20101014Leckie Di.pdf

BEFORE THE RECE ""-J
Z81UOCT 14 PM 1:43
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSlON:! ,...--. i ~ ,. . "'''
l,JTlLrllEC;
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) CASE NO. PAC-E-10-07
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES )
TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES )
)
)
)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOE LECKIE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 2010
ALLEGEDLY PROPRIETARY DATA HAS BEEN
DELETED FROM THIS DOCUMENT
1 Q.Please state your name and business address for
2 the record.
3 A.My name is Joe Leckie. My business address is
4 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
5 Q.By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
6 A.I am employed by the Idaho Public Utili ties
7 Commission (Commission) as a senior auditor in the
8 Utili ties Division.
9 Q.What is your educational and experience
10 background?
11 A.I graduated from Brigham Young University with a
12 Bachelors of Science degree in Accounting. I worked for
13 the accounting firm Touche Ross in its Los Angeles office
14 for approximately one year. I then attended law school
15 and graduated from the J. Rueben Clark School of Law at
16 Brigham Young University with a Juris Doctorate degree. I
17 am licensed to practice law in the State of Montana and
18 practiced there for approximately 25 years. I have been
19 employed at the Commission as an auditor since March 2001.
20 I have attended the annual regulatory studies program
21 sponsored by the National Association of Regulatory
22 Utility Commissioners (NARUC) at Michigan State University
23 in August of 2001. I have attended several other training
24 courses sponsored by NARUC on regulatory accounting and
25 auditing.
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 1
STAFF
1
2 Staff's recommendations in those areas of the rate case
Q.Would you please summarize your contribution to
4
3 that you personally reviewed?
I personally reviewed a broad cross section ofA.
5 the Company's investments and expenses, and I recommend
6 the following adjustments effecting revenue requirement:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1)Removal of $33,976,054 (system) from Company
adjusted rate base to account for the
differences in the cost and in-service dates of
the 2010 capital addition requested by the
Company.
2 )Removal of $15,970,759 (system) from rate base
to reduce the value of the Company's coal fuel
stockpile inventory.
3 )Removal of $1,000,000 (system) from the
Company's rate base for a portion of the cost of
the Dunlap I Wind Proj ect. It is the portion of
the Dunlap Ranch land that is not currently used
and useful.
4 )Removal of $240,497 (system) from rate base to
properly account for liquidated damages received
by the Company associated with the 2009 Bridger
Uni t #2 overhaul.
5 )Removal of $662,119 (system) of incremental O&M
expenses claimed by the Company for future
CASE NO. PAC-E-10 - 0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 2
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
operation of the High Plains, McFadden Ridge I,
and Dunlap I wind facilities.
6 )I additionally reviewed the Company's proposal
to establish a regulatory asset or liability
resulting from the Company's accounting change
regarding the deductibility of capital repairs
for tax purposes. The Company also wants to
normalize income tax expenses. I support the
Company proposal on both issues.
Q.Are your adjustments shown and included in
12
11 Staff's proposed revenue requirement?
A.All of my adjustments are included in Staff's
13 proposed revenue requirement as shown in Staff witness
15
14 Vaughn's Staff Exhibit No. 108.
Q.Would you please explain your recommendation to
16 remove $33,976,054 (system) from the Company's adjusted
18
17 rate base?
A.In the initial filing by the Company, rate base
19 included not only plant placed into service by the Company
20 though December 31, 2009 (the end of the test year); but
21 also plant that was expected to be placed into service by
22 December 31, 2010. The total plant expected to be placed
23 into service in 2010 was $1,852,283,166. See Company
24 witness McDougal, Exhibit 2, page 8.6.2. Staff reviewed
25 these proj ects and requested that the Company update the
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 3
STAFF
1 dollar amounts and the expected in-service dates for each
2 proj ect. The Company provided the information for Staff's
3 Exhibit No. 101. The updated information indicated that
4 some in- service dates changed and that the forecasted cost
5 for some projects also changed. The difference between
6 the updated cost and the original forecasted cost is in
7 Column (h) "Change in Cost" of the Exhibit. The total of
8 all the updated costs is $1,818,307,112 (Column (g)). The
9 difference between the original cost and the updated cost
10 is $33,976,054 (Column h). Staff has included this amount
11 as an adjustment reducing the Company's rate base.
12 The $33,976,054 is a Company system total.
13 Idaho's share of this amount is $2,031,303.
14 Q.Does this reduction in rate base have any effect
15 on the depreciation expense?
16 A.Yes, depreciation expense on a total Company
17 basis is reduced by $875,226 and Idaho's share of the
18 depreciation expense reduction is $52,583. Also,
19 accumulated depreciation is reduced by the same amounts.
20 Q.Please summarize the adjustment to the coal fuel
21 stockpile the Company described in its Application as an
22 adj ustment to Miscellaneous Rate Base.
23 A.The Company increased coal fuel stockpile in
24 Account 151, Fuel Stock, by $24,644,591 on a system basis
25 with $1,581,176 allocated to Idaho. The Company stated
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 4
STAFF
1 that this increase was due to the cost of coal and the
2 number of tons stored at each site (McDougal direct
3 testimony at page 33, lines 4-5.)
4 Q.Did you examine the increase in coal fuel
6
5 stockpile proposed by the Company?
A.Yes. In response to Confidential Audit Request
7 dated April 27, 2010, the Company provided a schedule of
8 fuel stockpile values and tons at each plant. I used this
9 schedule to estimate the average cost per ton for each
10 stockpile at each plant as of December 31, 2010. See
11 Staff Confidential Exhibit No. 102, Column (f). The
12 average cost per ton is the Dec-2010 projected coal
13 stockpile cost, Column (e) divided by the pro forma
14 tonnage, Column (d). The average cost per ton was
15 compared to the cost per ton of contracted coal for each
16 plant and found to be a reasonable cost per ton for
18
17 valuing the total value of the stockpile.
Q.Since you agree with the Company on the average
19 cost per ton of each stockpile, do you also agree with the
20 Company on the increase in tonnage of the stockpiles as
21 proposed by the Company for each location?
22 A.No. As shown in Staff Confidential Exhibit
23 No. 102, Column (g), there were some noticeable changes in
24 the stockpile tonnage at the different plant sites with a
25 significant tonnage increase at several plants. The
CASE NO. PAC-E-10 - 07
10/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 5
STAFF
1 Company provided no acceptable explanation or
2 justification for these increases. Therefore, Staff
3 believes the tonnage of the stockpiles should be no
4 greater than the 2009 actual tons level, Staff
5 Confidential Exhibit No. 102, Column (b).
6 In determining the value of each sites'
7 stockpile, if the stockpile increased in tonnage
8 between 2009 and 2010, the 2009 actual tonnage is used.
9 (See Confidential Exhibit 102, Column (b)). The 2009
10 tonnage is then valued at the average cost per ton as of
11 December 31, 2010. Column (b) is multiplied by Column (f)
12 to determine the value of Staff's Stockpile Values in
13 Column (i). If the stockpile decreased in tonnage
14 between 2009 and 2010, the 2010 tonnage and dollars are
15 used.(See Confidential Exhibit No. 102, Columns (d)
16 and (e)). The Company's stockpile value of $188,279,981,
17 Column (e) is $15,970,759, Column (j) more than Staff's
18 stockpile value of $172,309,222, Column (i). Therefore,
19 Staff is recommending a $15,970,759 reduction to the
20 Company's rate base on a system basis, and an allocated
21 reduction to the Idaho rate base of $1,015,344.
22 Q.Staff Exhibit No. 102, Column (h) shows
23 reductions to six coal fuel stockpiles. Does your
24 adjustment accept the Company's 2009 to 2010 tonnage
25 reductions for these six stockpiles?
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 6
STAFF
1 A.Yes. The reduction of stockpile size was a
2 decision made by the Company. Staff's adjustment only
3 questions the necessity of increasing the tonnage size of
4 the stockpiles from 2009 actuals to 2010 pro formas. The
5 customers should receive the benefit of the Company's
6 ability to operate the six coal sites at the reduced
7 tonnage levels; but should not bear the cost of the
8 increase tonnage without just and reasonable cause for the
10
9 increase.
Q.Why have you recommended that the rate base for
12
11 the Dunlap I Wind Proj ect be reduced by $1,000, OOO?
A.The Dunlap I Wind Proj ect was constructed on
13 real property purchased by the Company in 2008 and
14 referred to as Dunlap Ranch. The original property
15 included deeded property of approximately 15,000 acres
16 or 23 sections of land and the right to lease one
17 additional section plus two (2) smaller portions of
18 property owned by the State of Wyoming. The Company also
19 has leased two sections of property owned by the United
20 States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Company used
21 the deeded property for the placement of the Dunlap I Wind
22 Project which consists of 74 wind tower sites. The State
23 of Wyoming land was crossed by the transmission line
24 serving the wind generators but no generators were sited
25 on either the State of Wyoming or the BLM land. The 74
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 7
STAFF
1 sites use property from only 10 of the 23 sections of land
2 that was purchased. The transmission facilities are
3 located on 5 of the 23 sections purchased. This leaves 8
4 sections of land without any generation or transmission
5 facility within its 640 acres. Additionally, one section
6 only has 2 generation sites located on it and these are
7 located in the upper north east corner occupying less than
8 20 acres.
9 Staff recognizes that not all property will be
10 equally suitable for the placement of wind generation, and
11 that there may be other restrictions on the property that
12 would curtail the number of wind generation sites.
13 However, it appears to Staff that some of the land
15
14 purchased is not currently used and useful in providing
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
utility service. Idaho Code § 61-502A.
The Company included in rate base the entire
purchase price for the Dunlap Ranch as used and useful,
and as part of the cost for the Dunlap I wind facility
(the purchase price for the Dunlap Ranch is in Company's
Confidential Responses to IPUC Production Request 180).
Page 1 of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase is shown as
Confidential Exhibit No. 103, page 1. Staff is
recommending that $1.0 million of that purchase price be
excluded from rate base at this time and put into
Account 105, Property Held for Future Use.
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 8
STAFF
1 Q.You are recommending that the total Company's
2 rate base be reduced by $240,497 to properly account for
3 liquidated damages received by the Company as part of
4 the 2009 Bridger Unit #2 overhaul. What are your reasons
5 for this recommendation?
6 A.The Company contracted to overhaul Bridger
7 Uni t #2 in 2009. As part of that overhaul, the contractor
8 doing the overhaul became liable to the Company for
9 $625,000 in liquidated damages. After the overhaul was
10 completed, the Company accounted for the repairs to
11 Unit #2 by capitalizing the complete cost of the overhaul
12 and adding the complete cost. to rate base.
13 The Company accounted for the liquidated damages
14 by reducing the cost of other jobs the contractor was
15 doing. An amount of $264,254 was accounted for as a
16 credit against the total cost of repairs to the Bridger
17 Unit #1 Reheater. The balance of the liquidated damages
18 was credited to other various smaller repairs and are not
19 included in the accounting for any of the proj ects
20 included by the Company in this case.
21 The appropriate accounting for the liquidated
22 damages should have been to reduce the total cost of the
23 Bridger Unit #2 overhaul by $625,000. Since the Bridger
24 Unit #1 Reheater project is part of the 2010 capital
25 proj ects included by the Company in rate base for this
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 9
STAFF
1 case, the credit of $264,254 applied to the total cost of
2 this project undervalues its total cost.
3 The matching principles of accounting require
4 the total liquidated damages of $625,000 be credited to
5 the total cost of the Unit #2 overhaul, and a reduction to
6 the amount included in rate base. With the total amount
7 of the damages credited to the Uni t #2 overhaul, the total
8 cost of Unit #1 Reheader should not have received a credit
9 of $264,254. Therefore, the total cost of Unit #1
10 included in rate base should be increased by $264,254.
11 The difference between these two changes of $360,746 is a
12 reduction in the Company's accounting for these two
13 proj ects .
14 The Company owns two thirds (2/3) of the Jim
15 Bridger facility, therefore the Company's rate base should
16 be reduced by 2/3 of the reduction of $360,746. This
17 equals a total reduction in the Company's rate base
18 of $240,497 (system).
19 Q.Will this reduction in the Company's rate base
20 request have any effect on the total Company's
21 depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation?
22 A.Yes, the rate base reduction of $240,497 will
23 reduce the depreciation expense by $5,690 (system). The
24 composite depreciation rate for this capital expense
25 is 2.366%. Accumulated depreciation is also reduced by
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 10
STAFF
2
1 this same amount.
Q.Why have you recommended that $662,119 be
3 reduced from the Company's request for an increase in its
5
4 operation and maintenance expenses (O&M expense)?
A.The Company has requested an increase in its O&M
6 expenses in the amount of $7,333,392 (system) to cover its
7 anticipated increase in O&M expenses for the following
8 facilities: High Plains Wind, McFadden Ridge I Wind,
9 Dunlap I Wind, Wind Administration, DJ Scrubber. The
10 individual amounts requested for each facility are in
11 Exhibit No. 2 of Company witness McDougal's testimony,
12 page 4. 6 . These increases are intended to capture the
13 increase in costs to operate these facilities that were
14 recently placed in service. Some of the increases in
15 costs are due to contractual obligations that become
16 effective in 2010 and are not included in the case. These
17 contractual obligations are for land lease payments, plant
18 maintenance, weed control, pest control, and road and
19 vehicle maintenance. The Company is legally obligated for
20 each of these payments and the actual amount of the
21 expenses is capable of being determined. I have
22
23
24
25
determined that these contractual expenses are an
acceptable known and measurable increase in the test year
expenses.
The other increases in expenses claimed by the
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 11
STAFF
1 Company are budgeted amounts for "labor, employee expense,
2 and electrical parts, breakers, fuses, f il ters, gaskets,
3 gear oils, propane etc." These expenses are not
4 sufficiently known and measurable and should not be
5 included in the Company's test year expenses. The Company
6 has not shown that the 2009 test year expenses are
7 insufficient to cover these costs.
8 Staff in Exhibit No. 103, page 2, shows the
9 specific increases proposed by the Company with the
10 removal of those expenses that are not known and
11 measurable.
12 Staff Exhibit No. 103, page 2, details the
13 difference between the Company's total O&M request and
14 Staff's recommendation. That difference of $662,119
15 (system) is a reduction to the Company's total requested
16 revenue requirement.
17 Q.What is your assessment of the Company's request
18 to establish a regulatory asset or liability for interest
19 paid to or received from the Internal Revenue Service
20 (IRS) on adjustments made to the repairs deductions taken
21 in the Company's 2008 and 2009 federal income tax returns?
22 A.The Company is asking to have a regulatory asset
23 or liability account established for any changes in taxes
24 and the interest it may receive or be liable to pay for
25 changes in the repair deductions it is taking in its 2008
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 12
STAFF
1 and 2009 income tax returns with the IRS. Because of the
2 change it is implementing in the repair deduction, and as
3 explained in Company witness Fuller's testimony
4 (pages 2-6) there is the potential for either a refund
5 with interest for overpayment of taxes or a cost with
6 interest for underpayment of taxes. The final outcome is
7 subj ect to a subsequent review and determination of the
8 Company's repair deduction by the IRS. The establishment
9 of the regulatory asset or liability accounts will allow
10 the Company to track what the refund/cost will be and then
11 include that refund/cost in the next rate case. Staff
12 supports this accounting treatment. It allows the
13 customers to receive the benefit of any refund, and
14 protects the Company from any cost that may result from an
15 IRS audit.
16 Staff recommends that no interest accrue on
17 ei ther the regulatory asset or liability account between
18 the time any refund or cost is determined and the matter
19 is considered in a rate case.
20 Q.The Company also requested Commission approval
21 of its proposal to move to full normalization treatment of
22 income taxes for purposes of setting rates. What is
23 Staff's recommendation on this change?
24 A.Staff agrees that the Company's income taxes
25 should be fully normalized. The Company's analysis of the
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 13
STAFF
1 reasons for such a change are in Company witness Fuller's
2 testimony (pages 6-11). Witness Fuller, in his testimony,
3 clearly provides reasonable justification for the
4 Commission's approval. The primary justification from
5 Staff's perspective is that the full normalization of
6 income taxes matches the tax benefits and the tax burdens
7 of the tax liability with the customers paying the
8 associated costs. Normalization allows all ratepayers to
9 receive benefits from an asset at the same effective tax
11
10 rate.
Q.Does this conclude your direct testimony in this
13
12 proceeding?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.Yes, it does.
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-0710/14/10 LECKIE, J. (Di) 14
STAFF
Pacificorp Rate Case
PAC-E-IO..(17
Updated In-service and Costs for 2010 Rate Base Additions
(a)(b)(e)(d)(e)(t)(g)(h)
As Filed by Company Updated Infomation
In-Updated In Updated ForecastAce!.Factor Service Costs Service Change
Project Description Date Date Amount
Steam Production
Dave Johnston: U3 502 & PM Emission Cntrl Upgrades 312 5G May-l0 $299.768.28 No Change $299.083,211.00 $(685,417.00)
Huntingon UL Clean Air - PM 312 5G Nov-l0 $88,104,324 No Change $86,881,032.00 $(1,223,291.91)
Hunter: 301 Turbine Upgrade HP!IP!LP 312 5G Apr-l0 $31,714,226 No Change $30,384,402.00 $(1,329,823.90)
Huntingtn: UL Turbine Upgrade HP!IP!LP 312 5G Nov-l0 $31,260,581 No Change $30,172,885.00 $(1,087,695.84)
Vl Huntington Clean Air - 502 312 5G Nov-l0 $24,325,082 various $6,93,942.00 $(17,831,139.59)
Jim Bridger: UL 502 & PM Em Cntrl Upgrades 312 5G Jun-l0 $17,148,123 No Change $14,975,84.00 $(2,172,476.63)
Dave Johnston: U3 Low Nox Burners 312 5G Aug-l0 $15,080,879 May-10 $17,586,539.00 $2,505,659.56
Hunter: 301 Main Controls Replacement 312 5G Apr-l0 $10,959,812 No Change $9,559,675.00 $(1,400,136.74)
Dave Johnston: U3 - Replace Boiler/Turbine Controls 312 5G May-l0 $10,767,578 No Change $10,767,57797 $
Jim Bridger: UL Turbine Upgrade HP!IP 312 SG Jun-l0 $9,471,009 No Change $9,140,208.00 $(330,801.00)
Huntington: UL Clean Air - NOx 312 SG Nov-l0 $9,344,387 No Change $9,344,386.67 $
Jim Bridger: UL Reheater Replacement 10 312 SG Jun-l0 $8,067,849 No Change $8,067,848.64 $
Huntington: UL Economizer Replacement 312 SG Nov-l0 $8,011,393 No Change $8,011,392.55 $
Huntington Water Efficiency Mgt Project 312 SG Jun-l0 $7,614,S60 No Change $8,971,432.00 $1,356,872.24
Jim Bridger: UL Clean Air - NO.312 SG Jun-l0 $7,086,74 No Change $6,042,280.00 $(1,044,19433)
Hunter: 301 Economizer Replacement 312 SG Apr-l0 $6,301,709 No Change $6,301,708.64 $
Huntington: UL Boiler Finish SH Pendants Replacement 312 SG Nov-l0 $6,147,658 No Change $5,807,429.00 $(340,229.16)
Jim Bridger: VL Generator Rewind 312 SG Jun-l0 $6,145,656 No Change $5,857,138.00 $(288,517,67)
Hunter: 301 Low Temp. SH Replacement 312 SG Apr-l0 $5,470,067 No Change $5,470,06.58 $
Dave Johnston: U3 - Horizontal 5H Replace 312 5G May-l0 $5,088,802 No Change $5,643,210.00 $554,408.45
steam Production Total $607,878,794 $684,562,010,05 $(23,316,783,52)
$
Hydro Production $
INV 11.5 Lemolo 1 Forebay Expansion & we 332 SG-P Aug-10 $5,897,387 No Change $6,117,381.00 $219,993.92
Hydro Production Total $6,897,387 $6,117,381,00 $219,993,92
$
Other Production $
Dunlap i Wind Project 343 SG Nov-10 $261,183,699 Sep-10 $253,106,361.00 $(8,077,338.00)
Other Production Total $261,183,899 $263,108,381,00 $(8,077,338,00)
$
Transmission $
Populus to Terminal (Populus to Ben Lomond)3SS SG Nov-l0 $40S,230,248 No Change $402,938,99.00 $(2,291,253.87)
Populus to Terminal (Populus to Ben Lomond)355 5G Oct-l0 $144,S68,SS9 No Change $14S,199,007,00 $630,447.97
Populus to Terminal (8en Lomond to Terminal)355 5G Mar-l0 $190,877118 No Changa $190,877,117.94 $
Populus to Terminal (Ben Lomond to Terminal)355 5G Apr-l0 $7,340,277 No Change $7,340,27728 $
Populus to Terminal (Ben Lomond to Terminal residual closings)355 SG $oec-l0 $6,727,289.00 $6,727,289.00
Three Peaks Sub: Install 345 kV Substation - Phase II 355 SG Jun-10 $51,134,840 No Change $Sl,134,840.12 $
Camp Williams - 90th South Double Circuit 345 kV line 355 SG oec-l0 $4S,6O,000 No Change $4S,400,000.00 $(200,000.29)
Red Bute -St George 138 kv dbl ck, (345 kv Const)355 SG May-l0 $21,038,986 No Change $22,6S1,000.00 $1,612,014.20
Pinto 345 kV Senes Capacitor 355 SG Nov-10 $19,500,463 No Change $lS,028,000.00 $(4,472,462.82)
Dunlap Ranch Wind Fann Phase 1 Interconnecton 355 SG Aug-l0 $11,130,000 No Change $10,SOO,OOO,00 $(630,00.02)
Upper Green River Basin Supenor Project - Transmission Part 355 SG Dec-10 $10,025,204 No Change $10,02S,203.73 $
Oquirrh - New 345-138 kV Sub & 138 kV 5witchyard 3SS SG Jun-l0 $8,16,078 Dec-l0 $8,416,07787 $
Parrsh Gap Const Nw 230-69kV Sub 355 5G Jun-l0 $8,34O,5S9 Jul-10 $9,900,000.00 $1,559,440.71
Line 37 Conv to l1SkV Bid Nickel Mt Sub - Trans 3SS SG Mar-l0 $7,962,60S Jun-10 $9,570,202.87 $1,607,598.27
Chappel Creek 230 kV Clmarex Energy 20 MW Phase II 355 SG oec-l0 $S,496,321 No Change $S,496,321.29 $
Community Paf1 Convert to 115-12.5 kV - Transmission Part 355 SG Ocl-0 $S,286,621 No Change $3,686,621.00 $(1,600,000.00)
Transmission Total $941,947,879 $94,890,962.10 $2,94,073,15
$
Intangible $
TriP II Energy Trading Systems Capital 303 5G oec-l0 $11,470,408 Ocl-0 $11,470,407.68 $
Intngible Total $11,470,408 $11,470,407,88 $
$
Mining $
Deer Creek-Reconstruct longwall System 399 SE Dec-l0 $23,9OS,000 No Change $18,160,000.00 $(5,745,00.00)Mining Total $23,906,000 $18,160,000,00 $(6,746,000,00)
$1,852,283,166 $1,818,307,111,83 $33,978,064,46
Ref# 8.6
Division of Rate Base by Allocation Factor SG $(28,231,OS4)
5E $(S,745,000)
$(33,976,OS4)
EXhibit No, 101
Case No. PAC-E-lO-07
J, Leckie, Staff
10114110
Case No. PAC-E-IO-07
Exhibit No. 102 prepared and sponsored by
Joe Leckie is Confidential and only available
to those persons who have signed Protective
Agreements
Case No. PAC-E-IO-07
Exhibit No. 103, page 1, prepared and
sponsored by Joe Leckie is Confidential and
only available to those persons who have
signed Protective Agreements
Pacificorp
PAC-E-I0-07
Schedule on Adjustment to the Incremental Generation O&M
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)
Facility 2009 Actuals Accepted 2010 O&M Increa5e Accepted Company Request Difference
High Plains $401,303 $2,362,060 $2,621,060 $(259,000)
Contracts $1,873,363
Land Lease; Utilitie5 $890,000
$2,763,363
McFadden Ridge i $203,806 $592,655 $648,655 $(56,00)
Contracts $540,461
Land Lea5e; Utilities $256,000
$796,461
Dunlap I $$2,262,111 $2,435,111 $(173,00)
Contracts $2,049,111
Land Lea5e; Utilities $213,000
$2,262,111
Wind Administration $1,662,029 $1,662,029 $$174,119 $(174,119)
DJ Scrubber $$1,454,447 $1,454,447 $1,454,447 $
Total $2,267,138 $8,938,411 $6,671,273
Company's Request $2,267,138 $9,600,530 $7,333,392
Difference $(662,119)$(662,119)
Exhibit No. 103
Case No. PAC-E-lO-07
1. Leckie, Staff
10/14/10 Page 2 of2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010,
SERVED THE FOREGOING NON-CONFIDENTIAL DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOE
LECKIE, IN CASE NO. PAC-E-1O-07, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE
PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
TED WESTON
ID REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 841 1 1
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: ted.weston(fpacificorp.com
E-MAIL: ONLY
MARK C MOENCH
DANIEL E SOLANDER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
E-MAIL: mark.moench(fpacificorp.com
daniel.solander(fpacificorp ,com
RANDALL C BUDGE
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: rcb(fracinelaw.net
E-MAIL: ONLY
JAMES R SMITH
MONSANTO COMPANY
E-MAIL: jim.r.smith(fmonsanto.com
ANTHONY Y ANKEL
29814 LAKE ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: tony(fyankel.net
PAUL J HICKEY
HICKEY & EVANS LLP
1800 CAREY AVE., SUITE 700
PO BOX 467
CHEYENNE WY 82003
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: phickey(fhickeyevans.com
E-MAIL: ONLY
KATIE IVERSON
BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES
E-MAIL: kiverson(fconsultbai.com
ERlC L OLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: elo(fracinelaw.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TIM BULLER
JASON HARRS
AGRIUMINC
3010 CONDA RD
SODA SPRINGS ID 83276
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: tbuller(ßagrium.com
iaharis(ßagrium.com
BENJAMIN J OTTO
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
710 N 6TH STREET
POBOX 844
BOISE ID 83702
(HAND CARRIED)
E-MAIL: botto(ßidahoconservation.org
E-MAIL: ONLY
DR. DON READING
E-MAIL: dreading(ßmindspring.com
MELINDA J DA VISON
DAVISON VAN CLEVE, P.C.
333 SW TAYLOR, SUITE 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204
(FED EX)
E-MAIL: mjd(ßdvclaw.com
RONALD L WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS BRADBURY, P.C.
1015 W HAYS STREET
BOISE ID 83702
(HAND CARRIED)
E-MAIL: ron(ßwillamsbradbury.com
BRAD M PURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2019 N 17TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
(HAND CARRED)
E-MAIL: bmpurdy(ßhotmail.com
Ji~SECRETAR ..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE