" would be based upon the same weighting factors developed by the Company associated with the cost of growth anticipated over the next five years, but would be allocated on the basis of only the growth that is anticipated from each rate schedule over the next five years. The relative share of historic costs and anticipated costs related to growth would then be averaged using the Company s existing procedure in order to develop a composite allocation factor for use in spreading test year costs for allocation purposes. In this manner, present costs would be allocated on the basis of present usage and future costs would be allocated based upon those classes causing the additional growth. HOW COULD THE CHANGE THAT YOU PROPOSE BE IMPLEMENTED TO THE COMPANY'S COST OF SERVICE STUDY IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THESE COUNTER-INTUITIVE RESULTS DO NOT OCCUR? 6 For purposes of this discussion, I accept this part of the Company s method. However, this approach ignores the lopsided growth that has taken place for over two decades on the system. Yankel, DI Irrigators One very simple change could be made. Instead of combining these growth related weighting factors with existing billing determinants, they could be combined with the same forecasted growth that served as a basis for these forecasted costs in the first place. The Company s 2004 IRP that served as a basis for developing the weighted cost factors can also serve as the source of the data for the forecasted growth as well. In Exhibit AN -, I have simply modified the Company s allocation weighting procedure to apply the marginal cost weightings developed by the Company to only the growth that is expected over the next five years. For example, the Company s Exhibit 46 page 1 takes the January normalized demand for the Residential class and multiplies it by a weighting of 0.05 in order to develop a weighted demand of 55 264 . The original figure of 1 105 285 is a test year value and not reflective of the growth that will take place over the next five years. According to the Company s 2004 IRP , the average load for the Residential class will increase from 513 to 568 average megawatts or 10. between 2004 and 2009. The Company s billing unit of 1 105 285 needs to be modified in order to reflect the fact that only 10.7% ofthis figure will be associated with the cost of growth over the next five years. WHAT GROWTH PERCENTAGE DID YOU INCORPORATE INTO YOUR REVISION OF THE COMPANY'S COST OF SERVICE STUDY? Based upon the Company s 2004 IRP , the following growth percentages were calculated: 7 1 105 285 x 0.05 = 55 264 g Idaho Powers 2004 IRP-Sales and Load Forecast page 33.9 Idaho Powers 2004 IRP-Sales and Load Forecast pages 33-47 Yankel, DI Irrigators Residential 10. Commercial (Sch. 7, 9, 40, 42)18. Industrial (Sch. 19)16. Irrigation 1.5% Special Contracts 11.5% System Load 12. I utilized these percentages as the basis for calculating the amount of growth (beyond test year billing determinants) associated with the Generation and Transmission plant. I made no calculation to reflect the increase in Distribution plant that is almost as large as the growth in Generation and Transmission plant combined. WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE COMPANY'S COST OF SERVICE STUDY WHEN GROWTH RELATED WEIGHTING FACTORS ARE ONLY APPLIED TO THE GROWTH THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE COSTS AND HOW DO THOSE RESULTS COMPARE WITH THE NORMALIZED STUDY IN THE COMPANY FILING? As can be seen from Exhibit AN-and as summarized for the major rate schedules below, there is a major difference between the indexed rates of return that result from using properly aligned weighting factors with expected growth compared to the Company Normalized study that does not link future marginal cost weighting factors with growth. Study Res.Sch. 9 Sch. 19 Irr. Growth Corrected 1.329 383 0.465 191 Company s Normalized 1.133 1.005 971 571 Yankel Irrigators Although the difference between these two cost of service runs is quite large for some rate schedules, it should come as little surprise. It has been well recognized by virtually all parties that the Company s present allocation method does not properly address the cost of growth and the fact that for over twenty years the Irrigators have been getting saddled (under that method) with costs that they have not placed upon the system. By way of contrast, the Growth Corrected study follows more intuitive logic. The growth on the system over the last two-plus decades has not been even across all classes. Irrigation load has been virtually flat, Residential load has increased rapidly, but not as rapidly as Commercial and Industrial load. Given the growth in average system load 1o of 12.7% that is predicted over the next five years in the 2004 IRP , any rate group that would be growing less than the average should be getting a smaller share (compared to its size) of the marginal costs, while those growing faster should get a higher percentage. The Irrigation growth is very low, Residential and Special Contract growth is less than the average, with Commercial and Industrial load being above average system growth. Given this picture of the expected growth, Irrigators should get very little (if any) of the marginal cost of new plants, Residential and Special Contracts should get less than the system average, and Commercial and Industrial should get a higher percentage than system average. Given the fact that the Corrected Growth cost of service run recognizes the link between growth and the growth related weighting factors, the resulting indexed rates of return are quite logical: The Residential growth rate is somewhat less than the system average; therefore, the indexed rate of return goes up a little when compared to the Normalized study. 10 Idaho Powers 2004 IRP Sales and Forecast at page 47 shows sales in 2009 of 15 000 GWh compared to 283 GWh in 2004 for a difference of 12.7%. Yankel, DI Irrigators The Commercial growth rate is significantly above system average; therefore, the indexed rate of return for Schedule 9 significantly drops when compared to the Normalized study. The Industrial growth rate is above system average (but not as much as Commercial); therefore, there is a substantial drop in the indexed rate of return for Schedule 19 when compared to the Normalized study. The Irrigation growth rate is essentially non-existent; therefore, the indexed rate of return goes up a great deal when few of the growth related costs are allocated to it compared to the Normalized study. DO THE RESULTS OF THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY IN EXHIBIT AJY- REFLECT THE GROWTH DIFFERENTIAL THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM? No. Exhibit AJY -2 only reflects changes to the Company s cost of service study to reflect growth on the Generation and Transmission system. Over the last two-plus decades the growth in Plant-in-Service associated with the Distribution system has been almost as great as the Generation and Transmission system combined. A methodology needs to be adopted for addressing the growth on the Distribution system as well. It should be remembered that not only have the Irrigators had very little impact for the past 20-plus years on the cost of the Company distribution plant, the Irrigators have virtually nothing to do with the costs associated with the Company s Underground Distribution costs. Yankel, DI Irrigators DO YOU RECOMMEND THE USE OF THE RESULTS OF EXHIBIT AN- FOR PURPOSES OF DECISIONS REGARDING RATE SPREAD IN THIS CASE? If this case were contested, my recommendations would be to use the results of Exhibit AN-2 as the basis for the rate spread. The Irrigators have been targeted for disproportionate rate increases for decades based upon studies that do not address the disproportionate cost of growth on the system. The Commission should not view the recommendation for an even spread of the increase in this case as something that is beneficial to the Irrigators. Such a view could only be based upon cost of service results that do not account for the disproportionate growth that has been taking place on the Idaho Power system. Because the stipulated increase in this case is small and for a number of other reasons, the Irrigators are willing to accept an even spread ofthe rate increase for purposes ofthis case only. Yankel, DI Irrigators IRRIGATION PEAK REWARDS PROGRAM ARE THE IRRIGATORS SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPANY'S IRRIGATION PEAK REWARDS PROGRAM? Yes. The Irrigators have been very supportive of this program as well as the one offered in the PacifiCorp service area that interrupts electricity to irrigation pumps during the summer super-peak hours. The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program is a workable DSM program that produces tangible benefits for the Company as well as all ratepayers. DO THE IRRIGATORS FULLY AGREE WITH HOW THE IRRIGATION PEAK REWARDS PROGRAM IS BEING IMPLEMENTED? No. Although the Irrigators are very supportive ofthe program in general, there are a number of areas where the Irrigators believe that substantial improvements can be made. The Irrigators believe that a general rate case is an appropriate time and place to review matters related to specific rate schedules such as Schedule 23. However, the Irrigators recognize that it is too late this year to make changes to the program that could be put into effect for this year irrigation season. With this in mind, the Irrigators have agreed to the provisions of paragraph 10 ofthe Stipulation which calls for the convening of a working group to review this program later this fall. Yankel, DI Irrigators ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y p" , 1 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y CL A S S C O S T O F S E R V I C E S T U D Y CL A S S C O S T O F S E R V I C E S T U D Y 3 . . RE V E N U E RE Q U i R E M E N T SU M M A R Y " TW E L V E M O N T H S E N D I N G DE C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 0 S 3 . . RE V E N U E RE Q U I R E M E N T SU M M A R Y " TW E L V E M O N T H S E N D I N G DE C E M B E R 3 1 20 0 5 (A ) (B ) (C ) (D ) (E ) (F ) (G ) (H ) (I) (J ) (K ) (L I (M ) (N ) GE N S R V GE N SR V AR E A LG P O W E R IR R I G A T I O N UN M E T E R E O MU N I C I P A L TR A F F I C TO T A L RE S I D E N T I A L GE N SR V PR I M A R Y SE C O N D A R Y LI G H T I N G PR I M A R Y SE C O N D A R Y TO T A L GE N S E R V I C E ST L i G H T CO N T R O L DO E I l N L JR S I M P L O T MIC R O N (1 ) (7 ) (9 ' P I (9 " ) (1 5 ) (1 9 ' (2 4 ' (4 0 ) (4 1 ) (4 2 ) 10 T O T A L RA T E BA S E 65 4 , 25 5 , 98 6 67 4 79 7 , 45 9 60 , 63 0 , 35 9 43 , 66 7 21 1 40 6 , 17 7 , 33 6 02 9 , 64 0 22 6 , 33 1 26 6 16 0 , 4 7 4 , 79 8 10 T O T A L RA T E BA S E 65 4 , 25 5 , 96 6 52 4 41 8 66 1 77 6 92 5 , 55 1 13 , 30 5 , 51 3 66 5 , 32 0 44 , 61 9 , 31 4 12 R E V E N U E S FR O M RA T E S 12 R E V E N U E S FR O M RA T E S RE T A I L 56 2 , 12 3 , 41 1 25 8 , 38 0 59 6 20 , 73 1 , 00 9 11 , 53 6 , 79 4 10 9 , 50 5 , 93 8 , 95 6 61 , 56 3 , 46 6 50 0 , 86 4 13 R E T A I L 55 2 , 12 3 , 41 7 67 3 , 38 7 69 2 , 96 9 26 1 , 53 3 00 0 , 77 7 49 9 , 93 0 11 , 35 7 , 06 6 15 T O T A L SA l E S R E V E N U E S 56 2 , 12 3 , 01 7 "6 , 38 0 , 59 6 20 , 73 1 , 00 9 53 6 , 79 4 10 9 , 50 5 , 92 6 93 8 , 95 6 61 , 55 3 , 46 6 59 , 50 0 , 66 4 15 T O T A L SA L E S RE V E N U E S 56 2 , 12 3 , 01 7 67 3 , 36 7 69 2 , 96 9 26 1 53 3 00 0 , 77 7 49 9 93 0 11 , 35 7 06 6 II T O T A L OT H E R OP E R A T I N G RE V E N U E S 10 6 , 79 9 , 61 3 93 4 , 95 6 18 4 65 2 66 7 , 33 3 27 , 26 6 . 67 9 12 8 , 50 6 21 , 74 6 , 84 6 06 5 , 95 0 II T O T A L O T H E R OP E R A T I N G RE V E N U E S 10 6 , 79 9 , 61 3 14 6 , 69 2 16 6 , 04 3 36 1 30 2 46 4 '2 9 , 08 6 36 0 , 79 4 19 T O T A L RE V E N U E S 67 0 , 92 3 , 23 0 29 6 , 31 5 , 55 2 23 , 91 5 , 67 1 15 , 20 4 , 12 7 13 6 , 61 2 , 60 7 06 7 , 50 2 53 , 31 0 , 31 2 76 , 52 6 , 53 4 19 T O T A L RE V E N U E S 67 0 , 92 3 23 0 02 2 , 27 9 06 1 01 2 33 6 , 99 4 30 3 , 26 1 22 6 99 6 11 7 , 86 2 21 O P E R A T I N G EX P E N S E S 21 O P E R A T I N G EX P E N S E S WIT H O U T I N C T A X 51 5 72 6 , 21 S 21 0 , 25 5 , 91 5 19 , 50 1 , 76 1 14 , 02 1 , 93 2 12 3 , 75 9 , 06 2 53 6 , 4 7 0 14 , 46 5 , 49 3 42 , 35 2 , 01 6 22 W I T H O U T IN C TA X 51 5 , 72 6 , 21 5 79 4 , 93 7 65 9 , 12 7 31 3 , 43 6 06 9 , 90 2 . 6 0 3 79 3 , 50 4 24 O P E R A T I N G IN C O M E 24 O P E R A T I N G IN C O M E BE F O R E IN C O M E TA X E S 15 5 , 19 7 01 5 66 , 05 9 , 63 6 37 3 , 91 0 15 2 , 19 5 13 , 05 3 , 74 4 53 1 , 03 2 52 4 61 8 34 , 24 4 , 61 6 25 B E F O R E I N C O M E TA X E S 15 5 , 19 7 01 5 22 7 , 34 2 19 1 . 6 6 5 23 , 55 6 23 3 , 50 1 32 6 , 19 6 92 4 , 37 6 27 T O T A L F E D E R A L I N C O M E TA X 44 , 01 2 , 22 6 24 , 4 0 5 , ro o 24 0 , 39 4 33 5 , 25 6 70 1 , 90 3 15 0 , 59 5 50 2 62 5 71 1 46 7 27 T O T A L F E D E R A L I N C O M E T A X 01 2 , 22 6 64 , 4 7 2 54 , 41 7 66 1 34 9 , 60 6 37 6 , 09 5 11 2 91 2 " T O T A L ST A T E IN C O M E TA X 72 2 60 1 61 8 , 77 0 13 3 , 09 7 97 4 39 7 , 22 2 16 , 15 9 28 6 , 53 7 04 2 , 06 0 " T O T A L ST A T E IN C O M E TA X 72 2 , 60 1 91 8 63 9 71 7 53 5 40 , 35 6 11 9 , 41 8 30 T O T A L OP E R A T I N G EX P E N S E S 55 4 46 1 , 04 4 23 7 , "0 , 28 6 91 5 , 25 3 14 , 39 3 , 16 3 12 7 65 6 , 16 6 70 3 22 4 77 , 25 6 , 65 5 53 , 13 5 , 50 3 30 T O T A L OP E R A T I N G EX P E N S E S 55 4 , 46 1 , 04 4 66 6 , 32 1 1.9 2 9 , 36 2 32 0 , 63 3 45 7 10 2 31 9 , 25 4 19 , 02 5 , 63 4 32 T O T A L OP E R A T I N G IN C O M E 10 6 45 2 , 18 5 59 , 03 5 26 6 00 0 , 41 8 61 0 , 96 9 95 4 61 9 35 4 , 27 6 05 3 , 23 , 49 1 , 29 1 32 T O T A L OP E R A T I N G IN C O M E 10 6 , 45 2 16 5 15 5 , 95 2 13 1 62 9 16 0 64 6 , 15 6 90 9 , 74 5 69 2 , 04 9 AD D , I E R C O OP E R A T I N G IN C O M E 06 1 , 13 3 98 6 , 65 6 11 6 , 98 5 19 0 , 32 0 66 4 36 9 63 7 10 5 55 1 42 9 , 12 6 34 A D D , I E R C O OP E R A T I N G IN C O M E 06 1 , 13 3 09 2 10 , 91 0 64 9 86 , 67 4 60 , 61 3 29 0 , 35 C O N S O L I D A T E D OP E R I N C O M E 11 2 , 52 3 , 31 8 61 , 02 3 , 92 3 17 7 , 40 3 00 1 , 10 , 63 9 , 00 6 36 7 , 91 0 15 9 , 20 7 23 , 92 0 , 01 9 35 C O N S O L I D A T E D OP E R I N C O M E 11 2 , 52 3 , 31 6 16 5 , 04 4 10 2 53 9 00 9 93 2 63 3 99 0 , 35 6 96 2 , 37 7 37 R A T E S O F RE T U R N 60 2 04 3 52 4 0 26 1 60 6 35 , 73 2 16 3 14 , 90 6 37 R A T E S OF R E T U R N 66 0 2 53 8 31 5 27 0 01 1 75 3 65 4 36 R A T E S O F R E T U R N , IN D E X 10 0 0 1. 3 2 9 77 0 33 5 03 6 3 25 3 46 5 21 9 1 36 R A T E S OF R E T U R N - IN D E X 00 0 96 1 76 1 33 ' 03 1 99 3 97 6 39 A V E R A G E MI L L S M W H 46 , 57 , 69 , 35 , 36 , 15 6 , 29 , 44 , 39 A V E R A G E M I L L S I K W H 46 , 53 , 10 1 . 2 0 33 , 24 , 23 , 25 , 41 RE V E N U E RE Q U I R E M E N T CA L C U L A T I O N 41 RE V E N U E RE Q U I R E M E N T CA L C U L A T I O N 42 R A T E O F RE T U R N RE O U I R E D 6.4 2 0 6.4 2 0 6.4 2 0 6.4 2 0 42 0 60 2 0 42 0 6.4 2 0 42 R A T E OF R E T U R N RE O U I R E D 42 0 42 0 42 0 42 0 42 0 42 0 6.4 2 0 44 R E O U I R E D RE V E N U E 60 6 , 07 1 , 60 6 25 1 , 47 4 , 36 1 23 , 69 7 , 07 7 15 , 98 0 , 37 5 14 6 50 9 60 6 47 7 , 19 5 61 , 09 9 , 79 6 52 , 45 0 , 44 R E O U I R E D RE V E N U E 60 6 07 1 60 6 95 1 " , 0 1 02 9 , 69 2 35 5 10 0 30 6 , 63 8 90 1 , 33 7 16 , 65 6 , 56 ' 45 R E V E N U E DE A C I E N C Y 43 , 94 6 , 16 9 -6 , 90 6 , 21 5 16 6 , 06 6 42 3 , 56 1 38 , 96 9 , 61 6 ~6 1 , 76 1 19 , 53 5 , 33 0 11 , 09 0 , 66 0 " R E V E N U E DE F I C I E N C Y 43 , 94 6 , 16 9 76 , 01 4 13 6 , 72 3 46 1 30 7 , 66 1 40 1 , 40 7 29 9 , 49 4 46 P E R C E N T CH A N G E RE O U I R E D 75 2 % 67 % 15 , 27 % 38 , 34 % 35 , 57 % ~9 , 16 % 31 7 3 % 24 , 56 % 46 P E R C E N T CH A N G E RE O U I R E D 52 % 93 % 22 % 35 , 72 % 16 % 92 % 7. 4 9 % 47 R E T U R N A T C L A I M E D R O R 13 9 , 26 6 . 35 4 56 , 61 7 , 94 6 !0 5 , 56 1 69 5 , 30 3 34 , 36 6 , 53 2 66 , 69 6 19 , 05 7 , 09 4 13 , 51 1 97 6 07 R E T U R N AT C L A I M E D RO R 13 9 , 26 6 , 35 4 21 2 , 55 6 22 5 , 60 6 77 , 93 2 12 0 , 32 4 1. 2 3 ' 62 0 77 3 , 76 6 46 E A R N I N G S DE F I C I E N C Y 76 5 , 03 6 20 5 , 97 7 92 6 , 17 6 69 4 , 02 0 23 , "', 52 * 26 1 21 9 69 7 66 7 10 , 40 6 . 4 0 1 46 E A R N I N G S DE F I C I E N C Y 26 , '6 5 , 03 6 07 , 51 2 63 , 26 6 56 , 92 3 16 7 , 49 2 24 4 , 46 2 79 1 , 40 9 Ex h i b i t s A J Y - Ca s e N o , I P C - E- O 5 - ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s w i t h W e i g h t s O n l y A p p l i e d t o F u t u r e G r o w t h Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l To t a l l P U C Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ar e a La r g e P o w e r Ir r i g a t i o n Co s t Ju r i s d i c t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Li g h t i n g Se r v i c e Se r v i c e (1 ) (7 ) (9 - Pr i m a r y ) (9 - Se c o n d a r y ) (1 5 ) (1 9 - Pr i m a r y ) (2 4 - Se c o n d a r y ) I C A P A C I T Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s (Q ) Ge n e r a t i o n L e v e l Ja n u a r y 09 3 00 8 10 5 28 5 69 3 04 5 45 1 86 5 28 4 52 0 18 9 Fe b r u a r y 05 6 , 62 5 06 3 72 7 61 1 49 , 4 4 5 45 5 , 98 4 29 0 19 1 34 2 Ma r c h 89 8 11 7 96 1 , 88 8 88 4 57 3 42 9 , 85 6 26 9 68 8 06 0 Ap r i l 79 1 62 6 74 5 63 9 61 5 89 1 44 1 , 87 2 27 4 87 2 95 , 90 5 Ma y 12 4 39 6 69 4 14 2 76 3 66 0 48 0 50 8 30 6 , 63 0 40 4 56 1 Ju n e 2, 4 8 9 , 99 8 82 5 52 7 49 , 55 0 65 6 49 9 60 8 30 7 93 4 62 6 16 2 Ju l y 69 3 94 3 90 5 , 03 7 38 1 62 5 53 4 81 1 33 1 39 0 65 9 22 5 Au g u s t 53 9 12 4 92 5 , 68 6 58 , 58 7 39 4 51 0 90 3 30 5 64 5 54 8 , 18 7 Se p t e m b e r 29 8 , 79 7 78 2 22 4 51 , 4 5 8 20 2 51 7 33 8 30 0 38 7 45 9 , 38 1 Oc t o b e r 71 1 13 7 72 4 87 7 22 9 51 0 40 1 , 68 9 28 6 , 67 7 72 , 4 1 4 No v e m b e r 89 4 60 0 91 7 23 3 99 9 63 5 44 3 , 67 2 28 2 75 6 25 7 De c e m b e r 98 8 34 9 1 , 02 6 , 52 7 61 7 22 8 42 7 55 3 29 3 06 4 57 9 To t a l 57 9 72 0 10 , 67 7 79 2 62 3 38 7 61 5 86 4 59 5 65 9 53 3 75 4 88 2 26 2 Ra t i o 00 0 0 0. 4 1 7 4 02 4 4 02 4 1 21 8 8 00 0 0 13 8 1 11 2 7 Gr o w t h R e l a t e d M o n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s 2 0 0 9 l e s s 2 0 0 4 ( I d a h o P o w e r ' s 2 0 0 4 1 R P S a l e s a n d L o a d F o r e c a s t p a g e s 3 3 - 41 ) 20 0 4 51 3 41 7 41 7 41 7 41 7 26 3 19 5 20 0 9 56 8 49 6 49 6 49 6 49 6 30 7 19 8 Pe r c e ct G r o w t h 10 . 72 % 18 . 94 % 18 : 9 4 % 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 16 , 73 % 54 % Ge n e r a t i o n D e m a n d R e l a t e d W e i g h t i n g s Ja n u a r y 43 0 92 5 53 7 47 4 28 0 38 0 Fe b r u a r y Ma r c h Ap r i l Ma y 50 1 42 9 43 2 38 4 37 1 66 7 52 8 89 3 29 8 , 04 9 36 , 16 2 Ju n e 15 . 27 2 96 7 35 7 , 69 4 14 3 99 9 15 0 12 0 1, 4 5 1 93 0 79 0 , 27 8 14 7 77 4 Ju l y 13 . 03 4 27 1 1 , 28 9 , 54 5 17 2 16 8 13 7 53 3 34 6 , 53 1 73 6 82 0 13 4 78 6 Au g u s t 10 . 06 5 43 3 03 9 09 6 11 6 , 20 9 10 7 89 2 01 3 38 9 53 5 37 8 30 0 Se p t e m b e r 87 8 91 1 57 3 63 1 68 1 94 1 67 0 38 1 34 3 74 3 34 1 Oc t o b e r No v e m b e r 1. 4 3 38 0 07 9 14 0 , 62 5 62 9 13 , 71 8 12 0 , 19 6 64 6 16 0 De c e m b e r 1 , 58 8 72 3 63 5 , 02 6 51 7 71 9 46 7 36 6 28 2 90 1 14 0 To t a l 16 , 73 6 24 4 5, 4 7 3 , 92 6 62 2 11 0 59 7 06 3 60 2 96 6 05 7 19 7 45 5 66 4 Ra t i o 00 0 0 32 7 1 03 7 2 03 5 7 33 4 8 00 0 0 18 2 7 02 7 2 To t a l Ra t i o 00 0 0 37 2 3 03 0 8 02 9 9 27 6 8 00 0 0 16 0 4 07 0 0 EX H I B I T N O . A J Y - CA S E N O . I P C - 05 - Pa g e 1 o f 6 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l Un m e t e r e d Mu n i c i p a l Tr a f f i c To t a l To t a l Co s t Se r v i c e St r e e t L i g h t Co n t r o l Ta r i f f DO E / I N L Si m p l o t Mi c r o n Sp e c i a l (4 0 ) (4 1 ) (4 2 ) Cu s t o m e r s Co n t r a c t s IC A P A C I T Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s Ig ) G e n e r a t i o n L e v e l Ja n u a r y 09 5 99 4 95 2 68 6 74 9 54 7 02 6 14 0 32 2 Fe b r u a r y 06 3 99 4 91 8 35 7 67 6 79 6 80 , 79 6 13 8 26 8 Ma r c h 07 8 99 4 76 1 02 1 10 6 10 6 88 4 13 7 09 6 Ap r i l 06 2 99 4 65 5 , 85 0 75 7 86 8 15 1 13 5 , 77 6 Ma y 05 8 99 4 99 4 31 6 70 8 30 8 06 4 13 0 08 0 Ju n e 09 3 02 4 36 3 55 4 33 8 16 , 22 9 85 , 87 7 12 6 , 4 4 4 Ju l y 09 6 02 4 55 6 58 9 03 0 23 , 15 5 89 , 16 9 13 7 35 4 Au g u s t 09 5 02 4 2, 4 0 6 52 1 13 5 23 , 09 7 87 , 37 1 13 2 60 3 Se p t e m b e r 10 8 02 4 16 7 12 2 31 3 09 3 26 9 13 1 67 5 Oc t o b e r 09 6 02 4 57 8 51 6 16 2 84 8 61 1 13 2 62 1 No v e m b e r 12 1 02 4 75 8 69 7 97 7 31 0 61 6 13 5 90 3 De c e m b e r 11 6 02 4 85 2 , 70 8 95 2 77 9 91 0 13 5 64 1 To t a l 08 1 13 8 96 5 93 7 33 4 90 3 27 3 13 6 00 5 74 4 61 3 78 3 Ra t i o 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 5 93 6 9 01 3 1 01 0 7 03 9 3 06 3 1 Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s W e i g h t e d b y M a r g i n a l D e m a n d C o s t s 41 7 41 7 41 7 13 1 13 1 13 1 49 6 49 6 49 6 14 6 14 6 14 6 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % Ja n u a r y 62 7 20 5 13 5 46 4 80 3 Fe b r u a r y Ma r c h Ap r i l Ma y 26 5 09 4 1, 4 1 4 89 1 14 , 4 4 2 15 , 50 6 59 0 53 8 Ju n e 15 . 08 3 97 6 05 0 86 9 74 9 50 6 15 0 84 2 22 2 09 7 Ju l y 13 . 27 7 57 8 82 5 25 2 09 0 23 6 13 5 69 3 20 9 , 01 9 Au g u s t 10 . 4 7 15 5 03 1 90 6 , 4 6 2 53 7 69 0 10 4 74 5 15 8 97 2 Se p t e m b e r 73 2 32 7 77 5 78 3 47 6 30 3 35 0 10 3 , 12 9 Oc t o b e r No v e m b e r 1. 4 3 57 5 27 7 35 7 82 6 90 8 81 7 13 , 52 8 25 3 De c e m b e r 31 3 11 9 1, 4 9 9 10 7 78 9 71 0 11 7 89 , 61 6 To t a l 23 , 4 2 0 41 2 84 3 81 7 16 4 19 5 14 3 90 4 58 4 32 9 89 2 42 7 Ra t i o 00 1 4 00 0 0 00 0 7 94 6 7 00 9 8 00 8 6 03 4 9 05 3 3 To t a l R a t i o 00 1 2 00 0 0 00 0 6 94 1 8 01 1 5 00 9 6 03 7 1 05 8 2 EX H I B I T N O . A J Y - CA S E N O . I P C - 05 - Pa g e 2 o f 6 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s w i t h W e i g h t s O n l y A p p l i e d t o F u t u r e G r o w t h Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l To t a l l P U C Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ar e a La r g e P o w e r Ir r i g a t i o n Co s t Ju r i s d i c t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Li g h t i n g Se r v i c e Se r v i c e (1 ) (7 ) (9 - Pr i m a r y ) (9 - Se c o n d a r y ) (1 5 ) (1 9 - Pr i m a r y ) (2 4 - Se c o n d a r y ) IC A P A C I T Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s (Q ! Ge n e r a t i o n L e v e l Ja n u a r y 09 3 , 00 8 10 5 28 5 69 3 04 5 45 1 86 5 28 4 52 0 18 9 Fe b r u a r y 05 6 62 5 06 3 72 7 61 1 49 , 4 4 5 45 5 98 4 29 0 19 1 34 2 Ma r c h 89 8 11 7 96 1 88 8 88 4 57 3 42 9 , 85 6 26 9 68 8 06 0 Ap r i l 79 1 62 6 74 5 , 63 9 61 5 89 1 44 1 87 2 27 4 87 2 90 5 Ma y 12 4 39 6 69 4 14 2 45 , 76 3 66 0 48 0 50 8 30 6 63 0 40 4 56 1 Ju n e 2, 4 8 9 99 8 82 5 52 7 49 , 55 0 65 6 49 9 60 8 30 7 93 4 62 6 16 2 Ju l y 69 3 94 3 90 5 03 7 38 1 62 5 53 4 81 1 33 1 39 0 65 9 , 22 5 Au g u s t 53 9 , 12 4 92 5 68 6 58 7 39 4 51 0 , 90 3 30 5 64 5 54 8 , 18 7 Se p t e m b e r 29 8 79 7 78 2 22 4 51 , 4 5 8 20 2 51 7 33 8 30 0 38 7 45 9 38 1 Oc t o b e r 71 1 13 7 72 4 87 7 22 9 51 0 40 1 68 9 28 6 67 7 41 4 No v e m b e r 89 4 60 0 91 7 23 3 99 9 50 , 63 5 44 3 67 2 28 2 75 6 25 7 De c e m b e r 98 8 , 34 9 02 6 52 7 61 7 22 8 42 7 55 3 29 3 06 4 57 9 To t a l 25 , 57 9 , 72 0 67 7 79 2 62 3 , 38 7 61 5 86 4 59 5 65 9 53 3 , 75 4 88 2 26 2 Ac t u a l 01 3 00 0 0 0. 4 1 7 4 02 4 4 02 4 1 21 8 8 00 0 0 13 8 1 11 2 7 Gr o w t h R e l a t e d M o n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s 2 0 0 9 l e s s 2 0 0 4 ( I d a h o P o . . . w e t s , .. . 2 0 0 4 I R P S a l e s an d L o a d F o r e c a s t p a g e s 3 3 - 41 ) 20 0 4 51 3 41 7 41 7 41 7 41 7 26 3 19 5 20 0 9 56 8 49 6 49 6 49 6 49 6 30 7 19 8 Pe r c e n c t G r o w t h 10 . 72 % 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 18 , 94 % 18 . 94 % 16 . 73 % 54 % Tr a n s m i s s i o n R e l a t e d W e i g b t i n g s . Ja n u a r y 86 0 02 5 35 3 , 13 1 00 6 28 , 25 3 25 5 , 10 3 14 1 84 9 Fe b r u a r y 58 1 65 6 23 2 65 1 10 6 19 , 10 9 17 6 , 22 6 99 , 04 0 Ma r c h 77 4 29 6 30 3 19 2 24 , 4 4 2 26 , 4 9 7 23 9 , 4 2 1 13 2 65 0 22 9 Ap r i l 51 2 35 6 16 7 07 8 18 , 06 1 35 8 17 4 95 8 11 1 08 4 Ma y 69 7 83 0 48 8 , 94 4 96 0 25 7 59 8 07 7 33 7 03 7 89 2 Ju n e 11 . 29 5 25 4 04 7 03 5 11 1 05 0 11 5 77 0 11 9 70 9 60 9 , 4 5 2 11 3 , 96 1 Ju l y 11 . 3, 4 0 5 90 8 08 8 69 1 14 5 35 1 11 6 11 2 13 6 , 80 0 62 2 05 6 11 3 , 79 2 Au g u s t 78 4 36 2 94 3 82 1 10 5 55 4 99 9 92 0 , 4 7 1 48 6 28 9 80 , 20 4 Se p t e m b e r 6. 4 0 75 8 , 04 6 53 6 73 1 39 1 50 6 62 7 25 7 32 1 63 1 23 1 Oc t o b e r 39 1 21 1 12 9 00 8 28 0 94 1 12 6 32 5 61 6 84 9 No v e m b e r 94 8 86 9 35 1 07 0 52 1 24 6 30 0 06 9 16 8 88 0 39 9 De c e m b e r 70 4 36 7 68 1 25 0 61 , 70 3 55 6 50 1 , 38 5 30 3 49 4 15 0 To t a l 71 4 11 2 32 2 60 1 68 8 42 7 66 7 60 5 17 5 80 1 39 8 10 3 39 9 88 8 We i g h t e d 01 3 00 0 0 33 7 9 03 6 8 03 5 7 33 0 0 00 0 0 18 1 6 02 1 4 Av e r a g e 01 3 00 0 0 37 7 6 03 0 6 02 9 9 27 4 4 EX H I B I T N O , A J Y - 00 0 0 Od ~ ~ ~ N O . I P C - If - c f b B - ~ Q Pa g e 3 o f 6 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 20 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l Un m e t e r e d Mu n i c i p a l Tr a f f i c To t a l To t a l Co s t Se r v i c e St r e e t L i g h t Co n t r o l Ta r i f f DO E / I N L Si m p l o t Mi c r o n Sp e c i a l (4 0 ) (4 1 ) (4 2 ) Cu s t o m e r s Co n t r a c t s IC A P A C I T Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S y C o nc i d e n t em a n d s ~ G e n e at i o n Ja n u a r y 09 5 99 4 95 2 68 6 35 , 74 9 54 7 02 6 14 0 32 2 Fe b r u a r y 06 3 99 4 91 8 , 35 7 67 6 79 6 79 6 13 8 26 8 Ma r c h 07 8 99 4 76 1 02 1 10 6 10 6 80 , 88 4 13 7 09 6 Ap r i l 06 2 99 4 65 5 85 0 75 7 23 , 86 8 15 1 13 5 77 6 Ma y 05 8 99 4 99 4 31 6 70 8 23 , 30 8 06 4 13 0 08 0 Ju n e 09 3 02 4 36 3 55 4 33 8 22 9 87 7 12 6 44 4 Ju l y 09 6 02 4 55 6 58 9 03 0 15 5 16 9 13 7 35 4 Au g u s t 09 5 02 4 40 6 52 1 13 5 09 7 37 1 13 2 , 60 3 Se p t e m b e r 10 8 02 4 16 7 12 2 31 3 09 3 26 9 13 1 67 5 Oc t o b e r 09 6 02 4 57 8 51 6 16 2 84 8 61 1 13 2 62 1 No v e m b e r 12 1 02 4 75 8 69 7 97 7 31 0 61 6 13 5 90 3 De c e m b e r 11 6 02 4 85 2 70 8 95 2 77 9 81 , 91 0 13 5 64 1 To t a l 25 , 08 1 13 8 23 , 96 5 93 7 33 4 90 3 27 3 , 13 6 00 5 74 4 61 3 78 3 Ac t u a l D1 3 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 5 93 6 9 01 3 1 01 0 7 03 9 3 06 3 1 Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s W e i g h t e d b y M a r g i n a l D e m a n d J : & s t s . 41 7 41 7 41 7 13 1 13 1 13 1 49 6 49 6 49 6 14 6 14 6 14 6 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % Ir a n s m i s s i o n R e l a t e d W e i g h t i n g s Ja n u a r y 18 3 56 1 81 2 14 4 19 8 03 5 64 8 88 1 Fe b r u a r y 79 7 38 4 54 9 , 35 8 86 6 55 8 87 3 29 8 Ma r c h 15 7 55 4 72 8 14 4 80 8 11 5 22 9 15 2 Ap r i l 81 6 39 4 47 9 , 86 3 36 1 71 2 42 0 32 , 4 9 3 Ma y 56 2 23 7 59 9 97 2 33 1 53 4 99 3 85 8 Ju n e 11 . 69 1 29 5 12 3 97 6 96 8 98 3 11 6 32 7 17 1 , 27 9 Ju l y 11 . 4, 4 5 5 17 7 22 9 44 5 15 7 74 8 11 4 55 8 17 6 , 4 6 3 Au g u s t 77 4 84 5 63 9 96 6 10 3 15 1 95 , 14 1 14 4 39 6 Se p t e m b e r 6. 4 0 55 6 24 2 66 1 . 55 1 35 2 19 0 63 , 95 3 96 , 4 9 5 Oc t o b e r 65 9 32 2 36 6 00 3 16 3 34 3 70 2 25 , 20 8 No v e m b e r 43 4 69 3 89 3 31 5 25 4 52 9 77 2 55 4 De c e m b e r 2, 4 8 1 20 1 60 8 22 7 22 9 85 4 05 6 13 9 To t a l 56 7 90 3 69 1 96 4 19 8 79 0 16 8 75 3 65 4 67 3 02 2 21 5 We i g h t e d D1 3 00 1 4 00 0 0 00 0 7 94 5 4 01 0 6 00 9 0 03 5 0 05 4 6 Av e r a g e D1 3 00 1 2 00 0 0 00 0 6 94 1 1 01 1 9 00 9 8 EX H I B I T N O . A J Y - 03 7 2 CA S E N O . f P ~ ~ 0 5 - Pa g e 4 o f 6 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s w i t h W e i g h t s O n l y A p p l i e d t o F u t u r e G r o w t h Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l To t a l l P U C Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ge n e r a l Ar e a La r g e P o w e r Ir r i g a t i o n Co s t Ju r i s d i c t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Se r v i c e Li g h t i n g Se r v i c e Se r v i c e (1 ) (7 ) (9 - Pr i m a r y ) (9 - Se c o n d a r y ) (1 5 ) (1 9 - Pr i m a r y ) (2 4 - Se c o n d a r y ) IE N E R G Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S Mo n t h l y E n e r g y R e q u i r e m e n t s ( W G e n e r a t i o n Le v e l Ja n u a r y 18 6 91 5 55 8 94 6 02 9 15 5 27 2 25 4 54 5 18 9 24 9 86 8 Fe b r u a r y 02 5 , 70 1 46 6 93 1 75 4 12 7 24 2 04 6 54 1 16 8 16 9 88 5 Ma r c h 00 9 95 5 42 5 52 2 26 , 64 9 87 2 24 8 64 5 54 4 17 6 88 2 69 5 Ap r i l 99 4 08 4 36 0 53 8 23 , 97 9 29 , 4 1 7 24 1 , 88 9 54 3 17 3 53 1 76 9 Ma y 14 6 27 4 33 1 47 1 05 6 30 , 55 6 24 9 , 14 5 53 9 18 0 52 7 23 2 53 7 Ju n e 32 4 54 9 33 3 21 3 18 8 70 8 26 2 64 8 55 7 18 6 , 76 9 39 9 56 5 Ju l y 48 5 , 65 9 41 9 41 0 79 8 30 , 4 0 0 28 3 83 4 55 4 19 6 , 51 9 42 6 , 16 1 Au g u s t 40 3 04 1 41 7 03 9 29 , 02 8 31 4 28 6 , 69 1 54 7 19 4 23 1 34 5 80 0 Se p t e m b e r 11 8 13 1 31 9 44 7 14 4 94 2 25 5 18 6 55 7 18 6 64 8 20 9 24 3 Oc t o b e r 01 3 51 3 35 5 86 7 25 , 4 2 5 61 5 25 9 88 3 54 8 19 2 57 1 87 5 No v e m b e r 04 8 57 9 45 5 , 32 8 88 9 28 , 80 2 25 2 92 8 55 7 18 0 30 8 12 8 De c e m b e r 19 4 12 4 56 2 20 7 71 9 30 , 81 3 27 7 10 4 55 1 18 6 53 1 15 3 To t a l 95 0 52 5 00 5 91 9 32 9 65 8 35 4 72 1 13 2 25 3 58 3 21 1 93 5 74 5 67 9 Ra t i o 00 0 0 35 8 8 02 3 6 02 5 4 22 4 5 00 0 5 15 8 6 12 5 1 Gr o w t h R e l a t e d M o n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s 2 0 0 9 l e s s 2 0 0 4 ( I d a h o P o w e r s 2 0 0 4 I R P S a l e s. . a nd L o a d F o r e c a s t p a g e s 3 3 - 41 ) 20 0 4 51 3 41 7 41 7 41 7 41 7 20 0 9 56 8 49 6 49 6 49 6 49 6 Pe r c e n c t G r o w t h 10 . 72 % 1 8 . 94 % 1 8 . 94 % 1 8 . 94 % 1 8 . 94 % Ge n e r a t i o n E n e r g y R e l a t e d W e i g h t i n g s Ja n u a r y 36 . 12 8 29 1 19 6 28 7 22 9 , 33 0 20 9 37 5 89 0 , 33 7 78 4 Fe b r u a r y 28 . 16 0 , 4 4 6 1, 4 3 2 24 0 15 0 , 4 3 0 14 7 03 2 31 1 91 8 93 2 Ma r c h 41 . 95 7 88 8 87 9 , 14 0 20 7 95 2 22 5 , 29 9 94 0 27 2 24 5 Ap r i l 31 . 29 2 81 8 21 9 , 15 3 14 3 27 9 17 5 , 77 3 1, 4 4 5 33 6 24 5 Ma y 35 . 94 3 00 3 26 9 76 7 15 6 06 6 20 6 83 3 68 6 46 1 64 8 Ju n e 43 . 17 5 28 5 53 7 58 6 20 5 37 9 22 5 92 7 14 1 , 59 5 54 2 Ju l y 55 . 01 6 , 38 1 51 4 , 4 9 8 30 5 08 5 32 2 05 6 00 6 92 5 86 9 Au g u s t 45 . 4 4 26 7 59 2 03 1 70 3 24 9 , 88 9 26 9 56 8 2, 4 6 7 99 0 70 9 Se p t e m b e r 43 . 04 7 92 2 1, 4 9 7 35 3 19 9 97 7 24 8 00 0 11 3 62 5 61 3 Oc t o b e r 41 . 86 6 52 2 57 2 68 2 19 8 , 54 5 23 1 26 5 02 9 44 3 27 9 No v e m b e r 44 . 67 5 , 72 3 18 1 62 5 24 4 58 7 24 3 85 1 14 1 40 2 71 6 De c e m b e r 43 . 36 6 99 1 63 8 , 26 3 27 9 60 3 25 5 50 6 29 7 79 0 56 9 To t a l 73 , 89 8 86 3 21 , 97 0 , 29 8 57 0 , 12 3 76 0 48 5 24 , 4 7 3 , 09 6 15 2 Ra t i o 00 0 0 29 7 3 03 4 8 03 7 4 33 1 2 00 0 7 To t a l R a t i o 00 0 0 32 8 1 02 9 2 03 1 4 27 7 8 00 0 6 26 3 30 7 16 . 73 % 16 0 39 1 80 4 93 5 21 8 91 2 91 5 66 3 07 9 12 6 34 4 85 0 83 8 52 1 47 6 , 56 9 36 5 21 3 32 7 99 3 34 8 , 10 1 36 5 91 8 15 , 24 6 19 2 20 6 3 19 5 19 8 54 %48 9 39 0 34 1 88 4 12 7 82 4 26 4 57 4 36 6 63 0 24 1 74 1 14 0 , 74 0 33 , 53 1 52 6 77 6 21 5 , 4 4 5 01 6 4 18 2 4 0 . 07 0 8 EX H I B I T N O . A J Y - CA S E N O . I P C - 05 - Pa g e 5 o f 6 ID A H O P O W E R C O M P A N Y DE V E L O P M E N T O F W E I G H T E D D E M A N D A N D E N E R G Y A L L O C A T O R S FO R T H E T W E L V E M O N T H S E N D E D D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 20 0 5 No r m a l i z e d D e m a n d s Mo n t h Ma r g i n a l Un m e t e r e d Mu n i c i p a l Tr a f f i c To t a l To t a l Co s t Se r v i c e St r e e t L i g h t Co n t r o l Ta r i f f DO E / I N L Si m p l o t Mi c r o n Sp e c i a l (4 0 ) (4 1 ) (4 2 ) Cu s t o m e r s Co n t r a c t s IE N E R G Y R E L A T E D A L L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S th l y E n e gy R e q u em e ts I g ) G e n e at i o n ev e l Ja n u a r y 50 1 71 8 71 2 08 8 , 97 7 50 8 35 2 07 8 93 8 Fe b r u a r y 47 5 71 6 71 2 93 7 35 6 19 , 02 2 82 4 53 , 4 9 9 34 5 Ma r c h 48 9 72 3 71 2 91 4 73 3 18 , 4 5 2 65 9 11 1 22 2 Ap r i l 1, 4 7 7 73 6 71 2 90 1 , 59 1 18 , 18 6 01 9 28 8 49 3 Ma y 47 4 74 5 71 2 05 1 76 2 51 3 38 4 61 5 51 2 Ju n e 50 0 70 5 73 4 23 9 , 58 7 56 0 99 4 40 8 96 2 Ju l y 50 1 72 6 73 4 38 9 , 63 7 82 9 21 1 98 2 96 , 02 2 Au g u s t 50 1 72 6 73 4 30 8 61 1 15 , 73 2 00 2 61 , 69 6 43 0 Se p t e m b e r 51 1 72 6 73 4 02 9 13 8 07 6 19 3 72 4 99 3 Oc t o b e r 50 2 72 5 73 4 92 0 , 74 5 52 5 16 6 07 7 76 8 No v e m b e r 52 0 74 6 73 4 95 5 94 0 59 5 77 4 58 , 27 0 63 9 De c e m b e r 51 6 75 2 73 4 09 6 08 0 90 7 17 , 4 3 6 70 1 04 4 To t a l 96 7 74 4 69 8 83 4 15 7 21 1 90 5 19 7 01 4 70 7 44 9 11 6 36 8 Ra t i o 00 1 3 00 1 5 00 0 6 92 0 0 01 5 2 01 4 1 05 0 7 08 0 0 Mo n t h l y C o i n c i d e n t D e m a n d s W e i g h t e d b y M a r g i n a l D e m a n d C o s t s 41 7 41 7 41 7 13 1 13 1 13 1 49 6 49 6 49 6 14 6 14 6 14 6 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 18 . 94 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % 11 . 4 5 % Ja n u a r y 36 , 42 2 92 9 94 4 71 7 28 8 26 0 81 9 24 7 92 5 41 1 00 3 Fe b r u a r y 28 . 99 5 30 1 85 9 87 1 03 2 31 5 83 9 17 5 26 0 28 9 41 4 Ma r c h 41 . 61 9 13 , 4 4 5 55 6 50 8 , 78 2 02 7 28 7 27 8 79 2 44 9 10 6 Ap r i l 31 . 82 5 37 3 25 4 95 8 78 4 67 8 46 3 20 6 89 3 33 4 03 4 Ma y 35 . 97 7 81 2 82 0 55 6 33 4 65 0 71 , 12 2 24 3 89 8 38 6 67 0 Ju n e 43 . 23 1 13 , 90 2 98 5 75 6 57 2 61 2 25 3 28 7 84 9 41 8 71 3 Ju l y 55 . 90 2 18 , 28 5 77 6 40 1 , 54 7 10 7 75 7 11 0 20 3 39 6 , 87 4 61 4 83 4 Au g u s t 45 . 4 4 92 1 85 8 31 9 77 6 , 26 7 85 4 88 , 4 6 2 32 1 , 00 8 49 1 32 4 Se p t e m b e r 43 . 51 5 29 6 07 9 60 2 , 4 1 3 70 , 4 6 6 06 4 29 3 , 97 9 44 5 50 8 Oc t o b e r 41 , 72 9 13 , 4 7 1 73 2 5, 4 2 8 , 67 2 27 6 02 1 28 3 55 4 43 7 85 1 No v e m b e r 44 . 86 9 78 2 21 4 20 1 67 3 03 7 83 6 29 8 17 8 47 4 05 0 De c e m b e r 43 . 57 1 52 8 08 6 87 5 61 1 10 4 78 2 38 6 29 9 21 1 49 1 , 38 0 To t a l 13 9 , 57 7 16 0 , 98 2 62 4 65 4 97 5 98 6 71 3 92 3 75 4 33 3 42 0 24 3 88 8 Ra t i o 00 1 9 00 2 2 00 0 9 92 9 0 01 3 4 01 2 5 04 5 1 07 1 0 To t a l R a t i o 00 1 6 00 1 8 00 0 8 92 4 5 01 4 3 01 3 3 04 7 9 07 5 5 EX H I B I T N O . A J Y - CA S E N O . I P C - 05 - Pa g e 6 o f 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1 st day of March, 2006 , I served a true, correct and complete copy ofthe foregoing document, to each ofthe following bye-mail and/or mail: Jean D. Jewell, Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission O. Box 83720 472 W. Washington Street Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 E-mail: jjewell~puc.state.id. Barton L. Kline Monica B. Moen Idaho Power Company O. Box 70 Boise, Idaho 83707-0070 bkline~idahopower. com mmoen~idahopower.com John R. Gale Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Idaho Power Company O. Box 70 Boise, Idaho 83707-0070 rgale~idahopower .com Donald L. Howell, II Cecelia A. Gassner Deputy Attorneys General Idaho Public Utilities Commission O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 don.howell~puc.idaho. gov Anthony Yankel 29814 Lake Road Bay Village, OH 44140 Peter J. Richardson, Esq. Richardson & O'Leary O. Box 7218 Boise, Idaho 83702 peter~ri chardsonando I eary . com Don Reading Ben Johnson Associates 6070 Hill Road Boise, Idaho 83703 dreading (0mindspring. com Conley E. Ward Givens Pursley LLP O. Box 2720 Boise, ID 83701-2720 cew(0givenspursley. com Dennis E. Peseau, Ph. Utility Resources, Inc. 1500 Liberty St. S., Ste 250 Salem, OR 97302 dpeseau(0excite.com Lawrence A. Gollomp Assistant General Counsel S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave, S. Washington, DC 20585 lawrence. gollomp(0hg. doe. gov Dennis Goins Potomac Management Group O. Box 30225 Alexandria, VA 22310-8225 dgoinsPMG(0aol.com William M. Eddie Advocates for the West O. Box 1612 Boise, ID 83701 beddi e(0advocateswest. org Ken Miller NW Energy Coalition 5400 W. Franklin, Suite G Boise, ID 83705 kenmill er(0cab I eone.net Michael L. Kurtz Kurt J. Boehm Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 36 E. Seventh St., Ste 1510 Cincinnati, OH 45202 mkurtz~bk1lawfITITl. com Neal Townsend Energy Strategies 215 S. State Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ntownsend~energystrat. com ERIC L. OLSEN