The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070124Dickman direct.pdf~~g~~~MOUNTAIN HECL:':' A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP ~" ""' "QI-;lt k' '-' Luu ..; I~ " ~ '-- January 23, 2007 ';' c,",n U \C \') 1"-) I :" \, C'.\" UT\unE~\ ().Ji'ii;\\ v \.." 201 South Main , Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Idaho Public Utilities Commission 4 72 West Washington Boise, ill 83702-5983 Attention:Jean D. Jewell Commission Secretary Re:PAC-06- In the Matter of the Petition ofPacifiCorp to Determine the Appropriate Payment Structure of Schedule 21 PacifiCorp (d.a. Rocky Mountain Power) hereby submits for filing an original and four copies of its testimony supporting the filed all-party stipulation in the above referenced case. Service of pleadings, exhibits, orders and other documents relating to this proceeding should be served on the following: Dean Brockbank Rocky Mountain Power 201 South Main Street, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dean.B rockbank~Pac ifi Corp. com Brian Dickman Rocky Mountain Power 201 South Main Street, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Brian.Dickman~Pacifi Corp .com It is respectfully requested that all formal correspondence and Staff requests regarding this material be addressed to: Bye-mail (preferred):datareq uest~pac ificorp. com By regular mail:Data Request Response Center PacifiCorp 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon, 97232 By fax:(503) 813-6060 Sincerely, -K~/P" Jeffrey K. Larsen Vice President, Regulation Enclosures cc: Service List: PAC-06- Please state your name, business address and present position with PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain Power" or "the Company My name is Brian S. Dickman, and my business address is 201 South Main Street Suite 2300, Salt Lake City, Utah. My current position is Manager, Idaho Regulatory Affairs. Are you the same Brian S. Dickman that previously submitted direct testimony and exhibits in this proceeding? Yes. What is the purpose of your testimony? The purpose of my testimony is to support the filed Stipulation entered into by Rocky Mountain Power, Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho CAP AI"), and Commission Staff, and to explain why the Stipulation is reasonable and in the public interest. Please describe the Company s initial filing in this proceeding. Pursuant to previous commitments made by the Company to CAP AI, on September 1 , 2006, Rocky Mountain Power filed a Petition with the Commission to address the funding structure of its Schedule 21 Low Income Weatherization Program. At issue is the level of rebates provided by Rocky Mountain Power to the agencies performing weatherization services for the Company s qualifying low-income customers. Specifically, CAPAI desired that the Company increase the rebates from 50 percent of the cost to weatherize a home to some higher percentage amount. Dickman, Supporting Stipulation - PacifiCorp Can you provide a summary of the key elements to the Stipulation? Yes. After collaborative discussions a Stipulation was signed by the Company, Staff, and CAP AI, effectively resolving the issues disputed in this case. To summarize, Rocky Mountain Power has agreed to increase the Schedule 21 sharing percentage from 50 percent to 75 percent ofthe cost to weatherize a home, with no limit on the per-household cost of weatherization measures installed. In addition, the parties agree that all measures for electrically heated homes allowed in the United States Department of Energy s ("DOE" weatherization program and determined to be cost effective (the Savings to Investment Ratio is 1.0 or greater) based on audit results, will be eligible for funding under Schedule 21. The current overall annual spending cap of$150 000 will remain in place. In exchange, CAP AI agrees that it will not intervene in any proceeding with the intent of further modifying Schedule 21 (or any Rocky Mountain Power weatherization programs in Idaho) from April 1 , 2007 through March 31 2009. Subsequent to the two-year period ending March 31, 2009, the Company will have an impact evaluation completed on program results, including a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis ofthe program, and submit the results to the Commission and CAP AI. Why did the Company agree to raise the sharing percentage above its current level? Rocky Mountain Power is dedicated to providing cost-effective programs to customers in fmancial need. As explained in my direct testimony filed in this case, the cost effectiveness of this demand side management program should be Dickman, Supporting Stipulation - 2 PacifiCorp maintained. An analysis based on estimated program benefits (Exhibit 3 to my direct testimony) shows that a sharing percentage close to 75 percent would align the cost of the program to the estimated benefits of reduced energy usage. Will the proposed Stipulation impact Rocky Mountain Power ratepayers? No. Funding for Schedule No. 21 is recovered from customers through the Schedule No. 191 Customer Efficiency Services Rate Adjustment and the Company is not currently proposing a change to that tariff rider. Is this Stipulation in the public interest? Yes. The proposed changes to Schedule 21 are intended to increase flexibility for administering agencies and to allow for additional measures to be installed for low-income customers of Rocky Mountain Power. The projected cost- effectiveness of the program as a demand side management tool is also intended to remain intact, thus aligning the benefits of reduced energy usage with the cost of providing the service. What action does Rocky Mountain Power propose that the Commission take with respect to the Stipulation? For the reasons stated above, the Company believes that the Stipulation is in the public interest and that its terms and conditions are fair, just, and reasonable. The Company recommends that the Commission adopt the Stipulation in its entirety to resolve the contested issues in this proceeding, and that the terms of the Stipulation go into effect April 1 , 2007. Does this conclude your testimony? Yes. Dickman, Supporting Stipulation - 3 PacifiCorp PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of January 2007, I caused to be served, via E-mail, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Testimony of Brian S. Dickman in Support ofthe all-filed Stipulation in Docket No. PAC-06-10 to the following parties as shown: Dean Brockbank, Esq. PacifiCorp/dba Rocky Mountain Power 201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Mail: dean.brockbankCfYpacificorp.com Brian Dickman PacifiCorp/dba Rocky Mountain Power 201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Mail: brian.dickmanCfYpacificorp.comk Donald L. Howell, II Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commisssion 472 W. Washington (83702) O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83702-0074 Mail: don.howellCfYpuc.idaho.gov Brad M. Purdy Attorney at Law 2019 N. 17th Street Boise, ID 83702 Mail: bmpurdvCfYhotmail.com Jean Jewell Commission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 372 West Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 Mail: Jean.lewellCfYpuc.Idaho.gov ~~M--Peg Sup isor, Regulation Administration