20170301REVISED Erdwurm Testimony.pdf

ldaho Public Utilities Commission i.'.;ii'iif,**r,,Gowmr
P,0,8or &I7!0, &h8, D Afl!0-{nr4 Paql Klrllan4er,rGem m lssioner
.f, rltiic Bafe r, iC6m m lssioner
Erlc Anderson, Commlssloner
MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSION SECRETARY
PARTIES OF RECORI)
DATE:FEBRUARY 28,2017
REVISED STAFF TESTIMONY, CASE NO.INT-G-16-02
In order to more expeditiously present Staff witness Bentley Erdwurm's Direct Testimony
(December 16,2016) at hearing, Staff is submitting the enclosed Revised Direct Testimony of
Bentley Erdwurm (February 28,2017). The Revised Testimony includes changes to text, as
noted below, and attaches previously submitted exhibits, including all previously submitted
revised exhibits. A summary of the textual changes made to Mr. Erdwurm's testimony through
this filing is as follows:
RE
PAGE NO./LINE NO.
Page2lLine 14
Page2lLine 15
Page2lLine 17
Page 2/Line 18
Page2lLine25
Page 5/Line 18
Page SlLine24
Page SlLine24
Page SlLine25
Page SlLine25
Page 6lLine3
Page 6/Line 3
Page 6lLine 5
Page 6/Line 5
Page 6lLine9
Page 6/Line 9
Page 6lLine9
Page 6/Line 9
Page 6/Line l0
Page 6/Line l0
Page 10/Line20
Page 10/Line20
Page l0lLine2l
CHANGE
Change 47%to 46%
Change lSYoto 160/o
Change l5%to 13%
Change 3Yoto 6Yo
Change l8yo,2lyo and24%to l6Yo,19% and22%
Change $0.16679 to $0.17147
Change $0.14999 to $0.14531
Change 47%to 46%
Change $0.03743 to $0.03275
Change lSYo to l6oh
Change $0.02921 to $0.02453
Change l1%to 13%
Change $0.00442 to $0.00910
Change 3Yoto 6%o
Change $0.03920 to $0.03530
Change lSYoto l6Yo
Change $0.04023 to $0.03683
Change 2loh to l9Yo
Change $0.041l9 to $0.03827
Change 24Yoto 22Yo
Change $2.25 to $2.09
Change -17%oto -15%
Change -7o/o to -6oh
Commission Secretary/?arties of Record
Case No. INT-G-I6-02
Page2
Page l0/Line 23
Page 10/Line23
Page l0/Line23
Page 1l/Line 3
Page llll-ine 3
Page I llLine 4
Page I l/Line 6
Page l llLine 6
Page 1llline 11
Page 1l/Line 11
Page l llLine 12
Page l llLine 14
Page l llLine 14
Page ll/Line 19
Page 1l/Line 19
Page 1llLine20
Page l llLine22
Page I llLine22
Page I llLine22
Page l5/Line 13
Page lSll-ine 15
Page l5/Line 15
Page lilLine 19
Page l5ll,ine 20
Page lSll-ine20
Change $6.00 to $5.72
Change -28Yoto -27%
Change -llo/oto -10%
Change $2.31to $2.15
Change -lTYoto -16%
Change -7o/oto -6Yo
Change $3.25 to $2.97
Change -17%oto -16%
Change $1.98 to $2.14
Change 2lYo to 23o/o
Change 7%to8%
Change $1.25 to $1.53
Change 9%to ll%
Change $0.85 to $0.68
Change -7Yoto -6Yo
Change -3o/o to -2%o
Change $0.73 to $0.45
Change -SYoto -3%o
Change -2Yoto -lYo
Change $136.05 to $138.02
Change 527.24to$25.27
Change $2.27 to $2.11
Change $136.05 to $138.02
Change $12.44 to $14.41
Change $1.04 to $1.20
These revisions were necessitated by Staff s previously filed updates to its revenue requirement
in Exhibits 103, 110, and Il3-I17, as detailed in my February 24,2017 memorandum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these changes.
L
Sean Costello
Deputy Attomey General
Enclosure
N:INT-G- I 6-02 Memorandum for Erdwurm Revised Testimony_sc
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF INTERMOUNTAIN
GAS COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO
CHANGE ITS RATES AND CHARGES
FOR NATURAL GAS SERVICE.
GASE NO. !NT-G-16-02
REVISED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BENTLEY ERDWURM
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
)
)
)
)
)
)
l-
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1l_
t2
13
l4
15
15
t7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
O. Please state your name and business address for
the record.
A. My name is Bentley Erdwurm. My business
address j-s 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
O. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commiss j-on as a Utilities Analyst.
O. What is your educational and professional
background?
A. I received a B.A. in Economics from the
University of Da1las in 1978, and an M.S. in Economics
from Texas A&M University in 1980. r have worked for the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission since November 20L5 as
a Utilities Analyst. I have over thirty years of utility
industry experience, focused on cost allocation, rate
design, revenue and load forecasting, the regulatory
treatment of acquisitions, and financial and statistical
analysis. I have testified as an expert witness bot,h for
regulatory agencies (Texas Public Utility Commission and
as a consultant to the Arizona Corporation Commission),
and utilities (California American WaLer, Alabama Gas
Corporation, and UNS Energy Corporation subsidiaries
Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric and UNS Gas).
O. What is t,he purpose of your testimony?
A. My testimony addresses rate design j-ssues
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 1
STAFF
CASE NO
REVTSED
rNT-G- 1,6 - 02
02/28/L7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
l_3
L4
15
15
t7
18
t9
20
21,
22
23
24
25
j-ncluding: (1) residential and general service customer
charges; (2) combining the two current residential rate
schedules (Schedule RS-1 and Schedule RS-2) into a single
rate schedule; (3) introducing a fourth rate tier j-nto
the general service rate; and (4) rate design for the
large volume and transportation classes.
a. Please summarize your testimony.
A. I am recommending that:
1. the residential customer charge be j-ncreased to
$5.50 per month, an average monthly increase of
$1.67 per month (43* j-ncrease) ;
2. the residential usage charges (excluding gas
costs) for current Residential: (a) RS-1
customers be decreased by a6Z 1eg April through
November, and decreased by l-5? from December
through March; and (b) RS-2 customers be
decreased by l-3? from April through November,
and slightly increased by 6? from December
through March;
3. the general service customer charge be
increased to $9.50 per month, an average
monthly j-ncrease of $5.00 per month (l-l-l-?
increase) ;
4. the general service usage charges be decreased
by 15? , l9Z and 222 in usage tj-ers l, 2 and 3,
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 2
STAFF
CASE NO
REVISED
rNT-G- a6-02
02/28/17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
1_3
l4
15
15
1,7
l_8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
respectively;
5. residential rate schedules RS-1 and RS-2 be
combined int.o a single residential rate
schedule;
5. the Company's proposal to introduce a fourLh
rate tier into the general service rate be
approved; and
7. the Company's proposal to introduce a charge
for Maximum Daily Firm Quantity (trlOpQ) be
approved, but at a lower charge of $0. Z0 per
therm rat,her than the Company's proposed $0.30.
O. Are there areas where you disagree with the
Company's position?
A. Other than adjustments to conform to St.aff's
revenue requirement, and the 1eve1 of customer charges
and MDFQ charges, Ry only disagreement involves t.he
Company's proposal to include a portion of mains in the
customer-rel-ated cost calculat,ion. I exclude mains from
that calculatj-on. However, including or excluding mains
has no effect on my customer charge recommendations,
because of cusLomer impact consideratj-ons.
RESIDENTIAL AI{D GENERAL SERVIEE CUSTOMER CHARGES
O. You mentioned you would discuss the Company's
customer charges for residential and general service.
Please explain what a "customer charge" is.
CASE NO
REVISED
rNT-G- t5 - 02
02/28/1-7
ERDWURM, B
STAFF
(Di) 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
t5
l7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. In general, a "customer charge" is a fixed
amount that a customer must pay each month without regard
to how much gas the customer uses.
O. Please state the Company's current residential
and general service customer charges.
A. The residential customer charge is $2.50 per
month for the billing months of April t.hrough November (A
months of the year) and $5. S0 per month for the billing
mont.hs of December through April (4 months of the year) .
The current weighted average residential customer charge
is $3.83.
The general service customer charge is $2.00
per month for the billing months of April through
November (e months of the year) and $9.50 per month for
the billing months of December through April (4 months of
the year). The current weighted average general service
customer charge is $4.50.
O. What are the Company's proposed resident,ial and
general service customer charges?
A. The Company's proposed residential customer
charge is $10.00 per month (161? increase) for all months
of the year. The Company's proposed general service
customer charge is $35.00 per month (6782 increase) for
a]l- months of the year. The Company has recommended
eliminating the seasonal differential.
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 4
STAFF
CASE NO
REVISED
rNT-G- 1,6-0202/28/t7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
l-5
t6
1,7
t-8
19
20
2a
22
23
24
25
O. What customer charges are you recommending for
t.he residential and general service classes?
A. As stated above, f recommend a residential
customer charge of $5.50 and a general service customer
charge of $9.50. Staff's recommendation el-iminates the
seasonal variation in customer charges, ds proposed by
the Company.
O. Given that you are proposj-ng customer charge
increases, are you proposing offsetting usage charge
decreases?
A. Yes. Given a revenue objective, and two rate
components a customer charge and a usage charge to
recover revenue, dfl increase in customer charge will
necessitate a net decrease in the usage charge. Staff
proposes a $1.67 increase (a +ZZ increase) in the average
residential customer charge of $3.83. To balance this
j-ncrease, Staff proposes Residential usage charges
(excluding gas cost) of $0.17147 per therm that would
apply over the entj-re year. As explained be1ow, Staff
proposes to eliminate current seasonal differentials and
favors combj-ning the current Residential RS-1 and RS-2
into a single rate schedule. For curuent RS-1 customers,
Staff's proposed usage charge represents a decrease of
$0.14531 per therm (46? decrease) for November through
April usage, and a decrease of $0.03275 per therm (l5Z
CASE NO. INT-G-1,6-02
REVTSED 02 / 28 / 1-7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 5
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
1L
t2
l_3
1,4
l_5
t6
l7
18
l9
20
21_
22
23
24
25
decrease) for December through March usage. For current
RS-2 customers, Staff's proposed usage charge represents
a decrease of $0.02453 per therm (13? decrease) for
November through April usage, and a sma11 increase of
$0.00910 per therm (6* increase) for December through
March usage.
The general service Staff-proposed customer
charge increase of $5.00 is offset by usage charge
decreases of $0.03530 (15? decrease) , $0.03583 (19+
decrease) , and $0.0382'7 (22e" decrease) for usage tiers l,
2 and 3, respectively.
O. Why do you support eliminating the seasonal
differentiation in customer charges?
A. Having the same customer charge throughout the
year j-s consistent with how the Company incurs customer-
rel-ated costs over the year. Costs most closely tied t.o
specific customers are the capital costs and expenses of
met.ering, meter reading, bi11ing, the service 1ine, and
customer service. Monthly customer-related operation and
maintenance expenses are driven by the number of
cusLomers, but not, by variat,ions in usage over the year.
The capital cost of customer-related plant items and the
associated depreciatj-on expense is constant over the
year, much like a fixed-rate mortgage payment. Mj-nor
monthly variations in customer-related capital costs are
CASE NO
REVTSED
rNT-G- 1-6 - 0202/28/t7
ERDWURM, B
STAFF
(Di) 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1l_
1,2
13
1,4
15
1-6
t7
18
1,9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
unrelated to monthly usage. A 1eve1 customer charge
helps match revenue with the incursion of costs.
O. Please explain how customer charges should be
determined for utilities in general.
A. Several factors should be considered in the
determination of customer charges. The weighting of the
factors depends on the specific circumstances of the
utility, the communities served, and the regulatory
jurisdiction. For Idaho and other jurisdj-ctions where
rates are based on historical test years (as opposed to
forward looking or future test years), factors include;
1. the 1evel of customer-related cost;
2. the bill i-mpact in moving f rom current to
proposed rates;
3. the total bill for "basic needs";
4. marginal cost pricing and price sj-gnaIs that
promote conservation and the efficient use of
reSOurCeS; and
5. the customer charges of other utilities.
CUSTOMER- RELATED COSTS
O. Please explain how average embedded cost is
used to help determine the customer charge.
A. The overall revenue requirement calculation is
based on historical, average embedded costs subject to
known and measurable adjustments; therefore, it generally
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 7
STAFF
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- L5-02
02/28/17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1,4
l_5
t6
t7
l_8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
is important to have a cost-of-service study based on
these costs when determining customer charges. Cost
allocation for Intermountain Gas is more fu11y addressed
in the testimony of Staff witness Mike Morrison. Dr.
Morrison has recommended that the Company's proposed
cost-of-service study be rejected because the Company did
not provide load data necessary to calculate accurate
factors to allocate costs among the classes. Customer-
related unit costs based on historical average embedded
costs (i.e., customer-related costs per customer in a
specific class) cannot be accurately calculated without a
cost-of -service study.
0. Did you attempt to calculate a residential
customer charge based on average embedded costs with the
data provided by the Company?
A. Yes, I estimated a cost.-based residentj-aI
customer charge to be $8.57 per month. The calculation
is included as Exhibit 1-1,2 to my testimony. However, I
did not recommend a residential customer charge based
exclusively on average embedded cost because, a.s
mentj-oned above, Staff has proposed to reject the cost-
of-service study. Furthermore, Staff considered several
other factors when developing its proposed customer
charges.
O. Did you exclude all portions of mains from your
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 8
STAFF
CASE NO
REVISED
rNT-G- 1,6 -0202/28/t7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
t-3
l4
15
15
t7
18
1,9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
customer-related cost calculation?
A. Yes. A given main serves multiple customers,
possibly from different rate classes. My customer
components such as meters and services are associated
with specific customers, at their premi-ses. I have
restricted the customer-related classification to items
that serve specific customers rather than multiple
customers. The classi-fication of costs as "Customer" is
further described in Dr. Morrison's testimony.
BILL IMPACTS
O. Please discuss how bill impact considerations
affect your customer charge recommendations.
A. Substantial changes in rate design may in some
cases impose unexpected hardships on some customers. For
this reason, Staff consj-ders how rate changes affect
customers over a wide range of usage leve1s. Customer
charge increases have the largest, impact in percentage
terms on lower-use customers. Conversely, customer
charge increases have the smallest impact in percentage
terms on high-use customers. Staff believes that
implementing the Company-proposed $10. 00 resident.ial
customer charge (l5l* increase) and $35.00 general
service customer charge (6782 increase) would excessively
impact some customers.
As discussed beIow, Staff is recommending
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 9
STAFF
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- 1,5 -0202/28/17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a2
13
14
l_5
15
!7
18
1"9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
approval of the Company's proposal to comblne the
Residential RS-1 and RS-2 residential rate schedules.
Separate bill comparison tables are presented for RS-1
and RS-2 that quantify the effect of moving from the
current residential rate schedules to Staff's proposed
combi-ned residential rate schedule. The residential bill
comparison tables for RS-1 are presented in Exhibit 113,
and tables for RS-2 are presented as Exhibit l-14.
Current rates are differentiated by season; therefore,
the tables show results for April through November and
for December through March. A1so, separate bill
comparisons are presented excluding the cost of gas and
including the cost of gas. This proceeding focuses on
distribution and storage costs and not on the cost of
gas. The cost of gas is specifJ-ed ln a separate tariff,
which is an adjustment mechanism that generally recovers
changes in commodity costs on an annual basis.
For an RS-1 customer during April through
November, moving from current rates to Staff-proposed
rates decreases monthly bi11s by $2.09 (-15? excluding
gas costs and -62 including gas costs) for a typicaL low
use residential customer using 35 therms per month, and
by $5.72 (-272 excluding gas costs and -10? including gas
costs) for an average residential customer using 50
therms per month.
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- L6 - 02
02/28/1-7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 10
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l-0
1l_
1,2
l_3
t4
15
1,6
1,7
18
1,9
20
2)-
22
23
24
25
For an RS-1 customer during December through
March, moving from current rates to Staff proposed rates
decreases monthly bills by $2 .15 (-rc? excludlng gas
costs, and -62 including gas costs) for a typical Iow-use
residential customer using 35 therms per month, and by
$2.97 (-162 excluding gas costs and -6* including gas
costs) for an average residential customer using 60
t,herms per month.
For an RS-2 customer during April through
November, moving from current rates to Staff-proposed
rates increases monthly bi1Is by $2.!a (23e" excluding gas
costs and 8? including gas costs) for a typical low use
residential customer usj-ng 35 therms per month, and by
$1.53 (11-? excluding gas costs and 3? including gas
costs) for an average residentiaL customer using 60
therms per mont,h.
For an RS-2 customer during December through
March, moving from current rates to Staff proposed rates
decreases monthly bi11s by $0.58 (-6? excluding gas
costs, and -2* including gas costs) for a typical 1ow-use
residential customer using 35 therms per month, and by
$0.45 (-3? excluding gas costs and -1,% including gas
costs) for an average residential customer using 50
therms per month.
A general servj-ce bill comparison table is
CASE NO. INT-G-].6-02
REVTSED 02/28/L7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 11
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,2
13
1,4
15
l-5
t7
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
presented in Exhibit 115. The Staff-proposed general
service rate j-ncludes a fourth rate tier, 4s proposed by
the Company and adjusted for the Staff revenue
requirement.
O. Please discuss the proposed fourth general
service rate tier.
A. The Company proposes that a fourth rate tier be
added t,o the general service schedul-e. Staf f recommends
approval of this proposal. The general service schedule
currently has a declining block design, whereby the usage
rate declines as usage increases. Staff has confirmed
that on average the Company's larger general service
customers are less costly to serve on a per therm basis;
therefore, Staff favors retaining the declining block
design for general service. The proposed fourth block
would apply to usage in excess of 10,000 therms per
month. During the test year, monthly usage did not fa11
in the over 10,000 therms range. Therefore, introducing
the fourth block will benefit any prospective customer
that uses over l-0,000 therms, but does not affect the
rate calculations applicable Lo customers with lower
usage. Additionally, introducing a fourth general
service rate block allows for a smoother transition for
customers switching from the general service to the large
volume c1ass, ot in the opposite direction.
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- 1,6 - 02
02/28/t7
ERDWURM, B
STAFF
(Di) L2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,2
13
l4
15
t5
L7
t_8
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
O. Do you have concerns about increasing the
general service customer charge beyond $9.50?
A. Yes. The general service class is diverse,
with customers ranging in size from the "mom and pop"
stores to larger retail, office and manufacturing
operations. The Company should study whether the general
service class should be divided into two or more classes.
ff such division is appropriate the Company should
propose different customer charges for each of the new
classes. This would avoid having the smallest general
service customers subsidizing the largest general service
customers. In t,his proceeding, Staff seeks to avoid
recommending a "one-size fits-aI1" general servj-ce
customer charge in excess of $9.50 that may overstate the
customer-related costs of the smallest general servlce
customers.
Dr. Morrison has proposed that, after this
proceeding ends, a cost-of-service workshop be held where
Staff, the Company and interested parties may also
discuss methodologies and direction of rate design in
future proceedings. General Service rate design issues
should receive special attention.
O. Given the last Intermountain Gas general rate
case was filed over 30 years dgo, did you calculate the
effect of inflation when adjusting the current customer
CASE NO
REVTSED
INT-G-l.6-02
02/28/17
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 13
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
t6
l7
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
charges?
A. Yes. Comparing the increase in the prj-ce of
gas service to the increase in the price of a typical
market basket of goods provides some perspective on the
size of customer charge or bill increases. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index shows the weighted
average percentage price increase for all items purchased
by American consumers is 1-24* since 1985. Based on this
percentage increase, the residential customer charge
would increase to $8.58, and the general service customer
charge would increase to $l-0.08. These results
illustrate that Staff's proposed customer charge
increases (43? and 1l-1? for residential and general
service, respectively) are less than the inflation rate
for the typical market basket of goods (1,24+). But as
mentioned above, there are several factors to consider
when determining the customer charges.
TOTAL BILL FOR BASIC NEEDS
O. When you evaluate how rate design affects
customers with basj-c needs, how do you define "basic
needs" ?
A. Analysts may differ on the number of therms
required to meet monthly "basic needs". However, the
general idea is to determine a usage 1eve1 that provides
a very basic leve1 of service, but meets health and
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- L6-02
02/28/17
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 14
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t-1
1,2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
safety objectives. Monthly therms may differ by the
number of end uses served (..9., space heating, water
heating, and cooking), the month in question, and perhaps
the number of members in the household.
O. Have you examined the percentage increase in
the annual bill for basic needs?
A. Yes. For simplicity, f assume basic needs are
met with an average usage of 35 therms per month - the
Iow use-residential level cited above.
Assuming the customer is currently served under
RS-1, the total current annual biII, excluding gas, is
$163.29. The total Staff-proposed annual biII, excluding
gas costs, is $138.02. The bil1s of basic needs RS-l-
customers wil-I decrease under Staff -proposed rates, wi-th
the annual bill decreasing by $25.27 , ot $2.11 per month.
Assuming the cust,omer is currently served under
RS-2, the total current annual biI1, excluding gas, is
$123.51. The total Staff-proposed annual biII, excluding
gas costs, is $138.02. The annual bill increase is
$L4 .41,, or #1.20 per month.
PRTCE SIGNAL CONSTDERJA,TIONS
a. Please explain why the marginal cost of
providing service, and the price signal, should be
considered when designing rates.
A. Marginal cost pricing sends the customer a
CASE NO. INT-G-].6-02
REVTSED 02/28/17
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 15
STAFF
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l_0
11
t2
13
1,4
15
15
1,7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
price signal that reflects the cost of additional
consumption. Economic efficiency occurs when the price
the customer pays for the next therm consumed equals the
marginal cost of providing that next therm.
Given that most utility customers use some 9ds,
t.he "marginal" decision is whether to use another unit of
g&s, as opposed to whether to become an Intermountain Gas
customer and incur a customer charge.
O. Has Staff considered marginal cost pricing
principles when considering its customer charge proposal?
A. Yes. The Intermountain Gas system is
experJ-encing customer growth that necessitates system
upgrades to meet future throughput requirements. To the
extent customers conserve, capacity is avaj-Iable Eo meet
future load growth, potentially deferring the need for
costly invesLments. The best way to encourage
conservation is to keep usage rates at leveIs that
recognize the longer-run costs of expanding the system.
This may produce usage rates that are based primarily on
marginal-cost principles. These marginal cost-based
usage rates may exceed rate 1eve1s from an average
embedded cost of service study. The marginal cost
approach to rate design is forward-Iooking, whJ-Ie the
average embedded approach is based on hj-storical costs.
Both approaches should be considered in ratemaking.
CASE NO
REVISED
rNT-G- L6 -42
02/28/17
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 15
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1"4
15
15
l7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COMPARISONS TO OTHER UTILITIES
O. Are Staff's proposed customer charges lower
than those of some other gas utilities operating in
nearby states?
A. Yes. However, Staff's recommendation is
constrained by customer-impact considerations. The
Company's last general rate case was filed over 30 years
ago. Staff cannot recommend that three decades of rate
design changes be accomplished in a single case. Staff,s
proposed customer charges are fair to both the Company
and to customers, and the residentj-aI charge almost
matches Avista's recently approved customer charge
(Avista's residential customer charge is $5.25).
COMBINING RS.1 and RS.2 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
O. Have you reviewed the Company's proposal to
combine the Company's two current residential rate
schedules (Schedule RS-1 and Schedule RS-2) into a single
rate schedule?
A. Yes.
O. Please explain your review of the proposal, and
whether you have any recommendations regardj-ng it.
A. f reviewed the monthly average consumptj-on
profiles of the two classes, and noted that the
consumption profile of each class over twelve months is
very similar, with peaks and valleys in consumption
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G- L5 -02
02/28/17
ERDWURM, B
STAFF
(Di) t7
t_
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
72
l_3
t4
15
15
L7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
matching. Based on this similarity, I recommend that the
RS-1 and RS-2 classes be combined, ds proposed by the
Company.
LARGE VOLITME/TRANSPORTATTON
O. Have you examined the Company's proposals for
large volume and transportation customers?
A. Yes. The Company has two key proposals.
First, the Company proposes a new charge for MDFQ
(Maximum Daily Firm Quantity) for its LV-1 customers and
for customers in the current T-4 and T-5 rate categories.
Second, the Company proposes combining the T-4 and T-5
rate categories.
O. What is the purpose of the MDFQ charge?
A. MDFQ is a type of demand charge. It is best
characterized as a reservation charge, because it j-s
based on customers' estimates of their maximum needs, ds
opposed to actual usage over some time interval (e.9.,
over one or two days). Introducing a demand charge into
the Company's large volume and transportation rates
recognizes that the Company's costs to serve these
customers are driven in large part by the maximum demands
they place on the system. At this time, the Company has
not supported the amount of its proposed MDFQ charge with
a cost-of-service study. Consequently, Staff recommends
cAsE NO. rNT-G-15-02
REVTSED 02/28/1,7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 18
STAFF
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t_ l_
t2
13
l4
15
15
t7
l_8
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
that the amount of the MDFQ charges be addressed at the
aforementioned workshop proposed by Staff.
O. Although Staff recommends that the proposed
amount of the MDFQ charge not be approved in this case,
does Staff nevertheless support the approval of an MDFQ
charge in this proceeding?
A. Yes. Introducing a demand charge will better
match what cust.omers pay to the Company's costs to serve
them. However, Staff recommends that the Company's
proposed $0.30 per therm per month MDFQ charge be reduced
to $0.20 per therm per month for nominated MDFQ. The
recommendation to reduce the charge is based on the
j-mpact on specif ic customers.
Introducing a demand charge will shift costs
from higher load factor customers to lower load factor
cusLomers. Staff believes this is appropriate, and that
lower load factor customers should pay more, because they
are more costly to serve (ot.her things being constant) .
However, Staff supports a more gradual phase-in of demand
charges than proposed by the Company.
O. Has the Company provided additional MDFQ
information to Staff since the application was filed?
A. Yes. The Company allowed customers to nominate
new MDFQ after it, filed this case. Staff incorporated
the new MDFQ when calculating its proposed rates.
CASE NO. INT-G_
REVTSED 02/28/1,
t6-02
7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) t9
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
L6
t7
18
l-9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
O. Why did the Company allow customers to nominate
new MDFQ?
A. Previous MDFQs were nomj-nated before customers
knew that they would be charged for each therm nominated.
Consequently, customers had 1ittIe disincentive to over-
nomj-nate. On the other hand, customers nominated the new
MDFQs knowing that a charge would apply to each therm.
O. Were affected customers notified in writing
that they had an opportunity to nominate new MDFQs?
A. Yes. Intermountain Gas sent an October 25,
2OLG letter to customers informing them of the "Open
Season" that would a11ow them to change the amount of
their nominated MDFQ. Customers were informed that the
MDFQ rate proposal would have "both operational and
financial ramifj-cations". Customer responses were due
back to Intermountain Gas on or before November 29, 201,6.
As such, customers had approximately thirty days to
consider their decisions and contact the Company.
a. Describe how and MDFQ charge will affect
customers' biIIs .
A. The impact on specific customers varies widely.
Based on the Company's proposed rates, large volume
customers would see percentage changes in annual bi11s
(based on 20L6 usage) ranging from a decrease of 8? to an
increase of 202. T-4 transportation customers would see
CASE NO
REVISED
INT-G-1,6-02
02/28/L7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 20
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
l_3
t4
l-5
t6
l7
18
1,9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
percentage changes ranging from a decrease of 562 to an
increase of l90Z (with the standard deviat.ion in the
percentage increase of 51?). T-5 transportations would
see percentage changes rangj-ng from a decrease of 242 to
an increase of 6%. Staff's proposal to reduce the MDFQ
charge will reduce the substantial variation in
percentage changes in biIls. Staff believes that
introducing the MDFQ charge will better reflect costs,
regardless of these impacts.
O. Do you support combining T-4 and T-5 as
proposed by the Company?
A. Yes. This simplifies the tariff. A1so, there
appears to be no reason for separate tariffs.
REVENUE PROOF
O. Have you prepared a proof-of-revenue table that
shows that Staff-proposed rates will accurately recover
the Staff-proposed revenue target under normalized
conditions?
A. Yes. This schedule is attached as Exhibit 116.
Absent a cost-of service study, the percentage of revenue
by class is maint.ained at. current levels. Additionally,
a summary of current and St.aff-proposed residential and
general service rates is included as Exhibit Ll7. Staff-
proposed large volume and transportation (as well as
CASE NO
REVTSED
rNT-G- t6 - 02
02/28/1,7
ERDWURM, B
STAFF
(Di) 2t
l-
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
L0
LL
t2
L3
L4
l_5
16
17
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
residential and general serwice) rates are show in
Exhibit LL6.
O. Does this conclude your direct testimony in
this proceeding?
A. Yes, it does.
CASE NO. INT.G.16-02
REVTSED 02/28/t7
ERDWURM, B. (Di) 22
STAFF
Embedded Residential Customer Charge Estimate
Line Description
Cusbmer-Related Openfing Expens* (lncludes depreclation expense)
Operation4010.2878 $226,3754010.28783 -$556,09740102879 $7,126,046
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
10
'11
12
13
14
't6
17
19
20
21
22
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Maintenance
4020.2892
4020.2893
$1,037,443
$832,745
Customer Accounting
40't0.2901
4010.2902
40't 0.2903
$98,925
$715,432
$7,599,357
Customer Service & lnformation Expenses
401 0.2908 $202,610
Labor-Distribution Operation Expenses
4010.2874
4010.2878
4010.2879
$'l,61 1,161
$202,693
$5,917,585
Labor-Distribution Maintenance Expenses
4020.2892
4020.2893
$357,288
$353,914
Labor-C ustomer Account
4010.2902
40't 0.2903
$553,077
$4,401,233
Depreciation Expense-Distribution Plant
4030.0005
Total O&M
$12,612,078
$43,291,865 Add Lines 3 through 39
C u sto mer- Rel etad P I ant
1010.38 Dist Services
1010.381 Dist Meters
1010.382 Dist Meter lnstallations
1010.383 Dist House Regulators
1010.384 Dist House Regulator lnstall
1010.385 Dist lnd Reg Sta
$149,255,628
$44,853,911
$13,955,058
$6,410,602
$7,047,749
$1 1,259,697
Accumulated Depreciation for Selected Dist Plant
Net Plant
i232,782,615 Add Lines 43 through 48
-$130,903,051
S101,879,594 Line 49 minus 51
% Debt Financed (Company Assumptions)
Cost of Debt
lnterort Expense
50.000%
4.940o/o
Operatlng Expenses plu! lnterost
t2,516,426 Line 52 times 54 times 55
$45,808,291 Add Lines 40 and 56
Net Plant
Equiry Portion (in Percent) of Nel Planl
Equity Portion (in $) of Net Plant
Retum as % (Company Assumption)
Equlty Return
101
$50,939,797 Line 61 times 62
9.90%
$5,043,040 Line 62 times 63
Gross Revenue Conversion Factor 1.67055
$8,'12'[,626 Line 64 times 66
Exhibit No. I 12
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
12116/16 Page I of2
Groased-Up Equity Return
Lines 58 and 68.
Embedded Residential Customer Charge Estimate
71
72
Alternate Welghted Customer Calculatlon
Weightsl Weighted customers1 3,701,8036 2,315,388100 21,700100 7,200
100
% of Wtd
Customers73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
RS
GS
LV.1
T-3
T-4
Bills
3,701,803
385,898
217
72
1,158
Weights are chosen to reduce allocation to residential (for a conservative estimate).
Calculate Cultomer Related portlon allocated to Resldentlal82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Customer-Related Revenue Requirement
Times Residential % Weighted Factor
Divide by Annual Bills
Unadjusted CosUGustomer
Conformed to Staft Revenue
$54,232,917 Line 70
60.08% Line 74
$32,580,838
3,701,803
$8.80
38.57
60.0E%
37.58Yo
0.35%
0.12o/o
1.88%
Exhibit No. I 12
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
12/16/16 Page2of2
RS-l Bill Comparison - Aprthrough Nov- Current v. Staff Proposed
Staff-
Proposed
Therms
0
10
20
30
35
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
125
150
200
300
400
s00
750
1000
Currentl Bill
Excluding
Gas CostS z.soS s.oz
S g.ga
s 12,00
S rg.sgS rs.rz
s 18,34s 21.s1
5 zq.at
s 27.84
S 31.01
S ga,rg
$ 42.10
S so.oz
S e s.eo
S gz.ss
s 129.21
s 160.89
s 240.09
S grg.zg
Bill
Excluding
Gas CostS s.so
5 7.2Ls 8.s3s 10.64s 11.s0s 12.36s 14.07s 1s.79s 17.s05 ts.22S zo.sss 22.6ss 26.s3S er.zzs 39.79S se.gas 74.09S gr.za
s 134.10
5 L76.97
3.00
1.55
0.09
(1.35)
(2,0e)
(2.81)
(4.271
(s.721
(7.17l.
(8.62)
(10.08)
(11.s3)
(1s.16)
(18.80)
(25.05)
(40.se)
(ss.12)
(6e.66)
(1os.e8)
(142.31)
% Change
120%
27%
Llo
-t7%
-15/o
-t9Yo
'23Yo
-27%
-29%
-3t%
-32%
-34/o
-36%
-38%
-40%
-42%
-43%
-43%
-44Yo
-45%
Gas Cost
2.50
LL.23
19.95
28.68
33.04
37.41
46.L3
54.86
63.s9
72.3t
81.04
89.77
111.58
133.40
L77.03
264,30
351.57
438.84
657.00
875.t7
Gas CostS s.so
5 12.77
5 20.0s
5 zt.tz
S so.geS 34.s9
5 41.87
s 49.14
S se .qz
s 53,59s 70.95
5 78.24
s 96.42
s 114.60
s 1s0.97
$ 223.7L
5 296.44
S 369.18
s ss1.02
5 732.86
$ changeS s.ooS r.ssS o.oss (1.36)s (2.0s)s (2.81)
5 14.27l,S (s.72)
5 (7.17)
S (8,52)
s (10.08)
s (11.s3)
s (1s.15)
s (18.80)
s (26.06)s (40,ss)
S (ss.12)
s (6e.66)
s (10s.e8)
s (142.31)
% Change
L20%
!4/o
0%
-SYo
-6%
-8%
-9/o
-ro%
-tt%
-t2%
-t2%
-73%
-74%
-t4%
-L5%
-75%
-L6%
-t6%
-16%
-L6%
Staff-
Currentl Bill Proposed
lncluding Billincluding
Changes
s
s
s
s
s
,S
S
s:srs,Sis,sists
,S;sis
:SrS,srs
rSrS
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
RS-l Bill Comparison - Dec through Mar - Current v. Staff Proposed
Staff-
Proposed
Current Eill Bill
Excluding Excluding
Current Bill
Staff-
Proposed
Bill including
Gas Cost S changes s.so s (1.00)
5 12.77 5 (1.33)
s zo.os s (1.66)
5 zt.sz S (1.s8)
s 30.s6 s (2.1s)
s aa.sg 5 (2.31)
S +r.sz s (2.64)
s 4s.14 s (2.e7)
s s6.42 s (3.2e)
5 63.5e S (3.62)s zo.go s (3.es)
5 78.24 5 i4.27t,
$ ga.qz s (s.09)
s 114.60 s (S.gr)s 1so.s7 s (7.ss)
$ 223.7t s (10.83)
s 2s5.44 s (14.10)s 35s.18 s (17.37)s ssr.oz s (2s.s6)
s 732.86 $ (33.7s)
Therms
0
10
20
30
35
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
125
150
200
300
400
500
750
1000
Gas CostS o.soS s.sas 10.s8S rz.oe
S 13.6s
s 14.67S ro.zrs 18.7s
s 20.805 zz.eqS z+.sss 25.92
S sz.osS az.r:s 47.34
S st.ttS sa.rgs 108.51
s 1s9.57S zto.tz
Gas Costs s.so
5 7.21S a.ss
s 10.54
s 11.s0
s 12.36
s 14.07
s 1s.79
s 17.s0
s L9.22
s 20.93
s 22.6s
S zo.gs
s 31.22
S sg.zg
S se.ga
s 74.09
s 9L.24
s 134.10
s 175.97
$ Changes (1.00)
s (1.33)s (1.66)
s (1.e8)
s (2.1s)
s (2.31)
S (2.64)
5 Q.e7)s (3.2e)s (3.62)s (3.ss)
s (4,28)s (s,oe)S (s.sl)s (7.ss)
5 (10.83)
s (14.10)
s (17.38)s (2s.s5)s (33.7s)
% Change
-L5%
-L6%
-L6%
-76%
-76%
-L6%
'L6/o
-L6%
-76%
-76%
-16%
-76%
-t6%
-t6%
-L6%
-L6%
-L6%
-L6%
-L6%
-L6%
lncluding
Gas Cost
6.s0
14.10
2t.70
29.30
33.10
36.90
44.5L
52.11
59.71
67.3L
74.9L
82.5L
101.51
120.52
158.52
234,53
310.54
386.56
576.58
766.5L
% Change
-t5%
-9/o
_8%
-7%
-6%
-6Yo
-6Yo
-6Yo
-6%
'5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-4Yo
-4Yo
-4/o
,,S
'SiS;s,; s:s,j s
s
'S'i $
s
sjs.S
s,s
s.si5't s
Revised Exhibit No. I l3
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02/24/17
Note 1: Based on Gas Costs in Company's Application
RS-2 Bill Comparison - Apr through Nov - Current v. Staff Proposed
Therms
0
10
20
30
35
40
50
50
70
80
90
100
t25
150
200
300
400
500
750
1000
currentl Bill
Excluding
Gas CostS z.so
S 4.46
5 6.42
S e.geS s.ss
S 10.34S rz.:oS rq.zoS ts.zzs 18.18s 20.14S zz.roS zz.ooS sr.sos 41.70s 61.30
S 80.90s 100.s0s 149.s0s 198.s0
Staff-
Proposed
Bill
Excluding
Gas Costs s.so
S t.ztS s.sss 10.54s 11.s0S lz.so
5 L4.07S rs.zgs 17.s05 tg.zzS zo.sss 22.5ss 25.935 tt.zzS ag.zgS so.gas 74.09S gr.z+
s 134.10
5 L75.97
ange
3.00
2.75
2.5t
2.26
2.14
2.02
L.77
1.53
1.28
1.04
0,79
0.s5
(0.07)
(0.68)
(1.su
(4.36)
(5.81)
(s.27l.
(1s.40)
(21.s3)
%Change
L20%
62%
39%
27%
23%
2O/o
LAYo
tt%
8To
6Yo
4%
2%
0/o
-2%
-5%
-7Yo
-8/o
-9%
-Lllo
-!|Yo
currentl Bill
lncluding
Gas cost
2.50
9,62
t6.74
23.85
27.41
30.97
38,09
45.2L
52.33
59.45
66.57
73.69
91.48
109.28
744.87
215.06
287.24
358.43
535.39
714.35
Staff-
Proposed
Bill including
Gas costS s.so
5 12.37s 19.2sS zo.rzS zs.soS sz.sg
s 39.87
s 46.74S ss.srS so.as
S 67.36
5 74.23
5 gt.qz
S roa.oo
s 142.96
s 211.70
s 280.43
S 349.16
s s20.99
s 692.82
$ ChangeS s.ooS z.zss 2.s1
5 2.26S z.ras 2.02
S t.ttS r.sss 1.28S r.oaS o.zgS o.sss (0.07)
S (0.68)s (1.s1)s (4.36)S (o.ar)
S (e.27)s (1s.40)
s (21.s3)
% Change
120%
29%
$%
9%
8%
7%
5%
3%
2%
2%
L%
tYo
0%
-L%
-t%
-2%
'2%
-3%
-3%
-3%
S ctr
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
s
5
5
s
s
s
,S,s
s:S
S:$
iS;$
S
s,S.srSrS
s.s
s
s
s:$
RS-z Bill Comparison - Dec through Mar - Curent v. Staff Proposed
Staff-
Proposed
Current Bill Bill
Excluding Excluding
Therms Gas Cost Gas Cost $ Change % Change
10 s 8.12 5 7.21 s (0.s1) -tt%
20 S s.1s S a.ge S (0.82) -8% i
30 s 1t.37 s ro.oa s (0.73) -6%
3s s L2,r8 s 11.s0 s (0.58) -6%
40 s L2.99 s 12.36 s (0.64) -s% '1
so s L4.62 s 14.07 s (0.s4) -4%
60 s 16.24 s 1s.7e s (0.4s) -3%
70 s t7.87 s 17.s0 s (0.35) -2%
80 s 1s.49 $ tg.zz s (0.27) -L%
90 s 21.LL s 20.93 s (0.18) -t/o
100 s 22.74 5 22.6s s (0.0s) O%
12s s 26.80 s 26.93 s O.ra rlo
1s0 s 30.86 5 ar.zz s 0.37 L%
200 s 38.97 s 39.79 s O.SZ 2%
3oo s 55.21 s Se.g+ s r.zg 3% ,
400 s 77.4s 5 74.09 s 2.64 4%
7s0 s 128.28 5 134.10 s s.83 s% i
1000 s 168.87 5 t76.97 s A.rO 5%
Current Bill
lncluding
Gas CostS s.soS rs.zg
S 20.06
s 26.8sS so.zcS :s.sss 40.41s 47.19
S sg.gsS so.zoS oz.s+s 74.32S sr.zss 108.23s 742.74
s 209.97
5 277.79
s 34s.61
s 51s.17
5 684.72
Staff-
Proposed
Bill including
Gas CostS s.sos L2.37s 19.2s
5 26.L2
s 29.s5
S sz.gg
s 39.87
5 46.74
S sg.sr
S oo.+g
s 57.36
5 74.23
5 gr.cz
s 108.50
s 142.96
S 277.70
s 280.43
s 349.16
S szo.gg
s 692.82
S change % Change
-15%
-7%
-4%
'3%
-2%
-2%
-t%
-L%
_L%
0%
0%
0%
0%
o%
L%
L%
L%
L%
t%
t%
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
(1.00)
(0.e1)
(0.82)
(0.73)
(0.58)
(0.64)
(o.ss)
(0,4s1
(0.36)
(0.27l.
(0.18)
(o.oe)
0.14
0.36
0.82
1.73
2.64
3.55
5.82
8.10
Revised Exhibit No. I l4
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02124/t7
Note 1: Based on Gas Costs in Company's Application
General Service Eill Comparison - Apr through Nov - Current v. Staff Proposed
Therms
0
25
50
75
100
150
200
250
300
400
s00
750
1000
2500
5000
7500
10000
20000
30000
40000
Currentr Bill
Excluding
Gas CostS z.oo
5 t.qqS rz.ges 18.31s 23.7sS :a.osS cs.soS ss.zgS ss.osS 84.66
5 t04.24
S 1s3.18
s 202.13s 48s,29
s 922.19
s 1,359.09
s 1,79s.99
s 3,s43.s9
S 5,291.19
s 7,038,79
Staff-
Proposed
Bill
Excluding
Gas Cost
S g.so
s 14.06S ra.sr5 zs.tts 27.72S so.ass 4s.94S sa.sgS or.ea
5 77.73
S 93.63
s 133.36s 173.10
s 400.30
5 74r.52
s 1,082.75
5 L,423.97
s 2,423.97
S 3,423.97
s 4,423.97
Currentl Bill
lncluding Gas
CostS z.ooS zo.zrS ss.+eS se .egs 74.92
s 111.38
5 147.84
s 183.21
s 218.s8
s 289.33
s 360.07
s s36.93
s 713.80
5 1,764.46
s 3,480,54
s s,196.51
5 6,912.69
s 13,776.99
5 20,64t.29
s 27,505.59
Staff-
Proposed Bill
including Gas
Cost
$ g.so
s 26,8s
s 44.19
S or.ses 78.89
s 113.58
s 148.28
s 181.81
s 21s.34s 282.40
s 349.46
s s17.12
5 684.77
5 L,679.47
s 3,299.87
5 4,920.27
s 6,s40.67
512,657.37
5 L8,774.07
5 24,890.77
$ Change % Change
S Z.SO 375/os o.oz 89%s s,74 4s%s 4.85 26%s s.sz L7%
5 2.2r 6%
s 0.44 t%s (1.40) -3%
s (3.24) -s%
s (6.s3) -8%
S (10.51) -LlYo
s (19.82) -L3%
s (29.02) -L4%
s (84.ee) -18%
s (180.66) -20%
s (276.34) -20%
s (372,01) -2t%
s (1,119.51) -32/o
s (1,867.21) -35%
s (2,614.81) -37%
S Change % Changes z.so 375%
s 6.62 33%s s.zs ts%s +.as 9%s s.sz 5%s z.zo 2%s o.++ 0%
s (1.40) -L%
s (3.24) -t%
s (6.s3) -2%
s (10.61) -3%
s (1e.82) -4%
s (2s.02) -4%
s (84.ss) -s%
s (180.66) -s%
s (276,34) -s%
s (372.01) -s%
5 (1,11e.61) -8%
s (1,867.21) -9%
5 (2,514.81) -10%
General Service Bill Comparison - Dec through Mar - Current v. Staff Proposed
Staff-
Proposed
Current Bill Bill
Excluding Excluding
$ Change % Change
Current Bill
lncluding Gas
CostS g.so
5 26.46
5 43.42S oo.gzS zz.ss
s 111.25
s 145.17
s 178.02
s 210.88
5 276.s9
s 342.31
S so5.s9
S ezo.gz5 1,545.34
S 3,238.01
s 4,829.59
5 6,421.36
s 12,788.06
s 19,1s4.75
s 2s,s2L.46
Staff-
Proposed Bill
including Gas
Cost
S g.so
s 25.8ss 44.19s 61.s4s 78.8s5 us.sgs 148.28s 181.81s 21s.34
$ 282.40
s 349.45
s s17.12
5 684.77
s L,679.47
s 3,299.87
5 4,920.27
s 5,s40.57
5 12,657.37
5 18,774.07
5 24,890.77
S Change % ChangeThermsGas Cost
9.50
13.67
L7.83
22,00
26.L7
34.50
42.83
50.11
57.38
7t.92
86.47
L22.84
159.20
367.t6
679.66
992.L6
1,304.66
2,554.66
3,804.66
5,054.65
Gas Costs e.so
s 14.06
S 18.61
5 23.17
5 27.72
S ss.gss 45.94S ss.ags 51.84
5 77.73S ss.ss
s 133.36S rza.ro
s 400.30
5 74t.s2
5 t,082.7s
5 r,423.97
5 2,423.97
s 3,423.97
s 4,423.97
0s s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
S
s
s
5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
5
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
0%
3%
4%
5%
6/o
1%
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
-5%
-to%
-t2%
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
o%
L%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
-L%
-2%
-2%
25
50
75
100
150
200
250
300
400
500
750
1000
2500
5000
7500
10000
20000
30000
40000
0.39
0.78
t.L7
1.56
2.33
3.11
3.78
4.46
5.81
7.t6
10.53
13.90
33.L4
51.86
90,59
119.31
(130.6e)
(380.6e)
(630.6e)
0.39
0.78
t.L7
1.55
2.33
3.11
3.78
4.46
5.81
7.L6
10.53
13.90
33.14
61.86
90.59
119.31
(130.6e)
(380.6e)
(630.6s)
Note 1: Based on Gas Costs in Company's Application
Revised Exhibit No. I l5
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02/24117
Proof of Revenue
Line No.
Billing
Determinates Rate
Ss.so
s0.17147
Ss.so
S0.17147
Ss.so
s0.17147
s0.043s5
s0.01733
s0.00408
Revenue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Class
RS-1
Annual Bills
Therms
Total
RS-2
Annual Bills
Therms
Total
rs-R
Annual Bills
Therms
Total
GS.1
Annual Bills
807,488
32,972,3t4
2,893,307
184,003,558
1,008
L37,397
31,992,665
52,346,235
26,185,787
s4,44L,184
ss,6s3,753
s10,094,947
s15,913,189
s31,5s1,107
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
547,464,296
ss,s44
s23,sse
385,791 S9.so
0.78227
0.15895
0,13649
0.10000
170,524,687
102 59.s0
0.7822L
0,15895
0.13649
0.10000
15,010
217 No Charge
450,360 s0.20000
S969
5t,ott
s1,o8s
5447
So
s2,609
s3,s78
s90,072
s275,193
s36s,26s
Revised Exhibit No. I l6
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02124117 Page I of 2
s29,103
s3,565,01s
ss,829,383
s8,320,434
s3,s74,098
So
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Therms - Tier 4
Total Therms
Total
Annual Bills
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Therms - Tier 4
Total Therms
Total
Annual Bills
MDFQ
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Total Therms
Total
s
577,723,916
21,388,930
rs-c
LV.1
5,911
6,823
3,276
6,317,560
0
s275,193
So
So
6,317,560
Lin
Proof of Revenue (cont.)
Class
T-3
Annual Bills
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Total Therms
Total
T-4
Annual Bills
MDFQ1
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Total Therms
Overrun
Total
T-5
Annual Bills
MDFQ1
Therms - Tier 1
Therms - Tier 2
Therms - Tier 3
Total Therms
Total
Total (excludes Gas Costs)
t,749 No Charge
14,661,480 So.2o
Billing
DeterminateseNo
40
4L
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
s7
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
8,308,080
3,419,023
33,049,148
Rate
72 No Charge
50.01897
s0.00772
s0.0028s
Revenue
s1s7,604
s25,39s
s94,190
s278,189
s278,189
52,932,2e6
$5,479,788
s1,501,734
s364,775
57,346,298
s10,278,s94
s131,964
s32s,343
s87,s20
s21,8s8
s434,721
ss55,58s
s9O469,s87
44,776,25t
LL0,747,535
85,950,760
67,928,377
s0.04948
50.0L747
s0.00537
No Charge
So.2o
s0.04948
5o.0t747
s0.00537
264,636,672
4,120,808
659,820
6,575,248
5,009,713
4,070,392
15,655,352
Revised Exhibit No. I l6
Case No. INT-G-16-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02124/17 Page 2 of 2
Residential & General Servlce Rates - Current & Staff Proposed
Company
Current Proposed Staff Proposed
Current to Staff
Change
Current to Staff %
Change
Residential RS-1
Customer Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
Dec-Mar (4 months)
Weighted Avg
Commodity Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
Dec-Mar (4 months)
ResidentialRS-2
Customer Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
Dec-Mar (4 months)
Weighted Avg
Commodity Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
Dec-Mar (4 months)
General Service GS-l
Customer Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
Dec-Mar (4 months)
Weighted Avg
Commodity Charge
Apr-Nov (8 months)
1st block
2nd block
3rd block
4th block
Dec-Mar (4 months)
lst block
2nd block
3rd block
4th block
S2.so
Ss.so
S3.83
s0.31678
50.20422
Sz.so
Se.so
s3.83
s0.19500
s0.16237
S1o.oo
Sro,oo
Sro.oo
s0.1126s
s0,1126s
Sro.oo
S1o.oo
s10.00
s0.1126s
s0.1126s
s3s.00
S3s.oo
s3s.00
s0.11076
s0.09552
s0.08297
s0.07s00
S0.11075
s0.09662
s0.082s7
s0.07s00
Ss.so
s0.7tL47
50.17t47
Ss.so
Ss.so
Ss.so
50.77147
5o.L7!47
S9.so
Sg.so
S9.so
s0.18221
s0.1s89s
s0.13549
s0.10000
s0.18221
s0.1s89s
s0.13649
s0.10000
Ss.oo
(s1.00)
1.at
(S0.14s31)
(So.0327s)
S3.oo
(Sr.oo1
Sr,sz
(So.024s3)
s0.009r0
S7.so
So.oo
Ss.oo
(So.03s3o)
(S0.03683)
(S0.03827)
N/A
s0.01sss
s0.01349
s0.01149
N/A
120%
-75%
43o/o
-460/0
-7604
L20%
-Lso/o
43%
-L3%
6%
375%
0%
777o/o
.50
.50
Ss
SS
Sz.oo
Ss.so
S+.so
s0.217s1
s0.19s78
50.17476
N/A
s0.16666
S0.14s45
s0.12500
N/A
-t6%
-19%
-22%
N/A
9%
9o/o
9%
N/A
Revised Exhibit No. I l7
Case No. INT-G-I6-02
B. Erdwurm, Staff
02t24/17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017,
SERVED THE FOREGOING REVISED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BENTLEY
ERDWURM, IN CASE NO. INT-G-16-02, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF,
POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
MICHAEL P McGRATH
DIR _ REGULATORY AFFAIRS
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS CO
PO BOX 7608
BOISE ID 83707
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
BRAD M PURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2OI9 N 17TH STREET
BOISE TD 83702
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
CHAD M STOKES
TOMMY A BROOKS
CABLE HUSTON LLP
1OO1 SW 5TH AVE STE 2OOO
PORTLAND OR 97204-1136
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
BENJAMIN J OTTO
ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE
710 N 6TH STREET
BOISE TD 83702
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
RONALD L WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS BRADBURY
IOI5 W HAYS ST
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
EDWARD A FINKLEA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NW INDUSTRIAL GAS USERS
545 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 87520
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ELECTRONIC ONLY
MICHAEL C CREAMER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
F DIEGO RIVAS
NW ENERGY COALITION
I IOI 8TH AVENUE
HELENA MT 5960I
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
PETER RICHARDSON
GREGORY M ADAMS
RICHARDSON ADAMS PLLC
5I5 N 27TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL : [e-mail]
gle e@richardsonadams. com
KEN MILLER
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE
PO BOX 1731
BOISE ID 8370I
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
LANNY L ZIEMAN
NATALIE A CEPAK
THOMAS A JERNIGAN
EBONY M PAYTON
AFLOA/JA.ULFSC
I39 BARNES DR STE I
TYNDALL AFB FL 32403
E-MAIL : lanny.zieman. 1 @us.af.mil
Natalie.cepak. 2 @us.af.mil
Thomas. i erni gan. 3 @us.af.mil
Ebony.payton.ctr(Eus.af.mil
SCOTT DALE BLICKENSTAFF
AMALGAMATED SUGAR CO LLC
I95I S SATURN WAY
STE lOO
BOISE ID 83709
E-MAIL : sblickenstaff@amalsuear. com
ANDREW J UNSICKER MAJ USAF
AFLOA/JACE-ULFSC
I39 BARNES DR STE 1
TYNDALL AFB FL 32403
E-MAIL : [e-mail]
SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE