19910819Faull Direct.pdf

o O #ataz
l- r-r rt _*.,\ i .i
i1--.-*i;'-J ..fj
rr' r-^i..-.-l t I
;:iJ3 19 Pii 3 t5
i'.,.:,^, i-. jri,! tf\rLl1irV I ijUl-iUi ;::_:Tiis c0f,tl,;t5 : ; :, ;J
BEFORE THE IDAI{O PI]BLIC IIIILITTES COMMISSION
IN ITIE MATIER OF TEE APPIICATION
Or. IDAIIO POWER COMPAIVT F1OR AP-
PROVAL OF AN II\ITERCONNESIION
TARIFT' FOR NON.TIIIIJTT GENERA.
TION-SCIIEDI]LE 72
CA,SE NO. IPC-E-90-20)
)
)
)
)
)
DIRECT IESTIMONT OF TIIOMAS FAI]I,L
IDAHO PTIBIIC IINLrIIES COMNilISSIION
AUGUST 19, 1991
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
t0
I1
L2
13
14
15
I6
L7
l8
19
20
ZL
2Z
23
24
z5
rPC-E-9 0-20
B/ L9 /9L
FAUT,L ( Di )Staff I
a.
address for
A.My name is Thomas Faull and my business
West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
By whom are you employed and in what
address is 472
cap ac i ty?
A. I am enrployed by the Idaho Pub1ic
Utilities Commission as a Public Utilities Engineer.
a. Have you included a statement of your
qualifications in this testimony?
A. Yes. Exhibit No. I01 is a statement of
my qualifications.
a. Please summarize your testimony.
A. My testimony cliscusses the extent to
which interconnect costs were consiclered during Ltre
administrative determination of avoided cost rates and
conclurfes that Idaho's avoided cost raLes include
reasonable interconnect costs as envisioned by the
Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of L97B
(PURPA). I also analyze the way in which Idaho Power
Company (IPCo) applies its operation and maintenance
(O&M) charges for interconnect facilities and conclude
that IPCo should charge non-Ievel O&M rates rather
than the level O&Itl rates currently inclurletl in
Schedule 72.
Please state your name and business
the record.
0
o o
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1l
L2
I3
14
I5
I6
L7
I8
I9
ZO
ZL
zz
23
Z4
z5
rPC-E-90-20
B/ L9 /9L FATTLL ( Di )Staff 2
INTERCONNECT COSTS INCLI'DED IN AVOIDED COST RATES:
a. Were you the staff's primary wiLness in
Cases Nos. U-1500-170 and IPC-E-89-l-t that established
the avoided cost rates currently being used by IPCo
for the purchase of power under PURPA?
A. Yes.
A. Do you believe that Tille 18 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 292, requires
uLilities to pay the cost of interconnection for
Qualifyinq Facilities (QFs)?
A. No. 18 CFR 292 clearly lays the burden
of paying interconnection costs on the QF.
Interconnection costs .
(a) Obligati.on to pay. Eachqualifyinq facility shall be obligatedto pay any interconnectiorr costs wtrichthe State regulatory authoril-y.. .mayassess against the qualifying facilityon a nondiscrj.nrinatory basis withrespect to customers with similar loadcharacteristics.
(b) Reimbursement of interconnectioncosts. Each State regulatory aul-hority...straI1 determirre the manner forpaynrents of interconnection costs,which may inclr.rde reimbtrrsement over areasorrable period of time." IfB CFR
292.3061
'f nterconnecl-ion costs' means thereasonable cosLs of connection,switehing, metering, transmission,distribution, safeLy provisions and
o o
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
t1
L2
13
I4
I5
I6
L7
IB
l9
20
ZL
zz
z3
24
25
rPC-E-90-20
B/L9/9L FAUr,l, (Di )Staff 3
adrninistrative costs incurred by t.heelectric utili.ty dir:ect1y related tothe installation and maintenance of thephysical facilities necessary to permitinterconnected operal-ions with thequalifying facility, to the exLent suchcosts are in excess of theeorresponcling cosLs which the el ectricutili ty wotrld have incrrrred if it hadnot engaged in interconnectedoperabiorrs, bul- instearl generated anequivalent anrount of electric energyitself or purchased an equivalent
amounb of electric energy or capacity
f rorn other sources. Inter:connectioncosts do not incl rrde any costs irrcludedin Lhe calculation of avoided costs.lra cFR 2e2.Lor (b) (7)l
For QFs interconnecting with fPCo, the Commission
"assesses" interconnection costs by approving
contracts thal- include language requiring prepayment
of those costs. The QF is reimbursed for: the
inLerconnection costs thaL "...the electric utility
would have incurred if it had not engaged in
interconnected operations, but irrstead generated an
equivalent amount of electric energy itself. . . " over
Lhe life of the contract through that portion of
avoided cost rates that results from including the
avoidable interconnection costs associated wiLh the
Surrogate Avoidable Resource (SAR) in ttre "calculation
of avoided costs." [18 CFR 292.l-01 (b), above.]
0. In your opinion, are reasonable
interconnect costs included in the administratively
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IO
II
L2
I3
I4
I5
l6
L7
IB
19
zo
2L
z2
23
z4
z5
determirred avoided cosL rates?
A. Yes. Although subsequent research
indicates that a smaII part of the interconnect costs
associated with the Colstrip power plant were
inadvertently left out of the avoided cost
computations, it is calculated that the overlooked
interconnect costs represent Iess than five percent
(5%) of the interconnect costs ttrat are included in
the avoided cost rates. Considering the fact that the
reasonable range of inLerconnect costs considered in
Case No. IPC-E-89-I1 was approximately pltrs-or-minus
thirty percent (30e.) of the ordered amounL [Order No.
23357, pp. L7-L9), the inadvertent failure to consider
a small portion of the Colstrip interconnect costs
appears inconsequential.
a. What are the interconnect costs that
were overlooked in the avoided cost computations?
A. In Case No. U-1500-I70 [Order No. 226361
the Commission determined that ttre Surrogate Avoidable
Resource (SAR) would be a generic coal fired power
plant located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
The method selected by the Commission to estimate the
cost of the SAR was to blend the actual construction
costs of the Colstrip plant in Montana and the Val.nry
plant in Nevada (Order No. 22865, pp. 2-3 & 17).
rPc-E-9 0-20
B/T9/9L
FAUT,L (Di) 4Staff
o o
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IO
1I
L2
I3
14
15
I6
L7
t8
t9
20
2L
zz
z3
z4
25
HistoricaIly, int,erconnection substation (step-up)
costs have been included in power plant cosLs for
avoided cost purposes irr Idaho. As shown in Exhibib
No. L02, IPCo followed ttrat convention in providing
Valmy costs. As discussed in my memorandum to l,lessrs.
Woodbury and Purdy dated May 2, 1991 (attached as
Exhibit No. 103), it appears that aIl parties to
U-1500-170 [incltrding Washington Water Power (WWP)]
believed that hMP was following the convention in
providirrg the costs of the Colstrip plant . Ilowever,
after becoming aware Lhat the issue of interconnecLion
was significant in this case, staff asked WWP to
double check its records pertaining to the issue. WWP
did so and discovered that Lhe Colstrip interconnection
substation cclsLs had been left out of Lhe computations.
O. Do you believe that leaving the Colstrip
substation costs out of avoided costs was inadvertent?
A. Yes. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Cornmission (FERC) Uniform System of Accourrts for
Electric Utilities requires utilities to book
interconnection substation accounts as transmission
expenses rather than generation expenses. Therefore,
I surmise ttrat WWP's accountants simply forgot to
transfer the appropriate transmission accounts to the
Colstrip generation accounts for purposes of
rPC-E*90-20
B/L9/9L FAULL (Di) sStaff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IO
II
L2
I3
I4
I5
I6
L7
18
I9
20
2L
ZZ
23
z4
25
o o
estimating avoidable power plarrt construction costs.
O. How signif icant was hlWP's oversight?
A. Exhibit No. 104 is a copy of the results
of an analysis $llalP did and inf ormally provided to
staff to sht-rw the interconnection substation costs
that WWP found to be associated with the Colstrip
plant. They amount to approxirnaLely $tgZXw of
Colstrip's installed capacity, in 1989 dollars.
The totat SAR plant cost included in
current avoided costs is $145}/kw in 1989 dollars, per
Order No. 22865. That amount was determined by a
simple averaging of the VaImy costs provided by IPCo
($148I/kw) and the Colstrip costs provided by wwP
($ran/kw), rounded up from $ra+9/kw. Thus, it would
be reasonable to assume that the Commission miqht have
found the SAR plant costs to be:
$taag + fitgtz = $rasB.50 == $146o,/kw.
This would indicate that the SAR plant costs are
understaterl by approximately seven-tenths of a percent
( 0 .7e") . However, in Case No. IPC-E-89-II (Order No.
23428, pg. L2) the Commission determined that IPCo SAR
inLerconnect costs also include transmission expenses
of $ZfaZXw. Therefore, the error actually represents
an understatement of less than six-tenths of a percent
t$I0l($1a60+$2f3) = 0.6e"1. Again, considering the
rPC-E-90-20
B/ L9 /9t FAUT,L ( Di )Staff 6
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1I
L2
13
14
I5
I6
L7
I8
19
20
2L
z2
23
z4
z5
rPC-E-9 0-20
B/L9/9L
FAUL,L ( Di )Staff
7
methodology employed to estimate total SAR capital
costs, rounding techniques used throughout the
process, and the reasonable ranges considered
(especially for estimating transmission system costs),
it appears that the overall interconnection costs
included in the avoided cost rates are just and
reasonable, even without Colstrip substation cosLs.
0. will you please summarize the
irrLerconnections costs associated with IPCo's SAR?
A. Yes. They are:
Colstrip step-up costs
VaJmy step-up costs:Transmission costs:
$rg. 56/kw/2 =
$g.sltuwtz =
$ 9.28/kw
$ 4.77 /kW
$zrs. oolkw
$zzt.ostlxw
fi'-2]-_7-171*W
TOTAL:
Total included in avoided costs:
O. How do the interconnection costs
included in the avoided cost rates compare to the
total interconnection costs actually paid to IPCo by
QFs?
A. As stated above, the interconnection
costs included in avoided cost rates are $2IBlkW. The
interconnection costs paid to IPCo by QFs range from
$I,789,/kW for a I0kW QF to $rSZrW for a 14,000 kW QF.
The maximurn inLerconnect cost for projects 50 kW and
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
tt
L2
I3
14
I5
I6
L7
1B
I9
20
ZL
ZZ
23
z4
z5
o o
larger has been $487lkw.The average project
interconnection cost has been $fSOZXw. Ttre toLal of
alI interconnection costs compared to the total of all
QF capacity has been $43lkw. The Sunshine No. 2 QF
had interconnection costs of about $IBf/kw. (The
above estimates are based on a cornpilation of data
available in the Commission's files. ISee Exhibit No.
1061) Therefore, it appears that the irrterconnecl-ion
costs included in avoided cost rates generally exceeds
the interconnection costs paid by QFs. In summary:
Avoided Interconnect Costs z fi218lkW
Maximum QF Interconnect Cost: $f,789/kw
It{ax. Over 50 kW QF Cost: $487/kW
Sunshine No. 2 IC Cost: $IBL/kW
Average QF Project IC Cost $I50,/kW
Cost to IC AtI QF Energy: $43/kW
Minimum QE Interconnect Cost: $15/kW
O. Shouldn't IPCo be requir:ed to pay the
difference between the QF's interconnection costs and
the avoidable interconnection costs when the former
exceed the latter, based on the fact that IPCo
controls the QF's interconnection costs?
A. No. IPCo only controls the cost of the
facilities that are required, and then only to the
extent that it purchases efficiently or inefficiently
rPC-E-90-208/L9/91 FAr-LL (Di )SLaff B
o
oo
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IO
I1
L2
l3
14
I5
I6
L7
t8
I9
zo
2l
zz,
z3
24
z5
within the marketplace. The major differences in the
interconnection costs among QFs are (I) the distance
f rom the QF's location arrd ttre p<-rirrt of interconnection
and (2> the voltage on the IPCo side of the inter-
connectj-on. Both of these factors are under the QF's
control in that the QF selects the power plant site
relative to IPCo's existing transmission and
distribution systems.
A. How significant would the changes to
avoided cost rates be if the Conunission decided Lo
recompute them with the overlooked interconnect costs
inc luded?
A. IPCo's avoided cosl rates would increase
by amounts ranging from less than one-tenth of a nrill
for short term contracts to slightly over three-tenths
of a mill f or ttre longest term contracts coming
on-Iine in I996. This represents rate changes of less
than one-haIf of one percent.
0. Do you recommend that the Comrnission
change avoided cost rates to include the overlooked
interconnect cosLs?
A. No. Cases Nos. U-1500-170, IPC-E-89-11,
WWP-E-89-6, and PPL-E-89-3/UPL-E-89-5 were extremely
complex proceedings involving analyses of several
interrelated issues over a period of nearly four
rPC-E-9 0-20
B/19/9L FATJLL ( Di )Staff 9
o
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
1T
L2
I3
I4
I5
I6
L7
IB
19
20
ZL
zz
23
24
z5
r PC-E-9 0-20
B/ L9 /9L FAUT,L ( Di )Staff
years, and resulted in carefully considered estimates
of the resource costs avoidable by each major electric
utility with an Iclaho service terriLory. To reopen
those cases for the sake of an insignificarrt oversight
in the development of the estimates would be
unreasonable and courrter-productive. To simply make a
mathematical adjustrnent would ignore the interrelated
nature of the components of the variables that make up
avoided cosLs. ClearIy, the administrative risks of
tampering with those cases far exceeds any potential
benefit of mathematical purity associated with
correcting WWP's inadvertent oversight.
A. Should IPCo be required to pay for part
of Qualifying Facilities' (QFs') interconnectiorr
facilities to correct for the oversight?
A. No. As stated above, the avoiclable
interconnect costs included in the avoided cost. rates
are reasonable. 'Iheref ore, no action is necessary in
response to the discovery of l^ll^lP's minor oversight.
O&U CIIARGES FOR INTERCONNECT FACILITIES:
O. Are operation and maintenance (O&Il)
costs also included in the avoided cost rates?
A. Yes. Intercorrnection O&lvI was included
at the rate of $0.70,/kW-yr. lOrder No. 22357,
10
o
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
II
L2
13
l4
I5
I6
L7
18
19
zo
2L
22
23
z4
z5
Appendix B.l That rate arnounts to about 0.03% per
monlh of the SAR transmission investment cost.
Although that is substantially less than the 0.4e" per
month suggested as the appropriate rat-e for QF
transmission plant O&M, the difference is reasonable
because ttre transmission plant associated with the SAR
is a 500 kV double circuit line rated at 2,000 I'lW,
which will require substantially less O&M on a "per
unit cost" basis than the lower voltage and lower
capacity Iines typical of QFs.
O. Have you reviewed IPCo's operation and
maintenance (O&M) charges for QF interconnect
facilities?
A. Yes, although Staf f witness HaLtaway has
done an extensive accounting analysis of the O&M
charges included in Schedule 72, which he discusses in
his testimony. I concur with Mr. Hattaway's
conclusion that the methodology and results used by
IPCo are reasonable. Therefore, my testimony on this
subject is limited to the method of application of the
O&M rates. SpecificaIly, my testimony is concerned
with the relationship of cost inflation to the
application of the rates.
O. How does inf lation af f ect the O&IvI rates?
A. As discussed by Mr. Hattaway, the O&Ivl
rPC-E-90-20
B/ L9 /91 FAIJI'L ( ni )Staff II
o
o o
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
1I
L2
13
14
I5
I6
L7
1B
t9
20
2L
zz
23
z4
z5
rates are established by dividing appropriate O&M
expenses by the gross plant associated with those
expenses. Although O&III expenses are relatively
current (i.e., include little inflation effect) the
relaterf gross plant accounts include plant costs
incurred for a period of over 30 years. Obviously,
the amount irrcluded in the plant accourrL for
investments made over 30 years ago vastly understate
the replacement value of ttre assets they represent.
Therefore, the rate established by IPCo's methodology
is a levelized rate; applicable only over a period
equal to ttre average plant life for each category of
plant.
O. Is using such a rate appropriate for
determining O&M charges?
A. Yes, provided the charges and the asset
usage will continue for at least the average asset
life used to determine the rate. However, if the QF
interconnect plant usage is less than the average
plant life the levelized methodology used by IPCo
results in overpayment by the QF to IPCo in the same
way that levelized avoicled cost rates can result in
overpayment by IPCo to the QF in the evenl of
premature reduction of the QF's leveI of generation.
rPC-E-9 0-20
B/L9/9L
FAIJT,L ( Di )Statf L2
o
o o
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
II
L2
I3
14
I5
I6
L7
18
19
zo
2L
22
z3
z4
Z5
rPC-E-90-20
B/L9/9L
FAULL (Di)
Sbaff
0.
significant
cha rges ?
Is it likely
overpaymenls as
that QFs wiII nrake
a result of level O&M
A. Yes. In cases where the QF contract is
Iess than the average asseL 1ife, such overpayment is
a certainLy. In other cases iL is a possibiliLy.
0. How do you recommend Lhat the Comrnission
solve this problem?
A. By requiring IPCo to de-levelize the O&M
charge rate. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the
past 30 years indicates that the average annual
inflation rate is approximately 5.4% per year. Using
that rate in conjunction with an IPCo weighted cost of
capital of fl.45% per year as required by Order No.
23357 for avoided cost purposes yields the
non-levelized O&t{ rates shown in Exhibit No. 105.
Applying the Exhibit I05 non-Ievelized
O&M rates to QF contracts would eliminate the
overpayment requirement currently being thrust on QFs,
would more accurately match IPCo's O&M revenues with
its O&l!1 expenses, and would help errcourage the QF
industry by reducing QF expenses during the early
"debt service" years of t-he contract. I theref ore
recommend that the Commission require that Exhibit I05
be the raLes included irr Schedule 72 rather than the
13
o o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IO
11
L2
I3
I4
15
l6
L7
IB
19
ZO
2L
zz
23
24
z5
level rates proposed by IPCo.
0. Do you recommend that the Comrnission
require IPCo to relroactively change levelized O&M
rates in existing contracts?
A. No. The Cornmission's authority to
change contract rates is limited Lo cases where the
contract rates would have a significant negative
impact on the public inLerest if left unchanged. I do
not believe that levelized O&tl rates for QF
interconnection assets have such an impact.
Theref ore, my recommendal ion i s interrdecl to apply only
prospectively.
a. Do you reconrmend that non-level rates be
considerecl for O&M charges applied to interconnection
assets used by fPCo's retail customers (e.9., Schedule
7L)?
A. No. Retail customers' facilities are
presumed to interconnect for periods exceedinrg the
average life of the plant assets used to determine the
O&M rate. Therefore, the levelized rate is
appropriate for retail applications.
A. Does this conclude your direct testimony
in this case?
A. Yes.
rPC-E-9 0-20
B/L9/9L
FATJL,L (Di )St-aff
L4
o
o o
QUALIT"ICATIONSOF
ITIOMAS G. FAT]LL, P.E.
OF ITIE
IDAI{O PT]BLIC TIIILTTIES COMMTSSION
Mr. Faull received a Bachelor of Science degree from
the University of Idaho in 1970. His major was Mechanical
Engineering with emphasis on Nuclear Engineering and Stress
Analysis. His minor was Business Administration with emphasis
on Economics and Management.
PROFESSilONAL REGISIRATIONS AI{D HONORSI:
Mr. Faull is a member of Sigma Tau, the collegiate
engineering honorary society. He has received registration to
practice Professional Engineering in the following states:
L97 4:
r975:
L977:
L979:
Idaho; MechanicaIColorado; General
New Ittlexico; General
Oregon; Civil
He is also registered to practice before the U.S. Office of
Patents and Trademarks as a Patent Agent.
PROFESTIIONAL EEERIENCE:
From 1970 through 1978, Mr. Faull worked for the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation in the capacities of Mechanical Engineer,
Contract Administrator and Resident Engineer. As a Mechanical
Engineer, he provided quality control for mechanical,
electrical and civil works at major hydroelectric construction
projects. As a Contract Administrator, he analyzed and made
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-91-20
Exhibit No. 101
T. Faul"1, Staff8lL9l9L Page 1 of 3
o
o o
recommendations pertaining to claims for additional compensation
under contracts to build and supply equipment for major hydro-
electric and irrigation projects, negotiated settlements
thereto, and wrote contract addenda to reflect negotiated
settlements. As a Resident Engineer, he supervised up to 50
engineers, surveyors and technicians providing quality control
of electrical, mechanical and civil works of a I00,000 acre
irrigation project; including roads, highways, canals, pumping
plants, pipelines substations, ancl a 115kv transmission Iine.
From I97B through 1986, Mr. Faull worked in various
capacities of consulting engineering. As such, he did (or
supervised) financial feasibitity analyses, design, construction
management, construction, and start-up of chemical, water and
energy projects, including PURPA hydro, coal, and MSW projects.
He also did business development, biIIing, personnel manage-
ment and hiring/firing.
From I9B7 through the present, Mr. Faull has served
as a Utilities Engineer at the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission. In that capacity, he has analyzed Cogeneration and
Sma1l Power Producers' (CSPPs') projects; developed computer
models to represent utilities' Avoided Costs, power supplies,
cash flows and other features; testified in electric avoided
cost cases; authored Proposed Orders pertaining to avoided
costs, CSPPs' security arrangements, utility surcharges, and
utilities' conservation/Ieast-cost planning programs; and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-91-20
Exhibit No. 101T. Fau11, Staff
8/19/9L Page 2 of 3
oo
oo
authored proposed Idaho comments to Federal Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking. He has also attended several related training
programs and conferences, including the NARUC I9B7 Western
Utility Rate Seminar, the NARUC 1987 lgth Annual Williamsburg
Regulatory Conference, the I9BB First AnnuaI Utility
Least-Cost-PIanning Conference, the 6th NARUC Biennial
Regulatory Information Conference, a NARUC Conference on
Transmission Issues in Washington D.C., two privately sponsored
conferences on CSPP regulation, and one privately sponsored
conference on bidding for CSPP power.
PUBLICATIONS:
IvIr. Faull has authored and presented three papers
that were published in the "Proceedings of the Sixth NARUC
Bienniat Information Conference". The papers were entitled:
"Irreconcilable Conflicts of InterestInherent in Vertically IntegratedElectric UtiIities",
t
2
3
"solving the Overpayment DilemmaLevelized Rate PURPA Contracts",for
and
"Bid Price and Reserve Margin: Chicken
and Egg? An Approach to Pricing Powerin the Post-Spiral WorId".
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-91-20Exhibit No. 101T. Faull, Staff8/1-9l9l. Page 3 of 3
o
o
Stcp-Up Eouipmcnt
Station rquipnrnt
o
IOAHO POWER COMPANY
VALIIY GENERATING STATIONlnvestment as of December 31, 1981
Total Ptant I PCo's 50 t S hare
Number of Generatorslnstalled Capacity - Name Plate Rating- Name Plate Rating- Estimated tulaximum Capacity
Cost per KW Estimated Maximum Capacity
Cost per KW Name Plate Rating
INVESTMENT
Acct
No Account Title
Steam PlantEnd and lan d rights
308,
253,
253,
I
(,OO KVA
920 KW
920 KW
I 54, 000 K VA
1 25, 950 KW
126,950 KW
s982
s96Z
310
311
312
314
3r5
315
Structures and improvements
Boiler plant cquipment
Turbogencrator units
Accessory elcctric equipment
Misccltancous power plant equipmcnt
Total Steam Plant
Amount
s {53, 448. 00
27,339,279.14
6't , 187, 31 8. 96
I 5, 899, 262.74
15,799 ,892. 3 5
1,502,977. t8
5122,182,178.37
--
s 2, {8f,259.80
312f,666,438. l7
12-1 I-81
353
Total lnvcstmcnt
Commerical Operation Date:
Unit I
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. L02T. Faul1 n Sraff8/19/9t
o
o o
TO
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
WORKING FILE;
WORKING FILE;
SCOTT WOODBURY
BRAD PURDY
MEITIORANDT.|U
rPC-E-90-20
IPC-E-9 L-02
TOM FAULL
MAY 2, t99l
Interconnect Costs in Avoided Cost Rates; A.W.
Complaint i Review of the Records of Cases
u- 15 0 0 - 17 0 , I PC-E- 8 9 - I t , PPL-E- 8 9 - 3 ,/UPL-E- I9 - 5 ,
WWP-E-89-6 at Scott's Request:
B rown
NoS .
and
In my review I was able to find only one specific
reference that interconnec't costs are included in the avoided
cost rates. However, I did find a statement by Prekages
indicating that they were not specifically included in the
transmission costs (attached). lly review of the FERC Uniform
Standard of Accounts (USec) indicates that they should not have
been included in the plant costs as reported in the FERC Form
ls. Therefore, it appears that part of the interconnect costs
may have been inadvertently left out of the avoided cost
estimates.
However, it is clear that it was the intent of all parties
that interconnect costs be included in avoided costs. In
conErast of Prekages statement that he did not know if step-up
(Fau11; 05-02-91)I
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. 103T. Faul-1, Staff8/19/91 Page 1 of 6
o o
o
transformation was included in plant costs, Durick clear ly
states in his Exhibit No. 5 (abtached) ttrat he believes they are
so included. It is my vague recollection that I contacted
someone at wwP (Norwood?) who confirmed informally that
substation costs are included in plant costs. On Thursday (May
2, 1991) I cal1ed Dr. John Willmorth (IPCo) and Kelly Norwood
(v{wP) to get their views on the issue. Dr. willmorth conf irmed
that interconnect costs were definitely included in plant
costs. Mr. Norwood did not specifically remember where the
costs were included, but confirmed that it was wWP's intent and
understanding that they grere included in either the plant costs
or the transmission costs. He advised me that wWP could do the
research necessary to determine whether the costs were actually
included in the plant costs, but it would be difficult and time
consuming. Historically, interconnect costs have been included
as part of the SAR in Idaho and developers have paid for
interconnection of their QF projects.
Still, the step-up substaEion costs do not show up as line
items in the plant costs, they are supposed to be recorded as
transmission costs according to the USAc, and they were
specifically excluded from the transmission costs included in
the avoided cost calculation. Therefore, it is Lechnically
feasible to argue thaE the costs nafr have been partiaTTy
left out of the avoided costs. However, ds you may remember,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. 103T. Faull, Staff8ll9/91 Page 2 of 6
o
(Fau11; 05-02-9I)2
o o
o
the plant cost ($1,450/kw) included in avoided cost computations
is a rounded off estimate of the average of Colstrip and VaImy
costs, while IPCo's transmission costs ($ZS6/kW) was determined
by multiplying a rough estimate of 475 miles of transmission
times a rate selected from a "reasonable range" of between 62
and 36 mills per kW-mi1e. TypicaIly, substation costs for a
large plant are about $fOZXw (my estimaEe, corroborated by a wwP
transmission engineer via Norwood), or 0.61 of avoided capital
costs. Using the authorized availability factor of 75\, this
amounts to about 0.2 miIIs/kwh of avoided cost in 35 year
contracts, and less in shorter contracts. (Note: Had the
Commission selected an availability factor of 74?. rather than
75\, the 35 year carrying cost of the ordered SAR costs would
have been reduced by 0.5 mi11s./kWh. ClearIy, the alleged
failure to specifically include substation costs is negligible.)
In Iight of the fact that it was the Commission's and
parties' understanding that all interconnect costs were included
in avoided costs, and that the magnitude of the alleged
overlooked costs is insignificant in comparison to the
estimabing accuracy involved in reaching those raEes, I believe
it would be inappropriate to require IPCo to absorb interconnect
costs or to adjust avoided costs to reflect their inclusion.
However, of those two options I believe the latLer would be the
most appropriate. Otherwise, it would be economically
IDAHO POWER COMPAI.IY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. L03T. Faull, Staff8/19/91 Page 3 of 6
o
(FauIl; 05-02-91)3
oo
O o
reasonable for a developer to build a sma11 plant in a remote
area and to require IPCo to interconnect the plant at a cost
exceeding the plant's cost.
In summary, I believe that interconnect costs are included
in avoided costs as part of the SAR plant costs. I further
believe that this should be the Staff position in the A.w. Brown
complaint action. However, even if these costs were
inadvertently left out of one or both of the estimates, the
practical effect on avoided costs is negligible (far less than
many of the associated rounding errors) so no change in rates or
policy should result.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20
Exhibit No. 103T. Faull, Staff8/L9/91 Page 4 of 6(Fau11; 05-02-91)4
a
E !s included in th est lnates.'14 Do ycu o wha t
YesI
I
t
I
t,h
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
A those are transmiss:on costs only;
thar: is, towers. conductors, insulators' I added to those
costs s60 mi11j.on to represent station equipnent that we
would need to install on what we considered an appropriate
nunber of stations.
a Substation cqulPnent?
A Substation Qquipnent, circuit breakers,
reactors, shunt caPacltorl.
Q AnY voltego luPPort cquiPnent?
A The voltagc auPPort egulpment, thc rQactors
and thc gcrics caprcltorr provide voltage controls. l.le did
95
o15
\7
I 18
19
20
2t
22
23
2l
25
HEDRICX COURI REPORTIIIG
P.o. Box 5?8, Boi3a, lD 83?Ot
PREXEGES (X)
m{P
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
not includc transfornation and I dld not review the
surrogate plant cost to see if those costs included step-up
transfornatlon. We considcred step-down transfornation and
consldcred that exl.stlng transfornatl.on was in place so that
that would not ncad to be lncludod l,n thcse co3ts.
Q And you rould agt.c thet those addarc that you
Just aentloncd would hrvc to br concidGr.d?
A ya!, thorc would bc prrt of trenlllsslon costs
lor a klnd of rylt.n thtt wa propoood. For othcr klnds of
ryttctlt, they would vary depcndtng on tha speclflcs and I
brllcvo thc cortr w.rve lncludrd rr. .pDtoprlrta and
adequrtr for thc nccdr.
IDAHO POI^IER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. 103T. Fau1l, Staff8/19/91 page 5 of 6
o
o o
SURROGATE AVOIOEO
Porvder River 500
Cos
OSI RESOURCE IRANSMISSION
Iransmission System Cost
i n Thousands
KV
I ) Powder River Substation
A) Statron cost tnc'luded in gancration cost
8) Two 500 kV 200 Mvar shunt rcactors
t 0
5 ,820
247,500
I I ,065
275 ,000
12 ,408
----->
2
3
m4
P
AI
owder River - Jim Bridgcr 500 kV lincs
2 t 225 mtlcs of 500 kV transmission linc
Tvo 500 kV 380 l{vrr slrics capacitors
351 compcnsation at 1500 llvr
t 6,820
258,565
287 ,408
Erhtbit 1{o. 6
Crsr llo. IPC-E-89-tt
Our ick. IPC
Prgc 2 of 3
J
AI
c
0
E
J
A
B
m Bri
Fivc
Ivo
Ivo
0nc
0nc
dgcr Substation Mditions
500 kV povcr circuit brcakcrg
500 kV 200 Hvrr shunt rmctors
500 kV 225 Hvar shunt rcrctors
500/345 kV 1,500 Iva auto-transforncr
345 kV poror circuit brctkr
Eridgcr - Eorrh 500 kY lincc
2 t 250 nilcs of 500 kV trtntnirsion linc
Tvo 500 kV 420 llvr rrirs crp.citor3
351 conpcnrrtion rt 1500 l{vr
480
820
480
800
990
7
6
7
8
31,570
5) Borah Substatlon Addttions
A) Thrcc 500 kV poutr circult br.rk.r38) Tvo 500 kY 225 llvrr shunt ructors
1
7
180
480
1 1 ,550
Iotal t 595,024
Thc cost p.r nilr for 500 kY trrnulsslon usod ln proprring thircstinrtr ir t560,000 pr rilo.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20
Bxhibit No. 103
T. Faull, Staff
Sllglg1r Page 6 of 6
(
(
P.3o
(oU)
ai
a
ltt o|lroroot-' o'o,CE(\latO
(OCtts@o)FFaD1,)6)O€o. o-F- @- !- !.atro(DGrPe,d'oo,rra?o<D OlO A
c,'a
(D
o
co
E
_o-lrLlJ
.9(!o
_E .e4-ac-o=fi=E6c€ei xr-(it O' rtt
= .S
xZo9.5.=5E= ElCE OE>
=.=>6-P
-Ed5(D
^6F=
€Oo)rfr.€olU'.
(r)O
t,o
Fj@tt
o
(\ra
o,a,o-
UIo
O
c)I
5.F|r9Ed.9G.SE
\9o'nDI-cfdXa o n.36
.a CD(ti-@Ed9
t. A€=gosF
;Qbqee**aE888588:::Epp
o$tFOO-
'\C,NF(\,IGElla- C.J-€. @-O- 9.haDocrrOcr)0(+:T\CDOOO(''.E' O O
aDo
o6!r(oot(DO(r:rGlru-CDO-N-N_(a ('-O_
ao(oi(r)NrD@Fi,
(i,'
(r)(,la,
oooooo
N.(\l
@GItf.
ol
OCt?Fdr(tN(Do- F. o- N.OeeUlro
!t(lr+C'l(O(ri)cnO('attrO!6-J(OFOt-Nc\ijic\idFN
(Doo?ocOOge-@N.-Jal
crf!(oN(Do)aDaa(E(D6(DoaD€D6!Og|F-FFF'
$$$tH$
===Fs9
t"rn(llN(llat)COC6OOCO'DcD ct! cD 6 atr cDFFF???
,\NaOctF(l,r*+ra(or\cvNAIN(\I(\I
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. 104T. FauLl, Staff
8/te /et
, LJN 17 '91 ae: 55o
,q
zo!z
o)s
@
8-Ear, =E
.n
or(Uca=60
;oF
Ee
!E
Ee
Is
Es
!u
Ea
!fl
.9:o>oFo*-E6o()=
LogE
olao.3
:Co-(l-3E5C.696ED.O
EAo>
SEee
F!a
6
Es
EE
6o
.+:c,ooo
rto
s
G.jangt,ozoY
o
,".','ij\:;{,..iSr-.{,{}1.{:{Nj{NNr{;{l{N^-^-N,{:{^-.{,{;{;-i;-lS.'.3SN
v
Q]
}{ r{.{ s,{ ;{ s N ^- r{ s N s x N N r- ;{ N r-. j{ N i{ N s r-.{ s ;{ r:,\:,'i,{.1,--:
i.l Q :. € < a0 € iJl sl,j.] \,:, f a \ l, !) N,:, € r'r a.l i'r € a.l'3 - t :, :, ^'i l ! i ic) €o ><i.i{€o,:":.1 t':\,f c{]]oiill(Dl{{ar.}<rDr:,€.'i !Ji ', :
,t.l :..{ :,j a.l :,,,:', r,r i..r :,:r $ + <t $ !'! U) tJl Ul O { € N N $ O O } O :, < i'r :..t rt .r r-,
S S S r- N rl r: j{ S ;{ S r- N N N r- N N }l N N N S r- N N ;{ N }{ .i S N ;.: ;{ .{
'i,2-;?,'3:,'?-l ,3OO:',],f,,:,':,,3,?,3,-1 ,33,3.1 ,:,aa-1 ,:,,:,3':":":,sro o ! o o@ o o oaooooa0(D(Dao o o(D oo oo o oo 3 0 i0.0
+ + + q t q + q + q tl <l + q (t <t + sl q <t + s qt t + st t <l q sr rt f + f
;{ }. N N :{ S N N N N N N r- it N r- r- N N N N N N N )l S ;.l r. * N l{ ^-,{ N l.
€ o,:, a.l q \ o N i/: (D < <t o i t'l (,. r/, tD ro o M (D tt i \ sl i o \ o <t <f !'ir $ u'lr,r r.1 sl rt .l qr q u'l n !.) € € { N N N (D o o o. o o < a{ i.l }4 q st u) € N 3 } .--, -
J'iv J,J'J,J,J'J'J,J,J.JUO'J,JA,Jl) ri< < <.'{.'r
N N N r.. N r- N N N N N N r- N N N r- )l r- N r- N r- ){ N N N -. r- ){ S S r" ;i S
<i.1,l14ar\h@OO':'i^i+\
o D ,3 :'i,.1 + !:i d at |n .'.1 il ',i
N I' S N N I' N I' N N N I' N }I N ).I N N N N N :{ N * N I' N N I' I' N N I.. N I'
,J',-.l'J',-..f .J,J U'J'J,:' u O ql O ql O'J Q tJ,J,-t,J'J J'J'J'J - -t J -''-.rt ? <l rl <l + (l + q * + t st + tr tl tl e e + !t + <l rt <t t (t + <l sl st (t st * sl
oa6(D0(D0 {I,(D (D0 (Dc0 q,{D (D(D (Dotro08 (Da qraoo oo o o oic
d i.l r, <l lr'l € N ql o,3 r N r, q !l { r. o I o i N r.'} <l rrl € i\ o o,? r l,l i.1 rl'J:< < I * - i I d i r N N e'l a.l a{ a't al Cl at N i/r rii l'1 14 rir'i
l'. {.1.}
: -i
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20Exhibit No. 105T. FaulL, Staff8/19/9t
o
-1t ri l-1 ! \ },f .i q € o l, :.1 f { } - q \ :, f4 .\ < t o,.r \ fi \ iJl.i'r i"l'r :'.l a.l -1 f.]'."r'1 n q + s +.? ll ul lr'l .o € €'- : r. n x } } :,
N r N l0 F\ t1 O 6 < Ul a O i l,l N e{ Ul N N .{t t N l/r il')r, {O N !: S !'4 { d n O Ul O Ul r N 14 a N q N O S q,
11 frn { € € \ !'\ O (D O (} O O r d N i4 f} !t u: S € N
<did<<i<l<-t
M
d
L1l
,!
J,
tl
rnFlrlm,nNo
tq<fn
o
i!Ji-":;
l-
:)T
f-ii;zi
{i-
! -.,1 EC 'JJf>.4;ZUz)c
>oE.j lrl
2/C
E
jot< i.,JlF.,2JZHo<lF
JJ}<ruf>dzuz)o<t
t!FOU
<EEE<EFttz>oU
z
0
1,J1z
t
U$++
l+):C
't nl
ao'
LL
Cl { aa0l+j O '6 O+ ,l ,0,lfr+rtraASlu { r 6! i L (L E L.i E LE .[ L r[EJEUC4C'iiZCqr COdtoU ZU+ -.i L U Ja o+J!+Jc HCa { 0C -dOrdOE.aO :+J.drr6Oc,ll0.i r!f,+our[4ton
a.O 0,O OE.. bL d! > > B E Ur,LO+r{i!tr1, Hlr+JJrt ac oiU.COtltL'lla,tU0lO+LE.r 4 4 .)> E<.Ct><i3tloDaai { a.a.aE rl.] 3 C r 0l O, ,E CU o.3 3 C Co cJ- 6 0 tr
-€ (- U U ll g O
I*rEa.)
+
Il-l
N.J
I
.J
*
dr/
l(
qc
it ll it lt ! L[ ll
rir..NN NN1.. + tr'l ,-a rt $ q (D. .sl+r/r<t. .'.-)O.. ,:,rli u',
ll tr t1 ll
!.-r.o Ioa
*
2a<E{
Bff
;E
EH
rtFIfrz
EE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo
^- s- r{ * N N N :.l N N N N N N }l N N r- N r- N N r- N r- r- N r- r- N N r- r- N r-U b b i: b b o a i.r o o lrl t' t(' ul o,:,,3 lr'1,3 € N + o - o o g <t a al ul $ o t4'frCiUitflC.t +tr.: t rtl*<rF1<tdqt,.rrN q D+ +Sstt4st
!1 ii lt'l N n & O i:t $ a6.Cf !-.'l i]'S 0O i.1 i'. { \ t { fi:.1 } \ f':l € ii: !'l':'S'l';3I ;'-i I ir ur + i + t, 6 uia i''r i'i ac l":, irr i'.1 \ G u1 q} 11 f + \ iJl q € :' o o N t':'+ C, ii U i i C i* * - in !1 s $ s $ s s 'i, s .6 * i if !1 iff i + f tF < --* it * lif
:,.:.,:,.3,,:,,:,,:':,,:,,3r,:,,!,nc,,1,,?'l:Q!a':,'!".i'la€i: 'it i'."1":'{':'s.'laa,3+:..o,:,,:,aa+,?,3,:ilr'lul ,3oii':':":'r',,r-i9arc-{iri'r':';'ilro\o o o r.r o |.1':, u1 s N q q q o L'l r{ c'{ - i } $ N { € tl'l ir't lr'l ul + (l $ l''r iir .'i cl
t D O cB N N l,'l q ln a1 fl :,1 i"l C{ + * a < :
,3 - d u'1,3 { a lJ]'J s a' a':' { + h C0 qr ! { r <l' < { d + al l'l l-\ { O < r'l s':',:,.,.ro1-..t,3ooqNr.r,:,,3+,3rt.r9a!i,l{ic.l sldlItr.!'],3t.,t C] ]<]f.ii:.:' + o 6,: o q r'r q -':,,f l.'r 0'{ c{ o + 14 s { s cB N { IO - O S i i4 r r'i 11 { tJ
u'i o g q ul i (D a.l + .:, s lr'l € N N { q c! \ o o':' rl ll).0 14 { l/, !"' a tr o { o $aiit':elcoiio!'llr'1{!'\ll'llr.rqlit14oN<tNdc.lc'loalaifi<lf'1i'l!'l14a{
111 11 r 1t * l.'r rt * a * a Q tt s r s o ii s ii i, fl ti s c ti {i {a o t o 6 tF ii +s*rtiif.f sft9s f
c rl'l o o + ul o a c.l 14 + C'.{ N \t n f. 1r,-3'-:, q':' sl' N s q a q t u'l'? ul N \ a'?,5 ci u':'l o { a 6 { s,3 <l t4 <t $ o,3 o c'l c'l o c.I N':,'3 .:' o r N o ll H o rr l'l
u'l O O f.{ ,3 r! ,3 .{t,3 il'l F.':, Ul € s F\ O O d Ul o {'{, O O O C' qt N .:'':' { N l{ €U t,J} - : - a ; C.t * C.t - O 5 !4 i i * d t4 i < d il tl S S <l C.l {t + Fr l{' <t +iFtrs s, ,it trir*9$s*t t ttF tsiiot
c,{ { u'l {,3N\r{<OC0Oij'l
€ c{ c.{ ct l.l
$iies9
r lr.)Itl <
c.l c.l
C'l d
iFS
t'\+o
o
s
f'.{ O lr'l{trF.ltc.l+-.Sa.l <CS
rOl.N<lC,ldiN,:'<t<l14+{r!)+ifc,t-<tro{s-,3N.t--,.$s-a-<l <-O rr<s sstl 90ss
u'!l.lN
iD
r14NO
dt4so
I)NN!laa
u'l U'l lr'l*st
HfOD+OONOOl/TUIO{s e.{ r.1 (t o r, e.l
tr,s,3!li€{d l'r C.l r i f'.,1 dirss$sGs
r <l N O A € { !'l O U'l N .0 O + Ul NN + <l'3O N N { lrl d { N € C'l < {O { *,:',f, O O O sl a O O N O'3 O
.{, i Ll { Ul N N * C{ C.l N e.{ i l. f.I,3N O r { C{ d - € a'l r i d lr'.t < * :ssosos*5$ssr6iiss
O C{ r F. .3 O O <l O r':":' t'3 r O { q'? O N (D <t ON O Oa l"i { o a a o F. r/! r ,3o { r'r \ o r n ul N o.o m r q n tO Cl 6 6 a C.{ + N O o.,3,3 + r.'r r'.! € lr'l <l O r O U'l N C.{ lfl 1.1 f,1
ir'l d U'l O ln { O { l.l q A O F] q U'l ai l'"r } U'l i,i'l d q l^t $ t q {y'., lr b - c,l n N i s r- x + { f 1.. c.t e{ i \ <t t1 u'l t N I r/.' c:ljr'tC -t-T Nti i S<f +itSt s S 0iFri * S'$*riSrts srtt 1l s o
o<rc{,f-{)o<to0{of{o{oNoN
o<tr,oooF.OAOOOOSsdSiss
r C.,i 1.1 <t !'l { N O O C. * 0{ 14 sl l/'l { N @ O'3 * N t1 I n { r'' O $ g d C'l t't I lfl
- a < t I i i i i d C'l C'l C'l C{ e'{ C'l C'l e{ a'l e'i 14 F'J rr rr l{ fr
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20
Exhibit No. 106
T. Faull, Staff8lI9l9L Page t of 2
F3.JJ:
!
g
i!
P
U
ftil
4,oL
UUa&H IJJAL
z*=ZAjooUUlIuJuJ
'Io
4+)UCoo?CC+,oo.U.aa,.a ClauJ
o>!.a 0J+sUOo0-ErI
2H
E9AF
- fEIfrzlElZFE6L,
EH
OH
43OfrHOr
ot}*Otr{ r.a.a# LU.a O0la+Jo'.a Oo uE{lt!d
FFUlr.l U l!lrl lrl iPrFJEoc3atr.z<f rLl!
Lt5
o
o
U l"iiUJ4n
.Jl iii
ltiJiJl(I-iOJi4>ir:
ltii
.Q to\o \tio
q q i ir'litl F-. i:' CB r o:,1 \ ir'l - \ 0\.c .il $ S € O + € O U'l + it'. {'O r- O{} i S €} H q d f"l r i a..i rr al i.] lr'l \.e i+si*f+ineii*&s .{{t{_"<{
ezzzzzzz
+ o r,:, $ a 4,,:,,3' a € a.r u'l o o,:, c, q u'l r,1,:,,:,,:,l.'r \ € lil t:! l.'r l.'r i r,:, O { ir'l ir'l t'r i,:, i,:'l qt .tr iJ'l O elf.l<i<drdi*< ,f,O,:,ON
iIOClirt
Ul O f.l (DC..i <t l':, ,\ d o' a |'\ r .o O NO € a fl { (.1 r fr N { C'l N { l'r st I,:, a.{ € N O t''r { <t O 6 O l'i lrl,3 { O
,:, O + a.{ C.l }ir O f O Ul,3 t-I + O r r.C.l C.l r i C.l { r C.{ I < Il 0.{ < < Ol <risrisessso6s*o**$
Nr-NNNr-NNNNT-S*-NNN!'l O q O ,3 !l lt't N e{ N i { 14 S N rIlr'l 14 D O i <f r lll <f tt Cl N <l C'l ll')
O c.l sr !l O a{ O SO ir'l (t € d O,3,Dr A <t O O D D O l^1 N S c.l l'1 ul O N
N Ci n $ O t d il <t st O Gl + { st tlst .O O O S l. € l'r S N'3 S O l'. U'l ll'l{}rig|{} !}C{t9if,r{liid0rs {rssf
O N Ll !t'I U'l O C.{ l\ !'l ltl l'.sfq<NNl"rfOC,lOfiNO€14<l€O{OOlr')
saiaoN@{,:'o!'16it*sissorrirFris,
oo{oqq!lc{OOf'.F.
i < l''.r O{
€trl
f..
t'llt
c.t o t, < tl q t,r ut tt - 14 tr,{ O O 1"1 .:,{ O,3 t":r N + r.l0.q<<lg€<,3r.o@,f,
a.l 14 .3 ut s N e.r N r'1 0. !'l oC.lU']<C{rOri{}irr+*sts s* s
om.{l!loqsc.{o..ONN$r o
o<t<tC.lrirt*c
(rmil^{Oo o o,D r.1rt^0tttNrstrt
.{t {or,OG-e
t
€ N O O O i N t4 sl ltl -0 N O O O < C.l t'1 rt I:l { r. o
14 14 t4 ?"t r? <f q <t t <f <t <t q <t Ul U'l U'l 'J'l Ul U') Ll Ul U'l
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-20
Exhibit No. 106
T. Faull, Staff
8tl9l9l Page 2 of 2
r3
-J4
i.LiiL
+)
U
o6
{o*
<t
r':'i.l
fr
+)oF
zi77O trJUUOlIHIJ
!q
ozF3<ZUI 1.UUNUUlI<t ul trl*H Lo
tt')o
Cl+
;\:
u')!')
l1)UCoo?c
C+)CcrU.aOJ.a Claul
q
i
{oo >L,3 .aO- r3i uo6 6LoiI
s moll'l o cSa a.r*'!+l !N.a.a O!i Ud+lO.rOAUEa$i! dY
€FFErttdUUlljJ Lt, I!IDEoofa'&. z{L
IJ,I(
tLu)
-3u] -i
!iI IJIri
+J
U
tfr
!
'!IU-
zz
UUouHi!a&
zt3ZA s.-oUUiItfi uJiL
ltUCoo
LIoo.U.dof,
ol!
o>L.ao+J3UOIt iLolI
o(,|EC
'!1, LraiUUi+JOrOUULlil (ti!d
FFiIilJ u ulLri lJ,l tl1=.:=oo:AtEZ<t rLII
tr(tl
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo
)o J
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 19th day of August, 1991, served the
foregoing DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS FAULL, in Case No. IPC-E-90-20, by
mailing a copy thereof via Federal Express or regular mail, to the following:
BARTON L. KLINE, ESQ.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
P. O. BOX 70
BOISE, ID 83707-0070
LARRY D. RIPLEY, ESQ.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
P. O. BOX 70
BO|SE, tD 83707-0070
GARY A. DAHLKE
R. BLAIR STRONG
PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN,
BROOKE & MILLER
12OO WASHINGTON TRUST
FINANCIAL CENTER
SPOKANE, WA 99204
TOM DUKICH
RATES & TARIFF ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
P. O. BOX3727
SPOKANE, WA 99220
A. W. BROWN
A. W. BROWN COMPANY, INC.
3416 VIA LIDO, SUITE F
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
JOHN M. ERIKSSON
UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1407 NORTH WEST TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84140-OOO1
W. F. MERRILL
MERRILL & MERRILL
P. O. BOX 991
POCATELLO, tD 83201-0091
JAMES FELL, ESQ.
STOEL, RIVES, BOLEY, JONES
AND GRAY
SUITE 23OO
9OO SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
GREGORY N. DUVALL
UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
424 PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING
920 SW SIXTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
ROY L. EIGUREN, ESQ.
PETER J. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
7O2W IDAHO STREET, SUITE 7OO
BOISE, tD 83702-8908
C. TOM ARKOOSH
RODEN & ARKOOSH
P. O. BOX 2110
BO|SE, tD 83701-2110
.b
l CERT/173
ffi