HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071210Sterling direct.pdfBEFORE THE
~..~..;.....,..
ZOUl DEC lO PM 3: 36
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO.IPC-E-07.8
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE )
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO. )
)
)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICK STERLING
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DECEMBER 10, 2007
1 Q.Please state your name and business address for
2 the record.
3 A.My name is Rick Sterling. My business address
4 is 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
5 Q.By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
6 A.I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
7 Commission as a Staff engineer.
8 Q.What is your educational and professional
9 background?
10 A.I received a Bachelor of Science degree in
11 Civil Engineering from the University of Idaho in 1981
12 and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from
13 the University of Idaho in 1983. I worked for the Idaho
14 Department of Water Resources from 1983 to 1994. In
15 1988, I received my Idaho license as a registered
16 professional Civil Engineer. I began working at the
17 Idaho Public Utilities Commission in 1994. During my
18 employment at the IPUC, I have attended the annual
19 regulatory studies program sponsored by the National
20 Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) at
21 Michigan State University, as well as numerous other
22 seminars and short courses.
23 Q.What is the purpose of your testimony in this
24 proceeding?
25 A.The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 1
STAFF
1 net power supply cost recommendation of Idaho Power, to
2 explain why I believe it is too high, and to make an
3 alternative recommendation that I believe fairly and
4 reasonably represents the Company's normalized net power
5 supply cost for the 2007 test year.
6 Q.Please briefly summarize your proposed net
7 power supply cost adj ustments .
8 A.I am proposing a net power supply cost of $34.9
9 million, which is approximately $6 million less than
10 Idaho Power's. proposed net power supply cost. My net
11 power supply cost recommendation is based on the use of a
12 natural gas price of $7.62 per MMBtu in the AURORA model.
13 Q.Have you reviewed the work done by Idaho Power
14 to develop a net power supply cost recommendation for
15 this case?
16 A.Yes, I have reviewed the Company's testimony
17 and recommendations related to net power supply cost, and
18 have also reviewed all of the supporting exhibits and
19 workpapers prepared by the Company as well as all of the
20 power supply cost simulations made using AURORA.
21 Q.What is Idaho Power recommending as the net
22 power supply cost to be included in its revenue
23 requirement?
24 A.Idaho Power is recommending a net power supply
25 cost of $41.0 million in addition to PURPA costs of $93.1
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 2
STAFF
1 million, for a total power supply cost of $134.1 million.
2 Q.Do you agree with the net power supply cost
3 recommendations contained in the testimony of Idaho Power
4 witness Greg Said?
5 A.No, I do not. I believe that the net power
6 supply cost recommendations of the Company are too high.
7 I do accept the Company's estimate of PURPA costs,
8 however.
9 Q.Why do you believe that the net power supply
10 cost recommendations of the Company are too high?
11 A.I believe that Idaho Power's net power supply
12 cost recommendations are too high because of incorrect
13 assumptions made by the Company regarding natural gas
14 fuel prices used in AURORA, the model used for computing
15 net power supply costs.
16 Q.Are natural gas price assumptions crucial in
17 the determination of net power supply costs, even though
18 Idaho Power has a relatively small amount of natural gas
19 fired generation on its system?
20 A.Yes, Idaho Power's net power supply costs are
21 not only a function of the costs of fueling and operating
22 its own generating resources, but are also a function of
23 the costs of its off-system purchases and its secondary
24 sales. During the majority of the year, gas-fired
25 generation is the marginal resource in the region;
CASE NO. IPC-E- 07 - 0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 3
STAFF
1 consequently, it tends to set the market price for all
2 market purchases and sales. Obviously, higher gas prices
3 dri ve electric market prices up and lower gas prices
4 dri ve market prices down.
5 Q.How do high gas prices affect Idaho Power and
6 its ratepayers?
7 A.High gas prices actually benefit Idaho Power
8 and its ratepayers in most years. Because Idaho Power is
9 a net energy seller over the course of the year, high gas
10 prices and high electric market prices allow the Company
11 to sell its surplus low-cost hydro and coal generation at
12 those higher market prices, substantially reducing its
13 net power supply costs.
14 Q.What assumptions about gas price did Idaho
15 Power make for purposes of its AURORA power supply cost
16 simulations?
17 A.Idaho Power's derivation of the gas prices it
18 used in AURORA is shown on Staff Exhibit No. 106. Idaho
19 Power obtained 10-year gas price forecasts from three
20 different sources-PIRA, DOE-EIA, and Global Insight-and
21 five-year forecasts from two sources-NYMEX and IGI.
22 Idaho Power computed a weighted average price using each
23 of the ten years from 2007-2016, then made other
24 adjustments to prepare the prices for input into the
25 AURORA model. Idaho Power generated upper and lower
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 4
STAFF
1 limits for gas prices to be used in AURORA by applying
2 the standard deviation in actual prices at Sumas from
3 2001 through 2006. The result of this exercise was an
4 average gas price of $7. 93/MMBtu with upper and lower
5 limits of $9. 99/MMBtu and $5.87 /MMBtu.
6 Q.How was this range of assumed gas prices used
7 by Idaho Power in the AURORA mode i ?
8 A.Idaho Power assumed that high gas prices are
9 associated with low water conditions and that low gas
10 prices occur when water conditions are high. For the 79
11 water years of record used in the power supply analysis,
12 the Company created an algorithm that assigned the
13 highest gas price ($9.99) to the lowest water year on
14 record and assigned the lowest gas price ($5.87) to the
15 highest water year on record. Gas prices were then
16 assigned to all of the years in between based on their
17 relative water condition.
18 Q.What is wrong with this approach in your
19 opinion?
20 A.I believe that Idaho Power's approach is wrong
21 for two reasons. First, I do not believe it is
22 appropriate to use 10, or even five years of gas price
23 forecasts when we are really only trying to establish
24 power supply costs between now and when Idaho Power files
25 its next general rate case. Company witness Gale states
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 5
STAFF
1 on page 17 of his testimony that the Company intends to
2 make more frequent rate case filings in the future.
3 Informally, Idaho Power has told Staff that its future
4 rate case filings could be made as often as annually.
5 With the new Evander Andrews plant yet to be included in
6 rate base, and with hydro relicensing costs quickly
7 growing, Staff believes another general rate case filing
S is likely very soon. Therefore, because we are likely
9 only setting rates to be effective for approximately the
10 next year, it seems logical that we should only be using
11 gas price forecasts representative of the same time
12 frame. Gas price forecasts five or ten years into the
13 future have no relevance whatsoever when we are only
14 setting rates one year into the future.
15 Q.What is your other primary obj ection to the
16 method used by Idaho Power?
17 A.My second obj ection relates to Idaho Power's
lS assumption that gas prices are directly related to hydro
19 conditions. I do not believe that gas prices are
20 correlated with hydro conditions on Idaho Power's system,
21 or for that matter, even with Northwest hydro conditions.
22 I believe that natural gas prices are influenced by
23 numerous factors, most of which have nothing to do with
24 water conditions in the Northwest. Because pipelines
25 allow natural gas to be transported throughout North
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 6
STAFF
1 America, gas prices now tend to rise or fall in unison.
2 Prices in the Northwest can be affected by a prolonged
3 cold snap in the Northeast, for example, by tropical
4 storms and hurricanes in the Gulf, or by unusual demand
5 in California. Underground gas storage levels, drilling
6 activity and market speculation also significantly affect
7 prices. Gas demand, wherever it occurs in the country,
S can affect prices nationally. Regional supply
9 interruptions seem to be one of the few factors that can
10 still significantly affect regional gas prices.
11 Q.Have you examined any data or performed any
12 analysis to support your conclusion that gas prices and
13 Northwest hydro conditions are not related?
14 A.Yes, I have. I performed regression analysis
15 using historical Henry Hub and Sumas gas prices as
16 reported by the Intercontinental Exchange and historical
17 water conditions represented by hydro shaping factors
lS used in AURORA. The hydro shaping factors used in AURORA
19 reflect monthly and annual scaling factors used to
20 accurately replicate historic hydro conditions in areas
21 throughout the Northwest. The source for the hydro data
22 used in AURORA is the Northwest Power Pool. Staff
23 Exhibit No. 107 shows the results of the correlation
24 analysis on a monthly basis for hydro conditions since
25 2001 at Hells Canyon, Southern Idaho, run-of-river plants
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 7
STAFF
1 on Idaho Power's system, the Oregon-Washington-Northern
2 Idaho area, British Columbia and Montana. As shown by
3 the exhibit, there appears to be no correlation
4 whatsoever between Northwest hydro conditions and Sumas
5 gas prices on a monthly basis. The results are similar
6 for Henry Hub gas prices.
7 Q.Are you saying that neither gas prices nor
S hydro conditions affect power supply costs?
9 A.No, I am not suggesting that gas prices and
10 hydro conditions do not affect power supply costs.
11 Clearly, both greatly affect power supply costs. They do
12 so independently, however. What I am saying is that gas
13 prices are unrelated to Northwest hydro conditions.
14 Q.What gas prices did you consider using for the
15 power supply analysis in AURORA?
16 A.I believe it is reasonable to simply use gas
17 prices representative of the 2007 test year. To obtain
lS prices representative of 2007, I considered several
19 forecasts available to Staff. One forecast I considered
20 was the May 2007 forecast prepared by Global Insight.
21 Idaho Power used Global Insight's 2006 forecast in
22 developing the Company's gas price forecast. I also
23 considered the Department of Energy/Energy Information
24 Administration forecast that was released in February
25 2007, and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) S
STAFF
1 fuel price forecast approved on September 11, 2007. In
2 addition to these forecasts, I considered the most recent
3 12 months of NYMEX spot market prices and NYMEX futures
4 prices for 200S. I also reviewed recent forecasts made
5 by gas industry experts as reported quarterly in the
6 publication Na tural Gas Week.
7 Q.Do you consider these sources to be superior to
S those used by Idaho Power?
9 A.All of the forecasts I considered were more
10 recent than the forecast information used by Idaho Power.
11 I had an advantage in my analysis because all of the gas
12 price information I considered was simply not yet
13 available at the time the Company prepared its case.
14 Q.What gas prices do you believe should be used
15 for power supply modeling in AURORA?
16 A.My recommendation is to use a gas price of
17 $7.62 per MMBtu for all 79 water years based on the
lS natural gas price forecast contained in the Energy
19 Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook.
20 That is the forecasted price for 2007 (in year 2007
21 dollars) .
22 Q.Why do you propose to use the same gas price
23 for all 79 water years?
24 A.I believe it is appropriate to use the same gas
25 price for all 79 water years because I have found no
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-OS12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 9
STAFF
1 evidence to suggest that gas prices vary based on water
2 conditions. The purpose of using 79 different water
3 years is to simulate normal water conditions during the
4 test year. Normal gas prices for the test year can be
5 simulated with only a 'single estimate because gas prices
6 are unrelated to water conditions.
7 Q.What net power supply cost do you calculate
S using AURORA with the $7.62 per MMBtu gas price you
9 believe should be used?
10 A.Using a gas price of $7.62 per MMBtu for all
11 water years, AURORA calculated a net power supply cost of
12 $34.9 million. Net power supply costs are comprised of
13 four accounts: 447 System Opportunity Sales; 501 Fuel
14 (Coal); 547 Fuel (Gas); and 555.1 Purchased Power.
15 Staff's proposed totals for each account are shown on
16 Exhibit No. lOS, and are also compared to Idaho Power's
17 proposed amounts. Staff's most significant adjustment is
lS a $5.3 million reduction in account 555.1 Purchased
19 Power.
20 Except for the change in gas price, I used all
21 of Idaho Power's other assumptions in AURORA. A summary
22 of the results of this AURORA simulation is presented in
23 Staff Exhibit No. 109.
24 Q.Have you prepared an exhibit comparing your net
25 power supply cost recommendations to Idaho Power's?
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 10
STAFF
1 A.Yes, Staff Exhibit No. 110 compares my
2 recommendation for net power supply cost to Idaho
3 Power's. The exhibit also shows the PURPA costs that are
4 added to get total power supply cost, as well as the
5 normalized power supply costs adopted in the Company's
6 last general rate case.
7 Q.Did you make any AURORA runs using gas prices
S from Idaho Power's own gas forecast?
9 A.Yes, I did. I used Idaho Power's own
10 forecasted gas prices for 2007 and 200S to compute net
11 power supply costs. Using Idaho Power's own gas price
12 forecast for 2007 ($S. 20 per MMBtu) for all 79 water
13 years, I computed a net power supply cost of $ 21. S
14 million. If I used Idaho Power's 2007 gas price as an
15 average for the 79 water years and assigned higher and
16 lower prices to the years based on water condition using
17 Idaho Power's method, a net power supply cost of $33.7
lS million was computed.
19 Q.Why are you not recommending simply using Idaho
20 Power's own gas price forecast for the years when rates
21 will be in effect to establish net power supply costs?
22 A.I am not recommending that Idaho Power's own
23 gas price forecasts for 2007 or 200S be used because I
24 believe that the gas prices are too high. Such high gas
25 prices produce net power supply cost results that are
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 11
STAFF
1 unrealistically low.
2 Q.Why did you choose to not use gas prices from
3 the Northwest Power and Conservation Council? Isn' t the
4 Council's forecast the most recent publicly available
5 forecast?
6 A.The Council's September 11, 2007 gas price
7 forecast is the most recent publicly available forecast,
S so in that respect it may be superior to other forecasts
9 that could be used. Using the Council's forecasted gas
10 price for 2007, AURORA calculates a net power supply cost
11 of $ 27. S million. I chose to not recommend using the
12 Council's gas price forecast because I believe the
13 Council's estimated price for 2007 is too high. Despite
14 the forecast being the most recently released, it is
15 actually several months older than it appears due to the
16 public review process it must go through. In addition, I
17 do not believe that the Council focused much on 2007
lS since the year would be three-fourths over by the time
19 the forecast was released and the price forecast for 2007
20 would be of limited use to users of the forecast.
21 Q.Have you prepared an exhibi t to compare Idaho
22 Power's net power supply recommendation, your
23 recommendation, and other net power supply results
24 obtained using other possible gas price assumptions?
25 A.Yes, I have. Staff Exhibit No. 111 shows the
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 12
STAFF
1 effect of various gas price assumptions on net power
2 supply costs and compares my recommended result to the
3 Company's. As the results show, my recommended net power
4 supply cost is below the Company's recommendation, but
5 higher than it would be if several other gas forecasts
6 were used, including the Company's own forecasted prices
7 for 2007 and 200S. Compared to the results obtained
S using other possible gas prices, I believe my
9 recommendation is conservative.
10 Q.What happens if Idaho Power's actual net power
11 supply costs turn out to be different than those adopted
12 in this general rate case?
13 A.If actual power supply costs in the future are
14 different than those adopted in this general rate case,
15 then the difference will be considered in the annual
16 Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) until the Company's next
17 general rate case. Under the PCA, 90 percent of the
lS difference between the annual proj ected power cost and
19 the Commission approved base power cost as established in
20 this case will be credited to or collected from
21 customers. Consequently, Idaho Power will never be at
22 risk for more than 10 percent of the difference between
23 projected power supply costs and the base power supply
24 costs.
25 Q.Can you validate the AURORA model by comparing
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0S12/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 13
STAFF
1 predicted results to actual net power supply costs from
2 prior years, say for 2006?
3 A.Although it is possible to compare simulated
4 results to actual historical results, the two will
5 probably never be equal even if historical gas prices and
6 hydro conditions are replicated. Actual electric market
7 prices are affected by many things besides just hydro
8 conditions and natural gas prices. Many factors that
9 affect actual power supply costs simply cannot easily be
10 replicated on an actual basis in AURORA, such as weather,
11 plant outages, fuel supply interruptions, and market
12 speculation. The 2006 water year results from the "base
13 case" used to determine power supply costs in this case
14 will not match actual 2006 power supply costs because the
15 "base case" for 2006 only differs from the other 78 years
16 used in the analysis by the hydro conditions. The base
17 case for 2006 does not use actual gas prices in 2006,
18 actual demand in 2006, or any other actual data from
19 2006. The 2006 results only reflect 2006 water
20 condi tions and nothing more.
21 Q.Does this conclude your direct testimony in
22 this proceeding?
23 A.Yes, it does.
24
25
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-0812/10/07 STERLING, R (Di) 14
STAFF
ID
A
H
O
P
O
W
E
R
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
GA
S
P
R
I
C
E
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
20
0
7
$
/
M
M
B
T
U
20
0
7
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
DE
L
I
V
E
R
E
D
Ba
s
i
s
A
d
j
Wi
B
a
s
l
s
l
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
l
A
d
J
Su
m
a
s
Wg
t
Su
m
a
s
Wg
t
Su
m
a
s
W
g
t
Su
m
a
s
W
g
t
Su
m
a
s
Wg
t
Wg
t
s
$/
M
M
B
t
u
Fi
x
e
d
Vo
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
Fu
e
l
G
a
s
-
2
.
0
1
%
$/M
M
B
t
u
$/
M
M
B
T
u
$/
M
M
B
t
u
20
0
7
$
6
.
8
6
14
%
$
7
.
5
4
29
%
$
7
.
5
0
2
9
%
$
8
.
4
8
14
%
$
8
.
6
9
14
%
10
0
%
$
7.
7
2
$
0.3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
6
$
8.
2
9
$
(0
.
4
8
)
$
8.
2
0
20
0
8
$
6
.
9
4
14
%
$
7
.
6
9
29
%
$
7
.
6
5
2
9
%
$
8
.
1
2
14
%
$
9
.
2
4
14
%
10
0
%
$
7.
8
5
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
6
$
8.
4
2
$
(0
.
3
1
)
$
8.
1
6
20
0
9
$
6
.
7
4
14
%
$
8
.
1
5
29
%
$
7
.
9
9
2
9
%
$
7
.
5
2
14
%
$
8
.
8
9
14
%
10
0
%
$
7.
9
2
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
6
$
8.
4
9
$
(0
.
2
3
)
$
8.
1
5
20
1
0
$
6
.
7
4
14
%
$
8
.
6
3
29
%
$
8
.
6
7
2
9
%
$
7
.
2
6
14
%
$
8
.
2
9
14
%
10
0
%
$
8.
1
4
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
6
$
8.
7
1
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
8.
3
9
20
1
1
$
6
.
7
4
14
%
$
9
.
4
3
29
%
$
9
.
4
2
2
9
%
$
6
.
8
14
%
$
8
.
0
6
14
%
10
0
%
$
8.
5
0
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
7
$
9.
0
8
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
8.
7
5
20
1
2
$
7
.
0
8
54
%
$
6
.
6
9
23
%
$
7
.
8
5
23
%
10
0
%
$
7.
1
7
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
4
$
7.
7
2
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
7.
4
2
20
1
3
$
7
.
2
7
54
%
$
6
.
7
4
23
%
$
7
.
6
4
23
%
10
0
%
$
7.
2
3
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
5
$
7.
7
9
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
7.
4
8
20
1
4
$
7
.
4
2
54
%
$
6
.
6
5
23
%
$
7
.
4
3
23
%
10
0
"
1
.
$
7.
2
5
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
5
$
7.
8
0
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
7.
5
0
20
1
5
$
7
.
7
3
54
%
$
6
.
4
1
23
%
$
7
.
2
3
23
%
10
0
%
$
7.
3
1
$
0.3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
5
$
7.
8
7
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
7.
5
6
20
1
6
$
7
.
9
0
54
%
$
6
.
3
5
23
%
$
7
.
2
4
23
%
10
0
%
$
7.
3
9
$
0.
3
7
9
8
$
0.
0
3
0
0
$
0.
1
5
$
7.
9
5
$
(0
.
2
5
)
$
7.
6
4
AV
E
R
A
G
E
20
0
7
t
o
2
0
1
6
$
7
.
1
4
1$
8
.
2
9
1$
8
.
2
5
1
$
7
.
1
1
1$
8
.
0
6
I
I
1$
7.
6
5
1
1
I
I
1$
(0
.
2
8
)
1
$
7.
9
3
$
(
0
.
2
8
)
$
(
0
.
2
8
)
$
(
0
.
2
8
)
$
(
0
.
2
8
)
$(
0
.
2
8
)
$
7
.
4
2
HH
$
8
.
5
6
HH
$
8
.
5
2
H
H
$
7
.
3
9
HH
$
8
.
3
3
HH
..
:
:
n
t
n
t:
.
r
i
;
"
..
C
/
t
i
t
:
0.
.
(
1
_
.
__
(
1
Z
c
T
o
:
:
:
:
.
..
5
'
~
Z
(J
-
0
~
'
"
.
C/
n
.
.
..
1
0
ri
t
n
0
\
t:
i
o..i00
Hi
g
h
:
$
7
.
9
3
Lo
w
:
$
7
.
9
3
x x
1.
6
0.
7
4
$
7.
9
3
$
2.
0
5
25
.
8
6
%
$
9.
9
9
$
5.
8
7
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
c
t
u
a
l
p
r
i
c
e
s
a
t
S
u
m
a
s
f
r
o
m
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
0
1
t
o
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
6
:
IP
C
o
G
a
s
P
r
i
c
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
.
x
l
s
G
a
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
2
Ò
0
7
-
:
;
n
t
r
~.
p
:
x
_e
n
V
l
~
o
.
-
(
1
.
.
.
o
~
z
g
:
-.
:
:
0
.
-
t:
.
Z
'"
(
J
.
-
p:
~
'
"
~
(J
e
n
n
-
(1
S
-
'
O
_~
~
-
.
o
0
H-
-
.
tv
0
0
Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
G
a
s
P
r
i
c
e
s
a
t
S
u
m
a
s
Ma
y
2
0
0
1
.
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
6
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
O
R
.
W
A
.
I
D
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$1
4
$1
2
..
$
1
0
~
$
8
:I
$
6
CI
$
4
$2 $0
0.
0
0
1.
0
0
1.2
0
1.
4
0
1.6
0
0.2
0
0.4
0
0.
6
0
0.
8
0
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
I
d
a
h
o
S
o
u
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$1
4
$1
2
$1
0
..~
$
8
:I
$
6
CI
$
4
$2 $0
0.
0
0
0
.
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
.
6
0
0
.
8
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
l
A
O
1
.
6
0
1
.
8
0
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$1
4
$1
2
$1
0
..~
$
8
:I
$
6
CI
$
4
$2 $0
0.0
0
0.
2
0
1.2
0
lA
O
00
4
0
0.
6
0
0
.
8
0
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1.
0
0
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
H
e
l
l
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$1
4
$1
2
$1
0
.~
$
8
Do :I
$
6
CI
$
4
$2 $0
om
O
~
O
M
o
æ
o
æ
1
m
1
~
1
~
i
æ
i
æ
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
R
u
n
o
f
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$1
4
$1
2
$1
0
..~
$
8
:I
$
6
CI
$
4
$2 $0
0.
0
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
6
0
0
.
8
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
l
A
O
1
.
6
0
1
.
8
0
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
P
r
i
c
e
v
s
.
M
o
n
t
a
n
a
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
~4 ~2 ~o
..~
$
8
:I
$
8
CI
$
4
~~om
0.
5
0
1.
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1.
5
0
2.0
0
.c~i:
~c
CDi:
1i
CI
~.C
Do
:3
C)
"CCca
CIc.2~~o"C N
g ~O~
'- CICD (,- CIca Q3: ~_0ClOCDN~~
1: OIoz~
~o:Ec
lai
CIco
¡
~oo
co:;:scoo
jc
~1\o
!!
Gi::
~
l!.¡:
i:
:3o
~
iE
~
~
c
~ ~
gu
â I
gci
o~ci
~o
g(Ø~No~~ZÇ~~ci; ~ ~ l;
ealJd SlIÐ
co:;:scoo
jc
~
alo
~
8-¡:i:
:3o
iE
o"'
~
iE
g¡a
~ !ci u
I
~o
~o
¡¡ci
oqco ~ N 0 ro co ~. NO 0~",~'llllllßlllßfh ll.M- ll
e~IJd SlIÐ
co:;:scoo
j..
.~~Õc::~
~
l!.¡:i:
:3o
~
iE
~
~
c
~ ~
'goU
g Š
ci ~
iEo
~o
¡¡ci
g~~~~m.~~~~cill ll ll ll
ealJd SlIÐ
c.2:!"0Coo...!
~
;¡::o
U)o.c
~
~
l!.¡:i:
:3o
~~
iE~
~~
~~
c
~ ~i:
gU
~ Šo ~
gci
o~ci
¡¡ci
g~~~S!~~~~~cill ll ll tl
ealJd SlÐ
gN
coE"0Coo..
i
ll
~o::
~
l!.¡:i:
:3o
:¡ci
:a~
~
'g~ 0u
I
g~~~~~~Zl~..~olR ll ll ll
ealJd SlIÐ
~
c.2:!"0Coo
j
1\:a
E::Õo.c
¡
~
l!.¡:i:
:3o
¡¡ci
~
iE~
ai cci ~
'goU
g j
ci ""
~ci
g(OVNOrocoVNOO'l'l..'rlllRlllRllll ll tl ti
ealJdslIg
Exhibit No. 107
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
R. Sterling, Staff
12/10/07 Page 2 of2
Summary of Net Power Supply Cost Adjustments to Specific Accounts
Account Description IPCo Proposal Staff Proposal Adjustment
447 System Opportunity Sales $142,883,600 $142,875,579 $8,021
System Opp. Sales Trans & Wheeling Revenue $6,426,777 $6,426,777 $
Subtotal $149,310,377 $149,302,356 $8,021
501 Fuel (Coal)$(119,484,800)$(119,480,735)$(4,065)
547 Fuel (Gas)$(7,085,900) $(6,416,597) $(669,303)
555.1 Purchased Power $(57,283,900) $(51,942,918) $(5,340,982)
Purchased Power Trans & Wheeling Cost $(1,270,606) $(1,270,606) $
Subtotal $(58,554,506) $(53,213,524) $(5,340,982)
Total Net Power Supply Cost (excluding Trans & Wheeling)$(40,971,000) $(34,964,671) $(6,006,329)
Exhibit No, 108
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
R. Sterling, Staff
12/10/07
Scenari 1
2007 NORMALIZED NET POWER SUPPLY COSTS Scenario 2; DOE AEO Avg Gas 2007$; Every Hour; Every Day; Every Weel
Thennal Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,346,837
Hydro Generation (MWh)6,179,840
Combustion Turbine (MWh)82,639
Total Market Purcases (MWh)921,242
Total Market Sales (MWh)981,35
Total Thennal Unit Fuel Costs ($000).1/126,58
Total Market Purchases ($000)77,861 $84.52
Total Market Sales ($000)50,896 $51.86
Net Pow~ Suonlv Costs 1$000\153513
Brer, Boarman. Valmy, Danskln, Bennett Mt
Scenario 2
Therml Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,328,182
Hydro Genertion (MWh)7,615,503
Combustion Turbine (MWh)57,396
Total Market Purchases (MWh)538,198
Total Market Sales (MWh)1,989,883
Total Thennal Unit Fuel Costs ($000)"124,320
Total Market Purcases ($000)42,796 $79.52
Total Market Sales ($000)102,880 $51.0
Net Power Suoolv Costs 1$0001 64236
Brer. Boarman. Valmy, Dakin, Bennett Mt
Scenario 3
Therml Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,316,972
Hydro Genertion (MWh)8,618,509
Combustion Turbine (MWh)42,852
Total Market Purcases (MWh)304,535
Total Market Sales (MWh)2,733,316
Total Thennal Unit Fuel Costs ($000).122,981
Total Market Purchases ($000)23,365 $76.72
Total Market Sales ($000)141,234 $51.67
Net Power Sunnlv Costs 1$0001 5,112
Brger. Boarman. Valmy, Danski, Benett Mt
Scenario 4
Thennal Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,290,572
Hydr Generation (MW)9,950,676
Combustion Turbine (MWh)35,501
Total Market Purchases (MWh)182,796
Total Market Sales (MWh)3,909,803
Total Therml Unit Fuel Costs ($000).121,969
Total Market Purchases ($000)14,021 $76.70
Total Market Sales ($000)193,910 $49.60
Net Pow~ Sunnlv Costs i$OOO\157,9201
Brger. Boman. Valmy, Danskin, Bennett Mt
ScenarioS
Thennal Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,213,469
Hydro Generation (MWh)11,609,792
Combustion Turbine (MW)18,200
Total Market Purchase (MWh)45,777
Total Market Sales (MWh)5,337,060
Total Therml Unit Fuel Costs ($000)"119,338
Total Market Purcases ($000)3,200 $69.91
Total Market Sales ($000)247,967 $46.46
Net Power Suoolv Cots 1$0001 1125,4291
Br, Boarman, Valmy, Dann. Bennett Mt
AVERAGE OF ALL YEARS
Thennal Generation (MWh) (Br, Bo, V)7,301,247
Hydro Generation (MWh)8,748,180 998.7
Combustion Turbine (MW)47,390
Total Market Purchase (MWh)403,134
Total Market Sales (MW)2,950,346
Total Thennal Unit Fuel Costs ($000).123,071
Total Market Purcases ($000)32,644 $80.97
Total Market Sales ($000)145,826 $49.43
Net Power Suoolv Costs ($0001 9888
Brer,Boardman,Valmy,Dann(excl fixed) Danskin-Fixedand Benntt Mountain PPL11 Exud Dankin Fix Wheeling
AvgNPSC
2,840
19,230
2,950
34,909
10/1012007 4:07 PM
007 Noralized Thennal Out ut MW
im Bridger 5,056,012almy 1 ,857,497
433,328
5,343
nett Mt 77,296
7 Normlized Cost $000
1m Bridger 73,364Valmy 40,915Boardman 6,014Danskin 451Bennett Mt 5,804
2007 Nonnalized Thennal Outout IMWh
Jim Bridger 5,055,557
Valmy 1,849,467
Boardman 431,012
Danskin 3,463
Bennett Mt 54,209
2007 Nonnalized Cost $000
Jim Bridger 73,358
Valmy 40,752
Boardman 5,986
Danskin 11 293
BennettMt 4,083
2007 Normlized Thennal Out ut MWh
Jim Bridger 5,053,280Valmy 1,835,518Boardman 428,175Danskin 2,577Bennett Mt 40,275
2007 Normlized Cost $000
Jim Bridger 73,325
40,421
5,933
214
2,966
2007 Normlized Therml Output (MWh)
Jim Bridger 5,051,003
Valmy 1,818,266
Boardman 421,304
Danskin 2,116
BennettMt 33385
2007 Nonnalized Cost ($0001
Jim Bridger 73,292
Valmy 40,121
Bordman 5,865
Danskin 1/179
Bennett Mt 2,512
2007 Nonnalized Thennal Outnut MWh
Jim Bridger 5,042,897
Valmy 1,775,050
Bordman 395,523
Danskin 748
Bennett Mt 17,452
2007 Nonnalized Cost 1$000
Jim Bridger 73,174
almy 39,246
Boardman 5,538
Danskin 11 63
BennettMl 1,317
112007 Norlized Thennal Outout (MWh
im Bridger 5,051,862
"almy 1,827,301
Bordman 422,085
Danskin 2,859
Bennett Mt 44,531
2007 Noralized Cost $000
Jim Bridger 73,304
Valmy 40,30
Boardman 5,873
Danskin 1/242
Bennett Mt 3,348
~
577
212
49
1
9
$/MWh
$14.51
$22.03
$13.88
$84.45
$75.08
aMW
577
211
49
o
6
$/MWh
$14.51
$22.03
$13.89
$84.56
$75.33~
577
210
49
o
5
$/MWh
$14.51
$22.02
$13.86
$82.98
$73.66
aMW
577
208
48
o
4~
$14.51
$22.07
$13.92
$84.66
$75.25~
576
203
45
o
2
$/MWh
$14.51
$22.11
$14.00
$84.85
$75.45
aMW
577
209
48
o
5
$/MWh
$14.51
$22.06
$13.91
$84.56
$75.19
Exhibit No. 109
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
R. Sterling, Staff
12/1 0/07 Page 1 of 2
IP
C
O
P
O
W
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
C
O
S
T
S
F
O
R
2
0
0
7
N
O
R
M
A
L
I
Z
E
D
L
O
A
D
S
O
V
E
R
7
9
W
A
T
E
R
Y
E
C
O
N
D
I
T
O
N
S
SU
B
S
E
Q
U
E
N
T
T
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
O
F
2
0
0
7
P
U
R
P
A
A
N
D
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
S
AV
E
R
A
G
E
DO
E
A
E
O
A
v
g
G
a
s
2
0
0
7
$
;
E
v
e
r
y
H
o
u
r
;
E
v
e
r
D
a
y
;
E
v
e
r
y
W
e
e
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
a
r
y
MG
&i
~
Ju
n
e
Jl
Au
g
u
s
t
~
Oc
t
b
e
No
v
e
m
b
e
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
An
n
u
a
l
Hy
d
r
o
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
W
h
)
74
4
,
4
7
6
.
6
86
1
,
5
6
0
.
3
87
3
,
1
0
4
.
2
88
,
3
4
8
.
88
,
5
3
9
.
4
84
6
,
7
0
1
.
3
72
8
,
2
9
.
1
68
7
,
5
9
3
.
1
58
0
,
3
0
9
.
5
53
1
,
8
5
.
7
47
9
,
3
4
4
.
3
69
8
,
0
4
8
.
6
8,
7
4
8
,
1
7
9
.
7
Br
t
d
g
e
r
En
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
45
1
,
6
8
9
.
8
40
7
,
9
7
7
.
9
38
9
,
7
8
4
.
6
32
7
,
8
3
9
.
4
36
0
,
6
2
3
.
3
43
2
,
9
8
9
.
0
45
1
,
6
8
9
.
8
45
1
,
6
8
9
.
8
43
7
,
1
1
9
.
2
45
1
,
6
8
9
.
8
43
7
,
1
1
9
.
2
45
1
,
6
8
9
.
8
5,
0
5
1
,
8
6
1
.
6
Co
l
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
6,
5
5
.
2
$
5,
9
1
9
.
9
$
5,
8
5
5
.
6
$
4,
7
5
7
.
1
$
5,
2
3
2
.
8
$
6,2
8
2
.
5
$
6,
5
5
4
.
2
$
6,
5
5
4
.
2
$
8,
3
4
2
.
7
$
6,
5
5
.
2
$
6,
3
4
2
.
7
$
6,
5
5
4
.
2
$
73
,
3
0
4
.
1
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
En
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
38
,
7
8
4
.
2
35
,
2
1
8
.
8
39
,
6
1
1
.
1
24
,
7
3
7
.
1
11
,
7
0
1
.
2
27
,
5
9
5
.
4
40
,
3
8
1
.
5
41
,
3
0
4
.
3
39
,
8
3
7
.
9
41
,
3
3
7
.
1
40
,
1
0
2
.
6
41
,
4
9
3
.
5
42
2
,
0
8
4
.
7
Co
s
t
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
54
.
2
$
49
0
.
6
$
55
0
.
7
$
34
.
3
$
18
6
.
7
$
39
7
.
8
$
56
0
.
0
$
57
1
.
2
$
55
1
.
1
$
57
1
.
6
$
55
.
3
$
57
3
.
5
$
5,
8
7
3
.
0
Va
l
m
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
16
3
,
2
0
9
.
4
14
8
,
1
1
2
.
9
16
1
,
1
1
1
.
1
72
,
4
8
7
.
8
12
3
,
5
0
8
.
1
14
7
,
8
4
9
.
0
16
9
,
8
6
.
0
17
0
,
4
2
9
.
7
16
3
,
4
5
0
.
5
17
0
,
3
4
3
.
1
18
5
,
6
7
5
.
4
17
1
,
4
6
2
.
0
1,8
2
7
,
3
0
.
9
Co
l
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
3,
6
0
.
8
$
3,
2
8
9
.
2
$
3,
5
5
8
.
4
$
1,
6
0
.
9
$
2,
7
3
5
.
8
$
3,2
8
3
.
1
$
3,
7
3
4
.
4
$
3,
7
5
0
.
0
$
3,
5
9
9
.
0
$
3,
7
4
8
.
2
$
3,6
4
.
1
$
3,
7
7
0
.
9
$
40
,
3
0
3
.
7
Da
n
s
k
l
n
En
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
0.
0
0.
1
18
.
7
1,4
9
7
.
3
1,2
9
3
.
6
46
.
5
0.1
2.1
2.
5
2,
8
5
8
.
9
Co
t
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
$
$
$
0.
0
$
0.
0
$
1.
4
$
12
5
.
7
$
11
0
.
3
$
4.
0
$
0.
0
$
0.
2
$
0.
3
$
24
1
.
8
Fi
x
e
d
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
g
e
-
G
a
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
t
i
n
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
22
0
.
8
$
22
0
.
8
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
2,
8
2
6
.
5
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
$
22
0
.
8
$
22
0
.
8
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
5
.
8
$
36
6
.
9
$
35
1
.
5
$
23
8
.
4
$
24
1
.
2
$
23
4
.
6
$
24
1
.
5
$
3,
0
6
.
3
Be
n
n
t
t
M
o
u
n
t
i
n
En
e
(
M
W
h
)
17
.
0
9.4
22
7
.
2
53
.
6
76
6
.
8
19
,
1
0
6
.
9
17
,
3
3
1
.
0
4,2
1
7
.
7
84
.
1
1,
2
6
9
.
8
88
.
4
44
,
5
3
1
.
1
Co
t
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
$
1.
4
$
0.
7
$
16
.
0
$
3.
8
$
55
.
1
$
1,
4
1
1
.
7
$
1,
3
0
0
.
4
$
31
9
.
2
$
50
.
0
$
10
8
.
7
$
81
.
3
$
3,
3
4
8
.
3
Fi
x
e
d
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
g
e
-
G
a
s
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
t
i
o
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
$
$
1.
4
$
0.
7
$
16
.
0
$
3.
8
$
55
.
1
$
1,
4
1
1
.
7
$
1,
3
0
0
.
4
$
31
9
.
2
$
50
.
0
$
10
8
.
7
$
81
.
3
$
3,
3
4
8
.
3
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
P
o
w
e
r
(
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
C
S
P
P
)
Ma
r
k
e
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
21
,
3
3
9
.
2
2,8
5
3
.
6
98
.
4
5,
9
8
1
.
6
20
,
3
9
6
.
1
35
,
7
0
8
.
4
11
4
,
7
7
5
.
3
60
,
2
3
3
.
3
40
,
7
2
1
.
5
5,
3
9
5
.
0
50
,
5
9
2
.
4
44
,
3
4
9
.
0
40
3
,
1
3
3
.
8
Co
n
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
25
,
4
4
5
.
2
22
,
7
7
0
.
8
25
,
8
5
2
.
5
25
,
2
4
3
.
7
22
,
2
5
1
.
8
60
,
3
3
4
.
8
82
,
2
4
7
.
7
59
,
3
6
1
.
3
20
,
8
7
2
.
0
26
,
0
4
7
.
0
23
,
5
8
7
.
8
32
,
8
2
9
.
1
40
6
,
8
4
3
.
9
To
t
a
l
E
n
e
r
g
y
E
x
c
l
.
C
S
P
P
(
M
W
h
)
46
,
7
8
4
.
4
25
,
4
2
4
.
4
26
,
8
4
0
.
9
31
,
2
2
5
.
3
42
,
8
4
7
.
9
96
,
0
4
3
.
3
17
7
,
0
2
3
.
0
11
9
,
5
9
4
.
6
61
,
5
9
3
.
5
31
,
4
4
2
.
1
74
,
1
6
0
.
2
77
,
1
7
8
.
1
80
,
9
7
7
.
7
Ma
r
e
t
C
o
s
t
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
95
1
.
4
$
18
1
.
9
$
84
.
2
$
35
9
.
2
$
1,
2
8
1
.
8
$
2,3
1
6
.
6
$
10
,
2
4
7
.
9
$
5,
6
2
2
.
7
$
3,1
6
7
.
0
$
42
2
.
1
$
4,2
2
7
.
9
$
3,
8
2
0
.
8
$
32
,
8
4
3
.
5
Co
n
t
c
t
C
o
s
t
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
1,2
2
1
.
4
$
1,0
9
3
.
0
$
91
2
.
1
$
89
0
.
8
$
78
5
.
0
$
2,7
7
9
.
6
$
3,
1
4
9
.
5
$
2,
9
8
.
5
$
1,0
0
1
.
9
$
1,
2
0
.
3
$
1,
3
5
8
.
7
$
1,
8
9
1
.
0
$
19
,
2
9
9
.
4
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
E
x
c
l
.
C
S
P
P
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
2,
1
7
2
.
8
$
1,
2
5
.
9
$
97
6
.
3
$
1,
2
4
9
.
8
$
2,
0
6
.
9
$
5,
0
9
.
2
$
13
,
3
9
7
.
4
$
8,
5
8
9
.
2
$
4,
1
6
8
.
9
$
1,
6
7
2
.
4
$
5,
5
8
6
.
5
$
5,
7
1
1
.
$
51
,
9
4
2
.
9
1
8
Su
r
p
l
u
s
S
a
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
22
9
,
8
6
9
.
1
40
8
,
6
0
.
1
48
0
,
3
2
2
.
7
36
7
,
8
7
8
.
1
34
6
,
8
2
1
.
1
29
3
,
4
1
7
.
2
45
,
7
6
6
.
3
55
,
4
8
4
.
9
16
6
,
4
8
9
.
2
22
8
,
9
4
5
.
2
13
4
,
9
5
2
.
1
19
1
,
5
9
2
.
0
2,
9
5
0
,
3
4
6
.
1
Re
v
e
n
u
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
8,9
2
8
.
3
$
21
,
0
0
1
.
6
$
23
,
4
2
0
.
9
$
1
7
,
3
6
1
.
9
$
1
4
,
8
8
.
4
$
10
,
8
5
8
.
0
$
2,
8
4
1
.
1
$
3,
7
7
8
.
8
$
9,
5
7
3
.
8
$
1
2
,
7
3
7
.
4
$
7,
5
1
8
.
3
$
12
,
9
2
1
.
4
$
14
5
,
8
2
5
.
9
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
22
9
.
9
$
40
8
.
8
$
48
0
.
3
$
36
7
.
9
$
34
6
.
$
29
.
4
$
45
.
8
$
55
.
5
$
18
6
.
5
$
22
8
.
9
$
13
5
.
$
19
1
.
6
$
2
,
9
5
0
.
3
Re
v
u
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
t
s
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
8,6
9
8
.
4
$
20
,
5
9
2
.
8
$
22
,
9
4
0
.
6
$
1
8
,
9
9
.
1
$
1
4
,
5
3
9
.
5
$
10
,
5
8
4
.
8
$
2,
7
9
5
.
3
$
3,
7
2
1
.
3
$
9,
4
0
7
.
3
$
1
2
,
5
0
8
.
5
$
7,
3
8
3
.
4
$
12
,
7
2
9
.
9
$
1
4
2
,
8
7
5
.
5
7
9
Ne
t
P
o
w
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
x
1
0
0
)
$
4,
3
9
3
.
4
$
(9
,
4
3
6
.
0
)
$
(1
1
,
9
5
9
.
7
)
$
(8
,
7
8
2
.
7
)
$
(4
,
0
9
2
.
5
)
$
4,7
8
5
.
8
$
23
,
2
2
.
3
$
17
,
3
9
5
.
1
$
5,8
1
2
.
1
$
32
9
.
1
$
9,
0
8
7
.
6
$
4,
2
0
3
.
2
$
34
,
9
8
.
7
To
t
a
l
E
n
e
r
g
y
(
M
W
h
)
1,
2
1
5
,
0
3
5
.
5
1,0
6
9
,
5
0
3
.
3
1,0
1
0
,
1
1
8
.
5
95
6
,
9
8
7
.
1
1,
0
8
,
2
5
2
.
5
1,
2
5
8
,
5
2
4
.
2
1,
5
4
1
,
8
9
3
.
2
1,4
3
3
,
7
5
1
.
2
1,
1
0
0
,
1
0
5
.
7
99
,
3
8
4
.
8
1,0
8
2
,
7
4
1
.
5
1,2
4
9
,
1
7
1
.
0
13
,
9
5
6
,
4
4
8
.
5
Th
e
m
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
W
h
)
(
B
r
,
B
o
,
V
)
7,3
0
1
,
2
4
7
Jim
Br
t
d
g
r
5,0
5
1
,
8
6
2
Hy
d
r
o
G
e
n
e
r
a
o
n
(
M
W
h
)
8,7
4
8
,
1
8
0
Va
l
m
y
1,8
2
7
,
3
0
1
Co
m
b
u
s
t
i
n
T
u
r
b
n
e
(
M
W
h
)
47
,
3
9
0
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
42
2
,
0
8
..
:
:
n
t
r
To
t
a
M
a
r
e
t
P
u
r
c
a
s
e
s
(
M
W
h
)
40
3
,
1
3
4
Da
n
s
k
i
n
2,8
5
9
To
t
a
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
a
l
e
s
(
M
W
h
)
2,9
5
0
,
3
4
8
Be
n
n
M
t
44
,
5
3
1
tv
.
~
&
To
t
a
l
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
U
n
i
t
F
u
e
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
0
)
12
3
,
0
7
1
20
0
3
N
o
r
m
l
i
z
e
d
C
o
s
t
(
$
0
0
)
~
C
I
r
t
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
P
u
r
c
l
e
s
(
$
0
0
)
32
,
6
4
Jim
Br
t
d
g
e
r
73
,
3
0
4
0.
.
c
r
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
a
t
e
s
(
$
0
0
)
14
5
,
8
2
6
Va
l
m
y
40
,
3
0
4
-~
Z
.
.
.
Ne
t
P
o
w
e
r
5
0
I
C
o
s
t
s
$
0
0
9,
8
8
8
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
5,8
7
3
0_
.
.
Oa
n
s
k
i
n
..
S
.
~
Z
24
2
Be
n
n
e
t
t
M
t
3,
3
4
'i
g
q
-
0
'i
.
rl
C
I
n
.
.
(l
S
'
i
0
tv
H
'
t
r
\
0
HI
i
o
0
..
~
tv
00
Summary Comparison of Net Power Supply Costs
Idaho Power Case Staff Case
NPSC PURPA Total NPSC PURPA Total
Scenario 1 Before 88 MW New PURPA and Horizon $ 91.8 $ 52.4 $144.2 $ 99.2 $ 52.4 $151.6
Scenario 2 After 88 MW New PURPA and Horizon $ 41.0 $ 93.1 $134.1 $ 34.9 $ 93.1 $128.0
Difference $ 10.1 $ 23.6
2005 Normalized Adopted Costs $ 47.2 $ 54.6 $101.8
All costs shown are in milion $
Exhibit No. 110
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
R. Sterling, Staff
12/10/07
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
A
U
R
O
R
A
N
e
t
P
o
w
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
C
o
s
t
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Av
g
M
a
r
k
e
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
P
r
i
c
e
(
$
/
M
W
h
)
Av
g
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
e
(
$
/
M
W
h
)
Ru
n
10
Ru
n
Y
e
a
r
i
AV
E
R
A
G
E
O
F
A
L
L
Y
E
A
R
S
Th
e
r
m
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
W
h
)
(
B
r
,
B
o
,
V
)
Hy
d
r
o
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
W
h
)
Co
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
T
u
r
b
i
n
e
(
M
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
(
M
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
a
l
e
s
(
M
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
U
n
i
t
F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
0
0
0
)
*
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
(
$
0
0
0
)
To
t
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
a
l
e
s
(
$
0
0
0
)
Ne
t
P
o
w
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
0
0
0
)
*
B
r
i
d
g
e
r
,
B
o
a
r
d
m
a
n
,
V
a
l
m
y
,
D
a
n
s
k
i
n
(
e
x
c
l
f
i
x
e
d
)
an
d
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
1/
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
D
a
n
s
k
i
n
F
i
x
e
d
Da
n
s
k
i
n
-
F
i
x
e
d
PP
L
Wh
e
e
l
i
n
g
Av
g
N
P
S
C
..
:
:
(
'
t
r
~.
~
;
.
..
c
.
e
n
t
¡
0.
.
(
D
_
.
I
__
(
D
Z
c
r
o
:
:
:
=
-
..
_
.
0
tl
'
Z
gc
~
?
c.
(
'
.
.
I
..
i
'
~
t
r
.
.
tt
I
.
.
o..i00
ST
A
F
F
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2007,
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICK STERLING, IN CASE
NO. IPC-E-07-8, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
BARTON L KLINE
LISA D NORDSTROM
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
EMAIL: bkline(fidahopower.com
1 nordstrom(fidahopower. com
PETER J RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY
PO BOX 7218
BOISE ID 83702
EMAIL: peter(frichardsonando1ear.com
ERICL OLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE & BAILEY
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204
EMAIL: e1o(fracine1aw.net
MICHAEL L KURTZ ESQ
KURT J BOEHM ESQ
BOEHM KURTZ & LOWRY
36 E 7TH ST SUITE 1510
CINCINATI OH 45202
EMAIL: mkurtz(fBKLlawfri.com
kboehm(fBKL1awfiri.com.
DENNIS E PESEAU PH.D.
UTILITY RESOURCES INC
1500 LIBERTY ST SUITE 250
SALEM OR 97302
EMAIL: dpeseau(fexcite.com
JOHNRGALE
VP-REGULATORY AFFAIRS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
EMAIL: rga1e(fidahopower.com
DR DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE ID 83703
EMAIL: dreading(fmindspring.com
ANTHONY YANKEL
29814 LAKE ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
EMAIL: tony(fyanel.net
CONLEY E WARD
MICHAEL C CREAMER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
PO BOX 2720
BOISE ID 83701-2720
EMAIL: cew(fgivenspurs1ey.com
LOT H COOKE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW
WASHINGTON DC 20585
EMAIL: 1ot.cooke(fhq.doe.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DALE SWAN
EXETER ASSOCIATES INC
5565 STERRTT PL SUITE 310
COLUMBIA MD 21044
EMAIL: dswanêexeterassociates.com
(ELECTRONIC COPIES ONLY)
Dennis Goins
E-Mail: dgoinspmgêcox.net
Arhur Perr Bruder
E-Mail: arhur.blÙderêhq.doe.gov
~~2b.\(~
SEC ARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE