20031112Memorandum in Support of Interim Rate.pdf

RECEIVED I"7iC;..4
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
MONICA B. MOEN ISB #5734
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
FILED
"1:
. ~;""
iJj f. "timJ I'~tj Y I r h i' oJ
IDAHO FUBLiC
UTIliTIES COr1t1!SSmN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail:
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS INTERIM
AND BASE RATES AND CHARGES FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICE.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN
UPPORT OF INTERIM RATE
INCREASE
CASE NO. IPC-03-
This Memorandum is submitted in response to the Commission s request
in Order No. 29369 that parties and intervenors submit legal memoranda addressing the
legal standard that the Commission should use in considering Idaho Power s request for
interim rate relief and explaining why Idaho Power should or should not be granted the
interim rate relief granted in its Application. This Memorandum demonstrates three
points. First , Idaho law gives the Commission broad discretion to authorize interim
rates. This discretion logically flows from the fact that interim rates can be changed
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 1
when the Commission makes its final determination on permanent rates. Second, the
standard for granting interim rates is no more stringent than for permanent rates and the
just, reasonable and sufficient standard applies equally. Third , a full rate case is not
required to authorize interim rates. Interim rates should be granted if the Commission
finds that the amount of interim rate relief will not exceed the amount of permanent ~ate
relief ultimately allowed and if the Commission finds that the public interest would
support an interim rate order.
This Memorandum also addresses the factual bases upon which the
Commission should conclude that the Company s interim rate increase request is in the
public interest.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The Commission s October 28 2003 Notice of Application correctly
summarizes Idaho Power s request for interim rates. The Company has requested that
the 4.16% interim rate increase be part of, and not in addition to, the general rate
increase proposed by the Company. The Company has also proposed that the interim
rates would not be subject to refund but could be adjusted prospectively based on the
Commission s ultimate determination in this case. In its request for interim rates, the
Company identified four revenue requirement items which represent known and
measurable changes to the Company s revenue requirement that have occurred since
the last general rate case almost ten years ago:
(1 )The construction and operation of the Danskin Power Plant
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 2
(2)The costs incurred to relicense the Company s Mid-Snake (Upper
Salmon, Lower Salmon and Bliss), Shoshone and C.J. Strike hydro
facilities
(3)The change in depreciation expense approved in Order No. 29363
in Case No. IPC-03-, and
(4)The increase in Idaho s share of net power supply costs from
85.5% in 1993 to 94.1 % in 2003 due to reallocation between
wholesale and retail jurisdictions.
Based on a 2003 test year and holding all other financial and accounting items constant
these four revenue requirement items represent the basis for Idaho Power s request for
interim recovery of additional revenue .on an annualized basis in the amount of
$20 124 165.
The Company s filing also addresses the recent action of the Company
Board of Directors to reduce the common stock dividend. This action was taken to
improve the Company s financial position through improved cash flows and a
strengthened balance sheet thereby reducing the Company s cost of financing.
Reducing the need for financing and the cost of financing at a time when the Company
is embarking on significant infrastructure improvements is clearly in the public interest.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Commission Has the Authority To Establish Interim Rates.
There is no provision in the Idaho Code which directly addresses the legal
standard to be applied by the Commission in considering a request for interim rate relief
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 3
as compared to the standard to be applied to permanent rates. Idaho Code ~ 61-502
provides in pertinent part "the Commission shall determine the just, reasonable or
sufficient rates, fares , tolls, rentals , charges , classifications , rules, regulations , practices
or contracts to be thereafter observed and enforced and shall fix the same by order as
hereinafter provided. . ." Idaho Code ~ 61-502.
While there is no statutory provision directed specifically to interim rates
as compared to permanent rates, it is well settled that the Commission has authority to
establish interim rates and substantial discretion in setting the level of those rates. In
Grindstone Butte Mutual Canal Company v. Idaho Power Company, 98 Idaho 860 574
2d 902 (1978), the Idaho Supreme Court held:
Appellants similarly argue that the Commission lacks authority to
enter interim orders. All Commission orders as to rates are
subject to change, given the mandate of Idaho Code ~ 561-502
that the Commission continue to evaluate the rates charged and
make changes as necessary. It is true that no statute gives
explicit authority to the Commission to enter "interim" or
temporary" orders; however, implied in the directive of on-going
investigation is the power to make orders affecting rates that are
temporary in nature.
Grindstone Butte 98 Idaho 860 , 864.
In Citizens Utilities Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission 99 Idaho 164
579 P.2d 110 (1978), the Idaho Supreme Court confirmed its recent prior ruling in
Grindstone Butte that the Commission s authority under Idaho Code ~ 61-502 directs
the Commission to review, and if necessary, modify rates that are no longer just or
reasonable. In interpreting Idaho Code ~ 61-622 the Court stated:
If the Commission fails to reach a conclusion concerning the
merits of a requested rate increase within the seven month
suspension period, the rate must go into effect. the fact that
the requested rate increase must go into effect at the
. IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 4
expiration of the seven month period, of course, does not in
any way conclude the Commission s inquiry into the propriety
of the rate increase or any way limit the Commission
authority and duties. If the suspension period expires before
the Commission has reached a conclusion , the utility may
implement the new rates subject to subsequent modification
by the Commission. Under Idaho Code 9 61-502, the
Commission is under a continuing obligation to review utility
rates and charges.
Citizens' Util.99 Idaho 164 , 169. (Emphasis added)
The Citizens ' Utilities case is also instructive in its analysis of the various
provisions that govern the Commission s review and approval of rate increases. The
Court in Citizens ' Utilities first looked at Idaho Code 9 61-307 which provides that a
utility must give both the Commission and the public thirty days notice of any increase in
rates. As the Court noted , this statute , read alone, would indicate that the thirty days
notice is the only requirement for a rate increase. However, as the Court went onto
note:
The statute must be read in conjunction with Idaho Code 9 61-622.
The first sentence of Idaho Code 9 61-622 specifies that "(N)o
public utility shall raise any fare, rate , toll, rental or charge. . .
under any circumstances whatsoever, except upon a showing
before the Commission and finding by the Commission that such
increase is justified.(emphasis ours). The second sentence of
Idaho Code 9 61-622 provides the mechanism for carrying out the
requirements of the first sentence , in that it provides that the
Commission can "enter upon a hearing concerning the propriety of
. requested rates increases and enter orders suspending, for a
period not exceeding seven months, the time when the requested
rate increase would otherwise go into effect pursuant to Idaho
Code 961-307.
Citizens ' Util.99 Idaho 164, 168.
In providing this background , the Court confirmed that if the Commission
so desired following the thirty-day period , the Commission has the authority to make a
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 5
finding that the rate increase is justified. In other words , Idaho Code 9 61-622 is not
simply a mechanism to build in delay in the rate approval process , but is a tool that the
Commission can use it if needs additional time to make a final decision. Idaho Power
believes this sequence of events underscores the role interim rates should play in the
ratemaking process. The Commission can approve temporary rates knowing that it can
change those rates prospectively at a later date.
Although the Citizens Utilities case does not specifically deal with an
interim rate request, it confirms that when rates to go into effect, either interim or
permanent, not even Idaho Code 9 61-622 (limiting the period of suspension in a
requested rate increase) divests the Commission of authority to continue its inquiry into
the propriety of a rate change or in any way limit the Commission s authority and duties
to establish just and reasonable rates. As a result, the Commission has the authority,
and Idaho Power respectfully submits in this case, the obligation , to implement interim
rates recognizing that it can adjust the utility s rates at the conclusion of the rate case.
The Commission Is Not Required To Conduct A Full-Scale Rate Case In
Order To Approve Interim Rates.
There is no difference in the legal standard to be applied to either interim
or permanent rates. Both interim rates and permanent rates must be just , reasonable
non-discriminatory, non-preferential and sufficient. There is neither statutory authority
nor Idaho case law that would support an argument that an interim rate request is held
to a higher legal standard than any other type of rate request. In fact , because the
Commission can adjust interim rates following the completion of the rate review
For the convenience of the Commission , copies of Idaho Code 99 61-307, 61-502 and 61-622 are
attached to this Memorandum.-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 6
process, the Commission is not required to conduct a full-scale rate case in order to
approve interim rates. So long as the utility has presented a prima facie case and the
Commission s decision rests on adequate findings , the Commission has all the authority
it needs to approve an interim rate request.
Idaho Power acknowledges that before the Commission issues an order
approving rates , there must be an adequate record that would allow the Commission to
make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision. The
Company also acknowledges that the granting of interim rates should not be taken
lightly. However, because the Commission can subsequently adjust interim rates
following the completion of the full rate review process , the Commission is not legally
required to conduct a full-scale rate case in order to approve interim rates. Interim rates
can be put into effect if the Commission reasonably concludes that the utility has made
prima facie case that the interim rates will produce revenues that are less than the
revenues the utility will receive upon completion of the permanent rate case.
This is precisely the conclusion the Commission reached in Idaho Power
Company s request for interim rate relief in 1982. In Order No. 17070 issued in Case
No. U-1 006-185-, the Commission granted Idaho Power s request for interim rate relief
because the Commission concluded that the Company had demonstrated that the
amount granted in interim revenues would be less than the amount the Company would
ultimately receive at the conclusion of the U-1 006-185 case with the issuance of the
final order addressing all of the issues in the U-1 006-185 docket.
We find that $24 192 800 is the Company s just and reasonable
revenue requirement based exclusively upon consideration of
Val my-related changes to its revenue requirement from Case No.
1006-173.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 7
The Company s need for additional revenues undoubtedly
exceeds $24 192 800. Had this been an ordinary application for
interim rate relief in which "the broad public interests" could be
considered see Intermountain Gas Company v. Idaho Public
Utilities Commission 97 Idaho 113 , 127 540 P.2d 775 , 789
(1975), we would not hesitate to weigh the Company
commendable performance in signing contracts for cogeneration
and small power production, to evaluate its progress in the
residential weatherization program , or to recognize increased
capital costs since issuance of our Order in Case No. U-1006-
173 and adjust its equity return. But the Company restricted its
Application in Case No. U-1 006-185-A to Valmy-related
adjustments, and we confirmed this narrowing of the issues by
Order. Having narrowly defined the issues in its Application , the
Company, as all litigants , must accept in Case No. U-1006-185-the consequences of doing so. (Order No. 17070, p. 11)
In its Application for interim rates in this proceeding, the Company is
requesting that the Commission apply the same legal standard it applied in Case No. U-
1006-185 and 185-A in Order No. 17070 in 1982. The four revenue requirement items
identified in the Company s Application are all known and measurable changes and do
not require extensive review to verify the amounts requested.
It is also important to note that the Commission has a legal obligation to
consider the impact of not granting interim rate relief to Idaho Power. Without interim
rates and the revenues associated with those interim rates, the Company will continue
to earn less than it is legally entitled to earn and shareowner property will continue to be
confiscated. The seminal case discussing confiscation of shareholder property is
Bluefield WatelWorks Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission of West
Virginia 262 U.S. 679, 43 S.Ct. 675 , 67 Lawyer s Edition 1176 (1923). In Bluefield the
Supreme Court of the United States held:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 8
The question in the case is whether the rates prescribed in the
commission s order are confiscatory and therefore beyond
legislative power. Rates which are not sufficient to yield
reasonable return on the value of the property used at the time it
is being used to render the selVice are unjust, unreasonable
and confiscatory and their enforcement deprives the public utility
company of its property in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. This is so well settled by numerous decisions of
this court that citation of the cases is scarcely necessary.
262 U.S. at 690 43 S.Ct. at 678. (Emphasis added)
In their prefiled testimony and exhibits , Company witnesses have
presented testimony and exhibits that demonstrate that Idaho Power is not earning an
adequate return on its investments currently providing service to customers. At current
rates , the Company s ability to attract capital and to maintain adequate service is
currently being adversely impacted. The four revenue requirement items identified as
the bases for the interim rate request are known and measurable and represent a
minimum level of rate recovery currently needed to allow the Company to meet its
obligations to its customers.
III.
INTERIM RATES ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
In Order No. 17070 quoted above, the Commission discussed its ability to
grant interim rates based on Idaho Power s commendable performance in signing
contracts for cogeneration and small power production, weatherization , etc. The-
Commission characterized these kinds of considerations as "the broad public interests
(quotation marks in the original , Order No. 17070, p. 8).2 Idaho Power believes that the
prefiled testimonies of Mr. Keen and Mr. Gale presents a prima facie case that the
A copy of Order No. 17070 is attached to this Memorandum for the Commission s convenience.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 9
broad public interest" would support the implementation of interim rates at this time.
On pages 27 and 28 of Mr. Keen s direct testimony in the 03-13-A case , Mr. Keen notes
that Idaho Power s Board of Directors recently made one of the most difficult decisions
a Board can make by significantly reducing the dividend on the Company s common
stock. This decision demonstrates the importance the Company s Board places on
providing the necessary capital to fund needed infrastructure investments. Mr. Keen
testimony also notes that despite the decrease in the dividend , the Company will still
have to rely heavily on the capital market to fund its system improvement program going
forward.
The public interest is served through interim rate relie(by providing
additional cash for investments in system improvements to benefit customers. But
perhaps even more importantly, interim rates will improve the Company s financial
picture with the end goal of reducing the Company s cost of money. Interim rate relief
coupled with the Board's reduction of the dividend, will send a strong signal to the
capital markets that both the Company and the Commission stand ready to make the
decisions necessary to enable Idaho Power to obtain the additional financing required at
a reasonable cost. Reducing the need for additional financing and lower financing costs
at a time of heavy infrastructure investment is clearly in the public interest.
In addition , Mr. Gale in his testimony describes two Company-initiated
programs, the Green Power Program and the Comprehensive Risk Management Policy,
both of which certainly qualify as the type of programs that are consistent with "the
broad public interests" cited by the Commission in Order No. 17070 as independent
grounds for interim rate relief. Idaho Power believes that the Commission can legally
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 10
consider both the four known or measurable charges described in Mr. Gale s testimony
and the "broad public interest" programs discussed by Mr. Gale and Mr. Keen in
reaching a decision on the granting of interim rates.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Idaho Power acknowledges that there may be a perception that the
granting of interim rates requires a utility to meet a higher legal standard. A review of
Idaho law , however, does not support that view.
The legal standard to be applied to the approval of interim rates is the
same as for any other rate , i.e.
, "
just, reasonable and sufficient." The real question is
whether the Commission must conduct a full rate case before determining that interim
rates are appropriate. The Idaho Supreme Court's decisions in Grindstone Butte and
the Citizens' Utilities cases both confirm the Commission s ability under Idaho Code
9 61-502 to adjust rates on an interim basis pending a hearing on permanent rates.
Recognizing that interim rates are subject to final adjustment at the time final rates are
approved , it is logical to conclude that the approval of short-term interim rates does not
require a higher standard than that required by Idaho Code 9 61-502. Idaho Power
prima facie case for interim rate relief has been presented by prefiled testimony and
exhibits and by measurable changes that provide the Commission with substantial
competent evidence on the record to support a determination by the Commission that a
16% interim rate increase will not exceed the amount of permanent rate relief
ultimately allowed. In addition , the testimony of Mr. Keen and Mr. Gale demonstrates
that the requested interim rate relief is appropriate based on the "broad public interest"
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 11
standard as described in Commission Order No. 17070. For all of these reasons, Idaho
Power respectfully concludes that the Commission can and should grant the interim rate
relief requested.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of November, 2003.
GJ-;D
BARTON L. KLINE
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE Page 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of November, 2003 , I served a
true and correct copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S LEGAL
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM RATE INCREASE upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Randall C. Budge
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson , Nye, Budge & Bailey
O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello , I D 83204-1391
-L Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
[phone]
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, OH 44140
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
[phone]
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary
99 East State Street , Suite 200
O. Box 1849
Eagle , ID 83616
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Don Reading
Ben Johnson Associates
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83703
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
. Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Lawrence A. Gollomp
Assistant General Counsel
U. S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue , SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Dale Swan
Exeter Associates, Inc.
5565 Sterret Place
Suite 310
Columbia, MD 21044
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
[phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , Page
Conley E. Ward
Givens , Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock Street
O. Box 2720
Boise, 10 83701-2720
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Dennis E. Peseau , Ph.
Utility Resources, Inc.
1500 Liberty Street S., Suite 250
Salem , OR 97302
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
O. Box 2564
Boise, 10 83701
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Jeremiah Healy
United Water Idaho, Inc.
O. Box 190420
Boise, 10 83719-0420
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
William M. Eddie
Advocates for the West
O. Box 1612
Boise, 10 83701
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
Nancy Hirsh
NW Energy Coalition
219 First Ave. South, Suite 100
Seattle , WA 98104
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail-L FAX
[phone]
~/(j
BARTON L. KLINE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , Page 2
IDAHO CODE
~~ 61-307 , 61-502 and 61-622
521 DUTIES ,OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 61':307
said' schedules. (1913 :ch. 61;~. 13b
, p.
'247;.compiledffild Teen.' C.L; 106:48;
, ~ 2415; LC., ~59-305.
' ,
Compiler sno1;es. For word~'"this'a~see
compiler~s note '~ 61-304,
' ;, .
~ALYS
Cla~~Hic~tionbY coinriiissib1i.
C.ons1iE~~io~~t;.of ~egUla~oIi
Clas!i.ificaticin.by,Co~ssion.
'iJ':ubli cjltilit,ies, commissi.on ' in the. ,exe:rcise
ofj~.auth.6r;ityto see ,that,rates boj;h.asa
whol~"~dJot each partiCul;ITser:yi(:e; J;ire,just
to, ~b,lhJ,P1itY';aIldreasona:ble t.o tb..e :~.ons:wn~r;
and' n.oI;i.discri;Jpinat,OlY . asb,etWl;J,en cc.op.s;um.
er!;jm,ayn()t;,.onlyjix; :ratesJ.or eiich"claS:s;~bu:t
-' ,
may claSsify, Idah.o P.owerCd. v. Th.omps.on;
19 F.2d 547; 1921D P.V,R. 388 (D. Idah.o 1927)
(vandus rate"-making prillciples dIscussed
~~:,~~~~~~). '' ,
C;,9~ti~tipD,a!ity .of ~gWa,tion. ,
,A:p.y, regtpati.onw,hichc.operates.ao; ,a ,confis-
~~pi~If ' ofprlyatepr.operty.or ,c.oIl!;titutes an
aJ:'bitrm:.or,;. 'unr.eas.onable. ,ipf'ringement . ,.of
perso)Jalor,cpr.op,e:rty,rights .is V9id ause
repugnant t.o the ;c.oIlstituti.onal iilar~ties.of '
d.ue process and equal pr.otecti.onotthe laws.
Osb.orn Utils.C.orp; v;",:public Utils. C.omm
52 Ic\ah.o 571,17 Pfd 33q (1932).
. DECI8I()NS UNDER PRIOR LAw
61~3Q6.~c:ti~dU1es
,;,
Chang~:in form. - The commission shall have
thepower,.ITomtimeto time,inits;discretion, to deteftDlirie and prescribe by
order:,suglF'changes in'itheforin'of"the schedules referred to in the two (2)
pre~~diiig,:secti9ns as it may:fulifexpedient; AIld to Ip.odifytherequirements
of any of its orders, rules; or reg1J.l~tiori.~,4trespectt9i aJ:lYIIl.a~term,this
section .referred to. (1913;ch.61(~ 13c, p. 247; Teen. C.L. 106:49;"0.8.
2t16; 'l:g~f\:,~~~3()6r
. ', ,, ,
J;
Water Chrporiition'sDuljito FUrDisbWa-
ter. '
' ','. ":;;."'j,,' ,
A warer'coiporation7'c.oilld Dbt"use' a:siJ.
defeiiire('t1iat'its' water rates were hot fiXed in
the '!riiiri'iJ,er . presc;riJjed by lawfiwhen a con'-
suniersuedfu compel'the c.ompanyt.otap its
mains and c.onnect t.o the ' c.onsiiIIler s prop-
ertY,when the rateusuallychatged'hadbeen
offered a:ndtenderedthe company. Bothwell v.
C.onsUmers' C.o., 13 Idah.o 568, 92 P. 533
(1901):
, '"" .;;"". " ." , ,., ,' . "' .""",!; .: '
()i~39~.
' .
Sched:iiles"G1ian.ge in,:hit~aIld ,serVice. "- Unless the
colnmissiouothemse orders; no ,change shall-be made by any public utility
ma:qy bi~;;"far,~~;:toU rerital.;"9harge.otClassificatiori or .in an~f rtIle
regUl~tioiiot (:dri#ilc:t,lating.. to"or aff~gtiqg" ~y . r~t~,fare, t911, rental,
charge~ ;classificatio:nor serVice, -or.in any privilege or facility except after
tJiP:'ty'(~O)(laYf3 nqW'~~ t(jthf#~~oIPmission and to the pub1ic as herein
pfQyjMd:,Su~It'ilOti~~" :sh3.fL.b~,giy~n by filing' with the commission and
keeping'bpellforpl1~lic inspection new s~lied!llesstatiiigpfainl:y the change
or"cH~ges:tb'be"riiade iritlle!?chedule o:r's~p,edulesihen in force, and the
tPiI~:o/h~~:;the"~l1iuig~ 'or ch~'geswillgb into effect. The commissibn, for
good~,6auseshbwIi, may allow changes witJl~U:t:requiririgthethirty (3~) days
notice llerein, ptov:ided;for, by an ,order specifyirig the changes so to he made
and,the time when they shall 'take effect, and the manner in which they
sh~;befil~~:~d.pupli~p:ecl,; w:r.er(
~y
~liange is proposed in any rate,Jln"e
ton,r~nt~,: charge oi.cfassifIcaiion or in anyforill of contract or agreemerit
or in ,any rule, regulation or contmct relating to' or affecting any rate, fare,
ton,f~I1tal, cl18i&:e;classifi,~i3:tib:n ~I' servic , orin any priVilege or. facility,
attention shwl be directedto:suchchange bnthe schedule filed with the
commissjonbysome charactertb be designated'by thecommissioil, :imJ::D.e-
61-307 PUBLIC UTILITY :REGULATION
diately preceding or following the item. (1913 ch. 61 2 14, p. 247; reen. C.
106:50; C., 2 2417; LC., 2 59-307.
Trac.Cp;, 3 P.I. 114 EU.R.19i5D,.i43.
Traction company 'was not permitted to
increase existing rate of school tickets of one
cent per mile, although 'not ,earning a reason-
able return. In re.Jdaho Trac, Co.;3p'.
114, P.R. 1915D~)42. '
. "
Traction company w~s nrit perriiitted to
increase its fare from. five ,totertcetits(al-
thoughb.ofearning a reasonable retunhJhits
investiniJrit vihere'itwas bOuild;bjcontI-aCt
ba~ed'upoff doIiatioIis ofm6ri:ey iaiid figJJ:ts 'of
:h 1 ~ ~~! ~J; i::
=~:~
J:~:%
soni;. hiidpbTcnased'shbui-baJi traCts' on.' such
lines with the five cent fare as an inducement.
IIi l'eJdahtiTrac. Co" 3P.C.I. 114,7
, p.
1915:0, 7'1:2.
IIicreases, in, ratf;!s when, ,necessa,ry, to en-
bi~ a:Jtility'eithf:;r \ike~p its';'(;~c~ ai:th'e
point thE!Pllbliccle1Jl~c\S.;" gr,Jo;a tq:a,ctJnew
cap,iiwWiith 'which,Jo ,
~ :
.I1~~!i~~:jniprQvE!-
ments,a'r:edllstified. 111. .~eJ~Q g()'(I';~rnqo;
EU;!;Casi:Jt':S33 , Qrder:~,RIJ,R,,:il9~OD;,806. ,
Street.car company must notOnly,jput into
, eftecFWi-eaEi'6D.ab1e'ec611()Dfiss;bri:t~' Iri'ttst
aiso. go 'afterlifew brismess;ahc:L proof 6fstidi.
co; issueswiU' be ,regaJ:ded'as,essf;!!1t~a.l,befor~f8.I1'
, ' iJlcreaSekrates ,willbegrant~d.,l:n,r~B.()ise,
StieetCill- Co.
, p.
u:cr CaseF;,t77, oider"
AppHcabilffY'of Administrative Proce~~';824;"P.U.R 1922B, 796~C
)~.; "", '
dur.esActV,
, " ; .
;. Wherelarge power utility hac:j:ereated.large'
When;the PUblic. Utilities Commission is demaridfor .1;J1ePtricit;y: fQrclC)pie~ti~, ~,ater",
engaged, in a legislative function, such as hea~i.rlg p:urp()!Jes based uponloy.rJ!;atrate,
rat!!-setting for' acogenerator or small power woplg 'not, De" ~gwtable to, p!!FJIiit", ;!jud4en
pr6ducer;'it 'need' not"a:ct;.purSuiiiit .tQ+the( pl1f6mg'qrsudlcifsrom'efs1 tiffs. higl1ernleter
Adn:itnis tra ti:ve Prq!;e9-ures,Act bu tneed. oni Y/s 'Q~!s;~~ tI:16j.igl:lfun;1ishing"~Em:tati!a,j;,ir:~te.
fulfill, tl1e Ilotiqe; r~gujreJ:J;1el1~. iInpos~ri on, it
".,
~&\E\,,!!tl!:JQ!J~hIn rI;JJp.al:1Q.gP~I;Jr:,Q.()., .1;',J.;
bieM public utilit)1regUIatioii statutes. Aw.C;l~E(F4t7:'ordeF939 U:R.1924C 3t3; "
BrowIFCo. \i. Ida:I:lo.PoweiGo; ;121' IdaB'o"S'12/ ";";Th~~riUiiission' Iiilif'R1ithbnty fo'fi'i'utility
828;;P;2q,8;41fi992); ;,
'"
I; ;J'at~s;w;lifchlWQUIctjs:qpersedi'frates'Preyiously
' :, '. .'." '-
'i;
;.,
~d. Qi,I?P\':\lJEL~C)~!~\i.p~;;J)~h1?efC)~~j;h~,cC)m~Change m Rates. '
" .
IriiSsioilcowa mcrease efectricsernce rates
iJi~i
i~;:~~ ~
~i~W~~;::ii~~
~ ~ ': ' ~ '
i:~!~;~i~~;!~:::!
~~! ~~
?,11 ~t. offered to .eliriililateeXlstmg di~~' s(Jlia.Ble !ffi'd'"a:dvers1!'fue pu:blicf'mterest
cl:J1Ilm~F.(m;,~hE;Jxe.ltappeared th!it;, this'
. '
AgficiilfGIM PtodS'i iCori1)C vhutli:lf';piiw~r
~\~';'"~'
:9plqrf!s~tin a,p,iJ1c,rea~,. of I;na.n.Y,e:xi~ND.g" Light-Qo;.98 Idaho.23' '55gd~2Mnq ,(19,76),
rates; and that disCrimination coUld be eliili~
' " , q : ~' ', ., "', ,.
iniiiea;6therivise. Inr~ Pacific' Tel.&TO'Co':2i '
; '
Classificat:iolibyGon'.rn.sSionr,'~ ;"\3l~!~ir;t.~f' ,~,iifii:~ii
i i f. ~ jfj if if
scl;tqoL,:tate.s:~er!cJ'"tp;lchim.ged",~:m:'I'I;J.Id!lh()'-"i iD,g, prin~i'plg!l.!lis~usse.g,and ~pplieg); f,'
Cross, ref.. Findllig of commission neces-
sary for increase in rate, ~ 61-622.
Sec. to sec;. ref., This section is .referred to
in ~ 61-622.
. ,
Cited in: Wardner v. Oregon R. & N avo Co
2 P. U. C,L 128;BtiIlkei HilYCo. v, Wasbiligtod
Water'.Power Co.; 98'IdaIio 249: 561P;2d 391
(19n);CitiZens Utils.Co.v. Idaho Pub. Dtils;
Comiri'n;99 Idaho 164, 579 P;2d "110(1978);
Afton-'Energy,Inc. v. IdiilidPower Co:; 107
Idaho 781i;693P.2d427 (1984).
ANALYSIS
Applicability " of AdminIstrative Procedures
Act.
Change in rates.
Classification. by. commission.
Jurisdiction.MuniCipaFutilities. .
Notapplicab le,tocoun ties;
, Notice; . '
Service.
Expense.
- Extension.
...".
Maintenance.
; " --:;
;Ne.gijgiqle use by passeng~rs.
Righi'
, "
--Suspensi6:if or abandonment.
Unreasonable and unjust economic,Joss, .
522
,'"
ii,
563 POWERS AND HUrrIES OFPUBLIC'UTILITIES COMMISSION 61;502
IIlountaip. ,\Gasi.'Co,: ' v.ddaho",Plik:Utils;
Q.o1;JlIl1njS8, Idaillb 7iL8i,571 ,p"Z!ia119,(l9i77).
drhf:J.P'llbli~ ,'lltiltties'coriimi~sioIl'had juris-diction t6'dsci4~~l:ieiss4es iIfa p,etitiOD.'foradeClaratory ruling brought , by the Depart-mentor, Energy; (DOE)/iasisigna:tofY:'tqa
three:partY'agrei\hienVWitlf.the.P 6'wet'.Com c
pany(rPCW and'the Bt!i:hPower and 'Light Co.
fa) P.i&,!G;') ,foi.,theifufuishirig; ofenergyt6theNiltional.,ErignfeetIDg'La\)5fatoty '(INEl.),whereby 1;he.nOE'.so\ight';a:,tuling. tlIat. upon
the '.eiercis€;',~ofc' its" riglit"'!tti.rtenninate:the
agr.eement;il'C 'V\'Mld'have.the'right;fube'the
~~:~~;
~~1i
~~k~;:~'
~~~~~~~~~:: ~;'
ii:n:
COIrun'n;: 112 :Id~0\10 ~730P2ci:930 ,,(1986), ,, cerL'deIried, 484 tJ.s. 801, lO8S. Ct: 44,i 98
Ed;:'2d\9:(1987),
' .
""$;"'0:
:~,
: 'Uridef:ATL5::9oftheIdahoCOn.StitutiontheqaaJio"'s upreme'Coilii"'has "dilly" 'liin:ited
j UiisdictioD. 'toreVlt!w Cdecisions'df'tM,FiIb Iii:
Utilities "Gomriiis si bii; on' questions o'f\la~; 'the
review. oIioappeal'shall"Iiot"becextellded'fUr"tner:;thariCtchdeterihii:ii~;'whethe'r theconimis"
sion"hasr~gtIlaxlypursued its 'authority.A:w;
BroWn 'CoiviIdaho Bower.Co:
, ,
121,ldaho812;
82S'P:2d:.s41;C1992).
M()nopol~es.
, ,
" "?i'
-' "" ,
:Gonstitutional.prohibition-'ofL monopoliesdid'Iu:iMrave' iii'V:iew, a.publk:utllity
-'
corpora-ticingovernediand;'controlle(j.' by ,lawcfor'the
'.. ',-,
bestjriterestsofihe 'people.Jdaho'Pow.er &Light,Qo;w.B,loinquist;,26JdahcL222,J.41,lO83;Aim:Cas,:J,916E,,282,CiL914), .AntitrUststatUteh~. ~o~ .liee:JJ.,~uP~rseded,
~sofa.J.",al1-,'p'u.b1.ic:'!ltilities cover wmch;thecom"
riiission.h~s, 'bf:Jen '/iiYf:Jn: du,ect'cOntrol areconcerned. by;1;b.e, PliHcy:. 'YwcA' 'teC;QgtIizes
ta~~~;E~.~ir~~'~~;~id:f' '
. o
Mer gerof five hydr~Iectnc com pani~~ ';in toone Iarg~operat'ii\g,c~I;l1Pa'!1y,was"held to
irilire to 'b~Mfitofp~plil:~,im4jp.ye~tort sincecoIlliills~ioli AI!S iu:riplepower Up:a~~ the PliQ-lie utilities lawto' regiiliiW"tatesiih'a 'el'Vib-g;m reHydr~"Eiectrii: C6s:2P.b:b.I.260P.U.R1~15F, 876:
" .., ;'
Suspension of Jurisdicti9n. "
:., , "
absence: 'of. constitutional ,).iniit~tiQP'
right cifstate to' regU.~ate :ra~~:;m;~y."j)~s~-
pended fora liin.itiJd. ;tiniebyYilli:d:contract
authorized bylegislaiure bilt ,;y.l1.en.sJlqhcon~
tract is relied upop:;,4milst ilppeiit)1iatauthority. was cleaily; -ahd .uhtnistaJtablygranted, and tha.tits diHegatio!l.~~ftee,fromdoubLSiuid poiritwli'ter & Ligltt Co
, '
yo :QitYofSandpoirit; 31 Idaho 498, 173P, ~72;,1918FU;R.ll06 (1918).
, ,' , '
Collateral. References. 64'.Aril"Jlir:2Il,
Public Utilities;~~ 151-17lc'
, ', ,
73B C;J$., Public Utiliti~s;~~ .15:':5~.L '
: 61~502;\C"l1eterifiiri~ti()ii cifi'ates. --c..Whenever t,ne cQminission, after a
"',
C ,.c"
,:'-;', .'~,."." "",,;,:.:,- .;,, ,
..'C
."." ""
"'0"heanng;-paq"upQn ?:Hil3 . Q;W.h: 'm.otlon or upon complaint
, ,
shall'findtb..atthe
~!!~!ii!i::: ~~L~?!i:!fb':!!~ i!
ra t~s' oifa1-es" for '~excursibns' ' orcom.m:utatiori'fcticIkets"oi'.Itha'f'the"'fules;
regulations; practices oI'c ~ntracts, or Jt'riy'pf.t'Mpi, .~~btihg/~s4$rf:t~~:
~~~
fares; .1;0118;, "rentitls;'.charges: Or ' Classificatic)fiSi' 9f\,~y";of.th~;mi arce:unj:t,1,sti
~~:
!~f~~~:,
~ s lr~ t: lt1t !~ ~ ~e
~: F~~il~:: ,
'~~
h1f ;~l~ t: '1:~ f~~; iT!cla:ssifications:are instifficieilt;the commissibIl.shall determine , the' just
~~~ Il
!!~ ~
t i ~
~~
~~~: f :l~~~t frol fr ~~fs
~ :
lde f ~1h~~ :a1f;~ ~ t&
~:
= l~~tt ail;force and shall! fix thefsarne by, :order, ashereiJ1afterprbvided,; anlf:'hiill
p:ll"Cl,~r~s'l~li ru:J;~~,
~p-"
r~kUl5J,tioli~lis theco~rili~sion ni~Y:PI'I:!~Fti2e;ft; t~~r~~soriabl~'1l1;a$.IDuir(rates to he charged forwa:ter by~y\p:\lblic utility
coming wi~l1in the provisions of 'this actI'elatingtothes~~ofwiltepT1913i
clt'61,'~ )36(a..J;p:247I~~~eh:C.L~ 106:83;C:S.~451~ tC.~59~502:)
Cc)mpiler s'n ~tesOiFor words "thi~ act" see
colIlpiler snot~, ~ 61-5QL
Cross ref.' Ait carriers" power of commis-sion to fix rates, ~ 61-1116.
, Effective date of new rate, ~61-623;
Valuation; determination offer purpose of
rate making, ~ 6Hi23..
Citedin:'State v"Kouni 581daho 493.,
2d .917;C193.8);:Id~0 Mut; Benefit Ass n v.
Robison; u5 Idaho 793, 154,P.2d 156 GiL944); Inre Pacific TeL &;TeLCo., 71 Idaho 476, 233P.2dlO24.(l951),-Citizens Utils. Co.v. Idaho
61'5 PROCEDtJREBEFORECOMMISsroN" ANUm COuRTS 6t~622
~Cih~d'iri:Neiiv: Pi!blic.VtlIs.Cbmm'il;' 32
Id3.9:o4;4, 178, P; ~71(19l9); ,C!'lPi~Ill,WJI.j;~r;Co.
V. PublkUtils. CoIDIIl', 41' Idaho19, 237 P.
423(i925):/.
" '
~~~Tsr.ihj;h!g,ftdfa~r~a1'g;lower rat~son .
btanchliiie to those'of riiai:iJ.lIDe WithpetriJ.i~c
sion,:. t~ i~pi:lJYfor:qpjJ~rtl1riiJ?";&i~~:tw(iJ;1JY" '
day1iQf'sW~g tl1a't;~Xi~tiri.grate ofbr~cl1
:~
;~o ~'
~~~ ~
~ft ~fb
~, ~. ~
~ ~~ " a ~ pJic~~b ~
is:lIlade;th~;ordershorila 'be fnispetidea.perid"
in,g,:f'urther9.~ari.Q,g.j ,PetersoIl:,' 2v,, :O'(~gon
R) 3 PN,, ZJ,.vJ,rl~15D, 7~W;;,
. Effi#lvedil.teof'abaiidonitlent'orclerwas
exi~nded' upon c&i'dlti\Jff'ihlii' the:cu~t()ihets
, wo1l1drilakearf. angerilentstbasslir,e pa.yment
tQ tl1eutiiiti:;ofa,~ualbperatm.g'e~elJ.se~, In
~~~~f~~$?f~~~.~tif'1~g2~~~~j
" "
q~~e
c,.
.. ",'. ,.
j61:i6f91rt. ~~cordi, ,;;.i.AMy,iIndcoInplete-r~cord'ot' a.ll"Imbc~ed'ings had
~ae::~5tt~~ui~~i
(1913, ch., part of ~.57a;247;' re'en,L: 106:128; G.;~;' 2496~itC~K
~cO'&9 1~J "
/", ', ,
: ':n
:" ..".' .. .,:". . ..: ', .' ., ,
6I~ii2()~,;'tt~~ordon app~ai.I~peale
, . ' " ,' , ,.
: Compiler s notes/This ,section whichcoinc , ca. ,, 9'6;
' p::
141; arii. i925jcht 88; ., pc
prised 191:3\,l!l,stpa,rygB,571!."~7; i23(lJI::A
, ~'
59"620 was reperoedby:KL.
r~~H'X'I,"1.~6:12~;G$:2497; :am:/i!12t 1977, ch.299 ~ L ,
; ",;,
;61;621. ,Cbi,n.plain.t-bY utility.~ AnypubA~utility sh~h.?ve aright
t~ c(jIIJ,plain onaIlyofthe.'.gTounds:'U~on w hichcoIilplaintsare allow~dto be
filed,;byothef p~es~a#dthe' sall:l;~procedur-e Bhatl 'ue adbpted,andfol1owed
oth~r:cases
, .
.E!xc~prihattJi~ ,cQrnp!#iIit DiilY b~he~de~;Paft~)ty,the
commiE;~ion or may be serVed l1poIi, 'anY;iParties desj,giiateghy tI:ieAp~&7
~~o
t~~~~1~J
~~:'
9%: Jr~; j' 58 .Irf~1;. re~m.CLL.I06:130;; C.'~,;2498;'LQ;A:;'
actions and proceeclings;~61:o2Q4:'
Cited in: JoYv;WfustEi~d ryi)"idjffid232
215 P.2d 291 (1950).
"" '.',..
Cross ref,,' Actiori;prOseC1ition by;attorney
geileral/~: 61"701.
");
cr;. I: '
; '" :
Right:and :dutyofattomey :general to rep- ,
reseintarid'appear' befor'e,comIIiiSsioildnalL
':";": '" "', ," '" ": ,
6:i~6~2: ;c : Ffudlrig'of' co mffiJ~~i(,n necessaryforhicr~a~~)ri'ra.!~;,i...
No public-utility shall ~aise anY-rate, fare, toll, rental or charge orsej'wter
any.,flii~~w'~l.itipIJ,~
~qp,
irag.t,pJ~~tlc:~, rule or regulation a~);qre.~tlWmari
increase.-in,anyr.ate, far-e, toll; ,rental or charge, under any circumstances
whatsoeveri'~xceprltpbria 'shoWing Defore the commission ana a nndiiijfDY ,
tii~'i 9inp:1i~s19IiJ:hat such :ilicre~se is justified. ,The colIlIDiss~()~1.,
~p,
!l~ve
power/8hdis hereby given authority, either upon complaint or upon its,own
iI\i~~?tW~\vi:tl:16u.t co#ip'laint';;lt once , and if it so orders, With6ut'i#lswei'or
theI:;to~iil'ijleadirigshy.theiD.terestedpublic utility or utilities , But upon
reasoIUible notice; toenterupOll' a hearing concerning the ptOI?riety,()fs~th
rate, . fare, toll, renta,l charge .c1assi:ficatiQn cpntraCt pra~tice p:ile, or,
regulation !an.dpending the hearing and'decisiort thereon; such' rate;. fare
toll;rent~,Gliarge, c1a.ssinca.tlpIi, c():p:trabi; pra.ctic~, :rule orreggIat'i6n shall
~o(go h1t() .~ffect;pr~~ded,thatthEtperiod of s~spellsionofsuchra .f~e
, .
toll, rentid;charge; classification, contract, practice, rule ottegulationshall
61~622 PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION
not extend beyond thirty (30) days when such rate, fare, toll, rental, charge
class~ficlition" contract; .prlictice,rule or, re~latioI). would otherWis . go i~to
effec~, Pt1rstl~tto section 61-307 Idaho Code, unless the cb:rnmission ill its
discretion :eXteiids~the period of suspension for an initial , period not
exceedingfive;(5) months,; nor unIessthe(:opunissio~afj;er, ~sho:wing of good '
causeoiit:h,e record, granls 'ah additional sixty (60) days; provided further
that' prior;,to;th:e eXpiiiitipIl of said
' .
periods .of. suspensiQ:J1tb,e,co:n:l1:jiissibIi '
may; with the consEmtiIl writing signed ;py tJieparty filiD.gsucb,schedule;,
permanently or further suspend the same. On such hearing, the commission
sllall est~plish the; rates;!'Jares,..;;tolls, ,r;~~taIg; ;:charges;cJassifipatiqIJl,s
cop trl3,cts'jillracjices; : rules or regulati()Il~proposed in;whole or in ;p~ti; or
otb,~WE!;inli~:t1 the:reof VIlhichitsh~lfindto bejus~ and reasona.ble,L~913, ch.
6h~,5J~a"Pi ?c47;teep.
);,,
910q:131~i;;tS.92499;;I.C.9 59-622;. am.
1915;. ch;,; 9; 1;p;16.:;;; ami 1~'76 , ch.,263,,9 ;,/SS7.
Compiler s notes. Section 2 of S.L. 1975ch. 81 deClared an emergency. Approved
M~ch 21 1975.
, ,
Sectl6n26fS;'L: 1976 ch. 263, deClared aD.
ernel'g~:iic::y;;Appro*edMarch,31;1976. ,
, Cross
' '
J:'~f~:90mn:ion .c:arriers, establish"
ment of joint rate
, ~,
61-504.
Power to raise, lower, change and fix.rates
61"502:.
. .
Riiiliollds/ ~Bl1edriiJ 'f diMs' aildcharges;
~~"~P3()4i"6F306 61"308.:.2 .61-'310. " ~~,
/cp~~.c!,fu~;JIl1'"e;:.r.~cifi~'I'~l.U.s,;;,T. ,fJo;2 ,
P;UiCJ.,,8~k:R., 19,i1)B ~4,~, mere P~cificThl.&'ThL 1:::0:71 Jda.hd 41'6; 233 P.2d 1024"
(i95-i);i:,!,appeii:0:'State; iIY~pit of Health' &
W~lfa!:'~,;102Ja$q807.; 641P.2d994 (1982).
, " ,
abbreviated proceedings to accow;:t f~~ ~this
single item expense of the company. Indus-
, tiialCtlstomers'ofIdahoPowel'v;' Idab'6Pub?
Utils.Comm'' 134 Idaho 285 , 1 P.3d 1'86
(2009).
' -,..-
Addltihri'al p~riJ'a6f'shsp~ii1.i6n.
, ,.
TIe WOJ:ilB "ash6\vllig of gooci'~ause6n t1i~
record~', can be read to. mean only ,that. the
recoid;iri..;the:case . m~t";disdosethat,: the
ailditic))iaJdays .are,necessary,. asLPPP(jsed.
, allovvil):g th~ col:Ilp'lissioj:ltluict'Yith aqsoI:ut~ .
d.lscretioh.- Wasiilrigtonwater Power Cet
, IdahoPub/(Jtil~/C()mmn;1O11dahd5'67;617
P;2d,,1242;(;1980)~'
j' - "'" ..:;;';"" ,
VVh~:r:~th~ ,conpnission.detE;I'minedfromthe ,recordtliat' goodcause eiistea'tosuspend.tb.e '
rates for the additionalBO days'becahse bribe
size, of the' increase requested; the:complexityAbbreviated:proceedingf;l"
. ,, '
of:the casi:Js'piesentecbby:the:eIectric"11tilityAdilitiojl;lI perrbd~(sii~pension. ' and the workload of the comn:iissi'on at.;'that'Amorti'iiiti'on period. .time; ai:td;where no'chalIenge.had'been madeBurden of proof. to: these:,fiD.dings;'the:'commissioIl"aCted prop"'Discretion:of commission. , erly.. Washirigton;;Water' Power Co. v; IdahoEffecii~e da.te. of incr~ase.~~=~:~~~~~gst '
~~%~;
Y~~)~~;:
~;~:~:~~~: :,: ~~:;::
llili#' rt
' --- ".. '. '" -- y ~:! ". ~
..'k S~ktiB~dlcll(jnKt"';;. '
)',
Wl " '1! v ,u.w OJ'MumClp;ili utilitIes " f()llff,y~,aJ,'-A~\)JBz~ tion '.!p'e~~gdS~"'j:the:'-,,;I))J)?HC'
:':" '
utiliti~sCOp:lID,ission ,~o-qlil"IeliiAg,).lpq:I1" t.l1etestililony'pfesehiM 'iliadditi6iFto' itiPo'0i!
~1~t~wmE'
..
~iii~i.~i
' "
gs.,
, "
134 Id8:hb 285),PP:3d'-1186 (20QO),+h: "'+ '
'~~EI~5iXii~t~~l~~r ~~~~~~ Buideii'rifP~o()fl':
'" ,""
peric;l!~~$;:prqkF~s a:e~jw,e&tQ;'4elpreduce,r, .,BUr4~#rW:&S:01f.t~J~ph())1~1CQmp'aJ:iYiiri ,pro~"
energy'bollsu,mptio,q,W.oWd, :notiI);(a:~~se 't4~
' , "
eding, p~for,e.!PJi.'bJjc:,ritilitje!3i~oJJMDif:1sjon ,by,
~~;:~:!:~tf~lj~~f~:~:~it:~a
$~: "
~~~s ~~l~c~:p::C~ii~~tf:~J~~~~:i'
sUing: jtssta~to.ry,:authority-wheD, itadopte..d,
, -
tl1at, incr.~,ased"i'a~,;was:peyede.ga,1lyjI),aug'u, :
ANALYSIS
616
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. U-I006-185 & 185-
Order No. 17070
BEFORE THE lDAliO PuBLIC UTILITIES COHMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLlCATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
TO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN THE STATEOF IDAHO;
. )
AND IN THE EVENT OF SUSPENSION OF
THESE RATES AND CHARGES, THE
COMPANY REQUESTS,
A UNIFORM PERCENTAGE INCREASE
IN RATES AND CHARGES TO RECOVER
INCREASED COSTS TO THE COMPANY
AS A RESULT OF VALMY STEAM
ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNIT
ONE BEING PLACED INTO SERViCE.
CASE NO. U-IO06-185
CASE NO. U-1006-185-
ORDER NO. 17070
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT:
FOR THE COMMISSION STAFF:
FOR ICA:
FOR PUMPERS:
FOR MONSANTO:
LARRY D. RIPLEY
ELAM, BURKE, EV~~S, BOYD& KOONTZ
c/o Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boi se, 10 83707
and
PAUL L. JAUREGUI
GENERAL COUNSEL
IDMiO POWER COMPANY
O. Box 70Boise, 10 83707
MICHAEL S. GILMORE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSIONStatehouseBoise, ID 83720
HAROLD I'll LES
316 15th Avenue South
Nampa, ID 83651
ROBERT C. HUNTLEY, JR.
~~C1NE, HUNTLEY, OLSON, NYE
& COOPER
P. O. Box 1391Pocatel1o, 10 83201
LOUISE F. RACINE, JR.
RACINE, HUNTLEY, OLSON, NYE
& COOPER
P. O. Box 1391Pocatello, 10 83201
- "
FOR FMC:R. MICHAEL SOUTHCOMBE
CLEMONS, COSHO & HUMPHREY
1110 First Interstate BuildingBoise, ID 83702
and
JAMES N. ROETHE
PILLSBURY, MADISON
225 Bush Street
O. Box 7880
San Francisco, CA
& StrrRO
94120
FOR INEL:
JEFFREY R. CHRISTENSON
ANDERSON, KAUFMAN, RINGERT& CLARK
O. Box 2773Boise, ID 83702
IGNACIO RESENDEZ and
LAWRENCE GOLLOME
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE
U. S. Department of Energy
550 2nd Street
Idaho falls , ID 83401
FOR GRINDSTONE BurrE:
FOR THE DS l' SAND
SCHEDULE 19 1 NTERVENORS:
GRANT E. TANNER and
RONALD L. SAXTON and
THOMAS K. 0 I SHAUGHNESSY
LINDSAY, HART, NEIL & WEIGLER
700 Columbia Square
III Southwest Columbia StreetPortland, OR 97201
FOR SIMP LOT:BLAIR D. JAYNES
ASSISTANT CORPORATE COUNSEL
J. R. S IMPLOT COMPANY
P . O. Box 27Boise, ID 83707
Idaho Power Company initiated these Case Nos. U-1006-185
and U-IO06-185-A on December 30, 1981, by Application for a
general rate increase.By this Order issued in Case No. U-1006-185-A
we find that the Company has a Valmy-related revenue deficiency
from its retail Idaho Customers of $24,192 800.
SCOPE OF CASE NO. U-IOOG-1R5-
In Case No.IO06~ 185 the Company requested rate
relief of $72 941 628 , effective February 1 1982.In the alter-
native, if the Commission suspended its proposed rates in Case
No. U-1006-185-A , the Company requested rate relief of $29,676,000,
effective February 1, 1982.The Company alleged that its request
in the latter case was based upon inclusion of its Valmy Unit
No.1 in its rate base and associated changes in expenses and
ORDER NO. 17070 - 2-
revenues based upon the 1980 lest yeClr, i.e., the test year used in
the preceding general rate case, No. U-1006-l73.Appl ica tion, ~ XIX.
In Order No. 16993, issued January 6,1982, we suspended
the proposed increase in both Case Nos. U-lO06-l85 and U-IO06-185-A
for thirty days plus five months from the proposed effective date
of Febru~ry 1, 1982.I.C. 9 61-622.
On January 8 , 1982 , we issued Order No. 16996, defining
the issues in these two cases.Order No. 16996 provided:
We hereby provide that Case No. U-lO06-185-A
is considered a part of U-lO06-185 and there-
fore restrict the issues which may be consid-
ered in Case No. U-lO06-l85-A to those related
to inclusion of the Valmy Plant in rate base
and related adjustments resuLting from itsinclusion in rate base. We hereby provide
that all findings. orders and rates resulting
from Case No. U-IOO6-185-A arc subject to
revision in Case No. U-IO06-1.85, ,,'hich is
hereby declared to be a general rate case in
which all issues normally considered in a
general rate case may be addressed~ and we
further declare that, unless otherwise di-
rected by order . rates establ ished by order
in Case No. U-I006-185-A shall not later be
retroactively adjusted in Case No. U-IO06-l85,
but may be prospectively revised or amended.
For purposes of petition for rehearing and
appeal ,orders issued in Case No. U-IO06-185-A
shall be considered interlocutory orders in
Case No. U-IO06-185.
On January 8 1982, the Commission Staff filed a state-
ment of position \oJi th regard to rate allocation in Case No.
IO06-l85~A.I t served notice that the Staff would recommend a
uniform percentage increase in total revenues to all customer
classes and special contrClct customcrs except FMC, but would
recommend that the base of FMC' s increase be the revenue require-
ment allocated to FMC in Case No.IO06-l73 and that FMC I s
increase would be calculated by applying the same uniform per-
centage increase to that base as applied to other customers.The
Pumpers filed a similar recommendation on January 11, 1982, and
Grindstone Butte followed on January 19, 1982.
In response FMC moved to conLinue the hearings in Case
No.IO06-185-/\ and objected to the Staff's and Irrigators
proposed spread of requested interim relief.The Staff filed a
wri tten response to FMC I s Motion.
()RlIJ;'R N()17C'17C'1
At the hearing on January 25, 1982 , we heard argument
on the Motion.Tr. pp. 19-LI3.We ruled in the following manner,
id. at 44-45:
(l )The statements of the Staff,the Pumpers and
Grindstone Butte would be treated as motions;
(2 )Order- No.. 16993 limited the scope of Case No.
IO06-185-A to issues associated with inclusion of Valmy in the
rate base;
(3 )The Staff'Pumpers and Grindstone Butte
motions would expand the scope of the case beyond the limiting
Order;
(4 )Therefore, the Staff's, Pumpers and Grindstone
Butte s motions were denied; and
(5 )FMC's motion was denied because there wa~ no need
to continue the case to allow it to rebut the others ' positions.
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
The Company s App1 ication alleged and its prepared
testimony and exhibits introduced at hearing supported a revenue
deficiency of $29,676 000 resulting from inclusion of Valmy in
the rate base.Applicati on, ~ XVIII; testimony of Bruce. Tr. 56;
testimony of Crowley, id. at 87; Ex. p. 4.
The Staff's prepared testimony submitted before the
hearing calculated the Company s revenue requirement as $25,551,300.
Testimony of Hiller,Tr. p. 177; Ex. 101, p. 2.Be fore tes t imony
was taken , the Company agreed to accepL the Staff I s recommendation.
Tr. pp. 31,49.See also id. at 224.
Both the Company s and the Staff's recommendations on
revenue requirement were modified from that contained in their
prepared testimony in response to Order No. 17045, issued on
January 21,1982, in Case No. U-IO06-193.That Order shifted
master-metel-ed mobile home parks and apartment buildings that
1. In developing Cost of Service, the Company recognized the
normalization requirements of the Economic Tax Recovery Acts of1981. See Answer to Data Request 16.
ORDER NO. 17070
submeter their tenants from the corrnnercial class to the residen-
tial class, thereby reducing the Company s revenues to the extent
that the corrnnercial rates formerly paid by these customers would
exceed their residential rates.This reclassification of customers
increased the Company I S revenue requirement by $48,431.81.
Testimony of Eberle, Tr. p. 167; testimony of Miller, id. at 181.
Idaho Power Company s calculation of the $29,676 000
revenue requirement was made in two steps:(1) Addition to the
rate base approved by the Commission in Case No. U-lO06-173 of
that portion of the investment in Valmy allocated to rate base
under the interstate allocation factors used in Case No. U-lO06-173,
testimony of Crowley, Tr. pp. 85-86; and (2) additions to the
Company I S revenues and expenses approved in that case for the
test year 1980 that would have resulted from operation Df Valmy.
id. at 86-88.
The Staff accepted the Company s inclusion of Valmy in
the rate base testimony of Miller,id. ~t 175-177; Ex. 101,
p. 1; but rejected the Company s adjustments to 1980 revenues and
expenses resulting from Valmy-related opportunity sales, pur-
chased power expenses,fuel expenses and the like because the
Company did not treat those items in Case U-IO06-185-A consistent-
ly with its method of treating them in Case U-IO06-173, testimony
of Ferguson, Tr. p. 213.Because the Staff was unable to review
the reasonableness of the Company s adjustments to expenses and
revenues from the 1980 test year under the rat~making standards
of Case U-IO06-173, the Staff recommended that no adjustments to
revenues and expenses be recognized other than a wash transaction
equa ti ng the two.fd. at 217-218, 220-221.
No party opposed the Staff's position by direct testi-
mony.However. during cross-examination of Crowley and Ferguson
it was established that Idaho Power normalized its data for the
1980 test year to take into account addi tional revenues and
expenses which would have been associated wi th the Valmy Plant
had it been in operation during that year , but did not also
ORDER NO. 17070 - 5-
adjust its revenue and expense data for other plants to take into
account how Valmy would have affected their operations.Id.
109, 111-112,136-140 240-250.Both wi tnesses also conceded
during cross-examination that Valmy I s addition to the Company
facili ties would have affected the operation of other plants.
Id. at 112 139-140,231-233.
In their post-hearing memorandum , the DSI's argued that
Idaho Power s revenue requirement in this case should not exceed
$17,981,400.They calculated this revenue requirement by taking
the Company s own adjustments to revenues and expenses to the
Company s total system contained in the Company s exhibits in
Case No. U-lO06-l85, then altering the Company s exhibits in Case
No. U-1006-185-A to take into account the effect of Valmy
operation on the test-year data for Case No. U-1006-l85~A.They
argued that their calculation took into account Valmy s effect
upon the opportunity sales and fuel costs associated with Idaho
Power s other resources, but the Company I sand tite Staff's calcu-
lations did not.DSI's memorandum , pp. 1-
The DSI' s argument is persuasive, but their calculation
of the revenue requirement is defective.We find that it is
unreasonable to. include Valmy in the rate base without also
adjusting the revenues and expenses of the total system to take
into account Valmy I s effect upon them.We find on this record
that it is proper to adjust the Company s data in the manner
suggested by the DSl's memorandum.We further find that adjust-
ments of this kind give the best matching of rate base, revenues
and expenses available on this record.We note, further, that
the DSI' s adjustments to the Company s Ex. 2A had their origin in
the Company s Ex. 4 , an exhibi t based upon a method of stream
flow normalization not yet approved by the Commission and one
that (according to the Company s tes t imony in that case) will
yield a larger revenue requi remen t on a given ra te base than the
method used in Case No. U-lO06-l73 (although the same testimony
asserts that it should lead to smaller rate bases in the future).
ORDER NO. 17070
Thus, according to the Company ' s testimony, the DSl's memorandum
overstates the Company 's Valmy-rclated revenue and expense adjust-
mcnts (other than income taxes) based upon the stream-flow normal-
ization method used in Case No. U-IO06-173 to the extent that it
differs from the method of Case No. U-lO06-l85.
Nevertheless , we do not accept the DSI' s calculation of
the revenue requirement as an upper limit.we make three adjust~
ments to it:the first , to take into account the transfer oJ
some commercial customers to the residential rate schedule; thE9'-
second , to take into account the Company 's underestimation in i t6
Application of its investment in Valmy; and the third, to take~
into account the omi tted tax consequenceB of the DSl's adjust-
men ts to the Company test-year revenues and expenses.The
testimony of Eberle , Tr. p. 167; the testimony of Miller, id
177,181; and Ex. 101, Co1. (d) explain the first two adjustments.
The third is shown in the attachments.The calculation of the
resulting revenue requirement of $24 192,800, or a 9.53% increas~,
is shown in the schedules attached to this Order.
we find that $24 192 800 is the Company s just and. .
reasonable revenue requirement based exclusively upon considera-
tion of Valmy-related changes to its revenue requirement from
Case No.lO06-173. . We further note that calculation of the
revenue requirement was impeded by, not helped by, the DSI'
presentation of its position through memorandum, which cannot be
cross-examined , rather than by direct testimony.Had they pre-
sented their position by direct testimony, all parties would hav~
had an opportunity to note its deficiencies, and the Company
,,\
would have had an opportunity to rebut it.In the regulation of
public utilities, in contrast to setting rates for public power~
it is the practice to allow other parties to cross-examine the'
Intervenor s case.Having said this, we tell the Intervenors;
that they may pursue the matter in the general case.
The Company s need for addi tional revenues undoubtedly:
exceeds $24 192 800.Had this been an ordinary application for
ORDER NO. 17070 - 7-
interim rate reI ie f in which " the broad public interests " could
be considered, see Intermountain Gas Company Idaho Public
Utilities Commission, 97 Idaho 113, 127, 540 P. 2d 775, 789 (1975),
we would not hesitate to weigh the Company s commendable per-
formance in signing contracts for cogeneration and small power
production , to evaluate its progress in the residential weatheriza-
tion program; or to recognize increased capital costs since the
issuance of our Order in Case No. U-IO06-l73 and adjust its
equi ty re turn.But the Company restricted its Application in
Case No. U-lO06-l8S-A to Valmy-related adjustments , and we con-
firmed this narrowing of the issues by Order.Having narrowly
defined the issues in its Application , the Company, as ailliti-
gants , must accept in Case No. U-IO06-l8S-A the consequences of
doing so.
RATE ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN
The Company and the Staff both recommended that the
rates of each class of tariff customer be increased by approx-
imately a uniform percentage equalling the percentage increase by
which the revenue requirement exceeds existing revenues. Testi-
mony of Crowley, Tr. p. 94; Ex. SA, Ex. 6Aj testimony of Ferguson,
Tr. pp. 222-233.We find this proposal to be a just and reasonable
method of allocating the rate increase among the tariff customers
and adopt it for the reasons given in their testimony.
The Company and the Staff also recommended that the
uniform percentage increase be spread to Monsanto,INEL and
Simplot id.but the Company recommended that this be done by a
uniform percentage increase to their demand, minimum and energy
charges, Ex. SA, Tr. pp. 17-, while the,Staff recommended that
all increases in their rates be allocated to energy, id. at 223.
The Company testified that the special contract customers 1 rates
2. The uni form percentage increase for tari ff and special con-
tract customers is based upon the adjusted kwh sales shown in Ex.
6A. Total adjusted sales in that exhibit are 9,084 464,837 kwh.I t is also based upon the revenue requi rement found reasonable
in Case No. U-lO06-l73, some of which was unfunded.
ORDER NO. 17070 - 8-
would be unreasonable,discriminatory and preferential without
such increases.rd. at 95.The Staff agreed.rd. at 223.
We find that it would be unfair , unreasonably discrim-
inatory, preferential and adverse to the public interest not to
adjust these special contract customers r rates because it would
be unfair , unjust, unreasonably discriminatory, preferential and
adverse to the public interest to exempt them from the increased
costs associated wi th this new production plant.We further find
for the reasons stated by the Staff that it is just and reasonable
to alloca te the increase exclusively to their energy charges and
to leave the demand or minimum charges in their contracts constant.
We (urther direct that INEL's and Monsanto s contracts be modified
in a manner that win give the increase in the energy charges
directed by this Order solely to Idaho Power Company arid not to
any other utility.Further. pursuant to agreement between INEL
and the Company, we also provide that the increase in INEL'
demand charges inconsistent with the Order in Case No. 0-1006-173
be correc led.
Finally, with regard to FMC, we note that its rates can
now be set under the same standards as a tariff customer s because
its contract with" Idaho Power has been modified to that effect.
We find that it is just and reasonable to allocate to it a uniform
percentage increase (und~d ~xclusively by its energy charges for
the sa~e reasons given for that allocation to the tariff customers.
Further, our finding that the Company s total revenue requirement
in this case was $24 192 800 was built upon a revenue base includ-
ing revenues allocated to FMC in Case No. 0-1006-173, but not
funded.Testimony of Miller, Tr. pp. 183-188." We find that it
would be unreasonably discriminatory and preferential to allocate
any of the uni form percentage increase on this unfunded amount to
customers other than FMC.We further find that it would expand
the issues of this case to fund the uni form percentage increase
on this amount to FMC.Therefore, we find that it is just and
reasonable to leave the uni form percentage increase on this
ORDER NO. 17070 -9-
amount unfunded.We therefore find that it is just and reasonable
to allocate to FMC a uni form percentage increase on its rates now
in effect.
REVIEW OF THE ORDER
In Order No.16996 issued January 8 1982, in Case
. Nos. U-lO06-l85 and U-lO06-l85-A , we provided:
We hereby provide that all findings , ordersand rates resulting from Case No. U-1006-l85-Aare subject to revision in Case No. U-lO06-l85,which is hereby declared to be a general rate
case in which all issues normally considered
in a general rate case may be addressed , andwe further declare that , unless otherwise
directed by Order , rates established by Order
in Case No. U-lO06-185-A shall not later be
retroactively adjusted in Case No. U-lO06-185
but may be prospectively revised or amended.For purposes of peti tion for rehearing and
appeal, orders issued in Case No. U-lO06-l85-Ashall be considered interlocutory orders in
Case No. U-I006-l85.
Our finding of the revenue requirement of $24 192 800
based upon the record in this case and our recognition at pp. 7-
of this Order that the Company I s actual revenue requirement is
larger convinces us that no customer of Idaho Power Company will
pay unreasonably high rates as a result of this Order.We there-
fore provide that this Order be considered interlocutory and that
the rates established by this Order will not be retroactively
adjusted in Case No. U-I006-l85 , but may be prospectively revised
or amended in that Case.
******************* **** ****** * *** **** **** ** *** ****** * ******* *****
BASED UPON THE BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THE TEXT OF
THIS ORDER , WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
ULTIMATE FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
FINDINGS OF ULTIMATE FACT
Idaho Power Company is an electrical corporation sub-
ject to our regulation under the Public Utilities Law.The rates
of all of its tariff customers and its special contract customers
in the State of Idaho are subject to our regulation under the
Public Utilities Law.
ORDER NO. 17070 10-
Idaho Power Company j ncreased revenue requirement
based solely upon addition of the Valmy Unit No.1 to its rate
base and related adjustments to the Company s revenues and expenses
is $24,192 800.This revenue requirement is a 9.53% increase
over its currently existing rates.
III
It is just and reasonable to allocate this revenue
requi rement by a 9.53% increase to the rates of all tari ff and
special contract customers.It is just and reasonable to allo-
cate this increase exclusively to their energy charges.
It woul d be un (ai r I unjust , unreasonably discriminatory.
preferential and adverse to the public interest not to increase
the rates of special contract customers Monsanto, INEL and Simplot,
by 9.53%.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction to authorize Idaho
Power Company a rate increase in this matter to both its tariff
and special contract customers.
The Co~nission has authority to increase the rates of
Idaho Power Company s special contract customers in the manner
provided in this Order.
III
This Order is an interlocutory order and not a final
order.
ORDER
------
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Idaho Power Company may file
rates and charges authorized by this Order for its tariff and
special contract customers to be effective on one day s notice
for service rendered thereafter.
ORDER NO. 17070 11-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all rates and charges filed
by Idaho Power Company conform to this Order.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
at Boise, Idaho , this v day of February, 1982.
A- C?(~,ASSISTANT S - ,RETARY
ss/5Cf
----- ..", '), --- - .- -
El
e
c
t
r
i
c

P
l
a
n
t

i
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Le
s
s
:
Ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
e
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Am
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

O
t
h
e
r

Ut
i
l
.

P
l
a
n
t
Ne
t

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

P
l
a
n
t
Le
s
s
:
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r

A
d
v
a
n
c
e
s

f
o
r

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
u
l
a

t
e
d

D
e
f

e
r
r
e
d

Ta
x
e

s
Fu
e
l

I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

&

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Wo
r
k

i
n
g

C
a

s
h

Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
Ad
d
:
Ne
t

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

R
a
t
e

B
a
s
e
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

i
n

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Su
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y

R
a
t
e

B
a
s
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d

R
a
t
e

B
a
s
e
ID
A
H
O

P
O
W
E
R

C
O
M
P
A
N
Id
a
h
o

R
a
t
e

B
a
s
e
($
0
0
0

'
St
a
f
f
Co
m
p
a
n
y
Co
m
p
a
n
y
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Pe
r

I
P
U
C
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
to

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
Or
d
e
r

#
1
6
8
3
0
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Ra
t
e

B
a
s
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
Ra
t
e

B
a
s
e
$1
,
06
1
,
6
8
8
.
$
1
1
1
,
98
8
.
$1
,
17
3
,
67
7
.
$1
,
75
2
.
$1
,
17
5
,
42
9
.
17
1
,
98
5
.
1,

7
2
0
.
17
3
,
70
5
.
70
.
17
3
,
77
6
.
34
8
.
34
8
.
34
8
.
88
9
,
35
4
.
11
0
,
26
8
.
99
9
,
62
2
.
$1
,
68
1
.
8
$1
,
00
1
,
30
4
.
53
8
.
--
-
53
8
.
53
8
.
66
,
35
7
.
1.

7
)
66
,
35
5
.
66
.
35
5
.
43
4
.
35
5
.
78
9
.
78
9
.
55
1
.
0
1.

4
55
2
.
55
2
.
--
-
--
-
--
-
83
0
,
44
4
.
$
1
1
3
,
62
6
.
94
4
,
07
1
.
4
$1
,
68
1
.
8
94
5
,
75
3
.
74
1
.
4
--
-
74
1
.
4
74
1
.
4
11
,
13
7
.
--
-
11
,
13
7
.
11
,
13
7
.
84
4
,
32
4
.
$
1
1
3
,
62
6
.
95
7
,
95
0
.
$1
,
68
1
.
8
95
9
,
63
2
.
(f
)
::
c
t"
'
...
.
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G

R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
Fi
r
m

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
a
l
e
s
Un
b
i
l
l
e
d

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

S
a
l
e
s
Ot
h
e
r

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
To
t
a

1

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G

E
X
P
E
N
S
E
0
&

M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
De
p
r
e
e

i
a

t
i
o
n

Ex
p
e
n

s
e
Am
o
r

t

i

z
a

t

io
n

E
x
p
e
n

Ta
x
e
s

O
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

I
n
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
Pr
o
v
.

f
o
r

D
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

T
a
x
e
s
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

T
a
x

C
r
e
d
i
t

A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Fe
d
e
r
a
l

I
n
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
St
a

t
e

In
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
To
t
a
l

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

I
n
c
o
m
e
Su
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y

I
n
c
o
m
e
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

I
n
c
o
m
e
ID
A
H
O

P
O
W
E
R

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
($
0
0
0
'

s
)
Co
m
p
a
n
y
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

2
A
Pa
g
e

2

o
f

3
4
$2
2
2
,
47
6
.
32
0
.
35
,
26
8
.
41
0
.
$2
6
7
,
47
6
.
$1
3
9
,
67
9
.
27
,
83
2
.
12
3
.
12
,
22
7
.
76
8
.
39
6
.
66
3
.
91
5
.
$1
9
5
,
27
8
.
$
7
2
,
19
7
.
.
2
,
86
8
.
$
7
5
,
06
5
.
Ex
p
e
n
s
e

&

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

b
y

D
S
I
'

In
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

I
n
c
o
m
e
Ta
x

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
07
3
.
$
4
,
07
3
.
$(
1
,
83
1
.
4
)
53
9
.
38
3
.
$
1
,
09
2
.
$
2
,
98
1
.
3
DS
I

P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Ad
j
u
s
t
e
d

f
o
r
In
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
$2
2
2
,
47
6
.
32
0
.
39
,
34
2
.
41
0
.
$2
7
1
,
55
0
.
$1
3
7
,
84
8
.
27
,
83
2
.
12
3
.
12
,
22
7
.
76
8
.
39
6
.
12
4
.
29
9
.
$1
9
6
,
37
1
.
0
$
7
5
,
17
9
.
86
8
.
$
7
8
,
04
7
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Sh
o
r
t
f
a
l
l
fr
o
m
10
0
6
-
1
9
3
$
(
4
8
.
$
(
4
8
.
(2
0
.
(
3
.
$
(
2
4

.
$
(
2
4

.
Ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
Te
s
t

Y
e
a
r
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
$2
2
2
,
42
8
.
32
0
.
39
,
34
2
.
41
0
.
$2
7
1
,
50
1
.
7
$1
3
7
,
84
8
.
27
,
83
2
.
12
3
.
12
,
22
7
.
76
8
.
39
6
.
14
4
.
1,
2
9
5
.
$1
9
6
,
34
7
.
$
7
5
,
15
4
.
86
8
.
$
7
8
,
O?
2
.
(1
J
::r
:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Revenue Requirement
($000' 5)
Rate Base
Authorized Rate of Return
Income Requ iremen
Less:Operating Income
Income De f ic iency
Tax Factor
Revenue Deficiency
Less: Revenue Granted Order #16830
NET REVENUE REQUIREMENT
SCHEDULE 3
$ 959,632.
11.188%
$ 107,363.
78,022.
29,340.
1. 9806
58,112.
33,919.
24,192.