HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011016Decision Memo.pdf
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
BILL EASTLAKE
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
LYNN ANDERSON
DAVE SCHUNKE
MICHAEL FUSS
RANDY LOBB
TERRI CARLOCK
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:
OCTOBER 16, 2001
RE: CASE NO. IPC-E-01-30 (Idaho Power)
BPA RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL FARM ENERGY RATE ADJUSTMENT
CREDIT
STAFF ACCOUNTING AND PCA RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 31, 2001, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed an
Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting approval of a new
tariff Schedule 98 and Schedule EC (Prairie Service Territory), to implement a Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) Residential and Small Farm Energy Credit (BPA Credit). The Company also
requested approval of proposed accounting entries to track the BPA calculations and related
modifications to the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) calculation.
On October 1, 2001, the Commission issued Order No. 28868 approving the underlying
BPA credit and tariff schedules and establishing a deadline of Friday, October 12, 2001, for Idaho
Power to submit Reply Comments regarding Staff’s accounting and PCA recommendations.
Commission Staff was the only party to submit comments in the underlying case. Staff
recommended that the Company’s Application be approved with the following modifications:
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
1. The cost of delivered BPA power and the quantified benefit of that power that
is disbursed by Idaho Power to qualifying customers should be allocated to all
jurisdictions within the PCA like any other power supply expense.
2. The cost of delivered BPA power should be shared 90/10 by customers and
Idaho Power like any other non-QF power supply expense.
3. Benefits derived and paid by Idaho Power to qualifying customers for BPA
power delivered should be excluded from the 90/10 sharing provision of the
PCA.
4. The Company should report monthly market prices, monthly energy use
subject to the credit and monthly credits paid in conjunction with current
reports provided for the PCA.
Staff states that its recommendation does not change the calculation of benefits derived nor the
benefits returned to qualifying customers as a result of power purchases from BPA. It simply
applies existing PCA methodology to recover expenses associated with power actually delivered.
The only exception is that Idaho Power is not required to share the cost of benefits quantified and
returned to customers. Moreover, Staff states that its recommendation assures that the FERC
jurisdiction shares in the cost of a BPA power purchase program that reduces system power supply
costs in other areas such as fuel, other power purchase expenses or increased power sales. Non-
qualifying customers in Idaho and Oregon share the BPA purchased power expense and, Staff
contends, so should the FERC jurisdiction as would be required for any other non-QF power
purchase expense.
Company Reply
On October 12, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed a response to Staff’s
recommendations stating “the Company, after reviewing the Staff’s comments, has no objection to
the Staff’s modifications to the accounting and PCA treatment.”
Commission Decision
Does the Commission wish to approve the accounting and PCA recommendations of
Staff in Case No. IPC-E-01-30? The Company has no objection.
Scott Woodbury
vld/M:IPC-E-01-30_sw2