29118.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM PROVISIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MONSANTO COMPANY. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-01-16

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-E-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. We, 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. PACE0116 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’s 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 process, we find it reasonable to extend the filing date for post hearing briefs to Wednesday, October 9, 2002.
O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the record in Case No. PAC-E-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 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of September 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/O:PACE0116_sw

1) What is “Black Shoals”?

2) How can it be verified?

3) 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

4) 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

5) Identify if the pricing valuations used daily products, weekly, monthly, a longer term or some combination.

6) Provide schedules documenting each price in items 1 and 2 by showing the determining factors used when obtaining the price.

7) Was the same method used to price the 500-hour interruptible option and the 1000-hour interruptible option?

8) If not, please explain each method and then list the differences.

9) 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 hrs 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 hrs of interruptability? Please provide a diagram showing the week days and times that the interruption is priced.
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 1000-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 1000-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 $1000/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? If not, please explain why not.

ORDER NO. 29118 1

ATTACHMENT A
CASE NO. PAC-E-01-16
ORDER NO. 29118
PAGE 2 of 2

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 18, 2002