19911018Spann Direct.pdf

O o
,c,:lE1'j['J E
riLED N
' jt- [uI 18 Pn 1 53
Iiliil0 ir'uBLlc
. t, :-iills cot'l lilsslot{
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL
OF AN INTERCONNECTION TARIFF
FOR NON UTILITY GENERATION -
SCHEDULE 72
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
)
)
)
)
)
)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
ON RECONSIDERATION
OF
ROBERT M. SPANN
oo
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
rl
t2
l3
14
t5
16
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a
A
a
A
Please state your name and business address.
My name is Robert M. Spann. My bus'iness address is Charles
R'iver Associates, 555 13th Street, N.W., }Jashington, D.C.
By whom are you empl oyed?
I am an i ndependent economi c consul tant affj I i ated wi th
Charles Rjver Associates, an economic consulting firm wjth
offices in l.lashjngton and Boston.
Please describe your educatjonal background and prior work
experi ence.
I recejved both my Bachelors and Masters Degrees 'in Economics
from North Carolina State University in 1970. I recejved my
Ph. D. 'in Economi cs, w j th a co-major i n Stati sti cs, from the
same Universjty in 1973. hlhile doing graduate work at North
Caroljna State, I taught courses in principles of econom'ics.
I was al so the reci pi ent of a Nat'ional Sc'ience Foundat j on
Fel I owshi p and a Resources for the Future Dj ssertati on
Fellowship. I have served on the facult'ies of Virg'inia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Montana State
University, the Univers'ity of Chicago, and George Wash'ington
Un'iversity. I have taught courses in econometrics, economic
theory, appl ied microeconomics, and regulatory econom'ics.
During the period 1975-1989, I was a Prjncipal of ICF
Incorporated, a t^lash'ington D.C. consulting firm. I have been
actively involved as a consultant'in the areas of energy,
utility, and antjtrust economics sjnce 1972. Durjng the last
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
a
A
I
o
18 years I have performed consulting assignments for state
regulatory bodies, federal government agencies, regulated
utiljties, energy companies, and utility consumers. I have
testjfjed before state and federal regulatory bodies and
courts on numerous occasions.
I am a member of the American Economic Association, the
International Association of Energy Economjsts, and am an
associate member of the American Bar Assoc'iation Section on
Antitrust.
I have publ i shed numerous artj cl es on regul atory
economics in professional journals. Exhjbit 2 (RMS-1) is my
resume.
Are you familiar with PURPA and cogeneration and small power
production (CSPP) jssues?
Yes. I was a consultant to the Department of Energy during
the drafting and implementatjon of the FERC rules cjted by
Dr. Reading. One of my assignments was advi sing the
Department of Energy's Policy Office on issues regarding the
implementation of PURPA Section 210 (Cogeneration and Small
Power Production). During the last twelve years I have served
as a consultant to varjous cogenerators and small power
producers jn a number of states, served as a consultant to a
number of State PUCs on PURPA implementatjon jssues and worked
wi th numerous el ectri c uti l i t'ies on CSPP 'i ssues . I have
testified for Idaho Power on several occasions before th'is
Spann, D'i-Recon
Idaho Power Company
o
I
?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
1l
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a
A
2
o
Commission. I have also testified on behalf of CSPPs before
the New York Public Serv'ice Commissjon, the Florida Public
Servjce Commjssion, the Pennsylvanja Public Ut'ilit'ies
Commi ss'ion and the Federal Energy Regul atory Commi ss'ion . The
jssues I have addressed on behalf of CSPPs in prior testimony
has jncluded avo'ided costs, standby rates, and the economic
impact of m'inimum flows at a small hydro site.
I have also done a substantial amount of work for CSPPs
that did not involve test'imony. For the past nine years, I
have worked wjth a major Virginia cogenerator, assisting in
contract negotiatjons and jn analyzing fil ings made by
Virginia Power. I have worked with other cogenerators
perform'ing economjc evaluations of potential cogeneration
projects, analyzing transmissjon issues, and various other
matters.
Fjnally, I assisted the New Jersey Board of Public
Ut'ilities and the South Carol'ina Publ'ic Service Comm'ission in
the design and implementatjon of avojded cost rates for CSPPs
in those states.
What js the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
Idaho Power Company asked me to rev'iew the testimony of
Dr. Reading, prepared on behalf of the Independent Energy
Producers of Idaho. In addition, I will be discussing the
mannerin wh'ich CSPPs i n other states are charged for
interconnection costs.
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
a
A
3
a
Please summarjze your comments on Dr. Read'ing's testimony.
My conclusions can be summarized as:
o Much of Dr. Reading's test'imony regarding PURPA
and average costs versus 'incremental costs is
simply an i rrel evant smoke screen. That
d'i scuss i on has noth i ng to do wi th the actual
issues jn dispute in thjs proceeding.
o At the concl us'i on of Dr. Read i ng' s test i mony he
performs exactly the same type of calculatjon as
does Idaho Power--djvid'ing current expenses for
di strj but'i on and transmi ssi on operati on and
ma'intenance (0&M) by existing plant investment to
obtajn a percentage charge for 0&M expenses.
The only substantive djfference between
Dr. Readi ng's cal cul at'ions and Idaho Power's j s
that Dr. Readjng omits Administrative and General
(A & G) expenses from h'i s cal cul at j ons.
o In Case No. IPC-E-89-ll, Idaho Power's last
avojded cost case, Dr. Dennis Peseau testjfjed
for the Independent Energy Producers of Idaho.
In that case, Dr. Peseau testified that Idaho
Power's A & G costs must be jncluded in setting
Idaho Power's avoided costs. Al I of the
arguments that Dr. Peseau made for including
A & G expenses in the avoided costs that Idaho
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
o
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
13
14
15
16
l7
I8
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
a
A
4
o
Power pays to CSPPs apply equal 1y wel I to
jnclud'ing A & G expenses in the 'interconnection
costs that CSPPs pay to Idaho Power. Thus if
A & G costs are i nc'l uded i n the avoi ded cost
rates Idaho Power Company pays to CSPPs, they
should be jncluded in the interconnect'ion charges
CSPPs pay to Idaho Power Company.
o If A & G costs are not included in the
jnterconnect'ion charges CSPPs pay to Idaho Power
Company, they should not be incl uded in the
avoided cost rates Idaho Power Company pays to
CSPPS.
Please summarize your testimony regarding the practices of
other utilities regarding interconnectjon costs.
My general experience is that it js common pract'ice for
utilities to charge CSPPs for both the capital and 0 & M costs
of i nterconnectj ons. In addi ti on, Idaho Power Company
personnel, at my request, have conducted a survey of the
practices of the eleven other major electric util'itjes in the
Pacifjc Northwest and the West. The results of the survey can
be summarized as:
o All of these utjlitjes charge the CSPP for the
capita1 costs of interconnections.
o With the sole exception of the Washington Water
Power Company, all eleven utjlit'ies charge the
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
t
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
lt
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
17
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
a
A
5
o
CSPPfor0&Mcosts.
o F'ive of the utilitjes charge the CSPP a monthly
percentage 0 & M rate. In four of these cases,
the rate js virtually identical to the rate Idaho
Power Company has proposed in thjs proceeding.
o Five of the util'ities charge the CSPP actual
0 & M costs. These utilities have a much smaller
number of CSPP contracts than the ut'ilities which
charge a percentage rate sjmjlar to that proposed
by Idaho Power Company in thjs proceeding.
lllhy do you state that much of Dr. Reading's testimony
regarding PURPA and average versus incremental costs is simply
an imelevant smoke screen?
Because Dr. Reading is attempting to djvert attention from the
real jssue by portraying the dispute in theoretical terms,
'i.e., average cost versus jncremental cost. The issue in thjs
proceeding is not average costs versus incremental costs. The
sole issue raised in Dr. Reading's test'imony'is whether or not
A & G costs should be included in the charges to CSPPs for
interconnection equipment. Idaho Power Company jncludes these
costs. Dr. Readjng makes them disappear.
How does Dr. Readjng's calculatjon of a monthly 0 & M charge
of 0.5 percent of interconnectjon capital investment differ
from Idaho Power Company's proposed 0.7 percent monthly
charge?
ann, Di -Recon
aho Power Company
t
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
l3
l4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a
A
a
Sp
Id
6
o
The sole difference js the treatment of A & G expenses. Idaho
Power Company djvides 0 & M expenses'including A & G expenses
by distribution plant to obtain the proposed .7 percent per
month charge. Dr. Reading ef iminates A & G expenses from the
cal cul at i on .
Both Idaho Power and Dr. Reading are trying to estimate
the jncremental annual 0 & M expenses which are incurred by
Idaho Power Company when Idaho Power Company i s 'i nterconnected
to a CSPP. Both Idaho Power and Dr. Reading est'imate these
jncremental costs by establishing the ratjo of expenses jn
certain FERC accounts to existing investment.
Is it standard practice jn the utility industry to jnclude
A & G costs in the calculation of incremental costs?
Yes. In calculating avo'ided or incremental costs, util'ity
analysts would not ask the question 'what specific costs are
avo'ided when a spec'ific one or two lllw CSPP connects to the
utility system?' Rather, they use a general relationship
between costs and load to calculate the costs that would be
avoided by the typical QF. Thjs would generally include A & G
costs .
The exact same reasoning applies to 'interconnection
costs. A utility wjth more interconnections, and greater
investment 'in jnterconnectjons would generally have higher
A & G costs than a ut'i 'l i ty wi th fewerinterconnect j ons and
I ess i nvestment 'in i nterconnecti ons.
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
a
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
l1
t2
13
l4
l5
16
t7
l8
19
20
?l
22
23
24
25
A
a
A
7
Oa
I
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a Are A & G expenses included in the jncremental cost
calculations used to set the avo'ided cost rates that Idaho
Power Company pays to CSPPs for the purchase of power from
CSPPs?
Yes, they are.
IfA & G expenses are included jn the avoided costs rates that
Idaho Power Company pays to CSPPs, should they also be
jncluded in the jnterconnection costs Idaho Power Company
charges CSPPs?
Yes. The same logic applies in both sjtuat'ions. If Idaho
Power avojds A & G expenses when it avojds investing in a
power p1 ant due to the purchase of power from a CSPP,
obviously Idaho Power's A & G expenses increase when Idaho
Power increases its investment in djstribut'ion plant in order
to interconnect a CSPP.
As such, if A & G costs are included 'in the avoided
costs rates CSPPs are paid, they should be jncluded jn the
interconnect'ion costs that CSPPs pay Idaho Power.
If A & G costs are not'included in the interconnection costs
that CSPPS pay to Idaho Power, should they be included jn the
avoided cost rates that Idaho Power pays to CSPPs?
Clearly not. Dr. Reading's 1og'ic 'is that A & G costs are
fixed. If they are fixed and don't vary with output, they are
not avoided when CSPPs supply power to Idaho Power Company.
Thus under Dr. Reading's approach, A & G costs would be
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
A
a
A
a
A
8
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
13
l4
l5
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
a
A
a
A
a
A
O O
excluded from the calculation of avo'ided costs and excluded
from the rates paid CSPPS.
Does Dr. Readjng present any data or analysis to support his
claim that Idaho Power's A & G costs are unaffected by
jnterconnecting with CSPPs?
No. He simply makes thjs statement in order to reduce the
rates CSPPs must pay Idaho Power. His testimony does not
conta'in any data or analysis which even remotely supports thjs
assumpti on.
Have you revjewed Exhjbit 705 attached to the prefiled direct
testimony of Independent Energy Producers' witness Peseau in
Case No. IPC-E-89-ll?
Yes, I have. The analys'i s conta'ined i n that exhi bi t i ndi cates
that A & G expenses should be included in the rates CSPPs pay
Idaho Power Company for interconnection costs. As such, the
analysis that Dr. Peseau presented in that Docket directly
contradicts Dr. Reading's testimony in thjs case. For the
convenjence of the parties, I have attached a copy of
Dr. Peseau's Exh'ibit 705.
Please explain why Independent Energy Producers' witness
Peseau's analysis jn Case No. IPC-E-89-11 d'irectly contrad'icts
Dr. Readjng's testimony in this proceeding.
Dr. Readjng has testjfjed that when a utility increases 'its
distrjbution plant due to jnterconnecting a CSPP, there is no
increase in the utility's A & G expenses. Dr. Peseau's
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
9
O
analys'is shows that this assert'ion by Dr. Read'ing simply isn't
true.
In Case No. IPC-E-89-ll, Dr. Peseau test'ifjed that:
"I have examjned the relatjonsh'ip between
A & G expenses and general p1 ant wi th
generated and purchased power and wi th
oroduct'ion. transmiss'ion and distributionplant using regression analysis. ...The
purpose of the anal ys'i s v{as to determ'i nethe extent to which additional 'investment
i n producti on. transmi ssj on and
di stri buti on pl ant and addj ti onal power
purchases were assocj ated wi th greater
levels of A & G expenses and general plant
j nvestment" I Peseau Di rect, p. 34, I 'ine 20
through p. 35, I jne 12, emphasis addedl.
Dr. Peseau's Exh'ib j t 705 shows that an j ncrease 'in pl ant
i nvestment, regardl ess of whether j t i s production,
distrjbutjon or transm'ission plant increases A & G expenses.
a. Do other utiljties charge CSPPs for interconnection 0 & M
costs ?
A. Yes. As I previously testjfied, except for Washington Water
Power, all eleven utilitjes we contacted charge CSPPs for
'interconnection 0 & M costs.
a. Are the rates charged CSPPs for jnterconnection 0 & M costs
similar to those proposed by Idaho Power?
A. Yes. Five of the utilities we surveyed follow the same
general procedure for charging interconnectjon 0 & M costs as
does Idaho Power. All but one of the fjve util'itjes charge
for distributjon 0 & M at a rate that is roughly .7 percent of
interconnection capital investment per month. Thjs is
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
l0
o
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0ll
t2
t3
l4
l5
l6
t7
l8
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
?8
29
30
3l
32
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
14
l5
l6
a
o o
vjrtually identical to the rate proposed by Idaho Power. All
but one of these utiljtjes charge an 0 & M rate for
transmission level interconnections that 'is between .34 and .5
percent of interconnectjon capital investment per month. This
'is virtually identical to the rate proposed by Idaho Power.
The other five utilities charge CSPPs actual 0 & l'|
costs. As a general ru1e, these utjljtjes have only a small
number of CSPP contracts--many fewer CSPP contracts than do
ejther Idaho Power or the other utiljtjes which charge 0 & M
on a percentage basis.
Have you prepared an exhibit that summarizes the results of
your survey?
Yes, that exhibit js attached to my testjmony as Exhibit 3.
Does th j s concl ude your rebuttal test'imony?
Yes, jt does.
Spann, Di -Recon
Idaho Power Company
A
a
A
1t
O
ROBERT M. SPANN
Economics and Statistics, North Carolina State Llniversity
Economics, North Carolina State University
o Chorles
River
Associotes
EXHiBTT 2 (RMS-r)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
SPANN, IPCO
Page I of 6
Ph.D.
B.S.
Dr. Spann is a senior consultant to CRA. He works with CRA on projects in the
areas of regulatory economics, energy, insurance, strategic planning and anti-trust. He
has over seventeen years of consulting experience involving regulated industries,
energy, communications, insurance, and anti-trust. This experience has included
testifying before state and federal administrative agencies, boards of arbitration, and
the courts.
Prior to affiliating with CRA in May of 1989, Dr. Spann was a Senior Vice President
and Member of the Board of Directors of ICF Incorporated. He has also held
academic positions on the faculties of George Washington University, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, the University of Chicago, North Carolina State University and
Montana State University.
PIIBLICATIONS
A. Electric Utility Economics
"Rate of Return Regulation and Efficiency in Production: An Empirical test of
the Averch-Johnson Thesis," Bell Journal of Economics and Management
Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1974.
"Strategic Planning for Power System Reliability and Vulnerability: An
Optimization Model for Resource Planning Under lJncertainty" (with
I.H.Shavel and A.P. Sanghvi), IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Volume 9, No.2,7982.
cgu
o O
"The Effect of Electric Rate Design on Solar Heating" (with K.P.I-inder and E.
Wessler), in Ener$r and Communications in Transtlioq, MSU Public Utility
Papers, L981..
"Econometric Estimation of Peak Electric Utility Demands" (with E.G.Beauvais),
Journal of Economics, Volume 9,1979.
"The Demand for Electricity in Virginia" (with M.P. Murray,L. Puney, and E.G.
Beauvais), The Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume 60, No. 4,
November 1978.
"The Regulatory Cobweb: An Analysis of Inflation, Deflation, and Alternative
Administrative Rules in Public Utilities," Southern Economic Journal, July
1976.
,'ANoteontheRegu1atedFirm'sCostFunction,'',
Vol. 3, No. 3, 1975.
"Restructuring the Electric Utility Industry: A Framework for Evaluating Public
Policy Options in Electric Utilities," in W.H. Shaker and W. Steffy (editors),
Electric Power Reform: The Alternative for Michigan. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Institute of Science and Technology, 1976.
"Industrial and Commercial Rate Structures and Econometric Estimation of the
Demand for Electricity," in James Boyd (ed.), Proceedings of the Electric
Power Research Institute Conference on Time of Day and Seasonal Load
Forecasting. Palo Alto: EPRI, 1976.
B. Petroleum Economics
The Supply of Natural Resources: The Case of Oil and Natural Gas, New
York: The Arno Press, 1979.
"supply Response in a Regulated Industry: The Case of Natural Gas" (with E.W.
Erickson), Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 2, No.
l,1970.
Chorles
RiverAssociotes
EXHTBTT 2 (RMS-l)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
SPANN, IPCO
Page 2 of 6c$u
o o
'The Political Economy of Crude Oil Price Controls" (with E.W. Erickson, W.L.
Peters, P.J. Tese), Natural Resources Jounlal, Vol. 18, No. 4, October 1978.
"Alternative Strategies for Dealing with the Natural Gas Shortage" (with P.
Staratt), irr E.W. Erickson and L. Waverman (eds.), The Enerry Ouestion.
Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1974.
"Oil Imports, the Wellhead Price of Natural Gas, National Energy Poliry and
Joint Costs in Oil and Gas Exploration" (with E.W. Erickson), in D. Limaye
(ed.) Energ.v Policy Evaluation. Lexington: Irxington Books, 7974.
"An Economic Analysis of Substitution and Usage Effects in Industrial Energy
Demand" (with E.W. Erickson and R. Ciliano), in D. Limaye (ed.) Enerry
Policy Evaluation. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1974.
"Substitution and Usage in Energy Demand: An Econometric Estimation of
l,ong-Run and Short-Run Effect" (with E.W. Erickson and R. Ciliano), in
Milton F. Searl (ed.), Energ.v Modeling: Art. Science. Practice. Washington:
Resources for the Future, 1973.
"Joint Costs and Separability in Oil and Gas Exploration" (with E.W. Erickson),in Milton F. Searl (ed.), Energv Modeling: Art. Science. Practice.
Washington: Resources for the Future, 7973.
"Balancing the Supply and Demand for Naturai Gas" (with E.W. Erickson), in
Balancing the Supply and Demand for Energy in the United States. Denver:
University of Denver, 7972.
"Price, Regulation and the Supply of Natural Gas in the United States" (with E.W.
Erickson), in Keith Brown (ed.), Regulation of the Natural Gas Producing
Industry. Washington: Resources for the Future, \972.
"Natural Gas Prices, Crude Oil Prices and the Supply of Natural Gas" (with E.W.
Erickson). Written testimony for the U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, 91st Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972.
Chorles
River
Associotes
EXHIBIT 2 (RMS-l)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
SPANN, IPCO
Page 3 of 6(-&
o
C. Taxation
"Oil Supply and Ta:< Incentives" (with E.W. Erickson and S.W. Millsaps),
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. No.2, 1974.
"Ta;r Revenue and Economic Effects of Tax Exempt State and L,ocal Bonds: A
General Equilibrium Approach of Tax Policy Analysis," Conference on Tax
Research. Washington: U.S. Treasury, Office of Ta,r Analysis, 1977.
"Percentage Depletion and the Price and Output of Domestic Crude Oil" (with
E.W. Erickson and S.W. Miilsaps). U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means
Committee, Ta"r Reform Hearings, Nafural Resources, February 8, 1973.
"Taxation and the Petroleum Industry" (with E.W. Erickson, D.N. Hyman and
S.W. Millsaps), in The Petroleum Industry's Tax Burden. Compendium
prepared for the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee and U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance. Washington, D.C.: Taxation with Representation,
1973.
"Ta^:ration, Regulation, Electric Utility Pricing and the Efficient Allocation of
Energy Resources," in C. Cicchetti and J. Jurewitz (eds.), Studies in Electric
Utility Regulation. Cambridge: Ballinger Books, 1975.
"Ta,.r Incentives in the Petroleum Industry" (with E.W. Erickson and S.W.
Millsaps), in E.W. Erickson and L. Waverman (eds.), The Energ.v Ouestion.
Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1974.
D. Industrial Organization and Antitrust Economics
"The Economics of Railroading: The Beginning of Cartelization and Regulation"
(with E.W. Erickson), Bell Joutualof Economics and Management Science,
Vol. 1., No.2, 1970.
"Mergers Involving Firms in Financial Decline: a Conceptual Model" (with C.H.
Ufen), Southern Journal of Business, July 1970.
EXHTBTT 2 (RMS-
CASE NO. IPC-E-
SPANN, IPCO
Page 4 of 6
o Chorles
River
Associotes
l)
90-20(r&
o o Chorles
River
Associotes
EXHTBTT 2 (RMS-t)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
SPANN, IPCO
Page 5 of 6
"Competition, Prices and Tax Policy {or the Petroleum Industry" (with E.W.
Erickson and S.W. Millsaps). Statement submitted to the United States
Senate Committee on Finance, November 28, t973.
"Competition in the Field Markets for New Natural Gas Supplies" (with E.W.
Erickson and S.W. Millsaps). Statement submitted to the United States
Senate Committee on Finance, November 28, 1973.
"An Analysis of the Competitive Effects of Joint Ventures in the Bidding for
Tracts in OCS Offshore L.ease Sales," in Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on Integrated Oil Operations of the Senate Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, Market Performance and Competition in the
Petroleum Industry (with E.W. Erickson). Washington, D.C: Government
Printing Office, 1974.
E. Public Sector Economics
"Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth and the Expanding Public Sector: Some
Simple Tests of a Model of Government Growth," Journal of Public
Economics, Volume 8, No. 3, December L977.
"The Effects of Public Spending on the Divisibiiity of Public Outputs in
Consumption, Bureaucratic Power and the Size of the Tax Sharing Group"
(with T.E. Borcherding and W. Busch) in T.E. Borcherding (ed.), Budgets and
Bureaucrats: The Sources of Government Growth. Durham: Duke
University Press, 1977.
"Public vs. Private Production of Governmental Services," in T.E. Borcherding
(ed.), Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Government Growth.
Durham: Duke University Press, 1977.
"Rates of Productivity Change and the Growth of State and Local Government
Expenditures" in T.E. Borcherding (ed.) Budgets and Bureaucrats: The
Sources of Government Growth. Durham: Duke University Press, 1977.
"Collective Consumption of Private Goods," Public Choice, Vol. 2l,Winter 1974.
cgu
oa Chorles
RiverAssociotes
EXHiBTT 2 (RMS-l)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-20
SPANN, IPCO
Page 6 of 6
F. Telecommunications
"Pricing within Urban Telephone Networks: Welfare, Allocative and
Distributional Effects of Alternative Pricing Policies" in C.F. Phillips, Jr.
(editor), Expanding Economic Concepts of-Regulation in H_ealth. Postal and
Telecomnlunications Services. Lexington, Va.: Washington & ke University,
1,977.
Prior Testimony Before:
Arizona Corporation Commission
Connecticut Department of Public Utilities
Georgia Public Service Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Postal Rate Commission
International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Panel
North Carolina Utilities Commission
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
South Carolina Public Service Commission
Georgia Public Service Commission
Florida Public Service Commission
New York Public Service Commission
Montana Public Service Commission
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission
Virginia State Corporation Commission
Illinois Department of Insurance
Federal Bankruptcy Court, Manchester, NH
Delaware Public Service Commission
District of Columbia Public Service Commission
Maryland Public Service Commission
Kansas Corporation Commission
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
Travis County District Court, Austin Texas
Ohio Public Utilities Commission
Arkansas Public Service Commission
UX,
o a
E,
t.EFOfo-z
t
o
EanoN
s)
q)lt
o
Ea
*
(o (f)
rJ)(o+
rx
c{
@
*
+
tl.
o +to+
'TN
o
o€=c€o(LELJoi-5=
rf
;-o6 .srtro-.sd
EH
bo*(E
E'o;trDEE>
C)=
U,-t
==€:OU
u--eg
=E
oo
J
o
a
CDc
op
CL:,
oE(,oc
Eo
0)
a
-cPco
o(L
s
@g?
o
oo).Po
eOOo'F -ofc
=o{-, l-(aoOF
oo
oo
ss@@(o (r)dd
crOOo'F -9,
=CZo
+, l-ooOF
oo
oo>=ast\ tJ)(o$qaloo
EfPo
E
Po
CrOoo'F .9,
=C-- cn
+, t-(/)oOF
oo
oo
ssloo(o rr)dci
E)
o
3
Eo)J c-9d.9e
g€ E8E E.90F'noo
oLOOoEE<>>gl*B-tr(o$,xea?;'o o
=->Co
oPooo
E.:o-oo
ee P!s6- iaDOCu,ts.: OgE*-
e P i+.! F:=II: s= g
> trf ).*> o-o o
o-Lao
z
o-
oo
o(J
o(n
-ofL
ocoN
L
oo
o
3oo-
oco
Co
oo
o
3oL
oEo
oz
oo
UJ
d
oo(9
.9
=ooo.
P
CD
={
q)
3oL
o
'6
o0-
oou,
(E
oco(,
E'Csts
oo-
o
3oo-
q)
ct)fo-
oo
lrJ
&
6o(9
oc').9o
oa
o
3oL
o
'o
oL
o
.9a
PE
CD
=d
o
3oL
s.o
:)
0)
3oL
q)Po
=oo3
E
oTLoE,
UJII
o)@o)
Eo
iF
:t
cASE rPC-E-90-20
SPANN, Di
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT 3, Page 1 of 1
o o
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
' REGRESSION OUTPUT TOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSE
AND GENERAL PI,ANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE 1
TOTAL OBSERVATIONS ].6
USABLE OBSERVATIONS ].6
R**2 .96744156ssR .38375L528+L5
DURBTN-WATSON 1,. 9L389965
a( 8)= 4.7725sNO. I,ABEL VAR I,AG
AANDGSKTPPED/I{rSSING o
DEGREES OF FREEDOM 13RBNI**2 .96243257sEE 1718L1 95.
STGNIFICANCE LEVEL .78L587COEFFICIENT STAND. ERROR************ ************
-5040132. 6080289..24257968-01 .1970L508-022.396557 t.252742
***T-STATISTIC
* *** * **********
l_
2
3
*******
CONSTANT
PTDPLT
PURCH
0
7
4
***
0
0
0
-.8289297L2.3L268
1.913049
***
0
0
0
NO.***
1
2
3
DEPENDENT VARIABLE 2
TOTAL OBSERVATIONS 15
USABLE OBSERVATIONS ].5
R**2 .78394835
ssR .100486668+l-8
DURBIN-WATSON I.3552O6L7
a( 8)= L4-9283I,ABEL VAR I,AG******* ***
CONSTANT OPTDPLT 7
PURCH 4
GENPI,ANTSKTPPED/ITISSING 0
DEGREES OF FREEDOM 13RBAR**2 .7507 0963sEE 879L8955.
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL .6055458-01
COEFFICIENT STAND. ERROR* ** *********
.2028605E+08 .31113828+08.50342048-01 .10081638-01
-1.738940 6.410483
T-STATISTIC** *** *******
.65L9946
4.993443
-.27L2650
Exhibit 705
Case No. IPC-E-89-L1
Peseau, IEP
Page 1 of 1