20130517Comments.pdf

PeterJ.Richardson ISB #3195
Gregory M.Adams ISB #7454
RICHARDSON &O’LEARY PLLC LIH3 ZY I?1 3:5
515 N.27th Street
Boise,Idaho $3702 F
Telephone:[phone]
fax:(20$)938-7904
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER Of THE )CASE NO.IPC-E-13-1O
APPLICATION Of IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO )COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL
IMPLEMENT POWER COST )CUSTOMERS Of IDAHO POWER
ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (PCA))
RATES FROM JUNE 1,2013 THROUGH )
MAY 31,2014
Pursuant to Notice of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)issued on
April 15,2013,the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power (“ICIP”)by and through their attorney
of record,Peter I.Richardson,hereby provides the following comments.
Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power”or the “Company”)proposes a 2013-14 Power
Cost Adjustment (“PCA”)rate of 1.2306 cents per kilowatt-hour,which is .8993 cents higher
than the 2012-2013 PCA of .3367 cents.The PCA rate of 1.2306 cents includes three
components:(1)a forecast PCA rate for 2013-2014 in the amount of .8528;(2)a true up in the
amount of 0.4622 cents;and (3)a true-up of the true-up which this year is 0.0574 cents per
kilowatt-hour.After deducting this year’s seven million dollar revenue sharing credit,the total
dollar amount of the proposed PCA is $140 million.In the twenty year history of the PCA,only
three years were higher.Indeed,not counting the anomalous two years following the west coast
energy crisis of 2001 and 2002,this would be the second highest PCA in all of those twenty
years.In only five of those twenty years has the PCA rate actually resulted in a rebate below
base rates to the ratepayers.
These Comments are divided into three sections.first.the ICIP provides an analysis of
the components of the large PCA this year,and corrects a misunderstanding as to the cause of
one of those components.Second,the ICIP proposes an alternative to the rate mitigation
proposal made by Idaho Power.Finally,the ICIP will provide two substantive comments as to
the calculation of the PCA.
COMPONENTS Of THE 20 13-2014 INCREASE [N PCA RATES
OVER THE 2012-2013 PCA RATES
As can be seen on Exhibit One1 the,by far,largest year-over-year contributor to the
increase in the PCA is $77.8 million from over-forecasting of expected hydro generation and
expected wholesale market prices.This over-forecasting represents over 55%of the total
increase.According to Company witness Tatum:
The two most significant factors that contributed to this year’s True-Up were 1)lower
actual hydro generation as compared to the 2012-2013 forecasted amount and 2)lower
actual market energy prices as compared to the 2012-2013 forecasted prices.Both of
these factors contributed to lower surplus energy sales revenue (“sales revenue”),which
serves to offset power supply expenses recovered from customers.2
While the forecast error is largely out of the Company’s control,it would be beneficial to get the
parties together to explore whether there are institutional fixes that may make for a more
accurate or more timely forecast.This may possibly be accomplished with updated hydro
forecasts during the PCA year.
Revenue sharing,or more accurately reduced revenue sharing,contributed $20.2 million
Exhibit One was prepared for these Comments by Dr.Reading.
2 Tatam,DI pp 7 -8.
COMMENTS Of THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 2
orjust over 14%in the year-over-year change.The revenue sharing went down from $27.2
million in the 2012-2013 PCA year to $7.2 million in Idaho Power’s proposed 2013-2014 PCA
rate.The Company’s coal and gas generation costs increased by nearly $32.7 million,23%
higher than the 20 12-2013 forecast,due mainly to compensate for the lower than expected hydro
generation.
There have been some reports in the press that Idaho Power’s application includes a large
amount of PURPA costs.In fact,however,the year-over-year contribution to this year’s
increase due to PURPA projects is just 1.5%or $2.1 million higher than last year’s PCA.To be
sure,there is a large carry over balance of PURPA costs embedded in the PCA,however the
increase in the PCA this year over last year is not caused by PURPA projects.
ADDITIONAL RATE MITIGATION IS CALLED FOR [N LIGHT Of THE
MAGNITUDE Of THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
Mr.Tatum states that the Company’s senior executive officers instructed him to “develop
a PCA mitigation alternative that would reduce the overall PCA rate impact for this year below
an average increase of 10 percent.”3 Idaho Power is therefore proposing an alternative to
collecting the full $140.4 million in the 2013-2014 PCA year.The Company proposes to defer
$52.5 million of the $140.4 into the 2014-2015 PCA year.If this proposal is accepted by the
Commission,it would mean an overall increase in PCA rates for the upcoming PCA year of
9.6%,rather than the 15.34%increase were the entire balance recouped in a single year.
Mr.Tatum did not offer an explanation as to why below ten percent is the appropriate
rate mitigation percentage.Although he did identify the individual line item expenses that are
being deferred in order to arrive at an increase “below ...10 percent”.The 9.6%number he
Id.at24.
COMMENTS Of THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS Of IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 3
offers is reminiscent of psychological pricing in the retail business.While psychological pricing
is,in fact quite common in retail marketing,public utility commissions usually attempt to
identify a logical underpinning for a ratemaking convention other than just attempting to lull the
ratepayer into the false sense of having obtained a bargain.
Unfortunately none of the high load factor customers are sharing in the electric utility
ratemaking psychological pricing experiment.Because the PCA is allocated on a per kWh basis
the high load factor customers are assigned a higher percentage than the average or overall
increase.4 for example,the I.R.Simplot Company will face ajaw dropping 25.95%increase in
rates if the full $140.4 million is applied in the coming year,an amount that is an astounding
70%higher than the over-all increase of 15.34%.Simplot’s percentage increase would be still
unacceptable (under the directive of “senior executive officers”at Idaho Power)as it would be
well above the ten percent —not below as per Mr.Tatum’s instructions —at 15.6 1%.
When the PCA was implemented in 1993,in Docket No.IPC-E-92-25,several
intervenors expressed concern about the possibility of rate instability (also known as rate shock)
as a result of implementing the PCA.Some intervenors suggested alternate methods,such as
dead bands.deferrals and “buckets”to mitigate year-to-year changes.While the Commission
chose not to implement any of the alternate methods,it was attuned to the intervenors’concerns
regarding rate shock.In its findings,the Commission held the following:
After reviewing the various rate stability proposals,we find that the most reasonable
solution is,rather than now adopting a specific rate stability mechanism,we reserve the
right to examine proposed rate changes occurring in any one year and to impose different
recovery methods if the proposed rate changes appear to seriously impair rate stability.
As we gain experience with the PCA,specific rate stability limits may be further
examined.
It is true that the high load factor customers enjoy a larger decrease when PCA rates go down.However,as noted
above there have been only five years with an actual PCA rebate below base rates to the consumer.
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 4
Order No.24806 at page 14.
The ICIP respectfully submit that recovery of the entire $140 million in a single year seriously
impairs rate stability —especially when coupled with the seven percent Langley Gulch increase
last summer.
The ICIP endorses Idaho Power’s concept of keeping rate increases from this PCA under
ten percent and that its proposal to limit the increase to 9.6 percent be applied,not overall,but on
a class by class basis.This approach would spread the $140.4 million over a three year period
with 9.6%being the limiting factor for any class for the PCA years 2013-2014 arid 2014—2015,
and a residual 5.7 percent recovery in the 2015 —2016 PCA year.As depicted in Exhibit Two,
the dollar amounts collected,including 1%interest,would be $52 million in PCA year 2013 —
2014;$55 million in PCA year 2014 —2015;and finally $36 million in PAC year 2015 —2016.
The Exhibit also displays the increases for all customer classes based on the ratios of the
differences among the classes.The calculations are based on annual amounts and would need to
be adjusted on a monthly basis to account for load changes going forward.
The ICIP’s recommended rate shock mitigation method does not extend the increase over
an unreasonable length of time.In addition it is unknown when Idaho Power will file its next
general rate case,but there will be a significant adjustment to the PCA when that occurs.The
base rates used in determining the PCA level were set in case IPC-E-10-01,three years ago.
Imbedded in the PCA are $62.6 million in carry-over PURPA expenses that have accumulated
since base rates were last established.These PURPA related costs are currently passed through
to ratepayers on a per kWh basis in the PCA.Whereas,when they are properly allocated in a
general rate case they will be charged 37%to demand,9%to peak,and 53.88%to energy.
COMMENTS Of THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS Of IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 5
Moving PURPA costs from the PCA to base rates,where they belong,would mean that the rate
impact among customer classes would be more equal for both increases or decreases and thus
would not have such a disparate impact.
While deliberating on the prudence of an appropriate rate mitigation measure in
this docket,the Commission should be mindful that retail rates went up seven percent not even a
year ago.The combined impact of the Langley Gulch seven percent rate increase coupled with
the current PCA’s 26%requested increase (for Simplot)is rate shock by any definition of the
term.In addition,the deferral of this revenue over three years will not impose a hardship on
Idaho Power’s shareholders.Attached as Exhibit Three are excerpts from a presentation made
by Mr.Steven Keen5 at a recent “West Coast Seminar”to investors and potential investors in
IdaCorp stock.Exhibit Three shows that IdaCorp is enjoying the fruits of its “Productive
Regulatory Strategy”and has therefore been rewarded with a CAGR6 of almost 12%over the
last five years.A CAGR of 12%during the height of the great recession is remarkable,indeed.
A “Productive Regulatory Strategy”should also include a concern for the ratepayers’exposure
to rate shock in addition to producing a lucrative CAGR.
ACTUAL V.NORMALIZED REVENUE FOR THE TRUE UP
It has been the practice of the Company to use its forecast of normalized loads,rather
than actual loads,in the calculation of PCA revenue for the true-up portion of the PCA.Because
actual loads are known,and the PCA revenue is collected by the Company based on those actual
loads,it makes sense to use actual loads rather than a normalized forecast of loads.The
Commission urged Staff and the Company to discuss this issue in its order in last years PCA,
Senior Vice President,Finance and Treasurer.
6 Compound Annual Growth Rate.
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-1 7
PAGE 6
stating:
We also encourage Staff to discuss with the Company Staffs concerns about using
normalized data versus actual data in the true-up component of the PCA mechanism.
These discussions should take place well before the filing of next year’s PCA
application.7
It is the ICIP’s understanding that discussions among the Staff and Company have taken place
and it was agreed that the Company would use actual loads for the true-up beginning with this
year’s PCA.The ICIP supports this action and compliments the Commission,Staff and
Company for resolving this issue.
TRANSMISSION REVENUE
Both expenses and offsetting revenues for transmission by third parties are included in
the Company’s base rates.However,in calculating the PCA,Idaho Power only includes
expenses.See Scott Wright’s testimony at page 5 indicating that only expenses for third party
transmission are included in the PCA calculation.(FERC Account No.565).This is an
apparent mis-match by only including expenses and not revenues from third party transmission.
It is the ICIP’s understanding that Avista and Rocky Mountain Energy include both revenue and
expenses from third party transmission transactions in their respective power cost adjustment
mechanisms.(FERC account No.456.1 )•9 For matching purposes,and because both revenues
and expenses for transmission by others are included in base rates,the ICIP recommends that
revenues from transmission transactions for third parties be included the PCA as well.This is
only fair and consistent.
JPC Order No.32552,IPC-E-12-]7,p.7.
8 “This account shall include amounts payable to others for the transmission of the utility’s electricity over
transmission facilities owned by others.”
“This account shall include revenues from transmission of electricity ofothers over transmission facilities of the
utility.”
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this l7 day of May 2013
CERTIFICATE Of SERVICE
I hereby certify that 17th day of May 2013,copies of the foregoing Comments of the
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power were hand delivered to:
Julia Hilton
Lisa Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho
Boise,Idaho $3702
NTha Curtis
Administrative Assistant
Scott Wright
Gregory Said
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho
Boise,Idaho $3702
Jean Jewel
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Com’n
472 West Idaho
Boise,Idaho 83702
COMMENTS Of THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS Of IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-12-17
PAGE 8
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
$80
$70
Components of 2013-20 14 PCA Increase
$60
$50
$40
.2
$30
$20
$10
$0
($10)
<S O’O’\‘$‘ç
q qd
%O’ç’,,o—
—
o
<(0
o
source:IPC0 Tatum Testimony,I PC-E-13-10 page 6,12,Tables 1,2.
Exhibit One
Case IPC-E-13-1O
ICIP Comments
ID
A
H
O
PO
W
E
R
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
RA
T
E
SP
R
E
A
D
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
ON
S
;
I
PC
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
0
No
.
Un
i
f
o
r
m
Ta
r
i
f
f
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
Am
o
u
n
t
$1
4
0
,
3
7
1
,
1
9
9
PC
A
Ye
a
r
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
Ne
w
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
Am
o
u
n
t
$8
9
,
3
2
9
,
5
5
7
PC
A
Ye
a
r
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
Am
o
u
n
t
$3
4
,
6
5
0
,
8
9
9
PC
A
Ye
a
r
20
1
5
-
20
1
6
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Tw
o
Ca
s
e
No
.
PC
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
0
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
li
n
e
$4
3
5
,
2
8
1
,
5
1
1
$4
2
1
,
6
1
2
$2
,
2
3
7
,
1
5
4
$1
6
,
3
0
3
,
4
4
2
$2
3
2
,
4
4
6
,
6
2
9
$1
,
2
5
1
,
4
4
6
$1
0
7
,
6
5
9
,
4
5
0
$1
2
2
,
9
9
5
,
4
9
6
$9
6
3
,
1
3
3
$3
,
2
8
2
,
7
8
2
$1
5
6
,
9
6
9
$1
9
,
29
8
,
9
5
6
$1
9
,
4
3
4
$1
0
3
,
4
4
5
$6
0
1
,
9
7
1
$1
3
,
6
4
7
,
0
0
3
$3
1
,
4
7
4
$7
,
7
8
5
,
3
0
6
$6
,
6
1
9
,
0
2
0
$4
7
,
6
5
9
$1
1
9
,
3
4
6
$1
0
,
4
9
5
1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
2
Ma
s
t
e
r
Me
t
e
r
e
d
Mo
b
l
e
Ho
m
e
Pa
r
k
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ti
m
e
-
o
f
-
D
a
y
5
Sm
a
l
l
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
6
La
r
g
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
7
Du
s
k
/
D
a
w
n
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
8
La
r
g
e
Po
w
e
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
9
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
10
Un
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
11
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
St
r
e
e
t
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
12
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
13
To
t
a
l
l
d
a
h
o
Ra
t
e
s
14
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
5
15
Mi
c
r
o
n
16
Si
m
p
l
o
t
17
DO
E
/
I
N
L
19
Th
t
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
20
To
t
a
l
Id
a
h
o
Re
t
a
i
l
Sa
l
e
s
Ne
w
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Ne
w
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
4.
6
%
$4
5
5
,
4
7
5
,
8
1
7
$2
0
,
1
9
4
,
3
0
6
4.6
%
$4
6
8
,
0
3
2
,
8
0
8
$1
2
,
5
5
9
9
2
2.
8
%
4.
8
%
$4
4
1
,
9
8
5
$2
0
,
3
7
3
4.8
%
$4
5
4
,
6
7
7
$1
2
,
6
9
2
2.9
%
4.
8
%
$2
,
3
4
5
,
6
1
4
$1
0
8
,
4
6
0
4.
8
%
$2
,
4
1
3
,
1
8
9
$6
7
,
5
7
6
2.
9
%
3.
8
%
$1
6
,
9
2
8
,
4
9
2
$6
2
5
,
0
5
0
3.
8
%
$1
7
,
3
1
4
,
1
6
2
$3
8
5
,
6
7
0
2.3
%
6.
2
%
$2
4
6
,
9
4
4
,
8
2
4
$1
4
,
4
9
8
,
1
9
5
6.
2
%
$2
5
6
,
0
9
7
,
5
8
7
$9
,
1
5
2
,
7
6
3
3.
7
%
2.6
%
$1
,
2
8
3
,
7
3
2
$3
2
,
2
8
6
2.
6
%
$1
,
3
0
3
,
4
1
2
$1
9
,
6
8
1
1.
5
%
7.
8
%
$1
1
6
,
0
5
1
,
6
3
0
$8
,
3
9
2
,
1
8
0
7.8
%
$1
2
1
,
4
2
7
,
3
3
5
$5
,
3
7
5
,
7
0
5
4.
6
%
5.
7
%
$1
2
9
,
9
9
0
,
9
7
9
$6
,
9
9
5
,
4
8
3
5.7
%
$1
3
4
,
3
8
4
,
4
0
4
$4
,
3
9
3
,
4
2
6
3.
4
%
5.
2
%
$1
,
0
1
3
,
2
7
4
$5
0
,
1
4
0
5.
2
%
$1
,
0
4
4
,
6
2
0
$3
1
,
3
4
7
3.
1
%
3.
8
%
$3
,
4
0
6
,
6
3
0
$1
2
3
,
8
4
8
3.
8
%
$3
,
4
8
3
,
0
0
2
$7
6
,
3
7
2
2.
2
%
7.
2
%
$1
6
8
,
2
1
5
$1
1
,
2
4
7
7.
2
%
$1
7
5
,
3
7
7
$7
,
1
6
2
4.
3
%
$9
2
2
,
9
9
9
,
6
2
4
$4
8
,
2
8
4
,
1
0
9
5.
5
%
$2
5
,
9
1
2
,
9
0
5
$2
,
0
8
4
,
8
2
7
8.7
%
$7
,
9
7
1
,
7
5
5
$6
9
8
,
2
5
6
9.6
%
$1
0
,
2
2
7
,
7
3
1
$8
5
8
,
9
0
1
9.
2
%
$4
4
,
1
1
2
,
3
9
1
$3
,
6
4
1
,
9
8
4
9.
0
%
$9
6
7
,
1
1
2
,
0
1
5
$5
1
,
9
2
6
,
0
9
3
5.6
7
%
so
u
r
c
e
:
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
0
;
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3.
$9
7
4
,
0
5
1
,
1
9
2
$5
1
,
0
5
1
,
5
6
8
5.
5
%
$1
,
0
0
6
,
1
3
0
,
5
7
5
$3
2
,
0
7
9
,
3
8
3
3.3
%
$2
8
,
1
8
0
,
1
4
3
$2
,
2
6
7
,
2
3
8
8.
7
%
$2
9
,
6
4
5
,
3
0
6
$1
,
4
6
5
,
1
6
3
5.
2
%
$8
,
7
3
7
,
0
4
3
$7
6
5
,
2
8
8
9.
6
%
$9
,
2
3
5
,
4
6
5
$4
9
8
,
4
2
2
5.
7
%
$1
1
,
1
6
5
,
3
7
3
$9
3
7
,
6
4
2
9.2
%
$1
1
,
7
7
3
,
6
3
8
$6
0
8
,
2
6
5
5.
4
%
$4
8
,
0
8
2
,
5
6
0
$3
,
9
7
0
,
1
6
9
9.
0
%
$5
0
,
6
5
4
,
4
0
9
$2
,
5
7
1
,
8
4
9
5.
3
%
$1
,
0
2
2
,
1
3
3
,
7
5
2
$5
5
,
0
2
1
,
7
3
7
5.
6
9
%
$1
,
0
5
6
,
7
8
4
,
9
8
4
$3
4
,
6
5
1
,
2
3
3
3.
3
9
%
CO
R
P
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Th
r
e
e
Ca
s
e
No
.
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
O
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
We
s
t
Co
a
s
t
Se
m
i
n
a
r
La
s
Ve
g
a
s
,
Ne
v
a
d
a
Ma
r
c
h
20
,
20
1
3
IO
R
P
Re
c
e
n
t
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
*
20
1
2
An
o
t
h
e
r
Su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
Ye
a
r
•
$3
.
3
7
pe
r
di
l
u
t
e
d
sh
a
r
e
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
us
i
n
g
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
—
de
f
e
r
r
e
d
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ta
x
cr
e
d
i
t
s
(A
D
I
T
C
s
)
20
1
3
—
ex
p
e
c
t
to
us
e
le
s
s
th
a
n
$5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
of
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
AD
I
T
C
s
*
Di
v
i
d
e
n
d
Po
l
i
c
y
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
•
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
to
w
a
r
d
ac
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
ID
A
C
O
R
P
’
s
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
ad
o
p
t
e
d
di
v
i
d
e
n
d
po
l
i
c
y
;
du
r
i
n
g
20
1
2
th
e
ID
A
C
O
R
P
Bo
a
r
d
of
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
vo
t
e
d
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
di
v
i
d
e
n
d
tw
i
c
e
,
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
an
ag
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
$0
.
3
0
pe
r
sh
a
r
e
to
$0
.
3
8
pe
r
sh
a
r
e
qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
,
or
ne
a
r
l
y
27
pe
r
c
e
n
t
*
Gr
o
w
t
h
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
Re
c
e
n
t
gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
ca
p
i
t
a
l
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
tr
e
n
d
i
n
g
hi
g
h
e
r
•
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
to
w
a
r
d
th
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
of
th
e
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
-
t
o
He
m
i
n
g
w
a
y
an
d
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
We
s
t
50
0
-
k
y
tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
d
ex
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
of
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
co
s
t
-
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p
an
d
th
e
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Po
w
e
r
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
fB
P
A
)
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
on
th
e
ri
s
e
in
ou
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
ar
e
a
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Th
r
e
e
Ca
s
e
No
.
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
O
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
Pe
r
Di
l
u
t
e
d
Sh
a
r
e
&
Re
t
u
r
n
on
Ye
a
r
-
E
n
d
Eq
u
i
t
y
—
ID
A
C
O
R
P
(P
e
r
i
o
d
-
E
n
d
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Th
r
e
e
Ca
s
e
No
.
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
O
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
n—
,
.
.
,
.
tO
R
P
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
Pe
r
Di
l
u
t
e
d
Sh
a
r
e
Re
t
u
r
n
on
Eq
u
i
t
y
12
%
$4
.
0
0
$3
.
5
0
$3
.
0
0
$2
.
5
0
$2
.
0
0
$1
.
5
0
$1
.
0
0
$0
.
5
0
$0
.
0
0
10
%8%6%4%2%0%
10
,
1
%
9.
3
%
8.
9
%
7.
6
%--
L
.
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Th
r
e
e
Ca
s
e
No
.
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
O
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
4I
O
R
P
rs
j C
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
20
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Im
p
a
c
t
No
t
a
b
l
e
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Da
t
e
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Id
a
h
o
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
iS
t
$
34
.
0
Or
e
g
o
n
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ra
t
e
Ca
s
e
Ma
r
c
h
1S
t
1.
8
ld
a
h
o
-
P
C
A
Ju
n
e
St
43
.
0
Or
e
g
o
n
-
A
P
C
U
Ju
n
e
l
t
t
1.
8
En
d
of
Ac
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
No
n
—A
M
I
Me
t
e
r
s
Ju
n
e
1
[
(1
0
.
6
)
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
St
u
d
y
—
Id
a
h
o
Ju
n
e
iS
t
(1
.
3
)
Bo
a
r
d
m
a
n
En
d
of
Li
f
e
Re
c
o
v
e
r
y
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
—
Id
a
h
o
Ju
n
e
;s
15
Id
a
h
o
FC
A
Ju
n
e
JS
t
1.
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Sh
a
r
i
n
g
—
I
d
a
h
o
Ju
n
e
15
t
(2
7
.
1
)
La
n
g
l
e
y
Gu
l
c
h
-
Id
a
h
o
Ju
l
y
1S
t
58
.
1
La
n
g
l
e
y
Gu
l
c
h
—
Or
e
g
o
n
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
3.
0
—
$1
0
5
.
4
Fo
r
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
St
e
v
e
n
R.
Ke
e
n
Id
a
h
o
Po
w
e
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
—
Se
n
i
o
r
Vi
c
e
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Tr
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
ID
A
C
O
R
P
,
In
c
.
—
Vi
c
e
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
&
Tr
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
(2
0
8
)
38
8
-
2
2
0
0
SK
e
e
n
@
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
F.
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
of
In
v
e
s
t
o
r
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
8
)
38
8
-
2
6
6
4
LS
p
e
n
c
e
r
@
i
d
a
c
o
r
p
i
nc
.
co
r
n
WW
W
.
I
D
A
C
O
R
P
I
N
C
.
C
O
M
WW
W
.
3
D
A
H
O
P
O
W
E
R
.
C
O
M
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
Th
r
e
e
Ca
s
e
No
.
IP
C
-
E
-
1
3
-
1
O
IC
I
P
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
C