20211108Comments.pdf

Ronald L. Williams, ISB No. 3034
Hawley Troxell Ennis and Hawley
877 Main St- Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise ID, 83701-1617
Telephone: [phone]
rwilliams@hawleytroxell. com
Attomeys for PIIC
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY
MOT'NTAIN POWER'S APPLICATION
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AI\D CIIARGES IN IDAIIO
AI\D APPROVAL OF PROPOSEI)
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCIIEDTTLES
AI\[D REGT]LATIONS
i.i[CEIVffJ
ti?i ri*Y -B Pffi 3: l0
-,t. , !]\l, j,rl lrj l'L:'i iL':": ;i : r. i,O+,i:;1iSSl0N
BEFORE TIIE IDAIIO PUBLIC UTILITTES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo. PAC-E-21-07
TESTIMOI\IY OF THE
PACIFICORP IDAHO
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN
STIPPORT OF SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT TESTIMOI\TY OF BRADLEY G. MTILLINS
ON BEHALF OF THE PACIFICORP IDAIIO il\DUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
November 812021
05 594.00 l 6. I 424297 5.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
I2
13
T4
15
16
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
a.
A.
a.
A.
PLEASE STATE YOI]R NAME AI\D OCCUPATION.
My name is Bradley G. Mullins. I am a consultant representing utility customers before
state public utility commissions in the Northwest and lnterrrountain West. A witness
qualification statement, including a list of cases where I have submitted testimony, can be
found at Mullins Exhibit No. 401.
PLEASE IDENTTFY THE PARTY ON WIIOSE BEIIALF YOU ARE
TESTIF"NNG.
This testimony is being provided on behalf of the PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial Customers
("PIIC"). PIIC is a trade association whose members consist of large electric customers
served by Rocky Mountain Power ("RMP") in Idaho. PIIC's membership includes Itafos
Conda, the sole Schedule 401 special contract customer, and other customers receiving
service on Schedule 9.
WHAT IS TI{E PT'RPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
I provide PIIC's statement support of the Settlement Stipulation entered into by and
among all parties to this proceeding on October 25,2021.
PLEASE PROVIDE AI\ OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT STIPULATION.
PtrC supports the Sefflement Stipulation and recommends that the Commission find that
the Settlement Stipulation is in the public interest. All active parties in this proceeding
are signatories to the Settlement Stipulation and no party opposes it. The Settlement
Stipulation was the byproduct of parties' detailed review of RMP's frling through an
extensive discovery process, followed by many rounds of settlement negotiations that
took place over an extended period in September and October of 2021. Importantly, the
Settlement Stipulation was a compromise for all parties involved. While PIIC does not
Mullins, Di - 1
a.
A.
a.
A.
PIIC Testimony in Support of Settlement
05594.001 6. I 424297 5.1
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a.
A.
necessarily support any of the provisions included in the Settlement Stipulation viewed in
isolation, PIIC is willing to accept Settlement Stipulation as a comprehensive whole and
finds the Settlement Stipulation to be a reasonable resolution of all issues in this
proceeding. PIIC appreciates all of the hard work of the parties, Commission Staffand
RMP in reaching this agreement.
WHAT REVENUE REQTIIREMENT IS INCLT]DED IN THE SETTLEMENT
STIPULATION?
The Settlement Stipulation provides for a $8,000,000 or 2.9o/o base revenue increase
effective January I , 2022. This contrasts the $ 1 9,03 I ,069, or 7 .0o/o, revenue requirement
increase RMP sought in its initial filing. Thus, the settled revenue requirement in the
Settlement Stipulation re,presents a 58.0%o reduction to the rate increase that RMP sought
in its initial filing. This revenue requirement was a negotiated value and not attributable
to any specific revenue requirement adjustment, other than the specific amortization
provisions and the Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism ("ECAM") parameters identified
in the Settlement Stipulation. While PIIC's revenue requirement recommendation
supported a substantially lower revenue requirement that the level ultimately agreed, PIIC
was willing to accept the value in the Settlement Stipulation in the spirit of compromise
and in consideration of other aspects of the settlement which PIIC found to be reasonable.
While a "black-box" revenue requirement settlement is not always preferred, by agreeing
to this value, we avoid the need undertake potentially contentious litigation before the
Commission, which is not only costly to the parties, but adds to the administrative burden
of the Commission.
Mullins, Di - 2
05 594.00 I 6. I 424297 5.1
r0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
2t
20
22
PIIC Testimony in Support of Settlement
a.
A.
DID THE STIPULATION ESTABLISH A COST OF CAPITAL FOR RMP?
No. Parties did not agree on a specific cost of capital when arriving at the negotiated
revenue requirement value. Accordingly, parameters such as RMP's retum on equity,
cost of debt, and capital structure are not specified. Importantly, however, the agreement
should not be interpreted as retaining the cost of capital, and associate parameters, that
were established in RMP's 2013 General Rate Case PAC-E-13-04. It is possible that the
lack of a specified rate of return will create some ambiguity in future dockets, such as a
docket involving a change in corporate income tax rate, although it will be possible to
deal with such issues if and when, they arise.
WHAT REGULATORY ASSET AMORTIZATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED IN
THE STIPULATION?
The Settlement Stipulation outlines specific amortization terms for several regulatory
accounts, including the Deprecation Study Deferral, the Deer Creek Mine regulatory
asset and the Resource Tracking Mechanism ("RTM") deferral.
With respect to the deprecation study deferral, the amortization period was
lengthened from three to four years relative to RMP's initial filing.
ln addition, the Settlement Stipulation specified a three-year amortization period
for the Deer Creek Mine amortization, including amortization of future unpaid expenses
of $14,347,296 in unpaid royalties and $6,521,059 of future remediation expenses. These
amounts were important to specifu to ensure that ratepayers receive credit for the unpaid
amounts in future proceedings.
Mullins, Di - 3
05594.00 I 6. I 424297 5.t
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.
At2
13
l4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20
2l
PIIC Testimony in Support of Settlement
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a.
A.
Finally, Parties did not necessarily agree on whether it was appropriate to include
an RTM Deferral in revenue requirement in this case. The resolution of the handling of
that regulatory account was reserved for RMP's next general rate case.
WHAT CHAI\GES DID RMP PROPOSE IN ITS INITIAL FILING TO
SCHEDULE 401 AI\D SCHEDI'LE 9?
RMP proposed migrating its second-largest customer in Idaho, the Itafos Conda
phosphate mining and processing facility, from the Schedule 401 special contract to
Schedule 9, General Service - High Voltage. Itafos is a PIIC member, along with several
other Schedule 9 customers. Accordingly, PIIC was particularly interested in ensuring
that the proposed migration would be neither harmful to Itafos nor existing Schedule 9
customers.
DOES PIIC SUPPORT N{IGRATING THE SPECIAL CONTRACT TO
SCHEDULE 9?
In the context of the overall stipulation, including the rate design for Schedule 9 in
Settlement Stipulation paragraph 18, PIIC supports migrating the Schedule 401 special
contract to cost of service rates. Under paragraph I 8 of the settlement stipulation rates
are designed to hold existing Schedule 9 customers harmless from the migration,
assigning the rate class an average 2.9%o rate increase. Further, the Schedule 401 special
contract was then migrated to Schedule 9 based on the rates established for existing
Schedule 9 customers, providing the Schedule 401 customer with the benefit ofjoining a
rate class consisting of a diverse group of customers. Finally, in reviewing the Schedule
401 migration, it was also necessary for PIIC to consider that the Schedule 401 customer
will begin paylng the Schedule 9 2.25% energy efficiency surcharge, resulting in an
Mullins, Di - 4
l0
il
t2
l3
a.
t4 A.
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
PIIC Testimony in Support of Settlement
05594.00 l 6. l 424297 5.1
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
a,
A.
12
13
L4
15
t6
t7
18
l9
a.
A.
additional rate increase associated with the Schedule 401 migration not considered in the
rate spread calculations performed for this case.
HOW LONG HAS THE CONDA PLANT BEEN ON A SPECIAL CONTRACT?
The Schedule 401 Conda plant has received service under a special contract at least since
at least 1988, when it was acquired by Nu-West Industries. It is likely, however, that the
facilityhad been served on a special contract since it started operations ln1967, although
few records are available prior to the date that Nu-West Industries took over operations of
the mill. Given this long history, the proposal to migrate Itafos Conda to cost of service
rates was of particular concern to PIIC.
WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE SCHEDULE 9 COST OF SERVICE
CONCERNS AI\D WERE THEY RESOLVED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
PIIC had concerns about the quality and accuracy of RMP's cost of service study related
to the migration of the Itafos plant offSchedule 401 and onto Schedule 9. Those
concerns were raised by PIIC in settlement negotiations, and as discussed above, the rate
design agreed to by all parties, as well as the overall revenue requirement increase
proposed in the Settlement Stipulation, allowed PIIC to accept the special contract
migration and to endorse the Settlement Stipulation in its entirety.
DOES THIS CONCLI'DE YOUR SETTLEMENT TESTIMONY?
Yes
Mullins, Di - 5
05594.00 I 6. I 424297 5.1
10
1l
a,
A.
PIIC Testimony in Support of Settlement
Mlu ANALYrleS
Energy & Utility Consulting Brad Mullins
Principal Consultant
Vihiluoto 15
FIN-90440 Kempele, Finland
brmul lins@mwanalytics. com
www.mwanalytics.com
ABOUT
MW Analytics is the professional consulting practice of Brad Mullins, a consultant and expert witness
that represents utility customers in regulatory proceedings before state utility commissions
throughout the Western United States. Brad has sponsored expert wihess testimony in over 80
regulatory proceeding encompassing a variety of subject matters, including revenue requirement,
regulatory accounting, rate development, and new resource additions. Brad has also assisted his
clients through numerous informal regulatory, legislative and energy policy matters. In addition to
providing regulatory services, MW Analytics also provides advisory, energy marketing and other
energy consulting services.
PRACTICE AREAS
MW Analytics has experience representing customer interests in litigated and informal regulatory
proceedings, including the following subject areas:
. Revenue Requirement
. Power Cost Modeling
. Tax Provisions and Tax Reform
. Capital Additions and Forecasting
. Regulatory Accounting
. Depreciation Studies
. Pole Attachments
. Integrated Resource Planning
. Avoided Cost Calculations
. Utility Plant Retirements
EDUCATION AI\[D WORK EXPERIENCE
Brad has a Master of Accounting degree from the University of Utah. After obtaining his master's
degree, Brad worked at Deloitte Tax in San Jose, California, where he was responsible for preparing
corporate tar returns for multinational corporate clients and partnership returns for hedge fund clients.
Brad was later promoted to a Tax Senior position in a national tax practice specializing research and
development tax credit studies. Following Deloitte, Brad worked at PacifiCorp Energy, as an analyst
involved in power cost modeling and forecasting.
REGTILATORY APPEARANCES
Brad has sponsored expert witness testimony in the following regulatory proceedings:
In re Portland General Electric. Request for a General Rate Revision. OT.PUC
DocketNo. I.JE394
Alliancc ofWcstcm
Enerry Consumers
Powcr Cost Modeling
In reJoint Application of Nevada Power Companv d/b/a NV Enerery and Sierra
Pacific Power Companv d/b/a NV Enerey for approval of their Economic
Recoverv Transportation Electrification Plan for the oeriod 2022-2024. PUC
Nv. DocketNo.2l-09004
Nevada Resort
Association
Transportation
EIcctsification
In re PacifiCorp. dba Pacific Power. 2020 Power Cost Adjustment Mechanism.
OT.PUC DocketNo. I.JE392
Alliance ofWestem
Energy Consrmrers
Power Cost Defcrral
Exhibit No.401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, PllC
Page 1 of6
In re the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authoritv to Decrease
Current Rates bv $14.9 Million to Refund Deferred Net Power Costs Under
Tariff Schedule 95 Enerey Cost Adiustment Mechanism and to Decrease
Current Rates bv $166 Thousand Under Tariff Schedule 93. REC and SO2
Revenue Adiustment Mechanism. Wy.PSC Docket No. 20000-599-EM-21
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
In re Portland General Electric 2021 Annual Update TariffSchedule 125. Or
PUC DocketNo. UE 391
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
In re Joint Application of Nevada Power Company d/b/a NV Enersv and Siena
Pacific Power Company d/b/a NV Enerqy for approval of a reeulatory asset
account to recover costs relating to the development and implementation of
their Joint Natural Disaster Protection Plan. PUC )W. Docket No. 2l-03004
Wynn Las Vegas,
LLC; Smart Energy
Alliance
SingleJssue Rate
Filing
In re PacifiCorp d.b.a. Pacific Power. 2022 Transition Adiustment Mechanism.
OT.PUC DocketNo. UE 390
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
In re Avista 2020 General Rate Case. Wa.U.T.C. Docket No. UE-200900
(Cons.)
Alliance of Westem Revenue Requirement
Energy Consumers
In re NV Enerev's Fourth Amendment to Its 20lE Joint Inteerated Resource
Plan. PUC Nv. DocketNo 20-07023
Wynn Las Vegas, Transmission Planning
LLC; Smart Energy
Alliance
In Re Cascade Natural Gas Corporation. 2020 General Rate Case. Wa.U.T.C
Docket No. UG-200568
Alliance of Westem Revenue Requirement
Energy Consumers
In re Cascade Natural Gas Corporation. Petition to File Depreciation Study.
OT.PUC Docket No. UM 2073
Alliance of Westem Depreciation Rates
Energy Consumers
In re the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authoritv to Increase
Current Rates Bv $7.4 Million to Recover Defened Net Power Costs Under
Tariff Schedule 95 Energy Cost Adiustment Mechanism and to Decrease
Current Rates bv $604 Thousand Under Tariff Schedule 93. Rec and So2
Revenue Adiustment Mechanism. Wy.PSC Docket No. 20000-582-EM-20
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
In re the Complaint of Willamette Falls Paper Company and West Linn Paper
Comoany aeainst Portland General Electric Comoany. OT.PUC Docket No.
ulol2t07
Willamette Falls Paper
Company
Consumer Direct
Access, TariffDispute
In re The Application of Rock), Mountain Power for Authority to Increase its
Retail Electric Service Rates by Approximately $7.1 Million Per Year or l.l
Percent. to Revise the Enerey Cost Adjustment Mechanism. and to
Discontinue Operations at Cholla Unit 4. Wy.PSC Docket No. 2000-578-ER-
20
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
Avista Corporation 2021 General Rate Case. OT.PUC Docket No. UG 389 Alliance ofWestem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re NW Natural Reouest for a General Rate Revision. OT.PUC Docket No.
uG 388.
Alliance ofWestem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re PacifiCorp. Request to Initiate an Investieation of Multi-Jurisdictional
Issues and Approve an Inter-Jurisdictional Cost Allocation Protocol. Or.PUC,
uM 1050.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Jurisdictional
Allocation
In re Pueet Sound Enersv 2019 General Rate Case. Wa.UTC Docket No. UE
190529.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Coal Retirement Costs
Avista Corporation 2020 General Rate Case. Wa.UTC Docket No. UE-190334
(Cons.)
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Cascade Natural Gas Comoration Application for Approval of a Safe8
Cost Recovery Mechanism. Or. PUC DocketNo. UIll2026
Alliance of Westem Ratemaking Policy
Energy Consumers
In re Avista Corporation. Request for a General Rate Revision. OT.PUC
Docket No. UG 366.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Portland General Electric. 2020 Annual Update Tariff(Schedule 125).
OT.PUC Docket No UE 359.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
Exhibit No, 401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, PllC
Page 2 of 6
In re PacifiCorp 2020 Transition Adjustment Mechanism. OT.PUC Docket No.
uE 356.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consuners
Power Cost Modeling
In re PacifiCorp 2020 Renewable Adjustment Clause. OT.PUC Docket No. UE
3s2.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Single-Issue Rate
Filing
2020 Joint Power and Transmission Rate Proceedine. Bonneville Power
Administration, Case No. BP-20
Alliance of Westem
Enerry Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Policy
In the Matter of the Application of MSG Las Veeas. LLC for a Proposed
Transaction with a Provider of New Electric Resources. PUC Nv. Docket No.
l8-r0034
Madison Square
Garden
Customer Direct
Access
Puset Sound Eners.v 2018 Expedited Rate Filins. Wa.UTC Dockets UE-
I 80899ruG-l 80900 (Cons.).
Alliance of Western
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Settlement
Georeia Pacific G),psum LLC's Application to Purchase Enerw. Capacitv.
and/or Ancillary Services from a Provider of New Electric Resources. PUC
Nv. Docket No. I 8-09015.
Joint Aoplication of Nevada Power Company d/b/a NV Enerev for aporoval of Smart Energy Alliance Resource Planning
their 2018-2038 Triennial Inteerated Resource Plan and 2019-2021 Enersy
Suonlv Plan. PUCN Docket No. l8-06003.
ln re Cascade Natural Gas Corporation Request for a General Rate Revision.
Or.PUC, Docket No. UE 347.
In re Portland General Electric Company Request for a General Rate Revision. Alliance of Wcstem Revenue Requirement,
Or.pUC Docket No UE 335. Energy Consumers Rate Design
Georgia Pacific Customer Direct
Access
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Northwest Natural Gas Company. dba NW Natural. Requ€st for a
General Rate Revision, OT.PUC Docket No. UG 344.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Desigrr
In re Cascade Natural Gas Comoration Request for a General Rate Revision.
wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-170929.
Northwest Industrial
Gas Users
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Desiga
In the Matter of Hvdro One Limited. Application for Authorization to Exercise
Substantial Influence over the Policies and Actions of Avista Comoration.
Or.PUC, DocketNo. UM 1897.
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Merger
Application of Rockv Mountain Power for Approval of a Simificant Energy
Resource Decision and Voluntary Request for Approval ofResource Decision.
ut.PSC Docker No. 17-035-40
Utah Industrial Energy
Consumers, & Utah
Associated Energy
Users
Ncw Resource
Addition
In re PacifiCorp. dba Rochv Mountain Power. for a CPCN and Bindinq
Ratemakine Treatment forNew Wind and Transmission Facilities. Id.PUC
Case No. PAC-E-I7-07
PacifiCorp Idaho
Industrial Customers
New Resource
Addition
In re PacifiCorp. dba Pacific Power. 2016 Power Cost Adjustment Mechanism.
or.PUC, Docket No. UE 327 .
Alliance of Westem
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
ln re PacifiCom 2016 Power Cost Adiustment Mechanism. Wa.UTC Docket
No. UE-I70717
Boise Whitepaper, Power Cost Deferral
LLC
In re Avista Corporation 2018 General Rate Case. Wa.UTC Dockets UE-
170485 and UG-170486 (Consolidated).
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities,
& Northwest
Industrial Gas Users
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
Application of Nevada Power Company d/b/a NV Energy for authoriw to
adjust its annual revenue requirement for qeneral rates chareed to all classes of
electric customers and for relief properly related thereto. PUCN. Docket No.
l7-06003.
Smart Energy Alliance Revenue Requirement
Exhibit No.401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, P!!C
Page 3 of 6
In re the Application of Rockv Mountain Power for AuthoriU to Decrease
Current Rates bv $15.7 Million to Refund Deferred Net Power Costs Under
TariffSchedule 95 Enere.v Cost Adjusfiient Mechanism and to Decrease
Current Rates By $528 Thousand Under TariffSchedule 93. REC and SO2
Revenue Adiusfnent Mechanism. Wy. PSC, Docket No. 20000-514-EA-17
(Record No. 14696).
Wyoming Indusfrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
In re the 2018 General Rate Case of Pueet Sound Eners.v, Wa.UTC, Docket
No. UE-170033 (Cons.).
Industial Customers
of Northwest Utilities,
& Northwest
Industrial Gas Users
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re PacifiCom. dba Pacific Power. 2018 Transition Adjustment Mechanism.
Or.PUC, Docket No. W 323.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
In re Portland General Electric Companv. Request for a General Rate Revision.
Or.PUC, DocketNo. UE 319.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Portland General Electric Company. Anplication for Transportation
Electrification Proerams. Or.PUC, UM 18l l.
Industrial Customers
ofNorthwest Utilities
Electric Vehicle
Charging
In re Pacific Power & Lieht Company. Application for Transportation
Electrification Proerams. Or.PUC, Docket No. UM 1810.
Indusfial Customers
ofNorthwest Utilities
Single-issue
Ratemaking
In re the Public Utili8 Commission of Oreeon. Investieation to Examine
PacifiCorp. dba Pacific Power's Non-Standard Avoided Cost Pricine. Or.PUC,
DocketNo. UM 1802.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Quali&ing Facilities
In re Pacific Power & Lieht Co.. Revisions to TariffWN U-75. Advice No. 16-
05. to modift the Company's existing tariffs eovernine permanent
disconnection and removal nrocedures. Wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-161204.
Boise Whilepaper,
LLC
Customer Direct
Access
In re Pueet Sound Enersv's Revisions to TariffWN U-60. Addine Schedule
451. Implementine aNew Retail Wheeline Service. Wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-
l6tt23.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utililies
Customer Direct
Access
2018 Joint Power and Transmission Rate Proceedins. Bonneville Power
Administration, Case No. BP- I 8.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Policy
ln re Portland General Electric Companv Apnlication for Approval of Sale of
Harborton Restoration Proiect Prorertv. Or.PUC, Docket No. LJP 334 (Cons.).
customers
of No(hwest Utilities Defenal
In re An Investieation of Policies Related to Renewable Dishibuted Electric
Generation. Ar.PSC, Matter No. 16-028-U.
Arkansas Electric
Energy Consumers
Net Metering
In re Net Meterins and the Implementation of Act 827 of 2015. Ar.PSC,
MatterNo. l6-027-R.
Arkansas Electric
Energy Consumers
Net Metering
In re the Application of Rockv Mountain Power for Approval of the 2016
Energ.v Balancing Account. Ut.PSC, Docket No. l6-035-01
Utah Associated
Energy Users
Power Cost Deferral
In re Avista Corporation Request for a General Rate Revision. Wa.UTC,
Docket No. UE-l 60228 (Cons.).
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Util ities,
& Northwest
Industrial Gas Users
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re the Application of Rockv Mountain Power to Decrease Current Rates by
$2.7 Million to Recover Defened Net Power Costs Pursuant to Tariff Schedule
95 and to Increase Rates by $50 Thousand Pursuant to TariffSchedule 93.
Wy.PSC, Docket No. 20000-292-EA-l 6.
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
In re PacifiCom. dba Pacific Power. 2017 Transition Adiustment Mechanism.
Or.PUC. DocketNo. UE 307.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
In re Portland General Electric Company. 2017 Annual Power Cost Update
Tariff(Schedule 125). Or.PUC, Docket No. UE 308.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
In re Pacific Power & Lieht Comoany. General rate increase for electric
services. Wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-152253.
Boise Whitepaper,
LLC
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
Exhibit No.401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, PIIC
Page 4 of6
In The Matter of the Anplication of Rockv Mountain Power for Authoritv of a
General Rate Increase in Its Retail Electric Utilitv Service Rates in W),omine
of $32.4 Million Per Year or 4.5 Percent. Wy.PSC, Docket No. 20000469-ER-
15.
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
In re Avista Corporation. General Rate Increase for Electric Services.
Wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-l 50204.
Indusrial Customers
ofNorthw€st Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re the Application of Rochv Mountain Power to Decrease Rates by $17.6
Million to Recover Defened Net Power Costs Pursuant to Tariff Schedule 95
to Decrease Rates bv $4.7 Million Pursuant to Tariff Schedule 93. Wy.PSC,
Docket No. 20000-472-EA-l 5.
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Deferral
Formal comolaint of The Walla Walla Country Club asainst Pacific Power &
Lieht Companv for refusal to provide disconnection under Commission-
aoproved terms and fees. as mandated under Companv tariffrules. Wa.UTC,
DocketNo. UE-143932.
Columbia Rural
Electric Association
Customer Direct
Access / Customer
Choice
In re PacifiCorp. dba Pacific Power. 2016 Transition Adiustment Mechanism.
or.PUC, Docket No. UE 296.
Industrial Customers
ofNorthwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
In re Portland General Electric Company. Request for a General Rate Revision.
Or.PUC, Docket No. IIE 294.
Indusaial Customcrs
ofNorthwest Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Portland General Electric Companv and PacifiCorp dba Pacific Power.
Request for Generic Power Cost Adiustment Mechanism Investieation.
Or.PUC, Docket No. UM 1662.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Deferral
In re PacifiCom. dba Pacific Power. Aoplication for Aoproval of Deer Creek
Mine Transaction. Or.PUC, Docket No. UM 1712.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilrties
Single-issue
Ratemaking
In re Public Utilitv Commission of Oreeon. Investieation to Explore Issues
Related to a Renewable Generator's Contribution to Capacity. Or.PUC, Docket
No. UM 1719.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Resource Planning
In re Portland General Electric Companv. Apnlication for Deferral Accounting
of Excess Pension Costs and Carr.vins Costs on Cash Contributions. Or.PUC,
DocketNo. UM 1623.
Industrial Customers
ofNorthwest Utililies
Single-issue
Ratemaking
2016 Joint Power and Transmission Rate Proceedins. Bonneville Power
Adminishation, Case No. BP-16.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Policy
In re Pueet Sound Eners.v. Petition to Update Methodoloeies Used to Allocate
Electric Cost of Service and for Electric Rate Desien Pumoses. Wa.UTC,
Docket No. IJE-141368.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Cost ofService
In re Pacific Power & Lieht Companv. Request for a General Rate Revision
Resultine in an Overall Price Chanee of 8.5 Percent. or $27.2 Million.
Wa.UTC, Docket No. UE-I40762.
Boise Whitepaper
LLC
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design
In re Puset Sound Enersv. Revises the Power Cost Rate in WN U-60. TariffG.
Schedule 95. to reflect a decrease of $9.554.847 in the Companv's overall
normalized power supply costs. Wa.UTQ, Docket No. LJE-l4l l4l.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
In re the Application of Rochv Mountain Power for Authoritv to Increase Its
Retail Electric Utility Service Rates in Wyomine Approximately $36.1 Million
Per Year or 5.3 Percent. Wy.PSC, Docket No. 20000-446-ER-14.
Wyoming Industrial
Energy Consumers
Power Cost Modeling
In re Avista Corporation. General Rate Increase for Electric Services. RE.
Tariff WN U-28. Which Proposes an Overall Net Electric Billed Increase of
5.5 PercentEffective January 1.2015. Wa.UTC, DocketNo. UE-140188.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Revenue Requirement,
Rate Design, Power
Costs
In re PacifiCom. dba Pacific Power. Apolication for Deferred Accountine and
Prudence Determination Associated with the Eners.v Imbalance Market.
Or.PUC, DocketNo. LJM 1689.
Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities
Single-issue
Ratemaking
In re PacifiCorp. dba Pacific Power. 2015 Transition Adjustment Mechanism.
Or.PUC, Docket No. UE 287.of Northwest Utilities
Power Cost Modeling
Exhibit No.401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, PllC
Page 5 of 6
In re Portland General Electric Companv. Reouest for a General Rate Revision.
Or.PUC, DocketNo. uE 283.
lndustsial Cwtomers
of Northwcst Utilities
Revenuc Requircment
RaE Desiglr
No. UE
In re Portland General Electic Compan 2014 Schedule 145 Boardman Power
Plant Ooeratine AdiustnenL Or.PUC, Docket No. UE 281.
lndustrial Customers
ofNorthwest Utilities
Coal Retircment
In rc PacifiCoro. dba Pacific Power. TrEsition Adiusmenl Five-Year C.ost of
Service OptOut (adopting testimony ofDonald W. Scho€nbeck). Or.PUC,
DockctNo. IUE267.
IndurtidCfisomers Custo[rcrDircctoJNorthurcstUtilities Accesg
Exhibit No.401
Case No. PAC-E-21-07
B. Mullins, PllC
Page 6 of 6