HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070928Harms direct.pdfBEFORE THE HEGEl D
7nrii ('C'y " 0 rH'
'"'
l..'J\:i ~U f:.O tr1'::: I
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMIS~IQI~AHO PUEUG
U j jUt If::) CmJ,:\nSSl0N
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES
TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
CASE NO. PAC-07-
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA HARMS
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
please state your name and address for the
record.
My name is Patricia Harms.My business address
is 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
I am employed by the Idaho Public utilities
commission (Commission) as a Senior Auditor.
Give a brief description of your educational
background and experience.
I graduated from Boise State Uni versi ty, Boise,
Idaho in 1981 with a B.A. degree in Business
Administration, emphasis in Accounting.I am a Certified
Public Accountant licensed by the State of Idaho.Prior
to joining the Commission Staff in 2000, I was employed
by the State of Alaska as an In Charge Auditor and
performed both financial and performance audits of
governmental agencies.I have attended many seminars and
classes involving auditing and accounting.While at the
Commission I have audited a number of utilities including
water, electric, gas and telephone utili ties and provided
comments and testimony in a number of cases that dealt
with general rates, hook-up fees, accounting issues, and
other regulatory issues.I have also completed the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) annual regulatory studies program at Michigan
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
State Uni versi ty.I also attend meetings of NARUC'
Staff Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
The purpose of my testimony is to present the
summary exhibits that reflect all the adjustments of
Staff witnesses for Rocky Mountain Power (Company) in
this general rate case.I quantify the Idaho revenue
requirement and revenue increase proposed for Idaho
retail customers in this case.
My testimony also describes the proposed
calculation of test year rate base and annualizing/pro
forma plant adjustments and explains the rationale
supporting Staff's position.My testimony further
describes the adjustments proposed by Staff as a result
of this position.
Addi tionally, my testimony describes Staff'
proposed adj ustment related to the Company s treatment of
costs related to abandoned proj ects.Finally, my
testimony describes Staff's adjustment regarding tax
credits related to the Blundell Bottoming Cycle project.
What exhibits are you sponsoring?
I am sponsoring Staff Exhibit Nos. 108-113.
Staff Exhibit No. 108 calculates Staff's proposed revenue
requirement under the rate mitigation cap stipulated and
approved by the Commission in Case No. PAC-E~ 02 - 3.Staff
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Exhibit No. 109 reflects Rocky Mountain Power
Normalized Results of Operations under the Revised
Protocol cost methodology as Adjusted by Staff.Staff
Exhibi t No. 110 calculates the Revised Protocol revenue
requirement price increase for Rocky Mountain Power.
Staff Exhibit No. 111 reflects Rocky Mountain Power
Normalized Results of Operations under the Rolled-In cost
methodology as Adjusted by Staff.Staff Exhibit No. 112
lists the adjustments proposed by Staff and the related
change to the Idaho revenue requirement under the Revised
Protocol cost methodology.Staff Exhibit No. 113 lists
the system-wide amounts for capital proj ects Staff
annualized or pro formed into Staff's proposed rate base.
What is the purpose of Staff Exhibit No. 108?
This exhibit shows the Idaho revenue
requirement proposed by Staff and reflects the rate
mitigation cap as stipulated and approved by the
Commission in Case No. PAC-02-
What revenue requirement does Staff propose in
this case?
The revenue requirement proposed is
$190,229,447 as shown on Staff Exhibit No. 108, line
This results in an overall net increase of $11.2 million
or 6.28%.The Company proposed in its Application a net
increase of $18.5 million or 10.32% in prices for the
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Company s Idaho retail customers.
How is revenue requirement calculated in this
case?
The $193,808 268 (Staff Exhibit No. 108, line
6) revenue requirement calculated under the Revised
Protocol methodology is reduced to the rate mitigation
cap of $190,229,447 (Staff Exhibit No. 108, line 3) as
stipulated and approved by the Commission in Case No.
PAC-02-This stipulation states:
For all Idaho general rate proceedingsini tiated after the effective date of this
Stipulation and Revised Protocol, and until
March 31 , 2009, the Company s Idaho revenue
requirement to be used for purposes of setting
rates for Idaho customers will be the lesserof: (i) the Company s Idaho revenue requirement
calculated under the Rolled-In Allocation
method multiplied by 101.67 percent, or (ii)
the Company s Idaho revenue requirement
resulting from use of the Revised Protocol.
The test period for this case is based on the
historical twelve-month period ending December 31 , 2006
that has been adjusted for known and measurable
adjustments through December 31 , 2007 for operating
revenues and expenses.Rate base levels are based on a
thirteen-month average using the balances from January
2006 through January 2007 with annualizing and pro forma
adjustments for known and measurable plant additions
placed in service through December 31, 2007.Staff'
adjusted rate base is $487,197,283.
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
How is the revenue requirement price increase
on Staff Exhibit No. 110 calculated?
Staff calculated the revenue requirement price
increase using a Rate Base of $487,197 283 and an 8.267%
overall rate of return described in Staff witness
Carlock's testimony.Staff's recommended Idaho revenue
requirement price change of $14 815,425 is shown on Staff
Exhibit No. 110.This revenue requirement price increase
is also shown on Staff Exhibit No. 109.
Rate of Return
How does Staff's proposed overall return
compare to that requested by the Company?
The 8.267% overall rate of return Staff witness
Carlock proposes is based upon a return on equity of
10.25% .This return on equity is 0.5% lower than that
proposed by Rocky Mountain Power in its Application.
Based upon the case filed by the Company, this
overall rate of return would result in an Idaho revenue
requirement reduction of approximately $2 million.
Ra te Base
How have you provided for recovery of the
Company s investments in rate base?
Staff proposes to establish the revenue
requirement for the Company using rate base levels based
on a thirteen-month average using the balances from
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
January 2006 through January 2007 with annualizing and
pro forma adj ustments for known and measurable plant
additions through December 31, 2007.
How does Staff propose recovery of the
Company s investment in plant made during the 2006 test
year?
Staff proposes several ways for the Company to
recover plant investments it made in 2006.First, Staff
proposes a thirteen-month average rate base for all plant
in service investment incurred during 2006.Each plant
in service project, regardless of size, is included in
Staff's thirteen-month average rate base.In addition,
projects in service during 2006 costing over $100 million
system-wide or that are generation facil i ties reflected
in power supply and/or transmission costs related to
projects over $2 million system-wide were annualized.
How did Staff determine the dollar threshold
for annualizing projects during 2006?
The Company s Unadjusted Electric Plant in
Service for 2006 on a beginning and ending average is
$14,745,911 135 (Exhibit No. 11 , page 2., line 36)
system-wide.Compared to that investment level, Staff
considered the Company s $2 million system-wide threshold
for annualizing major projects in 2006 as too low
($2,000,000 per project divided by $14 745,911 135 total
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
electric plant in service is .00014 or 0.014%) .The $100
million threshold represents a single proj ect as 0.7% of
the Company s average Plant in Service during 2006
($100,000,000 divided by $14,745,911,135).Based upon a
review of the Company s plant additions on Exhibit No.
, pages 8.82 through 8.85 there is a definite
difference in the number and magnitude of proj ects.
There are a few large proj ects and many smaller proj ects.
Those six (three in 2006 and three in 2007) large
projects range from $118 million to $331 million.
Further, the Company has identified that Board of
Directors ' approval of individual capital expenditure
proj ects has been replaced with the requirement of
PacifiCorp CEO approval for proj ects greater than $25
million.
If Staff used the Company s $25 million
threshold for capital expenditure proj ects requiring
PacifiCorp CEO approval, what additional proj ects would
be annualized in 2006?
None.There are no proj ects in service during
2006 costing more than $25 million but less than $100
million system-wide according to Company Exhibit No. 11
page s 8. 8 . 2 and 8. 8 . 3 .So, effectively, Staff's $100
million threshold for including plant within rate base
and the Company s $25 million threshold for capital
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
expendi tures requiring CEO approval has the same impact.
What 2006 projects were annualized in rate base
as a result of meeting the $100 million system-wide
threshold?
Three proj ects met this threshold.The
proj ects are Currant Creek Phase II ($177 million system-
wide), the Leaning Juniper 1 Wind Plant ($175 million
system-wide), and the Huntington Unit II Scrubber ($118
million system-wide)
Did Staff consider whether a generation proj ect
greater than $2 million system-wide is included in the
power supply model and cost calculation for the Company
as one of its criteria for annualizing proj ects in 2006?
Yes.Staff also used generation proj ects
included in the power supply model as one of its criteria
for annualizing projects in 2006.However, according to
the Company, no proj ects greater than $2 million but less
than $100 million system-wide produced power supply cost
savings.
How did Staff propose recovery for transmission
projects in 2006?
In addition to inclusion within Staff'
proposed thirteen-month average, Staff annualized the
2006 transmission proj ects listed in Company Exhibit No.
11, page 8.These proj ects totaled $75 million
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
system-wide.
How does Staff's proposal for 2006 plant
additions compare to the Company s case?
As identified by Staff Exhibit No. 113, Staff
annualized 18 projects with a system-wide total of
$546,599,918.This is approximately 85% of the proj ects
listed on Exhibit No. 11, pages 8.2 and 8.3 when
distribution proj ects that would be allocated situs to
other states are removed from the list.This annualizing
adj ustment incorporates those proj ects into rate base as
if they had been in place for the entire year.
Additionally, the associated depreciation and tax effects
of this adjustment were calculated and included in
Staff's proposed revenue requirement.
This methodology was developed under the
supervision of Staff witness Carlock , Deputy
Administrator of the Utilities Division, to ensure
annualizing or adding major plant additions such as this
as if it were in service for the entire test year is
consistent with the policy used for major plant additions
in Idaho Power and Avista rate cases (Case Nos.
IPC-03-13 and AVU-04-1) .
How does Staff propose recovery of the
Company s investment in plant made in 2007 (post test
year) ?
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Staff has made pro forma adj ustments for
projects placed in service through December 31, 2007
costing over $100 million system-wide.Staff also
adj usted for proj ects that are reflected in the power
supply model and costs and/or transmission proj ects over
$2 million system-wide.These proj ects were also pro
formed into rate base.
What 2007 proj ects were pro formed into rate
base as a result of meeting the $100 million system-wide
threshold?
Three proj ects met this threshold.The
projects are Lake Side Capital Build ($331 million
system-wide), the Marengo Wind Project ($259 million
system-wide), and the Goodnoe Hills Wind proj ect ($197
million system-wide) .These generation resource
investments were weighted by the in service date to align
the rate base investment with its inclusion in the
calculation of net power supply costs.
Did Staff pro form into rate base any 2007
proj ects greater that $2 million but less than $100
million system-wide that were included in the power
supply model and cost calculation?
Yes.The Blundell Bottoming Cycle project ($28
million system-wide) was also weighted by the in service
date to align the rate base investment with its inclusion
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
of the plant, costs and availability in the calculation
of net power supply costs.
Were there any other adj ustments associated
with the Blundell Bottoming Cycle project?
Yes.The Company did not include the Federal
Renewable Energy Tax Credit and the Utah State Renewable
Energy Credit associated with this plant.The Federal
Renewable Energy credit would equal $312 412 system-wide
and $20,562 would be allocated to Idaho.The Utah State
Renewable Energy credit would be $54,672 system-wide of
which $1,822 would be allocated to Idaho.This
adj ustment reduces Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $40,000.
How did Staff propose recovery for transmission
projects in 2007?
Staff weighted the Company s investment in 2007
transmission proj ects by the updated in service dates
provided for the projects listed in Company Exhibit No.
11, page 8.One third (five of the fifteen) of
projects listed in Company Exhibit No. 11 , page 8.
will not be placed in service during 2007 as originally
planned by the Company.One proj ect has been delayed a
year.As a result , Staff has excluded these projects
from its proposed rate base in this case.
Are there any proj ects included in Staff's rate
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
base that are planned to go into service after the
hearing in this case?
Yes.The in service dates for the Blundell
Bottoming Cycle proj ect, Goodnoe Hills Wind proj ect, and
two transmission proj ects are December 2007.Although
Goodnoe Hills is a $197 million proj ect system-wide, due
to net power cost savings its Idaho revenue requirement
is approximately $60,000.
What would be Staff's recommendation if these
projects did not go in service before December 31, 2007?
Staff would recommend removing these proj ects
from rate base if they are not placed in service before
December 31, 2007.This would be consistent with other
post test year adj ustments and assure the proj ects are
used and useful when rates become effective.
How does Staff's proposal for 2007 plant
additions compare to the Company s case?
As identified by Staff Exhibit No. 113, Staff
included in its case 14 proj ects with a system-wide total
of $946,738,633.This is over 80% of the projects listed
on Exhibi t No. 11, pages 8. 8 .4 and 8. 8 . 5 .(Notably this
percentage is approximately 90% when the proj ects now
with in service dates in 2008 and distribution projects
that would not be allocated to Idaho are removed from the
denominator) .These pro forma Staff adjustments
CASE NO. PAC-E- 07 - 5
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
incorporate those proj ects weighted by the number of
months the plant would be in service during 2007.
Additionally, the associated depreciation and tax effects
of this adjustment were calculated and included in
Staff's proposed revenue requirement.
What is the change in Staff's proposed Idaho
revenue requirement based upon the proposed treatment of
2006 and 2007 rate base/plant additions and associated
costs compared to the Company s filing?
Staff's proposal results in a reduction in
Idaho revenue requirement of approximately $1 million.
This still provides a reduction in regulatory lag by
including proj ects to be completed after Staff's prefile
but before the effective date of customer rates.
You have described Staff's proposal regarding
rate base.What historic test year does Rocky Mountain
Power use in this case and what adjustments does it
propose?
The Company s case is based on historical data
for the twelve-months ended December 31, 2006.The
Company then made various normalizing, annualizing and
known and measurable adj ustments to test year revenues,
expenses and rate base.Rate base presented by the
Company was initially an average of beginning and ending
account balances.The Company proposed annualizing over
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
60 projects listed on Exhibit No. 11, pages 8.2 and
3 as if they were in place for the entire year.
'Because of the Company s beginning and ending average
rate base, these proj ects were already in the Company
filing as if they had been in place for six months of the
year even if an individual proj ect' s in service date was
December 2006.
The Company listed almost 60 post-test year
projects on Exhibit No. 11, pages 8.4 and 8.5 to
include in rate base for the number of months they would
be in service during 2007.
How does Rocky Mountain Power s post-test year
adj ustments compare to those proposed by other companies
when the revenue requirement was not part of a stipulated
agreement?
Idaho Power in Case No. IPC-03-13 filed a
2003 test year with 6 months of actual expenses, revenues
and investments and 6 months estimated.Various
normalizing, annualizing and known and measurable
adj ustments were made to test year revenues and expenses.
In addition, a thirteen-month average rate base was used
to recognize that some plant was in service for only part
Finally, less than ten maj or plantof the test year.
addi tions were added beyond the end of the test year.
These maj or proj ects were included in the rate base
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
calculation as if they were in service for the entire
test year.
In Case No. AVU-04-1, Avista used a historic
test year from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002.The
Company then included various normalizing, annualizing
anq known and measurable adjustments to test year
revenues and expenses.It used an average of the monthly
averages to establish rate base levels.Avista included
only five major plant additions beyond the test year; two
generation proj ects and three transmission proj ects.
These five major projects were included in the rate base
calculation as if they were in service for the entire
test year.
What rate base treatment did the Commission
allow in these cases?
The Commission required rate base be set using
a thirteen-month average or the average of the thirteen-
monthly averages for the test year.The Commission also
allowed these companies to include limited maj or plant
additions completed after the test year as if they had
been in service for the entire year provided an
adj ustment was made to reflect revenue producing or
expense reducing benefits from these proj ects in the
revenue requirement.
Did the Commission approve the test year with
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
post-test year plant additions as proposed by the
companies in these two cases?
However , in both cases the CommissionYes.
expressed specific concern regarding annualizing plant
additions added late in the year or after the Company
test year as if it were in place for a full year.
Order No. 29505, in Case No. IPC-03-13, the Commission
stated:
We generally believe that including investment
in the calculation of average-year rate base as
if it were in service the entire year when it
was not_. creates a mismatch between test year
revenue and expenses.
How does Staff's proposed rate base treatment
address this issue?
Using a thirteen-month average rate base
reduces the expense/revenue mismatch identified by the
Commission that occurs when the costs of plant
adjustments are added as if they were in place for a
whole year without adding any benefits.
Over 85% of the plant additions annualized by
Staff in the 2006 test year were generation resources.
These proj ects are included in the Company s power supply
model and reflected in the net power supply costs,
producing benefits to customers.The Company has al so
included additional maintenance, depreciation and
property taxes for these proj ects and where applicable,
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
renewable energy tax credits.The remaining proj ects
annualized are transmission related. The availability of
these transmission proj ects is also reflected in the
power supply model to improve reliability and to make
cost effective purchases or sales that reduce customer
costs.Although it may not result in cost savings that
have been directly quantified , Staff is familiar with the
calculations to assure customer benefits are received
from these proj ects Therefore, they are included in
Staff's proposed rate base.
Neither the Company nor Staff proposes to
incl ude post test year plant additions in rate base as if
they were in place for the whole year.Instead, Staff
proposes to include those proj ects as previously
described based upon their in service dates.Again, over
85% of these 2007 projects were generation resources that
are reflected in the Company s power supply cost model
and reflect net power cost savings.The remaining
proj ects are transmission.
Please identify other Staff adjustments to rate
base that are summarized in your exhibits.
Staff witness Leckie proposes two adj ustments
to rate base.He has removed the cost of a coal lease
from rate base reducing the Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $26,000.He has also removed the cost of a
CAS E NO. PAC - E - 0 7 - 5
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Jim Bridger dragline from rate base reducing the Idaho
revenue requirement by approximately $15,000.
Expenses
Has Staff made any adjustments to expenses?
Yes.Staff has adjusted depreciation expense
due to Staff's proposed plant adjustments, reduced
expenses for abandoned proj ects, adjusted power supply
costs, removed some costs associated with incentive and
severance pay, reduced net lease expenses, removed
certain administrative and general expenses, and reduced
other expenses.
How was depreciation expense calculated for
Staff's proposed plant adjustments?
First depreciation expense changed due to the
thirteen-month average Staff proposed compared to the
beginning/ending average filed in the Company s case.
Second, Staff annualized depreciation expense for maj or
plant additions added during the test year.Third,
depreciation expense for pro forma plant additions added
to rate base is based on the number of months the plant
lS included in the test period rate base.
How are abandoned proj ects included in the
Company s case?
The Company expensed approximately $1.6 million
system-wide of costs associated with abandoned proj ects .
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
According to the Company, many of these costs are
associated with proj ects contemplated by customers but
not completed.These costs do not represent assets that
are used and useful.Staff proposes removal of these
costs as they do not provide service to customers and
should not be included in customer rates.On an Idaho
allocated basis, this reduces revenue requirement by
approximately $80 000.
Please identify other Staff adj ustments to
expenses that are summarized in your exhibits.
Staff witness Lanspery proposes three power
supply cost adj ustments .The first relates to an error
by the Company in extracting data associated with gas
purchases.This reduces Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $2.5 million.Second, he proposes
adjusting power supply costs associated with the Monsanto
credit.This lncreases Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $110,000.Third, Staff witness Lanspery
proposes an adj ustment associated with the Idaho
Irrigators Load Control Program.This reduces Idaho
revenue requirement by approximately $940,000.Staff
witness Lanspery s testimony discusses these adjustments
in detail.
Staff witness Leckie proposes several
adjustments.1) He proposes reducing incentive pay,
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
HARMS , P.
STAFF
(Di)
reducing Idaho revenue requirement by approximately
$160,000.2) He also proposes reducing net lease
expense.This adj ustment reduces Idaho revenue
requirement by approximately $7,000.3) He proposes to
remove from the Company s case the costs associated with
changing the Company s fiscal year to a calendar year
end.This adjustment reduces Idaho revenue requirement
by approximately $25,000.4) He adj usts for severance
costs, reducing Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $160,000.Staff witness Leckie provides
further detail regarding these adjustments in his
testimony.
Staff witness Nobbs proposes to remove expenses
that are nonrecurring or should not be paid by Idaho
utility customers.His adjustments reduce Idaho revenue
requirement by approximately $93,000.His testimony
discusses these adjustments in detail.
Revenues
Has Staff made any adjustments to revenues?
Staff witness Carlock has imputed revenueYes.
associated with the Company s Green Tags.These
adj ustments reduce Idaho revenue requirement by
approximately $270,000. Her testimony discusses these
adj ustments in detail.
CASE NO. PAC-07-09/28/07 HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Taxes
case?
How did Staff's adj ustments change taxes in the
Staff's adj ustments to revenues and expenses
change federal and state income taxes as taxable income
changes.In addition , federal and state income taxes are
changed because interest expense must be "trued up " for
changes in rate base such as the adjustments tq plant
proposed by Staff.
Does this conclude your direct testimony in
this proceeding?
CASE NO. PAC-07-
09/28/07
Yes , it does.
HARMS, P.
STAFF
(Di)
Page 1.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
STATE OF IDAHO
Normalized Results of Operations
12 Months Ended December 2006 with Known and Measurables
(1) December 2006 Rolled-In Revenue Requirement
(2) Rate Mitigation Cap
(3) Capped Revised Protocol Revenue Requirement
(4) Normalized December 2006 General Business Revenues
(5) Capped Revised Protocol Price Change
(A)(B)
Case Proposed
Oriainal Filina by Staff
194 215 986 187 104 796
101.67%101.67%
197,459 393 190 229,447
178 992 843 178 992 843
466 550 236 604
Line
No.
Revised Protocol
(6) Filed Revised Protocol Revenue Requirement
(7) Normalized December 2006 General Business Revenues
(8) Revised Protocol Price Change
(9) Capped Revised Protocol Price Change
(10) Reduction to Revised Protocol Revenue Requirement
201 020 661
178 992 843
027 818
466 550
561 268)
193 808 268
178 992 843
815,425
236 604
578,821 )
ICapped Revenue Requirement Increase as a Percentage of Line 7 10.32%28%
Exhibit No.1 08
Case No. PAC-07-
P. Harms, Staff
9/28/07
Rocky Mountain Power
IDAHO
Normalized Results of Operations - REVISED PROTOCOL
12 Months Ended DECEMBER 2006
Operating Revenues:
2 General Business Revenues
3 Interdepartmental
4 Special Sales
5 Other Operating Revenues
6' Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
9 Steam Production
10 Nuclear Production
11 Hydro Production
12 Other Power Supply
13 Transmission
14 Distribution
15 Customer Accounting
16 Customer Service & Inlo
17 Sales
18 Administrative & General
20 Total O&M Expenses
22 Depreciation
23 Amortization
24 Taxes Other Than Income
25 Income Taxes - Federal
26 Income Taxes - State
27 Income Taxes - Del Net
28 Investment Tax Credit Adj.
29 Mise Revenue & Expense
31 Total Operating Expenses:
33 Operating Rev For Return:
35 Rate Base:
36 Electric Plant In Service
37 Plant Held lor Future Use
38 Mise Delerred Debits
39 Elec Plant Acq Adj
40 Nuclear Fuel
41 Prepayments
42 Fuel Stock
43 Material & Supplies
44 Working Capital
45 Weatherization Loans
46 Mise Rate Base
48 Total Electric Plant:
50 Rate Base Deductions:
51 Accum Prov For Depree
52 Accum Prov For Amort
53 Accum Del Income Tax
54 Unamortized ITC
55 Customer Adv For Canst
56 Customer Service Deposits
57 Mise Rate Base Deductions
59 Total Rate Base Deductions
61 Total Rate Base:
63 Return on Rate Base
65 Return on Equity
67 TAX CALCULATION:
68 Operating Revenue
69 Other Deductions
70 Interest (AFUDC)
71 Interest
72 Schedule "M" Additions
73 Schedule "M" Deductions
74 Income Belore Tax
76 State Income Taxes
77 Taxable Income
79 Federal Income Taxes + Other
(1)
Total Adjusted
Results
(2)
Price Change
178992 843
122881 936
601 123
308,475 902
815,425
51.759 768
324 572
149 261 969
009 675
088,461
586 151
661 078
21.784
114 389
239806 062
215 016
268 986
932 527
754 556
771 172
557 970
(757 790)
(168,477)
942 703
671 631
277 380021 636 118
4027518731.095880 9179306
917 578 857
(3,408)
3,493 591
019 178
922 256
281 196
7,453 023
276 120
5.790.713
577 049
(3)
Results with
Price Change
193808 268
607 935
932 527
697 259
1,442 804
283 016 140
953 388 575 953 388 575
(358 147 663)
(20 236 770)
(76 841 792)
125 265)
(465 858)
373 943)
(466 191 291)
487 197283
(466 191 291)
487197283
383%267%
512%
36,421 788 793 641
974 788
357 745
141 075
663 669 793 641
771 172
15892497
671 631
14122010
10.250%
215 429
974 788
357 745
141 075
31,457 310
804
30014507
4754556 4942703 9697259
ReI. Page 2.
Page 1.
Exhibit No.1 09
Case No. PAC-07-
P. Harms, Staff
9/28/07
Rocky Mountain Power
IDAHO
Normalized Results of Operations - REVISED PROTOCOL
12 Months Ended DECEMBER 2006
Net Rate Base 487,197 283 Ref. Page 1.
Return on Rate Base Requested 267%Ref. Page 2.
Revenues Required to Earn Requested Return 275 187
Less Current Operating Revenues (31 095 880)
Increase to Current Revenues 179,306
Net to Gross Bump-up 161.40%
Price Change Required for Requested Return 815,425
Requested Price Change 815 425
Uncollectible Percent 147%Ref. Page 1.
Increased Uncollectible Expense 784
Requested Price Change 815,425
Franchise Tax 000%Ref. Page 1.
Revenue Tax 000%Ref. Page 1.
Resource Supplier Tax 000%Ref. Page 1.
Gross Receipts 000%Ref. Page 1.
Increase Taxes Other Than Income
Requested Price Change 815 425
Uncollectible Expense (21 784)
Taxes Other Than Income
Income Before Taxes 793 641
State Effective Tax Rate 54%Ref. Page 2.
State Income Taxes 671 631
Taxable Income 122 010
Federal Income Tax Rate 35.00%Ref. Page 2.
Federal Income Taxes 942 703
Operating Income 100.000%
Net Operating Income 61.958%Ref. Page 1.
Net to Gross Bump-161.40%
Page 1.
Exhibit No. 110
Case No. PAC-07-
P. Harms, Staff
9/28/07 Page 1 of 2
Rocky Mountain Power
IDAHO
Normalized Results of Operations - REVISED PROTOCOL
12 Months Ended DECEMBER 2006
Operating Revenue 100.000%
147%(1)
000%
000%
000%
000%
99.853%
533%
95.320%
33.362%
61.958%
Operating Deductions
Uncollectible Accounts
Taxes Other - Franchise Tax
Taxes Other - Revenue Tax
Taxes Other - Resource Supplier Tax
Taxes Other - Gross Receipts
Sub-Total
State Income Tax ~ 4.54%
Sub-Total
Federal Income Tax ~ 35.00%
Net Operating Income
(1) Computation equals:
Idaho situs uncollectible accounts (FERC904) divided by Idaho general business revenues
(page 2., column "Idaho , line 714) divided by (page 2., column "adj total", line 1)
Page 1.
Exhibit No. 110
Case No. PAC-07-
P. Harms, Staff
9/28/07 Page 2 of 2
Rocky Mountain Power
IDAHO
Normalized Results of Operations - ROLLED-
12 Months Ended DECEMBER 2006
Operating Revenues:
2 General Business Revenues
3 Interdepartmental
4 Special Sales
5 Other Operating Revenues
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
9 Steam Production
10 Nuclear Production
11 Hydro Production
12 Other Power Supply
13 Transmission
14 Distribution
15 Customer Accounting
16 Customer Service & Inlo
17 Sales
18 Administrative & General
20 Total O&M Expenses
22 Depreciation
23 Amortization
24 Taxes Other Than Income
25 Income Taxes - Federal
26 Income Taxes - State
27 Income Taxes - Del Net
28 Investment Tax Credit Adj.
29 Mise Revenue & Expense
31 Total Operating Expenses:
33 Operating Rev For Return:
35 Rate Base:
36 Electric Plant In Service
37 Plant Held lor Future Use
38 Mise Delerred Debits
39 Elec Plant Acq Adj
40 Nuclear Fuel
41 Prepayments
42 Fuel Stock
43 Material & Supplies
44 Working Capital
45 Weatherization Loans
46 Mise Rate Base
48 Total Electric Plant:
50 Rate Base Deductions:
51 Accum Prov For Depree
52 Accum Prov For Amort
53 Accum Del Income Tax
54 Unamortized ITC
55 Customer Adv For Canst
56 Customer Service Deposits
57 Mise Rate Base Deductions
59 Total Rate Base Deductions
61 Total Rate Base:
63 Return on Rate Base
65 Return on Equity
67 TAX CALCULATION:
66 Operating Revenue
69 Other Deductions
70 Interest (AFUDC)
71 Interest
72 Schedule "M" Additions
73 Schedule "M" Deductions
74 Income Belore Tax
76 State Income Taxes
77 Taxable Income
79 Federal Income Taxes + Other
(1)
Total Adjusted
Results
(2)
Price Change
178 992 843 111 953
122 881 936
601 135
308.475 914
078 916
324 572
142 191 189
009 675
088.461
586 151
661 078
927
123.414
233 063.455
215 735
267 350
936 717
994 229
127 217
552 155
(757 790)
(168.468)
273 230 599
2,706 300
367 741
085 968
35245314 5025985
918 320 604
(3.408)
555 375
019 178
924 321
311 959
7.473 953
219 413
790 713
577 049
(3)
Results with
Price Change
187 104 796
598 078
936,717
700 529
1.494 958
276 316 568
40 271 300
954 189 157 954 189 157
(358986 583)
(20 245 273)
(76 837 855)
125 265)
(465 858)
378 058)
(467 038 893)
487150264
(467 038 893)
487150264
235%267%
203%
161 125 100 026
973 343
377 016
146 019
23.418 779 100 026
127 217
22291 563
367 741
7732285
10.250%
261 151
973 343
377 016
146 019
518 806
1.494 958
30023847
6994229 2706300 9700529
ReI. Page 2.
Page 1.
Exhibit No. 111
Case No. PAC-07-
P. Harms, Staff
9/28/07
~~
n
t
T
J
PJ
:
x
OO
~
UJ
P
"
'
--
-
CD
...
.
.
.
.
cr
"
-.
.
.
)
(/
:
,
"
0
?
S-
~
"
"
"
"
'
n"
"
"
"
,
&1
N
-..
.
)
RO
C
K
Y
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
P
O
W
E
R
ST
A
T
E
O
F
I
D
A
H
O
Re
v
e
n
u
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
'
s
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
12
M
o
n
t
h
s
E
n
d
e
d
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
6
w
i
t
h
K
n
o
w
n
a
n
d
M
e
a
s
u
r
a
b
l
e
s
Li
n
e
No
,
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
1
A
l
l
o
w
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
n
e
q
u
i
t
y
o
f
1
0
.
2
5
%
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
1
0
.
75
%
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
.
2
A
l
l
o
w
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
o
f
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
p
l
a
n
t
o
n
a
1
3
-
m
o
n
t
h
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
an
n
u
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
2
0
0
6
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
3
R
e
m
o
v
e
c
o
a
l
l
e
a
s
e
c
o
s
t
n
o
t
k
n
o
w
n
a
n
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
a
b
l
e
a
t
p
r
e
f
l
e
d
a
t
e
.
4
R
e
m
o
v
e
n
o
t
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
u
s
e
f
u
l
m
i
n
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
r
a
t
e
b
a
s
e
.
5
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
t
a
x
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
t
e
a
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
6
R
e
m
o
v
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
7
R
e
m
o
v
e
p
o
w
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
o
s
t
e
r
r
o
r
i
n
d
a
t
a
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
g
a
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
.
8
A
d
j
u
s
t
p
o
w
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
o
s
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
o
n
s
a
n
t
o
c
r
e
d
i
t
.
9
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
I
d
a
h
o
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
a
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
y
s
t
e
m
-
w
i
d
e
.
10
R
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
a
y
c
o
s
t
s
.
11
R
e
d
u
c
e
n
e
t
l
e
a
s
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
d
u
e
t
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
.
12
R
e
m
o
v
e
c
o
s
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
t
o
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
y
e
a
r
.
13
R
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
n
c
e
p
a
y
c
o
s
t
s
.
14
R
e
m
o
v
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
o
r
e
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
o
r
n
o
t
I
d
a
h
o
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
15
I
m
p
u
t
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
G
r
e
e
n
T
a
g
s
.
Im
p
a
c
t
t
o
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Re
v
e
n
u
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
St
a
f
f
W
i
t
n
e
s
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
Ca
r
l
o
c
k
($
2
00
0
00
0
)
Ha
r
m
s
($
1
00
0
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
2
6
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
1
5
00
0
)
Ha
r
m
s
($
4
0
00
0
)
Ha
r
m
s
($
8
0
00
0
)
La
n
s
p
e
r
y
($
2
50
0
00
0
)
La
n
s
p
e
r
y
$1
1
0
00
0
La
n
s
p
e
r
y
($
9
4
0
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
1
6
0
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
7
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
2
5
00
0
)
Le
c
k
i
e
($
1
6
0
00
0
)
No
b
b
s
($
9
3
00
0
)
Ca
r
l
o
c
k
(2
7
0
00
0
)
Id
a
h
o
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
R
a
t
e
C
a
s
e
IP
U
C
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
b
y
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fa
c
t
o
r
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
In
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
a
t
e
Mo
n
t
h
s
Am
o
u
n
t
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ty
p
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
20
0
6
A
n
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
l
a
n
t
A
d
d
s
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
a
n
t
C
r
e
e
k
P
o
w
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
r
-
20
0
6
17
6
64
3
83
8
17
5
97
5
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
a
n
i
n
g
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
1
W
i
n
d
P
l
a
n
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Se
p
-
20
0
6
17
5
.
4
3
4
25
9
10
7
95
9
54
4
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
13
5
13
5
51
9
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
a
n
t
C
r
e
e
k
P
o
w
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
r
-
20
0
6
55
8
15
7
23
9
71
6
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
i
t
-
Vi
n
e
y
a
r
d
(
L
a
k
e
S
i
d
e
)
I
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
20
0
6
68
0
80
9
9.
4
7
1
32
9
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
i
t
-
Vi
n
e
y
a
r
d
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Se
p
-
20
0
6
72
8
88
8
06
3
93
1
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
80
9
P
D
I
T
E
M
S
S
C
A
D
A
P
h
a
s
e
2
(
E
P
I
C
)
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
No
v
-
20
0
6
17
8
02
7
13
6
94
4
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Be
a
l
l
L
n
S
u
b
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
N
e
w
1
1
5
-
12
k
V
S
u
b
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Se
p
-
20
0
6
23
0
37
4
14
1
76
8
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Go
r
d
o
n
A
v
e
(
L
a
y
t
o
n
)
:
N
e
w
1
3
8
-
12
.
5k
S
u
b
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
De
c
-
20
0
6
66
3
74
1
56
1
62
7
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Bi
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
2
3
0
k
V
S
v
c
A
n
a
d
a
r
k
o
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
r
-
20
0
6
37
6
57
9
36
5
62
8
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
90
t
h
S
o
u
t
h
-
Oq
u
i
r
r
h
R
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
1
3
8
k
V
L
n
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
No
v
-
20
0
6
79
0
81
4
14
6
78
0
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Cl
a
i
m
J
u
m
p
e
r
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
2
3
0
S
v
c
A
n
a
d
a
r
k
o
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Se
p
-
20
0
6
3.
4
4
5
75
2
12
0
.
4
6
3
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Qu
a
r
r
y
-
Di
m
p
l
e
D
e
l
l
L
o
o
p
-
Ph
a
s
e
2
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
r
-
20
0
6
00
0
12
0
61
5
.
4
0
3
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Cr
o
w
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
n
e
w
R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
Wa
y
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
No
v
-
20
0
6
66
0
59
4
58
5
07
3
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Sy
r
a
c
u
s
e
A
d
d
3
4
5
-
13
8
k
V
T
r
a
n
s
f
m
r
(
3
9
4
M
V
A
)
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
y
-
20
0
6
5.
4
9
8
25
8
69
1
77
2
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
51
9
P
D
I
T
R
Q
A
S
R
a
n
g
e
r
Q
A
S
S
y
s
S
C
A
D
A
P
T
0
1
5
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Au
g
-
20
0
6
91
5
14
5
18
5
07
8
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
90
t
h
S
o
&
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
S
u
b
s
:
L
o
o
p
-
i
n
C
W
L
n
s
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ju
n
-
20
0
6
10
0
72
1
73
1
04
7
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
SW
U
t
a
h
L
o
a
d
G
r
o
w
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
Ma
y
-
20
0
6
85
6
68
3
03
2
82
5
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
08
9
38
4
St
e
a
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
G
E
N
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
DE
V
.
C
A
I
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
2
0
0
7
De
c
-
20
0
6
11
7
83
7
16
0
70
8
36
6
70
8
36
6
54
6
59
9
91
8
26
9
93
3
26
9
26
9
93
3
26
9
I
20
0
7
P
r
o
F
o
r
m
a
P
l
a
n
t
A
d
d
s
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
La
k
e
S
i
d
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ju
n
-
20
0
7
33
0
84
1
58
3
19
2
99
0
92
4
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
r
e
n
g
o
W
i
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Au
g
-
20
0
7
25
8
54
1
35
1
10
7
72
5
56
3
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Go
o
d
n
o
e
H
i
l
l
s
(
F
o
r
m
e
l
y
E
a
s
t
&
W
e
s
t
)
W
i
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
No
v
-
20
0
7
19
6
57
2
.
4
0
6
76
2
06
8
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
33
3
47
8
55
4
St
e
a
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
B
l
u
n
d
e
l
l
Bo
t
t
o
m
i
n
g
C
y
c
l
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
No
v
-
20
0
7
70
0
64
3
61
6
77
4
61
6
77
4
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
i
t
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
L
a
k
e
S
i
d
e
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Se
p
-
20
0
7
54
9
83
1
84
9
94
4
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ca
m
p
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
-
Mo
n
a
3
4
5
k
V
#
4
L
i
n
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ju
n
-
20
0
7
25
3
54
7
14
7
90
2
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
i
t
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
(
L
a
k
e
S
i
d
e
)
T
r
n
s
I
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ma
y
-
20
0
7
86
1
57
5
57
4
38
3
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
e
n
g
o
W
i
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ap
r
-
20
0
7
86
6
51
4
89
9
88
6
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Em
e
r
y
M
o
o
r
e
6
9
k
V
A
d
d
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ju
l
-
20
0
7
2.
4
1
8
91
2
20
9
45
6
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Oa
k
l
e
y
-
Ka
m
a
s
l
i
n
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
De
c
-
20
0
7
46
9
19
1
28
9
09
9
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Sh
u
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
o
M
o
n
a
S
y
s
t
e
m
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
S
t
u
d
y
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
De
c
-
20
0
7
94
5
88
2
32
8
82
4
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Cr
a
v
e
n
C
r
k
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
2
3
0
k
V
S
v
c
t
o
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
P
r
o
d
-
Pi
o
n
e
e
r
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ju
l
-
20
0
7
10
8
98
6
55
4
49
3
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ca
c
h
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
A
d
d
.
B
r
i
d
g
e
r
l
a
n
d
S
w
S
t
P
h
1
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ju
l
-
20
0
7
50
5
66
4
7,
7
5
2
83
2
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ch
a
p
p
e
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
2
3
0
k
V
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
J
o
n
a
h
F
i
e
l
d
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
M
o
n
t
h
s
i
n
T
e
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
De
c
-
20
0
7
10
2
54
8
34
1
87
9
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
94
8
69
8
tr
J
94
6
73
8
63
3
39
3
04
4
02
5
39
3
04
4
02
5
I
\D
'i
:
I
--
-
.
--
-
-.
.
)
P'
~
::
q
~
P'
cr
'
"
tj
Z
..
.
.
.
~
0
...
.
.
.
.
CI
.
!
CZ
J
'
i
:
I
~
S-
~
...
.
.
.
f-
h
n
...
.
.
.
0-
+
;
t
:
d
-.
.
)
To
t
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
A
d
d
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
66
2
,
97
7
,
29
5
66
2
97
7
,
29
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA HARMS, IN
CASE NO. PAC-07-, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID
TO THE FOLLOWING:
JUSTIN BROWN
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MAIL: iusti brown(Q),pacificorp com
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
ACIFICORP
825 NE MULTNOMAH STE 2000
PORTLAND OR 97232
MAIL: datarequest(Q),pacificorp com
(ELECTRONIC COPIES ONLY)
JAMES R SMITH
MONSANTO COMPANY
PO BOX 816
SODA SPRINGS ID 83276
MAIL: iim.smith(Q),monsanto.com
ERIC L OLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE & BAILEY
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83201-1391
MAIL: elo(Q),racinelaw.net
CONLEY E WARD
MICHAEL C CREAMER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
PO BOX 2720
BOISE ID 83701-2720
MAIL: cew(Q),givensPUfsleY com
BRIAN DICKMAN
MANAGER, ID REGULATORY AFFAIRS
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MAIL: brian.dickman(Q),pacificorp com
RANDALL C BUDGE
RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE & BAILEY
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83201-1391
MAIL: rcb(Q),racine1aw.net
MAURICE BRUBAKER
KATIE IVERSON
BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES
1215 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY
SUITE 208
ST LOUIS MO 63141
MAIL: mbrubaker~consultbai.
ki versoncGlconsultbai. com
ANTHONY Y ANKEL
29814 LAKE ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
MAIL: tony(Q),yankel.net
DENNIS E PESEAU, Ph.
UTILITY RESOURCES INC
1500 LIBERTY ST SE STE 250
SALEM OR 97302
MAIL: dpeseilllCillexcite.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BRAD M PURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2019 N 17TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
MAIL: bmpurdy~hotmail.com
KEVIN B HOMER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1565 SOUTH BOULEVARD
IDAHO FALLS ID 83404
MAIL: kbh~khomer1aw.com
TIMOTHY SHURTZ
411 S. MAIN
FIRTH ID 83236
MAIL: tim~idahosupreme. com
SECRET A
~~-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE