20130903Reply Comments.pdf

SIffi*.
An IDACORP Company
1111;r .g.I;)r,tr : i)r
JULIA A. HILTON
Gorporate Counsel
i h i [e-mail]
September 3,2013
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-13-08
2012 Demand-Side Management Expenditures - Idaho Power Company's
Reply Comments
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed forfiling in the above matterare an original and seven (7) copies of ldaho
Power Company's Reply Comments. ln addition, enclosed in a separate envelope are an
original and seven (7) copies each of confidential page 8 and confidential Attachment 2
of ldaho Power Company's Reply Comments. Please handle the confidential information
in accordance with the Protective Agreement executed in this matter.
Very truly yours,
JAH:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. ldaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
JULIA A. HILTON (lSB No. 7740)
LISA D. NORDSTROM (lSB No. 5733)
ldaho Power Company
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
i h i lton@ idahopower. com
lnordstrom @ida hopower. com
Attorneys for ldaho Power Company
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION OF 2012 DEMAND-
SIDE MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES
AS PRUDENTLY INCURRED
4iln a- j'r,riii .-!-''t f" tnI ; \t' '. Ll
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. |PC-E-13-08
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
REPLY COMMENTS
ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/' or "Company") hereby respectfully
submits to the ldaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") its Reply Comments in
the above-captioned proceeding.
I. INTRODUCTION
ldaho Power filed its Application on April 3, 2013, requesting that the
Commission find that it prudently incurred $46,356,160 in demand-side management
('DSM") expenses in 2012, including $25,857,603 in ldaho Energy Efficiency Rider
("Rider'') expenses, $6,019,109 in Custom Efficiency program incentive expenses, and
$14,479,447 of demand response program incentive expenses. Both the ldaho
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 1
Conservation League ("lCL") and Commission Staff ("Staff') submitted comments on the
Company's Application on August 20,2013.
II. COMMENTS
ICL recommends the Commission find prudent ldaho Powe/s 2012 DSM
expenses and provides additional suggestions on maintaining the overall suite of DSM
activities. ldaho Power appreciates ICL's comments and suggestions.
Staff's Comments generally accept the Company's request. However, Staff
recommends that the Commission deny the Company's request to recover incremental
Rider-funded labor expenses for 2011 and 2012. Staff requests that the Commission
make a finding on the specific 2012 year-end Rider balance. Staff also requests that
the Commission direct ldaho Power to discuss with the Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group ("EEAG') the impacts of new avoided costs and the Company's decisions related
to its relationships with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ('NEEA") and CAES
Energy Efficiency Research lnstitute ("CEERI"). ldaho Power focused its Reply
Comments on issues where Staff requested Commission action. Because the
Company does not respond to every issue raised by Staff; silence on an issue should
not imply agreement.
A. The Commission Should Approve ldaho Power's Rider-Funded Labor
Expenses Because lt ls Appropriatelv Reviewed in This Gase and the
Evidence Supports That lt Was Prudent.
Staff recommends the Commission deny the Company's request to recover
$263,412 in incremental Rider-funded laborexpenses incurred in2011 and 2012. Staff
bases this recommendation on its position that Rider-funded labor expenses are only
appropriately reviewed in a general rate case and its assertion that the Company's
evidence does not support incremental Rider-funded labor increases.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 2
1. Rider-Funded. Labor-Related Expenses Are Appropriatelv Reviewed
in This Case.
ln Commission Order No. 32667, the Commission found that the Company did
not provide sufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness of the increase in Rider-
funded, labor-related expenses. The Commission found "the Company may, but need
not, wait until a general rate case to provide such supporting information." ln re
Application of ldaho Power Co., IPC-E-12-'15, Order No. 32667 at 9 (October 22,2012).
Upon reconsideration, the Commission held to its position deferring recovery of
increases in 2011 Rider-funded labor expenses, based upon a later assessment of
additional evidence to support a finding. ln re Application of ldaho Power Co., IPC-E-
12-15, Order No. 32690 at 4 (December 11, 2012). Notably, the Commission's finding
in Order No. 32690 did not concur with Staffs argument that these expenses are
appropriately reviewed in a general rate case. The Commission's Order No. 32690
followed its earlier holding that the Company need not wait for a general rate case to
address the Rider-funded, labor-related expenses. Nonetheless, Staff continues to
assert that these expenses are not appropriate for these annual proceedings and that
Rider-funded labor expenses should be capped at2010 levels until the Company's next
general rate case.
Staff disregards the Commission's Order Nos. 32667 and 32690 allowing for
presentation of evidence supporting the prudence of Rider-funded labor increases and
again contends that review of labor expenses should take place under the perceived
heightened scrutiny of a general rate case. The Company disagrees that a general rate
case provides a heightened level of scrutiny than can be achieved through a stand-
alone prudence review docket. ln the Company's 2008 general rate case, Staff
independently recommended that the Commission defer its determination of prudence
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 3
on DSM expenses because Staff believed there was not yet adequate information to
make such a determination. D! Anderson at 4:5, ln re the Application of ldaho Power
Co. for Authority to lncrease Rafes, IPC-E-08-10 (October 24,2008). ln making this
recommendation, Staff noted that a filing for a determination of prudence could occur
within a genera! rate case, a tariff rider application, or a stand-alone application. ld. at
12:9. Since that case, the Commission has successfully and effectively reviewed DSM-
related expenses outside of a general rate case on a stand-alone basis.
Review outside of a general rate case is superior in that it provides for thorough
review of one issue. lt also allows additional time to investigate and review evidence
put forth in support of that issue. The analyses provided in this case regarding 2011
and 2012 DSM labor expenses are more comprehensive and detailed than labor
information provided during past general rate case proceedings. ln past general rate
case proceedings, the Company has not singled out a group of employees and
analyzed each position's total compensation to the degree that occurred in this case for
Rider-funded members of the DSM group. The analyses prepared by the Company
directly address the Commission's order to provide additiona! evidence to support its
request for recovery of the increase tn 2011 and 2012 Rider-funded labor. Staff and
other interested parties have had over four months to review the Company's filing and
perform discovery and analysis to the level of rigor they believe is necessary.
Staff asserts, and the Company agrees, that "DSM Rider-funded labor expenses
should be treated like the Company's other labor expenses." Comments of the
Commission Staff al7,ln re Application of ldaho Power Co., IPC-E-13-08 (August 20,
2013) ("Staff Comments"). Staff incorrectly concludes that capping Rider-funded labor
expenses at2010 levels until the next general rate case would achieve that objective.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 4
ln support of its proposal to cap Rider-funded labor expenses, Staff incorrectly
states that "overall level of wage recovery remains constant" after base rates are set.
Staff Comments at 7. With base rates, the Commission approves a level of recovery to
be used in the rate setting process; however, once the approved base rates are
implemented, actual costs and revenues may be different as a result of many factors.
For example, if energy sales grourth occurs following a rate case, the leve! of overall
revenue (or cost recovery) also grows. Under this scenario, the Company may have an
opportunity to sufficiently match groMh in revenue with growth in labor costs without
filing a general rate case. Unlike costs recovered through base rates, prudently
incurred DSM-related expenses are tracked dollar-for-dollar for 100 percent recovery
through the DSM Rider balancing account. Therefore, if the Commission were to adopt
Staffs recommendation to cap Rider-funded labor expenses until the next general rate
case, the Company would not be provided an opportunity to match revenue with Rider-
funded labor costs between rate cases in a manner that exists with base rate-funded
labor costs. Furthermore, under this treatment, the Company would be assigned all of
the increased costs associated with Rider-funded, labor-related increases, while
customers would receive 100 percent of any cost savings.
Staff also suggests that by capping the Rider-funded labor expenses at 2O1O
levels until the next general rate case, the Company would have the same incentive to
keep labor costs down as it does for all other labor costs. Staff believes that because
Rider-funded labor costs are tracked and recovered dollar-for-dollar, the Company does
not have an incentive to keep Rider-funded labor expenses low. This line of reasoning
may hold weight if the Company made decisions regarding Rider-funded employee
compensation independently from the rest of the Company's workforce, but the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS.5
Company does not. As noted in the Direct Testimony of Timothy E. Tatum, the
Company reviews and adjusts its employee compensation levels annually for its entire
workforce to ensure that it remains competitive in the marketplace. Dl Tatum at 9:6-
17:4, ln re the Application of ldaho Power Co., IPC-E-13-08 (April 3,2013) ('Dl Tatum").
lf an adjustment in wages and salary structure is supported by market data, the
Company adjusts the salary structure for all employees, including Rider-funded
employees. Therefore, the incentives that Staff points out that exist for keeping labor
costs down for the base rate-funded employees naturally extend to Rider-funded
employees. Capping Rider-funded labor expenses at 2010 levels would effectively
disconnect the compensation for DSM employees from the Company's market parity
goals. lt would create a situation where Rider-funded employees would be treated
differently than the rest of the Company's workforce, which may have negative impacts
on the Company's ability to attract and retain the skilled and passionate DSM
professionals Staff praises. See Staff Comments at 8.
Staff's capping proposal was rejected by this Commission in Order No. 32667
and should be rejected again because it is inequitable and does not achieve the same
treatment of labor expenses between the Rider and base rates.
2. ldaho Power's Wage Analvsis Was Complete and Accurate.
Staff criticized the Company's wage analyses, asserting that the Company's peer
group was incorrect in its compensation benchmarking analysis and alleging that the
Company failed to adjust for regional price parities ("RPP'). Staff Comments at 7.
Peer Group. The Company utilized data from Towers Watson to perform a
compensation benchmarking analysis for the years 2009-2012 that compared the total
compensation of the majority of Idaho Power's Rider-funded employees to the total
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 6
compensation for similar positions at other utilities. Staff points out that the Company's
revenues only recently grew to over $1 billion and, Staff asserts, that the Company
ignores that it falls between the two revenue categories of less than $1 billion and
between $1-3 billion. Staff Comments at 7. However, this misstates the information in
the benchmarking analysis. The Company fu!!y acknowledges in this case that its
revenue only recently put it into the $1-3 billion revenue category and due to this, the
Company utilized both sets of data in its benchmarking analysis. Dl Tatum, Confid. Ex.
2 at 13-22.
The Company maintains this approach of utilizing both sets of data was
appropriate for the benchmarking analysis because the median revenues of the
companies participating in the less than $1 billion and $1-3 billion categories are $549
million and $1.686 billion, respectively, for an average of $1 .1 18 billion. This average is
very close to the Company's 2012 revenues of $1.075 billion. !t should be noted that
the Company's compensation-setting process recognizes that ldaho Powe/s revenues
tend to be lower, as compared with other companies of similar size and complexity, due
to its comparatively low electricity prices, further supporting the use of these two
revenue categories.
It is also important to recognize that ldaho Power is a publicly traded company,
and only 28 percent of the companies in the less than $1 billion category are publicly
traded. There are many more publicly traded companies in the $1-3 billion category (64
percent), which are similar to ldaho Power in terms of disclosure, filing responsibilities,
and other requirements of publicly traded entities.
Finally, as illustrated by the 2012 Senior Engineer data in the Company's
benchmarking study, a larger revenue category does not necessarily mean that the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS. T
market wage data will be higher. ln this example, the less than $1 billion category total
compensation for a Senior Engineer ir I while total compensation for the same
position in the $1-3 billion category i. f. Because there can be a great deal of
variability between revenue categories, as well as between years, the Company
believes that reviewing both revenue categories over a multiple-year period is prudent.
Reqiona! Price Parities. Staff also claims that the Company's evidence does not
adjust for RPPs. Staff Comments at 7. As Staff notes, RPPs measure the difference in
the price levels of goods and service across states and metropolitan areas for a given
year. ld. RPPs are calculated using data from the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Consumer Price lndex ("CPl") program and the United States Census
Bureau's American Community Survey ('ACS"). The Company believes there is an
important philosophical difference between "cost of living" as measured by RPP, CPl,
and ACS and "cost of labor," which is what a particular industry or market offers as
compensation for a specific type of work. The Company does not believe it is
appropriate to use an RPP or other cost of goods measure for pricing jobs
competitively. Rather, the Company believes it is important to respond to the
competitive movement of pay levels in the energy services labor market in order to
attract and retain a skilled workforce. As noted in the Direct Testimony of Timothy E.
Tatum, this market is represented by Idaho Powe/s intermountain utility peers for craft
positions, and energy services companies at or near Company revenues for
professional employees, for whom ldaho Power competes nationally. Dl Tatum at 13
and 17.
With a workforce older than any other industry and a shortage of skilled craft
workers, the energy services sector experiences wage increases slightly above national
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 8
averages. To ensure that ldaho Power customers continue to receive safe, reliable,
and fair-priced electric service at customer service levels customers have come to
expect, it is imperative that the Company maintain wage levels that are competitive with
peer utilities and service companies so that it can attract and retain workers with critica!
skills. Many of the Company's positions require years of training investment, and
increased turnover resulting from non-competitive wages would negatively impact
Company operations and customer service.
3. The Companv's Wage lncrease Was Based Upon Accurate
lnformation Available at the Time.
Staff claims that the Company's 2012 wage increase was based upon a flawed
understanding of other entities' wage and salary information. Staff Comments at 7. ln
making this assertion, Staff points to the Company's response to Staff's Production
Request No. 47 in which they requested the Company to "provide all materials
presented to the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors that assisted them
in determining the amount of pay increases." Staff Comments at 7. ln its response, the
Company provided a confidential spreadsheet illustrating the annual pay increases for
several regional utilities, local businesses, and State of ldaho employees that was
presented to the ldaho Power Board of Director's Compensation Committee for its
review as they considered the 2013 general wage adjustment. The wage increase at
issue in this docket is limited to the 2011 and 2012 Rider-funded labor expenses and
does not include an evaluation of a 2013 general wage adjustment. The confidential
spreadsheet Staff criticizes does not relate to the years at issue in this case.
Furthermore, Staff's evaluation of the spreadsheet and subsequent
recommendation to deny prudence appears hasty without a thorough vetting of the
issues identified. First, Staff alleges that the spreadsheet is inaccurate because the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 9
State of ldaho pay increase of three percent did not occur. This information was
obtained from the fiscal year 2013 Report to the Governor on State Employee
Compensation and Benefits. This report is attached as Attachment 1 to these Reply
Comments. This document included a recommendation of a three percent pay increase
and was the only document available for comparison when the Company's general
wage adjustment information was prepared in November 2012. lt is true that the ldaho
Legislature ultimately approved a two percent ongoing increase for all permanent state
employees who were performing satisfactorily. Additionally, state agencies were
directed to use salary savings, if available, for additional merit pay for permanent and
temporary employees rather than the three percent recommended. However, the
state's ultimate decision should have no bearing on the prudency of the 2011 and 2012
Rider-funded labor increases. The Company reviewed the state or local company wage
data, but did not rely on the information to market-price jobs or make general wage
adjustment determinations. Rather, the Board of Directo/s Compensation Committee
based its recommendation on competitive market adjustments of other energy services
companies, particularly the Company's intermountain utility peers.
Second, Staff asserts that Avista Corp's ("Avista") non-union general wage
adjustment is overstated in the confidential spreadsheet. Staff Comments at 8. lt is the
Company's understanding that Avista's non-union compensation program differs from
Idaho Power's in several respects. Avista adjusts its salary structure annually, but this
adjustment is not considered a general wage adjustment because employee
compensation is not increased as a result of this change to the structure. lnstead, the
structure is adjusted and, separately, a merit increase pool is established to provide
employee compensation adjustments. This merit increase figure more closely aligns
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 1O
with the Company's general wage adjustment, as all employees are eligible and this is
the amount by which compensation is actually adjusted. The merit figures for each of
the years in question, which were obtained directly from Avista, are contained in
confidential Attachm ent 2 to these Reply Comments.
Another notable program difference is that the top of each grade of ldaho
Powe/s salary structure equates to the 50th percentile of market wages and Avista's
non-union structure allows employees to reach compensation above these levels, which
is common to most salary structures. lt is a prevalent salary structure practice to
establish a maximum rate 20-25 percent above a market or policy rate to allow
employees to earn salaries above the 50th percentile of market wages. ldaho Power,
however, uses a much more conservative approach than most companies, using the
median market or policy wage as the maximum or step 13 of each grade within the
Company salary structure. The approach used by ldaho Power ensures that
compensation will not exceed the market wage for a position. The Company's
conservative salary structure approach should be taken into consideration when
comparing general and merit wage increases.
Third, Staff claims that the Company failed to include PacifiCorp's non-union
labor increase in the spreadsheet. Staff Comments at 8. The Company did not include
this information because it did not have access to the information. The Company
utilizes collective bargaining agreement information for craft employees. However, for
non-union employee data, Idaho Power often relies upon contacts at peer utilities.
Unfortunately, since 2011,ldaho Power has been unable to establish a relationship with
colleagues at PacifiCorp that can provide the requested information. However, the
Company believes that the omission of one additional increase at a neighboring utility,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 11
in light of Staffs criticisms of ldaho Power's wage increase, should not negate the
validity and completeness of the other analyses that the Board of Director's
Compensation Committee reviewed.
B. Staff Mav Have Miscalculated lts Recommended Endinq Rider Balance.
The Company believes Staff has made some computational errors in determining
its 2012 Staff recommended ending balance of $3,812,769. Staff Comments at 4,
Table. lt appears that Staff used 2012 expenses of $(25,739,188) and then applied an
adjustmenl of $(227,853) resulting in net expenses of $(25,967,041). The Company
believes that Staff added this adjustment amount to the reported expenses when, in
fact, the adjustment should have decreased expenses because this adjustment
represents 2012 expenses that Staff and/or the Company had identified for possible
disallowance. Additionally, the beginning 2012 Rider balance of $(5,321,997) included
$89,601 related to the 2011 Rider-funded labor increase, which the Company believes
is a prudent expense. However, since Staff argues that this increase should not be
deemed prudent, it should have been reflected in Staff's recommended ending balance.
Based upon this information, the Company believes Staff's calculation of the Rider
balance as of December 31,2012, should be as follows:
Company Reported 2012 Beginning Balance
2012 Funding Plus Accrued lnterest
Total 2012 Funds
2012 DSM Expenses
Adjustments
2011 Rider Labor lncrease
2012 Staff Recommended Ending Balance
$(5,321,997)
35,101,807
29,779,810
(25,739,188)
227,853
89,601
$4,358,076
Regardless of Staffs calculations, the Company believes that it is appropriate for
the Commission to focus on the prudent expenditure of funds rather than the ending
balance.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 12
C. The Companv Properlv lmplemented lts Demand Response Proqrams and
Promptlv Responded to Chanqes in the lnteqrated Resource Plan ("lRP")
That lmpacted Those Proqrams.
Staff alleges that the Company should have notified stakeholders earlier of its
request to temporarily suspend its demand response programs in Case No. IPC-E-12-
29. Staff Comments at 9. Staff critiques the Company's increased amount of demand
response and alleged minimal program dispatch. ld. Staff also theorizes that the
Company knew the results of the IRP Load and Resource Balance Analysis ("Load and
Resource Balance") prior to its finalization and alleges that the Company should have
used that information to minimize investment in its demand response programs. /d.
The Company could not have notified stakeholders any earlier of its application
to temporarily suspend demand response programs because it did not have final results
of the Load and Resource Balance. The Load and Resource Balance was finalized in
June just prior to the lntegrated Resource Planning Advisory Council ('IRPAC") portfolio
design workshop held on November 30, 2012. ldaho Power shared this information
with the EEAG on December 5, 2012, three business days after the Load and Resource
Balance analysis was finalized and presented to the IRPAC. While the Company
understands the Staffs desire to have al! Company information immediately, the
Company moved as quickly as possible once the impacts were known.
Staff alleges it noticed an "ever increasing amount of demand response capacity
and minimal program dispatch in 2011 and 2012." Staff Comments at 9. ldaho Power's
actions were based upon direct Commission orders. ldaho Power proposed to limit
participation in the lrrigation Peak Rewards program to better align the program with
capacity needs. ln re the Application of ldaho Power Co., IPC-E-10-46, Order No.
32200 at 11. The Commission found "that adding language to limit participation is not
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 13
necessary, and could unduly discourage participation." ld. This is in line with the
Commission's consistent "directive to pursue all cost-effective DSM programs." ln re
Application of ldaho Power Co., Order No.32667 at9.
The Company also disagrees that demand response program dispatch has been
minimal. ln 2011, the Company utilized its A/C Cool Credit program and FlexPeak
Management program fourteen times. ln 2012, the Company utilized its A/C Cool
Credit program thirteen times and FlexPeak Management program four times. The
lrrigation Peak Rewards program was not dispatched because resources were able to
meet system peak demands, energy prices were low, and there were no system
emergencies during the summer. Demand response programs are designed to be
dispatched only during extreme loads when other resources are unavailable; therefore,
they may not be needed every year.
Staff theorizes that the Company should have known of the results of the 2013
Load and Resource Balance analysis prior to its finalization and further alleges that the
Company could have used this information to limit its investment in replacement
switches in the A/C Cool Credit program. As the Company addressed earlier in this
section, it acted as soon as possible once the results of the Load and Resource
Balance were finalized. lt would have been premature for the Company to make
demand response program decisions prior to the completion of the relevant IRP
analyses.
D. ldaho Power Will Discuss 2013 DSM Alternative Gosts at the September 18.
2013. EEAG Meetins.
Staff asks the Commission to order the Company to convene an EEAG meeting
to discuss the impacts of changes in DSM alternative costs on its energy efficiency
portfolio. Staff Comments at 11. ldaho Power has addressed this issue with
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 14
Commission Staff on several occasions, including the November 2012 and May 2013
EEAG meetings. The calculation of the DSM alternative costs using the IRP preferred
portfolio is one of the last steps in the preparation of the IRP and, as a result, the
Company did not have the 2013 DSM alternative costs finalized until shortly before the
2013 IRP was completed and filed in June 2013. The Company has committed to
discussing the 2013 DSM alternative costs and the impacts that these costs may have
on its energy efficiency programs in the September 18,2013, EEAG meeting. Minutes
of EEAG Meeting (May 23, 2013). The Company believes it is unnecessary for the
Commission to order the Company to take action that it has previously committed to
and communicated this commitment to Staff and members of the EEAG.
E. Discussions About Future DSM Expenditures Are Not Appropriate to
Address in This Proceedinq.
Staff requests that the Commission order the Company to convene a
collaborative discussion with EEAG regarding the Company's relationships with NEEA
and CEERI. Staff Comments at 14-15. Staff disagrees with the Company's decisions
relating to NEEA and CEERI and seeks to use this docket to obtain justification for
those Company decisions. ldaho Power believes that the scope of this docket is limited
to the assessment of whether the 2011 Rider-funded labor increase and 2012 DSM
expenditures were prudently incurred. ldaho Power is required to develop and
implement cost-effective DSM programs and, at times, details of how and where future
DSM expenditures may occur are brought before this Commission. However, those
issues are not before the Commission in this case.
!il. coNcLustoN
ldaho Power has conformed to the spirit and the letter of the guidelines of the
Memorandum of Understanding signed by Staff and ldaho's investor-owned utilities in
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS . 15
January of 2010 and has provided evidence that the Company's DSM expenses were
prudently incurred. For the reasons set forth above, ldaho Power requests that the
Commission find that the Company prudently incurred $46,356,160 in DSM-related
expenditures, which amount includes $25,857,603 in Rider funds, $6,019,109 in
Custom Efficiency program incentive payments, and $14,479,447 of demand response
incentive payments. The Company requests that the Commission limit its order in this
case to a determination of whether its 2012 DSM expenditures were incurred prudently.
Respectfully submitted this 3'd day of September 2013.
Power Company
A.H
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3'd day of September 20131 served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Gommission Staff
Karl T. Klein
Deputy Attomey General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-007 4
ldaho Conservation League
Benjamin J. Otto
ldaho Conservation League
710 North Sixth Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mai!
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mai!
,Overnight Mail
FAX
Email [e-mail]
sta BeiaFry, Legal Assistant
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 17
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-13-0g
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 1
Report to the Governor
State Employee Compensation & Benefits
FY 2013
Change in
Employee
Compensation & Benefits
Report
Division of Human Resources
Department of Ad ministration
.*o\,t
W
i#r? kS;B,^
- E*; {f{--l IF-- -r F
1H
'\rlr rl-'\qt&'
*:''fT.k.i
Table of Contents
lntroduction .................. 1
Workforce Data .......... .....................1
Salary and Benefit Recommendations ...............2
Appendix A: ............... ....................... 3
Agencies with Classified and Non-classified Employees
Appendix B: ............... .......................4
Classified Employees' Compa-ratio by Agency - 1.O/3UzOtL
Appendix C: ............... .......................6
Total Turnover of Classified Employees by Agency - FY 2011
lncludes all separations: voluntary, involuntary, layoff, retirement, transfer to
other agency
Appendix D: ............... ....................... 8
Voluntarv Turnover of Classified Employees by Agency - FY 2011
lncludes Voluntary separations: better job, compensation, dissatisfied, other,
personal, transfer to other agency. Excludes: entrance probation separations
Appendix E: ............... .....................10
FY 2Ol2 Salary Structure (FY 2013 Proposed Salary Structure)
Appendix F: ............... .....................11
Department of Administration Employee Benefit lnformation
Market Related Changes to Address Specific Occupational
lnequities - t0|SL(}OLL
Appendix H: .............. .....................13
Glossary
!NTRODUCTION
The Change in Employee Compensation (CEC) report is an annual report on the state of employee
compensation prepared by the Division of Human Resources. The report also includes information
from the Department of Administration on employee benefits. This year's CEC report is concise
with more detailed information supplied in the appendices and a glossary.
The State of ldaho is entrusted by its citizens to attract and hire employees who have the
knowledge, skills, and abilities to promote responsible government. To retain these employees
requires ldaho to maintain a competitive compensation package.
Both the Executive and Legislative Branches of government value State employees and recognize
the need to fund an appropriate level of compensation on an annual basis. The Governor has
shown support for increasing State employees' salaries to ensure that salary compensation and
employee benefits more closely align with those of our private sector and other public sector
competitors.
As a context for the FY 2013 recommendations, economic conditions have been considered in
addressing compensation and benefits for ldaho State employees.
WORKFORCE DATA
Total Number of Emolovees:
The number of classified employees as of October 2011 is 72,604, a decrease of 93 employees
compared to the number of classified employees in October 2010. The number of non-classified
employees (excluding higher education and temporary staff) as of October 2011 is 2,t!4, a
decrease of 45 employees compared to the number of non-classified employees in October 2010
(See Appendix A).
Compa-ratio:
Compa-ratio helps decision makers assess how employees are paid in relation to the policy pay
rate. ln October 2011, the classified statewide compa-ratio was82.8o/o and the average classified
hourly pay rate was St8.98. Both of these figures are lower than the October 2010 numbers with
a statewide classified compa-ratio of 83.4% and an average classified hourly rate of Sfg.OA (See
Appendix B). The current salary structure has not changed since 2009, therefore the compa-ratio
figures are based on the 2009 salary survey comparisons with the external labor market.
Turnover Rate:
The FY 20ll totalturnover rate is Lz.L%, which includes all separations, compared to FY 2010 total
turnover rate of t2.8o/o (See Appendix C). The average length of service for total turnover is 9.8
years.
The FY 2011 voluntary turnover rate is 4.7To, compared to FY 2010 voluntary turnover rate of 4.8o/o
(See Appendix D). The average length of service for voluntary turnover is 5 years.
SAIARY AND BEN EFIT RECOMMENDATIONS
As directed by ldaho Code 57-5309C, this report is required to include funding recommendations
for the following: Salary Structure Adjustments, Specific Occupational lnequity (Payline
Exceptions), Merit lncreases, and the Employee Benefit Package.
The recommendations are:
Maintain the current salary structure (See Appendix E). As a result of a pay practices
survey of 9 states completed for FY 20L2, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming did not adjust their salary structures, while Oregon and Washington did
adjust their salary structures. Nevada did not respond to the survey.
Maintain the current employee benefit package (See Appendix F).
Continue the job classifications that are currently on payline exception to address specific
recruitment or retention issues (See Appendix G).
Provide funding for a merit based 3% increase in each agency personnel budget, for a total
investment of approximately S15 million to the General Fund and $tZ.g mittion to all other
funds combined. The proposed 3% increase is an opportunity to acknowledge the
contributions of our valued employees. The FY 2013 revenue projections show a slow but
steady recovery. With these economic conditions, this also provides a balanced and
sustainable methodology for employee compensation. The following further supports this
recommendation:
o 2011 salary surveys indicate State employees' salaries are on average L8.6% below
the external labor market.
The last CEC was appropriated in FY 2009.
The proposed 3% increase is intended to retain and move high performing
employees closer to policy pay rate.
booP ru.()6 ii!F rF -=5E 32
dE p E E 5
EHqET* EgE H;EI E
.AE qE9!6
EEet H.E.HHgg=iri9Ex (5 (5 =O'= OB-
-
J L E \@aaat)5
aaaaaaa
b
Oh-.() 0g eE IE ?u 5
$- g E =$
e"Efl9,E€
=m.l =i5 b
#EBEgE
aaaaaaa
o-c0)-o
EE Z,
q5 =E$E.EE H 8€E9'a(nEcO
E E E 3E a
*gEEEgE= O O O =<<oooo
aaaaaaa
(\
EorE
ou,Go!
o
=ll)ro!orE
toto|!o
(o
00
IIo.gocoE'
o
G
at,
o
oIl
E
z
G
oF
U'IIJ
UJ
o
o-
=IJJo
IJJ
ll6o
JoIzoz
Jzo
F
=o
UJoz
IJIo
PGo00bU'o*a E
E. E* A 'tE=E =EE-A:.
t-ggtgEgfiEEEfugtggaEgcl- o- o. (L (L (L O-t E.@ A @ A @t F F > > > 5
E(EodIc
b-
E E E te E sf,='EE E'qda o' 5E
E.$,,E+H
ggEg
EE
gE ggrI g*g
E
gggE
t l
o
o.oo
oL(U
6
=E'Eo
!=Go)I
aaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaa
U'
uJ
IJJ
oJo.
=IJJo
UJ
lr.6@
iIilhl o6l=olil<5
IJJzoIF
=oIIJoz
IJJ(9
Appendix B
Classified Employees'Compa-ratio by Agency - 1013112011
Note: sorted taugUuat EI IL
Aoencv Name
Gompa-
Ratio
1012212010
Compa-
Ratio
1013112011
Average Pay
Rate
Average
Policv Rate
Number of
ClaEsified
Emolovees
Average
Years of
Service
Accountancy Bd 88.9%93.2%$18.02 s19.33 2 22.2
Administration 87.9Yo 87.1%$19.58 s22.49 122 11.9
Aoriculture 80.1Yo 79.60/o $21.29 $26.75 162 12.6
Boise State University 79.9o/o 79.3olo 13.43 $16.94 570 10.3
Brand lnspector 83.3Yo 83.1o/o $16.00 $19.24 28 14.3
Buildino Safetv 89.3%89.0%i21.00 $23.61 95 10.7
Central Health District lV 88.3%89.87o $19.43 $21.65 108 9.4
Comm-Blind & Visuallv lmoaired 83.97o 84.5%$19.02 $22.s0 38 11.8
Commerce 80.0%78.50/o $19.87 $2s.33 44 8.7
Commission For Libraries 803%80.8%$18.26 $22.59 35 11.7
Commission on Aqino 86.5%88.3%$23.70 $26.85 9 9.4
Correction 77.0o/o 76.4%$17.27 $22.60 1499 8.2
Dentistrv Bd 99.7o/o $14.33 $14.37 1 0.9
Eastern ldaho Health District Vll 84.2o/o 84.3o/o $18.98 22.51 81 10.8
Eastern ldaho Tech Colleoe 87.3%85.9%$14.36 $16.70 39 9.1
Education Bd 74.9o/o 76.3o/o $14.75 19.33 2 2.1
Endowment Fnd lnvestment Bd 1O2.3o/o 102.3o/o $23.99 $23.44 2 25.7
Environmental Qualitv 80.4o/o 80.0%;24.21 $30.27 317 12.5
Finance 86.1o/o 85.7o/o $24.34 $28.41 57 10.2
Financial Manaqement 111.90/o 114.2%$27.24 $23.85 2 28.8
Fish & Game 83.9%83.6%$22.01 526.32 541 14.3
Health & Welfare 83.0%82.6%$20.37 s24.67 2647 10.3
Hisoanic Commission 78.5o/o 78.SYo $15.17 s19.33 1 11.1
Historical Societv 83.4o/o 83.4Yo 19.22 s23.05 38 12.3
Human Resources 82.40h 80.0olo $23.56 $29.46 9 13.6
daho State Universitv 79.3o/o 78.4o/o s13.16 $16.79 612 9.8
ndependent Living Council 77.7Yo 88.5%s18.71 s21.14 3 6.0
ndustrial Comm 81.6Yo 80.9%s15.00 $18.53 77 10.1
nsurance 81 .7o/o 81 .60/o $18.98 i23.28 56 9.7
Juvenile Corrections 80.8%79.8o/o $17.19 $21.54 383 9.0
-abor 83.5o/o 83.0%$20.47 $24.66 626 12.0
-ands 81 .9o/o 81 .5o/o $22.07 $27.07 237 13.7
-ava Hot Springs 89.0%87.8o/o 12.64 $14.39 12 7.2
-ewis-Clark State Colleoe 81 .30/o 80.3olo $12.96 $16.14 132 9.6
.iquor Division 86.4o/o 85.5olo 14.28 $16.71 192 9.0
-ottery 87.90/o 88.60lo $14.26 $16.10 11 9.2
Medicine Bd 82.10/o 81 .2o/o $13.83 $17.03 7 13.5
North Central Health District ll 84.80/o 85.0olo $19.02 $22.37 42 9.8
Nursinq Bd 91.7%95.8o1o $15.18 $15.85 5 18.1
Cccuoational Licenses 80.9%80.3o/o $16.00 $19.92 32 10.4
Cffice of Enerov Resources 97.1o/o 105.3o/o $17.41 s16.s4 1 30.3
Outfitters & Guides 84.0o/o 84.0o/o $13.11 $15.61 4 8.1
Panhandle Health District I 83.8%83.6%19.13 $22.89 106 10.2
Pardons & Parole Comm 73.8o/o 73.404 $17.63 $24.01 28 10.1
Parks & Recreation 78.4o/o 77.90/o 18.39 $23.60 136 13.1
PERSI 82.3o/o 82.00/o 18.04 $22.00 55 12.1
Appendix B - Continued
Glassified Employees' Gompa-ratio by Agency - 1013112011
Note: sorted EI IU
Aoencv Name
Gompa-
Ratio
10n2na10
Compa-
Ratio
10/a1nOfi
Average Pay
Rate
Average
Poliev Rate
Number of
Classified
Emolovees
Average
Years of
Service
Pharmacy Bd 86.9%86-9q/o s17.74 s20.41 I I0.5
Prof Enq & Land Surv Bd 95.8%95.8olo s17.19 s17.94 2 11.2
Prof-Tech Education 92.4%92-20/$15.02 $16.29 14 12.1
Public Television 83.7o/o 82.1Yo $18.76 $22.73 48 13.4
Public Utilities Comm 85.8%84.90/o $22.75 s26.81 36 13.9
Racino Comm 102.1o/o 1A2.1Yo $22.25 $21.79 1 20.5
Real Estate Comm 79.2o/o 78.8olo $17.52 $22.24 12 6.8
Soil & Water Conservation 85.0%80.30/6 $20.96 26.09 13 8.3
South Central Health District V 84.70/o 86.0%$18.31 21.29 71 9.8
Southeast Health District Vl 86.1o/o 88.5olo $19.03 21.50 79 10.7
Southwest Health District lll 89.0%93.07o $18.80 $20.22 86 8.8
State Police 101.9%1AO.2o/o $24.97 $24.90 463 12.1
Tax Aooeals Bd 79.5o/o 79-5o/o $24.02 $30.21 3 11.9
Tax Comm 81.10/o 79.6e4 $19.23 $24.16 398 11.3
Transoortation 97.30/o 86.5olo $19.43 $22.47 1689 14.2
Veterans Services 83.9%83.40/o s15.32 $18.37 279 7.4
Veterinary Med Bd 71 .40/o 71 .4o/a $13.80 $19.33 1 14.8
Vocational Rehab 76.8o/o 76.44/o $14.75 $19.31 54 9.6
Water Resources 83.7o/o 83.57o $23.27 $27.87 140 13.0
Totals 83.4%82.801"$18.98 $22.92 12604 11.0
Appendix C
Total Turnover of Glassified Employees by Agency - FY2011
lncludes all separations - voluntary, involuntary, layoff, retirement, transfer to other agency
Note: sorted
Agencv Name
Average Number of
Classified Employees
FY 2011
FY 2011
Seoarations
Tumover Rate
FY 2011
Turnover Rate
FY 2010
Accountancv Bd 3.0 0 0.Oo/o 0.0%
Ariminislration 121.5 21 17.3o/o 7.10/o
\oriculture 159.0 16 10.1o/o 21 .40/o
3oise State Universitv 583.0 67 11.5o/o 10.50/o
Brand lnsoector 28.0 5 17.9o/o 3.40/o
3uildinq Safety 109.0 15 13.80/o 14.9o/o
3entral Health District lV 109.5 11 10.0olo 18.50/o
Comm-Blind & Visually lmpaired 39.0 5 12.8o/o 7.50/o
3ommerce 41.5 6 14.Sa/o 16.50/o
Sommission For Libraries 37.0 4 10.8o/o 13.0o/o
lommission on Aqino 8.5 5 58.80/o 28.60/o
Sorrection 1.487.5 245 16.50/o 15.1o/o
)entistry Bd 1.0 0 0.00/o 0.Oo/o
fastern ldaho Health District Vll 82.0 8 9.80/o 12.9o/o
fastern ldaho Tech Colleqe 38.0 4 10.50/o 8.3o/o
lducation Bd 2.0 1 50.0%66.7o/o
fndowment Fnd lnvestment Bd 2.0 0 0.0%0.0%
=nvironmental Oualitv 325.5 26 8.0%8.9Yo
-rnance 50.5 5 9.9%8.0o/o
=inancial Manaoement 3.0 1 33.30/o 0.0%
=ish & Game 520.5 29 s.6%5.0o/o
lealth & Welfare 2.682.O 367 '|.3.70/o 18.1o/o
lisoanic Commission 1.0 0 o.oo/o O.0o/o
-{istorical Societv 43.0 5 11.60/o 11.5o/o
-luman Resources 9.0 3 33.3o/a 19.Ooh
daho State Universitv 609.5 84 13.8o/o 12.7o/n
ndeoendent Livino Council 4.0 4 100.0olo O.Oo/o
ndustrial Comm 74.5 12 16.1o/"17.10/
nsurance 58.0 11 19.0olo 16.7o/o
Juvenile Corrections 378.5 59 15.60/o 16.4o/o
-abor 650.5 52 8.Oo/o 7.3o/o
-ands 231.5 18 7.8o/"11.50/
-ava Hot Sorinos 12.0 2 16.7o/a 19.Oo/o
-ewis-Clark State Colleqe 130.0 12 9.2o/"9.4o/o
-iquor Division 191.5 20 1O.4o/o 10.7o/o
-ottery 11.0 1 9.10 O.0o/o
\4edicine Bd 8.0 1 12.504 O.0o/o
North Central Health District ll 41.5 6 14.5o/o 18.4o/o
\ursino Bd 5.5 0 0.0olo 18.2o/o
Cccupational Licenses 31.0 2 6.5%6.5%
Cffice of Enerqv Resources 3.0 3 100.0%18.2o/o
Cutfitters & Guides 4.O 0 O.Oo/o O.0o/o
Panhandle Health District I 107.5 14 13.00/o 14.8o/o
Pardons & Parole Comm 27.0 5 18.5olo O.0o/o
Parks & Recreation 133.0 11 8.3o/o 20.4o/o
PERSI 55.5 I 16.2o/o 8.8o/o
Appendix C - Continued
Total Turnover of Classified Employees by Agency - Ft2011
lncludes all separations - voluntary, involuntary, layoff, retirement, transfer to other agency
Note: sorted
Agencv Name
Average Number of
Classified Employees
FY 2011
FY 20tl
Seoarations
Turnover Rate
FY 2011
Turnover Rate
FY 2010
Pharmacv Bd 9.0 0 O.Oo/"10.5o/o
Prof Enq & Land Surv Bd 2.0 0 O.Oolo 0.0%
Prof-Tech Education 15.0 1 6.7o/o 12.50/o
Public Television 47.O 5 10.6%6.2o/o
Public Utilities Comm 3s.0 4 11.4o/o 11.1o/o
Racino Comm 1.0 0 0.0o/o 66.7o/o
Real Estate Comm 12.5 4 32.Oo/o 7.1o/o
Soil & Water Conservation 12.5 4 32.0o/o 14.3o/o
South Central Health District V 74.5 9 12.1o/o 14.7o/o
Southeast Health District Vl 81.5 7 8.6Yo 11.60/o
Southwest Health District lll 87.5 14 16.0%13.2o/o
State Police 463.0 35 7.60/o 7.2o/o
Iax Aooeals Bd 3.0 0 O.Oo/o 28.60/0
Iax Comm 373.5 35 9.4o/o 11.20/o
Iransoortation 1.712.5 162 9.5olo 7.4o/o
Veterans Services 266.s 52 19.50/o 19.3o/o
Veterinarv Med Bd 1.0 0 0.0%0.Oo/o
Vocational Rehab 55.0 7 12.70/o 13.40h
/Vater Resources 142.5 13 9.1o/o 8.8o/"
Iotals 12,647.5 1,527 12.1%'12.8%
Appendix D
Voluntary Turnover of Classified Employees by Agency - FY 2011
lncludes voluntarv separations: Better Job, Compensation, Dissatisfied, Other, Personal, Transfer to Other Agency
Note: excludes entrance probation separations
Agency Name
Average Number of
Glassified Employees
FY 2011
FY 2011
Voluntary
Separations
Tumover Rate
FY 2011
Turnover Rate
FY 2010
Accountancy Bd 3.0 0 O.Oo/o 0.oo/o
Administration 121.5 2 1.60/o 3.2o/o
Agriculture 159.0 I 5.Oo/o 11.60/o
Boise State University 583.0 29 5.Oo/o 4.40/o
Brand lnspector 28.0 4 14.3o/o 0.Oo/o
Building Safety 109.0 5 4.60/o 5.80/o
Central Health District lV 109.5 3 2.7o/o 6.2o/o
Comm-Blind & Visually lmpaired 39.0 0 0.0%5.Oo/o
Commerce 41.5 3 7.2o/o 2.4o/o
Commission For Libraries 37.0 2 5.4o/o 7.8o/o
Commission on Aging 8.5 3 35.3olo 19.0o/o
Correction 1,487.5 80 5.4o/o 6.4o/o
Dentistry Bd 1.0 0 O.Oo/o O.Oo/o
Eastern ldaho Health District Vll 82.0 3 3.7o/o 5.80/o
Eastern ldaho Tech College 38.0 1 2.60/o 2.80/o
Education Bd 2.O 1 50.0%33.3Yo
Endowment Fnd lnvestment Bd 2.0 0 O.Oo/o 0.oo/o
Environmental Quality 325.5 13 4.Oo/o 3.30/o
-tnance 50.5 3 5.9o/o 4.Oo
=inancial Management 3.0 0 O.Oo/o 0.oo/o
=ish & Game 520.5 16 3.',|o/o 2.OYo
lealth & Welfare 2,682.O 158 5.9olo 5.8o/o
lispanic Commission 1.0 0 0.0olo 0.00/o
listorical Society 43.0 2 4.70/o 4.60/"
-{uman Resources 9.0 1 11 .1o/o 19.0%
daho State University 609.5 40 6.60/o 7.1o/o
ndependent Living Council 4.0 3 75.0o/o 0.oo/o
lndustrial Comm 74.5 5 6.70/o 11.80/o
lnsurance 58.0 6 10.30/o 6.7o/o
Juvenile Corrections 378.5 31 8.2o/o 6.80/o
Labor 650.5 14 2.2o/o O.8o/o
Lands 231.5 8 3.5olo 3.8o/o
Lava Hot Springs 12.O 0 0.0olo 9.50/o
Lewis-Clark State Colleqe 130.0 6 4.60/o 7.8o/o
Liquor Division 191.5 7 3.7o/o 1.0o/o
Lottery 11.0 0 0.0%0.Oo/o
Medicine Bd 8.0 0 A.Oo/o 0.0%
North CentralHealth District ll 41.5 3 7.20/o 11.5o/o
Appendix D - Continued
Voluntary Turnover of Glassified Employees by Agency - FY 2011
lncludes voluntarv separations: Befter Job, Compensation, Dissatisfied, Other, Personal, Transfer to Other Agency
Note: excludes entrance probation separations
Agency Name
Average Number of
Glassified Employees
FY 20tl
FY 2011
Voluntary
Separations
Turnover Rate
FY 2011
Turnover Rate
FY 2010
Nursing Bd 5.5 0 0.0%O.Oo/o
Occupational Licenses 31.0 1 3.20/o 6.5%
Office of Enerov Resources 3.0 1 33.3o/o 0.0%
Outfitters & Guides 4.0 0 O.Oo/o 0.0%
Panhandle Health District I 107.5 8 7.40/o 7.40/o
Pardons & Parole Comm 27.O 3 11.10/o 0.Oo/o
Parks & Recreation 133.0 6 4.5o/o 9.80/o
PERSI 55.5 5 9.0olo 3.5o/o
Pharmacy Bd 9.0 0 O.Ao/o 0.Oo/o
Prof Eng & Land Surv Bd 2.0 0 0.0o/o 0.0%
Prof-Tech Education 15.0 0 o.ao/o O.0o/o
Public Television 47.O 1 2.10/o 2.1o/o
Public Utilities Comm 35.0 2 5.7o/o 0.0o/o
Racing Comm 1.0 0 o.oo/o O.0o/o
Real Estate Comm 12.5 1 8.0olo 7.1o/o
Soil & Water Conservation 12.5 2 16.0o/o 0.0%
South Central Health District V 74.5 1 1.30/o 9.3%
Southeast Health District Vl 81.5 1 1.20/o 5.8o/o
Southwest Health District lll 87.5 4 4.60/o 6.6%
State Police 463.0 6 1.3o/o 1.9Yo
Tax Appeals Bd 3.0 0 0.0%O.Oo/o
Tax Comm 373.5 12 3.2o/o 5.4o/o
Iransportation 1,712.5 48 2.8o/o 1.60/o
y'eterans Services 266.5 21 7.9o/o 9.$Yo
y'eterinary Med Bd 1.0 0 0.07o 0.0%
y'ocationalRehab 55.0 1 1.8o/o 1.70/o
/Uater Resources 142.5 7 4.9o/o 2.Oo/o
lotals 12,647.5 591 4.7olo 4.BYo
Appendix E
FY 2012 Salary Structure (FY 2013 Proposed Salary Structure)
Note: The salary structure has remained the same since FY 2010 when the policy and maximum pay
rates were increased by 3% to reflect market and allow for movement for those employees nearing the
top of the range. The minimum pay rate has not increased since FY 2009 with the exception of pay grade
D related to the new Federal minimum wage law in FY 2010.
Pav Grade
Hourlv Annual
Minimum Policv Maxlmum Minimum Pollcv Maxlmum
D $7.2s $10.06 $12.58 $15,080 $20,925 $26,166
E s7.64 s11.24 $14.0s $15,891 $23,379 $29,224
F $8.60 $12.65 $1s.81 $17,888 s26.312 $32,885
G s9.77 $14.37 $17.96 $20,322 $29,890 $37,357
H s11.24 $16.54 $20.68 $23,379 $34,403 $43,014
I $13.14 $19.33 $24.16 $27.331 $40,206 $50.2s3
J $14.81 $21.79 $27.24 $30,80s $45,323 $56,6s9
K $16.59 $24.41 $30.51 $34,507 $50,773 $63,461
L $18.73 $27.55 $34.44 $38,958 $57,304 $71,635
M $21.17 $31.15 $38.94 $44,034 $64,792 $80.995
N $23.39 $34.42 $43.03 $48,651 $71,s94 $89,s02
o $25.3s $37.30 $46.63 $52,728 $77.584 $96,990
P $27.71 $40.78 $s0.98 $57,637 $84,822 $106,038
o $30.51 $44.89 $56.11 $63,461 s93.371 $116,709
R $33.8s $49.80 s62.25 $70.408 $103.584 s129.480
S $37.96 $55.86 $69.83 $78.957 s116.189 $145.246
T $42.88 $63.09 $78.86 $89.190 s131.227 $164.029
U $48.72 $71.69 $89.61 $101.338 $149.11s $186.389
V $55.69 $81.95 $102.44 $115.835 $170.456 $213.075
Appendix F
Department of Administration
Employee Benefit information
The State of ldaho currently offers employees a full range of group insurance plans including
medical, dental, short and long term disability, and life insurance. ln each of these categories,
the State's benefits are comparable to group plans offered in the private sector. The State pays
91% of medical premiums for employees and dependents, approximately 45o/o of dental
premiums for employees and dependents, and 1OO%o of life and disability insurance for
employees. Total State spending for these plans is approximately $176 million annually.
ln 2009, the State implemented a pro-rata system for allocating the medical and dental
premiums for part-time employees based on hours worked. The cost savings since the
implementation of the pro-rata system are estimated between $2 million and $2.5 million.
The Department of Administration Office of Group lnsurance is committed to continually working
with State employees and insurance providers. As the economy improves, each group
insurance plan will be reviewed for effectiveness and market competitiveness.
'11
0)ocofc
TEo.lo
EE
8.6
EoF
o Y z =-z J 2 a (L E,(L
=
q
OJ
OJ
o
CL
E
UJ
(E
oCL
EoF
UI(o't,o.:
I*
otlE
c,
(Eo-
z 1 -J o I Y =J -J Y -J a o a E,o (L o J
Eo
o.! =o .-.y
3 sE
E.AEL ELO'P E.EEuro
=
(or{)o,Nc,)(f)N o t-F*$(f,
(Do (o N (f)(\l (\l N ca,64,(r)tl
ri
oo
o
oo(!)c
c)-c
o
=EL(,
c)1'o
Eco
1'o
=,(,
c)
(,ct
o.co
oo)
Lo
o
F
a(5lo
oo
E'
tooC)ooc
ooo
E,l
.E
=)d)
.9
Eooo@
E.9Co
c(Eo,ooU)
o_U)
E=Eu,.YooJ
o.9og(L
Eooco
E'
(,o:,z
(E.oo(!
(L
!,ooco.9
-Joo
=z
!o
o
,a2E'oE.
(.to
fz
oE'Ioco
E'o,
o,
.aDc,lo)t
(,o
fz
.ocoU)
Eo
0)
..2c,ot
o)
attL
=z
E.9
.=
C)+t.ooIE
E
oE(L
..2
.goooU)oq)
C).E
oU)
o(E
EoE(L
oo,=
0)ofU)oq).9too
o(U
E
o!
o_
=C)
E
EoC)
I
Looo).=o
o.9C
C)
c
.E.9o
(L
o
(E
U)
a
.9,o
-9.o
Eo,p
cttu
c(Eo,6
-co_
Eo
f=.Ac
I
.o
.EoE
.c)Eo
=i.E.9at,
EtL
co
==os
I
Loo(,.=o6.9!,o
=i.g.9o
!o_
Eoc)oU)oL
.gEo
o(L
i.g.oo
E(L
E=oo-
.o
=f(L
c.o.9o
-c(L
o
tEc
oo(,
L'6
fd)
.9E,ooLa
E.9
Eozoc
LGIIJ
-i,.2ooL{,
!F
t
o
o@
EEoo
o(t)o)@
Nlo@
(t)o6tF-
$o@
NNro(o
t@lr)N
(o
F-(oN
@o(ot-
Nt-rol.-
sNlr)t-
(ot-st\
@Nsl.*
$NrtN
o,oNF-NN
NoNt-
@oc{N
(ooC{N
rooc\tF-
o
NlJ)
o
Ntr
N
gE=-!:EGtts(JE' E.-E: E.f
=lr)(l)L6 -E I'9o or o-orE!>ov o'E 3 b:E
ttE€bc sEetJ-Ea-rl=)rqd 90E. =E== - o)
E=EH
= g EEEq t{# EI gHTEq F;6Ef Pclds:i d9lE66 ?=Eb,; 3 B;eO .Eolcoq, o[r'- >O E AF.Esv E oc66-€ E siSE5 ; EE.'E3 E FHEE
CL oO o
='-arC!l)g €E.E"E6 gF : B.g >E o5:ts Hii.c o() -.:(E cq b.eE ofr 5:=: $3, ; E;no -..(E-cl* 6-Et?gi E;ii $o ir = IA s EE cP E *F EE =.sEE6 I6t 3; 6PEEo ;.069o .= it_U, Ul7i ->Q-c EE 8X: E6 <;EEi p E-* etu 6d6-
= 2d.oP
Appendix H
Glossary
Comoa-ratio: The relationship between an employee's salary and the policy pay rate (market) of
their job. For example: lf an employee in pay grade K earns $16.59 per hour, and the policy pay
rate (market) for pay grade K is $24.41, their compa-ratio is 68% (hourly rate divided by policy rate
equals compa-ratio).
Classified Emplovee: Any person appointed to or holding a position in any department of the State
of ldaho and subject to the provisions of the merit examination, selection, retention, promotion and
dismissal requirements of ldaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 53.
Job Classification: A group of positions performing similar work that are in the same pay grade.
Maximum Pav Rate: Highest allowable salary of the pay grade.
Minimum Pav Rate: Lowest allowable salary of the pay grade.
Non-classified Emplovee: Any person appointed to or holding a position in any department of the
State of ldaho and is exempt from ldaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 53 (merit examination, selection,
retention, promotion and dismissal requirements) but subject to ldaho Code, Title 59, Chapter 16.
Pav Grade: Alphabetical indicator of pay range assigned to each job classification.
Pavline Exceotion: A temporary assignment of a higher pay grade to a classification in order to
address market related recruitment or retention issues.
Pav Ranoe: The span between the minimum and maximum salaries.
Policv Pav Rate: The salary relative to the extemal labor market as determined by salary surveys
of similar jobs. (The cunent policy pay rate reflects 2009 salary survey comparisons because the
salary structure has not changed since 2009.)
Salarv Structure: A chart listing the 19 pay grades and associated pay ranges (See Appendix E).
Salarv Survev: Survey conducted with private and public employers to determine pay levels for
specific jobs.
Specific Occuoational lnequitv: See Payline Exception.
Temoorarv Emolovee: A non-classified employee limited to working no more than one thousand
three hundred eighty-five (1,385) hours during a twelve month period for any one agency (Ref.
ldaho Code 67-5302(33)).
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-13-0g
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 2
THIS ATTACHMENT IS
CONFIDENTIAL
AND WI LL BE PROVI DED
TO THOSE PARTIES THAT
HAVE SIGNED THE
PROTECTIVE
AGREEMENT