20020918Order No 29118.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 18, 2002
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF P ACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF
INTERIM PROVISIONS FOR THE SUPPLY
OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MONSANTO
COMPANY.
CASE NO. PAC-Ol-
ORDER NO. 29118
On December 10, 2001 , PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp;
Company) filed an Application with the Commission regarding supply of electric service to
Monsanto Company (Monsanto). In its Application the Company represented that the 1995
Power Supply Agreement (Agreement) between Monsanto and PacifiCorp was expiring
December 31 , 2001 , and requested that an interim rate be established. Monsanto contends that
the Agreement extends to December 31 , 2002. PacifiCorp and Monsanto are engaged in
litigation in Federal District Court regarding the contract termination date.
The Commission by Order No.28918 issued December 21 , 2001, denied the
Company s interim rate request. The Commission in its Order determined that the existing
contract rate (subject to true-up) should remain in effect until the Commission rendered a
decision on the Company s Application.
On September 4 and 5, 2002, a technical hearing in Case No. PAC-01-16 was held
in Boise, Idaho. In considering Monsanto s offer of 1 000 hours of economic interuptibility,
PacifiCorp s pricing of same and Monsanto s related exhibits demonstrating that PacifiCorp was
attributing a negative value to the final 500 hours, the Commission finds the record incomplete.
, therefore, need to propound further questions to the Company s "black shoals" witness, Mr.
Mark Klein. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause and on its own motion re-opens the
record in Case No. PAC-01-16 and submits the questions set forth in Attachment A to this
Order to Mr. Mark Klein by way of further Commission cross-exam. Mr. Klein is reminded he
is still under oath and is directed to provide a written response to the questions in writing in
testimony format on or prior to Friday, September 25, 2002. After reviewing Mr. Klein
answers, and if the Commission declines to pose further questions, the parties to the case may
respond in writing to the additional record as part of their post hearing briefs. To facilitate this
ORDER NO. 29118
process, we find it reasonable to extend the filing date for post hearing briefs to Wednesday,
October 9 2002.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the record in Case No. PAC-01-16 be reopened and that PacifiCorp
witness Mr. Mark Klein answer the questions set forth in Attachment A to this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission adopts the procedure and
scheduling set forth above and extends the filing date for post hearing briefs to Wednesday,
October 9, 2002.
DONE by Order ofthe Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
jgt/t.
day of September 2002.
(2(
PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT
a~~ JJ
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
Out of the Office on this Date
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~~~
Je D. JewellCo ission Secretary
vld/O:PACEOl16 sw
ORDER NO. 29118
1 )What is "Black Shoals
How can it be verified?
When pricing the 500-hour interruption credit/payment, on what date was each of the
following established:
a) Capacity charge
b) Market price - Palo Verde
c) Market price - super peak
When pricing the 1000-hour interruption credit/payment, on what date was each of the
following established:
a) Capacity charge
b) Market price - Palo Verde
c) Market price - super peak
Identify if the pricing valuations used daily products, weekly, monthly, a longer term or
some combination.
Provide schedules documenting each price in items 1 and 2 by showing the determining
factors used when obtaining the price.
Was the same method used to price the 500-hour interruptible option and the lOOO-hour
interruptible option?
If not, please explain each method and then list the differences.
What would the credit/payment for 1000 hours of interruptability be if calculated on the
same date as the original credit/payment evaluation for 500 ills of interruptability?
10) What would the credit/payment for 500 hours of interruptability be if calculated on the
same date as the latest credit/payment evaluation for 1000 ills of interruptability? Please
provide a diagram showing the week days and times that the interruption is priced.
IT ACHMENT A
CASE NO. PAC-Ol-
ORDER NO. 29118
PAGE 1 of2
11) Would the credit/payment for the additional 500 hours of interruptability be greater if these
hours were not contiguous to the first 500 hours? For example, would the credit/payment
be greater if the additional hours were valued during the winter peak rather than the
shoulder periods? Please explain.
12) Please provide the value for the 500-hour interruption credit/payment and the 1O00-hour
interruption credit/payment on September 19, 2002 and September 26, 2002. Provide this
same information for the same day each month for the past 12 months. Please provide all
documentation.
13) Has PacifiCorp determined that the product(s) used to value the 500-hour interruption
credit/payment is ( are) available for purchase? If so, please provide a list of counter parties
willing to provide the product(s).
14) Has PacifiCorp determined that the product(s) used to value the lOOO-hour interruption
credit/payment is (are) available for purchase? If so, please provide a list of counter parties
willing to provide the product(s).
15) Provide the calculation of system integrity benefits using a FERC price cap of
$lOOO/MWh.
16) Identify any difference in method or assumptions, other than price, from the calculation in
Exhibit 27 for $250/MWh.
17) Provide a schedule or diagram showing the hours during the year that represent the most
expensive power costs. Show the month, weekday, hour and approximate cost.
18) Are the hours shown in response to Question 17 above the hours that would provide the
most value from interruption? Ifnot, please explain why not.
ATTACHMENT A
CASE NO. PAC-Ol-
ORDER NO. 29118
PAGE 2 of2