20140530final_order_no_33049.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 30.2014
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )CASE NO.IPC-E-14-05
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT POWER )
COST ADJUSTMENT (PCA)RATES FOR )
ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM JUNE 1,2014 )
THROUGH MAY 31,2015,AND TO UPDATE )ORDER NO.33049
BASE RATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH )
ORDER NO.33000 )
On April 15,2014,Idaho Power Company filed its annual Power Cost Adjustment
(“PCA”)Application.According to the Company,if the Application (including a base-rate
increase and mitigation proposal)is approved,the Company’s Idaho customers will collectively
pay about $11.1 million (or 1.04%)more for electricity in the upcoming year than they do now,
and a typical residential customer’s bill will increase by about 57 per month.The Company
asks for a June 1,2014 effective date.
On April 22,2014,the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of
Modified Procedure soliciting comments on the Application from interested persons.See Order
No.33026.The Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”),Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
(“ICIP”).and Idaho irrigation Pumpers Association (“IIPA”)intervened in the case and they,
Commission Staff,and several members of the public filed comments.The Company then filed
a reply.
Having reviewed the record,we issue this Order approving the Company’s
Application as noted below.We also direct that a separate docket be opened to allow the parties
to evaluate Staff’s concerns about how the Company calculates the PCA’s true-up component.
Our decision is detailed below.
BACKGROUND
Since 1993,the PCA mechanism has allowed the Company to adjust its PCA rates up
or down to reflect the Company’s annual “power supply costs.”Because about half of the
Company’s generation is from hydropower facilities,the Company’s actual cost to provide
electricity (its power supply cost)varies from year-to-year depending on changes in Snake River
streamfiows,the amount of purchased power,fuel costs,the market price of power,and other
ORDER NO.33049 1
factors.’The annual PCA surcharge or credit and the Company’s “base rates”are major
components of the overall rates that customers pay for power.
The annual PCA mechanism consists of three standard components.
First,the Company forecasts or projects its power costs for the coming PCA year
(June 1,2014 to May 31,2015)using its most recent ‘Operating Plan.”Order No.30715.
Projected power costs include:fuel costs;transmission costs for purchased power;Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”)contract expenses;surplus sales revenues;and
revenues from the sale of renewable energy credits (“RECs”)and sulfur dioxide allowances.
The Company may recover 95%of the difference between the non-PURPA projected power
costs and the approved base power cost,100%of the costs of its PURPA contracts,and 100%of
its demand-side management (“DSM”)incentive and conservation costs.See Order No.30715,
and Order No.32426 at 3.
Second,the Company “trues-up”the prior year’s projected power costs based on the
Company’s actual power costs during that year.
Third,the Company reconciles the prior year’s “true-up”by crediting to or collecting
from this year’s PCA rate any overrecovered or underrecovered balance from the prior year’s
“true-up.”This third,“reconciliation”component ensures that the Company recovers its actual
approved costs while ratepayers pay only for the actual amount of power that the Company sold
to meet native load requirements.Order No.29334 at 42 Thus,ratepayers receive a rate credit
when power costs are low,but are assessed a rate surcharge when power costs are high.
Besides the three standard components described above,a fourth,“revenue sharing”
component applies to this year’s PCA.In 2010 and 2011,Commission Order Nos.30978 and
32424 established a mechanism by which the Company must share certain revenues with
customers.The first Order requires the Company to provide customers with 50%of any
earnings above a 10.5%year-end return on equity (“ROE”).This customer “revenue sharing”
benefit serves as a customer credit against the standard PCA components to yield a combined
rate to be set forth in Schedule 55.The second Order requires the Company to provide an
additional customer benefit;specifically:(1)for actual year-end earnings greater than 10%ROE
up to and including 10.5%in any year from 2012 through 2014,the earnings will be shared
For example,the revenue from the sale of sulfur dioxide (S02)allowances.
2 This reconciliation component has been referred to as the “true-up of the true-up.”
ORDER NO.33049 2
equally between Idaho customers and the Company,with the customer revenue sharing benefit to
appear as a reduction to rates when the PCA takes effect;and (2)earnings above 10.5%will also
be shared,with the customers receiving 75%of the Company’s Idaho jurisdictional year-end
ROE above 10.5%as an offset against amounts in the Company’s Pension Balancing Account
that the Company otherwise would collect from customers through rates.See Order Nos.30978
and 32424.
THE APPLICATION
With this Application,the Company proposes to implement a base rate increase as
required by Commission Order No.33000.This change also involves a change to Schedule 89
(Unit Avoided Energy Cost of Cogeneration and Small Power Production),a PCA rate decrease
with revenue sharing similar to last year’s application,and a rate mitigation measure that would
apply unused demand-side management (“DSM”)rider revenues to reduce the proposed
increase.According to the Company’s Application,Idaho customers will collectively pay about
$11.1 million (or 1.04%)more for electricity in the upcoming year than they do now.The
following table summarizes the Company’s request:
Idaho Power Proposed Revenue Changes for Idaho Customers
Description Current Proposed Difference
($)($)($)
Base Revenue Change 898,955,741 998,206,633 99,250,892
Associated DSM Rider Change 0 (3,970,276)(3,970,276)
PCA without Revenue Sharing 166,855,392 99,047,509 (67,807,883)
Revenue Sharing (7,276,203)(7,602,043)(325,840)
Mitigation -DSM Rider Revenue 0 (16,029,724)(16,029,724)
Difference 11,117,169
Total Billed Revenue 1,067,597,568 1,078,714,736 11,117,168
Increase in Billed Revenue 1 .04%
As can be seen above,all proposed changes are decreases except the base rate change.The three
parts of the Company’s Application—a base rate update,new PCA rates,and mitigation plan—
are further explained below.
A.Base Rate Update
The Company asks the Commission to determine that the Company has correctly
updated new base rates as directed by the Commission’s Net Power Supply Expense (“NPSE”)
ORDER NO.33049 3
order in Case No.IPC-E-13-20,Order No.33000.In that Order,the Commission approved a
new normalized or “base-level”NPSE for the Company of $305,684,869,and directed the
Company to use the new base-level NPSE to:(1)update base rates effective June 1,2014,and
(2)quantify the 2014/2015 PCA rates to be effective June 1,2014.The Order also directed the
Company to implement the new base-level NPSE without impacting the overall revenue
collected through customer rates and in a manner that is “revenue neutral”for all classes of Idaho
customers.See Order No.33000 at 9.With this Application,the Company says it has updated
base rates as required by the prior Order and that the new base rates will allow it to collect an
extra $99.3 million in base-level NPSE and increase DSM Rider funds by about $4 million per
year.To ensure the base-rate increase is “revenue neutral,”the Company proposes to use the
extra $4 million in the DSM Rider revenue to credit customers in the 20 14-2015 PCA and until
such time as the NPSE recovery level is again reset.The Company also is updating Schedule 89
(Unit Avoided Energy Cost for Cogeneration and Small Power Production)to reflect the new
NPSE amounts.
B.New PCA Rates
The Company asks the Commission to approve an $87.5 million PCA amount for
2014-2015,which the Company says is $72.1 million less than 2013-2014 PCA collection.The
new PCA amount includes the three standard PCA components (forecasted power costs,“true-
up,”and reconciliation of the “true-up”)and about a $7.6 million rate credit under a revenue-
sharing mechanism previously approved by the Commission.
The Company primarily attributes the proposed PCA increase to persistent dry
weather conditions that occurred in 2013 through January 2014.The Company explains that it
had forecasted 6.8 million megawatt-hours (“MWh”)of hydroelectric generation for the 20 13-
2014 PCA year,but that the dry weather decreased actual hydroelectric generation to only 5.7
million MWh.Because there was less hydro generation than the Company forecast,the
Company had to use more expensive resources to meet its customers’electricity needs and had
lower than expected surplus sales.The Company says the new PCA and new base rates would
combine to increase the Company’s annual billed revenue from customers by $27.1 million.
C.Mitigation Plan
The Company asks the Commission to mitigate the impact of this year’s PCA on
rates.In summary,the Company proposes to offset this year’s $87.5 million PCA collection
ORDER NO.33049 4
with $16 million in surplus funds from the DSM Rider balancing account.The Company says
this would result in a total transfer of $20 million of DSM Rider funds into this year’s PCA.
The Company says its Application,if approved,would increase the amount its Idaho
customers collectively pay for electricity in the upcoming year by about $11 .1 million (or
1 .04%),which is the combined $27.1 million PCA/base rate increase minus the $16 million in
surplus DSM Rider funds.Major customer classes would be impacted as follows:
Proposed 2014 Billed Revenue Impact by Class:
Percentage Increase from Current Prices
Residential Small Large Large Irrigation Overall
General General Power Change
Service Service
0.56%0.15%1.29%2.02%1.04%1.04%
Source:Application Attach.2 (as corrected by Company s April 16,2014 filing);See also,
Press Release accompanying Application.
The percent increase to billed revenue for the Company’s three special contract customers during
the PCA year would be as follows:Micron—2.60%;Simplot—2.63%;DOE (INL)—2.56%.
CUSTOMER COMMENTS
Four members of the public filed comments opposing the Company’s Application.
One customer complained that bills increased after the customer added energy-efficient heating
and air conditioning and decreased usage.Another customer questioned the need for a rate
increase given the current water surplus.Customers also addressed the annual adjustment
mechanism,tiered rates,executive compensation,and hardships caused by rising electric bills.
Commission Decision:We appreciate the customers’comments.We remind
customers frustrated by the rate increase that the PCA does not influence the Company’s profits.
The Company’s normal power costs are recovered in base rates,and the PCA recovers only the
actual variable costs the Company pays to supply the power that customers use.In a PCA case
such as this one,the Company is only supposed to request its actual power costs,and the
Commission and its Staff work to ensure that the Company only recovers those actual power
costs.
PARTIES’COMMENTS
Commission Staff,ICL,and ICIP filed comments in the case,and the Company filed
a reply.The parties’positions are summarized below.
ORDER NO.33049 5
A.Base Rates
The Company proposes to update base rates by 0.7320 /kWh.Staff believes the
Company’s base rate proposal is consistent with Commission Order No.33000,and
recommended the Commission approve it.Staff notes that the base rate change would require
changes to almost all of the Company’s tariff schedules.Staff also recommended the
Commission approve the Company’s proposed rate and changes for Schedule 89 (Unit Avoided
Energy Cost of Cogeneration and Small Power Production).ICL defers to Staff on this issue.
ICIP takes no position.
Commission Decision-Base Rates:Based on our review of the record,including the
Company’s testimony and Staffs comments verifying the Company’s calculations,we find that
the Company’s proposal to update base rates by 0.7320 0/kWh is consistent with Commission
Order No.33000 and produces fair,just,and reasonable base rates,Accordingly,we approve the
Company’s proposed base rates and related changes to Schedule 89.
B.PCA Rates
The Company’s proposed PCA rates consist of three traditional components (forecast,
true-up,and reconciliation)and two additional components (revenue sharing and mitigation).
The parties’positions on the PCA components are discussed below.
1.Traditional PCA Components
The Company’s PCA’s traditional components are:(a)forecast;(b)true-up;(c)and
reconciliation.Based on our review of the record,we find that none of the commenters disagree
with the Company’s determination of the PCA’s traditional forecast and reconciliation
components.We also note that Staff accepts the true-up reconciliation rate of 0.1412 0/kWh as
proposed by the Company in this case.
However,while there is no dispute about the PCA’s traditional forecast and
reconciliation components,both Staff and the ICIP express concerns about how the Company
calculates the true-up.We summarize these concerns and the Company’s reply to them below.
ORDER NO.33049 6
a.Staff Concerns
Staff audit confirms that the Company has a $58.1 million true-up deferral balance.3
However,Staff believes the Company misapplies the true-up in a way that inflates the deferral
balance.In summary,the Company uses load-at-generation and not Idaho jurisdictional sales to
determine actual NPSE collected for purposes of the true-up’s Load Change Adjustment
(“LCA”)component.But Staff says that by using load-at-generation,the Company introduces a
line-loss bias (i.e.,the difference between load-at-generation and load-at-sales)into its LCA.
And because actual line losses were significantly less than those assumed in the last rate case,
Staff says the Company underestimates the actual sales that it should have used to determine the
NPSE that it recovered from customers through base rates.The Company thus overestimates the
additional NPSE it needs to collect through the true-up.
Staff compared the NPSE that the Company actually recovered from customers
through base rates to the NPSE that the Company actually incurred during the PCA period.
Based on this comparison,Staff determined that the Company’s proposed true-up amount is
likely $14.2 million more than it should be.However,because the adjustment calculations are
complex and the PCA case proceeds on an expedited basis,4 Staff recommended the
Commission defer any decision on Staff’s proposed,$14.2 million adjustment and open a new
docket for the parties to hold a workshop to further evaluate the adjustment and its justification.
The parties then would report back to the Commission,and the Commission could adjust the
PCA deferral balance as necessary and include it in next year’s PCA.
In the meantime,Staff recommended the Commission approve the Company’s PCA
rates as proposed,effective June 1,2014.Staff confirms that the Company’s proposed,0.4284
/kWh true-up rate is needed to collect the $58.1 million deferral balance,and that the sum of all
Staff says two significant factors contributed to the large,PCA true-up balance of $58.1 million.First,the
Company’s forecast ftr the prior year overestimated the hydro generation that occurred during the PCA year.
Second,the lower hydro generation lowered the Company’s surplus energy sales revenue.
A PCA case is typically processed in 45 days.The compressed timeline occurs because the Company forecasts
power supply expenses in early spring and the timing of rate changes must coincide with the summer season.
Because the Company’s forecast is primarily driven by snowpack,it is advantageous to base projected power supply
costs on snowpack reports that reflect the best estimate of runoff,typically around April 1.Staff suggests that the
Company aid the parties’evaluation of the PCA by providing all workpapers in functional format when it files its
PCA.In its Reply,the Company has “committed to working with Staff to identify the desired supporting
information and documentation to be filed concurrently with future PCA requests.”This is a reasonable approach.
We direct the Company to file the workpapers with its PCA.
ORDER NO.33049 7
three traditional true-up components (forecast,true-up,and reconciliation)is 0.7305 /kWh as
proposed by the Company.
In reply to Staff,the Company says it correctly applied the Commission-approved
LCA Rate to calculate the true-up.The Company notes that because loads directly affect the
level of NPSE incurred by the Company,the load change adjustment has always been based on
loads at generation level.Further,the Company has other concerns about Staffs proposal.First,
the Company believes Staff incorrectly calculated its proposed adjustment,and that if Staff is
otherwise correct the adjustment should be $5.2 million.Second,the Company argues that
adjusting the deferral balance would be inconsistent with prior Commission practice and
undermine the mechanistic certainty the PCA is intended to provide”and could have
unintended retroactive ratemaking impacts.The Company thus believes that Staffs proposal
should be thoroughly reviewed and,if found to be appropriate,applied only on a prospective
basis.
b.ICIP Concerns
ICIP believes the Company’s true-up should rely on actual data instead of forecast
data.ICIP notes that in Order No.32821,the Commission found it reasonable for the Company
to apply actual Idaho jurisdictional energy sales to the forecast rate when calculating the true-up.
The Commission also directed the Company “to implement this change with the new PCA rates
on June 1,2013.”See Order No.32821.With this Order as a backdrop,the Company filed this
year’s PCA using a trued-up revenue calculation based on normalized MWh usage for April and
May 2013 and an adjustment for actual MWh usage for June and July.ICIP believes the
Company’s filing probably violates the spirit of the Order,and that the Commission intended for
the Company to calculate the true-up using actual MWh data for the whole PCA period instead
of mixing normalized and actual data.By recalculating the true-up using actual data for the
whole true-up period,ICIP determines true-up revenue is $7.2 million more than calculated by
the Company.ICIP then subtracts this amount from the Company’s proposed $11.1 million PCA
request to produce a $3.9 million PCA increase,for an overall percentage increase of 0.43%.
ICIP says this small increase does not warrant a PCA rate change for the 20 14/2015 year.
In reply to ICIP,the Company notes that ICIP concedes that the Company complied
with the “literal reading of the Commission Order.”Further,the Company believes the
Commission purposefully directed it to implement the change in methodology on June 1,2013 to
ORDER NO.33049 8
coincide with the start of the 2013/2014 PCA collection period.The Company notes that the
June 1,2013 implementation date properly aligned the new method of revenue recognition in the
PCA true-up calculation with the entire 12-month effective period for the 2013/2014 PCA rates.
In addition,the Company notes that Staff verified that the “monthly calculated and actual
amounts for revenue”that the Company used to compute the true-up are correct.Reply at 4.
quoting Staff Comments at 7.
Commission Decisioii —Traditional P4 components:As noted above,there is no
dispute on the forecast and reconciliation components.We thus approve them as proposed by
the Company.However,both ICIP and Staff raise concerns about how the Company calculates
the true-up.
We find that ICIP’s concerns about the true-up are unfounded.The Company
complied with both the letter and intent of Order No.32821;as the Company observes,the June
1,2013 implementation date aligned the new revenue-recognition method with the 12-month
effective period for 2013/20 14 PCA rates.
Staffs concern about the true-up is well-taken.The PCA methodology—including
the true-up—is designed to “ensure the amount recovered is no more or less than the actual
power costs paid by the Company.”Order No.30828,Case No.IPC-E-09-l 1.Staff raises
serious doubts about whether the Company applies the true-up in a way that achieves this result.
Staff believes the Company’s application of the true-up introduces a line-loss bias that leads the
Company to inflate the NPSE true-up revenue it must collect by $14.2 million.If Staff is
correct,then the Company’s deferral balance should be decreased by $14.2 million (or $5.9
million,if the Company is correct that Staff miscalculated its adjustment).However,we believe
the abbreviated time allotted for the consideration of a PCA case constrains the parties’ability to
more thoroughly vet this issue and Staffs proposed adjustment.Accordingly.we find it is
reasonable to defer our decision on Staffs proposed adjustment so a new docket can be opened
in which the parties can hold a workshop to evaluate the Company’s application of the true-up
and whether a deferral balance adjustment is appropriate.The parties would then report their
findings to the Commission,and the Commission would adjust the PCA deferral balance as
warranted for inclusion in next year’s PCA.
ORDER NO.33049 9
2.Additional PCA Components
a.Revenue Sharing
None of the commenters express concern about the Company’s revenue sharing
calculations.Staff recommended the Commission approve the revenue sharing amounts
proposed by the Company;specifically,PCA revenue sharing of $7,602,043 and a pension
balancing account contribution of $16.5 12,853.
b.Mitigation
This year the Company seeks to mitigate the PCA’s impact on customers by returning
$20 million in surplus DSM Rider funds to them as an offset to the PCA.The proposed DSM
Rider transfer consists of:(1)$16.0 million of 2014-2015 current and forecasted surplus funds;
and (2)another $4.0 million to maintain the revenue neutrality of moving $99.3 million of power
supply expenses to base rates.
Staff ICIP,and JCL commented on the Company’s mitigation proposal as follows.
i.Staff
Staff recommended the Commission approve the Company’s request.But while Staff
agrees the Company should return the surplus DSM Rider funds to customers,Staff thinks the
refund should be handled in a different way.Specifically,since the Company initially collected
the money for energy efficiency programs,Staff says the Company should return the surplus to
customers by reducing the Energy Efficiency Services”line item on the customers’bills.Staff
notes that its refund proposal has the same financial impact as the Company’s proposal.Further,
to ensure that future DSM Rider surpluses do not occur,Staff recommended the Company
review the DSM funding mechanism to determine if the DSM Rider should be discontinued and
the normalized level of DSM expenses moved into base rates.Staff believes that shifting DSM
expenses to base rates with true-up through the PCA would assure that unspent DSM Rider funds
do not accrue.
In reply,the Company says the Staffs proposed method of refunding the surplus
DSM Rider funds creates unnecessary administrative complexity,is inconsistent with past
Commission practice,and could cause customer confusion without any additional financial
benefit to customers.Accordingly,the Company urges the Commission to reject Staffs
proposal,and to approve the Company’s mitigation proposal as filed.
ORDER NO.33049 10
ii.ICIP
ICIP urges the Commission to reduce the Company’s DSM Rider by 1%.ICIP notes
that the Company has made what the Commission has termed [in Order No.33015]a business
decision’[footnote omitted]to curtail its DSM programs,while at the same time it proposes to
continue to collect from ratepayers funds for programs it does not intend to implement.”ICIP
argues that it is unreasonable for the Company to continue to collect revenues from ratepayers to
fund phantom DSM programs and then allow some of the over-collected ratepayer funds to
mitigate some of this year’s PCA impact.ICIP says the Commission should thus reduce the 4%
DSM Rider to 3%for the 2014/2015 PCA year to ensure the Company does not receive revenues
that exceed the expected level of its DSM program expenditures.
In reply to ICIP,the Company argues that ICIP’s request to modify the DSM Rider
percentage is beyond the scope of this proceeding and should be rejected ‘Further,the
Company claims ICIP’s recommendation to reduce the DSM Rider here has no basis in fact.
The Company says ICIP incorrectly characterizes Order No.33015,which actually states:“Idaho
Power made a business decision to suspend its demand response programs.”Contrary to what
ICIP suggests.the Company has not discontinued any of its DSM programs and the DSM Rider
does not fund the incentive expenses associated with the demand response programs referenced
by ICIP.The Company notes that if ICIP nevertheless continues to believe that a reduction in
the DSM Rider percentage is warranted,then ICIP should file an application with the
Commission requesting such a reduction to ensure that all interested parties are allowed to
weigh-in on ICIP’s request.
iii.ICL
ICL opposes the Company’s request to offset the 2014/2015 PCA rate with DSM
Rider funds.Though offsetting power cost increases with surplus DSM Rider funds may be
attractive in the short term,ICL maintains that doing so is poor public policy because:(1)
clouding true power cost hides the price signal to customers that would encourage them to
moderate consumption;and (2)the surplus DSM Rider funds exist because of the Company’s
lackluster energy savings acquisition in 2013 and subpar forecasts for future savings.ICL argues
that the Company’s customers paid into the DSM Rider so the Company would pursue cost
effective energy efficiency savings,not to establish a balancing account that the Company could
use to offset power costs.
ORDER NO.33049
In reply,the Company disputes ICL’s claim that the DSM Rider surplus is due to the
Company’s “lackluster”DSM efforts.While the Company agrees that the incremental energy
savings from its energy efficiency programs decreased in 2013 when compared to 2012.the
Company says this reduced growth in incremental energy savings is consistent with declining
energy savings in the Northwest region.”The Company attributes the recent energy savings
decline to the Company’s and region’s increased evaluation,measurement,and verification
activities,including new lower-estimated or deemed savings amounts approved by the Regional
Technical Forum (“RTF”).The Company also notes that in 2013 customer participation grew in
most of its energy efficiency programs offered to the residential class.But the two programs
with the largest savings—Energy Efficiency Lighting and See ya later,refrigerator®—still saw
declining annual energy savings.Further,while energy savings and participation decreased in
the Commercial/Industrial programs,they increased in the Irrigation Rewards Program.The
Company maintains that it continually investigates new potential measures and initiatives,and
that it regularly solicits input on its programs from the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group.
Commission Decision —Additional PCA (‘omponents:Based on our review of the
record,we find that none of the parties express concerns about the Company’s revenue sharing
proposal,and Staff had confirmed the Company’s calculations.Accordingly,we approve the
revenue sharing amounts proposed by the Company;specifically,PCA revenue sharing of
$7,602,043 and a pension balancing account contribution of $16,512,853.
We also approve the Company’s mitigation proposal.We normally expect the
Company to use DSM Rider funds for energy efficiency purposes.But,as customers have noted,
this year’s rate increase will cause a hardship for some customers.We thus find it is fair and
reasonable for the Company to alleviate the financial impact of this year’s increase by returning
the surplus DSM Rider funds to customers.
We reject Staff’s proposal that the refund occur in the form of a reduction to the
Energy Efficiency Programs line item on customers’bills.Both the Company and Staff agree
that Staffs proposal would have no added financial benefit for customers.We thus agree with
the Company that Staffs proposal is unnecessarily complex in comparison to what it would
achieve.
Lastly,we reject ICIP’s proposal to lower the DSM Rider by 1%.ICIP’s request is
beyond the scope of these proceedings.
ORDER NO.33049 12
C’.Customer Relations
Staff recommended Idaho Power provide resource portfolio information to customers
through billing inserts rather than customer notices pertaining to proposed rate changes.By
adopting StatIs recommendation.the Company would comply with both the Idaho Energy Plan,
which recommends that utilities voluntarily provide a resource portfolio report to customers
annually,and Commission Rule 125.03,which provides that information in customer notices
must be ‘clearly identified,easily understood,and pertain only to the proposed rate change.”
Further,to enable customers to fully understand possible rate impacts,Staff
recommended that in future cases where rate mitigation is proposed,the Company should
explain what the impact will be with and without rate mitigation.
In reply,the Company says it is not opposed to working with Staff to determine the
appropriate information to include in PCA customer notices.
Commission Decision —Customer Relations:As always,we expect the Company to
provide timely,accurate,and understandable information in its customer notices.We appreciate
the Company’s willingness to work with Staff to improve the content of those notices.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company’s Application and proposed base rate
update and revenue sharing amounts (specifically,PCA revenue sharing of $7,602,043 a pension
balancing account contribution of $16,512,853)are approved as noted above.The Company’s
proposed schedules are approved as filed with new rates to take effect on June 1,2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate docket be opened to allow Commission
Staff,the Company,and other interested persons to hold a workshop to further evaluate the
Company’s application of the true-up and whether a deferral balance adjustment is appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall take such other actions as are
directed in the body of this Order.
TI-IfS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order.Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-626.
ORDER NO.33049 13
DONE b Order of the Idaho Public Lti1itis Commission at Boise Idaho this c
day of May 2014.
ATTEST:
MACK A,REDD,CONER
\)j ft4 )?7J çJf41._
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
H’1’
Jean D.Jewel!
Commission Secretary
O:IPC-E-I 4-05kk2
ORDER NO.33049 14