HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000518_sw.docDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
BILL EASTLAKE
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
KEITH HESSING
KATHY STOCKTON
NANCY HARMAN
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE: MAY 18, 2000
RE: CASE NO. AVU-E-00-02 (Avista)
PCA REBATE ($2,364,000)
ORDER NO. 28366 (Interlocutory)—PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 1, 2000, Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities—Washington Water Power Division (Avista; Company) in Case No. AVU-E-00-02 filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) proposing a revision to the Company’s Electric Tariff Schedule 66—Temporary Power Cost Adjustment—Idaho. Avista requests that the Commission approve a $2,364,000, 1.973% rebate to Avista’s Idaho customers.
On May 2, 2000, the Commission issued Order No. 28366 approving a Company request to defer the implementation date for the rebate from May 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000. Although the Commission’s Order indicated that interest on the deferred balance should accrue during the three-month deferral period, the Commission required further information before ruling on the Company’s underlying Application.
On May 15 Avista filed a Petition with the Commission requesting reconsideration of its Order No. 28366. (Attached). The Company’s request for reconsideration is related to the guidance in the Order regarding possible adjustments to the components included in the PCA mechanism:
Specifically, we would like the Company and Staff to present additional information to the Commission prior to June 30, 2000, regarding the suggested methods for including Rathdrum as a PCA resource (dispatch versus actual), the calculated economic benefits/costs to ratepayers/ Company of including Rathdrum in the PCA methodology since the base was updated (the five-month period included in the Company’s PCA filing) and for the present accrual period.
By way of further guidance the Commission informed the parties that it does not consider the present docket to be an appropriate forum for considering additional adjustments to the PCA methodology, i.e., Kettle Falls or Centralia. The Commission believes that any such adjustments should be presented in a separate Application to modify the PCA methodology. (added)
Order No. 28366, p. 5.
The Company requests that the Commission in this docket consider modifications to the PCA related to the issue of limited fuel supply for Centralia and Kettle Falls. In support of its request, the Company states:
The manner in which both Centralia and Kettle Falls have been included in the PCA to date has resulted in more benefits being flowed through to customers than were actually available from these projects. This is due to fuel supply limitations at both projects. Analyses show that the absence of benefits from Rathdrum in the PCA has been largely offset by overstated benefits related to Centralia and Kettle Falls. Details of these analyses would be provided to the Commission prior to June 30, 2000.
While the Company would agree that the dispatchable operation of Rathdrum should be evaluated for inclusion in the PCA, the dispatchable operation of Centralia and Kettle Falls should also be evaluated, especially since Centralia is no longer a part of the Company’s resource base. (Effective at midnight on May 4, 2000, the ownership and operation of the Company’s share of Centralia (201 MW) was transferred to TECWA Power, Inc.)
Commission Decision
PacifiCorp has requested that the Commission reconsider Order language excluding Kettle Falls or Centralia from consideration in this docket as an adjustment to the PCA methodology. Does the Commission find the Company’s reasons for including same to be persuasive? Alternatively, it is suggested that Rathdrum, Kettle Falls and Centralia be considered together in a separate docket as proposed adjustments to the PCA methodology. What is the Commission’s preference?
vld/M:AVU-E-00-02_sw4
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2