2001611Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
BILL EASTLAKE
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
KEIT HESSING
TERRI CARLOCK
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE

FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND

DATE: JUNE 11, 2001.

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, CASE NO. IPC-E-01-18; AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA UTILITIES, CASE NO. AVU-E-01-9; AND PACIFICORP, CASE NO. PAC-E-01-9 TO DISCONTINUE COST INFORMATION FILING AND SUSPENSION OF THE FILING DATE PENDING DETERMINATION.

On May 18, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed an Application requesting Commission authorization to discontinue the filing of the annual cost information-unbundling report. Idaho Power also requests suspension of the July 1, 2001 filing date for this report until the Commission makes a decision on its Application. On June 5, 2001, Avista Utilities filed a Motion for an Extension of the Filing Date with respect to the same unbundled cost report. On June 8, 2001, PacifiCorp filed an Application which is identical to Idaho Power Company’s request.
On June 19, 2001 the Commission issued a Joint Notice of Applications, Joint Notice of Modified Procedure. Order No. 28749. In this Order the Commission suspended the filing date for costs reports for sixty days from July 1, 2001, or until the Commission issues an order determining the issues in these cases. The Commission also established deadlines for written comments and reply comments. The Commission Staff, Avista and Idaho Power filed written commentsa.
BACKGROUND
In 1997 the Legislature enacted Chapter 403, Session Laws of Idaho 1997, pp. 1279-1281, creating Idaho Code §§ 61-338 and 61-339. Under these sections, electric suppliers in the state of Idaho with over 1,000 customers were required to file unbundled cost information with the Commission. The Legislature determined that such cost information shall be separated among utility functions consisting, at a minimum, of generation, transmission and distribution services and including other categories as the Commission may require.
In response to Idaho Code §§ 61-338 and 61-339 the Commission commenced Case No. GNR-E-97-1, which ultimately provided for the method and manner by which these cost reports would be compiled and submitted. See Order No. 27211. As an outgrowth of Case No. GNR-E-97-1, the Commission instituted three separate proceedings for Idaho Power Company, Avista Utilities and PacifiCorp. See Case Nos. IPC-E-98-2, UPL-E-98-1 and WWP-E-98-1. The Commission in the final Orders in these cases required that the Companies submit cost reports with updated cost information on or before July 1, of every year. See Order Nos. 27676, 27678 and 27679.
Idaho Code §§ 61-338 and 61-339 as enacted provided that these sections would become null and avoid and of no force and effect on and after January 1, 1999. Accordingly, Idaho Power and PacifiCorp have requested that the Commission authorize them to discontinue the filing of their annual cost report and to suspend the filing requirement of July 1, 2001, until the Commission has issued its decision on their requests. The Companies contend that preparation of these cost reports are time consuming and of little value on an ongoing basis insofar as the regulation by the Commission is concerned. Accordingly, the Companies submit that it is in the public interest to permit it to discontinue their filing. In the event that the Commission does not grant the Companies’ requests PacifiCorp, in the alternative, asks the Commission to extend the annual filing date for this report until October 1 of each year. Idaho Power and PacifiCorp also request that this matter be processed by Modified Procedure under the Commission’s Rules.
On June 5, 2001, Avista filed a Motion for Extension of the Filing date for its unbundled cost report. This Motion requests that the Commission allow it until July 1, 2002 or such other date as directed by the Commission to file its report on unbundled cost information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
First, the Commission Staff believes that the Commission should treat Avista’s Motion as an Application, rather than a motion, as any decision it makes regarding Idaho Power’s and PacifiCorp’s Applications should also apply to Avista as evidenced by the fact that the Commission has treated these Companies similarly in relation to this filing. For this reason Avista’s Motion may bring about more than a minor change to this filing requirement and thus should be treated as an Application.
The Commission Staff further believes that despite the sunset of the applicable statutes requiring the filing of these reports, the reports themselves still contain valuable information that can assist the Commission in its ongoing regulation of these investor owned utilities. Thus, Staff would like the opportunity to more fully comment on these Applications and its position that these reports in some form should still be filed with the Commission. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission process these Applications by Modified Procedure under the Commission’s Rules and establish a twenty-one (21) day comment period for interested parties followed by a period of seven days within which the Companies can file reply comments. Until the Commission resolves the issues presented in the Companies’ Applications Staff also recommends that the Commission suspend the July 1 filing date for this cost report indefinitely.
Commission Decision:
Does the Commission wish to treat Avista’s Motion as an Application?
Does the Commission wish to process these Applications by the use of Modified Procedure under the Commissions Rules? If so, does the Commission wish to establish deadlines for the filing of written comments and written reply comments?
Does the Commission wish to suspend the filing date of this report?

John R. Hammond

Staff: Keith Hessing

M:ipce0118_avue019_pace019_jh

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1