20020108Order No 28927.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

in the matter of THE INVESTIGATION
OF INCREASED DEMAND-SIDE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND THE
FUNDING OF THOSE PROGRAMS FOR
IDAHO POWER COMPANY. )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-01-13

ORDER NO. 28927

After receiving comment on Idaho Power Company’s comprehensive demand-side management (DSM) plan, the Commission issued Order No. 28894 on November 21, 2001 directing 1) implementation of limited DSM programs for this winter heating season; 2) organization of an Idaho Power DSM Advisory Group; and 3) postponed consideration of a DSM surcharge until the Company’s Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) application is filed next spring. Following issuance of Order No. 28894, Idaho Power filed a Petition for Clarification (Petition) regarding who would implement the time-of-use metering program identified in the Order and how the Company will recover the intervenor funding approved in Order No. 28894. The Intervenors--Idaho Rivers United, Idaho Rural Council, NW Energy Coalition and Mary McGown (Intervenors)--filed a response to the Company’s Petition on December 13, 2001.
Having fully reviewed the petitions and the record in this matter, the Commission directs the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group to review and advise Idaho Power Company on the desirability and potential design of a time-of-use metering pilot program. When such a pilot program is approved, Idaho Power will be authorized to implement and manage the program. With regard to recovery of Idaho Power’s $4,749.04 intervenor funding payment, the Commission orders that it be deferred until the next general rate case.
IDAHO POWER’S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
On December 11, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed a Petition for Clarification, or in the Alternative for Reconsideration, of Order No. 28894. IDAPA 31.01.01.325. Specifically, the Company “requests that the Commission clarify that it is the responsibility of Idaho Power to investigate and make recommendations to the Commission as to a time-of-use metering pilot program.” Petition at 5. According to the Company, a literal reading “could be interpreted as providing that the Advisory Group would be responsible for the implementation of a time-of-use metering pilot program.” Petition at 3. The ambiguous language in the Commission’s Order, at page 7, states in pertinent part:
Although a residential time-of-use metering pilot program may not be appropriate this winter, the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group shall consider implementing such a program using private contractors through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The advisory group should also consider installing time-of-use meters in new subdivisions and the feasibility of allowing existing customers to voluntarily install time-of-use meters and amortize the cost over multiple years.

It is this paragraph that Idaho Power requests clarification. In the alternative, the Company requests reconsideration of Order No. 28894 if the Commission intends to vest the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group with the authority to implement and determine the funding of a time-of-use metering pilot program.
In regards to recovery of intervenor funding, the Company noted that it has no objection to the $4,749.04 awarded to the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. Petition at 4-5. Idaho Power assumes that it was the Commission’s intention to allow recovery of this amount in the 2002-2003 Power Cost Adjustment (PCA), but requests further clarification for the benefit of its auditors. Petition at 5.
INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER’S PETITION
On December 13, 2001, Intervenors filed a Response to Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification. Their response indicated that the “Intervenors agree that the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group should not have management authority to ‘implement and determine the funding of a time-of-use metering pilot program.’ ” Response at 1. Because increased implementation of time-of-use metering would likely result in improved system-wide efficiency, Intervenors believe that the overall merits of the program’s implementation and design should be within the advisory authority of the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group. Thus, Intervenors requested that any clarification of Order No. 28894 specify that the Advisory Group “shall review and provide input on the design of a time-of-use metering program to the same extent as the group’s advisory authority for other conservation and efficiency measures.” Response at 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of Idaho Power’s Petition and the Intervenors’ Response, the Commission finds these issues can be handled as matters requiring clarification rather than reconsideration. Although the Commission envisions the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group as a body that will review demand-side management (DSM) proposals and make recommendations to Idaho Power, the Commission accepts Idaho Power’s concern that page 7 of Order No. 28894 could be interpreted as providing the Advisory Group with the authority to implement time-of-use metering. While the Group’s title “Energy Efficiency Advisory Group” clearly indicates its advisory nature, the Commission sees no harm in further clarifying the Group’s roll. Having fully reviewed the petitions and the record in this matter, the Commission finds it appropriate to amend the ambiguous paragraph on page 7 of Order No. 28894 to reflect the following changes:

Although a residential time-of-use metering pilot program may not be appropriate this winter, the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group shall consider recommending the implementing implementation of such a program using private contractors through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The advisory group should also consider recommending the installing installation of time-of-use meters in new subdivisions and the feasibility of allowing existing customers to voluntarily install time-of-use meters and amortize the cost over multiple years.

Thus, the Commission directs the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group to review and advise Idaho Power Company on the desirability and potential design of a time-of-use metering pilot program. When such a pilot program is approved, Idaho Power will be authorized to implement and manage the program. Although we disagree with Idaho Power’s conclusion on page 4 of its Petition that “a time-of-use metering pilot program is not an energy efficiency (conservation) program,” the Commission looks forward to reviewing the Company’s findings and recommendations in the near future.
With regard to recovery of Idaho Power’s $4,749.04 intervenor funding payment, the Commission orders that it be deferred until the next general rate case. This accounting treatment is appropriate because the DSM program envisioned by the Commission will be an ongoing venture rather than one confined to a single year. Furthermore, the PCA mechanism permits recovery of extraordinary expenses but not those expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business. Given that the 2002-2003 PCA will likely include a significant amount of extraordinary expenses due to last year’s volatile energy prices and low water conditions, the Commission does not wish to add to this amount. For these reasons, the Commission orders that Idaho Power defer the approved intervenor funding amount authorized by Order No. 28894 for recovery in its next general rate case.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power shall investigate and make recommendations to the Commission as to the desirability and feasibility of a time-of-use metering pilot program. The Energy Efficiency Advisory Group shall advise Idaho Power on issues related to the overall merits of implementing a time-of-use metering program and the program’s design.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that page 7 of Order No. 28894 is hereby amended to reflect the changes set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power Company defer the $4,749.04 intervenor funding award authorized in Order No. 28894 for inclusion in its next general rate case.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-01-13 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of January 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE0113_ln2
7

1
ORDER NO. 28927

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 8, 2002