HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000602_sw.docDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
BILL EASTLAKE
FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE: JUNE 2, 2000
RE: PAC-E-00-1 (PacifiCorp)
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ORDER NO. 28380)
On March 10, 2000, PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp; Company) filed a request with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for approval of a new renewable energy tariff, Schedule 70 New Wind, Geothermal and Solar Power Rider—Optional.
Under the tariff proposed by the Company, customers would be permitted to purchase 100 kWh blocks of renewable energy (initially wind) by paying an additive premium of 4.75¢/kWh. For residential customers, a customer would pay the tariff rate of 7.4904¢/kWh plus 4.75¢/kWh for a total of 12.2407¢/kWh for each kilowatt hour of renewable energy purchased.
On May 18, 2000, the Commission issued final Order No. 28380 in Case No. PAC-E-00-1 denying the Company’s Application. (Order attached.) In its Order, the Commission stated:
In the merger case, the overriding customer sentiment in the Company’s southeast Idaho service territory was a desire for lower cost electricity. Geographically, the Company’s Idaho customers are uniquely situated, surrounded by municipal, cooperative and investor owned utilities, all providing lower cost power. The Company in this case presents us instead with a higher cost resource. In a separate case, also pending, it presents a rate increase related to elimination of the BPA exchange credit (Case No. UPL-E-00-1). We cannot ignore that while the Company forecasts a penetration rate of 2.75% on a system-wide basis for its new green tariff, it expects to achieve only half of that penetration rate in Idaho. The Commission finds that regardless of the voluntary nature of the submitted program, we must consider customer acceptance and we have a responsibility to assure fair pricing. While this Commission supports the development of renewable resources, we believe that the Company needs to refine its proposal. Perhaps experience gained in other states will result in program improvements. We encourage the Company to file a “green tariff” for UP&L that supports deployment of renewable resources and is priced to foster customer acceptance.
On May 26, 2000, the Company filed a Petition for Reconsideration (attached) with the Commission requesting reconsideration of the Commission’s Order No. 28380. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.331; Idaho Code § 61-626. The Company believes that the Commission’s Order unreasonably denies interested PacifiCorp customers the opportunity to support additional new renewable resource development. The Company asks the Commission to consider the following:
A future renewable resource program will likely be more costly than the current proposed program due to the expiration of federal tax credits;
Customers have indicated a desire to participate in renewable resource programs;
The currently offered program benefits from economies of scale. Designing a program for the estimated 800 PacifiCorp customers in Idaho that are expected to participate would be prohibitively costly.
Marketing expenditures have been mischaracterized as representing a high percentage of program costs.
The Company seeks reconsideration by written comments.
Commission Decision:
Should the Company’s Petition for Reconsideration be granted or denied? If granted, the Company seeks reconsideration by written comments. Is this procedure acceptable to the Commission? If not, what is the Commission’s preference?
Scott D. Woodbury
bls/M:pace001_sw2
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2