20221201Blattner Direct with Exhibits.PDF

Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin, ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer, ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER
FOR INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
December 1, 2022

PAGE 2 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
Q. Please state your name, business address, and present position with Intermountain 1
Gas Company (“Intermountain” or “Company”). 2
A. My name is Lori Blattner, and I am the Director of Regulatory Affairs for Intermountain 3
Gas Company and Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (“Cascade”). My business address 4
is 555 South Cole Road, Boise, ID 83707. 5
Q. Please summarize your educational and professional experience. 6
A. I graduated from the University of Idaho in 1993 with a Bachelor of Science degree in 7
Agricultural Economics. I joined Intermountain in 1997 as a Regulatory Analyst and was 8
responsible for cost of service, rate design, and weather normalizations, as well as other 9
regulatory issues. I was promoted to Manager, Energy Efficiency and Regulatory 10
Process in 2017. In that role, I was responsible for cost of service and weather 11
normalization as well as launching Intermountain’s Energy Efficiency program. I was 12
promoted to Director of Regulatory Affairs for Intermountain in 2019 and to my current 13
position in 2021. In my current role, I am responsible for all regulatory activity in Idaho, 14
Oregon, and Washington, as well as the Energy Efficiency programs for both 15
Intermountain and Cascade. 16
Q. Have you previously written or presented testimony on behalf of Intermountain 17
before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)? 18
A. Yes, I have previously testified before this Commission in Intermountain’s most recent 19
general rate case proceeding, Case No. INT-G-16-02. 20
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 21
A. Intermountain’s 2016 general rate case was its first since 1985. During this 30-year time 22
span much about the Company, its distribution system, software systems, and industry 23
PAGE 3 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
technology changed dramatically. Although many issues were fully litigated in the 2016 1
rate case, there were several items the Commission provided specific direction on in 2
Order Nos. 33757 and 33879. I will provide updates on those items including the 3
convenience and in-person pay station transaction fees, the Company’s Line Extension 4
tariff and progress related to Cost of Service. I will then discuss the collaboration 5
between the Company and Staff on the Company’s weather normalization methodology 6
as well as the final models and resulting adjustment used in this case. In addition, I will 7
discuss the Company’s proposal to update its Non-Utility LNG Sales sharing allocations. 8
Finally, I will outline the Company’s proposed tariff changes in this case. 9
Convenience and In-Person Pay Station Transaction Fees 10
Q. What is the background on the convenience and pay station transaction fees issue? 11
A. In Case No. INT-G-16-02, Staff recommended that the Company remove the 12
convenience fees it charged for payment by debit or credit card. In addition, Staff 13
proposed that the Company remove the fee it charged customers to use the authorized pay 14
station for cash payments. Intermountain opposed Staff’s recommendation arguing that 15
removing the convenience fee would encourage customers to switch from less expensive 16
payment methods to those that are more expensive, increasing costs for all customers.1 17
In Order No. 33757, issued on April 28, 2017, the Commission “decline[d] to 18
implement Staff’s free payment proposal at this time. Adequate cost estimates and benefit 19
analyses were not provided. We nevertheless encourage the Company to explore the 20

1 Order No. 33757, page 38
PAGE 4 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
possibility of removing these fees in the future to keep pace with what appears to be an 1
emerging industry standard.” 2 2
Then on June 30, 2017, in Order No. 33805 in connection with Case No. INT-G-3
17-02, the Commission directed the Company to meet with Staff within 60 days of the 4
issue date of the Order to “discuss alternatives to convenience fees”. Intermountain and 5
Staff held several discussions on convenience fees, which resulted in Case No. INT-G-6
18-01. In that case, the Company agreed to end the fee charged to customers for in-7
person pay station transactions. However, the agreement left the convenience fee in place 8
for debit or credit card transactions. Order No. 34099 allowed the establishment of a 9
regulatory asset to capture the costs associated with in-person pay station transactions and 10
the recovery of those costs in the Company’s PGA beginning in 2019 and until February 11
1, 2021, or until the Company filed a general rate case, whichever comes first. 3 12
Subsequently, on December 13, 2019, the Company filed a letter in Case No. 13
INT-G-18-01 noting that it had continued to collaborate with Staff on how to best address 14
transaction fees. During the time that those discussions were taking place, the 15
Commission raised concerns with the removal of convenience fees in Order No. 34405 in 16
Suez Water Idaho Inc’s Case No. SUZ-W-19-01. Based on that guidance and concerns 17
that removing the convenience fees for debit and credit card transactions would actually 18
encourage a shift to these more expensive forms of payment from ones that are less 19
expensive, the Company noted that it did not plan to file “an application to request its 20
customers bear the cost of the remaining credit/debit card transaction costs at this time.” 21

2 Order No. 33757 page 38-39
3 Order No. 34099 Page 3
PAGE 5 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
The Company did commit to continuing to waive the transaction fees for in-person bill 1
payment, however. 2
On February 19, 2021, the Company requested the Commission extend 3
authorization of the regulatory asset associated with in-person pay station transactions. In 4
Order No. 35047, Case No. INT-G-21-02, the Commission authorized the Company to 5
“continue to seek recovery of these costs in the Company’s PGA.” The authorization was 6
extended from February 1, 2021 until February 1, 2023, or until the Company filed a 7
general rate case. 8
Q. What is the Company’s proposed treatment for the in-person payment transaction 9
fees going forward? 10
A. The Company proposes that the in-person payment transaction fees be embedded in base 11
rates going forward, and that the fees deferred from October 1, 2022 through February 1, 12
2023 be collected through the 2023 PGA filing as approved. The adjustment to move the 13
in-person payment transaction fees into base rates is discussed in the testimony of Mr. 14
Darrington. 15
Q. Is the Company proposing to move debit and credit card convenience fees to base 16
rates as well? 17
A. No. Moving the fees for in-person transactions to base rates helps to address concerns 18
that convenience fees unfairly impact low-income and under-banked customers. 19
Allowing customers to pay their bills in-person without incurring additional fees also 20
benefits all customers by encouraging timely payments and thus helping to minimize 21
uncollectible expenses. 22
PAGE 6 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
However, the remaining discretionary transaction fees for using credit and debit 1
cards for bill payment represent fees for using the most expensive payment option 2
available. There are several payment options available that do not incur additional fees 3
for the customer or the Company, including paying online using a checking or savings 4
account withdrawal or paying by mail. Intermountain has observed that as other utilities 5
removed the transaction fee for credit or debit card payment options, there was a steady 6
increase in the use of these payment options that incur a fee. This growth is driven in 7
large part by customers that were previously using a fee-free payment option. Removing 8
the true cost of the payment option removes the incentive for customers to choose the 9
least-cost bill payment option. Accurate cost signals will continue to help keep 10
Intermountain’s prices lower for all customers. For this reason, Intermountain is not 11
proposing that convenience fees for debit or credit card transactions be moved to base 12
rates at this time. 13
Line Extension Tariff 14
Q. What work has been done to address the Commission recommendations regarding 15
the Company’s Line Extension tariff? 16
A. In Order No. 33757, The Commission “encourage[d] Intermountain to modify its line 17
extension policy as soon as possible to address changes in references, rules and vested 18
interest policy.” Following receipt of the Order, Intermountain began a collaborative 19
process with Staff to update and make more transparent its Line Extension tariff. The 20
process began with a meeting in December 2017 to determine the scope of the update and 21
adjustments that could be made to improve the tariff. Over the following two-year period, 22
Intermountain and Staff engaged in a number of meetings regarding the inputs and 23
PAGE 7 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
calculation methods for the Company’s Line Extension tariff. The result was a complete 1
replacement of the Company’s General Service Provisions Section C as discussed in 2
Order No. 34735 in Case No. INT-G-20-01. An important piece of the revised Line 3
Extension tariff is the embedded cost methodology used to determine the Allowable 4
Investment Factors. At the conclusion of this case the Company plans to file a 5
compliance filing to update the embedded costs that are used to calculate the Allowable 6
Investment Factors to reflect the costs that are approved in this case. 7
Cost of Service 8
Q. What were some of the concerns raised in the previous general rate case regarding 9
the Company’s cost of service study? 10
A. Order No. 33757 noted: 11
While we find that the Company has data that supports the known and measurable cost-12
of-service rate design within its large volume and transportation customers, it does not 13
have such data for use in definitively allocating revenue requirement among the various 14
other customer classes. As Staff stated, a load study with more class specific underlying 15
cost information, and a more appropriate derivation of net plant-in-service would provide 16
this data. Without full knowledge of the appropriate cost-of-service allocation, we adhere 17
to the concept of gradualism related to cost-of-service. 4 18
Q. Has Intermountain addressed the lack of a load study in the intervening years? 19
A. Intermountain is in the process of implementing Itron’s fixed-network metering 20
infrastructure. This system utilizes a fixed mounted data collector using two-way 21
communication to endpoints and to the repeater to collect on-demand reads and issue 22

4 Order No. 33757, Page 28
PAGE 8 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
network commands. This system provides a robust collection of time-synchronized 1
interval data. The Company had hoped to have the system installation completed by the 2
end of 2020. However, COVID-19 and the related labor and supply chain issues have 3
hampered installation efforts. The system is currently 60% complete with full installation 4
estimated for the end of 2023. In April 2022, Itron placed all fixed network equipment 5
ship dates on hold due to ongoing chip shortages and extensive overseas shutdowns. It is 6
now expected that the equipment will begin shipping again in March 2023. As discussed 7
further in Mr. Amen’s testimony, Intermountain was able to use the daily data that is 8
currently available to facilitate the completion of the load study options presented in this 9
case. 10
Q. Has the Company addressed concerns with the derivation of net plant-in-service? 11
A. As demonstrated more fully in Mr. Amen’s testimony and supporting exhibits, the 12
Company is allocating both the gross plant and the associated accumulated depreciation 13
by FERC accounts by applying appropriate allocation factors. This ensures that the 14
resulting net plant is allocated accurately and addresses concerns raised in the previous 15
general rate case. 16
Weather Normalization 17
Q. What is weather normalization? 18
A. Weather normalization adjusts test year natural gas consumption to the level that would 19
have been consumed if the test year were a normal weather year. Temperature is the 20
primary driver of variances in natural gas consumption. Because a portion of the 21
Company’s rates are based on consumption, variations in weather will affect the amount 22
of revenue received by the Company. For example, a year with lower consumption due to 23
PAGE 9 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
warmer than normal temperatures will result in lower revenues for the Company. 1
Conversely, higher consumption due to colder than normal temperatures will result in 2
higher revenues for the Company. Normalized natural gas consumption is used in 3
developing the RS and GS-1 sales revenues that can be expected in a normal weather 4
year, and upon which the revenue requirement in this case is based. Normalized natural 5
gas usage also contributes to the development of the billing determinants used in this 6
case. 7
Q. Weather normalization was an issue in the Company’s last general rate case. Please 8
outline the agreements the Company made related to weather normalization in the 9
Settlement. 10
A. In the Settlement approved in Order No. 33879, the Company agreed the following terms 11
would govern weather normalization issues in future cases: 12
1) Unless otherwise agreed between Staff and the Company, consumption 13
normalization methodology will be used to adjust actual test year consumption 14
rather than to forecast test year consumption; 15
2) Any adjustment to customer or consumption input data will be uniformly and 16
consistently applied to all customer classes and all months; and 17
3) Interested parties will meet before the next rate case to seek consensus on weather 18
normalization methodology. 19
As discussed in greater detail in the testimony that follows, the Company and 20
Staff have engaged in a robust process over the intervening years to enact the terms of the 21
Settlement 22
PAGE 10 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
Q. Please outline the process employed to seek consensus on weather normalization 1
methodology. 2
A. The collaborative process between the Company and Staff took place over several years. 3
The first step was the development of and agreement on the data to be used and a process 4
for data collection and storage. Next, agreement was reached on the weighting process 5
for the weather data. Finally, the Company and Staff worked through the appropriate 6
application of the weather normalization models and model development. Staff and the 7
Company had sufficient time to work through and agree upon the process for data 8
collection and storage, weather weighting, and the application of the models. Although 9
both Staff and the Company invested a significant amount of time on model 10
development, a final consensus was not reached prior to filing. As explained in more 11
detail below, the Company has made a best effort to incorporate all of the feedback 12
provided by Staff into the models that were ultimately used in this case. Both parties 13
agreed that the models used were very close to what either party would have proposed 14
and that any remaining differences can be worked out during the course of the case. 15
Q. Explain the underlying data as well as the data collection and storage process. 16
A. A new Customer Information System (“CIS”) as well as the need to combine the previous 17
residential customer classes, RS-1 and RS-2, into the single RS class approved in the case 18
meant that the Company had an opportunity to build a process for data collection, storage 19
and weather weighting that was transparent, robust, and nimble enough to accommodate 20
future CIS changes and upgrades. As a result of the case, Intermountain chose to build a 21
system based on individual premise level billing detail that includes data on all premises 22
that received a customer charge for the month. The new system collects and stores data at 23
PAGE 11 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
this individual premise level of detail going forward. Before the previous CIS was retired, 1
Intermountain was also able to go back and mine the billing detail from that system to 2
create a database of premise level billing data from 2007 to present. Because the data is 3
stored at such a granular, premise level of detail, the new system will be able to integrate 4
seamlessly with other CIS systems that may be implemented in the future with no issues 5
regarding data continuity. 6
Q: What billing data is collected and stored? 7
A. Intermountain collects the following billing data for its residential and commercial 8
customers and stores it in a table in its data warehouse: 9
1) Accounting Year and Month 10
2) Billed Therm Usage 11
3) Start and end date of billing range 12
4) Premise ID 13
The following information is then calculated from the data stored in the data 14
warehouse: 15
1) Customer Count representing the total number of unique premises that 16
received a bill in a given accounting month. 17
2) Usage Per Customer which is calculated by summing the total therm usage 18
for a customer class in a given accounting month divided by the Customer 19
Count in that month. 20
3) Rate Study Division which represents the code of the closest weather 21
station to the billed premise, based on the premise’s town code. 22
Q. What weather data is collected and stored? 23
A. The Company collects and stores daily high, low and HDD65 weather data from seven 24
representative National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) weather 25
sites across its service territory. 26
Q. What are HDD’s? 27
PAGE 12 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
A. HDD’s, or heating degree days, are units used to relate a day’s temperature to the energy 1
demands of temperature sensitive load, primarily for space heating. HDD’s are 2
calculated by subtracting a day’s average temperature from a reference temperature, in 3
this case 65° Fahrenheit. 4
Q. What is the weather weighting process and why is it important? 5
A. Customers across Intermountain’s service territory experience weather that can be 6
dramatically different based on their location. It is important to match the weather 7
customers experience with the total usage, and thus total revenues, of the Company. To 8
enable this appropriate matching, the system uses the Rate Study Division to find the 9
nearest weather station to the customer. The daily HDD records are then summed across 10
the billing period. The customer billing data as well as the summed HDD for the billing 11
period becomes one record in the weather normalization database. To calculate a Total 12
Company HDD for each month that accurately represents the weather that contributed to 13
the usage for the month, each customer’s HDD sum for the accounting month is 14
multiplied by 1/Customer Count for the accounting month. The results for each customer 15
are summed to create the Total Company HDD for the accounting month. The new data 16
collection, storage and weather weighting processes all rely on billing system data rather 17
than adjusted data, which was an important point in the Settlement that was agreed to in 18
the previous case. 19
Q. How does the Company define normal weather? 20
A. The Company’s normal weather is based on an industry standard practice of using an 21
average of the temperatures experienced during the most recent 30-year period. 22
Intermountain’s service territory contains regions with diverse weather patterns. To 23
PAGE 13 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
incorporate the influences of varying temperatures on Company usage, daily weather data 1
for the past 30 years was collected and stored as outlined above. A 30-year average of 2
HDD’s for each day of the year was calculated for each weather station. 3
Q. How are the weather normalization models used to adjust test year usage? 4
A. The weather normalization models are used to calculate an adjustment that is applied to 5
actual usage to generate the test year volumes. The selected weather normalization model 6
may vary, but it will always fall under the following form: 7
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑡= 𝑦(𝑊𝑡,𝐶𝑡) 8
Where 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑡 is Usage per Customer in month t, y() is the selected 9
predictive model, 𝑊𝑡 is the weather input (or set of weather inputs) in month t, and 𝐶𝑡 10
represents the set of other non-weather covariates in the predictive model. 11
The adjustment can be computed as follows: 12
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑡=𝑦(𝑊𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀,𝑡,𝐶𝑡)−𝑦(𝑊𝐴𝐶𝑇,𝑡,𝐶𝑡) 13
Where 𝑊𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀,𝑡 is the weather that customers would experience in period t under 14
normal conditions, defined as a 30-year rolling average. 𝑊𝐴𝐶𝑇,𝑡 is the actual weather that 15
customers experienced in period t of the test year. Note that since the coviariates captured 16
in 𝐶𝑡 are the same under normal or actual weather conditions, they will directly cancel 17
out of the resulting adjustment. Thus, the adjustment can be simplified in terms of the 18
difference between normal weather and actual weather as follows: 19
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑡= 𝛽𝑡 x (𝑊𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀,𝑡− 𝑊𝐴𝐶𝑇,𝑡) 20
Where 𝛽𝑡 is the coefficient within model y( ) estimating the usage per customer 21
per degree day relevant to the month t. 22
PAGE 14 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
Under the test year adjustment method, the total normalized consumption in each 1
month is equal to: 2
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛=(𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙+𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) x 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 3
Where Actual is the observed usage per customer in the month and 4
CustomerCount is the number of unique premises to have received a bill in the period. 5
This agreed upon method is reflected in the weather normalization adjustment 6
shown on Exhibit No. 1. 7
Q. How have the forecast months in this filing been weather normalized to meet the 8
terms of the Settlement? 9
A. As has been previously discussed, the test year in this case includes actual data through 10
September 30, 2022 and forecast data for October through December 2022. In developing 11
the RS and GS-1 usage forecast for the months of October through December, the 12
Company was careful to employ a method that was similar to the method employed in 13
weather normalizing the actual months. As a stand-in for the actual data that will be 14
included in the case as it becomes available, the Company weather normalized actual 15
usage from October through December 2021 using the monthly coefficients shown on 16
Exhibit No. 1. The Company then calculated a normalized usage per customer from the 17
normalized monthly usage. That normalized usage per customer was multiplied by the 18
forecast customers for October through December 2022 to arrive at normalized usage for 19
the forecast months of this case. As actual usage data becomes available, the Company 20
will weather normalize the actual months as outlined on Exhibit No. 1. Because 21
Intermountain is not using the models to create fully forecasted data for October through 22
PAGE 15 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
December, the Company believes the proposed process ensures the Company is meeting 1
the terms of the Settlement. 2
Q. What models were originally proposed as part of the collaborative process? 3
A. The residential model originally proposed by the Company contained monthly HDD-65 4
coefficients for every month except August, a summer binary term, a log price term, and 5
an autoregressive term. The commercial model contained monthly HDD-65 coefficients 6
for every month except July and August, a summer binary term, a log price term, and an 7
autoregressive term. The originally proposed models are included as Exhibit No. 2. 8
Q. Have these models been used to calculate the weather normalization adjustment in 9
this case? 10
A. No. The Company met with Staff to review the proposed models. Following that meeting 11
the Company ran several additional variations of the models based on Staff feedback and 12
held a follow up meeting to discuss. Staff expressed concerns with the inclusion of the 13
autoregressive term and with leaving monthly terms out of the models. Although there 14
was not enough time to finish discussing the models before filing this case, the Company 15
incorporated Staff’s feedback on the models and the final models proposed in this case do 16
not include an autoregressive term and both models do include an HDD-65 term for all 17
months. The final models are included as Exhibit No. 3. After a robust, collaborative 18
process, the Company believes that the models used to calculate the weather 19
normalization adjustment reflect a positive resolution of the issues that each party had 20
with the models proposed by the other party in the previous case. 21
22
PAGE 16 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
Non-Utility LNG Sales Credits 1
Q. Please provide a brief overview of the Company’s involvement in non-utility LNG 2
sales. 3
A. In 2013, Intermountain received an emergency supply request to supply liquefied natural 4
gas (“LNG”) from its Nampa LNG plant to a small LNG-based distribution utility located 5
in southwestern Wyoming that had temporarily lost its supply of LNG. In Case No. INT-6
G-13-01, the Commission granted emergency authority for Intermountain to supply the 7
needed LNG. The Company then filed Case No. INT-G-13-02 to request on-going 8
authority to sell excess LNG from its Nampa LNG plant (as determined in its Integrated 9
Resource Plan filed every two years) to non-utility customers. In Order No. 32793 the 10
Commission authorized the Company to sell LNG to non-utility customers at market-based 11
prices. Because the Nampa LNG plant and its operations and maintenance are included in 12
base rates for the purpose of being a supply source in the event of very cold weather or 13
extraordinary system constraints, the Commission ordered the Company to reserve $0.025 14
per gallon of LNG sold to cover the increased capital expenditures and another $0.025 per 15
gallon to cover the increased O&M costs associated with the increased use of the Nampa 16
LNG facility. Additionally, the Commission authorized the Company to share net margins 17
from non-utility LNG sales with utility customers on a 50/50 basis. The O&M credits and 18
margin sharing are passed back to utility customers through the Company’s Purchased Gas 19
Cost Adjustment (“PGA”) filing. The amounts generated from the capital credit are used to 20
replace existing Nampa LNG capital infrastructure due to accelerated wear and tear from 21
producing LNG for sale. 22
PAGE 17 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
Q. How much money related to capital and O&M credits and margin sharing has been 1
generated since inception of the Company’s involvement in non-utility LNG sales? 2
A. For the period 2013-2020, the Company generated over $830,000 each in capital and O&M 3
credits and over $4.3 million in margin sharing as seen on Exhibit No. 4, Page 2, Column 4
(j). 5
Q. Has the Company performed an analysis to determine the sufficiency of the capital 6
and O&M credits? 7
A. Yes. The Company performed a non-utility LNG sales analysis to determine if the benefits 8
of selling LNG to non-utility customers outweighed the costs embedded in utility customer 9
base rates for the period 2013-2020. The Company did not include 2021 in its analysis 10
because in February 2021 the Company discovered a leak in the outer shell of the Nampa 11
LNG tank. To fix the leak, the Nampa LNG tank was emptied of product, warmed from 12
cryogenic to ambient temperatures and purged. The leak was repaired in late 2021, and the 13
Company began refilling the tank with LNG in January 2022. Sales to non-utility customers 14
began in March 2022. The Company did not include 2021 or 2022 in its analysis because 15
the LNG tank was out of service for repairs and maintenance for the majority of 2021, the 16
Company did not liquefy any natural gas in 2021, and LNG sales did not resume until 17
partway through 2022. 18
Q. Please explain the details of the analysis the Company performed. 19
A. Since the Nampa LNG facility is used for both utility and non-utility purposes, the 20
Company developed a methodology to determine the amount of capital and O&M expenses 21
related to non-utility LNG sales. When the Company liquefies natural gas at its Nampa 22
LNG facility it designates a percentage of the resulting LNG for either utility or non-utility 23
PAGE 18 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
purposes. For both the capital and O&M costs analysis, the Company used the average non-1
utility liquefaction percentage shown on Exhibit No. 4, Page 4, Line 5, Column (j) as the 2
final step in the determination of costs related to non-utility LNG sales. 3
To determine capital costs related to non-utility LNG sales, the Company first 4
reviewed the capital assets added to the Nampa LNG facility since 2013 when the 5
Commission authorized the Company to sell excess LNG to non-utility customers. Exhibit 6
No. 4, Page 5 shows the categories and amounts of Nampa LNG facility assets related to 7
LNG truck filling from 2013-2020. On Exhibit No. 4, Page 6, the Company multiplied the 8
identified assets on Exhibit No. 4, Page 5 by the Company’s current depreciation rates 9
authorized in Order No. 35134 (Case No. INT-G-21-01) to determine the average annual 10
depreciation expense for Nampa LNG facility assets related to LNG truck filling. The 11
Company then multiplied the annual depreciation expense by the non-utility LNG 12
liquefaction percentage on Exhibit No. 4, Page 4, Line 5, Column (j) to determine the 13
average amount of depreciation expense related to non-utility LNG sales. On Exhibit No. 4, 14
Page 3, the Company multiplied the average depreciation expense related to non-utility 15
LNG sales by 8 years and compared that amount to the capital credits generated from 2013-16
2020 and found the capital credits insufficient by approximately $96,000. 17
To determine O&M expenses related to non-utility LNG sales, calculated in Exhibit 18
No. 4, Page 7, the Company averaged the specifically tracked operations expenses related 19
to Nampa LNG facility employee time spent loading trucks for non-utility LNG sales and 20
allocated portions of power and nitrogen costs incurred during the liquefaction process. To 21
determine the amount of maintenance expense related to non-utility LNG sales, the 22
Company first multiplied the 2013-2020 average maintenance expense for each Nampa 23
PAGE 19 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
facility asset category by the respective percentage of assets related to LNG truck filling. 1
Then the Company multiplied the result from the previous step by the non-utility 2
liquefaction percentage from Exhibit No. 4, Page 4, Line 5, Column (j). On Exhibit No. 4, 3
Page 3, the Company multiplied the average O&M expense related to non-utility LNG sales 4
by 8 years and compared that amount to the O&M credits generated from 2013-2020 and 5
found the O&M credits insufficient by approximately $500,000. 6
Although both the capital and O&M credits were insufficient when compared to the 7
costs related to non-utility LNG sales, Exhibit No. 4, Page 3 shows that utility customers did 8
experience a net benefit of approximately $3.8 million from the Company’s involvement in 9
selling LNG to non-utility customers. 10
Q. What does the Company propose as a result of the Company’s analysis? 11
A. To better cover the amount of future capital and O&M costs related to non-utility LNG 12
sales, the Company proposes to set the capital and O&M credits at $0.03 and $0.04 per 13
gallon of LNG sold to non-utility customers, respectively. The Company determined the 14
proposed capital and O&M credits by dividing the average depreciation and O&M expenses 15
related to non-utility LNG sales by the 2013-2020 average amount of LNG gallons sold (see 16
Exhibit No. 4, Page 6, Line 27 and Exhibit No.4, Page 7, Line 27). Exhibit No. 4, Page 1 17
shows an average increase of approximately $42,000 in the overall increased utility 18
customer benefit based on the proposed capital and O&M credits. 19
Tariffs 20
Q. Could you briefly describe the tariff package that implements the rates proposed by 21
Intermountain in this case? 22
PAGE 20 OF 20
L. BLATTNER, DI
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
A. Yes. Exhibit No. 5, which I am sponsoring, shows the changes to Intermountain’s tariff, 1
by striking over proposed deletions and underlining additions or amendments to the 2
existing rate schedules. These changes conform to the testimony and exhibits of Mr. 3
Amen. However, the Company has added an additional change to the cost of gas section 4
of the LV-1 rate schedule to make all components of the cost of gas applicable to all LV-5
1 rate blocks. This change is necessary because when the Company filed its PGA it 6
expected usage only in the first rate block, however, under the proposed rate block 7
structure the Company expects usage in all three rate blocks. Exhibit No.6, which I am 8
also sponsoring, shows these same rate schedules in a clean format. 9
Q. Does this conclude your testimony? 10
A. Yes. 11
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 1 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER
Line
No.Description Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Total
1 RS
2 HDD65:
3 Actual Degree Days 1,118.94 1,079.74 1,046.50 605.62 514.59 274.74 55.30 0.10 7.58 4,703.104Normal Degree Days 1,144.95 964.10 913.34 596.07 406.68 201.65 55.55 5.88 34.83 4,323.06
5 Difference +warmer -colder 26.007880 (115.633470)(133.151830)(9.545220)(107.906480)(73.082310)0.245150 5.777440 27.244000 - - - (380.04)
6 Model Coefficient x Difference 0.112924 0.113167 0.108848 0.099641 0.088016 0.092101 0.067579 0.088964 0.057979 0.085642 0.095893 0.1083657Change in Therms/Customer 2.93691 (13.08589)(14.49331)(0.95110)(9.49750)(6.73095)0.01657 0.51398 1.57958 - - - (39.71)
8 Customers 364,502 365,320 366,388 367,064 367,726 368,281 368,434 369,020 369,524 - - - 3,306,259
9 HDD65 Therm Adjustment 1,070,510 (4,780,537)(5,310,175)(349,115)(3,492,478)(2,478,881)6,105 189,669 583,693 0 0 0 (14,561,209)
10 GS-1:Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 TOTAL
11 HDD65:12 Actual Degree Days 1,140.65 1,111.53 1,089.45 620.31 525.41 282.88 57.12 0.14 10.01 4,837.49
13 Normal Degree Days 1,167.69 984.02 945.04 610.51 418.07 213.03 59.63 7.51 42.42 4,447.9314Difference +warmer -colder 27.038240 (127.510080)(144.407230)(9.793740)(107.342870)(69.849030)2.517290 7.376320 32.405940 - - - (389.57)
15 Model Coefficient x Difference 0.496787 0.495629 0.472342 0.414982 0.352877 0.366217 0.163336 0.644551 0.388738 0.393954 0.383191 0.463382
16 Change in Therms/Customer 13.43225 (63.19769)(68.20960)(4.06423)(37.87883)(25.57990)0.41116 4.75441 12.59742 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 (167.74)17 Customers (with Migration Adjustment)34,887 34,961 35,004 34,997 35,001 34,977 34,939 34,918 34,918 - - - 314,602
18 HDD65 Therm Adjustment 468,611 (2,209,454)(2,387,609)(142,236)(1,325,797)(894,708)14,366 166,014 439,877 - - - (5,870,936)
19 Total Therm Adjustment 1,539,121 (6,989,991) (7,697,784) (491,351) (4,818,275) (3,373,589) 20,471 355,683 1,023,570 - - - (20,432,145)
Intermountain Gas Company
Weather Normalization Adjustment
For the Test Year Ending December 31, 2022
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 1
Page 1 of 1
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 2 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
WEATHER NORMALIZATION MODELS
2022
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 2
Page 1 of 3

Dependent Variable: THERMS
Method: ARMA Conditional Least Squares (Marquardt - EViews legacy)
Sample (adjusted): 2007M02 2021M12
Included observations: 179 after adjustments
Convergence achieved after 8 iterations
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C 23.7842 4.425726 5.374079 0.0000
Jan-65 0.111925 0.000851 131.4648 0.0000
Feb-65 0.112139 0.001015 110.4672 0.0000
Mar-65 0.107627 0.001219 88.26378 0.0000
Apr-65 0.098156 0.00168 58.44148 0.0000
May-65 0.085367 0.002552 33.44829 0.0000
Jun-65 0.086597 0.005315 16.29356 0.0000
Jul-65 0.061805 0.012225 5.055451 0.0000
Sep-65 0.048305 0.012168 3.969845 0.0001
Oct-65 0.081008 0.00412 19.66062 0.0000
Nov-65 0.093984 0.001771 53.06761 0.0000
Dec-65 0.107366 0.001061 101.1639 0.0000
SUMMER 4.265111 0.970514 4.394691 0.0000
LOG_PRICE -3.322272 1.022986 -3.247621 0.0014
AR(1)0.407175 0.069906 5.824567 0.0000
R-squared 0.998465 Mean dependent var 60.93912
Adjusted R-squared 0.998334 S.D. dependent var 44.11888
S.E. of regression 1.800903 Akaike info criterion 4.094532
Sum squared resid 531.8935 Schwarz criterion 4.361632
Log likelihood -351.4606 Hannan-Quinn criter.4.202839
F-statistic 7618.912 Durbin-Watson stat 1.996883
Prob(F-statistic)0
Inverted AR Roots 0.41
RS_2022_LOGP
PRICE - NATURAL LOG
RS Proposed Model
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 2
Page 2 of 3
GS Proposed Model
GS_2022_LOGP
PRICE - NATURAL LOG
Dependent Variable: THERMS
Method: ARMA Conditional Least Squares (Marquardt - EViews legacy)
Sample (adjusted): 2007M02
2021M12
Included observations: 179 after adjustments
Convergence achieved after 8 iterations

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 277.9109 38.28175 7.259618 0.0000
Jan-65 0.493109 0.007093 69.51915 0.0000
Feb-65 0.492354 0.008443 58.31681 0.0000
Mar-65 0.468113 0.010078 46.4487 0.0000
Apr-65 0.409411 0.013856 29.5476 0.0000
May-65 0.341071 0.020938 16.28977 0.0000
Jun-65 0.339675 0.041967 8.093841 0.0000
Sep-65 0.278494 0.082647 3.369671 0.0009
Oct-65 0.371672 0.031901 11.65069 0.0000
Nov-65 0.37483 0.014329 26.15828 0.0000
Dec-65 0.459833 0.008787 52.33209 0.0000
SUMMER 29.34844 8.078959 3.632701 0.0004
LOG_PRICE -49.48294 8.814089 -5.614074 0.0000
AR(1) 0.448652 0.069257 6.478105 0.0000

R-squared 0.994652 Mean dependent var 295.2166
Adjusted R-squared 0.994231 S.D. dependent var 195.9836
S.E. of regression 14.8858 Akaike info criterion 8.313676
Sum squared resid 36561.84 Schwarz criterion 8.562969
Log likelihood -730.074 Hannan-Quinn criter. 8.414763
F-statistic 2360.714 Durbin-Watson stat 2.020702
Prob(F-statistic) 0

Inverted AR Roots 0.45

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 2
Page 3 of 3
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 3 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
FINAL
WEATHER NORMALIZATION MODELS
2022

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 3
Page 1 of 3
RS_2021_LOGP_AUG_WITHOUT_AR
FINAL MODEL, AR REMOVED, AUG HDD
Dependent Variable: THERMS
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 2007M01 2021M12
Included observations: 180

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 22.37114 2.9986 7.460427 0.0000
JAN65 0.112924 0.0009 123.9591 0.0000
FEB65 0.113167 0.0011 104.1043 0.0000
MAR65 0.108848 0.0013 83.14054 0.0000
APR65 0.099641 0.0018 55.13101 0.0000
MAY65 0.088016 0.0028 31.84906 0.0000
JUN65 0.092101 0.0057 16.16188 0.0000
JUL65 0.067579 0.0164 4.110612 0.0001
AUG65 0.088964 0.090551 0.982472 0.3273
SEP65 0.057979 0.0165 3.506495 0.0006
OCT65 0.085642 0.0045 19.07673 0.0000
NOV65 0.095893 0.0019 49.3445 0.0000
DEC65 0.108365 0.0012 94.2648 0.0000
SUMMER 5.085433 1.0797 4.709999 0.0000
LOG_PRICE -3.223074 0.6813 -4.730609 0.0000

R-squared 0.998119 Mean dependent var 61.38122
Adjusted R-squared 0.99796 S.D. dependent var 44.39351
S.E. of regression 2.005329 Akaike info criterion 4.309149
Sum squared resid 663.522 Schwarz criterion 4.575229
Log likelihood -372.8234 Hannan-Quinn criter. 4.417033
F-statistic 6254.245 Durbin-Watson stat 1.180947
Prob(F-statistic) 0

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 3
Page 2 of 3
GS_2021_LOGP_AUG_WITHOUT_AR
FINAL MODEL, AR REMOVED, AUG HDD
Dependent Variable: THERMS
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 2007M01 2021M12
Included observations: 180

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 277.7842 24.5580 11.31134 0.0000
JAN65 0.496787 0.0077 64.78261 0.0000
FEB65 0.495629 0.0091 54.1862 0.0000
MAR65 0.472342 0.0109 43.18784 0.0000
APR65 0.414982 0.0151 27.51877 0.0000
MAY65 0.352877 0.0230 15.35907 0.0000
JUN65 0.366217 0.0461 7.951086 0.0000
JUL65 0.163336 0.1302 1.254688 0.2114
AUG65 0.644551 0.633342 1.017698 0.3103
SEP65 0.388738 0.1190 3.26786 0.0013
OCT65 0.393954 0.0354 11.12132 0.0000
NOV65 0.383191 0.0160 23.94772 0.0000
DEC65 0.463382 0.0096 48.0312 0.0000
SUMMER 29.99006 9.3265 3.21557 0.0016
LOG_PRICE -50.45898 5.5307 -9.123488 0.0000

R-squared 0.993351 Mean dependent var 297.2173
Adjusted R-squared 0.992787 S.D. dependent var 197.2702
S.E. of regression 16.75455 Akaike info criterion 8.554873
Sum squared resid 46317.99 Schwarz criterion 8.820952
Log likelihood -754.9385 Hannan-Quinn criter. 8.662757
F-statistic 1760.698 Durbin-Watson stat 1.075405
Prob(F-statistic) 0

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 3
Page 3 of 3
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 4 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER
Line No.Description Current Proposed Difference
(a)(b)(c)(d)
1 Capital Credit per gallon 0.025$ 0.030$ 0.005$
2 O&M Credit per gallon 0.025 0.040 0.015
3 Average Gallons Sold 4,157,491 4,157,491
4 Average Capital Credit 103,937.28$ 124,724.73$ 20,787.46$
5 Average O&M Credit 103,937.28 166,299.64 62,362.37
6 Average LNG Margin Sharing 547,793.60 506,218.69 (41,574.91)
7 Average Benefits to Customers 755,668.15$ 797,243.06$ 41,574.91$
8 Average Costs to Utility Customers 282,003.90$ 282,003.90$ -$
9 Average Net Cost/(Benefit) to Utility Customers (473,664.25)$ (515,239.16)$ (41,574.91)$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
Current vs. Proposed
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 1 of 7
Line No.Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
1 Capital Credits Generated 23,001.54$ 89,714.18$ 88,254.23$ 80,605.02$ 82,847.39$ 131,977.01$ 181,224.04$ 153,874.75$ 831,498.16$
2 O&M Credits Generated 23,001.82 89,714.24 88,254.26 80,605.02 82,847.39 131,977.01 181,224.03 153,874.75 831,498.52 3 Margin Sharing 131,870.93 550,345.61 409,313.43 375,871.92 386,806.55 706,468.17 1,114,905.92 706,766.28 4,382,348.81
4 Total Credits and Margin Sharing 177,874.29$ 729,774.03$ 585,821.92$ 537,081.96$ 552,501.33$ 970,422.19$ 1,477,353.99$ 1,014,515.78$ 6,045,345.49$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
2013-2020 Non-Utility LNG Sales Credits and Margin Sharing
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 2 of 7
Line No.Description Amount
(a)(b)
1 Capital Credit Analysis
2 Depreciation Expense Related to Non-Utility Sales (2013-2020)927,222.98$
3 Capital Credits (2013-2020)(831,498.16)
4 Net Cost/(Benefit) to Customers 95,724.82$
5 O&M Credit Analysis
6 O&M Expense Related to Non-Utility Sales (2013-2020)1,328,808.25$
7 O&M Credits (2013-2020)(831,498.52)
8 Net Cost/(Benefit) to Customers 497,309.73$
9 LNG Margin Sharing (2013-2020)(4,382,348.81)
10 Total Net Cost/(Benefit) to Customers (2013-2020)(3,789,314.26)$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
2013-2020 Net Cost/(Benefit) of Non-Utility LNG Sales to Utility Customers
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 3 of 7
Line No.Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 (1)2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
1 Utility Liquefaction (therms)400,000 1,012,776 1,598,255 1,584,124 2,005,895 396,233 1,643,701 1,132,209 9,773,193
2 Non-Utility Liquefaction (therms)1,523,431 2,830,826 4,109,793 737,464 4,257,148 3,566,100 7,187,992 4,529,223 28,741,977
3 Total 1,923,431 3,843,602 5,708,048 2,321,588 6,263,043 3,962,333 8,831,693 5,661,432 38,515,170
4 Utility Liquefaction %21%26%28%68%32%10%19%20%25%
5 Non-Utility Liquefaction %79%74%72%32%68%90%81%80%75%
6 Total 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
Non-Utility LNG Liquefaction Percentage
(1) Liquefaction in April and May of 2016 was entirely reserved for utility purposes to help build a sufficient balance to serve utility customers as determined in the Company's Integrated
Resource Plan. This caused the utility/non-utility liquefaction percentages to increase/decrease when compared to years before and after.
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 4 of 7
Line No.Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
1 361 - Structures & Improvements 27,993.19$ 127,512.87$ 27,223.66$ 199,366.00$ 22,064.34$ 371,622.17$ 413,479.91$ 38,544.61$ 1,227,806.75$
2 363 - Measure & Reg Equip.18,246.80 - - - - - - - 18,246.80
3 363 - Liquefaction 73,037.36 92,546.59 603,713.98 161,790.08 67,025.39 41,364.38 38,614.83 754,204.11 1,832,296.72
4 363 - Vaporization 8,165.71 - - - - - - - 8,165.71 5 363 - Compressor Eq.- 3,615,285.56 8,475.11 - - - - - 3,623,760.67 6 363 - Purification Eq.- 58,197.07 243,406.16 36,741.47 24,754.64 298,234.89 30,735.65 - 692,069.88
7 Total 127,443.06$ 3,893,542.09$ 882,818.91$ 397,897.55$ 113,844.37$ 711,221.44$ 482,830.39$ 792,748.72$ 7,402,346.53$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales AnalysisNampa LNG Facility Assets Related to LNG Truck Filling
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 5 of 7
Line No.Description Amount
(a)(b)
1 2013-2020 Nampa LNG Plant Assets Related to LNG Truck Filling
2 361 - Structures & Improvements 1,227,806.75$
3 363 - Measure & Reg Equip.18,246.80
4 363 - Liquefaction 1,832,296.72
5 363 - Vaporization 8,165.71
6 363 - Compressor Eq.3,623,760.67
7 363 - Purification Eq.692,069.88
8 Total 7,402,346.53$
9 Case No. INT-G-21-01 Depreciation Rates
10 361 - Structures & Improvements 4.06%
11 363 - Measure & Reg Equip.1.05%
12 363 - Liquefaction 1.28%
13 363 - Vaporization 1.76%
14 363 - Compressor Eq.2.04%
15 363 - Purification Eq.1.12%
16 Average Depreciation Expense Related to LNG Truck Filling
17 361 - Structures & Improvements 49,848.95$
18 363 - Measure & Reg Equip.191.59
19 363 - Liquefaction 23,453.40
20 363 - Vaporization 143.72
21 363 - Compressor Eq.73,924.72
22 363 - Purification Eq.7,751.18
23 Subtotal 155,313.56$
24 Non-Utility Liquefaction %75%
25 Average Depreciation Expense Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales 115,902.87$
26 Average Gallons Sold Annually 4,157,491
27 Proposed Credit (Rounded)0.03$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
Average Depreciation Expense Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 6 of 7
Line No.Description Amount
(a)(b)
1 Average Operations Expense (Workorder 206356)97,211.35$
2 Average % Plant Related to LNG Truck Filling to Total Plant
3 361 - Structures & Improvements 12.85%
4 363 - Measure & Reg Equip.9.20%
5 363 - Liquefaction 42.30%
6 363 - Vaporization 0.27%
7 363 - Compressor Eq.42.96%
8 363 - Purification Eq.35.59%
9 Average Maintenance Expense (from FERC Form 2)
10 843.2 Maintenance of Structures 32,460.13$
11 843.8 Maintenance of Measuring and Regulating Equipment -
12 843.5 Maintenance of Liquefaction Equipment 93,237.88
13 843.6 Maintenance of Vaporizing Equipment 88,400.38
14 843.7 Maintenance of Compressor Equipment 80,225.00
15 843.4 Maintenance of Purification Equipment 39,328.13
16 Non-Utility Liquefaction %75%
17 Average Maintenance Expense Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales
18 843.2 Maintenance of Structures 3,112.44$
19 843.8 Maintenance of Measuring and Regulating Equipment -
20 843.5 Maintenance of Liquefaction Equipment 29,431.83
21 843.6 Maintenance of Vaporizing Equipment 180.18
22 843.7 Maintenance of Compressor Equipment 25,720.52
23 843.4 Maintenance of Purification Equipment 10,444.71
24 Average Maintenance Expense Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales 68,889.68$
25 Average O&M Expense Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales 166,101.03$
26 Average Gallons Sold Annually 4,157,491
27 Proposed Credit (Rounded)0.04$
Intermountain Gas Company
Non-Utility LNG Sales Analysis
Average O&M Related to Non-Utility LNG Sales
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 4
Page 7 of 7
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 5 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 1 (Page 1 of 1)
Name of Utility
Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule RS RESIDENTIAL SERVICE APPLICABILITY:
Applicable to any customer using natural gas for residential purposes. RATE: Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge. Customer Charge: $5.50 per bill Per Therm Charge: $0.73392* *Includes the following: Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment ($0.00057) 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3) Gas transportation cost $0.16364 Distribution Cost: $0.16305 EE Charge: $0.01564

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT: This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA. This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills. ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for costs related to the Company’s Energy Efficiency program as
provided for in Rate Schedule EEC-RS. The Energy Efficiency Charge is separately stated on customer bills. SERVICE CONDITIONS: All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff, of which this rate schedule is a part.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538 & 35539
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 1 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Sixty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 3 (Page 1 of 2)
Name of Utility Intermountain Gas Company
Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule GS-1 GENERAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY:
Applicable to customers whose requirements for natural gas do not exceed 2,000 therms per day, at any point
on the Company's distribution system. Requirements in excess of 2,000 therms per day may be allowed at the Company’s discretion.
RATE:
Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.
Customer Charge: $9.50 per bill
Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.75436*Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.73088* Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.70821* Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63965*
*Includes the following:
Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3) Gas transportation cost $0.15990
Distribution Cost: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.18465 Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.16117 Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.13850 Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06994
EE Charge: $0.00320
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
$0.17745
$0.15489
$0.13310
$0.06721
$0.74716$0.72460
$0.70281
$0.63692
$15.00
January 1, 2023
Sixty-Sixth
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 2 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Sixty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 3 (Page 2 of 2)
Name of Utility Intermountain Gas Company
Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule GS-1 GENERAL SERVICE (Continued)
For separately metered deliveries of gas utilized solely as Compressed Natural Gas Fuel in vehicular internal combustion engines.
Customer Charge: $9.50 per bill
Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.70501* Block Two: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63645*
*Includes the following:
Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3)Gas transportation cost $0.15990
Distribution Cost: Block One: First 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.13850 Block Two: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06994
PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA. This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for costs related to the Company’s Energy Efficiency program as provided for in Rate Schedule EEC-GS. The Energy Efficiency Charge is not applicable to gas utilized solely
as Compressed Natural Gas Fuel in vehicular internal combustion engines. The Energy Efficiency Charge is separately stated on customer bills.
SERVICE CONDITIONS:
1.All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff,of which this rate schedule is a part.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
January 1, 2023
$0.13310
$0.06721
$15.00
$0.69961
$0.63372
Sixty-Sixth
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 3 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas TariffRate SchedulesTwenty-First Revised Sheet No. 4 (Page 1 of 2)
Name of Utility Intermountain Gas Company
Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule IS-R
RESIDENTIAL INTERRUPTIBLE SNOWMELT SERVICE
APPLICABILITY:
Applicable to any residential customer otherwise eligible to receive service under Rate Schedule RS who has added natural gas snowmelt equipment after 6/1/2010. The intended use of the snowmelt equipment is to melt snow and/or ice on sidewalks, driveways or any other similar appurtenances. Any and all such applications meeting the above criteria will be subject to service under Rate Schedule IS-R and will be separately and individually metered. All service hereunder is interruptible at the sole discretion of the Company.
FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE:
All new interruptible Snowmelt service customers are required to pay for the cost of the Snowmelt meter set and other related facility and equipment costs, prior to the installation of the meter set. Any request to alter the physical location of the meter set and related facilities from Company’s initial design may be granted provided, however, the Company can reasonably accommodate said relocation and Customer agrees to pay all related costs.
RATE:
Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.
Customer Charge: $5.50 per bill
Per Therm Charge: $0.73618*
*Includes the following:
Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01733 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3) Gas transportation cost $0.16364
Distribution Cost: $0.16305
PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA. This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
January 1, 2023
$0.14116
$8.00
$0.71429
Twenty-Second
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 4 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas TariffRate SchedulesTwentieth Revised Sheet No. 5 (Page 1 of 2)
Name of Utility Intermountain Gas Company
Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule IS-C SMALL COMMERICAL INTERRUPTIBLE SNOWMELT SERVICE
APPLICABILITY:
Applicable to any customer otherwise eligible to receive gas service under Rate Schedule GS-1 who has added natural gas snowmelt equipment after 6/1/2010. The intended use of the snowmelt equipment is to melt snow and/or ice on sidewalks, driveways or any other similar appurtenances. Any and all such applications meeting the above criteria will be subject to service under Rate Schedule IS-C and will be separately and individually metered. All service hereunder is interruptible at the sole discretion of the Company.
FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE:
All new interruptible Snowmelt service customers are required to pay for the cost of the Snowmelt meter set
and other related facility and equipment costs, prior to the installation of the meter set. Any request to alter the physical location of the meter set and related facilities from Company’s initial design may be granted
provided, however, the Company can reasonably accommodate said relocation and Customer agrees to pay all related costs.
RATE:
Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.
Customer Charge: $9.50 per bill
Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.75116*
Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.72768* Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.70501* Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63645*
*Includes the following:
Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3) Gas transportation cost $0.15990
Distribution Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.18465 Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.16117 Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.13850 Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06994
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
$12.50
$0.17745
$0.15489
$0.13310
$0.06721
$0.74396
$0.72140
$0.69961
$0.63372
January 1, 2023
Twenty-First
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 5 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff Rate Schedules Seventy-Second Revised Sheet No. 7 (Page 1 of 2)
Name of Utility
Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022

Rate Schedule LV-1 LARGE VOLUME FIRM SALES SERVICE AVAILABILITY:
Available at any mutually agreeable delivery point on the Company's distribution system to any existing customer receiving service under the Company’s rate schedule LV-1 or any customer not previously served
under this schedule whose usage does not exceed 500,000 therms annually, upon execution of a one-year minimum written service contract for firm sales service in excess of 200,000 therms per year. MONTHLY RATE:
Demand Charge: $0.30000 per MDFQ therm Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 250,000 therms per bill @ $0.54173* Block Two: Next 500,000 therms per bill @ $0.52384* Block Three: Over 750,000 therms per bill @ $0.44733* *Includes the following: Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment
Block One and Two $0.03247 Block Three $0.05210 2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216 3) Gas transportation cost (Block One and Two only) $0.08710 Distribution Cost: Block One: First 250,000 therms per bill @ $0.03000 Block Two: Next 500,000 therms per bill @ $0.01211 Block Three: Over 750,000 therms per bill @ $0.00307 PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT: This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA. This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills. SERVICE CONDITIONS:
1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part. 2. The customer shall negotiate with the Company, a mutually agreeable Maximum Daily Firm Quantity (MDFQ), which will be stated in and in effect throughout the term of the service contract. 3. The monthly Demand Charge will be equal to the MDFQ times the Demand Charge rate. Demand Charge relief will be afforded to those LV-1 customers when circumstances impacted by force majeure events prevent the Company from delivering natural gas to the customer’s meter.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 6 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff Rate Schedules Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 8 (Page 1 of 1)
Name of Utility
Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule T-3 INTERRUPTIBLE DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AVAILABILITY: Available at any point on the Company's distribution system to any customer upon execution of a one year minimum written service contract. MONTHLY RATE: Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 100,000 therms transported @ $0.03771* Block Two: Next 50,000 therms transported @ $0.01487* Block Three: Over 150,000 therms transported @ $0.00496*

*Includes temporary purchased gas cost adjustment of ($0.00082) ANNUAL MINIMUM BILL:
The customer shall be subject to the payment of an annual minimum bill based on annual usage of 200,000 therms. The deficit usage below 200,000 therms shall be billed at the T-3 Block 1 rate.
PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills. SERVICE CONDITIONS: 1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part.
2. This service does not include the cost of the customer's gas supply or the interstate pipeline capacity.
The customer is responsible for procuring its own supply of natural gas and transportation to
Intermountain's distribution system under this Rate Schedule. 3. The customer understands and agrees that the Company is not responsible to deliver gas supplies to the customer which have not been nominated, scheduled, and delivered by the interstate pipeline to the designated city gate. 4. The Company, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether or not it has adequate capacity to accommodate transportation of the customer's gas supply on the Company's distribution system.

5. If requested by the Company, the customer expressly agrees to immediately curtail or interrupt its
operations during periods of capacity constraints on the Company’s distribution system.

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 7 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate SchedulesTwenty-First Revised Sheet No. 9 (Page 1 of 2)
Name of Utility Intermountain Gas Company
Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs Effective: October 1, 2022
Rate Schedule T-4 FIRM DISTRIBUTION ONLY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AVAILABILITY:
Available at any mutually agreeable delivery point on the Company's distribution system to any customer
upon execution of a one year minimum written service contract for firm distribution transportation service in
excess of 200,000 therms per year.
MONTHLY RATE:
Demand Charge: $0.28032 per MDFQ therm*
Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 250,000 therms transported @ $0.02395
Block Two: Next 500,000 therms transported @ $0.00847
Block Three: Over 750,000 therms transported @ $0.00260
*Includes temporary purchased gas cost adjustment of ($0.01968)
PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:
This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA. This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.
SERVICE CONDITIONS:
1.All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company’sTariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part.
2.This service does not include the cost of the customer’s gas supply of the interstate pipeline capacity.The customer is responsible for procuring its own supply of natural gas and transportation toIntermountain’s distribution system under this Rate Schedule.
3.The customer understands and agrees that the Company is not responsible to deliver gas suppliesto the customer which have not been nominated, scheduled, and delivered by the interstate pipelineto the designated city gate.
4.The customer shall negotiate with the Company, a mutually agreeable Maximum Daily Firm Quantity(MDFQ), which will be stated in and in effect throughout the term of the service contract.
5.The monthly Demand Charge will be equal to the MDFQ times the Demand Charge rate. DemandCharge relief will be afforded to those T-4 customers when circumstances impacted by force majeureevents prevent the Company from delivering natural gas to the customer’s meter.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Approved Effective
Sept. 27, 2022 Oct. 1, 2022
Per ON 35538
Jan Noriyuki Secretary
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 5
Page 8 of 8
Preston N. Carter ISB No. 8462
Morgan D. Goodin ISB No. 11184
Blake W. Ringer ISB No. 11223
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY.
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL
GAS SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. INT-G-22-07
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 6 TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LORI A. BLATTNER
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 1 (Page 1 of 1)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023

Rate Schedule RS
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

APPLICABILITY:

Applicable to any customer using natural gas for residential purposes.

RATE:

Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.

Customer Charge: $9.00 per bill

Per Therm Charge: $0.71203*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment ($0.00057)
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.16364

Distribution Cost: $0.14116

EE Charge: $0.01564

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for costs related to the Company’s Energy Efficiency program as
provided for in Rate Schedule EEC-RS. The Energy Efficiency Charge is separately stated on customer bills.

SERVICE CONDITIONS:

All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff, of
which this rate schedule is a part.
Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 1 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Sixty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 3 (Page 1 of 2)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023

Rate Schedule GS-1
GENERAL SERVICE

APPLICABILITY:

Applicable to customers whose requirements for natural gas do not exceed 2,000 therms per day, at any point
on the Company's distribution system. Requirements in excess of 2,000 therms per day may be allowed at
the Company’s discretion.

RATE:

Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.

Customer Charge: $15.00 per bill

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.74716*
Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.72460*
Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.70281*
Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63692*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.15990

Distribution Cost: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.17745
Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.15489
Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.13310
Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06721

EE Charge: $0.00320

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 2 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Sixty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 3 (Page 2 of 2)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023
Rate Schedule GS-1
GENERAL SERVICE
(Continued)

For separately metered deliveries of gas utilized solely as Compressed Natural Gas Fuel in vehicular internal
combustion engines.

Customer Charge: $15.00 per bill

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.69961*
Block Two: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63372*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.15990

Distribution Cost: Block One: First 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.13310
Block Two: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06721

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for costs related to the Company’s Energy Efficiency program as
provided for in Rate Schedule EEC-GS. The Energy Efficiency Charge is not applicable to gas utilized solely
as Compressed Natural Gas Fuel in vehicular internal combustion engines. The Energy Efficiency Charge is
separately stated on customer bills.

SERVICE CONDITIONS:

1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's Tariff,
of which this rate schedule is a part.

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 3 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 4 (Page 1 of 2)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023

Rate Schedule IS-R
RESIDENTIAL INTERRUPTIBLE SNOWMELT SERVICE

APPLICABILITY:

Applicable to any residential customer otherwise eligible to receive service under Rate Schedule RS who
has added natural gas snowmelt equipment after 6/1/2010. The intended use of the snowmelt equipment is
to melt snow and/or ice on sidewalks, driveways or any other similar appurtenances. Any and all such
applications meeting the above criteria will be subject to service under Rate Schedule IS-R and will be
separately and individually metered. All service hereunder is interruptible at the sole discretion of the
Company.

FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE:

All new interruptible Snowmelt service customers are required to pay for the cost of the Snowmelt meter set
and other related facility and equipment costs, prior to the installation of the meter set. Any request to alter
the physical location of the meter set and related facilities from Company’s initial design may be granted
provided, however, the Company can reasonably accommodate said relocation and Customer agrees to
pay all related costs.

RATE:

Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.

Customer Charge: $8.00 per bill

Per Therm Charge: $0.71429*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01733
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.16364

Distribution Cost: $0.14116

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 4 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 5 (Page 1 of 2)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023

Rate Schedule IS-C
SMALL COMMERICAL INTERRUPTIBLE SNOWMELT SERVICE

APPLICABILITY:

Applicable to any customer otherwise eligible to receive gas service under Rate Schedule GS-1 who has
added natural gas snowmelt equipment after 6/1/2010. The intended use of the snowmelt equipment is to
melt snow and/or ice on sidewalks, driveways or any other similar appurtenances. Any and all such
applications meeting the above criteria will be subject to service under Rate Schedule IS-C and will be
separately and individually metered. All service hereunder is interruptible at the sole discretion of the
Company.

FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE:

All new interruptible Snowmelt service customers are required to pay for the cost of the Snowmelt meter set
and other related facility and equipment costs, prior to the installation of the meter set. Any request to alter
the physical location of the meter set and related facilities from Company’s initial design may be granted
provided, however, the Company can reasonably accommodate said relocation and Customer agrees to pay
all related costs.

RATE:

Monthly minimum charge is the Customer Charge.

Customer Charge: $12.50 per bill

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.74396*
Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.72140*
Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.69961*
Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.63372*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.01445
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.15990

Distribution Charge: Block One: First 200 therms per bill @ $0.17745
Block Two: Next 1,800 therms per bill @ $0.15489
Block Three: Next 8,000 therms per bill @ $0.13310
Block Four: Over 10,000 therms per bill @ $0.06721

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 5 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Seventy-Third Revised Sheet No. 7 (Page 1 of 2)
Name
of Utility

Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023

Rate Schedule LV-1
LARGE VOLUME FIRM SALES SERVICE

AVAILABILITY:

Available at any mutually agreeable delivery point on the Company's distribution system to any existing
customer receiving service under the Company’s rate schedule LV-1 or any customer not previously served
under this schedule whose usage does not exceed 500,000 therms annually, upon execution of a one-year
minimum written service contract for firm sales service in excess of 200,000 therms per year.

MONTHLY RATE:

Customer Charge: $150.00 per bill

Demand Charge: $0.32000 per MDFQ therm

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 35,000 therms per bill @ $0.54173*
Block Two: Next 35,000 therms per bill @ $0.53081*
Block Three: Over 70,000 therms per bill @ $0.52773*

*Includes the following:

Cost of Gas: 1) Temporary purchased gas cost adjustment $0.03247
2) Weighted average cost of gas $0.39216
3) Gas transportation cost $0.08710

Distribution Cost: Block One: First 35,000 therms per bill @ $0.03000
Block Two: Next 35,000 therms per bill @ $0.01908
Block Three: Over 70,000 therms per bill @ $0.01600

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.

SERVICE CONDITIONS:

1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's
Tariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part.

2. The customer shall negotiate with the Company, a mutually agreeable Maximum Daily Firm Quantity
(MDFQ), which will be stated in and in effect throughout the term of the service contract.

3. The monthly Demand Charge will be equal to the MDFQ times the Demand Charge rate. Demand
Charge relief will be afforded to those LV-1 customers when circumstances impacted by force
majeure events prevent the Company from delivering natural gas to the customer’s meter.

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 6 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Twenty-Third Revised Sheet No. 8 (Page 1 of 1)
Name
of Utility
Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023
Rate Schedule T-3 INTERRUPTIBLE DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AVAILABILITY:

Available at any point on the Company's distribution system to any customer upon execution of a one year
minimum written service contract.
MONTHLY RATE:
Customer Charge: $300.00 per bill

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 100,000 therms transported @ $0.03692*
Block Two: Next 50,000 therms transported @ $0.01455*
Block Three: Over 150,000 therms transported @ $0.00484*

*Includes temporary purchased gas cost adjustment of ($0.00082)
ANNUAL MINIMUM BILL:

The customer shall be subject to the payment of an annual minimum bill based on annual usage of 200,000
therms. The deficit usage below 200,000 therms shall be billed at the T-3 Block 1 rate.

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.
SERVICE CONDITIONS:

1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company's
Tariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part.

2. This service does not include the cost of the customer's gas supply or the interstate pipeline capacity.
The customer is responsible for procuring its own supply of natural gas and transportation to
Intermountain's distribution system under this Rate Schedule.

3. The customer understands and agrees that the Company is not responsible to deliver gas supplies
to the customer which have not been nominated, scheduled, and delivered by the interstate pipeline
to the designated city gate.

4. The Company, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether or not it has adequate capacity to
accommodate transportation of the customer's gas supply on the Company's distribution system.

5. If requested by the Company, the customer expressly agrees to immediately curtail or interrupt its
operations during periods of capacity constraints on the Company’s distribution system.

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 7 of 8
I.P.U.C. Gas Tariff
Rate Schedules
Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 9 (Page 1 of 2)
Name
of Utility
Intermountain Gas Company

Issued by: Intermountain Gas Company
By: Lori A. Blattner Title: Director – Regulatory Affairs
Effective: January 1, 2023
Rate Schedule T-4
FIRM DISTRIBUTION ONLY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

AVAILABILITY:
Available at any mutually agreeable delivery point on the Company's distribution system to any customer
upon execution of a one year minimum written service contract for firm distribution transportation service in
excess of 200,000 therms per year.

MONTHLY RATE:
Customer Charge: $150.00 per bill
Demand Charge: $0.30032 per MDFQ therm*

Per Therm Charge: Block One: First 250,000 therms transported @ $0.02393
Block Two: Next 500,000 therms transported @ $0.00846
Block Three: Over 750,000 therms transported @ $0.00260

*Includes temporary purchased gas cost adjustment of ($0.01968)

PURCHASED GAS COST ADJUSTMENT:

This tariff is subject to an adjustment for the cost of purchased gas as provided for in Rate Schedule PGA.
This adjustment is incorporated into the calculation of the Cost of Gas stated on customer bills.

SERVICE CONDITIONS:

1. All natural gas service hereunder is subject to the General Service Provisions of the Company’s
Tariff, of which this Rate Schedule is a part.

2. This service does not include the cost of the customer’s gas supply of the interstate pipeline capacity.
The customer is responsible for procuring its own supply of natural gas and transportation to
Intermountain’s distribution system under this Rate Schedule.

3. The customer understands and agrees that the Company is not responsible to deliver gas supplies
to the customer which have not been nominated, scheduled, and delivered by the interstate pipeline
to the designated city gate.

4. The customer shall negotiate with the Company, a mutually agreeable Maximum Daily Firm Quantity
(MDFQ), which will be stated in and in effect throughout the term of the service contract.

5. The monthly Demand Charge will be equal to the MDFQ times the Demand Charge rate. Demand
Charge relief will be afforded to those T-4 customers when circumstances impacted by force majeure
events prevent the Company from delivering natural gas to the customer’s meter.

Case No. INT-G-22-07
L. Blattner, IGC
Exhibit No. 6
Page 8 of 8