20120314Clarification.pdf

*SIDA""POe
RECEIVE An IOACORP Company
20llMAR 14.PH 4: 49
JASON B. WILLIAMS
Corporate Counsel
jwilliamstmidahopower.com
March 14, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re: Impact of Proposed Settlement Stipulation in Case No. IPC-E-12-02 (Hoku
Contract Reformation Proceeding) and Clarification of Certain Language
in the Applications in Case Nos. IPC-E-12-06 (Transmission Deferral),
IPC-E-12-07 (Non-AMI Depreciation), IPC-E-12-08 (Depreciation Rates),
and IPC-E-12-09 (Boardman Rates) and clarification of rate calculation
language in those Applications.
Dear Ms. Jewell:
The Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission") Staff contacted Idaho Power
Company ("Idaho Powet' or "Company") last week seeking clarification on certain items
contained in the four Applications filed with the Commission on February 15, 2012, in
Case Nos. IPC-E-12-06 (Transmission Deferral), IPC-E-12-07 (Non-AMI Depreciation),
IPC-E-12-08 (Depreciation Rates), and IPC-E-12-09 (Boardman Rates).
Hoku Contract Reformation Impact. A Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Stipulation which would reform a portion of the Special Contract between Idaho Power
and Hoku Materials, Inc. ("Hoku") was filed on February 17, 2012, and is currently
pending approval in Case No. IPC-E-12-02. The customer communications associated
with the Company's three March 2, 2012, filings contained a chart depicting the
revenue impact by class from current biled rates as if the proposed Settlement
Stipulation pending in Case No. IPC-E-12-02 was approved by the Commission. In
discussions with Staff last week, the Staff and Idaho Power agreed that the Company
should recalculate the rate impact of the four February 15, 2012, filings to likewise
include the impact of the Hoku Settlement Stipulation as if it were approved by the
Commission.
Jean Jewell
March 14, 2012
Page 2
Idaho Power hereby submits this informational filng in the above-captioned dockets
with the following revenue impact calculations that include the rate impact with an
assumption that the Settlement Stipulation in Case No. IPC-E-12-02 is approved as
filed. It is important to note that the percentages presented in the table represent the
percentage change in total Idaho jurisdictional "biled revenue" which includes revenue
from base rates, the Power Cost Adjustment, and the Fixed Cost Adjustment. The
percentage change numbers included in the Applications in Case Nos. IPC-E-12-06
(Transmission Cost Deferral), IPC-E-12-07 (Non-AMI Depreciation), IPC-E-12-08
(Depreciation Rates), and IPC-E-12-09 (Boardman Rates) were measurements from
base rate revenue only.
Revéraue Impact By Class
Percentage Change from Current Biled RatesResidential Small Large Large
General General Power
Service Service
0.05% 0.09%
(1.04%) (1.63%)
0.29% 0.32%
0.17% 0.19%
0.31% 0.00%
(3.16%) (3.25%)6.99% 7.18%
3.61% 2.91%
Transmission Deferral
Non-AMI Depreciation
Depreciation Rates
Boardman Rates
FCA
Revenue Sharing
Langley Gulch
Combined Effect
0.06%
(1.32%)
0.30%
0.18%
0.28%
(3.17%)
7.00%
3.34%
1 Includes Lighting Schedules
2 Includes Special Contracts
0.13%
0.00%
0.33%
0.20%
0.00%
(3.26%)
7.21%
4.60%
Irrigation
0.08%
(1.68%)
0.33%
0.19%
0.00%
(3.25%)
7.17%
2.85%
Overall
Change
0.08%
(1.25%)
0.31%
0.19%
0.14%
(3.21%)
7.10%
3.35%
Clarification of Application Language. Idaho Power inadvertently used imprecise
language to describe how the rate impacts were calculated in the four Applications filed
on February 15, 2012. Idaho Power hereby submits this informational filing to clarify the
language of each Application as follows:
Case No. IPC-E-12-06 (Transmission Deferral): Paragraph 8 on page 4 of the
Application should read: "As a result of the amortization period, the Company proposes
an overall average uniform percentage increase of 0.08 percent applied as a uniform
cents per kWh increase to all customer classes. .." On page 7 of the Application,
paragraph 17 should read: "... (2) approving an increase of $688,156 in the annual
revenue recovered, which results in an uniform percentage overall average increase of
0.08 percent to all customers classes; . . ."
Case No. IPC-E-12-07 (Non-AMI Depreciation): Paragraph 6 on page 4 of the
Application should read: "The Company proposes a uniform percentage cents per kWh
decrease to Tariff Schedules. . ."
Jean Jewell
March 14, 2012
Page 3
Case No. IPC-E-12-08 (Depreciation Rates): Paragraph 7 on page 4 of the
Application should state: "The Company requests that the incremental revenue
requirement of $2,656,213 be spread to recovered from all customer classes on a
uniform percentage basis and be recovered through a uniform percentage increase to
all base rate components except the service charge."
Case No. IPC-E-12-09 (Boardman Rates): Paragraph 4 on page 3 of the Application
should read: "The Company requests that the incremental revenue requirement of
$1,583,373 be spread to customer classes on a uniform percentage basis and be
recovered from all customer classes through a uniform percentage increase to all base
rate components except the service charge."
Importantly, none of these clarifications impact the Company's request in any of the four
proceedings. Again, the Company is submitting these clarifications for informational
purposes.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,\
\.
Jason B. Williams
JBW:kkt