20081024Higgins Direct.pdf

BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
ATTORNS AT LAW36 EAST SEV S'IET R E eEl V F 0
SUITE 1510CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 i.
TEEPHONE (513) 421-255 2888 OCT 24 AM 10: '''
TELECOPlER (513) 421-764 IDAHO P4eiJ'¡~~'lr"'
UTiLITIES COMf"b:: ,.11 ,
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
October 23, 2008
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
In re: Case No. IPC-E-08-10
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed please find nine the original and (8) copies of the DIRCT TESTIMONY AN EXHffITS OF
KEVIN C. HIGGINS on behalf of THE KROGER CO. dba FRED MEYER AN SMITH'S FOOD AN DRUG
to be filed in the above referenced matter. I also attach an electronic version.
Copies have been served on all parties on the attached certificate of service. Please place this document
of file.
Respectfully yours,~
Michael L. Kurtz, Esq.
Kurt J. Boehm, Esq.
BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
MLKkew
EncL.
G:\WORK\MLK\KROGER\IDAHO\IPC-E-08-10 (Rate Case)\Commission Itr (Idaho).doc
RECEIVED
zooa OCT 24 AM to: '4
RD I hereby certify that true copy orthe foregoing was served by electronic mail, unless o~herwise ~9trèleiis
23 day of October, 2008 to the followiog: ~.., _ IOÁ~HSOcP01.~l~I~;;SíON
, UTlLlTh:," ,J l'f'1 i "",
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Michael L. Kurtz, Esq.
Kurt J. Boehm, Esq.
Weldon Stutzman, DAG .
Idaho Public Utilities Commssion
Weldon.Stutzman(ipuc.idaho.gov;
Barton L. Kline bklineØ1idahopower.com
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hil Road
Boise, Idaho 83703
dreading((mindspring.com
Lisa D. Nordstrom, Donovan E. Walker
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
hiordstrom((idahopower .com
dwalker((idahopower.com
Conley E. Ward
Michael C. Creamer
GIVENSPURSLEY LLP
601 W. Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, il 83701-2720
cew((givenspursley.com
John R. Gale
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
rgale((idahopower .com
Dennis E. Peseau, Ph.
Utility Resources, Inc.
1500 Liberty Street SE, Ste. 250
Salem, OR 97302
dpcseau((cxcitc.com
Randall C. Budge, Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey, Chartered
P.O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
rcb((racinelaw.net
elo((racinelaw.net
Arhur Perr Bruder
Attorneys for the
United States Department of Energy
1 000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585
Arhur .Bruder((hq.doe.gov
Anthony Yanke i
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, Ohio 44140
yankel((attbi.com
Stephen H. Telford
Office of Chief Counsel
Idaho Operations Office
United States Department of Energy
1955 Fremont Avenue MS 1209
Idaho Falls, il 83415Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary
515 N. 27th St
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
peter((richardsonandoleary.com
G:\WORK\MLK\KROGER\IDAHO\IPC-E-08-10 (Rate Case)\Commission Itr (Idaho).doc
RECEIVED
2
2008 OCT 24 AM 10: f 1+
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IDAHO PIJEdJC
BEFORE THE UTILITIES COMMISSIOI\I
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 )
Case No. IPC-E-08-10
16 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KEVIN C. HIGGINS
17
18 On Behalf of The Kroger Co.,
19 Doing Business as Fred Meyer and Smith's
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 October 24, 2008
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 1 -
1 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KEVIN C. HIGGINS
2 Introduction
3 Q.
4 A.
5
6 Q.
7 A.
8
9
10 Q.
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20
21
22
23
Please state your name and business address.
Kevin C. Higgins, 215 South State Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84111.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
I am a Principal in the firm of Energy Strategies, LLC. Energy Strategies
is a private consulting firm specializing in economic and policy analysis
applicable to energy production, transportation, and consumption.
On whose behalf are you testifying in this proceeding?
My testimony is being sponsored by The Kroger Co., ("Kroger"), doing
business as Fred Meyer and Smith's. Kroger is one of the largest grocers in the
United States. Kroger has over 25 accounts sered by Idaho Power, which
together consume over 40 milion kWh per year. A large portion of Kroger's load
takes service under Schedule 9. Kroger's Schedule 9 load takes service at both
secondar and primar voltage.
Please describe your professional experience and qualications.
My academic background is in economics, and I have completed all
coursework and field examinations toward a Ph.D. in Economics at the University
of Utah. In addition, I have served on the adjunct faculties of both the University
of Utah and Westminster College, where I taught undergraduate and graduate
courses in economics from 1981 to 1995. I joined Energy Strategies in 1995,
where I assist private and public sector clients in the areas of energy-related
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q.
10 A.
11
12 Q.
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
economic and policy analysis, including evaluation of electrc and gas utility rate
matters.
Prior to joining Energy Strategies, I held policy positions in state and local
governent. From 1983 to 1990, I was economist, then assistant director, for the
Utah Energy Offce, where I helped develop and implement state energy policy.
From 1991 to 1994, I was chief of staff to the chairman of the Salt Lake County
Commission, where I was responsible for development and implementation of a
broad spectrm of public policy at the local governent leveL.
Have you ever testified before this Commission?
Yes. I testified in Idaho Power's 2007 general rate case, Case No. IPC-E-
07-8, and in its 2003 general rate case, Case No. IPC-E-03-13.
Have you testifed before utilty regulatory commissions in other states?
Yes. I have testified in over one hundred proceedings on the subjects of
utilty rates and regulatory policy before state utility regulators in Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Ilinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvana, South Carolina, Utah, Washington,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. I have also fied affdavits in proceedings
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
A more detailed description of my qualifications is contained in
Attachment A, attached to this testimony.
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 3 -
1 Overview and Conclusions
2 Q.
3 A.
4
5
6 Q.
7
8 A.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
My testimony addresses the proposal by Idaho Power to introduce time-of-
use ("TOU") pricing for Schedule 9 customers taking service at either primar or
transmission voltage.
What conclusions have you reached in your analysis of Idaho Power's
proposal to introduce TOU rates for certain Schedule 9 customers?
I recommend adoption of the TOU rate design proposed by Idaho Power
for Schedule 9 customers takng service at either primar or transmission voltage
(Schedules 9-P and 9- T). Currently, TOU rates are not available to Schedule 9
customers. The Company's proposed rate design improves the price signals for
Schedule 9-P and 9-T customers and is responsive to the directive in the
Commission's Order issued in Case No. IPC-E-07-8, in which the Company was
instrcted to develop a time-of-use rate proposal for Schedule 9 customers.
16 Idaho Power's TOU Rate Design for Schedules 9-P and 9-T
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
By way of background, please describe the type of service that is available
under Rate Schedule 9.
Schedule 9, Large General Service, is generally available to customers
with monthly energy usage in excess of 2,000 kilowatt-hours and biling demands
less than 1,000 kilowatts. The rate schedule contains pricing provisions for
service taken at secondary voltage (9-S), primar voltage (9-P), and transmission
voltage (9- T).
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6 Q.
7 A.
8
9
10
11 Q.
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In the Idaho Power tarff, Schedule 9 is situated between Schedules 7 and
19. Non-residential customers with energy usage less than 2,000 kilowatt-hours
per month are generally sered under Schedule 7, Small General Serice, whereas
customers with biling demands of 1,000 kilowatts or more generally take serice
under Schedule 19, Large Power Serice.
How are Schedule 9-P and 9- T rates currently structured?
The Schedule 9-P and 9-T rate components are comprised of: (1) a serice
charge, which is a monthly customer charge; (2) a basic charge which a biled on
a demand basis; (3) a seasonally-differentiated demand charge; and (4) an energy
charge that also is seasonally-differentiated.
How does the design of Schedule 9-P compare with that of Schedule 19-P?
With the exception ofthe energy charge, Schedules 9-P and 19-P are
nearly identicaL. Schedules 9-P and 19-P have the same servce charges, basic
charges, and non-summer demand charges. The summer demand charges are also
identical, except that the Schedule L9-P sumer demand charge is divided into an
on-peak and a non-peak component (the sum of which is equal to the Schedule 9-
P sumer demand charge).
The big difference between the two rate schedules occurs in the design of
the energy charge. Curently, the Schedule 9-P energy charge has no TOU price
differentiation. It is a flat energy charge that does not var with the hour of the
day in which energy is consumed. In contrast, the Schedule 19-P energy charge is
differentiated into three time periods in the sumer (on-peak, mid-peak, and off-
peak) and two time periods in the non-summer months (mid-peak and off-peak).
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 5 -
1 Q.
2 A.
3
4 Q.
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15
16 A.
17
18
19
20
21
22
How does the design of Schedule 9- T compare with that of Schedule 19- T?
The relationship between Schedules 9- T and 19- T mirrors that of
Schedules 9-P and 9-T, described above.
What rate design has Idaho Power proposed for Schedules 9-P and 9-T in
this proceeding and how does it relate to that of Schedules 19-P and 19- T?
As explained in the direct testimony of Idaho Power witness Darlene
Nemnich, the Company is proposing to bring the designs for Schedules 9 and 19
even closer together for customers taking service at primar and transmission
voltages. For customers taking service at the same voltage level, the demand
charges would be identical for Schedules 9 and 19 - including the on-peak and
non-peak components in the summer demand charge. And significantly, the
energy charges for 9-P and 9-T would move from flat energy charges to a TOU
design.
What is your assessment of the Company's proposed changes to the design of
Schedules 9-P and 9-T?
I support Idaho Power's proposal. The introduction ofTOU pricing for
these customers wil improve the price signals they receive and better align cost
recovery with cost causation within the rate schedule. The proposal is also
consistent with the instructions issued in the Commission's Order in Case No.
IPC-E-07-8, in which Idaho Power was directed to "develop a time-of-use rate
proposal for Schedule 9 customers and present it to the Commission." The Order
fuher specified that "Idaho Power should include the Schedule 9 customers in
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 6-
2
3 Q.
4
5 A.
6
7
8
9 Q.
10 A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
that process, and if possible, present a proposal that is agreeable to the Schedule 9
customers." (Order at 9.)
Are you famiar with efforts by Idaho Power to include Schedule 9
customers in the process of introducing TOU rates?
Yes. Idaho Power invited Kroger and other Schedule 9 customers to
discuss different approaches for introducing TOU rates for Schedules 9-Pand 9-T.
The Company solicited input from Schedule 9 customers and has been responsive
to Kroger's feedback.
What are the benefits of TOU pricing?
Energy costs var across the hours of the day, with the most expensive
hours typically occurrng from the late morning to early evening. Designng the
energy price to end-use customers to reflect these varations in energy costs sends
the proper signal to customers regarding the relative cost to operate the system
durng the peak, mid-peak, and off-peak hour. Customers can then use this
pricing information to alter their discretionar patters of usage, increasing
efficiency and lowerng the overall cost of energy to the system.
Are there other reasons besides economic efficiency to make TOU rates
available to Schedule 9-P and 9- T customers?
Yes. In addition to providing these customers with an incentive to better
respond to price signals, TOU rates wil ensure that these customers pay rates that
are more closely aligned with the costs they cause. Basic fairness dictates that
customers whose patterns of energy consumption are less expensive to serve
because of their load pattern should see that lower cost reflected in their bils.
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 7 -
2
3
4
5 Q.
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Q.
19 A.
Moreover, the introduction ofTOU rates for Schedule 9-P and 9-T
customers wil improve the already close alignent between these rates schedules
and Schedules L9-P and 19-T, further smoothing the transition for customers who
may move between Schedules 9 and 19 as their usage level changes.
Please summarize your recommendation to the Commission on this issue.
I recommend adoption of the TOU rate design proposed by Idaho Power
for Schedule 9 customers taking service at either primar or transmission voltage.
The Company's proposed rate design improves the price signals for Schedule 9-P
and 9-T customers and wil ensure that these customers pay rates that are more
closely aligned with the costs they cause. Furher, the introduction ofTOU rates
for Schedule 9-P and 9- T customers wil more closely align their rates with
Schedules L9-P and 19-T, improving the transition for customers who may move
between Schedules 9 and 19 as their usage level changes. Finally, the proposal is
consistent with the instrctions issued in the Commission's Order in the previous
Idaho Power rates case, in which the Company was directed to develop a TOU
rate proposal for Schedule 9 customers that included the Schedule 9 customers in
the process.
Does this conclude your direct testimony?
Yes, it does.
Higgins, Di
Kroger
- 8 -
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICE
)
)
)Case No. IPC-E-08-10
AFFIDAVIT OF KEVIN C. HIGGINS
STATE OF UTAH )
)
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
Kevin C. Higgins, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that:
1. He is a Principal with Energy Strategies, L.L.C., in Salt Lake City, Uta;
2. He is the witness who sponsors the accompanying testimony entitled "Direct
Testimony of Kevin C. Higgins;"
3. Said testimony was prepared by him and under his direction and supervision;
4. If inquiries were made as to the facts and schedules in said testimony he would
respond as therein set forth; and
5. The aforesaid testimony and schedules are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief./ r
~~"..i CJ-;, L..~
Kevin C. Hi¥gins .
Subscribed and sworn to or affrmed before me this 22nd day of October, 2008, by Kevin
C. Higgins.
Ck LJ~Notar Pu lie
My Commission Expires: 7) J'r J i z.
KEVIN C. HIGGINS
Principal, Energy Strategies, L.L.C. iDAHO PUBLIC
215 South State St., Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 UTlLlTIES CO~l¡MISSiON
Afl~ßIJ¿t~D
Z008 dè'24 o~~fO: '5
Vitae
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Principal, Energy Strategies, L.L.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, Januar 2000 to present. Responsible
for energy-related economic and policy analysis, regulatory interention, and strategic
negotiation on behalf of industral, commercial, and public sector interests. Previously Senior
Associate, Februar 1995 to December 1999.
Adjunct Instrctor in Economics, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 1981 to
May 1982; September 1987 to May 1995. Taught in the economics and M.B.A. programs.
Awarded Adjunct Professor ofthe Year, Gore School of Business, 1990-91.
Chief of Staff to the Chairman, Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners, Salt Lake City, Utah,
Januar 1991 to Januar 1995. Senior executive responsibility for all matters of county
governent, including formulation and execution of public policy, deliver of approximately 140
governent services, budget adoption and fiscal management (over $300 milion), strategic
planing, coordination with elected officials, and communication with consultants and media.
Assistant Director, Utah Energy Office, Utah Deparent of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City,
Utah, August 1985 to Januar 1991. Directed the agency's resource development section, which
provided energy policy analysis to the Governor, implemented state energy development policy,
coordinated state energy data collection and dissemination, and managed energy technology
demonstration programs. Position responsibìlties included policy formulation and
implementation, design and administration of energy technology demonstration programs,
strategic management of the agency's interentions before the Utah Public Serice Commission,
budget preparation, and staff development. Superised a staff of economists, engineers, and
policy analysts, and sered as lead economist on selected.projects.
Utility Economist, Utah Energy Offce, Januar 1985 to August 1985. Provided policy and
economic analysis pertaining to energy conseration and resource development, with an
emphasis on utìlty issues. Testified before the state Public Serice Commission as an expert
witness in cases related to the above.
Acting Assistant Director, Utah Energy Offce, June 1984 to Januar 1985. Same responsibìlties
as Assistant Director identified above.
1
Attachment A
Page 2 of19
Research Economist, Utah Energy Office, October 1983 to June 1984. Provided economic
analysis pertaining to renewable energy resource development and utility issues. Experence
includes preparation of testimony, development of strategy, and appearance as an expert witness
for the Energy Office before the Utah PSC.
Operations Research Assistant, Corporate Modeling and Operations Research Deparent, Utah
Power and Light Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1983 to September 1983. Primar area of
responsibility: designing and conducting energy load forecasts.
Instrctor in Economics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Januar 1982 to April 1983.
Taught interediate microeconomics, principles of macroeconomics, and economics as a social
science.
Teacher, Veron-Verona-Sherrll School District, Verona, New York, September 1976 to June
1978.
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Candidate, Economics, University of Utah (coursework and field exams completed, 1981).
Fields of Specialization: Public Finance, Urban and Regional Economics, Economic
Development, International Economics, History of Economic Doctrnes.
Bachelor of Science, Education, State University of New York at Plattsburgh, 1976 (cum laude).
Dansh International Studies Program, University of Copenhagen, 1975.
SCHOLARSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS
University Research Fellow, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 1982 to 1983.
Research Fellow, Institute of Human Resources Management, University of Utah, 1980 to 1982.
Teaching Fellow, Economics Deparent, University of Utah, 1978 to 1980.
New York State Regents Scholar, 1972 to 1976.
2
Attachment A
Page 3 of19
EXPERT TESTIMONY
"In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authority to Increase its Retail
Electrc Utilty Servce Rates in Utah and for Approval of its Proposed Electrc Servce
Schedules and Electrc Servce Regulations," Utah Public Servce Commission, Docket No. 08-
035-38. Direct testimony submitted October 7,2008 (test period),
"In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electrc Iluminating
Company and The Toledo Edison Company for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer
Pursuant to R.C. § 4928. 143 in the Form of an Electrc Securty Plan," Public Utility
Commission of Ohio, Case No. 08-935-EL-SSO. Direct testimony submitted September 29,
2008. Deposed October 13,2008. Cross examined October 21,2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electrc Company
for Approval to Make Cerain Changes In Their Charges for Electrc Serice," State Corporation
Commission of Kansas, Docket No. 08-WSEE-104l-RTS. Direct testimony submitted
September 29,2008. Cross Answer testimony submitted October 8,2008.
"In the Matter of Appalachian Power Company's Application for Increase in Electrc Rates,"
Virgiia State Corporation Commission, Case No. PUE-2008-00046. Direct testimony
submitted September 26,2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electrc Iluminating
Company and The Toledo Edison Company for Approval of a Market Rate Offer to Conduct a
Competitive Bidding Process for Standard Serice Offer Electrc Generation Supply, Accounting
Modifications with Reconciliation Mechanism and Tarffs for Generation Serice," Public Utility
Commission of Ohio, Case No. 08-936-EL-SSO. Direct testiony submitted September 9, 2008.
Deposed September 16, 2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Serce Company for a Hearng to Determine
the Fair Value of the Utilty Property of the Company for Ratemaking Puroses, to Fix a Just and
Reasonable Rate of Return Thereon, to Approve Rate Schedules Designed to Develop Such
Retu," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01345A-08-0l72. Direct testimony
submitted August 29,2008 (interim rates). Cross examined September 16, 2008 (interim rates).
"Verified Joint Petition of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Indianapolis Power & Light Company,
Northern Indiana Public Service Company and Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. for
Approval, if and to the Extent Required, of Cerain Changes in Operations That Are Likely To
Result from the Midwest Independent System Operator, InC.'s Implementation of Revisions to Its
Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tarff to Establish a Co-Optimized, Competitive
Market for Energy and Ancilar Servces Market; and for Timely Recover of Costs Associated
3
Attachment A
Page 4 of 19
with Joint Petitioners' Paricipation in Such Ancilar Serices Market," Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission, Cause No. 43426. Direct testimony submitted August 6, 2008.
"In The Matter of the Application of The Detroit Edison Company for Authority to Increase Its Rates,
Amend Its Rate Schedules and Rules Governing the Distrbution and Supply of Electrc Energy, and
for Miscellaneous Accounting Authority," Michigan Public Serce Commission, Case No. U-15244.
Direct testimony submitted July 15, 2008. Rebuttal testimony submitted August 8, 2008.
"Portland General Electrc General Rate Case Filing," Public Utility Commission of Oregon,
Docket No. UE-197. Direct testimony submitted July 9,2008. Surebuttal testimony submitted
September 15, 2008.
"In the Matter ofPacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power, 2009 Transition Adjustment Mechanism,
Schedule 200, Cost-Based Supply Servce," Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Docket No.
UE-199. Reply testimony submitted June 23, 2008. Joint testimony in support of stipulation
submitted September 4, 2008.
"2008 Puget Sound Energy General Rate Case," Washington Utilties and Transportation
Commission, Docket Nos. UE-072300 and UG-072301. Response testimony submitted May 30,
2008. Cross-Answer testimony submitted July 3, 2008. Joint testimony in support of parial
stipulations submitted July 3,2008 (gas rate spread/rate design), August 12,2008 (electric rate
spread/rate design), and August 28,2008 (revenue requirements). Cross examined September 3,
2008.
"Verified Petition of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. Requesting the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission to Approve an Alternative Regulatory Plan Pursuant to the Ind. Code 8-1-2.5, Et
Seq., for the Offerng of Energy Effciency Conservation, Demand Response, and Demand-Side
Management Programs and Associated Rate Treatment Including Incentives Pursuant to a
Revised Standard Contract Rider No. 66 in Accordance with Ind. Code 8-1-2.5-lEt Seq. and 8-
1-2-42(a); Authority to Defer Program Costs Associated with Its Energy Efficiency Portfolio of
Programs; Authority to Implement New and Enhanced Energy Efficiency Programs in Its Energy
Effciency Portfolio of Programs; and Approval of a Modification of the Fuel Adjustment Clause
Earings and Expense Tests," Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Cause No. 43374. Direct
testimony submitted May 21, 2008.
"Cinergy Corp., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Cinergy Power Investments, Inc., Generating Facilties
LLCs," Federal Energy Regulatory Commssion, Docket No. EC-08-78-000. Affidavit fied
May 14, 2008.
"Application of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates and to Reconcile Fuel
Costs, Public Utilty Commission of Texas, Docket No. 34800 (SOAH Docket No. 473-08-
0334). Direct testimony submitted April 11, 2008. Testimony withdrawn pursuant to stipulation.
4
Attachment A
Page 5 of19
"Central Ilinois Light Company d//a AmerenCILCO Proposed General Increase in Electrc
Delivery Servce Rates, Central Ilinois Public Service Company d//a AmerenCIPS Proposed
General Increase in Electrc Deliver Serice Rates, Ilinois Power Company d//a! AmerenIP
Proposed General Increase in Electrc Delivery Serice Rates, Central Ilinois Light Company
d//a AmerenCILCO, Proposed General Increase in Gas Deliver Service Rates, Central Ilinois
Public Serice Company d//a AmerenCIPS Proposed General Increase in Gas Deliver Servce
Rates, Ilinois Power Company d/b/a! AmerenIP Proposed General Increase in Gas Delivery
Service Rates," Illois Commerce Commission, Docket Nos. 07-0585, 07-0586, 07-0587, 07-
0588,07-0589,07-0590. Direct testimony submitted March 14,2008. Rebuttal testimony
submitted April 8, 2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Public Service Company of Colorado for Authority to
Implement an Enhanced Demand Side Management Cost Adjustment Mechanism to Include
Curent Recover and Incentives," Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 07 A-
420E. Answer testimony submitted March 10, 2008. Cross examined April 25, 2008.
"An Investigation of the Energy and Regulatory Issues in Section 50 of Kentucky's 2007 Energy
Act," Kentucky Public Service Commission, Administrative Case No. 2007-00477. Direct
testimony submitted Februar 29,2008. Supplemental direct testimony submitted April 1, 2008.
Cross examined April 30, 2008.
In the Matter of the Application of Tucson Electrc Power Company for the Establishment
of Just and Reasonable Rates and Charges Designed to Realize a Reasonable Rate of Retu on
the Fair Value of Its Operations throughout the State of Arzona, Arizona Corporation
Commission, Docket No. E-01933A-07-0402. Direct testimony submitted Februar 29,2008
(revenue requirement), March 14,2008 (rate design), and June 12,2008 (settlement agreement).
Cross examined July 14, 2008.
"Commonwealth Edison Company Proposed General Increase in Electrc Rates," Illnois
Commerce Commission, Docket No. 07-0566. Direct testimony submitted Februar 11, 2008.
Rebuttal testimony submitted April 8, 2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Questar Gas Company to File a General Rate Case," Utah
Public Service Commission, Docket No. 07-057-13. Direct testimony submitted Januar 28,
2008 (test perod), March 31, 2008 (rate of retu), April 21, 2008 (revenue requirement), and
August 18, 2008 (cost of service, rate spread, rate design). Rebuttal testimony submitted
September 22, 2008 (cost of serice, rate spread, rate design). Surebuttal testimony submitted
May 12, 2008 (rate of retu) and October 7,2008 (cost of service, rate spread, rate design).
Cross examined Februar 8,2008 (test period), May 21,2008 (rate of retu), and October 15,
2008 (cost of service, rate spread, rate design).
5
Attachment A
Page 6 of19
"In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authority to Increase its Retail
Electric Utility Service Rates in Utah and for Approval of its Proposed Electrc Service
Schedules and Electric Service Regulations, Consisting of a General Rate Increase of
Approximately $161.2 Milion Per Year, and for Approval of a New Large Load Surcharge,"
Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 07-035-93. Direct testimony submitted Januar
25,2008 (test period), April 7, 2008 (revenue requirement), and July 21,2008 (cost of serice,
rate design). Rebuttal testimony submitted September 3,2008 (cost of serice, rate design).
Surrebuttal testimony submitted May 23,2008 (revenue requirement) and September 24,2008
(cost of service, rate design). Cross examined Februar 7,2008 (test period).
"In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electrc Iluminating
Company and The Toledo Edison Company for Authority to Increase Rates for Distrbution
Serice, Modify Cerain Accounting Practices and for Tarff Approvals," Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, Case Nos. 07-55l-EL-AIR, 07-552-EL-ATA, 07-553-EL-AA, and 07-
554-EL-UNC. Direct testimony submitted Januar 10,2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authority to Increase Its Retail
Electrc Utility Serice Rates in Wyoming, Consisting of a General Rate Increase of
Approximately $36.1 Milion per Year, and for Approval of a New Renewable Resource
Mechansm and Marginal Cost Pricing Tarff," Wyomig Public Serice Commission, Docket
No. 20000-277-ER-07. Direct testimony submitted Januar 7,2008. Cross examined March 6,
2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Authority to Increase Its Rates
and Charges for Electrc Serice to Electrc Customers in the State of Idaho," Idaho Public
Utilities Commission, Case No. IPC-E-07-8. Direct testimony submitted December 10, 2007.
Cross examined Januar 23, 2008.
"In The Matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for Authority to Increase Its Rates
for the Generation and Distrbution Of Electrcity and Other Relief," Michigan Public Service
Commission, Case No. U-15245. Direct testimony submitted November 6,2007. Rebuttal testimony
submitted November 20,2007.
"In the Matter of Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Application for Authority to Establish Increased
Rates for Electrc Service," Montana Public Service Commission, Docket No. D2007.7.79.
Direct testimony submitted October 24, 2007.
"In the Matter of the Application of Public Service Company of New Mexico for Revision of its
Retail Electrc Rates Pursuant to Advice Notice No. 334," New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission, Case No. 07-0077-UT. Direct testimony submitted October 22,2007. Rebuttal
testimony submitted November 19,2007. Cross examined December 12,2007.
6
Attachment A
Page 7 of19
"In The Matter of Georgia Power Company's 2007 Rate Case," Georgia Public Service
Commission, Docket No. 25060-U. Direct testimony submitted October 22,2007. Cross
examined November 7,2007.
"In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for an Accounting Order to Defer
the Costs Related to the MidAmercan Energy Holdings Company Transaction," Utah Public
Serice Commission, Docket No. 07-035-04; "In the Matter of the Application of Rocky
Mountain Power, a Division ofPacifiCorp, for a Defered Accounting Order To Defer the Costs
of Loans Made to Grid West, the Regional Transmission Organization," Docket No. 06-035-163;
"In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for an Accounting Order for Costs
related to the Flooding of the Powerdale Hydro Facilty," Docket No. 07-035-14. Direct
testimony submitted September 10,2007. Surebuttal testimony submitted October 22,2007.
Cross examined October 30, 2007.
"In the Matter of General Adjustment of Electrc Rates of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.,"
Kentucky Public Service Commission, Case No. 2006-00472. Direct testimony submitted July 6,
2007. Supplemental direct testimony submitted March 14,2008.
"In the Matter of the Application of Sempra Energy Solutions for a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for Competitive Retail Electrc Serice," Arizona Corporation Commission,
Docket No. E-03964A-06-0l68. Direct testimony submitted July 3,2007. Rebuttal testimony
submitted Januar 17, 2008.
"Application of Public Service Company of Oklahoma for a Deterination that Additional
Electrc Generating Capacity Wil Be Used and Useful," Oklahoma Corporation Commission,
Cause No. PUD 200500516; "Application of Public Serice Company of Oklahoma for a
Deterination that Additional Baseload Electrc Generating Capacity Wil Be Used and Usefu,"
Cause No. PUD 200600030; "In the Matter of the Application of Oklahoma Gas and Electrc
Company for an Order Granting Pre-Approval to Constrct Red Rock Generating Facilty and
Authorizing a Recover Rider," Cause No. PUD2007000l2. Responsive testimony submitted
May 21,2007. Cross examined July 26,2007.
"Application of Nevada Power Company for Authority to Increase Its Anual Revenue
Requirement for General Rates Charged to All Classes of Electrc Customers and for Relief
Properly Related Thereto," Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, Docket No. 06- 11022.
Direct testimony submitted March 14,2007 (Phase II - revenue requirements) and March 19,
2007 (Phase N - rate design). Cross examined April 10, 2007 (Phase III - revenue requirements)
and April 16, 2007 (Phase IV - rate design).
"In the Matter of the Application of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. for Approval of Changes in Rates for
Retail Electric Service," Arkansas Public Service Commission, Docket No. 06-L0L-U. Direct
testimony submitted February 5,2007. Surrebuttal testimony submitted March 26,2007.
7
Attachment A
Page 8 of19
"Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, both d//a Allegheny Power
- Rule 42T Application to Increase Electrc Rates and Charges," Public Serice Commission of
West Virginia, Case No. 06-0960-E-42T; "Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac
Edison Company, both d/b/a Allegheny Power - Information Required for Change of
Depreciation Rates Pursuant to Rule 20," Case No. 06-l426-E-D. Direct and rebuttal testimony
submitted Januar 22,2007.
"In the Matter of the Tarffs of Aquila, Inc., d//a Aquila Networks-MPS and Aquila Networks-
L&P Increasing Electrc Rates for the Serces Provided to Customers in the Aquila Networks-
MPS and Aquila Networks-L&P Missouri Service Areas," Missouri Public Servce
Commission, Case No. ER-2007-0004. Direct testimony submitted Januar 18, 2007 (revenue
requirements) and Januar 25,2007 (revenue apportionment). Supplemental direct testimony
submitted Februar 27,2007.
"In the Matter of the Filng by Tucson Electrc Power Company to Amend Decision No. 62103,
Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01933A-05-0650. Direct testimony submitted
Januar 8,2007. Surrebuttal testimony filed Februar 8, 2007. Cross examined March 8, 2007.
"In the Matter of Union Electrc Company d//a AmerenUE for Authority to File Tarffs
Increasing Rates for Electrc Service Provided to Customers in the Company's Missouri Serice
Area," Missouri Public Service Commission, Case No. ER-2007-0002. Direct testimony
submitted December 15, 2006 (revenue requirements) and December 29,2006 (fuel adjustment
clause/cost-of-serce/rate design). Rebuttal testimony submitted Februar 5, 2007 (cost-of-
serce). Surrebuttal testimony submitted Februar 27,2007. Cross examined March 21,2007.
"In the Matter of Application of The Union Light, Heat and Power Company d/b/a Duke Energy
Kentucky, Inc. for an Adjustment of Electrc Rates," Kentucky Public Serce Commission,
Case No. 2006-00172. Direct testimony submitted September 13, 2006.
"In the Matter of Appalachian Power Company's Application for Increase in Electrc Rates,"
Virgiia State Corporation Commission, Case No. PUE-2006-00065. Direct testimony
submitted September 1, 2006. Cross examined December 7,2006.
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Serice Company for a Hearng to Deterine
the Fair Value ofthe Utility Propert for Ratemaking Puroses, to Fix a Just and Reasonable
Rate of Return Thereon, To Approve Rate Schedules Designed to Develop Such Return, and to
Amend Decision No. 67744, Arizona Corporation Commission," Docket No. E-01345A-05-
0816. Direct testimony submitted August 18,2006 (revenue requirements) and September 1,
2006 (cost-of-service/rate design). Surebuttal testimony submitted September 27, 2006. Cross
examined November 7,2006.
8
Attachment A
Page 9 of19
"Re: The Tarff Sheets Filed by Public Service Company of Colorado with Advice Letter
No 1454 - Electrc," Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 06S-234EG. Answer
testimony submitted August 18, 2006.
"Portland General Electrc General Rate Case Filing," Public Utility Commission of Oregon,
Docket No. UE-180. Direct testimony submitted August 9, 2006. Joint testimony regarding
stipulation submitted August 22, 2006.
"2006 Puget Sound Energy General Rate Case," Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission, Docket Nos. UE-060266 and UG-060267. Response testimony submitted July 19,
2006. Joint testimony regarding stipulation submitted August 23, 2006.
"In the Matter ofPacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power & Light Company, Request for a General Rate
Increase in the Company's Oregon Anual Revenues," Public Utilty Commission of Oregon,
Docket No. UE-179. Direct testimony submitted July 12, 2006. Joint testimony regarding
stipulation submitted August 21, 2006.
"Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company for Approval of a Rate Transition Plan,"
Pennsylvania Public Utilties Commission, Docket Nos. P-00062213 and R-00061366; "Petition
of Pensylvania Electric Company for Approval of a Rate Transition Plan," Docket Nos. P-
0062214 and R-00061367; Merger Savings Remand Proceeding, Docket Nos. A-ll0300F0095
and A-ll0400F0040. Direct testimony submitted July 10, 2006. Rebuttal testimony submitted
August 8, 2006. Surebuttal testimony submitted August 18, 2006. Cross examined August 30,
2006.
"In the Matter of the Application ofPacifiCorp for approval of its Proposed Electrc Rate
Schedules & Electrc Service Regulations," Utah Public Serce Commission, Docket No. 06-
035-21. Direct testimony submitted June 9, 2006 (Test Perod). Surrebuttal testimony submitted
July 14, 2006.
"Joint Application of Questar Gas Company, the Division of Public Utilities, and Utah Clean
Energy for the Approval ofthe Conseration Enabling Tarff Adjustment Option and Accounting
Orders," Utah Public Serice Commission, Docket No. 05-057-T01. Direct testimony submitted
May 15, 2006. Rebuttal testimony submitted August 8, 2007. Cross examined September 19,
2007.
"Central Ilinois Light Company d//a AmerenCILCO, Central Ilinois Public Service Company
d/b/a AmerenCIPS, Ilinois Power Company d//a AmerenI, Proposed General Increase in
Rates for Deliver Service (Tarffs Filed December 27,2005)," Illois Commerce Commission,
Docket Nos. 06-0070, 06-0071, 06-0072. Direct testimony submitted March 26,2006. Rebuttal
testimony submitted June 27,2006.
9
Attachment A
Page 10 of19
"In the Matter of Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company, both dba
Amercan Electrc Power," Public Serice Commission of West Virgiia, Case No. 05-l278-E-
PC-PW-42T. Direct and rebuttal testimony submitted March 8, 2006.
"In the Matter of North em States Power Company d//a Xcel Energy for Authority to Increase
Rates for Electrc Serce in Minnesota," Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Docket No.
G-002/GR-05-l428. Direct testimony submitted March 2,2006. Rebuttal testimony submitted
March 30, 2006. Cross examined April 25, 2006.
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Servce Company for an Emergency Interm
Rate Increase and for an Interim Amendment to Decision No. 67744," Arizona Corporation
Commission, Docket No. E-01345A-06-0009. Direct testimony submitted Februar 28,2006.
Cross examined March 23,2006.
"In the Matter of the Applications of Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electrc Company
for Approval to Make Cerain Changes in Their Charges for Electrc Service," State Corporation
Commission of Kansas, Case No. 05-WSEE-98l-RTS. Direct testimony submitted September 9,
2005. Cross examined October 28,2005.
"In the Matterofthe Application of Columbus Souther Power Company and Ohio Power
Company for Authority to Recover Costs Associated with the Construction and Ultimate
Operation of an Integrated Combined Cycle Electrc Generating Facility," Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio," Case No. 05-376-EL-UNC. Direct testimony submitted July 15, 2005.
Cross examined August 12,2005.
"In the Matter of the Filng of General Rate Case Information by Tucson Electrc Power
Company Pursuant to Decision No. 62103," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-
01933A-04-0408. Direct testimony submitted June 24,2005.
"In the Matter of Application of The Detroit Edison Company to Unbundle and Realign Its Rate
Schedules for Jurisdictional Retail Sales of Electrcity," Michigan Public Service Commssion,
Case No. U-14399. Direct testimony submitted June 9,2005. Rebuttal testimony submitted July
1,2005.
"In the Matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for Authority to Increase Its
Rates for the Generation and Distrbution of Electrcity and Other Relief," Michigan Public
Serice Commission, Case No. U-14347. Direct testimony submitted June 3,2005. Rebuttal
testimony submitted June 17,2005.
"In the Matter of Pacific Power & Light, Request for a General Rate Increase in the Company's
10
Attachment A
Page 11 of19
Oregon Anual Revenues," Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Docket No. UE 170. Direct
testimony submitted May 9,2005. Surrebuttal testimony submitted June 27,2005. Joint
testimony regarding parial stipulations submitted June 2005, July 2005, and August 2005.
"In the Matter of the Application ofTrico Electrc Cooperative, Inc. for a Rate Increase,"
Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01461A-04-0607. Direct testimony submitted
April 13,2005. Surrebuttal testimony submitted May 16, 2005. Cross examined May 26,2005.
"In the Matter of the Application ofPacifiCorp for Approval of its Proposed Electrc Serce
Schedules and Electrc Serice Regulations," Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 04-
035-42. Direct testimony submitted Januar 7,2005.
"In the Matter of the Application by Golden Valley Electrc Association, Inc., for Authority to
Implement Simplified Rate Filng Procedures and Adjust Rates," Regulatory Commission of
Alaska, Docket No. U-4-33. Direct testimony submitted November 5, 2004. Cross examined
Februar 8,2005.
"Advice Letter No. 1411 - Public Service Company of Colorado Electrc Phase II General Rate
Case," Colorado Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. 04S-l64E. Direct testimony
submitted October 12, 2004. Cross-answer testimony submitted December 13, 2004. Testimony
withdrawn Januar 18, 2005, following Applicant's withdrawal of testimony peraining to TOU
rates.
"In the Matter of Georgia Power Company's 2004 Rate Case," Georgia Public Serice
Commission, Docket No. 18300-U. Direct testimony submitted October 8, 2004. Cross examined
October 27, 2004.
"2004 Puget Sound Energy General Rate Case," Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission, Docket Nos. UE",040641 and UG-040640. Response testimony submitted
September 23,2004. Cross-answer testimony submitted November 3,2004. Joint testimony
regarding stipulation submitted December 6, 2004.
"In the Matter of the Application ofPacifiCorp for an Investigation of Inteiurisdictional Issues,"
Utah Public Serice Commission, Docket No. 02-035-04. Direct testimony submitted July 15,
2004. Cross examined July 19, 2004.
"In the Matter of an Adjustment of the Gas and Electric Rates, Terms and Conditions of
Kentucky Utilities Company," Kentucky Public Serice Commission, Case No. 2003-00434.
Direct testimony submitted March 23,2004. Testimony withdrawn pursuat to stipulation
entered May 2004.
11
Attachment A
Page 12 of 19
"In the Matter of an Adjustment of the Gas and Electrc Rates, Terms and Conditions of
Louisvile Gas and Electrc Company," Kentucky Public Serce Commission, Case No. 2003-
00433. Direct testimony submitted March 23, 2004. Testimony withdrawn pursuant to stipulation
entered May 2004.
"In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Authority to Increase Its Interm
and Base Rates and Charges for Electrc Serce," Idaho Public Utilties Commission, Case No.
IPC-E-03-13. Direct testimony submitted Februar 20,2004. Rebuttal testimony submitted
March 19,2004. Cross examined April 1, 2004.
"In the Matter of the Applications of the Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland Electrc
Iluminating Company and the Toledo Edison Company for Authority to Continue and Modify
Certain Regulatory Accounting Practices and Procedures, for Tarff Approvals and to Establish
Rates and Other Charges, Including Regulatory Transition Charges Following the Market
Development Perod," Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case No. 03-2l44-EL-ATA. Direct
testimony submitted Februar 6,2004. Cross examined Februar 18, 2004.
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Serce Company for a Hearng to Deterine
the Fair Value ofthe Utilty Property of the Company for Ratemaking Puroses, To Fix a Just
and Reasonable Rate of Return Thereon, To Approve Rate Schedules Designed to Develop Such
Retu, and For Approval of Purchased Power Contract," Arizona Corporation Commission,
Docket No. E-01345A-03-0437. Direct testimony submitted Februar 3,2004. Rebuttal
testimony submitted March 30, 2004. Direct testimony regarding stipulation submitted
September 27,2004. Responsive / Clarfyng testimony regarding stipulation submitted October
25, 2004. Cross examined November 8-10, 2004 and November 29-December 3, 2004.
"In the Matter of Application of the Detroit Edison Company to Increase Rates, Amend Its Rate
Schedules Governing the Distrbution and Supply of Electric Energy, etc.," Michigan Public
Servce Commission, Case No. U-13808. Direct testimony submitted December 12,2003
(interim request) and March 5, 2004 (general rate case).
"In the Matter ofPacifiCorp's Filing of Revised Tarff Schedules," Public Utility Commission of
Oregon, Docket No. UE-147. Joint testimony regarding stipulation submitted August 21,2003.
"Petition of PSI Energy, Inc. for Authority to Increase Its Rates and Charges for Electrc Service,
etc.," Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Cause No. 42359. Direct testimony submitted
August 19,2003. Cross examined November 5, 2003.
"In the Matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for a Financing Order
Approving the Securitization of Cerain of its Qualified Cost," Michigan Public Serice
Commission, Case No. U-137L5. Direct testimony submitted April 8, 2003. Cross examined
April 23, 2003.
12
Attachment A
Page 13 of19
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Servce Company for Approval of
Adjustment Mechanisms," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01345A-02-0403.
Direct testimony submitted Februar 13, 2003. Surrebuttal testimony submitted March 20,2003.
Cross examined April 8, 2003.
"Re: The Investigation and Suspension of Tarff Sheets Filed by Public Servce Company of
Colorado, Advice Letter No. 1373 - Electrc, Advice Letter No. 593 - Gas, Advice Letter No. 80
- Steam," Colorado Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. 02S-3L5 EG. Direct testimony
submitted November 22,2002. Cross-answer testimony submitted Januar 24,2003.
"In the Matter of the Application of The Detroit Edison Company to Implement the
Commission's Stranded Cost Recovery Procedure and for Approval of Net Stranded Cost
Recover Charges," Michigan Public Servce Commission, Case No. U-13350. Direct testimony
submitted November 12,2002.
"Application of South Carolina Electrc & Gas Company: Adjustments in the Company's
Electrc Rate Schedules and Tarffs," Public Serice Commission of South Carolia, Docket
No. 2002-223-E. Direct testimony submitted November 8, 2002. Surrebuttal testimony submitted
November 18,2002. Cross examined November 21,2002.
"In the Matter of the Application of Questar Gas Company for a General Increase in Rates and
Charges," Utah Public Serice Commission, Docket No. 02-057-02. Direct testimony submitted
August 30, 2002. Rebuttal testimony submitted October 4, 2002.
"The Kroger Co. v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.," Federal Energy Regulatory Commssion,
EL02-119-000. Confidential affdavit filed August 13,2002.
"In the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for deterination of net
stranded costs and for approval of net stranded cost recover charges," Michigan Public Serice
Commission, Case No. U-13380. Direct testimony submitted August 9, 2002. Rebuttal testimony
submitted August 30, 2002. Cross examined September 10, 2002.
"In the Matter of the Application of Public Serice Company of Colorado for an Order to Revise
Its Incentive Cost Adjustment," Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Docket 02A-158E.
Direct testimony submitted April 18, 2002.
"In the Matter of the Generc Proceedings Concernng Electrc Restrcturing Issues," Arizona
Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-00000A-02-0051, "In the Matter of Arzona Public
Service Company's Request for Varance of Cerain Requirements of A.A.C. R14-2-1606,"
Docket No. E-01345A-OI-0822, "In the Matter of the Generic Proceeding Concering the
Arzona Independent Scheduling Administrator," Docket No. E-00000A-Ol-0630, "In the Matter
13
Attachment A
Page140f19
of Tucson Electrc Power Company's Application for a Varance of Cerain Electrc Competition
Rules Compliance Dates," Docket No. E-01933A-02-0069, "In the Matter ofthe Application of
Tucson Electrc Power Company for Approval of its Stranded Cost Recovery," Docket No. E-
01933A-98-0471. Direct testimony submitted March 29,2002 (APS varance request); May 29,
2002 (APS Track A proceeding/market power issues); and July 28,2003 (Arzona ISA). Rebuttal
testimony submitted August 29,2003 (Arzona ISA). Cross examined June 21, 2002 (APS Track
A proceeding/market power issues) and September 12, 2003 (Arzona ISA).
"In the Matter of Savanah Electrc & Power Company's 2001 Rate Case," Georgia Public
Service Commission, Docket No. L46L8-U. Direct testimony submitted March 15,2002. Cross
examined March 28, 2002.
''Nevada Power Company's 2001 Deferred Energy Case," Public Utilties Commission of
Nevada, PUCN 01-11029. Direct testimony submitted Februar 7,2002. Cross examined
Februar 21,2002.
"2001 Puget Sound Energy Interm Rate Case," Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission, Docket Nos. UE-011570 and UE-011571. Direct testimony submitted Januar 30,
2002. Cross examined Februar 20, 2002.
"In the Matter of Georgia Power Company's 2001 Rate Case," Georgia Public Serice
Commission, Docket No. L4000-U. Direct testimony submitted October 12,2001. Cross
examined October 24, 2001.
"In the Matter of the Application ofPacifiCorp for Approval of Its Proposed Electrc Rate
Schedules and Electrc Servce Regulations," Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 01-
35-01. Direct testimony submitted June 15, 2001. Rebuttal testimony submitted August 31,
2001.
"In the Matter of Portland General Electrc Company's Proposal to Restructure and Reprice Its
Services in Accordance with the Provisions ofSB 1149," Public Utility Commission of Oregon,
Docket No. UE-115. Direct testimony submitted Februar 20, 2001. Rebuttal testimony
submitted May 4,2001. Joint testimony regarding stipulation submitted July 27,2001.
"In the Matter of the Application of APS Energy Services, Inc. for Declaratory Order or Waiver
ofthe Electrc Competition Rules," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket NO.E-01933A-
00-0486. Direct testimony submitted July 24, 2000.
"In the Matter of the Application of Questar Gas Company for an Increase in Rates and
Charges," Utah Public Serice Commission, Docket No. 99-057-20. Direct testimony submitted
April 19, 2000. Rebuttal testimony submitted May 24,2000. Surrebuttal testimony submitted
May 31, 2000. Cross examined June 6 & 8, 2000.
14
Attachment A
Page 15 of 19
"In the Matter of the Application of Columbus Southern Power Company for Approval of
Electrc Transition Plan and Application for Receipt of Transition Revenues," Public Utility
Commission of Ohio, Case No. 99-l729-EL-ETP; "In the Matter of the Application of Ohio
Power Company for Approval of Electrc Transition Plan and Application for Receipt of
Transition Revenues," Public Utility Commission of Ohio, Case No. 99-1 730-EL-ETP . Direct
testimony prepared, but not submitted pursuant to settlement agreement effected May 2, 2000.
"In the Matter ofthe Application of First Energy Corp. on Behalf of Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electrc Iluminating Company, and the Toledo Edison Company for Approval of
Their Transition Plans and for Authorization to Collect Transition Revenues," Public Utility
Commission of Ohio, Case No. 99-l2l2-EL-ETP. Direct testimony prepared, but not submitted
pursuant to settlement agreement effected April 11, 2000.
"2000 Pricing Process," Salt River Project Board of Directors, oral comments provided March
6, 2000 and April 10, 2000.
''Tucson Electrc Power Company vs. Cyprus Sierrta Corporation," Arizona Corporation
Commission, Docket No. E-000001-99-0243. Direct testimony submitted October 25, 1999.
Cross examined November 4, 1999.
"Application of Hilda Ie City and Intermountain Muncipal Gas Association for an Order
Granting Access for Transportation of Interstate Natural Gas over the Pipelines of Questar Gas
Company for Hildale, Utah," Utah Public Serice Commission, Docket No. 98-057-01. Rebuttal
testimony submitted August 30, 1999.
"In the Matter of the Application by Arzona Electrc Power Cooperative, Inc. for Approval of Its
Filng as to Regulatory Assets and Transition Revenues," Arizona Corporation Commission,
Docket No. E-01773A-98-0470. Direct testimony submitted July 30, 1999. Cross examined
Februar 28, 2000.
"In the Matter of the Application of Tucson Electrc Power Company for Approval of its Plan
for Stranded Cost Recovery," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01933A-98-
0471; "In the Matter of the Filng of Tucson Electrc Power Company of Unbundled Tarffs
Pursuant to A.A.C. R14-2-l601 et seq.," Docket No. E-01933A-97-0772; "In the Matter of the
Competition in the Provision of Electrc Serice Thoughout the State of Arzona," Docket No.
RE-00000C-94-0l65. Direct testimony submitted June 30, 1999. Rebuttal testimony submitted
August 6, 1999. Cross examined August 11-13, 1999.
"In the Matter of the Application of Arzona Public Serice Company for Approval of its Plan
for Stranded Cost Recovery," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01345A-98-
0473; "In the Matter ofthe Filing of Arzona Public Serice Company of Unbundled Tarffs
15
Attachment A
Page 16 of 19
Pursuant to A.A.C. R14-2-160l et seq.," Docket No. E-01345A-97-0773; "In the Matter of the
Competition in the Provision of Electrc Service Thoughout the State of Arzona," Docket No.
RE-00000C-94-0l65. Direct testimony submitted June 4, 1999. Rebuttal testimony submitted
July 12, 1999. Cross examined July 14, 1999.
"In the Matter of the Application of Tucson Electrc Power Company for Approval of its Plan for
Stranded Cost Recover," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. E-01933A-98-047l;
"In the Matter of the Filing of Tucson Electrc Power Company of Unbundled Tarffs Pursuant to
A.A.C. R14-2-1601 et seq.," Docket No. E-01933A-97-0772; "In the Matter ofthe Application
of Arzona Public Serice Company for Approval of its Plan for Stranded Cost Recovery,"
Docket No. E-01345A-98-0473; "In the Matter of the Filing of Arzona Public Serice Company
of Unbundled Tarffs Pursuant to A.A.C. R14-2-l60l et seq.," Docket No. E-01345A-97-0773;
"In the Matter of the Competition in the Provision of Electrc Serice Throughout the State of
Arzona," Docket No. RE-00000C-94-0l65. Direct testimony submitted November 30, 1998.
"Hearngs on Pricing," Salt River Project Board of Directors, wrtten and oral comments
provided November 9, 1998.
"Hearngs on Customer Choice," Salt River Project Board of Directors, written and oral
comments provided June 22, 1998; June 29, 1998; July 9, 1998; August 7, 1998; and August 14,
1998.
"In the Matter of the Competition in the Provision of Electrc Service Thoughout the State of
Arzona," Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket No. U-0000-94-L65. Direct and rebuttal
testimony filed Januar 21, 1998. Second rebuttal testimony filed Februar 4, 1998. Cross
examined February 25, 1998.
"In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, InC.'s Plans for (1) Electrc
Rate/Restrcturing Pursuant to Opinion No. 96-12; and (2) the Formation of a Holding Company
Pursuant to PSL, Sections 70, 108, and I 10, and Certain Related Transactions," New York
Public Service Commission, Case 96-E-0897. Direct testimony filed April 9, 1997. Cross
examined May 5, 1997.
"In the Matter of the Petition of Sunyside Cogeneration Associates for Enforcement of Contract
Provisions," Utah Public Serce Commission, Docket No. 96-2018-01; "In the Matter ofthe
Application of Rocky Mountain Power for an Order Approving an Amendment to Its Power
Purchase Agreement with Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates," Docket Nos. 05-035-46, and 07-
035-99. Direct testimony submitted July 8, 1996. Oral testimony provided March 18,2008.
"In the Matter of the Application ofPacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power & Light Company, for
Approval of Revised Tarff Schedules and an Alterative Form of Regulation Plan," Wyomig
16
Attachment A
Page 17 of19
Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2000-ER-95-99. Direct testimony submitted April 8,
1996.
"In the Matter ofthe Application of Mountain Fuel Supply Company for an Increase in Rates and
Charges," Utah Public Serice Commission, Case No. 95-057-02. Direct testimony submitted
June 19, 1995. Rebuttal testimony submitted July 25, 1995. Surrebuttal testimony submitted
August 7, 1995.
"In the Matter of the Investigation of the Reasonableness of the Rates and Tarffs of Mountain
Fuel Supply Company," Utah Public Serice Commission, Case No. 89-057-15. Direct
testimony submitted July 1990. Surrebuttal testimony submitted August 1990.
"In the Matter of the Review of the Rates of Utah Power and Light Company pursuant to The
Order in Case No. 87-035-27," Utah Public Service Commission, Case No. 89-035-10. Rebuttal
testimony submitted November 15, 1989. Cross examined December 1, 1989 (rate schedule
changes for state facilities).
"In the Matter ofthe Application of Utah Power & Light Company and PC/uP&L Merging Corp.
(to be renamed PacifiCorp) for an Order Authorizing the Merger of Utah Power & Light
Company and PacifiCorp into PC/uP&L Merging Corp. and Authorizing the Issuance of
Securties, Adoption of Tarffs, and Transfer of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Authorities in Connection Therewith," Utah Public Serce Commission, Case No. 87-035-
27; Direct testimony submitted April 11, 1988. Cross examined May 12, 1988 (economic impact
ofUP&L merger with PacifiCorp).
"In the Matter of the Application of Mountain Fuel Supply Company for Approval of
Interrptible Industral Transportation Rates," Utah Public Servce Commission, Case No. 86-
057-07. Direct testimony submitted Januar 15, 1988. Cross examined March 30, 1988.
"In the Matter ofthe Application of Utah Power and Light Company for an Order Approving a
Power Purchase Agreement," Utah Public Serice Commission, Case No. 87-035-18. Oral
testimony delivered July 8, 1987.
"Cogeneration: Small Power Production," Federal Energy Regulatory Commssion, Docket
No. RM87-12-000. Statement on behalf of State of Utah delivered March 27, 1987, in San
Francisco.
"In the Matter of the Investigation of Rates for Backup, Maintenance, Supplementar, and
Standby Power for Utah Power and Light Company," Utah Public Service Commission, Case
No. 86-035-13. Direct testimony submitted Januar 5, 1987. Case settled by stipulation
approved August'1987.
17
Attachment A
Page 18 of 19
"In the Matter of the Application of Sunyside Cogeneration Associates for Approval of the
Cogeneration Power Purchase Agreement," Utah Public Serice Commission, Case No. 86-
2018-01. Rebuttal testimony submitted July 16, 1986. Cross examined July 17, 1986.
"In the Matter ofthe Investigation of Demand-Side Alteratives to Capacity Expansion for
Electrc Utilities," Utah Public Service Commission, Case No. 84-999-20. Direct testimony
submitted June 17, 1985. Rebuttal testimony submitted July 29, 1985. Cross examined August
19, 1985.
"In the Matter of the Implementation of Rules Govering Cogeneration and Small Power
Production in Utah," Utah Public Servce Commission, Case No. 80-999-06, pp. 1293-1318.
Direct testimony submitted Januar 13, 1984 (avoided costs), May 9, 1986 (securty for levelized
contracts) and November 17, 1986 (avoided costs). Cross-examined Februar 29, 1984
(avoided costs), April 11, 1985 (standard form contracts), May 22-23, 1986 (security for
levelized contracts) and December 16-17, 1986 (avoided costs).
OTHER RELATED ACTIVITY
Paricipant, Wyoming Load Growth Collaborative, March 2008 to present.
Paricipant, Oregon Direct Access Task Force (UM 1081), May 2003 to November 2003.
Paricipant, Michigan Stranded Cost Collaborative, March 2003 to March 2004.
Member, Arzona Electrc Competition Advisory Group, December 2002 to present.
Board of Directors, ex-officio, Desert STAR RTO, September 1999 to Februar 2002.
Member, Advisory Committee, Deser STAR RTO, September 1999 to Februar 2002. Acting
Chairman, October 2000 to Februar 2002.
Board of Directors, Arizona Independent Scheduling Administrator Association, October 1998 to
present.
Acting Chairman, Operating Committee, Arzona Independent Scheduling Administrator
Association, October 1998 to June 1999.
Member, Deser Star iSO Investigation Working Groups: Operations, Pricing, and Goverance,
April 1997 to December 1999. Legal & Negotiating Committee, April 1999 to December 1999.
18
Attachment A
Page 19 of 19
Paricipant, Independent System Operator and Spot Market Working Group, Arizona
Corporation Commission, April 1997 to September 1997.
Paricipant, Unbundled Serces and Standard Offer Working Group, Arzona Corporation
Commission, April 1997 to October 1997.
Paricipant, Customer Selection Working Group, Arzona Corporation Commission, March 1997
to September 1997.
Member, Stranded Cost Working Group, Arzona Corporation Commission, March 1997 to
September 1997.
Member, Electrc System Reliabilty & Safety Working Group, Arzona Corporation
Commission, November 1996 to September 1998.
Chairman, Salt Palace Renovation and Expansion Committee, Salt Lake County/State of
UtahSalt Lake City, multi-governent entity responsible for implementation of planing,
design, finance, and constrction of an $85 milion renovation ofthe Salt Palace Convention
Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1991 to December 1994.
State of Utah Representative, Committee on Regional Electrc Power Cooperation, a joint effort
of the Western Interstate Energy Board and the Wester Conference of Public Service
Commissioners, Januar 1987 to December 1990.
Member, Utah Governor's Economic Coordinating Committee, Januar 1987 to December 1990.
Chairman, Standard Contract Task Force, established by Utah Public Serice Commission to
address contractual problems relating to qualifyng facility sales under PURP A, March 1986 to
December 1990.
Chairman, Load Management and Energy Conservation Task Force, Utah Public Service
Commission, August 1985 to December 1990.
Alternate Delegate for Utah, Western Interstate Energy Board, Denver, Colorado, August 1985 to
December 1990.
Articles Editor, Economic Forum, September 1980 to August 1981.
19