20211230Final_Order_No_35277.pdf

ORDER NO. 35277 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 30, 2021
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER’S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES IN IDAHO AND APPROVAL
OF PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE
SCHEDULES AND REGULATIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-21-07

ORDER NO. 35277

On May 27, 2021, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (“Company”) applied to the
Commission requesting authority to increase its Idaho jurisdictional revenue requirement by $19.0
million, or approximately 7.0 percent. The Company requested a July 1, 2021 effective date.
On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Application, a suspension of the
proposed effective date, and a Notice of Intervention Deadline. Order No. 35079. The Commission
suspended the proposed effective date for the statutory maximum period of 30 days plus five (5)
months. Idaho Code § 61-622(4). Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”), Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho (“CAPAI”), Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”), Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association, Inc. (“IIPA”), and PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial Customers (“PIIC”) (collectively the
“Intervenors”) intervened in the case. See Order Nos. 35073, 35081, 35106, and 35112.
On August 13, 2021, Staff notified the Commission that the parties intended to enter
settlement discussions with the intent to resolve the outstanding issues in the case. See IDAPA
31.01.01.272.
On August 24, 2021, the Commission set a schedule for processing this case that
included Staff and Intervenor prefile and Company reply testimony deadlines, public workshop,
customer hearing, and technical hearing. Order No. 35144.
On October 14, 2021, Staff field a motion to vacate the Staff and Intervenor prefile
testimony deadline established in Order No. 35144 to allow time for a settlement to be filed with
the Commission.
On October 18, 2021, the Commission vacated the Staff and Intervenor testimony
deadline. Order No. 35201.
On October 25, 2021, a proposed Stipulation and Settlement (“Settlement”) were filed
with the Commission. See IDAPA 31.01.01.056, .272, and .274. The proposed Settlement was
signed by the Company, Staff, Bayer, IIPA, and PIIC (collectively the “Parties” or individually
ORDER NO. 35277 2

“Party”). The two parties that did not sign—CAPAI and ICL—both moved to withdraw from the
case.1
On November 2, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of the Proposed Settlement,
amended the procedural schedule, and provide notice of a written comment deadline for customers.
On November 15, 2021, the Commission held a customer hearing. No one testified. On
November 16, 2021, the Commission held a technical hearing. Staff, Bayer, and the Company all
offered prefiled testimony in support of the Settlement. Six public comments were filed.2
Conforming Tariffs, and a new Electric Service Agreement (“ESA”) between Bayer and the
Company were included with the Company’s testimony.
Having reviewed the record, we now issue this Order approving the Settlement filed in
this case.
THE APPLICATION
The Company is a Commission-regulated electrical corporation. See Idaho Code § 61-
119. It is an Oregon company that provides electric service to retail customers in six states. In
Idaho, the Company provides retail electric service to about 85,600 customers.
The Company estimates that under existing rates it would earn an overall return on
equity (“ROE”) of about 7.48 percent during the test year—well below the Company’s
Commission-authorized ROE of 9.9 percent. The Company thus requests a revenue requirement
increase of $19.0 million—approximately 7.0 percent—with a ROE of 10.20 percent. The
proposed increase is based on a historical test year ending December 31, 2020, “adjusted for known
and measurable changes through December 31, 2021.” Application at 3. The Company notes that
its test year “incorporates the Company’s updated depreciation study, which went into effect
January 1, 2021, and costs and benefits associated with the wind repowering and new wind
projections, all of which will be in service by the end of 2021.” Id.
The Company’s Application proposes the following changes to customer rates by
schedule:
Residential – Schedule 1 9.2%
Residential – Schedule 36 10.0%

1 On October 26, 2021, at the Commission’s regular decision meeting, CAPAI and ICL were granted withdrawal. The
Commission issued a Second Amended Notice of Parties to reflect the withdrawal of CAPAI and ICL.
2 PIIC’s prefiled testimony in support of the Settlement was converted to a public comment at the technical hearing
because its witness was unavailable for cross-examination.
ORDER NO. 35277 3

General Service – Schedule 6 9.4%
General Service – Schedule 9 8.1%
Irrigation – Schedule 10 6.7%
General Service – Schedule 23 4.9%
General Service – Schedule 35 9.4%
Public Street Lighting -38.6%
Contract – Schedule 400 4.9%
Overall Increase 7.0%

The Company’s Application includes written testimony and exhibits explaining and
defending the calculation of the Company’s proposed rate increase.
The Company asserts it is providing notice of the Application to its customers by means
of “bill inserts included in customer bills over the course of a billing cycle, and, in some cases,
personal contact with customers or their representatives.” Id. at 8. The Company is also issuing a
press release to local media organizations and providing copies of the Application on its website
and at local Company offices.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The Parties agreed the proposed Settlement represented a fair, just, and reasonable
compromise of the issues in this proceeding and the proposed Settlement is in the public interest.
Under the proposed Settlement, the Company would be allowed to increase base rates
by $8.0 million, or 2.9 percent, effective January 1, 2022. The Parties agreed that the increase does
not represent agreement or acceptance by the Parties of any specific revenue requirement method,
unless specified.
In Case No. PAC-E-18-08, Order No. 34754, the Commission allowed the Company
to defer incremental depreciation expenses of $13,940,303, as a regulatory asset. Under the
proposed Settlement, the Parties agreed this regulatory asset will be amortized in base rates over
four years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
The Deer Creek Mine regulatory asset, authorized in Case No. PAC-E-14-10, will be
amortized over three years. This includes amortization of $14,347,296 in unpaid royalties and
$6,521,059 of unpaid future remediation expenses.
ORDER NO. 35277 4

The amortization of the Resource Tracking Mechanism (“RTM”) regulatory asset is
not included for recovery as part of the stipulated rate increase.3 Under the proposed Settlement,
the Company will continue to defer these incremental costs in the RTM through December 31,
2021, as a regulatory asset. There will be no carrying charge. Treatment of this regulatory asset
will be determined in the next general rate case.
Under the proposed Settlement, the following base amounts for the Energy Cost
Adjustment Mechanism (“ECAM”) are included as Attachment 1 to the Proposed Settlement:
• Net Power Costs - $1.368 billion or $24.54/MWh
• Production Tax Credits - $256,612,477 or $4.16/MWh
• Renewable Energy Credits - $4,327,004 or $0.07/MWh
• LCAR - $8.74/MWh
Under the proposed Settlement, the remaining excess deferred income tax (“EDIT”)
balance of $8.5 million will be amortized over two years through Electric Service Schedule No.
197. The Parties agreed, if federal tax rates increase before this balance is completely amortized
then the amortization will stop as of the effective date of the tax increase. Additionally, if there is
a change to federal tax rates before the Company’s next general rate case, the Parties will support
the Company’s filing of an application seeking to defer the incremental tax impacts as of the
effective date of the new tax rate.
The Parties agreed to the value of Bayer’s curtailment products as of January 1, 2022.
The Parties agreed the amount and method for this value are not precedent setting. The Parties also
agreed that the terms and conditions of the ESA filed with the Commission as Supplemental
Exhibit 36 in this case are just, reasonable, and in the public interest.
The Parties agreed to a rate spread based on the $8.0 million rate increase. The Parties
agreed the rate design and tariff changes shall be consistent with the Company’s proposals as set
forth in its Application.

3 In Case Nos. PAC-E-17-06, Order No. 33954, and PAC-E-17-07, Order No. 34104, the Commission authorized the
Company to defer the costs and benefits for certain repowered and new wind facilities through a RTM included as a
component of the Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism up to the amount of benefits customers received from those
projects. Any costs above the benefits were to be deferred as a regulatory asset with recovery to be determined in the
next general rate case. An estimate of the deferral was included as adjustment 8.16 in the Company’s Application,
Exhibit 40.

ORDER NO. 35277 5

Rates for Schedule 9 will be designed for current Schedule 9 customers prior to the
migration of the Schedule 401 customer, based on the system average rate increase, with the
difference from the Company’s filed case applied to the off-peak energy charges. Schedule 401
will migrate to Schedule 9 based on this rate design. Schedule 9 will be revised to increase the
limit on the customer’s maximum power requirement to 30,000 kW.
Rates for Street and area lighting customers served under Schedules 7, 11, and 12 will
decrease to move their rates 50 percent closer to cost of service.
Schedule 23 General Service customers will use a seasonal difference ratio of 1.20 and
a primary customer charge of $48.00. Schedule 19 Commercial and Industrial Space Heating
customers will migrate to Schedule 23 based on this rate design.
The Parties agreed the customer service charge for Electric Service Schedule No. 1—
Residential Service would increase from $5 per month to $8 per month.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 275, “[p]roponents of a proposed settlement carry the
burden of showing that the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in
accordance with law or regulatory policy.” IDAPA 31.01.01.275.
The Commission is not bound by the proposed Settlement reached by the Parties. The
Commission will independently review any proposed settlement to determine whether the
settlement is just, fair, and reasonable, and in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with
law or regulatory policy. The Commission may accept a settlement, reject a settlement, or state
additional conditions under which a settlement will be accepted. IDAPA 31.01.01.274-.276.
If the Commission rejects any part or all of the proposed Settlement or imposes any
additional material conditions on its approval, then each party reserves the right to withdraw from
the proposed Settlement.
THE COMMENTS
1. Public Comments
Six members of the public filed comments, all suggesting that the Commission should
either deny the Company’s request to raise rates, or, at a minimum, approve a smaller rate increase
than the Company proposed.
2. PIIC Comments
PIIC submitted prefiled testimony in support of the Settlement, but its witness did not
attend the technical hearing. At the technical hearing, PIIC’s attorney of record, Ron Williams,
ORDER NO. 35277 6

requested to withdraw PIIC’s testimony and resubmit it as comments, which the Commission
agreed to.
PIIC supported the Settlement and recommended that the Commission find that the
Settlement is in the public interest. PIIC’s comments described the Settlement process and
components. PIIC noted the Settlement outlines specific amortization terms for several regulatory
accounts, including the Depreciation Study Deferral, the Deer Creek Mine regulatory asset and the
RTM deferral.
PIIC also supported migrating the Schedule 401—Special Contract to cost of service
rates. PIIC stated that the Settlement rates are designed to hold existing Schedule 9 customers
harmless from the migration, assigning the rate class an average 2.90 percent rate increase. In
reviewing the Schedule 401 migration, PIIC understood Schedule 401 customers will begin paying
the Schedule 9 2.25 percent energy efficiency surcharge, resulting in an additional rate increase
associated with the Schedule 401 migration.
THE TESTIMONY
Staff, Bayer, and the Company filed direct testimony in support of the Settlement. The
Company’s testimony included compliance Tariff Sheets incorporating the terms of the
Settlement.
Staff, Bayer, and the Company each described the process, the components (described
above), and their support of the Settlement.
Bayer’s testimony also focused on the interruptibility credit and updated ESA for its
Soda Springs plant. Bayer described the ESA between Bayer and the Company and what it would
allow the Company to do in terms of curtailment. The ESA was agreed to outside of the rate case,
but the value of the interruptibility credit was decided in the rate case. The updated ESA provides
the Company 95 megawatts (“MW”) of operating reserves (up to 188 hours annually) and 67 MWs
of economic curtailment (up to 1,600 times annually for 15-minue increments).4 Bayer’s
interruptibility credit will be worth $20.6 million per year, beginning January 1, 2022, through
December 31, 2023. The updated ESA can automatically renew for one-year terms until either

4 Under the current ESA, the Company has the right to interrupt Bayer a total of 1,000 hours annually, consisting of
12 hours of system integrity interruptions at 162 MW, 188 hours of operating reserve interruptions at 95 MW, and
800 hours of economic interruption at 67 MW. Bayer also has the right to buy through the economic curtailment at
market price.
ORDER NO. 35277 7

party gives 180 days’ notice of termination. The updated ESA eliminates the system integrity
curtailment and now prohibits Bayer from buying through the economic curtailment periods.
IIPA’S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
IIPA’s petition includes an itemized list of expenses totaling $61,659.70—including
expert witness fees and legal fees. IIPA argued that its expenses were reasonable given that they
were necessarily incurred to participate in the technical and settlement conferences, for drafting
discovery and reviewing discovery responses, and in negotiations.
IIPA stated that its proposed recommendations were captured in the Settlement. IIPA
believed the Settlement and resulting proposed revenue requirement and new rates are a fair, just,
and reasonable resolution of the issues.
IIPA argued that the costs it incurred in this case constitute a financial hardship for the
association which is a 501(c)(5) nonprofit and represents farming interests in eastern and central
Idaho through voluntary contributions by its members (approximately 1/3 of its potential members
operate in the Company’s service area). IIPA stated that due to its limited means of participation
in this and other cases, its participation was focused and prudent.
IIPA noted that absent the Settlement, it would have argued at a technical hearing that
the Company’s test year revenue was too low. IIPA stated that the test period revenue adjustment
was not raised by other intervenors and factored into the revenue numbers included in the
Settlement. IIPA believed that the issue it raised materially differed from those addressed by the
other parties.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
1. Settlement
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-
503. The Commission has the express statutory authority to investigate rates, charges, rules,
regulations, practices, and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just,
reasonable, preferential or discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and may fix the
same by Order. Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-503.
The Commission’s process for considering settlement stipulations is set forth in its
Rules of Procedure 271-277, IDAPA 31.01.01.271-277. When a settlement is presented to the
Commission, it “will prescribe the procedures appropriate to the nature of the settlement to
consider the settlement.” IDAPA 31.01.01.274. Here, the Commission convened both a technical
ORDER NO. 35277 8

hearing and customer hearing on the Settlement. IDAPA 31.01.01.274. Proponents of a proposed
settlement must show “that the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in
accordance with law or regulatory policy.” IDAPA 31.01.01.275. Finally, the Commission is not
bound by settlement agreements. IDAPA 31.01.01.276. Instead, the Commission “will
independently review any settlement proposed to it to determine whether the settlement is just, fair
and reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy.”
Id.
The Commission has reviewed the record, including the Application, Settlement,
testimony, and public comments. The Parties have built a substantial record through their filings,
negotiations, and participation in hearings setting forth their justifications for signing and
supporting the Settlement. We appreciate the investment of time and resources the Parties have
made to participate in this case and promote their positions on the Company’s Application. The
robust record has assisted the Commission in understanding the important issues raised in this
case. Based on our review of the record, we find that the Settlement is fair, just and reasonable, in
the public interest, and we approve it.
The Settlement reduces the Company’s requested increase to its Idaho jurisdictional
revenue requirement from $19.0 (7.0 percent) million (as requested) to $8.0 million (2.9 percent).
In the Company’s Application, it stated it would earn a 7.48 percent ROE—below its Commission-
authorized ROE of 9.90 percent—under existing conditions and requested authorization of a 10.20
percent ROE. Although a specific ROE was not agreed to in the Settlement, the rate spread using
the revenue requirement agreed to in the Settlement and included as Attachment 2 to the Settlement
is fair, just, and reasonable. We find the rate design agreed to in the Settlement provides the
Company a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return.
The record suggests that the Parties spent considerable time investigating the
Company’s proposal and negotiating for an outcome that would provide reasonable rates for
customers and an opportunity for the Company to earn a reasonable return on its investments.
Significant discovery was conducted, which allowed the Parties to explore the Company’s
proposed rate increase and make informed decisions regarding settlement. Clearly the Parties
worked hard through numerous settlement conferences to identify adjustments that would result
in an outcome that could be agreeable to the Parties, the public and, ultimately, this Commission.
ORDER NO. 35277 9

Notably, the Settlement agreement dealt with several regulatory asset accounts that the
Company was permitted to defer expenses to in prior Commission orders. We find the amortization
periods for the incremental depreciation expense deferral authorized in Case No. PAC-E-18-08
and the Deer Creek Mine expense deferral authorized in Case No. PAC-E-14-10 and as agreed to
in the Settlement are reasonable. Additionally, the base amounts agreed to for the ECAM,
including the updated Net Power Cost of $1.368 billion, included as Attachment 1 to this Order
are reasonable.
We find the Parties’ decision to amortize the $8.5 million remaining EDIT balance over
two years is reasonable and conforms with the intent of our past directives to refund this money
for the benefit of customers in the next general rate case. In the first year of new rates—2022—
because of the EDIT balance amortization, the actual increase for customers’ rates will be 1.4%.
Additionally, the safeguard built into the Settlement to discontinue the amortization of the EDIT
balance if future legislation to increase the corporate tax rates passes is in the public interest and
protects customers from continuing to receive a rebate that is becoming a liability simultaneously.
We find that the value of the Bayer curtailment product is reasonable. The record,
including the testimony offered at the technical hearing, supports the $20.6 million annual value
agreed to in the Settlement. This is a unique curtailment product used by the Company to respond
to periods of increased demand. With the size and scale of Bayer’s eastern Idaho operations and
the terms agreed to in the ESA between Bayer and the Company, this curtailment product provides
value to the Company’s customers in Idaho and systemwide.
2. Intervenor Funding
Commission decisions benefit from robust public input. “It is hereby declared the
policy of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the commission
so that all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings.” Idaho Code
§ 61-617A(1). Recoverable costs can include legal fees, witness fees, transportation, and other
expenses so long as the total funding for all intervening parties does not exceed $40,000.00 in any
proceeding. Idaho Code § 61-617A(2). The Commission must consider the following factors when
deciding whether to award intervenor funding:
(1) That the participation of the intervenor materially contributed to the
Commission’s decision;
(2) That the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and would be a
significant financial hardship for the intervenor;
ORDER NO. 35277 10

(3) The recommendation made by the intervenor differs materially from the
testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(4) The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of
concern to the general body of customers.
Id.
To obtain an award of intervenor funding, an intervenor must further comply with
Commission’s Rules of Procedure 161-165, IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165. Rule 162 of the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content requirements for a petition for
intervenor funding. The petition must contain: (1) an itemized list of expenses broken down into
categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor’s proposed finding or recommendation; (3) a statement
showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are reasonable; (4) a statement explaining
why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing
how the intervenor’s proposed finding or recommendation differed materially from the testimony
and exhibits of the Commission Staff; (6) a statement showing how the intervenor’s
recommendation or position addressed issues of concern to the general body of utility users or
customers; and (7) a statement showing the class of customer on whose behalf the intervenor
appeared. The Petition filed by IIPA comports with the procedural and technical requirements of
the Commission’s Rules.
Commission Rule 165.02-.03 requires the payment of awards is to be made by the
utility and is an allowable expense to be recovered from ratepayers in the next general rate case.
IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02-.03.
We find that IIPA’s petition satisfies the intervenor funding requirements. IIPA
intervened and participated in all aspects of the proceeding. IIPA’s petition for intervenor funding
was filed timely and no party objected to IIPA’s petition. Because we lack insight into the
confidential settlement negotiations, we award intervenor funding based on our assessment of the
submitted written materials included in IIPA’s petition. IIPA demonstrated that it worked closely
with the Company and Staff and other intervenors throughout the case.
The Commission finds that IIPA materially contributed to the Commission’s final
decision. IIPA’s recommendations materially differed from the request in the Company’s
Application. IIPA’s participation addressed issues of concern to the general body of customers.
Finally, we find the expert witness fees, legal fees, paralegal fees, and soft costs incurred by IIPA
ORDER NO. 35277 11

are reasonable in amount for this case, and that IIPA, as a non-profit organization, would suffer
financial hardship if the request is not approved.
It is noteworthy that IIPA’s request for intervenor funding exceeds the statutory
maximum award allowed in any single case. Accordingly, we find it reasonable to award IIPA
$40,000.00—the maximum amount allowed under Idaho Code § 61-617(A)(2)—in intervenor
funding, with the amounts to be recovered from all classes of the Company’s customers. We
hereby authorize a total of $40,000.00 be paid to IIPA.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Settlement is approved as filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rates included in the conforming tariffs filed on
November 8, 2021 as Exhibit No. 58 to the Direct Testimony of Joelle Steward in support of the
Settlement are approved, effective January 1, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IIPA’s petition is granted in the amount of
$40,000.00. See Idaho Code § 61-617A(2), IDAPA 31.01.01.165.01. The Company is ordered to
remit said amount to IIPA within 28 days from the date of this Order. IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02.
The Company shall be permitted to recover the cost of this intervenor funding in its next general
rate case from all classes of customers. See Idaho Code § 61-617A(3).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order about any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
///

ORDER NO. 35277 12

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 30th day
of December 2021.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

KRISTINE RAPER, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC-E-21-07\orders\PACE2107_final_dh.docx
Lin! C.tcgory Co.t lbm
ld.ho
Aloatcd Rcfcrc@
ldrho C.mnl Rrt Crx
EGAX Bu O.trSD.mb.rm2l
FERC
A@unl
AloofDn
Frdor
Totd
Comgary
N.t Pmr Co.l
SG
SE
SE
SEs
SG
SE
SG
SE
47
501
503il1
555
555
555
565
565
I
2
3
1
5
6
7II
t0tt
12l3
14
15
t6
17
IEt9
20
21
22
23
24
25
2e
27
2A
29
303l
32
33u
35
38
37
3E
39
Sl.. for Rordc
FslEeas
F@l Eeon$
Fucl E Qrn$Purdltld Pffi
Purch[ad Pwrr
Pwdratcd Pmr
li/hrding Erpcn$
!ryh..ling Becn.c
Tot l t{.t Pomr co.l3:
Raam.Ua Enarly Prie ior OF Contacl!
Told ECAI Br$:
12,U4,712 745,937I r,3a7,fi?ItC t ta,825lt7
Fln.l GRID At dy
Flnd GRIO Study
Find GRID Sludy
Find GRID Study
Fin l GRID Sludy
Fln.l GRID Study + Bl.ck Box Adj.
FinC GRID Sludy
FinC GRID Atudy
Flnd GRID Study
(90,931) a(hibita0,P.e.5.l
Exhibitrl{1, Plec 3.1.2
Exhibn /O, P.g6 3./t2
E,libitlo, Plg! 3.4.2
Edllbit.O, P.gc 2.1
Abovc
s /(t3,692,258
604,951,439
,t,,116,56,1
223,66.2,715
774,684,305
69,767,409
ta2,o93,i]63
26,532,670
39A77,251
280,213
14,59/t,883
1,000,662
14,327,n4
4,552,60t
E,130,6.t3
t
REC Ravcnua
Tot l Allo€tld REC R.vrns3L!r: RsliEd B.ytr REC3
Tot l REC R.wns Bas:
REC R.rnEB.xrlwh
Produ.don Tu CEdib
Pmducuon Ts C[ditj3
Tu BumP UP F.dor
Tot l Preducdon T.x Cndlt3:
Tot l PIC B.x:
t 4.327.004
Abov.
SG 0 (193,520,194) 0 (rr,073,30e) Edribit,O, P.eo7.3.1
3 1.3t7.0t7rtc t L.53a,tat
1,327,@1 372,035
I li,,6,612Am I (14,8t!,/t761
(130,ail)I 241,!tO
_lg9,9ca!99t _19€l9gtI (256,612,am I (a,C$,a7rt
Tot lSd..dirwh
ECAil B.x lnlltlh
/()910
Frdcrdrst t! Cmbimd Tu R.t
Tu Bunp Up F.€ior = (lr(l.tu ntc))
Tot l Sdc. rt Mlitr
PTc B.x t XWn
2,t.5866%
1-3260
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
Attachment 1 to Order No. 35277 Page 1 of 2
Rocky lrountaln Powsr
ldlho Gcn.r.l R.ta Cl'c
LCAR Dct ll
Ir.c.mb.r 2021
Unbundhd Productlon R.v.nu. R.qulnm.nt (Erchdlng NFC)
D!@P!b!AEgtu!
839,474,729 ECD
2,727,080,056 ECD
(,6n,472,572) NPC
Seccc
1
2
3
Produdlon - Retum on lnvestrrloil
Produclion- Ep€ns€
ProducJon-NPCEg€nsos
Produdion Revenu€ Rsgulremonl
(Exctuding NPC)
Nel System Load
Produdion $ p.r MWH
%
LCAR Adiustrnont
1
5
6
7
8
1,8E9,0E2,213 Line I + Line 2 + Lin€ 3
58,623,8E1 Total Company Load fiom SE Facto]
32.22 Ltne 4 / Line 525*Ene0y Cornponent'
8.06 Llne 6 x Llne 7
9
10
11
12
ldaho En€ryy O lnpd (MWh)
ldaho Producton RR
ldeho En€ryy O lloter (MWh)
LCAR e Metor (l/lriwH)
3,E25,012 lD aMion of Ensrgy in JAM model (Can aho be cahulated by multpMng line 5 by SE factor
30,818,909 Lina 6' Llne9
3,526,359 Energy biling determinanB (lD GRC Bloddng 2o2Gso0em€nt:
8.74 Line 10/Line ll
'LCAR doe! not indude domand per Comri3slon Oder 3220€
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
Attachment 1 to Order No. 35277
Page 2 of 2