HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111102Lobb Stipulation Testimony and Exhibits.pdfrr:r,¡:! D1'.:..,'1.,,,,
BEFORE THE
iou -2 PH 4: 00
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMIS~lQÑ
,.~j ¡:¡ ¡~ ~ I
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) CASE NO. PAC-E-11-12
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES )
TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES )
)
)
)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB
IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION
AND SETTLEMENT
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2011
ALLEGEDLY PROPRIETARY DATA HAS BEEN
DELETED FROM THIS DOCUMENT
1
2 record.
Q.Please state your name and business address for the
3 A.My name is Randy Lobb and my business address is
4 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
5
6
Q.By who are you employed?
A.I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
8
7 Commission as Utilities Division Administrator.
Q.What is your educational and professional
9 background?
10 A.I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in
11 Agricultural Engineering from the University of Idaho in 1980
12 and worked for the Idaho Department of Water Resources from
13 June of 1980 to November of 1987. I received my Idaho
14 license as a registered professional Civil Engineer in 1985
15 and began work at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission in
16 December of 1987. I have conducted analysis of utility rate
17 applications, rate design, tariff analysis and customer
18 petitions. I have testified in numerous proceedings before
19 the Commission including cases dealing with rate structure,
20 cost of service, power supply, line extensions, regulatory
21 policy and facility acquisitions. My duties at the
22 Commission currently include case management and oversight of
23 all technical Staff assigned to Commission filings.
24
25
Q.What is the purpose of your testimony in this case?
A.The purpose of my testimony is to describe the
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 1
STAFF
1 comprehensive settlement reach by most of the parties to the
2 case and explain Staff's support.
3
4
Q.Please summarize your testimony.
A.Staff supports the Stipulated Settlement proposing
5 a two-year rate plan that recovers a limited level of capital
6 expenditures and an increasing level of power supply costs
7 through a combination of base rate increases and Energy Cost
8 Adjustment Mechanism (ECAM) surcharges. Staff believes that
9 the comprehensive multi-year approach to resolving revenue
10 requirement represents a significantly better deal for
11 customers than could be achieved through either a one year
12 settlement, litigation of the current rate case, or
13 resolution of additional rate filings in 2012.
14 Staff further supports provisions of the
15 Stipulation that spread the revenue increase to customer
16 classes based in part on cost of service, generally increases
17 rate components on a uniform basis, addresses Populous to
18 Terminal transmission costs and provides resolution of
19 Monsanto interruptible credit valuation over the next two
21
20 years.
22
Q.How is your testimony organized?
A.My testimony is subdivided under the following
23 headings:
24
25
Stipulation Overview
The Settlement Process
Page 3
Page 6
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 2
STAFF
4
1 Staff Evaluation Page 8
Cost of Service Page 16
Rate Design Page 17
ECAM Issues Page 18
Other Items Page 20
Stipulation Overview
2
3
5
6 Q.Would you please describe the terms of the
7 Stipulation?
8 A.Yes. The Stipulation specifies a two-year rate
9 plan increasing base rates by $17 million (7.8%) in year one
10 and $17 million (7.2%) in year two. The base rate increase
11 proposed to take effect on January 1, 2012 and January 1,
12 2013 consists of an $11 million increase in Net Power Supply
13 Expenses (NPSE) and a $6 million increase in non-NPSE each
14 year. This compares with the Company's original proposal of
15 increasing base rates by $32.7 million (15%) in one year.
16 While the Stipulation represents a comprehensive
17 settlement, it does not provide agreement or acceptance of
18 specific revenue requirement adjustments or cost of service
19 methodology. However, it does incorporate all Commission
20 ordered adjustments from Case PAC-E-10-07, Order No. 32196.
21 The Stipulation specifically identifies base NPSE
22 in 2012 and 2013 for use in the ECAM including annual
23 Renewable Energy Credit (REC) revenue and establishes a load
24 change adjustment rate (LCAR) for the rate period. The
25 Stipulation also specifies how Monsanto and Agrium's share of
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 3
STAFF
1 ECAM deferral balances will be amortized and collected
2 through 2014.
3 The Stipulation further specifies spreading the
4 revenue increase to customer classes based, in part, on the
5 Company's proposed Cost of Service (COS) Study. The parties
6 agreed to a 25% move toward COS each year of the rate plan as
7 part of the proposed settlement in this case without
8 accepting the Company's COS methodology for revenue
9 allocation in the future. The parties also agreed that rate
10 component changes within individual customer classes will be
11 prorated based on the original proposal filed by the Company.
12 However, customer charges for Residential Schedules 1 and 36
13 would remain unchanged.
14 Other terms in the Stipulation include: 1)
15 escalation in the current Monsanto curtailment product value
16 by I~ million each year of the two-year plan; 2) agreement
17 on the used and useful nature of the Populous to Terminal
18 Transmission line (including dismissal of the pending Idaho
19 Supreme Court appeal and excluding that portion of the line's
20 cost deemed plant held for future use (PHFU) from rate base
21 until January 1, 2014); 3) continued deferral of depreciation
22 expense associated with the Populus to Terminal transmission
23 line, pursuant to Order No. 32224; and 4) tracking Idaho's
24 share of the customer load control service credit through the
25 ECAM at the base amount of $1,045,423 pending cost allocation
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 4
STAFF
1 treatment of the dispatchable irrigation load control
2 program.
3 Finally, the Stipulation specifies a series of
4 collaborative meetings to address: 1) terms, conditions and
5 valuation of Monsanto's curtailment products; 2) cost of
6 service methodologies as applied to Monsanto and the
7 irrigation class and how said methodologies will be utilized
8 in the next general rate case; 3) terms of the irrigation
9 load control program for the 2013 season and beyond; 4)
10 hedging limits consistent with workgroup processes
11 established in Utah and Oregon.
12 The Stipulation specifies that Rocky Mountain Power
13 will not file another general rate case before May 31, 2013,
14 with new rates not effective prior to January 1, 2014. The
15 Stipulation does not prohibit the Company from revising rates
16 as part of its annual ECAM filing. The Stipulation is
17 attached as Staff Exhibit No. 101.
18 Q.How does the annual base revenue requirement
19 increase proposed in the Stipulation compare to the increase
20 originally proposed by Rocky Mountain Power?
21 A.As noted above, the Company proposed to increase
22 annual base electric revenue in 2012 by $32.7 million or 15%
23 overall. The Stipulation increases annual base electric
24 revenue by $17 million in 2012 or approximately 52% of the
25 Company's original request. The Company did not propose a
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 5
STAFF
1 base rate increase in 2013 as part of its filing in this
2 case.
3 The Settlement Process
4 Q.Would you please describe the process leading to
5 the Stipulated Settlement?
6 A.Yes. The Company filed its rate application on May
7 27, 2011 and the Commission set a June 21, 2011 intervention
8 deadline. Parties ultimately approved for intervention
9 included the Monsanto Company, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
10 Association (IIPA), PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial Customers
11 (PIIC), the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
12 (CAPAI) and the Idaho Conservation League (ICL).
13 Once the parties to the case were determined, they
14 met to establish a schedule for production
15 requests/responses, pre-filed direct testimony, pre-filed
16 rebuttal testimony and the dates for the technical hearing.
17 The parties also established August 23, 2011 and September
18 22, 2011 as Settlement conference dates.
19 During the period prior to the first Settlement
20 conference, Staff thoroughly reviewed the Company's rate
21 filing and conducted onsite audit of Company expenses and
22 investments. In addition, Staff met informally with the
23 Company and other parties to discuss a variety of issues in
24 preparation for settlement negotiations. Issues discussed
25 included potential expense adjustments, increasing NPSE and
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 6
STAFF
1 associated ECAM rate impacts, cost of service, revenue spread
2 and the valuation of curtailment products.
3 The first Settlement conference held in August was
4 attended by all the parties in the case and focused primarily
5 on revenue requirement. Return on Equity, power supply
6 expenses, wages and benefits, risk management and wheeling
7 revenues were just a few of the revenue requirement issues
8 presented and discussed. The parties discussed revenue
9 requirement adjustments and stated their positions on issues
10 ranging from jurisdictional and class cost of service cost
11 allocation, to rate design and low income weatherization
12 programs. There was no discussion of a multi-year rate plan
13 and Settlement was not achieved at the first conference.
14 Q.Did additional informal discussions take place
16
15 among the parties prior to the second Settlement conference?
A.Yes. As a result of discussions during the initial
17 Settlement conference, it became apparent to the parties that
18 NPSE decisions in this case had multi-year impact through the
19 ECAM. The parties began to analyze the combined base and
20 ECAM rate impact on the various customer classes through the
21 year 2014. Prior to the September Settlement conference, the
22 parties circulated numerous multi-year revenue proposals so
23 all participants could evaluate and agree on how rates would
24 likely change over the period under difference scenarios.
25 On September 22, a proposed two-year rate plan
CASE NO. PAC-E- 11 - 1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 7
STAFF
1 consisting of a combination of NPSE and non-NPSE base revenue
2 increases was presented. Negotiations ensued on the level of
3 increase each year, the split between NPSE and non-NPSE
4 revenue, how revenue spread to customer classes would occur
5 and how ECAM impacts could be mitigated. No Settlement was
6 reached during the second Settlement conference.
7 Q.How did the parties ultimately agree on the terms
8 in the Stipulation?
9 A.Informal discussions among the conference
10 participants continued after the second conference which
11 ul timately led to agreement in principal regarding the two
12 year revenue requirement, revenue spread to customer classes
13 and ECAM rate mitigation. Significant negotiation also
14 occurred over language in the Stipulation regarding treatment
15 of the Populous to Terminal transmission line and the scope
16 of additional discussions that must occur between the Company
17 and interested parties before the next general rate case. As
18 a result of much discussion, negotiation and compromise, all
19 parties to the case except CAPAI signed the Stipulation. ICL
20 officially withdrew as an Intervenor in the case on October
21 14, 2011.
22 Staff Evaluation
23 Q.How did Commission Staff evaluate the Stipulation
24 to determine that it was reasonable?
25 A.There were several steps taken by Staff in this
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 8
STAFF
1 case to fully evaluate the Stipulation and conclude that it
2 was reasonable. The focus of the evaluation was to assure
3 the best deal for customers. The first step was to identify
4 revenue requirement adjustments based on a thorough review of
5 the Company's filing and an extensive audit of Company
6 financial records. The identified adjustments reducing the
7 requested increase must be supported by evidence on the
8 record and have a reasonable chance of being accepted by the
9 Commission.
10 The second step was to determine if the identified
11 adjustments removed costs from rate recovery or simply
12 removed costs from base rate recovery. For example, NPSE
13 adjustments might remove costs from base rate recovery only
14 to have them tracked for later recovery through the ECAM
15 mechanism.
16 Q.What adjustments did Staff identify and how were
17 they categorized?
18 A.Staff identified a broad range of adjustments
19 starting with adjustments previously approved by the
20 Commission in the Company's last rate case, Case No.
21 PAC-E-10-07. These adjustments included a lower ROE than
22 that proposed by the Company in this case, continued removal
23 of Populus to Terminal transmission costs until the next rate
24 case, removal of salary increases and reduction in coal
25 stockpile costs. Other identified adjustments included
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 9
STAFF
1 Klamath Falls expenses, coal settlement costs, property
2 taxes, abandoned proj ect costs, a variety of power supply
3 expenses and a number of other miscellaneous costs. Staff's
4 proposed adjustments, if fully accepted by the Commission,
5 would have reduced the Company's revenue increase request by
6 approximately $14.3 million, $5 million of which were power
7 supply costs subj ect to recovery through the ECAM.
8 Q.Did other parties to the case propose revenue
10
9 requirement adjustments?
A.Yes. Other parties suggested adjusting power
11 supply costs, ROE, wheeling revenues, hedging expenses and
12 REC revenues. However, most of these suggestions were
13 already incorporated in Staff adjustments, previously decided
14 by the Commission, or in Staff's view, were without
15 sufficient support. Consequently, Staff evaluated the
16 revenue requirement settlement at this point primarily based
18
17 on Staff adjustments alone.
Q.Did Staff consider proceeding to hearing rather
20
19 than settling the case?
A.Yes. Staff considered proceeding to hearing with
21 the identified adjustments. In this case, Staff was not
22 confident that it could successfully defend all of the
23 identified adjustments on the record in the face of rebuttal
24 testimony provided by the Company.
25 While the Commission makes the final decision on
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 10
STAFF
1 Company revenue requirement based on the record at hearing,
2 it is the parties to the case that make revenue requirement
3 adj ustment recommendations for the Commission to consider.
4 The outcome at hearing in terms of revenue requirement must
5 therefore be evaluated based on both the adj ustments to the
6 Company's revenue request that are presented on the record
7 and how the Commission might decide each adjustment.
8 In Staff's opinion, the best case scenario at
9 hearing would have been an increase in the range of $18.5
10 million (8.5%) achieved in part by pushing $5 million in NPSE
11 to the ECAM for later recovery.
12
14
13 basis?
Q.Why did Staff pursue settlement on a multi-year
A.Staff determined that approximately $17 million of
15 the Company's requested $32.7 million increase in this case
16 was for increased NPSE that is already accumulating in the
17 ECAM deferral balance for recovery starting in April of next
18 year. Failure to recover legitimate NPSE in base rates as
19 part of this case pushes recovery of the expenses to the ECAM
20 in 2013. Clearly, cost recovery decisions in this case have
21 a multi-year impact on customer rates.
22
23
Q.What are the reasons for the NPSE increase?
A.The primary reason for the NPSE increase in this
24 case is the declining revenue from surplus electricity sales
25 used to offset system power supply expenses and to a lesser
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 11
STAFF
1 extent, expiration of low-cost power purchase agreements and
2 increasing coal costs. Surplus sales revenue has declined
3 due to reduced market value of electricity caused by
4 declining natural gas prices and increasing surplus wind
5 generation. While surplus sales volume has increased and the
6 cost to fuel natural gas generating plants has decreased, it
7 has not been enough to offset the decline in surplus sales
8 revenue.
9 NPSE has been characterized as the utility's power
10 bill that is passed on to customers. Historically, it has
11 been very difficult to remove expenses in this category from
12 both base rate and ECAM recovery.
13 Q.How has NPSE changed over the last few years and
14 what is the forecast for next year?
15 A.In Case No. PAC-E-10-07, the Company proposed an
16 increase in Idaho NPSE from $66.1 million to $69.2 million.
17 The Commission approved Idaho NPSE of approximately $66.2
18 million in that case. In this case, the Company requested
19 Idaho NPSE of approximately $82.8 million or approximately
20 $17.7 million more than currently in base rates. In its most
21 recent rate filing in the State of Utah, the Company
22 forecasted NPSE through year end 2012 to be approximately
23 $1.521 billion on a system basis or approximately $98.4
24 million in Idaho. This amount is approximately $15.6 million
25 more in NPSE than the Company requested in this case. The
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R . ( St ip) 12
STAFF
1 Company indicates that NPSE should level off somewhat after
2 2012. In the meantime, the difference between NPSE recovered
3 in base rates and NPSE actually incurred will be recovered
5
4 through the ECAM.
7
6 issue?
Q.How does the multi-year settlement address the NPSE
A.The multi-year settlement spreads recovery of
8 increasing NPSE over three years by combining the proposed
9 $22 million in NPSE base rate increases with the existing $10
10 million of NPSE currently recovered through the ECAM. By the
11 end of the rate plan in 2013, annual NPSE recovery in Idaho
12 will total approximately $98.2 million with the potential for
13 ECA rate reduction. This will allow customers to better
15
14 manage the impact of increasing power supply costs over time.
Q.How did Staff evaluate the non-NPSE increases
17
16 specified in the Stipulation?
A.Unlike NPSE costs, non-NPSE costs can only be
18 recovered through base rates. Therefore, Staff focused on
19 achieving a lower level of recovery for this category of
20 costs and a better deal for customers through settlement than
21 could be achieved through the hearing process.
22 The Company requested an increase of approximately
23 $16 million in non-NPSE in this case. Based on Staff's
24 identified adjustments for this category of costs, the best
25 outcome that could be expected at hearing was an increase of
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 13
STAFF
1 approximately $6.7 million. The Stipulation proposes an
2 increase of $6 million or less than 38% of the amount
3 originally requested by the Company. This stipulated amount
4 is equivalent to the Commission accepting every adjustment
5 proposed by the Staff plus an additional $700,000.
6 Q.How did Staff determine that the rate increase
7 proposed in the second year of the Stipulation was
8 reasonable?
9 A.Staff evaluated the rate increase proposed for the
10 second year based on the rate request made by the Company
11 last year, the overall rate request made this year and the
12 likelihood that the Company would make a similar rate
13 increase request next year. Last year the Company requested
14 an increase of $27.7 million (13.7%) of which $24.6 million
15 was for non-NPSE. The Commission approved an increase of
16 $14.35 million (7.07%) all of which was non-NPSE. In this
17 case, the Company requested an increase of $32.7 million
18 (15%) of which $16 million was non-NPSE.
19 Using a 2012 forecasted test year, the Company
20 filed in the State of Utah to increase NPSE (over Company
21 proposed 2011 levels) by approximately $15.6 million on an
22 equivalent Idaho jurisdictional basis. The proposed rate
23 base increase in the Utah filing was approximately $153
24 million on an Idaho equivalent basis. The non-NPSE increase
25 associated with just the return on the increased rate base is
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 14
STAFF
1 approximately $12 million in Idaho. Absent approval of the
2 Settlement, the Company could and likely would file for a
3 rate increase in 2012 exceeding $30 million, with more than
4 $12 million of the requested increase for non-NPSE. The
5 Stipulation proposes a non-NPSE increase that is less than
6 50% of that level.
7 Q.Could you please summarize Staff's support of the
8 Stipulation with regard to the revenue requirement increase
9 over the two-year period?
10 A.Yes. Because actual power supply expenses are
11 tracked for recovery through the ECAM, customers can pay them
12 now through base rates or pay them later through the ECAM.
13 The $22 million NPSE base rate increase specified in the
14 Stipulation, when combined with expenses currently collected
15 through the ECAM, will reasonably spread recovery of expected
16 power supply costs through 2014.
17 Staff believes the $12 million non-NPSE increase
18 specified in the Stipulation represents a fraction of the
19 non-NPSE that the Company has requested in this case and
20 would request in a filing next year. Staff maintains that
21 the $6 million non-NPSE increase this year is only 38% of the
22 Company's request and a better deal for customers than could
23 be achieved at hearing. Staff further maintains that the $6
24 million increase in non-NPSE in 2013 is less than 50% of what
25 the Company would otherwise request in a filing next year.
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 15
STAFF
1 The Stipulation prohibits the Company from any further base
2 rate increases until January 1, 2014.
3 Cost of Service
4 Q.Could you please describe the Stipulation with
5 respect to customer class cost of service (COS) and revenue
6 spread?
7 A.Yes. While the parties to the Stipulation agreed
8 to a revenue spread in this case based on the Company's
9 proposed class COS study, they did not agree to accept the
10 methodology in future rate cases. The Stipulation specifies
11 that the revenue spread to customer classes in each year of
12 the rate plan will include a 25% move toward the Company's
13 proposed COS in this case.
14 The resulting revenue spread to the various
15 customer classes in year one of the rate plan range from an
16 increase of 5.88% for Schedule 1 residential customers to
17 8.91% for Irrigators, Agrium and the Monsanto Company. Year
18 two increases range from 5.43% for residential customers to
19 8.25% for Irrigators, Agrium and the Monsanto Company. The
20 revenue spread and associated increases for each class, in
21 each year of the rate plan, is shown on Attachment 1 to the
22 Stipulation.
23 Staff believes that the 50% move toward COS over
24 two years is a reasonable compromise that balances the need
25 for each customer class to pay its fair share while
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 16
STAFF
1 mi tigating an even greater rate impact that would otherwise
2 occur with a full COS move. The compromise also allows
3 parties to accept some COS responsibility without accepting a
4 COS methodology.
5 Rate Design
6 Q.How are individual rate components proposed to
7 change under the Stipulation?
8 A.The Parties agreed to accept, for the purposes of
9 this case, the Company's proposals to adjust rate components
10 within each rate schedule with the exception of customer
11 charges in Residential Schedules 1 and 36. Customer charges
12 for these schedules will remain unchanged at $5 and $14 per
13 month, respectively.
14 Demand charges for Schedules 6, 6A, 9 and 10 will
15 increase each year based in part on cost of service and
16 prorated to reflect the revenue increase assigned to each
17 customer class. Other rate components will increase
18 uniformly reflecting the overall increase in class revenue
19 requirement. Staff believes that the stipulated rate changes
20 are reasonable in allowing customer charges to remain stable,
21 demand charges to generally reflect cost of service and for
22 other charges including energy to reflect the class revenue
23 requirement increase.
24 Schedule 1 residential customers using the annual
25 monthly average of 837 kWh per month will see a monthly base
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-12
11/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 17
STAFF
1 rate increase of $5.47 and $4.20 in summer and winter,
2 respectively, in the first year. Customers will see an
3 additional increase of $5.36 and $4.10 per month in summer
4 and winter , respectively, in the second year. A monthly
5 billing comparison for Residential Schedule 1 at various
6 monthly consumption levels is shown in Staff Exhibit No. 102.
7 ECA Issues
8 Q.What ECAM issues are addressed in the Stipulation?
9 A.Besides specifying the ECAM level of system NPSE in
10 base rates for 2012 and 2013 at $1.205 billion and $1.385
11 billion, respectively, the Stipulation specifies the ECA
12 level of system Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) included in
13 rates at $78.8 million and establishes the ECAM LCA at $5.47
14 per Mwh through 2013. The Stipulation also establishes the
15 level of Idaho allocated Irrigation Load Control program
16 credits at $1. as million to be tracked through the ECA
17 pending resolution of system allocation issues.
18 Q.Could you please explain Staff's support for these
19 ECAM terms specified in the Stipulation?
20 A.Yes. Staff supports the system NPSE levels
21 specified in the Stipulation for 2012 and 2013 because they
22 are consistent with stipulated NPSE revenue requirement
23 increases for those years. These levels must be specified in
24 order for the ECAM to work properly. The ECAM REC revenue
25 levels are as filed by the Company and within a reasonable
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 18
STAFF
1 range of expected revenue on an annual basis. Actual annual
2 revenue above or below this level will be tracked through the
3 ECA and trued up each year.
4 The specified LGAR of $5.47 per Mwh was approved by
5 the Commission as part of Case No. PAC-E-10-7 and is
6 currently used in the ECAM. Staff supports continued use of
7 the previously approved LGAR level through 2013.
8 The Irrigation Load Control program credit level of
9 $1. as million specified in the Stipulation is consistent with
10 Irrigation program costs currently allocated to Idaho. Staff
11 agrees that the ability to track irrigation program costs
12 assigned to Idaho through the ECAM during the period of the
13 rate plan is consistent with the Stipulation approved by the
14 Commission in Case No. PAC-E-11-06. The Multi-State Process
15 (MSP) on jurisdictional allocations will determine during the
16 rate plan period if Idaho Irrigation Load control costs will
17 be accepted by other state jurisdictions as a system
18 resource.
19 Q.Are there any other ECAM issues specified in the
20 Stipulation?
21 A.Yes. The Stipulation provides for multi-year
22 amortization of ECAM costs assigned to Agrium and the
23 Monsanto Company. Monsanto and Agrium are not currently
24 subj ect to ECAM rates. However, these customers will be
25 subject to the ECAM starting in 2012. Consequently, they
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 19
STAFF
1 will experience a base rate increase on January 1, 2012 and a
2 significant ECAM rate increase on April 1, 2012 as they
3 become subj ect to the tracking mechanism. This will occur
4 again in 2013. To mitigate the rate impact of both the base
5 rate increase and the ECAM increase, the Stipulation provides
6 for amortization of ECAM balances subj ect to recovery from
7 the two customers. 2012 (2011 deferrals) ECAM balances will
8 be amortized through 2014, 2013 (2012 deferrals) ECAM
9 balances will be amortized through 2015 and 2014 (2013
10 deferrals) ECAM balances will be amortized over two years
11 through 2016.
12 Staff fully supports amortization of the ECA
13 deferral balance for these customers to mitigate the much
14 larger rate impact that would otherwise occur. Staff notes
15 that agreement to amortize ECAM expense recovery for these
16 customers has no impact on other Rocky Mountain Power
17 customers in Idaho.
18 Other Items
19 Q.Would you please describe the terms in the
20 Stipulation with regard to the Populous to Terminal
21 transmission line.
22 A.Yes. The parties agreed as part of the Stipulation
23 in this case that the Populous to Terminal transmission line
24 is currently, fully used and useful. However, the parties
25 also agree that the portion of the transmission line deemed
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 20
STAFF
1 plant held for future use in Case No. PAC-E- 10 - 07 shall not
2 be included in rates until on or after January 1, 2014. The
3 parties further agree that the Staff and the Company will
4 file a motion to suspend the Appeal now pending in the Idaho
5 Supreme Court, docketed as Case No. 38930-2011. The parties
6 also agree that the Company will file a stipulation for
7 dismissal of the appeal with each party to bear its own costs
8 upon receipt of a final order from the Commission approving
9 this Stipulation. Consistent with the terms of the
10 Stipulation, the Company and Staff filed the motion to
11 suspend the appeal on October 25, 2011.
12 The Stipulation also directs the Company to
13 continue deferring depreciation expense associated with the
14 Populus to Terminal transmission line, pursuant to Order No.
15 32224, until it is included in rates on or after January 1,
16 2014 and that the accumulated deferral balance will be
17 amortized over three years from the date the costs are
18 included in rates.
19
20
Q.Why did Staff agree to these terms?
A.Staff agreed to the terms in the Stipulation as a
21 compromise in order to achieve a comprehensive settlement in
22 this case on revenue requirement. Staff believed that it
23 could agree to the position that the Populous to Terminal
24 transmission line was now fully used and useful as long as
25 that portion of the transmission line deemed plant held for
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-12
11/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 21
STAFF
1 future use by the Commission was not included in rates until
2 on or after January 1, 2014. Staff supported continued
3 deferral of the Populous to Terminal depreciation expense in
4 compliance with Commission Order until after all costs are
5 included in rates. Staff further viewed future amortization
6 of those costs over three years as a reasonable period for
7 recovery.
8 Q.What other items are addressed in the Stipulation?
9 A.The Stipulation specifies that the value of
10 Monsanto curtailment products will increase from II million
11 in 2011 to il million in 2012 and to II million in 2013.
12 Staff believes the proposed escalation provides a reasonable
13 resolution of an otherwise contentious issue during the
14 period of the rate plan.
15 Finally, the Stipulation provides for workshops and
16 collaborative discussions to address cost of service
17 methodologies as applied to Monsanto and the irrigation class
18 and how methodologies could be utilized in the next general
19 rate case. Workshops will also be conducted to discuss terms
20 of the irrigation load control program for the 2013 season
21 and beyond and hedging limits consistent with workgroup
22 processes established in Utah and Oregon.
23 Staff supports and plans to participate in the
24 discussion on all of these issues. The two-year base rate
25 moratorium provides all parties the opportunity to work
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-1211/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 22
STAFF
1 together to gain a common understanding of cost of service
2 issues. Agreement to discuss Irrigation credit valuation and
3 hedging practices of the Company will also provide a timely
5
4 review of resource acquisition choices and strategies.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.Does this conclude your testimony in this case?
A.Yes it does.
CASE NO. PAC-E-11-12
11/02/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 23
STAFF
Mark C. Moench
Danel E. Solander
201 South Ma Str Suite 2300
Salt Lae City, Uta 841 1 1
Telephone: (801) 220-014
Facsimle: (801) 220-3299
Danel.solander(gpacificorp.com
Mark.moench(gacificorp.com
RECEIVED
2DfJ OCT' 8 Ar1 fO: 18
IO"H.O F)I¡¡~; '(',~ . ~-l..; _ _ "w'j..~..l\.~
L ,ILlTIES COf\lIVilSSION
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE TI IDAHO PUBLIC UT COMMSSION
IN TI MATTR OF TI APPLICATION )
OF PACmCORP DBA ROCKY )
MOUNAI POWER FOR APPROVAL OF )
CHAGES TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE )
SCHEDULES AN A PRICE INCREASE )OF 532.7 MILION, OR )
APPROXITELY 15.0 PERCENT )
CASE NO. PAC-E-1l-12
STIPULATION
Ths stpulation ("Stipulatonj is ente ino by and among Rocky Mounta Power, a
division of PacifCorp ("Rocky Mounta Powet' or the "Compay"); Sta for~!he Idao Public
Utilities Commssion ("Staff"); Monsto Compay ("Monsto"); PacifiCorp Idao Indusal
Customers ("pnC"); and the Idao Irgaton Pupe Association Inc. ("LIP A") collectively
referrd to as the "Pares". Communty Acton Parerp Assoiation of Idao ("CAP AI")
pacipate in th settement negotions however they have chosen not to be a pa to the
Stipulaton.
I. INODUCTON
1. The te and conditions of ths Stipulaton are se fort herin. The Pares
age tht ths Stipultion represets a fai, just and renale compromise of the iss in ths
proing and th ths Stipulaton is in the public intest. The Pares remmend tht the
Idao Public Utilities Commssion ("Commssion"), puruat to its auonty under Commssion
REDACTED STIPULA nON - Page 1 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/1 1 Page 1 of 18
Rules 271, 272 and 274, appve the Stipulaton an all of its te an condtions. See IDAPA
31.01.01.271,272, and 274.
ß. BACKGROUN
2. On May 27, 2011, Rocky Mounta Power filed an Application seekig authonty
to increase the Compay's ba rates for electrc sece by $32.7 milion anualy, an overa
avere increas of approximately 15.0%. The incree in ras vares by cusmer class and
actu use. Rocky Mounta Power sougt an incre in ra effecve Debe 27, 201 i.
3. With a view toW8d resolvig th issue rase in Rocky Mounta Powe's
Applicaon in ths prceg, reprentaves of the Pares met on Aug 23, 2011 and
Septeber 22, 2011, puruat to IDAPA 31.01.01.271 and 272, to engage in seement
discussions.
Bas upon the settlement discusions beee the Pares, as a comprmise of the
positions in ths proeedg, and for other consderon as se fort below, the Pares stpulate
and agr to the followig:
III TERMS OF TH STIULTION
Revenue Requirment
4. The Pares agr to support a two-yea ra plan with anua ra incrass of
$17.0 millon pe year, which reults in overal avere anua revenue increas of
apprxitely 7.8 peent in 2012 and 7.2 pent in 2013. The fi incre to bas rate will
ocur Janua 1,2012, and wi be compnse of $6.0 millon of non-net power cost componets
(caita, opeons and matece, and other) and $11.0 millon of net power costs. Th
send incre to bas rates will occur Janua I, 2013, and will be compnse of $6.0 millon
of non-net power cost components and $11.0 millon of net power cost. The Compay wil
mae a compliance fiing Novembe 1, 2012 to implement the send yea incras of $17.0
millon effecve Janua' 1, 2013 tht will include revise tas.
5. Unless explicitly spified with the Stipulaton, the Pares ag tht
deteg the anua incrs of $17.0 millon pe year for two yea is a "black box"
REDACTED STIULA nON - Page 2 Exhibit No. 10 1
Case No. PAC-E-II-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 2 of 18
seement, with no agen or accetace by the Pares of any speific revenue requient,
cost altion or cost of sece metodology. However, the Pares agee th the st point
of the Stipultion was to act al Commssion orere adjustments frm Cas PAC-E-I0-o7,
Or No. 32196. Al Pares ag th ths Stipulaton reprts a fa, jus and renale
comprmise of the issus in ths prg and th ths Stipulaton is in the public intet.
Power Costs
. 6. The Pares age tht ba on the reenue reuient split spified in
pah 4, net power costs in ba rates will incr frm the curnt level of $1.025 billon to
$1.205 bilion in 2012 and from $1.205 bilion to $1.385 bilion in 2013. These amoun will
beome the tota Compay bas net power costs for trkig in the Compay's energy cost
adjusent mechansm e'ECAM.
7. The Pares ag tht $78.8 millon, on a tota Compay basis or $6,526,622
allocate to Idao (R Exhbit 2 pae 3.5) of rewable energy certcate ("REC") revenue is
included in rates in 2012 and 2013. The Idao allocatd amount will beme the bas for
purses of trkig at 1 00 pent in the Company's ECAM mechasm.
8. The Pares ag to upd th Idao loa in the 2012 ECAM load chage
adjusent revenue ("LCAR") cacultion to the 2010 ac load included in PAC-E-1l-12 for
the 2012 ECAM deferr caculation and us 2011 actu load rert in the Anua Rests of
Opetions Reprt for the 2013 ECAM defer caculon. The LCARunt vaue would be
frozen over the ra plan peod at the curt rate of $5.47 pe MW (Cas No. PAC-E-10-o7).
9. The Pares ag th the Compay shal amortze and collec Agum and
Monsto's sha of Commssion apprved ECAM baances, which includes defer net power
cost defer REC's, LCAR adjusents and other ECAM components, includg the irgation
load contrl crt as spifed in parph 10, over the followig period:
a) The 2012 ECAM baance (201 1 defers) over a peod of th yea;
b) The 2013 ECAM balance (201 2 deferrs) over a period of th yea;
c) The 2014 ECAM bace (2013 defers) over a peod of two yea.
REDACTED STIULA nON - Page 3 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-II-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 3 of 18
d) Begig with the 2015 ECAM baance (2014 deferrs), Monsato and
Agum will pay new ECAM cost ba on a 12-month collection peod.
Any over-ellecon or under-ellection at the end of the amortzaon peod identied in
parphs 9(a) thugh 9(c) above will be tr up for eah contrct cusmei and refude or
collecte as pa of a subseuet ECAM collecon peod frm thes contr cusmer and not
frm other reta cusomer. Al other cusmer will contiue to pay ECAM chages on the 12-
month collecon peod as they curntly do durng the rate plan.
10. The Pares ag tht, due to the uncety of the jursdctiona trtment of the
disptchable irgation load control prgr curtly being discse by th MSP Stadin
Commtt, Idao's sh of the cumer load contrl sece crt wil be trked in the
ECAM. The Pares fuer agr th $1,045,423 (R Exbit 2 page 4.4.1) is Idao's ba
amount to be trked in the ECAM for 2012 and 2013.
Rate Spred and Rate Desig
1 1. The Pares ag to a rate spre ba upon $ 1 7.0 millon in anua incr for
2012 and 2013 as se fort in more detail in Atthment 1 to ths Stipulaton.
12. Th Pares ag th the deign of rate by rate schedule (ra design) shal be
consistent with the Compay's propos filed in its Application and adjused for the reenue
reuiment speifed in ths Stipulation. Detals of the rae design ar include in Atthment 2
to ths Stipulation.
13. The Pares ag th the Compay's residential cusomer serce chae for
Schedule 1 and 36 will reai at $5.00 pe month and $14.00 per month revely, durg the
tie peod covered by ths Stipulation.
Other Items
14. The Pares ag that the vaue of Monsto's curlment pructs will be
increed frm . millon in 2011, to . millon in 2012, and . milion in 2013.
Monsto and the Company wil execut a new energy servce agreement for 2012 an 2013 in
order to reflec the term of the Stipulaton. Monsto and the Compy agee to work
REACTED STIULA nON - Page 4 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/1 1 Page 4 of 18
collabravely and in good fath dun the ra plan peod to addr the tes, condtion and
valuaon of Monsanto's curlment products in an effort to maxim value to the Compay and
Monsto an also to discus cost of sece metodologies as applied to the Monsto load and
how sad metodologes will be utliz in the next gener rate cas. Monsto an the
Company will rert to the Sta and Commssion as apprprate on the progrs mae.
15. The Pares ag tht ths Stipulaton does not chae or alte the irgation load
contrl sece cret in 2012 or pror ageeents goverg the irgaton load contrl prgr
tht reui the irgation load contrl sece crt to be regotiate for the 2013 sen and
beyond. The Compay an llA will work collaboravely dur caenda yea 2012 to
renegotiate the irgaton load control progr for the 2013 seon and beond. The Compay
and lIP A will work collabravely durg the rate plan peod to discus cost of serce
metodologies as aplied to the irgation clas and how sad methodologies will be utilizd in
the next gener rae ca.
16. The Paries ag tht the porton of the Populus to Teral trssion lie
determed by the Commssion in Cas No. PAC-E-10-07 to be plant held for fu us (PHF
is now us and usfu. The paes fuer age tht the Commssion should make a spifc
fiding that the entire Populus to Ter trmission line is now us and usefu. Althoug
the Pares agr tht the Populus to Ter trssion line is us and usfu, they fuer
ag tht the porton of the trssion line demed PHF in Cas No. PAC-E-10-07 shal not
be included in rate until on or af Janua 1,2014. Followig the filin of ths Stipulaton,
Sta and the Compay ag to file a Motion to Susd the Appeal now pedig in the Idao
Supreme Cour docketed as Cas No. 38930-2011. Upon reipt of a fi Order frm the
Commssion approvi the Stipulaton, the Compay ags tht it will with 1 o days therf
fie a stpulaton for Dismissa of the appe with eah par to be its own costs.
17. The Pares ag that the Compay will contiue to defer th depreiation
expe assoated with the Populus to Ter trmission lie, purt to Or No. 32224,
REDACTED STIULATION - Page 5 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-1 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/1 1 Page 5 of 18
unti it is included in rates on Janua 1, 2014 and tht the acumulat defer baance wi be
amortd over th yea frm the date the costs ar inluded in rate.
18. The Pares age tht the Compay will work with the Pares to establish
hedgig limits consistt with workgrup prss estblished in Uta an Orgon for costs
begig Janua 1,2013, and forw.
19. The Pares agr th in reogntion of the two-year ra plan cover by ths
Stipulon, Rocky Mounta Powe wi not file another genera rate ca before May 31,2013,
with new rates not effective pror to Janua 1,2014. Rocky Mounta Power wil contiue to
file anua Results of Opetions Reprt with th Commssion to enble the Commssion to
en tht ras durg the two-yea rate pla contiue to be jus and renable. Ths
Stipulation doe not prhibit the Compay frm resing ra due to the ECAM, whch will stl
ocur April 1 eah yea.
IV. GENERA PROVISIONS
20. The Pares agree tht this Stipulation rerests a comprmise of the dispute
clai and positions of the Pares on all issue in ths prog. Oter th the abve
reference positions and any teony fied in support of the appval of ths Stipulaton, and
excet to the exnt necssa for a Par to explai before the Commssion its own sttements
and positions with respct to the Stipulation, al negotiations relatig to ths Stipulaton sha not
be admssible as evdence in ths or any other proing regag ths subjec ma.
21. The Pares submt ths Stipulaton to the Commission and remmend appva
of the Stipulation in its enti puruat to Commssion Rule 274, IDAPA 31.01.01.274. The
Pares shal support ths Stipuation before the Commssion, and no Par shal ap any
porton of ths Stipulaton or any subsuent Orer approvig the sae. If ths Stipultion is
chaenged by any pen not a pa to the Stipulation, the Pares to ths Stipulation ree the
right to crss-exame witnesses and put on suh ca as they dee apprpriate to respnd fuly
to the issues presente includi the right to rase issues tht ar incorprate in the settement
emboied in ths Stipulaton. Notwthdi ths reseration of rights, the Pares to ths
REDACTED STIULA nON - Page 6 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-11-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 6 ofl8
Stipulaton ag th they will contiue to suprt the Commssion's adption of the te of
ths Stipulation.
22. In the event the Commssion rejec any pa or al of ths Stipulaton, or imposes
any additiona maal conditions on apval of ths Stipulaton, eah Par reseres the right,
upon wrtten notice to th Commssion and the other Pares to ths prodi, withn 15 days of
the da of such action by the Commssion, to withw frm ths Stipuation. In suh ca, no
Par shal be bound or prejudce by the te of ths Stipulation, and eah Par sha be
entitled to sek rensideration of the Common's orr, fie testiony as it chooses, cross-
exame witnesses, or otherse preset its ca in a maer consistt with the Commssion's
Rules and Prceures.
23. The Pares agee th ths Stipuation is in the public interest and that all of its
tes and conditions are fai, just and renable.
24. No Par shal be bound, beefte or prejudce by any position asse in the
negotition of ths Stipulaton, excet to the exnt exply st herin nor sh ths
Stipulaton be consed as a waiver of the rights of any Par uness such rights ar expressly
waived herin. Th is a "black box" seement and execution of ths Stipulation sha not be
deeed to constute an acknowledgment by any Par of the validity or invalidity of any
parcular metod theory or priciple of reguation or cost recovery. No Par sh be deeed
to have aged th any metod, theory or prciple of reguaton or cost rever emloyed in
arvi at ths Stipulaton is apprpriat for relvig any isues in any other prog in the
futu. No fidis of fac or conclusions of law other th those stte herin sha be deeed
to be implicit in ths Stipulation.
25. The obligatons of the Pares under ths Stipulaton are subjec to the
Commssion's aproval of ths Stipulation in acrdace with its ters and conditions and, if
judicial review is sought, upon such apoval being upheld on appal by a cour of compent
jursdcton.
REDACTED STIULA nON - Page 7 Exhibit No, 101
Case No. PAC-E-II-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 7 of 18
Rea submi th /1 day of Ocbe,.2011.
Ro MO PoerBy~~Ma . Mo
MO Cop8
Id Pu lJ Co St Parp Ida IB Cu
By
D. Ne Prce
~. Pu ÅHOBBy ~~
.
STULTION - Pag 9
ByRod L. WIam
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/1 1 Page 8 of 18
Respecly submtt this 11 day of Ocober, 2011.
Roc Mountin PowerBy~~Ma :m
Monto CoDlpa
By
Rada C. Budp
Idaho PubBe UtlUUes Collon St PadftCo lda Induial Cuen
..By (Q~~
D. Nell Prce
Idaho IrraUon Puper As.oeltion
Ine.
By
Eric L. 01s
STULATION - Pag 9
By
Ronald L. WIUIa
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/11 Page 9 of 18
lly sutt tb /Z day of Oc, 2011.
Ro MØ .Po~~MO Ca
Byll C. Bud
Id Publ UC CM1.'" St Pa Ida ID Cu
!lÆ~Lt.~Ro L. WIByD. Nl Pr
lda lr.hmr Aa
IDe.
ByBrlL.O..
STITION - Pag 9
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
1 1/02/1 1 Page 10 of 18
ATTACHMNT i
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-II-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 11 of 18
At
t
c
h
n
t
1
-
s
e
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
R
e
u
i
r
e
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
a
t
e
S
p
r
d
RO
C
K
Y
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
P
O
W
.
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
I
D
A
H
O
CA
S
E
N
O
.
P
A
C
-
E
.
1
1
-
1
2
Fi
r
s
Fi
r
s
t
Fi
r
Se
c
n
d
Se
c
n
d
Se
Tw
o
Tw
o
Tw
o
De
p
t
i
n
SC
.
Ba
s
e
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
Ye
a
r
No
.
Re
v
n
u
e
In
c
To
t
l
Pe
r
n
t
In
c
r
a
s
To
t
l
Pe
r
In
c
To
t
l
Pe
r
c
t
Re
s
e
n
t
l
01
$4
1
,
4
8
,
5
9
1
,¡
$
2
,
4
3
,
7
2
5
$4
,
9
2
.
3
1
6
5.
8
8
%
$2
,
3
8
5
,
2
5
7
$4
,
3
0
5
,
5
7
3
5.
4
3
%
$4
,
8
2
4
,
9
8
$4
6
.
3
0
5
,
5
7
3
1
1
.
6
3
%
Re
s
l
-
T
O
O
36
$2
,
5
3
2
,
6
1
0
$1
,
7
9
4
.
6
9
7
$2
4
,
3
2
7
,
3
0
7
7.
9
6
%
$1
,
7
9
6
.
9
4
1
$2
,
1
2
4
,
2
4
8
7.
3
9
%
'
$
3
,
5
9
1
,
6
3
$2
6
,
1
2
4
,
2
4
8
1
5
.
9
4
%
Ge
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
L
a
r
g
06
,
3
5
$2
1
,
1
0
3
,
8
0
$1
,
4
1
3
.
5
5
9
$2
2
,
5
1
7
,
3
6
7
6.
7
0
%
$1
,
3
9
7
,
5
3
2
$2
3
,
9
1
4
.
8
9
9
6.
2
1
%
$2
,
8
1
1
.
0
9
1
$2
3
,
9
1
4
.
8
9
1
3
.
3
2
%
Ge
r
a
s
e
i
c
-
H
i
g
h
V
o
l
t
09
$5
,
8
8
,
3
2
3
$4
1
3
.
4
5
9
$6
,
3
0
,
7
8
2
7.
0
2
%
'
$4
1
0
.
2
7
3
$6
,
7
1
3
,
0
5
5
6.
5
1
%
$8
3
.
7
3
2
$6
.
7
1
3
,
0
5
1
3
.
9
9
%
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
10
$4
1
.
1
5
1
,
8
0
$3
,
6
6
,
8
9
8
$4
.
8
1
6
.
7
0
0
8.
9
1
%
$3
,
6
9
,
2
5
2
$4
,
5
1
1
.
9
5
2
8.
2
5
%
$7
,
3
6
,
1
5
0
$4
,
5
1
1
,
9
5
2
1
7
.
8
9
%
St
&
A
r
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
07
,
1
1
.
1
2
$5
9
7
,
8
8
$6
.
4
0
$6
,
2
9
3
1.
0
7
%
$3
.
6
7
0
$6
.
9
6
0.
6
1
%
$1
0
.
0
7
5
$6
7
.
9
6
1.
6
9
Sp
H
e
t
i
n
g
19
$4
,
1
5
8
$2
.
0
8
8
$4
8
3
.
2
4
6
6.
4
0
%
$2
8
,
6
5
3
$5
1
1
,
8
9
5.
9
3
%
$5
7
,
7
4
1
$5
1
1
.
8
9
9
1
2
.
7
1
%
Ge
l
s
e
r
v
-
S
m
a
l
l
23
$1
3
,
0
1
4
,
2
9
9
$8
,
3
0
7
$1
3
.
9
0
,
6
0
6.
8
8
%
$8
7
,
0
2
3
$1
4
,
7
9
6
,
6
2
9
6.
3
8
%
$1
.
7
8
2
.
3
3
$1
4
.
7
9
6
.
6
2
9
1
3
.
7
0
%
Co
t
r
c
t
1
40
$6
,
3
3
,
7
3
9
$5
,
9
0
7
,
2
8
4
$7
2
.
2
3
8
,
0
2
3
8.
9
1
%
$5
,
9
5
,
2
1
1
$7
8
,
1
9
4
.
2
3
4
8.
2
5
%
$1
1
,
8
6
,
4
9
$7
8
,
1
9
4
,
2
3
4
1
7
.
8
9
%
Co
n
t
r
2
40
1
$4
,
8
9
,
9
5
$4
5
7
9
$5
.
3
2
6
5
3
8.
9
1
%
$4
9
1
8
6
$5
.
7
6
5
7
1
9
8.
2
5
%
$8
7
4
7
6
5
$5
7
6
5
7
1
9
1
7
.
8
9
%
,
St
o
f
I
d
a
h
o
To
t
a
$2
1
7
,
4
4
.
1
7
2
$1
7
,
0
0
,
0
0
$
2
3
4
,
4
4
,
1
7
2
7.
8
2
%
$1
7
,
0
0
,
0
0
$
2
5
1
.
4
4
.
1
7
2
7.
2
5
%
$3
.
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
1
,
4
4
.
1
7
2
1
5
.
6
4
%
AG
A
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$7
5
1
,
6
1
5
~
$7
5
1
,
6
1
5
$7
5
1
.
6
1
5
$7
5
1
,
6
1
5
St
o
f
I
d
a
h
o
+
A
G
A
To
t
l
$2
1
8
.
1
9
7
.
7
8
7
'
$2
3
5
,
1
9
7
,
7
8
7
7.
7
9
%
$2
5
2
.
1
9
7
,
7
8
7
7.
2
3
%
$2
5
2
,
1
9
7
,
7
8
7
1
5
.
5
8
%
..
:
;
(
l
t
r
..
.
;
0
~
Ô
t
"
~
e
:
~g
.
Z
8
:
..
-
.
.
..
~
.
.
!
'
Z
C/
"
i
0
;;
¡
;
~
:
.
(J
:
4
(
l
0
t1
'
.
.
..
t
r
N
~
o
.
.
..
~
..
N
00
ATTACHMNT 2
Exhibit No. 10 1
Case No. PAC-E-l 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/0211 1 Page 13 of 18
Attelament 2 - Sement Rate
RO MONTAI POR . STATE OF IDA
CASE NO. PAC-E.11.12
Sement
Year 1 Year 2 Prt 1/111012 I/il1013
SCHEDULE NO.1 - Residentil ServieeCuer Che 55.00 55.00 55.00
All kWh (May. Oc)
~=7ookWh 9.6018 ø 10.2013 ~10.7874 ~
~7ookWh 12.9624 ~13.7717 ø 14.5630 ~
All kWh (Nov. Apr)
G: 1,000 kWh 7.3496 ~7.8085 ~8.2571 ~
~ 1,00 kWh 9.9220 ~10.5415 ~1 1.1472 ~
Seasna Sece Chare $6.00 $60.00 $6.00
SCHEDULE NO. 36 - Residentil Servee Opnal TOD
Cusmer Che 514.00 514.00 514.00
On.Pea kWh (May. Oc)12.2191 ø 13.3102 ø 14.4027 ø
Of.Pea kWh (May. Oc)4.1697 ~4.5420 ø 4.9148 ~
On-Pea kWh (Nov. Apr)10.4377 ø 11.369 ø 12.3029 ~
Of.Pea kWh (Nov. Apr)3.8162 ~4.1570 ;4.4982 ;Seana Sece Cha 5168.00 5168.00 5168.00
SCHEDULE NO. 616A - General Serv - Larg Power
Cusmer Chae (Senda Voltae)533.00 535.00 537.00Cuser Cha (P Voltae)599.00 5105.00 $11 1.00
All kW (My - Oc)512.22 513.28 514.36
All kW (Nov. Apr)510.05 510.92 511.81
All kWh 3.3805 ~3.5305 ;3.6696 ~
Se Serce Cha (Seconda)5396.00 $420.00 $4.00Sena Serce Cha (Par)51,188.00 51,260.00 $1,332.00Voltae Diunt (50.57)($0.61)(50.65)
SCHEDULE NO.7. Customer Owed Ligt
Residential
CbPer Lap
16,00 Lumen HPSV 514.67 514.82 514.91
SCHEDULE NO. 7nA - Seuri Ar LigtingCha Per La
700 LumenMV
20,00 Lumens, MV
5,60 Lumen, HPV, Co Ow Pole
5,60 Lumen, HPSV, No Co Owed Pole
9,500 Lumen, HPSV, Co Owed Pole
9,500 Lumen, HPV, No Co Owed Pole
16,000 Lumens, HPV, Co Owed Pole
16,00 Lumen HPSV, No Co Owed Pole
27,500 Lumens HPV, Co Owed Pole
526.40
$47.09
516.77
513.34
519.20
515.77
525.29
522.52
536.37
Page 1 of4
526.67
$47.58
516.94
513.48
519.40
$)5.93
525.55
522.75
536.75
526.83
$47.86
517.04
513.56
519.51
516.02
525.70
$22.88
536.97
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E-II-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 14 of 18
Attchment 2 - Sement Rate
ROCKY MOUNAIN PO - STATE OF IDAHO
CAS NO. PAC-E.11-12
27,500 Luens, HPSV, No Co Owed Pole
50,00 Lumen, HPSV, Co Owed Pole
50,00 Luens HPV, No Co Owed Pole
16,00 Lumen HPS Floo Co Ow Pole
16,00 Lumen, HP Floo No Co Ow Pole
27,500 Lum HP Floo Co Ow Pole
27,500 Lumen, HPS Floo No Co Ow Pole
50,000 Lumen HPS Floo Co Owned Pole
50,000 Luens HPS Floo, No Co Owed Pole
8,000 Lumen, LPSV, Ener Only
13,500 Lumen LPSV, Energ Ony
22,500 Lumens LPSV, Ener Only
33,00 Lumns LPSV, Energ Ony
SCHEDULE NO.9 - General Serviee - Hig Voltge
Customer Char
All kW (My - Oc)
All kW (Nov - Apr)
Minum kW Sumer
MiumkW Winte
All kWh
SCHEDULE NO. 10 - Irritin
Small Cutomer Ch (Sean)
La Cuser Ch (Sean)Pos-8ean Cuer Cha
All kW (Jun 1 - Sept 15)
Fir 25,00 kWh (June 1 . Sep 15)
Next 225,00 kWh (June i - Sept 15)
Al Add' kWh (June 1 - Se 15)
All kWh (Sept 16 - May 31)
Presnt
$32.94
$50.84
$45.00
$25.29
$22.52
536.37
532.94
550.84
$45.00
53.60
$5.32
57.40
59.01
5324.00
58.48
$6.41
58.48
$6.41
3.500 ~
$12.00
535.00
519.00
$4.69
7.3477 ~
5.4349 ~
4.01 16 ~
6.2144 ~
SCDULE NO. I I - Company-Qned St Ligting Servic
Cha pe Lap
5,SOO Lumen High Intensity Discha
9,500 Lumen High Intenity Discha
16,00 Lumen High Inteity Disc
27,500 Lumens, High Inteity Discha
50,000 Lumen, High Intensity Discha
9,500 Lumen, High Intensity Discha - Seres 1
16,00 Lumens, High Inteity Dischae - Seres 1
9,500 Lumen, High Inteity Discha - Seres 2
16,00 Lumens, High Innsity Dishage -Series 2
12,000 Met Haide
514.89
51S.58
525.33
535.38
551.93
530.73
$33.73
525.29
528.21
$27.42
Page 2 of4
Year I
1/11.12
$33.28
551.37
$45.47
$25.55
522.75
536.75
$33.28
$51.37
$45.47
$3.64
$5.38
$7.48
$9.10
Settlement
Year 2
1/112013
533.48
551.67
$45.74
525.70
522.88
536.97
$33.48
551.67
$45.74
53.66
55.41
57.52
59.15
$347.00
59.35
$7.06
$9.35
57.06
3.6970 ~
513.00
$38.00
$21.00
55.31
7.9434 ~
5.8755 ~
4.3368 ~
6.7187 t
$15.05
518.78
525.60
535.75
552.48
$31.06
534.09
525.56
528.51
527.71
5370.00
$10.26
57.74
510.26
57.74
3.8835 ~
$14.00
$41.00
523.00
$5.98
8.5312 t
6.3103 ~
4.6577 ~
7.2164 t
515.14
518.89
525.75
$35.96
552.79
531.25
534.29
525.71
528.68
527.88
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. PAC-E. 1 1.12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/1 1 Page 15 of 18
Attehment 2 . Seement Rate
ROKY MOUNTAIN PO. STATE OF IDAH
CASE NO. PAC-E.11-2
19,500 Met Halde
32,00 Met Haide
9,000 Met Haide - Seres 1
12,00 Mel Hade - Seres 1
9,000 Met Halde - Seres 2
12,00 Met Haide - Seres 2
Prnt
534.03
$41.28
531.00
535.64
530.17
531.85
SCHEDULE NO. iiE. Cusomer- Str Ligtiag ServEnerg Only
Chaes pe Lap
33,00 Lwnen LPSV
12,00 Met Halde
19,500 Met Halde
32,000 Metl Halide
107,800 Meta Haide
9,00 Met Haide
5,800 Lumen, HPSV
9,500 Lumen, HPSV
16,00 Lum, HPV
27,500 Lwnen, HPV
50,00 Lwnen, HPV
Non-List Lumre - Energ On
$9.01
$6.94
59.49
$14.92
535.72
53.95
52.79
$3.91
55.81
$9.93
$15.27
10.1259 t
Year i
1/111012
$34.39
$41.72
531.33
$36.02
$30.49
532.19
Sement
Year 2
1/111013
$34.60
$41.97
$31.52
$36.24
530.67
532.38
$9.1 1
$7.01
59.59
515.08
$36.10
$3.99
52.82
$3.95
55.87
510.04
$15.43
10.2330 ~
SCDULE NO. UF. Custoer-Oned Str Ligti SeicFuD Maintenance
Ches pe Lamp
5,800 Lwnen HPSV
9,500 Lwnen HPSV
16,00 Lwnen HPSV
27,500 Lum, HPSV
50,00 Lwnen HPSV
$6.45
$8.22
59.88
512.94
517.27
$6.52
$8.31
$9.98
$13.08
517.45
SCDULE NO. UP. Customer-Oned Str Litig ServicPartl Maintenance
Chas per Lap
10,00 Lwnens, MY
20,00 Lumen, MY
5,800 Lwnens HPV
9,500 Lwnen HPV
27,500 Lumen HPSV
50,00 Lumens, HPSV
516.15
521.62
$5.78
57.44
511.94
$16.09
SCHEDUL NO. 19 - Commereial and Industrl Space HeatigCusmer Cha Senda 521.00All kWh (My - Oc) 8.2953 tAll kWh (Nov - Apr) 6.1465 t
Page3of4
$16.32
521.85
$5.84
$7.52
$12.07
$16.26
$22.00
8.8093 t
6.5274 t
59.16
$7.05
$9.65
$15.17
536.32
$4.01
52.84
$3.97
$5.91
510.10
515.52
10.294 ~
$6.56
$8.36
$10.04
$13.16
$17.55
$16.42
521.98
$5.88
57.57
$12.14
516.36
$23.00
9.3152 t
6.9023 ø
Exhibit-No. í Ö i
Case No, PAC-E-ll-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11 Page 16 of 18
Attchment i - Sement Rate
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POR. STATE OF IDAH
CAS NO. PAC-E.11.12
Prnt
SCHEDULE NO. 23IiA - General Servie
Cumer Ch Secnd
Cusomer Cha Pr
Tota Cumer Cha
All kWh (May. Oc)
All kWh (Nov. Apr)
Seasna Sece Cha (Secnda)
Sena Servce Ch (Par)
Volta Discun
SI4.00
$43.00
8.0585 ~
7.0345 ~
$168.00
$516.00
(0.3892) ;
SCHEDULE NO. 3S - General Servic - Optinal roD
Cusmer Chae Senda
Cusmer Cha Prar
All OnPeak kW
Al kWh
Seana Servce Chae (Secnd)
Senal Servce Cha (Pma)
Volta Diwit
$59.00
S145.oo
S14.52
4.3260 ~
S708.00
SI,740.oo
($0.74)
Sement
Year 1 Year 2
i/lnOl2 InnOl3
SI5.00
$46.00
8.5835 ;
7.4928 ;
S180.oo
S552.oo
(0.4146) ;
$63.00
S155.00
$15.49
4.6154 ;
S756.OO
SI,86O.oo
(SO.79)
SI6.00
$49.00
9.1030 ;
7.9463 ;
SI92.00
S588.00
(0.4397) ø
S67.00
SI65.00
S16.45
4.9015 ø
$804.00
$1,980.00
($0.84)
SCHEDULE 400
Firm Eoerg and Power
Cusmer Chaes SI,345.00 SI,465.00 $1,586.00
kWh 2.6180 ~2.8515 ~3.0870 ;
kW $13.50 $14.70 S15.91
ExcesskVar $0.82 $0.89 $0.96Interruptible Energ and Power
kWh 2.6180 ;2.8515 ;3.0870 t
kW $13.50 S14.70 $15.91
SCHEDULE 401
Cuomer Chges S375.00 $48.00 $42.00
HL kWh (May-obe)3.0820 ;3.3565 ;3.6332 t
HLH kWh (Noveibe-Apnl)2.5630 ;2.7913 ;3.0214 ;
LLH kWh (May-obe)2.3110 ;2.5168 fl 2.7243 t
LLH kWh (Noyeibe-Apnl)2.3110 t 2.5168 fl 2.7243 flAllkW (May-uobe)S14.93 $16.26 S17.6OAll kW (November-Apnl)S12.04 $13.11 $14.19
Page4of4 Exhibit No. iol
Case No. PAC-E-I 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/1 I Page 17 of 18
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I herby cefY th on this 17dl da of Ocbe, 2011, I cad to be se vi oveght deliver an E-
maiL, a tre and corr copy of Rocky Mounta Powe's Stipulaton in PAC-E-I 1.12 to the followig:
Erc L. Olsen
Raine, Olson, Nye, Bude & Baey, Ch
20 i E. cete
P.O. Box 1391
Pocllo, ID 83204-1391
E-Mail: elomcinelaw.net
Tim Buler (E-mai Ony)
Agr InC.lNu-West Industres
3010 CodaRoad
So Spr ID 83276
E-Mal: tbuller(gagrum.com
Bra Pu
CAPAI
2019N.17thSt.
Bois, ID. 83702
E-mail: bmpurdy(ghotmaiLcom
Anthony Yan)
29814 Lae Roa
Bay ViUae, Ohio 44140
E-mail: tonyfOanel.net
James R. Smith (Emai Ony)
Monsto Compay
P.O. Box 816
Sod Spr Idao 83276
E-Ma: jim.r.smith(gmonso.com
Ron L. Wil
Willam Bramy, P.C.
1015 W.Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
E-ma: ron(gwilliabrabur.com
Dael E. Solaner
Pacifor db Roc Mouta Powe
201 S. Mai St Su 2300
Salt La Cit, UT 84111
E-mail: DaneLsolander(gacificor.com
Rada C. Bude
Rain, OLSO Nye, Budge & Baiey, Ch
201 E. ce
P.O. Box 1391
PocUo, ID 83204-1391
E-Mal: rçb(gineJaw.net
Neil Prce
De Attrn Gener
Idao Public Uties Commsion
472 W. Wasn (83702)
POBox 83720
Bois, ID 83720-74
E-Ma: neil.pric~puc.dao.gov
Bejam J. Ot
Idao Constion Lee
710 N. 6th St.
P.O. Box 84
Boise, Idao 83702
E-ma: botto(gidaQÇnservation.org
Brubaer & Asia
16690 Swiey Ridge Rei, # 140
Cheseld, MO 63017
E-Mail: bclJnsßYconultbai.com
Don Schoebeck
RCS, Inc.
900 Wasgtn St, Suite 780
Vanuver W A, 986
E-Ma: dwsßYr-e-s-in.com
Ted Wesn
PaCorp db Roky Mounta Power
201 S. Ma Str Sui 2300
Sat Lae Cit, UT 84 111
E-ma: te.wesnßYcificorp.com
Care Meyer
Coin, Reguato Opons
Exhibit No. i 0 i
Case No. PAC-E-1 1-12
R. Lobb, Staff
i 1/02/1 i Page 18 of 18
PAC-E-l1-12
Monthly Biling Comparison
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
General Rate Case
Residential Service
Schedule 1
First Year Stipulated Increasel
Energ~Energy Summer Non-Summer Avg. Mth Cost -12 Mths
kWh kWh1 Present First Yr.%A Present First Yr.%A Present First Yr.%A
0 $5.17 $5.17 0.00%$5.17 $5.17 0.00%$5.17 $5.17 0.00%
100 $15.69 $16.31 3.95%$13.36 $13,83 3.55%$14.52 $15.07 3.79%
200 $26.20 $27.44 4.73%$21.5 $22.49 4.40%$23.87 $24.97 4.61%
300 $36.72 $38.58 5.06%$29.73 $31.16 4.79%$33.23 $34.87 4.94%
400 $47.24 $49.72 5.25%$37.92 $39.82 5,01%$42.58 $44.77 5.14%
500 $57.75 $60.85 5.37%$46.11 $48.48 5.15%$51.93 $54.67 5,28%
600 $68.27 $7199 5.45%$54.30 $57.14 5.24%$61.28 $64,57 5.37%
700 $78.79 $83.13 5.51%$62.48 $65.81 5.32%$70.64 $74.47 5.42%
716 Summer $81.02 $85.50 5.52%$64.22 $67.64 5.33%$72.62 $76.57 5.44%
800 $92.78 $97.95 5.58%$73.33 $7729 5.40%$83.06 $87.62 5.49%
837 Annual $97.95 $103.44 5.60%$7735 $81.5 5.43%$87.65 $92.49 5.52%
900 $106.77 $112.78 5.63%$84.18 $88.78 5.47%$95.47 $100.78 5.56%
958 Non-Summer $114.88 $121.8 5.66%$90.47 $95.45 5.50%$102.68 $108.41 5.58%
1,000 $120.76 $127.61 5.67%$95.03 $100.27 5.52%$107.89 $113.94 5.61%
1,200 $148.74 $157.27 5.73%$116.72 $123.25 5.59%$132.73 $140.26 5.67%
1,400 $176.73 $186.92 5.77%$138.42 $146.22 5.64%$157.57 $166.57 5.71%
1,600 $204.71 $216.58 5.80%$160.11 $169.20 5.68%$182.41 $192.89 5.75%
1,800 $232.69 $246.24 5.82%$181.81 $192.18 5.70%$207.25 $219.21 5,77%
2,000 $260.68 $275.89 5.84%$203.50 $215.15 5.72%$232.09 $245.52 5.79%
2,500 $330.63 $350.03 5.87%$257.74 $27259 5.76%$294.19 $311.1 5.82%
3,000 $400.59 $424.18 5.89%$311.98 $330.04 5.79%$356.29 $377 i I 5.84%
5,000 $680.42 $720.74 5.93%$528.94 $559.80 5.84%$604.68 $640.27 5.89%
Second Year Stipulated Increasel
Energy Energy Summer Non-Summer Avg Mth Cost -12 Mths
kWh kWh1 First Yr.Second Yr.%A First Yr.Second Yr.%A First Yr.Second Yr.%A
0 $5.17 $5.17 0.00%$5.17 $5.17 0.00%$5.17 $5.17 0.00%
100 $16.31 $16.91 3.72%$13.83 $14.30 3.35%$15.07 $15.60 3.52%
200 $27.44 $28.66 4.42%$22.49 $23.42 4.12%$24.97 $26.04 4.29%
300 $38.58 $40.40 4.71%$31.6 $32.55 4.47%$34.87 $36.47 4.59%
400 $49.72 $52.14 4.88%$39.82 $41.67 4.66%$44.77 $46.91 4.78%
500 $60.85 $63.88 4.98%$48.48 $50.80 4.78%$54.67 $57.34 4.88%
600 $7199 $75.63 5.05%$57.14 $59.93 4.87%$64.57 $67.78 4.97%
700 $83.13 $87.37 5.10%$65.81 $69.05 4.93%$74.47 $78.21 5.02%
716 Summer $85.50 $89.87 5.11%$67.64 $70.99 4.95%$76.57 $80.43 5.04%
800 $97.95 $103.01 5.17%$7729 $81.7 5.01%$87.62 $92.09 5.10%
837 Annual $103.4 $108.80 5.18%$81.5 $85.65 5.03%$92.49 $97.23 5.12%
900 $112.78 $118.66 5.21%$88.78 $93.28 5.07%$100.78 $105.97 5.15%
958 Non-Summer $121.8 $127.74 5.23%$95.45 $100.3 I 5.09%$108.41 $114.02 5.17%
1,000 $127.61 $134.3 I 5.25%$100.27 $105.0 5.11%$11394 $119.85 5.19%
1,200 $157.27 $165.60 5.30%$123.25 $129.63 5.18%$140.26 $147.61 5.24%
1,400 $186.92 $196.89 5.33%$146.22 $153.86 5.22%$166.57 $175.37 5.28%
1,600 $216.58 $228.19 5.36%$169.20 $178.08 5.25%$192,89 $203.14 5.31%
1,800 $246.24 $259.48 5.38%$192.18 $202.31 5.27%$219.21 $230.90 5.33%
2,000 $275.89 $290.77 5.39%$215.15 $226.54 5.29%$245.52 $258.66 5.35%
2,500 $350.03 $369.00 5.42%$272.59 $287.12 5.33%$311.1 $328.06 5.38%
3,000 $424.18 $447.24 5.44%$330.04 $347.69 5.35%$377 11 $397.46 5.40%
5,000 $720.74 $760.17 5.47%$559.80 $589.98 5.39%$640.27 $675.07 5.44%
1 Includes current Schedule 34-BP A Credit which equals zero, ECAM and Customer Effciency Services Rate Adjustment.
2 Monthly average usage for summer, non-summer and annuaL.
Exhibit No. 102
Case No. PAC-E-11-12
R. Lobb, Staff
11/02/11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011,
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB IN
SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT, IN CASE NO.
PAC-E-ll-12, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
TED WESTON
ID REGULATORY AFFAIRS MGR
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
E-MAIL: ted.weston(fpacificorp.com
E-MAIL ONLY:
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
datarequest(fpacificorp.com
BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES
16690 SWINGLEY RIDGE RD
#140
CHESTERFIELD MO 63017
E-MAIL: bcollns(fconsultbai.com
ERICLOLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
E-MAIL: elo(fracinelaw.net
BRAD M PURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2019 N 17TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: bmpurdy(fhotmaiL.com
RONALD L WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS BRADBURY PC
1015 W HAYS STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: ron(fwillamsbradbury.com
DANIEL E SOLANDER
REGULATORY COUNSEL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84 I I I
E-MAIL: danieL.solander(fpacificorp.com
RANDALL C BUDGE
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
E-MAIL: rcb(fracinelaw.net
E-MAIL ONLY:
JAMES R SMITH
MONSANTO COMPANY
E-MAIL: jim.r.smith(fmonsanto.com
ANTHONY Y ANKEL
29814 LAK ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
E-MAIL: tony(fyanel.net
BENJAMIN J OTTO
ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE
710 N 6TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: botto(fidahoconservation.org
DON SCHOENBECK
RCS INC
900 WASHINGTON STREET
STE 780
VANCOUVER WA 98660
E-MAIL: dws(fr-c-s-inc.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
E-MAIL: ONLY
TIM BULLER
PACIFICORP IDAHO INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS
AGRIUM US INC/NU- WEST INDUSTRIES
E-MAIL: tbuller(fagrium.com
Jiø/kSECRETA~ ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE