20020606_153.html

DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER HANSEN JEAN JEWELL RON LAW LOU ANN WESTERFIELD BILL EASTLAKE DON HOWELL RANDY LOBB DAVE SCHUNKE TERRI CARLOCK BEV BARKER TONYA CLARK GENE FADNESS WORKING FILE FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY DATE: JUNE 4, 2002 RE: CASE NO. PAC-E-01-9 (PacifiCorp) UNBUNDLED COST INFORMATION MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF FILE DATE In Joint Order No. 28804 issued on August 15, 2001, in Case No. PAC-E-01-9, the Commission ordered PacifiCorp (as well as Idaho Power Company and Avista) to continue filing unbundled cost reports every other year, with the first reports to be filed on or before July 1, 2002. On May 24, 2002, PacifiCorp filed a Motion with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission requesting an extension of the July 1, 2002 file date for unbundled cost of service information. PacifiCorp contends that an unbundled cost report if PacifiCorp filed by July 1, 2002 would utilize results of operations for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2001. Extending the filing date for the report to October 1, 2002, the Company contends, will allow PacifiCorp to submit a report based on the results of operations during fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, the Company's most recent reporting year. These results, the Company states, would be consistent with the semi-annual results of operation filings to be made on July 31, 2002, in PacifiCorp's Utah, Washington and Oregon service territories. PacifiCorp requests that the Commission issue an Order pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 256.03 (Motion for Procedural Relief) granting PacifiCorp an extension until October 1, 2002, to submit this year's report called for by Joint Order No. 28804, and also ordering that the filing deadline for PacifiCorp's unbundled cost reports in subsequent years will be October 1. PacifiCorp requests that its Motion be handled on less than 14-days' notice so that the Company can avoid (if the Motion is approved) the unnecessary effort of preparing a report based on outdated data. PacifiCorp represents that the Company has telephoned a representative of each of the parties to Case No. PAC-E-01-9 advising them of its Motion. Commission Decision Under Commission Rules 256.02 and 256.03, the Commission can act on a motion requesting procedural and subsequent relief on fewer than 14 days if the facts support such a request and at least one representative of all parties to the underlying case has received actual notice of the motion by telephone or personal delivery of the motion. PacifiCorp's Motion was filed on May 24th and all parties were contacted and notified of PacifiCorp's Motion on or prior to said date. No parties have contacted the Commission stating their positions either in person, in writing or by telephone. Does the Commission find it reasonable to grant PacifiCorp's request for extension? If not, how does the Commission wish to proceed? Scott Woodbury vld/M:PACE0109_sw