28993.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. 28993

On November 21, 2001, the Commission: 1) directed implementation of limited demand-side management (DSM) programs for the 2001-2002 winter heating season; 2) ordered the 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 in the spring of 2002. Order No. 28894 at 1. On March 14, 2002, the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies filed a Motion (Motion) on behalf of Idaho Rivers United, Idaho Rural Council, NW Energy Coalition, and Mary McGown (Intervenors) to enforce Order No. 28894 with respect to the Order’s provisions requiring formation of an Energy Efficiency Advisory Group. Idaho Power filed a Response (Response) that explained the Company “understood it was to be prepared to move forward once the Commission had resolved the funding issue required to implement DSM programs.” Response at 2. In this Order, the Commission grants the Intervenor’s Motion to Enforce Order, directs Idaho Power to take immediate action, and sets two dates by which that action must be taken.
INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER
According to the Intervenor’s Motion, the Company “has not ‘formed’ or otherwise convened the advisory group” to date. Motion at 1. The Intervenors’ Motion stated that they are concerned that Idaho Power is “ignoring the Commission’s clear direction” and that “the Company’s recalcitrance should not be excused.” Id. at 2. Although Idaho Power had cited concerns about expending resources on DSM planning before a tariff rider funding mechanism was in place, the Intervenors stated that the Company “is simply delaying implementation of cost-effective DSM opportunities that are available, and should be fully exploited to the benefit of ratepayers as soon as possible.” Id.
The Intervenors requested that the Commission grant the Motion and “take such action as necessary to ensure Idaho Power Company’s compliance with the Order.” Id. However, the Intervenors noted that they would consider a voluntary withdrawal of this Motion to avoid formal proceedings if an informal resolution could be achieved with the assistance of Staff and the Company. Id.
IDAHO POWER’S RESPONSE
Idaho Power Company filed a Response to the Intervenors’ Motion on March 28, 2002. While sympathizing with the Intervenors as to the “uncertainty surrounding the long-term DSM programs in the Idaho Power service territory,” Idaho Power objects to the Intervenors’ description of the Company as being “recalcitrant.” Response at 1. Idaho Power acknowledged the dilemma facing the Commission in that the creation and funding of DSM programs would require a rate increase that is “not without controversy among Idaho Power’s customers.” Id. at 1-2.
The Response explained the Company “understood it was to be prepared to move forward once the Commission had resolved the funding issue required to implement DSM programs.” Id. at 2. However, the Company “is reluctant to form the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group until after the Commission has provided necessary guidance as to the funding of the group and the DSM programs that would be created by Idaho Power.” Id. Idaho Power believes that resolution of the funding issues must occur before the DSM programs are implemented. Id. Consequently, the Company has formulated the charter for the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group but has not selected the individuals who would be members of the group. Id. at 2-3. Idaho Power stated “there is little, if anything, the Advisory Group can accomplish until the level of revenue that will be available for DSM program is known to Idaho Power.” Id. at 3. However, the Company is ready to implement the Advisory Group once the Commission has resolved the funding issue. Id.
Finally, the Company stated that it is certainly willing to meet with the Intervenors and Staff, but it is difficult for Idaho Power to envision what can be accomplished at such a meeting until the funding issue has been resolved. Id.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
On November 21, 2001, the Commission stated: “In order to properly consider a future funding mechanism, the Commission orders Idaho Power to form the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group and establish a plan for implementing long-term DSM programs.” Order No. 28894 at 7. The ordering language likewise required the Company to “develop the advisory group . . . in preparation of the Commission’s further consideration of funding mechanisms next spring.” Id. at 9. This language explicitly contemplated that Idaho Power would form the Advisory Group and create an implementation plan so that the necessary groundwork would be in place once the funding issue was resolved this spring.
We do not understand how Idaho Power could construe this language in a manner that would justify waiting until the program was funded before convening the Advisory Group. Although it would be helpful for the Advisory Group to know the amount of funding that will be available, there is no reason it cannot investigate and prioritize desirable conservation programs without this information. Once the DSM program has been funded, the Advisory Group may then update its recommendation to include the programs that should be funded and in what amount.
In short, the Commission is disappointed that Idaho Power has done so little to comply with Order No. 28894. Although we do not currently hold the Company in contempt, the Commission does find Idaho Power’s inaction to be a serious breach in compliance. Thus, we direct Idaho Power to identify those who shall participate in the Advisory Group and convene a meeting posthaste. Based on the recommendations that result from the Advisory Group meeting(s), Idaho Power must establish a plan for implementing long-term DSM programs. The meeting(s) must occur and the implementation plan submitted to the Commission no later than Thursday, May 2, 2002. This deadline will likely prove to be a substantial task, but is a situation of Idaho Power’s own making. To ensure that progress is being made, the Commission also directs Idaho Power to submit a plan detailing how the Company intends to meet the May 2 deadline no later than Friday, April 12, 2002.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Intervenors’ Motion to Enforce Order is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power Company identify those who shall participate in the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group and convene a meeting posthaste. Based on the recommendations that result from the Advisory Group meeting(s), Idaho Power must then establish a plan for implementing long-term DSM programs. The meeting(s) must occur and Idaho Power must submit a DSM implementation plan to the Commission no later than Thursday, May 2, 2002.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power submit a plan detailing how the Company intends to meet the May 2, 2002 deadline no later than Friday, April 12, 2002.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of April 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. 28993

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 3, 2002