20030521_480.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:MAY 9, 2003
RE:CASE NO. PAC-03-7 (PacifiCorp)
PETITION OF DEL RAY HOLM
On April 24, 2003 , Del Ray Holm (Petitioner) filed a Petition with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting an Order requiring PacifiCorp dba Utah
Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp; Company) to provide cost data for installation of
underground power lines and related facilities. Petitioner has an interest in farming operations in
eastern Idaho located within the UP&L service area and desires to install underground electrical
lines and transformation equipment in replacement of overhead lines which service irrigation
pivots.
Petitioner requests a Commission Order directing UP&L to comply with Petitioner
request for cost itemization, including specifications for required equipment in order that
Petitioner and Del Ray Holm & Sons Farms can "intelligently and appropriately seek alternative
bids" which meet the specifications of UP&L for the installation. Petitioner requests expedited
action because ofthe impending irrigation season.
On April 29, 2003 , the Commission issued Notices of Petition and Scheduling in
Case No. PAC-03-7. On May 7 2003, pursuant to scheduling, PacifiCorp filed its Answer to
the Petition of Del Ray Holm and filed also a Motion to Dismiss.
PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner has requested not a line extension, but a conversion of
existing overhead distribution lines to underground lines. In conjunction with this request
Petitioner seeks a Commission order requiring the Company to provide certain detailed cost
information. The Company contends that Petitioner s Consultant, Carl Palmer, has already been
DECISION MEMORANDUM
provided with an itemization of the costs and credits for PacifiCorp s Labor & Vehicle, Material
Material Salvage and Accrued Depreciation, which provide the basis ofthe total costs for the two
underground conversion proposals that are the subject of Petitioner s request. Even if Petitioner
had the option of hiring someone else to convert the Company distribution lines to
underground, which option, the Company contends, is not available under existing rules
PacifiCorp contends that Petitioner has already been provided sufficient cost data for its
evaluation. Accordingly, the Company states there is no need for the Commission to order the
disclosure of detailed item-by-item cost information. Preparation and disclosure of detailed cost
itemization such as that requested by Petitioner, the Company further contends, would be an
unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the Company. The time and expense that would be
incurred in such an effort, the Company contends, is not warranted.
PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner is requesting cost information for the purpose of
seeking and evaluating "alternative bids for the conversion of PacifiCorp s overhead
distribution lines to underground lines. However, PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner and its
Consultant are operating under the mistaken belief that they have a right under existing rules to
have someone else perform overhead to underground conversions ofPacifiCorp s facilities. No
such right exists for conversions and relocations, although PacifiCorp s Electric Service
Regulation No. 12 does include a provision for "applicant-built line extensions.
Under Electric Service Regulation 12, a line "Extension" is defined as "a branch
from, a continuation of, or an increase in the capacity of, an existing Company-owned
transmission or distribution line. An extension may be single-phase, three-phase or a conversion
of a single-phase line to a three-phase line. The Company will own, operate and maintain all
extensions made under this regulation." Company Answer, Exhibit A. Pursuant to Regulation
, Section 5(a)(1), "an Applicant may contract with someone other than the Company to build a
line extension." The Electric Service Regulation, the Company notes, does not include any
provision allowing a customer to have someone other than PacifiCorp perform an underground
conversion of its facilities. Petitioner s Consultant, the Company states, was advised that a
conversion such as that proposed by Petitioner is not a line extension under Regulation 12. With
respect to conversions, Regulation 12 provides that when an Applicant or customer requests the
replacement of existing overhead distribution facilities with comparable underground facilities
the Applicant or customer must elect to either provide all trenching and backfilling, imported
DECISION MEMORANDUM
backfill material, conduits, and equipment foundations required by PacifiCorp, or pay the
Company to provide those items. See Regulation 12, Section 6(a). The regulation does not
allow the customer to elect to perform the electrical installation or to provide all the electrical
equipment for which Petitioner seeks a cost breakdown, nor does Regulation 12 require the
Company to provide any cost breakdown. Arguing that the Company is following its tariffs and
that Petitioner is requesting information that is not required under its tariffs, PacifiCorp requests
that the relief requested by Petitioner be denied and that the Petition be dismissed.
Commission Decision
Del Ray Holm has filed a Petition with the Commission requesting disclosure of
detailed item-by-item cost information related to Petitioner s proposal to convert certain existing
overhead distribution lines to underground lines. PacifiCorp contends that it is complying with
its electric service regulations and that it has no obligation to supply the requested information.
Does the Commission believe that the established record in Case No. PAC-03-7 is sufficient to
resolve the issues raised without further procedure? If so, should the Petition be granted; or
should the Petition be denied and dismissed? If the Commission does not have sufficient
information, how does the Commission wish to proceed?
Scott Woodbury
Vld/M:PACEO307
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Robert C. Huntley ISB#894
HUNTLEY PARK LLP
250 So. Fifth Street, Suite 660
O. Box 2188
Boise, Idaho 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208-388-0234
HECEIVEO mFILED
2003 H;H 16 PH 4: 54
1;_
:";-~;
tdjLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DEL RAY HOLM Case No. PAC-03-
Petitioner
vs.
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO
PACIFICORP'S ANSWER AND
MOTION TO DISMISS
UTAH POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY /P ACIFICORP
Respondent.
COMES NOW Del Ray Holm by and through his attorney, Robert C. Huntley, and presents
his reply to PacifiCorp s Answer and Motion to Dismiss as follows:
PacifiCorp incorrectly characterizes the Petition as being primarily a "request for
itemization of costs - we do indeed need an itemization of the costs but such is meaningless without
PacifiCorp providing the " core 0 four request" which is for specifications as to the I ines and
transformers so that a competitive bid can be made and a determination can be made whether
PacifiCorp is overcharging.
Attached hereto as Appendix A is a bid by Arco Electric Inc. based on its assessment
ofthe proper specifications for the project. The bid comes in at $47 234 which is approximately
000 BELOW that ofPacifiCorp. The bid is actually approximately $8 000 BELOW that of
PacifiCorp because the Arco bid contains $3 000 for secondary conductor which is not included
Reply to PacifiCorp s Answer and Motion to Dismiss
in the PacifiCorp bid.
Petitioner respectfully requests:
(a)The PacifiCorp provide the specifications requested; and
(b)Regulation 12 be amended as necessary to provide for customer installation
of conversions; and
(c)The Commission adopt such other relief as necessary to insure that
PacifiCorp s monopoly not be used in a manner to inflict unfair and unjust and unreasonable charges
and rates upon the Idaho consumer.
DATED this 16th day of May, 2003.
HUNTLEY PARK LLP
. ,
~;3obert C. Huntley
Reply to PacifiCorp s Answer and Motion to Dismiss - 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of May, 2003, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served on the below listed individuals by the method indicated below:
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES
101 South Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702
Fax: [phone]
Hand Delivered
u.S. Mail
Overnight Mail--L Facsimile
John M. Eriksson
STOEL RIVES
One Utah Center
201 S. Main St. Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Fax: [phone]
Hand Delivered
u.S. Mail
Overnight Mail--L Facsimile
~J74d J;4
Robert C. Huntley
Reply to PacifiCorp s Answer and Motion to Dismiss - 3
05/16/2003 15: 26 2085228840 PAGE 05
ARCO ELECTRIC INC
O. Box 50429
Idaho FaDs, Idaho 83405
208-522-2185 Fax [phone]
Mail arco(8)srv.net
This propollll is valid for 30 days
From 5/15/2003, unless noted
Otherwise.
TO: Del Ray Holm
2725 East 500 North
Roberts, Idaho 83444
PROJECT: Underground Power conversion on two systems. A 450 HP
vertical lift pump, with a 150 HP booster pump. The other for 8 350 lIP
verticalUft pump.
We propose to furnish all labor, materials, equipment and applicable taxes necessary to
complete the electrical installation on the above project, as shown on the drawings and
described in the speeifications.
Two Transformer Pads 5853.
Meter bases, conduits, fittings $5,302.
Se(:ondary Wire $867.
Place wire in trench 52,383.
Road crossing, conduit and place wire in conduit 51,839.
18,000 feet of #1 260 mill 25KV TRXLP cable 518,720.
2 - each SOO KV A Transformers 14,400 Volts
277/480 Volts
$10,400.
Equipment 51,685.
Taxes, permits, overhead and profit 55,185.
Appendix~
05/16/2003 15: 26 2085228840 PAGE 06
TOTAL 547,234.
This BID DOES NOT INCLUDE:
Bond Premium (if required, add 5566.81)
Cost of Utilities for eonltrumoD purposes
ARCO ELECTRIC INC.
$.
/I:A~
Anthony E. Pusino
Vice President
State License #C3513
Public Works ##11698-AAA-4 (14)
05/16/2003 15: 26 2085228840 PAGE
O. BOX!04Z9, m WEST 15'111 STREET,
IDAIIO FALLS, IDADO U4O5
nLEPRONE 1-~2115
F.\X :ze&-5%!)-3423
;:ji~7~"ffii,t~rJ:~tT"
, ::~; ,
May 15, 2003
Mr. Del Ray Holm
2725 East 500 North
Roberts, Idaho 83444
Subject: Underground Power
:..,
D~at Del Ray;
:~\.'.. ', ,~:,.. "
~r reviewing your work scope to convert from overhead power to underground
,~:,:,;:? , :,
~ b~lieve we ~ sav:e,you money over the current proposal from Utah
: :;ji:,
'" '~. " "" ..:~\, .: .,' , :, '
~Llght. As WIth their proposal we have figured that you as the owner WIll
::~':'..,;.." ,:~':~:~'
~"trenching and backfill. We will provide the wire, the road crossing, the
..:(~" : :;;~: :,', '
,"'1 '~'
, /"
pad and transformer along with connections to your existing pumps.
.'..
':i,
" .':" \';'
"'k,';~~;I'"
", .,
:\:~~i~r: ~:f;
:;::' '~;'~~:!.
~~~f\~ According to our calculations #4 Alum 15kv cable is adequate for the loads
, ,",, ', ":~":!:~;:':~"
"in question. Also we are proposing cross-link Polyethylene tmderground
, , ..
t;:'i:~'
:'
cable.
~J~;'
:::
UP&L's proposal shows two 500 KV A transformers md pad design. This is
ok for the larger insmllation, however a 300 KV A transfonner is adequate for
the smaller pump installation.
Weare assuming you will be metering your pump installations at 480 Volt
I have assumed that some one else will remove the existing overhead line once your
undergroW1d work is installed. We look forward to this opportunity to work with you
on this project.
~E.
?~~, "~'::"
~~:;09:.~i;,;i:""~"';'
;;'
~iI~"
~;,
:::::a1~~'!tf""),~1'~'f,,~;~v1
:;~, .. .~~":_&~j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .