20130711reconsideration_order_no_32847.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11,2013
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )CASE NO.IPC-E-13-10
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT POWER )COST ADJUSTMENT (PCA)RATES FOR )ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM JUNE 1,2013 )ORDER NO.32847
THROUGH MAY 31,2014 )
On May 31,2013,the Commission issued Order No.32221 establishing this year’s
Power Cost Adjustment (“PCA”).On June 15,2013,Pacific Steel &Recycling (“Pacific Steel”)
submitted a letter asking “for reconsideration of the [PCA]being applied to [its]Mayfield car
shredding operation..
.“After carefully reviewing the record,we deny Pacific Steel’s request.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Reconsideration allows a party to bring to the Commission’s attention any question
previously determined and thereby affords the Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake
or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.Kootenai Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho $75,
879,591 P.2d 122,126 (1979).The party seeking reconsideration must specify why it “contends
that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.”RP 331.01.The Commission may grant reconsideration by reviewing
the existing record,by written briefs,or by evidentiary hearing.RP 332.
PACIFIC STEEL’S ARGUMENT
Pacific Steel argues,in summary,that the frill,21.7%large power service rate
increase should not apply to Mayfield because Mayfield operates outside peak hours and its
“peaking utilization is very small.”Pacific Steel thus believes that an increase for Mayfield
should more reasonably approximate the 15.3%average ratepayer increase,if not less.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Pacific Steel did not request additional briefing or hearings on this matter.Based on
our review of the existing record,we find that Pacific Steel has failed to show that the Order or
anything decided in it is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous,or not inconformity with law.A
No one opposed Pacific Steel’s request.However,Pacific Steel has not filed a proof of service showing that itnotifiedIdahoPowerandtheotherpartiesabouttherequestandgavethemafairopportunitytorespondtoit.ProofofserviceisrequiredbyCommissionRuleofProcedure(RP)64.
ORDER NO.32847 1
customer’s on-peak or off-peak usage is not relevant to the determination of the PCA.further,
this year’s PCA increase was largely driven by lower-than-expected hydro generation and market
energy prices that have nothing to do with the delivery of off-peak or on-peak energy.See Order
No.32821 at 2-3.Thus,while we appreciate Pacific Steel bringing its concerns to our attention,
we find that its request for reconsideration ultimately lacks merit.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company’s request for reconsideration is
denied.
THIS IS A FII’AL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by
this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules.See
Idaho Code §61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this I V’
day of July 2013.
P UL KJE ER,PRESIDENT
MACK A.REDFO ,COMMISSIONER
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
O:IPC-E-13-lOkk3 Reconsideration
ORDER NO.32847