20071210Vaughn direct.pdf

BEFORE THE E
Zûfi DEC 10 PK 3: 36
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION)AHO
UTILitIEs
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS ~TES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE )
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO. )
)
)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CECIL Y VAUGHN
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 Cecily Vaughn. My business address is
4 472 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 (Commission) as an auditor in the Utilities
8 Division.
9 Q.What is your educational and experience
10 background?
11 A.I graduated from Washington State University in
12 1974 with a Bachelors of Science degree in Veterinary
13 Science i I received my degree as a Doctor of Veterinary
14 Medicine at the same time. I practiced as a veterinarian in
15 the State of Washington until approximately 1987. From 1993
16 until 1996 I attended the College of Business and Economics
17 at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
18 From 1996 until 1997 I studied at the College of Business at
19 Boise State University with an emphasis in accounting. I
20 passed the Uniform CPA exam in the fall of 1997 i I am
21 currently a licensed CPA in the State of Idaho.
22 I was employed as a financial analyst by Hewlett
23 Packard from 1998 until 2000. In this position I provided
24 sole financial support for the HP test lab located in Boise,
25 a cost center with an annual budget in excess of $50
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 1Staff
1 Million. I was solely responsible for coordinating the
2 semi-annual budgeting process, for developing and
3 implementing the allocation system used to distribute costs
4 to multiple profit centers, and for ensuring that costs
5 incurred were appropriate and met budgetary goals. During
6 this time I also served as inventory analyst for the
7 Personal LaserJet Division, a $2 Billion per year profit
S center. In this role I was responsible for accurate
9 valuation of worldwide inventory and for removal of
10 intracorporate profit included in inventory value.
11 From 2000 until 2003 I was employed as Grants
12 Accountant (Financial Specialist) for the Center for
13 Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface at Boise
14 State Uni versi ty i I was promoted to Senior Financial
15 Specialist in 2002. In this role I was responsible for all
16 aspects of grant accounting for the Center, including
17 budgeting, submission, and ensuring that grant funds were
1S expended and accounted for in accordance with funding agency
19 regulations. I also assisted in the preparation of the BSU
20 F&A (Facilities and Administration) request used to set the
21 overhead rate applied to all Federal Grants awarded the
22 University.
23 I have been employed by the Commission as an
24 auditor since June 2007. I attended the annual regulatory
25 studies program sponsored by the National Association of
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-SDate Vaughn~ C. (Di) 2Staff
1 Regulatory Utili ties Commissioners (NARUC) at Michigan State
2 University in August of 2007.
3 Q.How do Staff's recommendations compare with the
4 general rate case filed by Idaho Power Company?
5 A.Idaho Power Company filed a 2007 forecast
6 (budgeted) test year for this rate case. Staff used an
7 historical test year ending June 30, 2007, with proformed or
S annualized adjustments to revenues and expenses through
9 December 31, 2007 in order to better meet the known and
10 measurable standard required for ratemaking. Therefore, all
11 adjustments made by Staff in the areas I personally reviewed
12 were adjustments made to the actual income statement ending
13 balance of each account for the period ending June 30, 2007.
14 Q.Would you please summarize Staff's recommendations
15 in those areas of the rate case that you personally
16 reviewed?
17 A.Staff's recommendations in the areas I personally
1S reviewed with the effect on Staff's proposed revenue
19 requirement are as follows:
20 (1) Per IPUC Order No. 301S9, DSM Rider Energy
21 Efficiency Tariff Rider revenue and
22 expenses are removed from Idaho Power
23 Company income statement for ratemaking
24 purposes. These adjustments are equal and
25 offsetting, thus resulting in no net effect
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-SDate Vaughn, C. (Di) 3Staff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on revenue requirement.
(2) Per IPUC Order Nos. 30035, 30215, and
30267, intervenor funding from these cases
was to be included in the next general rate
case filed by Idaho Power. To prevent over-
recovery of these expenses in rates, Staff
recommends that the intervenor funding be
amortized over two years, increasing Staff's
proposed annual revenue requirement by
$25,325.
(3) Idaho Power Company proposed using a 2007
forecast (budgeted) test year for this rate
case. It is Staff's position that using
the July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 test year
with proformed or annualized adjustments to
revenues and expenses through December 31,
2007 better meets the known and measurable
standard required for ratemaking. Staff
recommends annualizing adjustments to Grid
West amortization, park revenue, and
property insurance. The sum of these
adjustments increases Staff's proposed
revenue requirement by $9,920.
(4) As a result of a series of FERC settlements
related to the 2003 billing, Idaho Power
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 4Staff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Company received a credit in the amount of
$3,266,010. This credit was booked during
Staff's proposed test year, thus reducing
Company regulatory expenses. Staff
recommends amortizing this credit over five
years, resulting in an increase in Staff's
proposed revenue requirement of $2,612,808.
(5) The FERC billing for the period ending
September 2007 was annualized to the July
1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 test year. This
resulted in an adjustment and an associated
increase in revenue requirement of
$272,207.
(6) Based on an audit of Accounts Payable One
Card (Purchase Card or P-card) expenditures,
Staff recommends reducing the test year
expenses and revenue requirement by $879,887
to remove expenditures for gifts, parties,
and other items that do not benefit the
customer.
23
22 of each of Staff's recommendations was determined?
Q.Please explain how the revenue requirement effect
A.I determined what accounts in the rate case that
24 would be changed by each adjustment, and then determined the
25 effect on revenue requirement resulting from each
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 5Staff
1 adjustment. Due to the various usage patterns for P-cards,
2 the adjustment was spread ratably to the miscellaneous
3 expense accounts in the Jurisdictional Allocation Model.
4 Q.Did you review other areas that do not have an
5 affect on the revenue requirement?
6 A.Yes, there were other aspects of revenue and
7 expense that I reviewed that did not affect the revenue
S requirement. They are as follows: (1) uncollectibles,
9 inj uries and damages, (3) lease payments and rents, (4)
(2 )
10 materials and supplies, (5) advertising, dues, and donations
11 recorded in account 930, (6) abandoned proj ects, and (7)
12 extraordinary expenses.
13 Q.Are you sponsoring any Exhibi ts?
14 A.Yes, i will be sponsoring Exhibits Nos. 101 and
15 102.
16 Q.Will you please describe Exhibit No. 101?
Exhibit No. 101 consists of 1 page and lists a17A.
1S series of nine miscellaneous and/or annualizing adjustments.
19 There are seven numbered columns shown on Exhibit
20 No. 101: Column 1 shows the line item number referred to
21 below, Column 2 briefly describes the adjustment, Column 3
22 applies to intervenor funding and the FERC credit and shows
23 the total amount to be amortized, Column 4 shows the FERC
24 account affected by the adjustment, Column 5 shows the
25 account balance as of June 30, 2007, and Columns 6 and 7
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 6Staff
1 quantify the affect of each individual adjustment on revenue
2 and expense.
3 Each line item on Exhibit No. 101 shows a
4 different adjustment that will be described in more detail
5 below.
6 Q.Will you please explain the adjustment shown on
7 Exhibit No. 101, line 1?
S A.Per IPUC Order No.301S9, DSM Rider Energy
9 Efficiency Tariff Rider revenue and expenses are separately
10 tracked in accounts 90S (expense) and 456 (revenue) to
11 ensure that the revenues and expenses from this activity are
12 not commingled or double-counted for ratemaking purposes.
13 Accordingly, Staff removed $4,663,127 from both expense
14 (account 90S) and revenue (account 456). Because these
15 adjustments are equal and offsetting, there was no net
16 effect on revenue requirement.
17 Q.Will you please explain the adjustments shown on
1S Exhibit No. 101, lines 2-4?
19 A.Per IPUC Order Nos. 30035, 30215, and 30267, Idaho
20 Power Company was ordered to pay intervenor funding awarded
21 in Case Nos. IPC-E-06-S, IPC-E-05-2S, and IPC-E-04-15. This
22 funding plus interest was ordered to be recovered in the
23 next general rate case filed by Idaho Power Company.
24 In its general rate case filing, Idaho Power
25 Company requested that the intervenor funding be recovered
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date Vaughn, C. (Di) 7Staff
1 by amortizing the entire amount of $50,650 over a period of
2 one year. Staff disagrees with a single-year recovery and
3 recommends that the intervenor funding be amortized over a
4 two-year period to prevent over-recovery of the funding
5 amount in rates. Based on Staff's proposed test year the
6 amortization recommended by Staff increases revenue
7 requirement by $25,325.
S Q.Will you please explain the adjustment shown on
9 Exhibit No. 101, line 5?
10 A.Per IPUC Order No. 30157, Idaho Power Company was
11 ordered to amortize $932,177 in loan costs related to the
12 development of Grid West over a period of five years,
13 resulting in an annual amortization expense of $lS6, 435.
14 The amortization was ordered to begin January 1, 2007.
15 Because 50% of the annual amortization was included in the
16 July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 test year, Staff annualized the
17 Grid West amortization expense to reflect a full year, thus
lS increasing the amortization expense and revenue requirement
19 by $ 93 , 21 S .
20 Q.Will you please explain the adjustment shown on
21 Exhibit No. 101, line 6?
22 A.Idaho Power estimated park rent revenue for 2007
23 by using a simple average of the prior 5 years. Staff
24 disagrees with this approach because park size, amenities,
25 and rents increased significantly in the spring of 2006. In
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date Vaughn, C. (Di) SStaff
1 order to more accurately annualize park rent revenue, Staff
2 used a quarterly (Q) average for 2000 - 2006 and applied
3 these percentages to the known revenues collected in the
4 first and second quarter of 2007 to estimate revenues for a
5 full year. The difference between actual test year park
6 rent revenue and estimated calendar year 2007 park rent
7 revenue resulted in a positive annualizing adjustment of
8 $16,729, thus increasing miscellaneous revenue and reducing
9 revenue requirement by $16,729.
10 Q.Will you please explain the adjustment shown on
11 Exhibit No. 101, line 7?
12 A.From trial balance data, the insurance expense
13 paid and booked to account 924 during the July 1, 2006 -
14 June 30, 2007 test year was determined to be $3,098,249.
15 The insurance policy, premium, and effective dates were
16 obtained from Idaho Power Company in answer to Audit Request
17 No. 139. Total insurance expense for the test year was
18 determined by calculating monthly premium amounts of the
19 individual policies and multiplying the monthly premium for
20 each policy by twelvei using this method, the insurance
21 expense for the test year was calculated to be $2,892,053.
22 Using known and measurable increases in insurance premiums
23 that were provided by the Company, test year insurance cost
24 annualized to December 31, 2007, was calculated to be
25 $3,031,679. Staff compared the annualized insurance expense
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 9Staff
1 calculated above to the $3,098,249 booked to account 924 for
2 the test year. As a result of this comparison, Staff
3 removed prepaid insurance expense, reducing revenue
4 requirement by $66,569.
5 Q.will you please explain the adjustment shown on
6 Exhibi t No. 101, line 8?
7 A.Direct testimony of Company witness Lori Smith
8 indicated that Idaho Power Company received a series of
9 credits from a settlement involving both FERC administration
10 and Other Federal Agency (OFA) charges. From data received
11 from Idaho Power Company in response to Audit Request Nos.
12 133 and 134, it was determined that the total amount of the
13 credits was equal to $3,266,010. These fees were included
14 in rates paid by customers in both the 2003 and 2005 rate
15 cases. Therefore Staff believes that the customer should
16 receive benefit from the credit received by Idaho Power.
17 Staff believes that this credit should be amortized over a
18 five-year period since this approximates the timeframe
19 during which Idaho Power over-accrued FERC/OFA fees.
20 Because the $3,266,010 in FERC credits was booked
21 to account 928 in September 2006, Staff made an initial
22 adjustment reversing the credit, essentially removing the
23 credit from the Company books and initially increasing the
24 proposed revenue requirement by $3,266,010. Staff then made
25 a second adjustment to reduce the FERC regulatory accrual by
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 10Staff
lone fifth, thus decreasing FERC accrued expenses by $653,202
2 and secondarily reducing revenue requirement by $653,202.
3 The sum of these two adjustments resulted in a net positive
4 adjustment to regulatory fee expense of $2,612,808, thus
5 increasing Staff's proposed revenue requirement by
6 $2,612,808.
7 Q.Will you please explain the adjustment shown on
8 Exhibit No. 101, line 9?
9 A.Yes. From data received from Idaho Power Company
10 in response to Audit Request No. 134, it was determined that
11 the balance in FERC account 928 was $0 as of September 30,
12 2006, subsequent to the adjustments noted above and to the
13 payment made to FERC in September of 2006. Staff believes
14 that using 75% of the actual FERC billing for October 2006-
15 September 2007 reflects the additional known and measurable
16 FERC expense for the test year of July 1, 2006 - June 30,
17 2007. The actual amount paid to FERC in September of 2007
18 was $2,488,995 i 75% of this payment is equal to $1,866,746.
19 The sum of all accruals made by Idaho Power Company for the
20 period of October 2006 - June 2007 that were recorded in
21 account 928 is equal to $1,594,539 and is reflected in the
22 June 30, 2007 ending account balance. Therefore, it is
23 necessary to increase FERC regulatory fee expense by
24 $272,207 ($1,866,746 LESS $1,594,539), thus increasing
25 revenue requirement by $272,207.
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 11Staff
1
2
Q.Will you please describe Exhibit No. 102?
Exhibit No. 102 consists of 1 page and quantifiesA.
3 Staff's adjustments to Operating and Maintenance (O&M)
4 Expenses totaling $879,887.
5
6
Q.How did Staff arrive at this adjustment?
A.Staff conducted an audit of expenditures charged
7 to Accounts Payable One Cards (P-cards) by Idaho Power
8 employees. The audit detail and calculations are shown in
10
9 Exhibit No. 102.
11
Q.How are P-cards used by Idaho Power employees?
A.Idaho Power relies primarily on P-cards for
12 employee expense reimbursement and suggests that employees
13 . take cash advances as well as take cash draws to reimburse
14 themselves for personal vehicle mileage, airfare, lodging,
15 business meals, and other expenses. P-card statements are
16 sent to each employee and reconciled in a "packet" envelope
17 that includes receipts justifying the business nature of
18 each expenditure. A supervisor or person other than the P-
19 card holder authorizes the expenditure by signature, either
21
20 manually on the envelope or online.
Q.What was the objective of Staff's audit of Idaho
23
22 Power employee P-cards?
The obj ecti ve of the IPUC audit was to examineA.
24 receipts for appropriate detail, to evaluate cash control,
25 and to determine those expenditures that should be recorded
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 12Staff
1 below the line so they are not the responsibility of Idaho
2 Power's customers. Since most small purchases are made
3 using P-cards, Staff reasoned that an audit of expenditures
4 made by employees would allow a more complete assessment.
5 Q.Were there specific categories of items that Staff
6 excluded for the purpose of setting rates for Idaho Power?
7 A.Yes. It should be noted, however, that the Staff
S test year ending June 30, 2007, was not reviewed and
9 adjusted by the Company because of the different test years
10 used. It is possible that these adjustments would have been
11 made by the Company had the same test year been used by both
12 the Staff and the Company.
13 Specific categories of expenditures moved below
15
14 the line for ratemaking purposes were:
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(1) In-area meals (restaurant meals eaten
within the employee's assigned work area) .
(2) Excessive meals, gifts, flowers, and
parties.
(3) Charitable donations.
(4) Idaho Power Company promot ional items.
(5) Luxury items including newspaper
subscriptions for the field offices and
bottled water/water coolers for the offices.
(6) Memberships in organizations that benefit
corporate (IDACORP) image rather than the
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date Vaughn, C. (Di) 13Staff
1
2
3
Idaho Power customer.
(7) At-home Internet access for employees.
4 documentation or items of a personal
(S) Items with no detail or backup
5 nature.
6 Individual cell phone charges to P-cards were not moved
7 below the line but Staff is concerned that the charges may
S not be for Company and customer benefit because rates,
9 providers, and calling plans varied widely among the P-card
11
10 packets audited.
12
13
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.How did Staff plan and conduct the audit?
A.Staff conducted the audit as follows:
(1) All P-card envelopes were requested that
were reconciled during the months of
January and June of 2007, thus representing
expenditures made during December 2006 and
May 2007.
(2) A total of 255 P-card envelopes were
audited. Based on the dollar value of
expenditures for items moved below the line
compared to the total expenditure per
envelope audited, the average level of
expenditures moved below the line for July-
December 2006 and February-June 2007 was
estimated at 10.53%. Because December is a
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 14Staff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traditional holiday month associated with
parties and gift giving, the calculated
level moved below the line was 19.42% for
envelopes reconciled in January 2007.
(3) A total of 1500 envelopes were reconciled by
Idaho Power employees during the month of
June. This total was viewed as a
representative sample of the total number of
P-card envelopes submitted for each of the 12
months of the year. Thus, by extension, the
total number of P-card envelopes reconciled
during the Staff test year of July 1, 2006 -
June 31, 2007 was calculated to be 18,000.
Therefore, the 255 P-card envelopes audited
by Staff represented an estimated 1.42% of
the total number of test year P-card
envelopes that were reconciled by the
Company.
(4) In response to Audit Request No. 149, Idaho
Power Company identified the total P-card
charges booked to P-card accounts during
the July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 test year
was $10,298,156. After removing expense
for personal vehicle mileage of $596,677
(Audit Request No. 118a), the total other
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 15Staff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
P-card expenditures for the test year was
determined to be $9,701,479, resulting in a
monthly average P-card expenditure of
$SOS, 457 .
(5) The breakdown of personal expenditures from
Audit Request No. 11Sa showed that 64% of
all personal expenditures were charged to
O&M and 36% were charged to Construction
(CWIP) and Other.
(6) By applying the 64% O&M from step (5) above
and the percentages for the level of
expenditures to be moved below the line
from step (3) above to the average monthly
P-card expenditure, Staff estimated that
$699,921 in P-card/O&M expenditures should
be moved below the line for ratemaking
purposes. This calculation is shown on Staff
Exhibi t No. 102 wi th the sum shown on
line 22.
Q.Did Staff evaluate all P-card expenditures for
22
21 allowability using the same criteria?
A.No. Personal vehicle mileage was identified
23 separately from other miscellaneous expenditures so Staff
25
24 evaluated it independently.
Q.How did Staff audit and evaluate P-card
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 16Staff
2
1 expenditures for personal vehicle mileage?
A.Staff determined that personal vehicle mileage is
3 reimbursed primarily via cash advances drawn on an
4 individual's P-card. Although a percentage of this mileage
5 is certainly reimbursable, there was little or no supporting
6 paper documentation to support the mileage. In addition,
7 there were a number of questionable practices related to
S personal vehicle mileage that validated a significant
9 adjustment including:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lS
19
(1) Draws were frequently taken prior to
incurring the mileage.
(2) Mileage was "saved" for several months
prior to being drawn rather than
reimbursement being taken on a timely basis.
(3) Personal vehicle mileage was reimbursed for
travel to parties and other social events,
(4) No vehicle mileage/odometer logs were
included as supporting documentation for
actual miles driven. In addition, nearly
20 all mileage reimbursements were requested
21 for "even-number" miles (10, 50, 320,
22 etc. ), suggesting that the mileage was
23 estimated rather than actual.
24 The Company provided actual personal vehicle mileage expense
25 in answer to Audit Request No. 11Sa as shown on Exhibit No.
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-S
Date Vaughn, C. (Di) 17Staff
1 102, line 25. Therefore, the amount to be moved below the
2 line was calculated separately. Because of the lack of
3 supporting documentation it is Staff's recommendation to
4 move 50% of the mileage charged to O&M below the line
5 resulting in an additional adjustment reducing the revenue
7
6 requirement by $179,966.
9
8 moved below the line based on the P-card audit?
Q.What was the total amount of O&M expenditures
A.In summary, based on the P- card audit, the total
10 adjustment to O&M recommended by Staff is a reduction to
11
13
12 line 27.)
revenue requirement of $879,887.(See Exhibit No. 102,
Q.Does Staff consider its audit of Idaho Power
15
14 P-card expenditures to be full and comprehensive?
A.No. Because of time constraints and because
16 documentation is partially electronic and partially in hard
17 copy or paper format, the scope of the audit was necessarily
18 limited. A more extensive audit could certainly result in
20
19 an O&M adjustment of greater or different magnitude.
Q.Please summarize the importance of P-card
22
21 purchasing practices at Idaho Power.
A.Individually the expenditures moved below the line
23 are too small and numerous to discuss individually.
24 Therefore, Staff suggests that a single-issue audit of
25 P-card purchases and policies be conducted following
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-8
Date
Vaughn, C. (Di) 18Staff
1 conclusion of this general rate case. The process for this
3
2 review has begun and has been established with Idaho Power.
Q.Please explain why the amounts moved below the
4 line may be greater in Staff's case than in other Idaho
6
5 Power rate cases.
A.The levels may be greater because the Staff case
7 is based on a different test year than the Company's case so
S Idaho Power has not reviewed the base numbers to move these
9 amounts on its own accord. The amounts may also be larger
10 due to the widespread use of P-cards and the field
11 incorrectly reporting specific amounts to the appropriate
12 below the line accounts. The limited issues audit that
13 Staff intends to conduct in this area will assist both the
14 Staff and Company to evaluate areas where education and
16
15 tighter controls may be required.
Q.Does this conclude your direct testimony in this
lS
17 proceeding?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.Yes, it does.
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-SDate Vaughn, C. (Di) 19Staff
"'co on ..ci ëñ ci "'N N ci ....co 0 0
Ql ....on ..N on ci N
ti M ,.M ..M wi Ñ Ñ~i=co ..Ø)!!.."'
I~co co Nç~Ñ ~xW
~~~~~~~-I--I-¡:Ø)N N
Ql .."'::M wiêi=co ..
gi co
æ ~
~~
==E
"' "'ci on Ø)...."'..NN ..~........ ..N N on on8II _MM M Ô rR wi wiQl II
§:~)- ::co co Ø)..Ø)....
:g _ tí co co ..0 ci citi c:.. ..M0(!N ~~~~~~~-I-~I-i.II ë~~:: .co ci ci ci ci co ;3 ..ci ci..§~ono N N N co N N Nin.. Ø)Ø)Ø)Ø)on ..Ø)Ø)Ø)
í!c:-I-"'-I-00N ..0 ci 0
CD on "'N ..e co ..ci 0::..,.rR wi7..coIe;NecoM00i;:iii 0Nin~E ::
8 .,~~~~-l-S0in ci ~.! c¡~ti CD
SC?i:: ii,g ~I~
~..,g -u::
II :!Il0 e CDJ:~eIIi:5 xw ..CD 'a eJ:l!l-eII i.::CD u::1/eCD iñ ¡:.!:.i=.!:~0 ..co Õ~N Nii00 i:iñ ....ee0..ö ö 00ti0EQl0ZZ¡:'a
'a 0 ..i.i.CD
'a Ö CD CD on in
c:Is:'E 'E ..IIZ0,g00..i..!CD 0 0 ö ,g
'E ::::z l!0 Il Il i.::,::::CD in
ëñ 0 e e 'E II::0 0 0 CDci~E..E E 00~~::'a I!..I!e~II IIÖ000I~z 'l
I~~
e
.~0 ~i.J:0 onCD.!CD II e i.
'E e e :5 ..~0 0 w w .CD iiJ:::S 0 ::0 II ;:;:e e 'a i.::'a 0 CD 'a
~
UZZ:¡:.11 :tIlg12~~~I::e e e ii 0 0i.'6 '6 '6 ..::CD E ii'a e e e 0 i.e WEIIeIIõ:::::::Il IIIIIIIIc:i :=::i.i.i...'a 'a 'a
en 0 0 0 in CD l!CD.!:u .!0 e e e ~e 0
~~~ii ii0::l!~::J:S S S 'a e ::eII'i:e in W e--:5 .:.:.:Cl c:.:II c:
IS Q) .i= 0 ..N ....on co "'ci Ø):.Z Exhibit No. 101
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
C. Vaughn, Staff
12/10/07
The Idaho Public Utilties Commission
IPC-E-07 -08
P-card and Personal Vehicle Mileage Expense Moved Below the Line
Line
1 Total P-card expenditure for July 2006-June 2007
2 per Audit Request 149
3 LESS mileage from personal expenditures worksheet
4 Total other P-card expenditures
5 Monthly P-card expenditure (9,701,479/12)
6 Total P-card expenditure per month
7 Extended to 11 months
8 Expenditures moved below the line per 1 month random audit
9 Expenditures moved below the line per 10 individual random audit
10 Average % of expenditures moved below the line
11 Estimated expenditures moved below the line for Jan-Nov (10.53% * 8,893,022)
12 Total expenditures moved below the line for Jan thru Nov not including mileage
13 64% calculated O&M (64% * 936,616)
14 30% calculated construction (CWIP)
15 6% calculated other
16 % of expenditures moved below the line for December
17 Estimated expenditures moved below the line for December (19.42% * 808,457)
18 Total expenditures moved below the line for December not including mileage
19 64% calculated O&M (64% * 157,011)
20 30% calculated construction (CWLP)
21 6% calculated other
22 Total O&M expenditures moved below the line (599,434+100,487)
23 Total Construction expenditures moved below the line
24 Total Other expenditures moved below the line
25 Mileage O&M Total
26 50% moved below the line
27 Total O&M P-card/mileage expenditures moved below the line (699,921+179,966)
$10,298,156
$596,677 (1 )
$ 9,701,479
$808,457
$808,457
$8,893,022
15.68%
5.38%
10.53%
$936,616
$ 599,434 (1)
$ 280,985 (1)
$ 56,197 (1)
19.42%
$ 157,011
$100,487 (1 )
$47,103 (1 )
$9,421 (1 )
$699,921
$328,088
$65,618
$359,932 (1 )
$179,966
$ 879,887.02
28 Footnote: (1) estimated % from personal expenditures worksheet provided by Idaho Power Company
Exhibit No. 102
Case No. IPC-E-07-8
C. Vaughn, Staff
12/10/07
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2007,
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CECILY VAUGHN, 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(iidahopower.com
Inordstrom(iidahopower. com
PETER J RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY
PO BOX 7218
BOISE ID 83702
EMAIL: peter(irichardsonandoleary.com
ERICL OLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE & BAILEY
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204
EMAIL: elo(iracinelaw.net
MICHAEL L KURTZ ESQ
KURT J BOEHM ESQ
BOEHM KURTZ & LOWRY
36 E 7TH ST SUITE 1510
CINCINATI OH 45202
EMAIL: mkurtz(iBKLlawfrm.com
kboehm(iBKLlawfirm.com
DENNIS E PESEAU PH.D.
UTILITY RESOURCES INC
1500 LIBERTY ST SUITE 250
SALEM OR 97302
EMAIL: dpeseau(iexcite.com
JOHN R GALE
VP - REGULATORY AFFAIRS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
EMAIL: rgale(iidahopower.com
DR DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE ID 83703
EMAIL: dreading(imindspring.com
ANTHONY YANKEL
29814 LAK ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
EMAIL: tony(iyankel.net
CONLEY E WARD
MICHAEL C CREAMER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
PO BOX 2720
BOISE ID 83701-2720
EMAIL: cew(igivenspursley.com
LOTH COOKE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW
WASHINGTON DC 20585
EMAIL: lot.cooke(ihg.doe.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DALE SWAN
EXETER ASSOCIATES INC
5565 STERRTT PL SUITE 310
COLUMBIA MD 21044
EMAIL: dswan(iexeterassociates.com
(ELECTRONIC COPIES ONLY)
Dennis Goins
E-Mail: dgoinspmg(icox.net
Artur Perr Bruder
E-Mail: arthur.bruder(ihq.doe.gov
~.K~
SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE