Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040622Schunke Direct.pdfBEFORE THE , --HECEiVEO JUN 21 0 D PM 2: 03 ,.-...., \..) ISSION IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR ) CASE NO. AVU-E-04-1/ AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES ) AVU-G-04-1 AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND ) NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC l AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS IN } THE STATE OF IDAHO. } } DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID SCHUNKE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2004 1 Q. Please state your name and business address 2 for the record. 3 A. My name is David Schunke and my business 4 address is 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho. 5 Q. By whom are you employed and in what 6 capacity? 7 A. I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities 8 Commission as a Public Utilities Engineer. 9 Q. What is your educational and experience 10 background? 11 A. I received my Bachelor of Science Degree in 12 Civil Engineering at Montana State University in 1972. I 13 have been licensed as a Registered Professional Engineer 14 in Idaho since 1977. I have worked in various capacities, 15 including a Cost and Materials Engineer with Morrison 16 Knudsen Co., Inc. and a consulting engineer with Stevens, 17 Thompson & Runyan (STRAAM Engineers). As a consultant, I 18 worked as Project Engineer on numerous civil engineering 19 projects in Idaho and Oregon for more than six years. 20 Since joining the Commission Staff as a 21 Utilities Engineer in 1979, I have been continuously 22 involved in rate design and regulatory matters with 23 virtually all the water, gas and electric utilities 24 regulated by the Commission. I served as the Engineering 25 Section Supervisor from 1983 to 1991, Utilities Division CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 1 1 Deputy Administrator from 1991 through 2000 and Engineer 2 Manager from 2001 to present. 3 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 4 5 Q. A. What is the purpose of your testimony? The purpose of my testimony is to describe 6 Staff's rate design proposal for electric and natural gas 7 tariff customers. 8 9 Q. A. How is your testimony organized? My testimony consists of a summary of my 10 recommendations for both electric and natural gas service 11 followed by: 12 (a) A general discussion of my rate design 13 objectives for electric service. 14 (b) An explanation of how Staff proposes to 15 distribute the revenue requirement to the electric 16 customer classes, and 17 (c) Based on the resulting revenue 18 requirement for the various customer classes, I then 19 provide specific rate design proposals for each electric 20 customer class. 21 (d) A general discussion of my rate design 22 objectives for natural gas service. 23 (e) An explanation of how Staff proposes to 24 distribute the revenue requirement to the customer 25 classes, and CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-l 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 2 Staff 1 (f) Based on the resulting revenue 2 requirement for the various customer classes, I then 3 provide specific rate design proposals for each natural 4 gas customer class. 5 6 Q. A. Please summarize your testimony. I am making recommendations for the electric 7 and natural gas tariff rates. These rate proposals are 8 based on the Staff proposed overall revenue increase in 9 Base Rates for electric service of $23 million or 15.8%, 10 and an overall increase of $3.1 million (6.0%) for natural 11 gas service. These rate proposals are also based on the 12 cost of service results discussed by Mr. Hessing 13 (electric) and Mr. Fuss (natural gas). The recommended 14 increases would move all customer classes closer to cost 15 of service. Recommended percentage increases for each of 16 the electric service schedules are shown in Staff Exhibit 17 No. 143. They are as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Residential Service Schedule 1 - 18.8% General Service Schedules 11 and 12 - 11.4% Large General Service Schedules 21 and 22 - 12.9% Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 - 20.0% Potlatch (Lewiston) Schedule 25 - 14.9% Pumping Service Schedules 31 and 32 - 13.5% Street and Area Lighting Schedules 41-49 - 17.2% I am recommending no increase in the basic CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 3 1 charge or the minimum charge for Residential Schedule 1. 2 While I am opposed to the Company's proposal for declining 3 blocks for Schedules 11, 21 and 25, I am recommending that 4 the Company's proposal be accepted for this case with the 5 requirement that additional information be gathered by the 6 next general rate case so the Company can provide a 7 proposal to: 8 (1) divide Schedule 11 into two separate 9 schedules, one demand metered and the other not demand 10 metered; 11 12 Schedule 11; 13 (2) eliminate the declining block rates in (3) provide a proposal to eliminate the 14 declining block rates in Schedules 21 and 25, and 15 (4) implement time-of-use (TOU) rates 16 wherever they are practical. 17 Changes in revenue for the natural gas 18 service schedules are shown in Staff Exhibit No. 146. The 19 percentage increases for each schedule are as follows: 20 21 Residential Schedule 101 - Large General Service Schedule 111 - 6.97% 2.78% 22 Large General Service High Load Factor Schedule 23 24 25 121 - Interruptible Service Schedule 131 - Transportation Service Schedule 146 - 1.86% 1.45% 6.94% CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 4 Staff 1 Special Contracts - 0.0% 2 The proposed increase for Transportation Service Schedule 3 146 excludes gas costs. If gas costs were included the 4 resulting increase would be approximately 1.5%. 5 RATE DESIGN OBJECTIVES 6 7 Q. A. What are Staff's rate design objectives? The utility industry and this Commission have 8 had a long history of pricing power differently to 9 customers with different load and usage characteristics. 10 Residential customer rates differ from those of commercial 11 and industrial customer rates because the cost of 12 providing service differs depending on the characteristics 13 of the end use. Large loads with high-load factors 14 (constant use) tend to be less costly per kWh to serve 15 than smaller loads with large fluctuations. Time-of-use 16 is also a major factor in determining the cost of service. 17 These differences are generally addressed by grouping 18 customers with similar end-use characteristics together. 19 They form a rate class such as residential, commercial, 20 pumping, industrial or lighting. The cost of providing 21 service to the various customer classes has been addressed 22 in the cost of service (COS) studies discussed by Staff 23 witnesses Hessing and Fuss. The first objective in rate 24 design is to set rates that are more closely aligned to 25 the cost of providing service. CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 5 1 It is also an objective to keep rates 2 reasonable by balancing the cost of service goals with the 3 goals for simplicity, for minimizing rate shock, and for 4 promoting conservation - especially during high cost 5 periods. 6 The Company was not able to provide the data 7 necessary to divide Schedule 11 and 21 into multiple 8 schedules. Therefore several of my recommendations are 9 directed at the Company's next rate filling when these 10 issues can be more fully addressed with adequate data. 11 CUSTOMER CLASS REVENUE ALLOCATION - ELECTRIC 12 Q. What cost of service study is Staff's 13 electric rate design proposal based on? 14 A. Staff witness Hessing has reviewed the 15 Company's cost of service (COS) analyses, which he 16 discusses in his testimony. This is the COS methodology 17 that Staff believes is most appropriate and is the one 18 Staff has based its electric rate design analysis on. 19 Q. Does Staff's rate design proposal strictly 20 follow the COS results? 21 A. No. Staff witness Hessing proposes only an 22 incremental move toward full cost of service in 23 recognition of the fact that cost of service results are 24 not precise and unacceptably large increases to some 25 classes would occur. Staff's proposal for the revenue CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 6 1 requirement increase for each rate class is comprised of 2 two parts. First, 20% of the increase dictated by cost of 3 service, is added to each class. The remainder of the 4 necessary revenue requirement increase is spread to each 5 rate class on a uniform percentage. These two adjustments 6 shown in Column 5 and 6 of Staff Exhibit No. 143 are added 7 to the Current Base Revenue to arrive at the Staff- 8 Proposed Base Revenue shown in Column 7 of Staff Exhibit 9 No. 143. These are the amounts that Staff used in its 10 rate design proposals and each class is moved 20% closer 11 to cos. 12 Q. Why is the Staff proposal based on a move to 13 cost of service of only 20%? 14 A. One of my objectives in rate design is to set 15 rates that are more closely aligned to the cost of 16 providing service. However, it_is also an objective to 17 keep rates reasonable by balancing the cost of service 18 goals with the goals for simplicity, for minimizing rate 19 shock, and for promoting conservation. I believe that a 20 20% move to COS balances these objectives to achieve 21 reasonable rates for all customer classes. 22 In the last general rate case for Avista both 23 the Company and Staff recommended a 1/3 move to cost of 24 service for all customer classes. The Commission approved 25 a 20% move the first year and an additional 15% move the CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 7 1 following year in order to accomplish the one-third move proposed by the Company. 3 found: In that order, the Commission 2 4 Cost-of-service, however, is only one of many factors to be considered by this 5 Commission in tariff design; 6 Order No. 28097 at 27 7 Important interests in rate stability and continuity preclude adopting the 8 extremely large double digit shifts in revenues from one class to another that 9 were requested. In addition, we recognized that the results of cost-of-service studies 10 are not so precise that the determination of appropriate revenue shifts is an exact 11 certainty. 12 Order No. 28097 at 30 13 In the recent Idaho Power general rate case 14 the Commission approved a 13.95% increase to the 15 irrigation class, which also represented a 20% move to 16 17 18 19 20 21 cos. In that order the Commission stated: we find that the revenue requirement assigned to the irrigation class should be less than indicated by the cost of service study. The Commission has often stated that consideration such as rate stability and proportionality justify limiting the amount of the rate increase to any class of customers. 22 Order 29505 at 50 23 Staff believes that circumstances in this case also 24 justify limiting the COS adjustment, and we believe that a 25 20% move to COS is reasonable. Moving the residential CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 8 1 class to full COS would require a rate increase of 30.7%. 2 Q. Comparing the 20% Year 1 move to COS in the 3 last Avista general rate case and the 20% move being 4 proposed here, what is the magnitude of the increase 5 proposed in this case for Residential Schedule 1 and 6 Schedule 25 as compared to the increases in the last 7 Avista general rate case? 8 A. In the last Avista general rate case, a 20% 9 move to COS resulted in increases to Residential Schedule 10 1 and Schedule 25 of 9.5% and 10%, respectively. In this 11 case, a 20% move to COS results in an 18.8% increase to 12 Residential Schedule 1 and a 20% increase to Schedule 25. 13 By further comparison, in the last Idaho Power Company 14 general rate case, a 20% move to COS for the irrigation 15 Schedule 24 resulted in a 13.95% increase to irrigators. 16 The impact of a 20% move to COS in this case is 17 considerably greater than in the two cases cited. 18 Q. Are you recommending a second step adjustment 19 in COS at a later time, similar to what the Commission 20 ordered in the last rate case WWP-E-98-11 (Order No. 21 28097)? 22 A. If the Commission finds that an additional 23 step in COS is needed, I am recommending that COS be 24 reviewed when the PCA balance drops to zero, or at the 25 next general rate case. If the Commission accepts the CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 9 1 recommendation of Mr. Hessing to base the PCA adjustment 2 on ¢/kWh rather than uniform percent of revenue, that may 3 be an appropriate time to consider an additional 4 adjustment to COS. A general rate case is always an 5 appropriate time to review COS. 6 Q. Are your rate design proposals limited to the 7 base rates? 8 A Yes. My proposals are limited to base rates 9 and do not address the other rate adders including, PCA 10 rates, DSM rider, Centralia credit or the Residential 11 Exchange (BPA) credit. 12 RATE DESIGN - RESIDENTIAL 13 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 14 recommending for Residential Schedule 1? 15 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase 16 in revenue of 18.8% to Residential Schedule 1. 17 Q. What is your recommendation for the 18 Residential Schedule 1 rate design? 19 A. I am recommending that (1) the basic charge 20 and minimum charge remain at $4.00; (2) the energy rate 21 for the first 600 kWh increase by 21.9% to $0.05554/kWh, 22 and (3) the rate for energy use in excess of 600 kWh/month 23 be priced 18.8% higher at $.06302/kWh. 24 Staff Exhibit No. 144 shows the present and 25 proposed rates on page 2 along with the resulting revenue CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 10 Staff 1 for Residential Schedule 1 on page 4. The proposed 2 increase for a residential customer using an average of 3 941 kWh per month is $9.40 per month or a 18.8% increase 4 in their electric bill. [The present bill for base rates 5 without the PCA for 941 kWh is $49.41 compared to the 6 proposed level without the PCA of $58.82.] Current and 7 proposed base rate bills are compared on Staff Exhibit No. 8 145. 9 Q. The Company has proposed an increase in the 10 residential basic customer charge and minimum charge from 11 $4.00 to $5.00. Do you agree with this proposal? 12 A. No. The Company's proposal increases the 13 customer basic charge and minimum charge 25%. This would 14 have a disproportionate affect on customers with low 15 usage. I believe the basic charge and minimum charge 16 should remain at $4.00. 17 Q. Why do you believe there should be no 18 increase in the customer basic charge and minimum charge? 19 A. The customer basic charge should be based on 20 the direct cost of meter reading and billing and should 21 not include any fixed plant cost. I believe this is 22 consistent with the recent Commission order in an Idaho 23 Power rate case (Order No. 29505 at 53) "The Commission 24 finds that a monthly service charge should recover costs 25 that are directly attributed to the customer paying the CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 11 Staff 1 charge. Typically, those charges are related to meter 2 reading and customer billing." 3 The monthly cost associated with meter 4 reading and billing is $2.62 for this customer class. 5 Therefore, I believe no increase can be justified. I 6 therefore believe the current rate of $4.00 is the 7 appropriate amount for both the basic and minimum charge. 8 RATE DESIGN SCHEDULE 11 and 12 9 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 10 recommending for General Service Schedule 11 and 12? 11 A. Staff is recommending an average overall 12 increase in revenue of 11.4% to General Service Schedule 13 11 and 12. 14 Q. The Company has proposed an additional energy 15 usage block that would provide a lower energy rate for 16 usage in excess of 3650 kWh per month. Do you support 17 this change? 18 A. I am opposed to the Company's proposal for a 19 declining block ·for Schedules 11. However, I am 20 recommending that the Company's proposal be accepted for 21 this case. I recommend that prior to the next general 22 rate case, the Company should gather sufficient data to 23 provide a proposal to eliminate the declining block rates 24 and divide Schedule 11 into two separate schedules, one 25 demand metered and the other not demand metered. CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 12 1 Q. The Company argues that the declining block 2 rate is needed for Schedule 11, because under the present 3 rates, customers whose demand exceeds 20 kW end up being 4 billed a higher average amount per kWh than customers 5 using less than 20 kW. Do you agree? 6 A. It is true that the present rates effectively 7 bill customers, with demand that exceeds 20 kW, a higher 8 amount per kWh than customers using less than 20 kW per 9 month. However, this is true only because the Company has 10 customers on Schedule 11 who are NOT demand-metered. 11 Schedule 11, which has a demand charge, includes both 12 demand-metered customers and non-demand metered customers. 13 The non-demand metered customers, who cannot be billed for 14 demand, are assumed to use less than 20 kW. Therefore, no 15 customer in the class is billed for the first 20 kW of 16 demand. The effect this has on demand-metered customers 17 with higher usage is that they tend to pay more per kWh. 18 Q. Do you believe there is a better more direct 19 solution to this problem than creating declining block 20 rates? 21 A. Yes. Two separate schedules should be 22 created. One for the demand metered customers and one for 23 the non-demand metered customers. Having both demand- 24 metered and non-demand metered customers on a demand 25 schedule is the real problem. The Company fix to not bill CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE I D. (Di) Staff 13 1 the first 20 kW of demand only created a new problem which 2 is higher use customers paying effectively more per kWh. 3 The Company's proposed fix for this is a declining block 4 rate. I believe the real fix is to create two separate 5 schedules. 6 Unfortunately the Company does not have 7 sufficient data at this time to separate the schedule 8 between demand and non-demand metered customers. 9 Therefore, I am recommending that the Company's proposal 10 for a declining block be accepted until the data can be 11 made available to properly separate the schedule. The 12 Company should be directed to collect the necessary 13 customer data and the rate class should be separated as a 14 part of the next general rate case. 15 Q. What rates are you recommending for General 16 Service Schedule 11 and 12? 17 A. I am recommending no change in the basic 18 charge the minimum charge or the demand charge. The 19 energy rate for the first 3650 kWh per month should be 20 7.527 ¢/kWh and for usage above 3650 kWh per month should 21 be 6.398 ¢/kWh. Staff Exhibit No. 144, page 2, shows the 22 present and Staff-proposed rates along with the resulting 23 revenue on page 4 for Schedule 11 and 12. 24 RATE DESIGN LARGE GENERAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 21 and 22 25 Q. What is the overall rate change recommended CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) Staff 14 1 by Staff for the Large General Service Schedule 21 and 22? 2 A. Staff recommends an overall revenue increase 3 of 12.9%. 4 Q. What is your recommendation for the Large 5 General Service Schedule 21 and 22 rate design? 6 A. I am recommending that the Company's proposal 7 for the second block energy rate and the increases to the 8 demand charges be accepted. The first block demand charge 9 would increase from $225 to $250 and the second block 10 demand charge would increase from $2.75 to $3.00. The 11 first block energy rate would be 4.664 ¢/kWh and the 12 second block would be 3.964 ¢/kWh. These rates are shown 13 on Staff Exhibit No. 144, page 2. I also recommend that 14 the Company develop additional information before the next 15 rate case assessing the economical impact of the second 16 block to justify continual use of a declining block energy 17 charge. 18 RATE DESIGN EXTRA LARGE GENERAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 25 19 Q. What is Staff's recommended change in the 20 revenue requirement for Extra Large General Service 21 Schedule 25 (including Potlatch)? 22 A. Staff recommends an overall revenue increase 23 of 20% for Extra Large General Service 25, with Potlatch 24 receiving a 14.9% increase. 25 Q. What is your recommendation for Schedule 25 CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 15 Staff 1 rate design? 2 A. I am recommending that the Company's proposal 3 for the second block energy rate and the increases in the 4 demand charges be accepted. The first block demand charge 5 would increase from $7,500 to $9,000 and the second block 6 demand charge would increase from $2.25 to $2.75. The 7 first block energy rate would be 3.873 ¢/kWh and the 8 second block would be 3.268 ¢/kWh. These rates are shown 9 on Staff Exhibit No. 144, page 2. The Company should be 10 prepared to demonstrate that the Schedule 21 and 22 tail 11 blocked rates exceed the Company's variable costs and 12 provide a small contribution to the Company's fixed costs. 13 RATE DESIGN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE 31 14 Q. What is Staff's recommended revenue 15 requirement increase for Pumping Schedule 31? 16 A. Staff recommends that Schedule 31 rates be 17 increased by 13.5%. 18 Q. What is your rate design proposal for 19 Schedule 31? 20 A. I accept the Company's recommendation that 21 all of the proposed increase for Schedule 31 be applied to 22 the energy rate. The first block energy rate would be 23 6.295 ¢/kWh and the second block energy rate would be 24 5.351 ¢/kWh. The basic charge would remain at $6.00. 25 These rates are shown on Staff Exhibit No. 144, page 2. CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 16 Staff 1 RATE DESIGN STREET AND AREA LIGHTS SCHEDULES 41-49 2 Q. What is Staff's recommended revenue 3 requirement increase for Street and area lights Schedule 4 41-49? 5 A. Staff recommends that revenue for Schedules 6 41-49 be increased by 13.5%. 7 Q. What is your rate design proposal for Street 8 and Area Lights Schedules 41-49? 9 A. I am recommending a uniform increase in all 10 the Schedule 41-49 tariff rates to accomplish the 17.2% 11 increase in revenue. 12 NATURAL GAS GENERAL 13 Q. How did Staff calculate the revenue 14 allocation between the natural gas customer classes? 15 A. Staff balanced the objective to move each 16 class closer to cost of service with the objective of 17 achieving an equal contribution to the non-gas related 18 costs (which is referred to the margin) from Schedules 19 121, 131, and 146. Staff's proposed revenue allocation 20 between classes was achieved by starting with the cost of 21 service results provided by Mr. Fuss. Then Schedules 121, 22 131 and 146 were moved closer to an equal contribution to 23 the margin. 24 Q. What cost of service study is Staff's rate 25 design proposal based on? CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-l 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 17 Staff 1 A. Staff witness Fuss has completed a review of 2 the Company's gas cost of service (COS) analyses and has 3 made a number of adjustments, which he discusses in his 4 testimony. This is the cost of service methodology that 5 Staff believes is most appropriate and is the one Staff 6 has based its natural gas rate design analysis on. 7 Q. Why is it important to equalize the 8 contribution to the non-gas related costs (margin) for 9 Schedules 121, 131, and 146? 10 A. In order to discourage switching between 11 schedules and to protect against a revenue shortfall for 12 the Company the margin for each of these schedules should 13 be fairly close. The difference in the margin in Staff's 14 proposal is equal to the difference in the Company's rate 15 proposal. 16 The Final Revenue allocation is shown in 17 Column 'e' of Staff Exhibit No 146. This is the amount 18 that Staff used in its rate design proposals. Present and 19 proposed rates for all the natural gas schedules are 20 summarized in Staff Exhibit No. 147, pages 2, 3 and 4 and 21 again on Staff Exhibit No. 148. 22 GENERAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 101 23 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 24 recommending for Residential Schedule 101? 25 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 18 Staff 1 in revenue of 6.97% to Residential Schedule 101. 2 Q. What is your recommendation for the 3 Residential Schedule 101 rate design? 4 A. I am recommending that (1) the basic charge 5 and the minimum charge remain at $3.28, and (2) the energy 6 rate be increased to 79.678 ¢/therm. 7 Staff Exhibit No. 147 shows the existing and 8 proposed rates along with the resulting revenue for 9 Residential Schedule 101. 10 Q. The Company has proposed an increase in the 11 residential basic charge and the minimum charge from $3.28 12 to $5.00. Why are you proposing no increase in these 13 charges? 14 A. The Company Exhibit No. 23, page 4, shows 15 that the cost of meter reading and billing for Schedule 16 101 is $2.46. These are the costs that I believe are 17 appropriately recovered in the basic charge. This is 18 consistent with the recent Commission order in an Idaho 19 Power rate case (Order No. 29505, page 53) "The Commission 20 finds that a monthly service charge should recover costs 21 that are directly attributed to the customer paying the 22 charge. Typically, those charges are related to meter 23 reading and customer billing." 24 LARGE GENERAL SERVICE SCHEDULE 111 25 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 19 Staff 1 recommending for Large General Service Schedule 111? 2 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase 3 in revenue of 2.78% to Schedule 111. 4 Q. What is your recommendation for the Schedule 5 111 rate design? 6 A. I am recommending that the energy rate be 7 increased to 78.190 ¢/therm in the first block, 76.379 8 ¢/therm in the second block and 66.182 ¢/therm in the 9 third block. 10 LARGE GENERAL SERVICE-HIGH LOAD FACTOR SCHEDULE 121 11 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 12 recommending for Large General Service-High Load Factor 13 Schedule 121? 14 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase 15 in revenue of 1.86% to Schedule 121. 16 Q. What is your recommendation for the Large 17 General Service-High Load Factor Schedule 121 rate design? 18 A. I am recommending that the energy rate be 19 increased to 77.103 ¢/therm in the first block, 76.379 20 ¢/therm in the second block and 66.182 ¢/therm in the 21 third block and 64.313 ¢/therm in the fourth and final 22 block. 23 INTERRUPTIBLE SERVICE SCHEDULE 131 24 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 25 recommending for Interruptible Service Schedule 131? CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 20 Staff 1 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase 2 in revenue of 1.45% to Interruptible Service Schedule 131. 3 Q. What is your recommendation for the 4 Interruptible Service Schedule 131 rate design? 5 A. I am recommending that the energy rate be 6 increased to 56.531 ¢/therm. 7 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE SCHEDULE 146 8 Q. What change in revenue requirement is Staff 9 recommending for Transportation Service Schedule 146? 10 A. Staff recommends an average overall increase 11 in revenue of 6.94% to Transportation Service Schedule 12 146. 13 Q. What is your recommendation for the 14 Transportation Service Schedule 146 rate design? 15 A. I am recommending that the Company-proposed 16 basic charge of $200/month be approved and the energy rate 17 be increased to 10.908 ¢/therm. 18 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony in 19 this proceeding? 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, it does. CASE NOS. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1 06/21/04 SCHUNKE, D. (Di) 21 Staff N 0 0 N - M .... CD .c E CD CD o g ·� c CD C> u, c ..... =a O c u; w O II) (.) :5 ';ft g � :ii: N "C CD • !:::! cu E .... 0 z Q) Cf) �o E O �B Cl) x o� o ..!: cl Q) c: e ro Q) s: a.. o Q) I :, - c: c: Q) Q) ii, .§ Cl:'.(/) Cf) .::::i 0 "O o <( .. - Q) c: ::::, IE c: .... Q) ::::, > o & Q) 01 :5 z �������� Oll'--t0t0(")(0'<:t0 oo:i....:r--:Mcoirici cn..-..-cooocno T""' T""' T""' T""' T""' ?ft.�"?ft.�?f!.cf!.'te.� CO"<tOlOOll{}NCO co....:C'io'<iMr--:io T""' T""'.,...... C\I T""' T""' T""' T""' C'? ..- C'? "<:I" tO NC'? N C'?OCO..--tOOlCO'<t cocoio'<iMiricoio ..... ..-r--NNOtoCOtO NOC:O..-ONNl'-­ O I'-- I'-- 0 l{} ..- I'-- CO <£r--:-<£inN°..,f..,f<£ N l{} I'-- I'--..-- a, CON I!) 0 NI!) CO CO..- M N°cooiN°�N°N°oi tO ..... (") ..... (") tO T"" l{}t0t0C0tOO')..-..­ I!) CO(")..- CO O>N O I!) tO co "<:I" "<:I" r-- (") ..... <£<£C"'iN°<£�inC"'i "<:I" "<t O> NO> N (") tO tO O (")(")"<:I" C'? N -e- <£N°..,f �C"'i co ..... 00000000 00000000 00000000 coN°..,fin<£m-..,;co �N���;1;�� N<D"<l"-0,-.:-N-�<D l{} ..-- (")..- N "<l" ..... O CO r-- I'- tO N (") (") CONl'--OCONCOCO (") (") ..... r-- 0 0) O') l{} co in ...,; cti c:i co· N cti CON I'-- 0 l'--"<t ..- N OlN(OC'?CO ..... C') "<:I" ...... O') "<l" ...... (") O') l{} co ...... "<:I" "<:I" 0 I'-- 0 r--:-<£ � - co ..... O') T"" T"" ...... l{} I!) ..... "': ..- N N N (") ..... "<l" ..-NC'?"<l"tOl'--COO'l (I) 2 e! Q) (/) ctl .0 .9 (/) c Q) .§ (/) ::::, =o ctl c5 (/) Q) "O ::::, u x w Exhibit No. 143 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 N N CX) LO_ N CJ) a:," '<t L() 0 0 ri IX) 0) N. .,.... 0 � I{) CX) 0 ci ...... CX) O OI N co I{) 00 0 ci ...... 00 I'- LO! ...... 0 O LO I{) co 0 ..... CX) ..... co '<t LO 01 0 0 C"')- CX) (j) C\i O 01 N co I{) CX) 0 ci ...... CX) 0 N co L()- CX) 0 o" ...... a:) L() OJ 0 0 ri eo CJ) C\i ..... 1() 0 0 ri eo 0) C\i 00 CO (j) co co co O') ,-...:- ..... CJ) '<t IX) ...: ...... - N N 000 ON O CO o LO. O CX) 00 c.6 '<t- <.o 00 N 0 U) C\i ..... L() 0 0 ri co (j) C\i ..... 0 N co I{) CX) 0 ci ...... 00 O OJ N co I{) 00 0 o" ...... eo LOOI 0 0 ri co 0) C\i o OI � I{) 00 0 o" ...... co LOOI 0 0 ri eo 0) N. ..... L() 0 0 ri 00 (j) C\i ..... 0 N co I{) CX) 0 ci ...... CX) 0 N co I{) CX) 0 ci ...... IX) CX) co (j) co CX) co O') ...... - .,.... 0) '<t IX) ...:i---:­ N N I o � l­ o o, (.9 z;;; 0::: I � () :J CJ) a, (1) 0) co a.. ("') 0) '<t I{) CX) N 0 0) '<t O') 0) o_ N 00 ("') c.6 ...... ............... ...-< I I s::::I" s::::r-o o, � c., s::::r- I I s::::r-00 ...... > > 0 ..::c: < z . 0 z ...... 0 co sf CX) co ..... ...... CJ) '<t co N ("') I{) N N CJ) ::c � <( � 0::: 0 u... 0 0::: a.. .....J � 0 I- U) LO O') ...... (") co 00 CJ) N Ol ...... (X) 00 co L() N '<t '<t CX) a· co (") I ..... ri (X) ..... ! LO <O r-,.. N O') ..... LO C"'> N 0) (D I N N CJ) ::c I- � z� w...., � o<( 1- CJ) Q ::::> w ...., .....J 0 ...I <( m wz 0:::: ::::> o ca � 0::: co w ...I ::c <( I-<( I- � � '<t ("')! ............ co L() ci eo (0 ..... en_ N C") ...... CD ...... <Di LO O '<t 0) c.6 (0 N '<t <.o N '<t. (0 (j) I 0) ..- OI CX) '<t i---:- 0 ...... ri 0 ("') ...... L() LO CO '<t (") MLO IO N CX) '<t cio � ";' ri .....J <( ::::> t; <( 0 I- I­ z .....J w <( � I- l­ o CJ) I- ::::> CD -, ::::> 0 CJ) <( O Ni '<t eo ...... 0) c.6 co COO '<t N (D I N N N CX) N '<t ("') co ...; (") ..... L() .......... ........... �� ..- OI CX) '<t i---:- 0 ...... ri 0 ("') ...... L() '<t ri L() 00 o" L() ..... ri 1- z w � I-­ CJ) ::::> ...., 0 <( (.9 z .....J i= � LL :i: � CJ) CD I­ :::> w CJ) z CX) '<ti N O'> (.() (0 I{) a:) '<t (.() NCX) i---:- ("') 0) co LO N ...... co ...... ..... ...... - CX) (j) CJ) 1- ::c (.9 ::i <( w 0::: <( ca 1- w w 0::: �· 0 ..... O CX) 0 '<t ci i---:- 00 0 ...... ...; O') CX) ..... N CX) 0 ON '<t N c.6 O') L() CX) CX) M �f (.() � z <( z :i!l en 0:: ::c �[ c CJ) .....Jc::: = ::::> mo c ::c � � NM o���� gg888 I,&,, - ...I .....J .....J D.. � CO CD CD O') d:, 0 w_ l() 0 0 WW 0 0) '<t O') CJ) o_ N CX) M c.6 ...... o ci o WWW ...... 0 co C\i 0) a:) CD ...... 0) '<t co N ("') I{) N N .,.... CX) '<t ...... - 0 ...... ri 0 ("') CJ) ::c � <( :E 0:::: 0 u... 0 0::: a.. .....J g I- U) l() O') ...... M co CX) (]) ("') <( w a:) ..... , L() co r-,.. N O') ..... L() ("') N O'> (D I N N N O'> ...... eo 0 0 co L() N '<t -e- 00 ci co M' ..... ri ...... co L() 0 '<t (j) c.6 co N '<t CO N ...; co (j) I (j) ..- OI co '<t i---:- 0 ...... ri 0 M '<t ("')! ............ co L() ci co co T""" O'> N ri ...... co CJ) I I- � z . w...., �o I- <( CJ) 0 ::::> w ...., .....J 0 .....J c:c m wz 0::: ::::> o oa lli 0::: CD W ...I ::c �� �� ci w '<t OI r-, co o" co (j) ri ...... co ..-- OI 00 '<t i---:- 0 ...... ri 0 ("') 00 OI I.O ...... m· LO N c.6 N N ...... I.Oi N '<t CX) N NLO O'> M '<t 0) ri c.o N ..... ri .....J <( ::::> t; <( 0 I- I­ z .....J w <( � I- l­ o CJ) I- ::::> CD -, ::::> 0 CJ) <( ..... w w N '<t L() 0) '<t co CO 00 N <.o ..... CX) o" ("') ("') I N 0 '<ti CX) CJ) CJ) eo ...: CX) CJ) (.() O co ci (") ...... (0 L() N ...... co ...... ..... i---:- eo (j) ...... N CX) C\i CJ) '<t ri N ..... ri 1- z w � I-­ CJ) ::::> ...., 0 <( (.9 z .....J t 5:c I- CJ) CD I­ :::> w CJ) z ...... IX) '<t ...... .,.... l() co ci '<t ("') (.() L() O') ...... - N LO LO '<t N L() '<t co N ..... ci M N 0 CX) � m 0 ci ...... (.() ..... 0 ci ci o o wwww .....J � 0 I- z w I.O (.!) N (!) I .....J () x CJ) w w 0::: o wz o, w <( 0::: n, w � u... �� .....J <( i= � z ::::> WO ow ci5 I w () 0:::: CJ) () N �; .....J �� W I z () w CJ) (.9 () N >N CJ) ca z WN (!) I . () g CJ) .....J <( CJ) 0 o, 0 0::: o, u... u... � CJ) en w i c w en 0 D.. � 0.. 1- z w fil N eno::oE!: wc..:%:M EO::<(C'i ���� :::, :::, 0 � <(1-wwz :::, I-<( w !:!? z > I- 0:: c:c�en<t w w 0:: >- (.J ii: 1- (.J w ..J w <C � 0:: 0 LL 0 0:: D.. I o � b a.. z W LO (!)N (!) I _J <..) x (/') w o N >N (/') ca :i WN (!)I • <..) g Cf) o N �; ...J �� WI z o w Cf) o _J <( j::: � Z:::, WO ow en I w o 0:: (/') ...J � 0 I- 0 0 co w 0 0 co w ?f.. 'I:).. ....... 0 LO ..- · N 0) • r,... LO O LO ON oN ow LO r--:- w O LO ON oN ow LO r,..." w O LO 0 ....... ui N NW N w 0 LO C") w 0 0 co w 0 0 co w ?f.. 'I:).. 0 <O 0 "' • IX) LO • co LO O LO 0 ....... oN ow 0 cri w O LO 0 ....... oN OW 0 cri w 0 0 0 0 ci C") LO W N w 0 LO C") w N C'\I N O o. " (X) (X) ....... ....... (X) IX) " cri 0) w N a> C) co a. w 0::: o wz a.. w <( 0::: n, w :::s:::: u. �� III ��� 0::: 0:: 0::: WWW a.. a.. a.. NC") :::s:::: :::s:::: :::s:::: o o o 000 ...J _J ...J cc cc aJ I � 0::: w a.. _J :3 � 0 I- I­ (/') ::) -, 0 <( C'\I :::s:::: :::s:::: o o 00 _J ...J cc rn 00 zz <( <( �� WW 00 uu WW 000 WWW -e-- N :::s:::: :::s:::: o o 00 ...J ...J co co 00 zz <( <( �� WW 00 uu WW Exhibit No. 144 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 Page 2 of 4 I o � l­ o a.. 0 (0 0 II') "'" w co N (!) 0 0 II') N w IX) N o_ w "'" C") C") (!) 0) (0 r-,." N w "'"0 MW (") (!) 0) (0 r-,." N w CX) N 0 0 0 00 w 0 0 0 0) I (0 (") O L() <ON w ,q, LO N 01 w C") C") (0 0) (0 l"­ N co 0 (0 a5 i C\i w (") (1) C) C'O a.. w ::J z w > w 0::: 1- z w (/') w 0::: a. _J j:: 0 I- N 0 ..... II') "'" "<:!' ci w ail NI'- ..- I"- ..-: N (!) l"­ w N - (0 .... w ::J z w Gj w a:: � !z � ww � a:: I- (!) �� -, _J 0 ::::! < C'.l _J _J .:: .:: 00 I- I- 01 WO .... L() l"­ -.;t' 0 .... 0 0 T"" L() I< WW .... co" N � .... I 00 w 0 "<:!' O C") 0 (O_ "-.;t' N O') (0 "'" w «i L() L() (0 I() l"­ N.. N 0 II') "'" ,q, ci ..... w w ::J z w > w 0::: (!) z :J _J a5 _J j:: � _J <( ::J t; -c _J O � l­ o � �� ::J O (/') <( NO ow .... lO" "'" ,q, ci w O> I (0 0) ON 0) co N LO lO N (!) w w w L() I NC"? L() 0 ..,; .... C") co co ..... ..,; (") w 1- z w � 1- (/'J :) -, 0 < (!) z _J j::: � LL :i: � (/') o::i I­ :::> w (/') z N 0 .... I() "'" ,q, ci w O O') O L() O C") oC\i �� "w w C") L() L() a5 N "'" a5 w N C") (0 II') 0 .... I() w N ,q, co II') lO .... _J � 0 I- z w lO (!) N (!) I _J (.) x Cf) w �N � oa � WI z () w (/') o (.) N >N (/') oa :i WN (!) I . () � (/') _J <( j::: � z ::J wo ow ci5 I w () a:: (/') w a:: o wz a. w < a:: a. w ::.:::: LL �� I o � b o, co LC') eo i vi LC') ..... ..... ("') ,..:o ..... ("') O'> N «.")- 0 0 0 0 00 «.")- 0 0 0 0 0-;!.. O CD It) 00 ui� .......... ..... ..,; ti> � <i5 Q) "'O Cl. 0 ro E �> 0 � � io I E� �w ..c o CJ) L.. :E 'o:::t Q) 0) ro a.. co -;!.. t,.. co c:c t,.. co I() t,.. ..... 0 c-; N ti> N ?ft. ..... lO 00 00 ON ..... N' ti> 0 0 ..... ..... (0 C\I � ..... I LC') I!') c.o LO ...... N. 0;00 MW ,..._ eo (') O'> 0) co <D co N (j) ("') «.")- M! O CO 0 ,..._ ,...: ,..._ ("') LC') 0) ..... a..­ ,..._ ;; Ci M eo O LC') ..,; co -,;t ..... ..... a:i ;; -,;ti C\I 0) MN o co O LC') "<t" C\I a:i ;; ..... I ..... ("') O'> 0 ,...: ..... eo co co ..... 0 "<t" w O CO 0 0 0 ..... N It) ..... co LC') ,..._ - «.")- ;; LC') "<t" 0 ("') ,..._ 0 a:i O eo M ..... a:, m N NW w ..... LC') lO M C\I co (j) ,...: MM O'> 0 ..,; C\i ..-w «.")- C\I cl; LO LC') ..... z w LC') (.!) C\I (.!) :r:: ....I o x so w _J � 0 ..... (.) N >N (/') ca :i WN o :r:: g� � C\I (/') ..... _J ca �� w :r:: z o w (/') o _J <( j::: � z :::J wo ow en :r:: w o 0::: (/') w 0::: o wz n, w -c 0::: c, w � LL �� ..... z w � ..... (/') :::J -:, 0 <( o z _J j:::u.. � o :i: ..... (/') ca.,_ :::J w so z _J -c :::J t5 <t: ....IO � l­ o t; �� :::JO en <t: w :::J z w > w a:: o z ::J ....I ci5 _J � � w w� �� WO 0:: � ow �::::, wz ::::, w z> ww > 0:: w ..... 0:: z -' w �� ow ..... ll. c: 0 "' "i::: C'CS c. E 0 o Q) ..... C'CS 0::: cu .:: c: Q) :E "' Q) 0::: e "i::: ..... e � w C'CS ..... "' � co c.o � 0 c.o c.o � 0 l.lM>I/$ aJeJ aA 'fl 'q" c.o � 0 N c.o 0 0 c.o � 0 Q) Q) � ro I ,._ � s c C/J � ,._Q) 0 � c.. C/J :5 e o (.) Q. (.) + + I co LO 0 0 Oo �'9 Oa c9.z. Oo. �.6 Oa � Oa t>'c' Oo. i9c' Oa c'c' Oa Ve' Oo <"� Oo �� Oo �� Oa c9..( Oo. �..( Oo c} 006' Oo'9 Ooc' Q) C) ro Q. 1-------+----��0-------0+-------o+--------+o------�o-------t-o 'Y� � 8 LO O LO O LO M M N N $ 11!8 �ILIJUOIN Exhibit No. 145 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 � "C .E - en 0 0 Q) Cl) ro � E .s� Q) f- § ::, ..... c Q) �a.. Q) Cl'.'. cn- E s c Q) 0 - ..c O 1-- .... <D ';;;' "C Q) c .... ::, ro Q) Cl'.'. - ::, "C � c Q) Q) Cl) > 0 Q) a. a: e a.. "C Q) Q) Cl) �mu a. ..... - 0 0 ..... c a.. - - .......... Q) - "C Cl) c Q) ::, .... Q) � u :, ..... - c c Q) Q) > Cl) Q) Q) a: ..... a.. s -� Q) en­ - ro o- Q) .� I- 'cf?. 0 0 .... � 0 0 Lt) oi 0) co ,-... 0) 0 LO 0 ..... � -� Q) en e Q) c Q) o � 0 (0 co 0 M O> N ..... LO Lt) O> a5 El) .... ..... ..... � -� Q) o: e Q) c: Q) o Q) e1 ro .....J C\I -a. O> O> ..... ,-... LO M C\I en (!) .....J ..... � ro u, "O ro 0 .....J cu ::, c c: -c .c Ol :f M � co C'J 0 ..... � 0 0) .... ..... 0 0 C\I '<:I" � -� Q) en c: 0 � 0 a. Cl) c e I-- LO � 0 0 ci � 0 0 0 .... � 0 0 0 -a. 0 0 0 ci C'\I Lt) co co LO 0 0 LO w 0 0 LO w u e c 0 0 cu ·13 Q) a. en co � 0 0 0 ci 0 .... ,-... 0 0 0 M .... 0 LO Q) "3 "O Q) ..c 0 en c Q) s Cl) :, � Q) Cl) ro s: 0 ::; a.. Cl) Q) "O :, c3 E Exhibit No. 146 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 WK PPR GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT REF TOTAL SCHEDULE 101 SCH.111&112 SCH. 121&122 SCH. 131&132 SCHEDULE 146 IMCOILIGNETICS POTLATCH PRES BILLING DETERMINANTS THERMS GD1 BLOCK 1 51,684,524 1,278,657 56,500 691,030 4,199,851 2,222,189 40,926,290 GD1 BLOCK2 3,968,140 56,500 1,813,471 13,889,580 GD1 BLOCK3 8,297,370 918,140 GD1 BLOCK4 1,326,163 OTHER SUBTOTAL 131,328,405 51,684,524 13,544,167 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 NET SHIFTING ADJUSTMENT SUBTOTAL 131,328,405 51,684,524 13,544,167 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 GD1 ADJUSTMENT TO ACTUAL (491,471) 0 (491,471) 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BEFORE ADJUSTMENT 130,836,934 51,684,524 13,052,696 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 GA3 WEATHER & UNBILLED REV. ADJ. -829,751 -706,579 -123,172 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PROFORMA THERMS 130,007,183 50,977,945 12,929,524 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 GD1 TOTAL BILLS 698,032 24 84 24 12 GD1 TOTAUMINIMUM BILLS 6,867 120 PROP BILLING DETERMINANT ADJUSTMENTS (Adjustment to Actual) THERMS GD1 BLOCK 1 -706,579 -46,398 0 0 0 0 0 GD1 BLOCK 2 -143,990 0 0 GD1 BLOCK3 -301.083 0 GD1 BLOCK4 0 OTHER -706,579 -491,471 PROP BILLING DETERMINANT ADJUSTMENTS (Weather & Unbilled Revenue) THERMS GD1 BLOCK 1 0 1,637 0 0 0 0 0 GD1 BLOCK 2 -7,907 0 0 0 GD1 BLOCK3 -116,903 0 GD1 BLOCK4 0 OTHER 0 -123,172 PROP BILLING DETERMINANTS THERMS GD1 BLOCK 1 50,977,945 1,233,896 56,500 691,030 4,199,851 2,222,189 40,926,290 GD1 BLOCK2 3,816,243 56,500 1,813,471 13,889,580 GD1 BLOCK3 7,879,384 918,140 GD1 BLOCK4 1,326,163 OTHER SUBTOTAL 130,007,183 50,977,945 12,929,524 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 NET SHIFTING ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PROFORMA THERMS 130,007,183 50,977,945 12,929,524 2,357,303 691,030 4,199,851 4,035,660 54,815,870 GD1 TOTAL BILLS 698,032 24 84 24 12 GD1 TOTAUMINIMUM BILLS 6,867 120 Exhibit No. 147 Case No. A VU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 Page 1 of 4 WK PPR PRESENT RATES GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT REF TOTAL SCHEDULE 101 SCHEDULE 111 SCHEDULE 121 SCHEDULE 131 SCHEDULE 146 IMCO/LIGNETICS POTLATCH (1) GB1 BASIC CHARGE $3.28 GB1 MONTHLY MINIMUM $97.30 $238.33 Schedule 150 BLOCK 1 PER THERM 27.186¢ 27.186¢ 27.186¢ 24.370¢ (2.993¢) BLOCK 2 PER THERM 27.186¢ 27 .186¢ BLOCK 3 PER THERM 27.186¢ 27.186¢ BLOCK 4 PER THERM 27.186¢ GB1 BLOCK 1 PER THERM 47.011¢ 48.649¢ 47.666¢ 31.354¢ 13.567¢ 2.000¢ 0.750¢ GB1 BLOCK 2 PER THERM 47.011¢ 47.011¢ 7.426¢ 0.100¢ GB1 BLOCK 3 PER THERM 37.789¢ 37.789¢ GB1 BLOCK 4 PER THERM 36.098¢ Note: Rates include Schedule 150 - Purchased Gas Cost Adjustment WK PPR PRESENT REVENUE GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT REF TOTAL SCHEDULE 101 SCHEDULE 111 SCHEDULE 121 SCHEDULE 131 SCHEDULE 146 IMCO/LIGNETICS POTLATCH BILLING REVENUE BASIC CHARGE $2,289,545 $2,289,545 MONHTL Y MINIMUM $696,759 $668,159 $28,600 BLOCK 1 $39,355,466 $37 ,824, 106 $335,447 $15,360 $385,070 $444,092 $44,444 $306,947 B-LOCK2 $3,022,017 $2,831,538 $41,921 $134,668 $13,890 BLOCK3 $5,716,191 $5,119,630 $596,561 BLOCK4 $839,249 $839,249 ANNUAL MINIMUM ADJUSTMENT SUBTOTAL $51,919,227 $40, 113,651 $8,954,774 $1,521,691 $385,070 $444,092 $179,112 $320,837 NET SHIFTING ADJUSTMENT TOTAL BILLING REVENUE $51,919,227 $40, 113,651 $8,954,774 $1,521,691 $385,070 $444,092 $179,112 $320,837 Exhibit No. 147 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 Page 2 of 4 WK PPR STAFF PROPOSED RATES GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT REF TOTAL SCHEDULE 101 SCHEDULE 111 SCHEDULE 121 SCHEDULE 131 SCHEDULE 146 IMCO/LIGNETICS POTLATCH (1) GB1 BASIC CHARGE $3.28 $200.00 GB1 MONTHLY MINIMUM $156.38 $385.51 WACOG & transportation BLOCK 1 PER THERM 53.546¢ 53.546¢ 53.546¢ 45.223¢ BLOCK 2 PER THERM 53.546¢ 53.546¢ BLOCK 3 PER THERM 53.546¢ 53.546¢ BLOCK 4 PER THERM 53.546¢ GB1 BLOCK 1 PER THERM 26.132¢ 24.644¢ 23.557¢ 11.308¢ 10.908¢ 2.000¢ 0.750¢ GB1 BLOCK 2 PER THERM 22.833¢ 22.833¢ 7.426¢ 0.100¢ GB1 BLOCK 3 PER THERM 12.636¢ 12.636¢ GB1 BLOCK 4 PER THERM 10.767¢ WK PPR STAFF PROPOSED REVENUE GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT REF TOTAL SCHEDULE 101 SCHEDULE 111 SCHEDULE 121 SCHEDULE 131 SCHEDULE 146 IMCO/LIGNETICS POTLATCH BILLING REVENUE BASIC CHARGE $2,306,345 $2,289,545 $16,800 MONHTL Y MINIMUM $1,120,123 $1,073,861 $46,261 BLOCK 1 $41,818,218 $40,618,074 $0 $0 $390,644 $458,108 $44,444 $306,947 BLOCK2 $3,106,513 $2,914,801 $43,154 $134,668 $13,890 BLOCK3 $5,822,420 $5,214,772 $607,648 BLOCK4 $852,893 $852,893 ANNUAL MINIMUM ADJUSTMENT SUBTOTAL $55,026,511 $42,907,619 $9,203,435 $1,549,956 $390,644 $474,908 $179,112 $320,837 NET SHIFTING ADJUSTMENT TOTAL BILLING REVENUE $55,026,511 $42,907,619 $9,203,435 $1,549,956 $390,644 $474,908 $179,112 $320,837 Proposed Overall Increase 5.98% 6.97% 2.78% 1.86% 1.45% 6.94% 0.00% 0.00% cos $55,026,511 $43, 121,364 $9,098,183 $1,528,116 $379,886 $399,013 $179,112 $320,837 Proposed COS Index 100.00% 99.50% 101.16% 101.43% 102.83% 119.02% 100.00% 100.00% Current COS Index 100.00% 99.08% 102.70% 101.93% 103.45% 126.70% Average Rate Per Therm $0.42326 $0.84169 $0.71182 $0.65751 $0.56531 $0.11308 $0.04438 $0.00585 Per therm contribution to margin $0.30623 $0.17636 $0.12205 $0.11308 $0.11308 Exhibit No. 147 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 Page 3 of 4 STAFF PROPOSED RATES TOTAL GEN SERVICE LRG GEN SVC EX LRG GEN SVC INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT TRANSPORT SCHEDULE 101 SCHEDULE 111 SCHEDULE 121 SCHEDULE 131 SCHEDULE 146 IMCO/LIGNETICS POTLATCH BASIC CHARGE MONTHLY MINIMUM BLOCK 1 PER THERM BLOCK 2 PER THERM BLOCK 3 PER THERM BLOCK 4 PER THERM $200,00 10(�08¢ 2:000¢ 7.426¢ O]SO¢ dd00¢ (1) Exhibit No. 147 Case No. AVU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 Page 4 of 4 AVISTA UTILITIES IDAHO· GAS COMPARISON OF PRESENT & STAFF PROPOSED GAS RATES General Service Schedule 101 Present Rates(1) (a) $3.28 Basic Charge Increase Staff Proposed Rates(1) (b) (c) $0.00 $3.28 All Therms - 74.197¢/Therm 5.481 Large General Service Schedule 111 79.678 Present Rates(1) Increase Proposed Rates(1) 1st 200 Therms - 75.836¢/Therm* Next 800 Therms - 7 4.197 ¢/Therm Over 1,000 Therms - 64.975¢/Therm *Minimum - $97 .30/Month plus 27 .186¢/Therm 2.354 2.182 1.207 78.190 76.379 66.182 *Minimum - $156.38/Month Large General Service Schedule 121 Present Rates(1) Increase Proposed Rates(1) 1st 500 Therms - 7 4.852¢/Therm* Next 500 Therms - 74.197¢/Therm Next 9,000 Therms - 64.975¢/Therm Over 10,000 Therms - 63.284¢/Therm *Minimum - $238.33/Month plus 27 .186¢/Therm 2.251 2.182 1.207 1.029 77.103 76.379 66.182 64.313 *Minimum - $385.51/Month Interruptible Service Schedule 131 Present Rates( 1) Increase Proposed Rates( 1) All Therms - 55.724¢/Therm 0.807 56.531 Transportation Service Schedule 146 Present Rates(1) Increase Proposed Rates(1) No Basic Charge All Therms - 10.574¢/Therm $200 .00/month 0.334 $200.00 Basic Charge 10.908 (1) Rates include Purchase Gas Adjustment Schedule 150 I Exclude all other rate adjustments Exhibit No. 148 Case No. A VU-E-04-1/ AVU-G-04-1 D. Schunke, Staff 6/21/04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2004, SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID SCHUNKE, IN CASE NO. AVU-E-04-1/AVU-G-04-1, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREP AID, TO THE FOLLOWING: DAVID J. MEYER SR VP AND GENERAL COUNSEL AVISTA CORPORATION PO BOX 3727 SPOKANE WA 99220-3727 CONLEY EWARD GIVENS PURSLEY LLP POBOX2720 BOISE ID 83701-2720 CHARLES LA COX EVANS KEANE 111 MAIN STREET POBOX659 KELLOGG ID 83837 KELLY NORWOOD VICE PRESIDENT- STATE & FED. REG. AVISTA UTILITIES PO BOX 3727 SPOKANE WA 99220-3727 DENNISE PESEAU, PH. D. UTILITY RESOURCES INC 1500 LIBERTY ST SE, SUITE 250 SALEM OR 97302 BRADMPURDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 2019 N 17TH ST BOISE ID 83702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE