29041.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AN ENERGY COST FINANCING ORDER AND AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE AN ENERGY COST BOND CHARGE.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO IMPLEMENT A POWER COST
ADJUSTMENT (PCA) RATE FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE FROM MAY 16, 2002 THROUGH
MAY 15, 2003. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2
IPC-E-02-3

ORDER NO. 29041
On May 13, 2002, the Commission issued Order No. 29026 that authorized recovery of $244.4 million over a one-year period and deferred $11.5 million to be recovered solely from the Irrigation and Small General Service classes in the 2003-2004 PCA. Idaho Power filed a Petition for Clarification to clarify whether Order No. 29026 in this case or Order No. 28992 in Case No. IPC-E-01-34 is the controlling Order as to the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues for reconsideration purposes. No other parties filed responsive pleadings to the Company’s Petition.
Having fully reviewed the petitions and the record in this matter, the Commission grants Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification. In short, Order No. 28992 issued in Case No. IPC-E-01-34 is the controlling decision that resulted in the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues in Case Nos. IPC-E-02-2 and -3.
IDAHO POWER’S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
On May 20, 2002, Idaho Power filed a Petition for Clarification in Case Nos. IPC-E-02-2 and –3 to clarify which Order is the controlling decision on the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues. In Idaho Power’s recent PCA case, the Commission stated:
This issue has been thoroughly addressed during the proceedings in Case No. IPC-E-01-34. In that case we stated, “in the context of the market situation that existed at the time this Program was approved, it was the prudent if not required action for the Company to take and that further incentives, such as the recovery of lost revenues, to develop and utilize a program of this type were not needed.” Order No. 28992 at 7-8. Consistent with our final Order in Case No. IPC-E-01-34, we disallow recovery of the $15,146,639.32 included by Idaho Power.

Order No. 29026 at 8.

The Company understood this Order language as indicating that “the Commission in Order No. 29026 at p.8 considers Order No. 28992 issued in Case No. IPC-E-01-34 as being the controlling decision that resulted in the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues in IPC-E-02-2/-3.” Petition at 2. Although Idaho Power believes the issue of disallowed lost revenue is properly before the Commission in Case No. IPC-E-01-34, the Company “does not desire to assume at its peril that this is the case . . .” Id. at 2-3. Thus, Idaho Power asks the Commission to clarify that in Order No. 29026 the Commission was simply referring to Order No. 28992 issued in Case No. IPC-E-01-34 and that Order No. 28992 is the controlling Order as to the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues. Id. at 3.
The Company requests that the Commission issue its Order as to this issue before the time for filing a petition for reconsideration has expired, so that Idaho Power may timely file a Petition for Reconsideration if it is required to do so. Id. The deadline for Idaho Power to file a Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. IPC-E-02-2/-3 is Monday, June 3, 2002.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of Idaho Power’s Petition and prior Orders, the Commission finds that the issue of disallowed “lost revenue” is properly before the Commission in Case No. IPC-E-01-34. Any reconsideration sought on the disallowance of irrigation load lost revenue should be done within the context of Case No. IPC-E-01-34 because it contains the substantive record on this issue.
The Commission’s Rule of Procedure 57 provides that parties have 21 days to respond to a petition. IDAPA 31.01.01.057. Although parties have not had the full 21 days to respond to Idaho Power’s Petition as contemplated by this Rule, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to issue this Order given the rapidly approaching reconsideration deadline in these cases.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification is granted. Order No. 29026 is clarified as set out above. Order No. 28992 is the controlling Order as to the disallowance of irrigation load reduction lost revenues.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of May 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE0202_03_ln3
On May 2, 2002, Idaho Power filed a Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. IPC-E-01-34.

7

1
ORDER NO. 29041

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 30, 2002