20101112Comments.pdf

RECEI
Peter J. Richardson (ISB # 3195)
Gregory M. Adams (ISB # 7454)
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter(ßrichardsonando1ear .com
greg(ßrichardsonando1ear .com
iOIO NOV 12 PM 12: 36
/'
Attorneys for the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
"
IN THE MATTER OF THE ÀPPLICATION OF)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY SPECIAL )
CONTRACT ELIGIBILITY BY REDUCING )
THE UPPER LIMIT OF POWER )
REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE LOAD )
CUSTOMERS
CASE NO. IPC-E-10-23
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
COMES NOW, the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power ("ICIP"), and respectfully
submits these comments in response to Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power" or the
"Company's") request for authorization to decease the upper limit of eligibility for large load
customers entitled to service under Schedule 19 and Schedule 24. Idaho Power's application
requests authorization to reduce the upper limit of the eligibility for the Schedule 19 and
Schedule 24 taffs from an aggregate power requirement of 25,000 kilowatts.("kW") per
customer premises, to an aggregate power requirement of 20,000 kilowatts ("kW"). ICIP
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-10-23
Page 1
opposes Idaho Power's request to the extent that it would apply to existing Schedule 19
customers who grow above the proposed, new, upper limit of 20,000 kW.
Idaho Power's fiing states that the upper limit for eligibility for the Schedule 19 tariff
has been 25,000 kW since 1981. See Direct Testimony of Michael J. Youngblood, p. 4 (Aug. 26,
2010) (citing Order No. 16688). Since that time, industral customers whose loads exceed
25,000 kW at one premises have had to negotiate a special contract with the Company, rather
than accept the Schedule 19 taiff contract terms and rates. The curent Schedule 19 tarff also
allows customers qualifying for the Schedule 19 taff to elect to negotiate a special contract.
As justification for the request to lower the upper limit for Schedule 19 eligibilty, the
Company states, "In recent years, excess capacity has diminished to the point that new large
loads wil often drive the need to add new generation and/or new transmission." Id at p. 4.
Thus, according to the Company, lowering the eligibility cap from 25,000 kW to 20,000 kW wil
"assist the Company in its planing and management of new generation and/or new transmission
to serve new large loads," and "provide more protection to other retail customers from the
system impacts large loads may impose on system costs." Id The Company fuher proposes,
"Any existing customer whose power requirements grow and exceed a new cap of 20,000 kW
will no longer be eligible for service under Schedule 19(.)" Id at p. 6.
ICIP does not necessarily oppose the Company's proposal to require a special contract
for new large loads that will result in a 20,000-kW increase in the Company's load requirements.
Such new loads from new customers relocating to the Company's service terrtory would result
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-10-23
Page 2
in a substantial increase in the Company's load requirements, which may well need to be
addressed in a special contract to fully account for the cost of service to that new customer.
But the logic of the Company's concern with substantial new loads in a capacity
constrained period does not lead to a conclusion that the incremental increase of an existing
Schedule 19 customer's load to reach the new 20,000 kW cap requires a special contract. The
Company indicates that several existing Schedule 19 customers have exceeded 14,000 kW in the
last five years, and one has exceeded 16,000 kW. See id at Exhibit No. 1. It is unfair and
discriminatory to require a special contract for such existing Schedule 19 customers who may
add an additional 4,000 kW to their operations at one premises, but to allow a new customer with
a 4,000 kW load to have the option oftaking service under either the Schedule 19 tariff or a
special contract. Both scenarios result in an increase of only 4,000 kW that the Company may
need to address with new generation or transmission, but only the existing Schedule 19 customer
would be deprived of the option of taing service under Schedule 19 rather than engaging in the
special contract process. The real issue the Company has identified is large load increases, not
comparatively small increases in existing loads. i
The Company also relies on the lack of a formal objection to inclusion of the same
proposed taiff amendments in the settlement of its general rate case in Oregon as a justification
for the Idaho Commission to approve the proposed tariff changes. See id at pp. 8-9. Reliance
on the Oregon settlement in Case No. UE 213 is inappropriate for several reasons. First, no
irrigation class representative (Schedule 24) paricipated in or signed that settlement. Second,
the Schedule 19 and Schedule 24 customers in Oregon are far fewer than in Idaho, and the
likelihood any would grow to over 20,000 kW is probably lower, decreasing the likelihood of
contention over this issue in Oregon. Third, the tariff revision in Oregon was the result of a
settlement of many issues in a general rate case, and any trading or negotiating on the issues is
confidentiaL. Under those circumstances, the Oregon settlement should car no precedential
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-10-23
Page 3
ICIP includes customers taking service under the Schedule 19 taiff, and some of those
customers have negotiated special contracts. It has been ICIP members' experience that
negotiating a special contract does not always result in a more beneficial outcome for the
customer and the Company than the Schedule 19 tariff. Additionally, such negotiations can be
costly and time-consuming for the customer and the Company. ICIP appreciates the opportunity
provided by the Schedule 19 taff to choose to negotiate a special contract when that option is
appropriate. But ICIP members do not wish to lose the opportity to tae Schedule 19 service
as a result of a comparatively small increase in their energy use that would not require a special
contract if they were to locate that increase in load on new premises. ICIP therefore requests that
existing Schedule 19 facilities that grow up to 25,000 kW should be given the option to continue
taing service under Schedule 19 or negotiate a special contract.
These proposed grandfathering criteria would not discriminate against new customers
relocating to the Company's service area. This is so because most existing Schedule 19
customers would add far less incremental load increase to the Company's overall load
requirements to reach 25,000 kW of demand than new, relocating customers would add to the
Company's overall load requirements by adding a whole new load of20,000 kW or more.
For the reasons set forth herein, ICIP respectfully requests that the Commission require
the Company to include a grandfathering provision in the Company's proposed revision to
Schedule 19 such that the upper limit for existing Schedule 19 customers will remain at 25,000
kW.
effect for the Commission's determination in ths case.
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-1O-23
Page 4
-t
DATED this \i: day of November, 2010.
RICHARSON AND O'LEARY, PLLC
By:0l
e er J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Attorneys for the Industrial
Customers of Idaho Power
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
IPC-E-10-23
Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of November, 2010, I caused a tre
and correct copy ofthe foregoing COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF
IDAHO POWER to be served by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street (83702)
Post Office Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
(x ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnght Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Lisa Nordstrom
Donovan Walker
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
(x) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnght Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Gregory W. Said
Michael J. Youngblood
Darlene Nemnich
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
(x) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
~Signed
M. Adams
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1