20030311Reply Comments.pdf

.,~
' r \\J
. \ ~
I . -
:-11 en
r t:_
ill
L.......'
John M. Eriksson
STOEL RNES LLP
201 South Main Street, #1100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-4904
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
'1l1ft1 HI,? 'f\H g: 59LiHJJ lln,
fr'
,\'" '
UT\LI\\E~ l:Ui"H'HSS\ON
...:..
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
STOEL RNES LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, Idaho 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for PacifiCorp
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
PACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDED
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE 72
IRRIGATION LOAD CONTROL CREDIT RIDER PROGRAM.
CASE NO. P AC-O3-
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ACIFICORP
PacifiCorp submits these Reply Comments in response to the Commission Staff
Comments filed in this matter. PacifiCorp appreciates the Staffs quick review and
recommendation in this matter, and concurs with Staffs recommendations, except for Staffs
recommendation as to the consideration of lost revenues in the Company s calculation of the
level of credit to be given for interruption. PacifiCorp believes its method of calculating the
credit for interruptions is appropriate, and objects to the approach proposed by Staff.
In response to Staff discovery, the Company stated that the value of the curtailment
product on a $/MWh basis is the difference between market price and the Schedule 10 weighted
PACIFICORP'S REPLY COMMENTS-
average retail rate. The Schedule 10 weighted average retail rate of$43.58/MWh, based on
historical usage data, is used as the opportunity cost to PacifiCorp of curtailing Schedule 10
customers. The market price during curtailment hours is projected to exceed the weighted
average retail rate of$43.58/MWh, therefore, the Company proposes to set the Irrigation Load
Control Credit based on the increment of market price over $43.58/MWh. The objective of this
proposal is to pass on to participating Irrigation customers the value created by participation in
the Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program, but not more. The Staff recommendation to
set the Irrigation Load Control Credit based only on 80% ofthe projected market price would set
the Irrigation Load Control Credit at an amount greater than the value created by curtailment.
Thus, if the Staff recommendation is adopted, the curtailment program would result in costs that
are higher than if the Company merely continued to serve the irrigation load without the program
in place, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit A.
WHEREFORE, PacifiCorp respectfully requests that the Commission approve the
proposed Schedule 71 without directing that the Company calculate the value ofthe credit as
proposed by Staff.
DATED this IO1fA day of March, 2003.
ohn M. Eriksson
Mary S. Hobsom
Stoel Rives LLP
Of Attorneys for PacifiCorp
P ACIFICORP' S REPLY COMMENTS - 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this I tJ
'ffI.day of March, 2003 , I caused to be served , via
facsimile, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Comments of PacifiCorp to the
following:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise , Idaho 83720-0074
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
PO. Box 1391
Pocatello, ill 83204-1391
PACIFICORP'S REPLY COMMENTS - 3
Ba
s
e

C
a
s
e

(
s
e
r
v
e

t
h
e

l
o
a
d
\
--
-

-

-

-

-
-

-

-
-

-

-

-

--
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-

-

-
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-
-

-

-

--
-

~
Ma
r
k
e
t
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
...
.
.
$X
I
M
W
h
...
.
$4
3
.

5
8
/
M
W
h
Ne
t

V
a
l
u
e

=

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

-
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
Ne
t

V
a
l
u
e

=

$
4
3
.
58
/
M
W
h

-

M
a
r
k
e
t
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

f
r
o
m

l
o
a
d

=

$
4
3
.
If

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

s
e
r
v
e

l
o
a
d

=

$
6
3
.
58
/
M
W
h
Ne
t

V
a
l
u
e

=

$
4
3
.
58
/
M
W
h

-

$
6
3
.
58
/
M
W
h

=

(
$
2
0
/
M
W
h
)
Ne
t

C
o
s
t

t
o

s
e
r
v
e

t
h
e

l
o
a
d

=

(
$
2
0
/
M
W
h
)
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p
s
C
u
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
--
-
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Ma
r
k
e
t
$C
u
r
t
a
i
l

C
r
e
d
i
t
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
1
0

of

N
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

f
r
o
m

B
a
s
e

C
a
s
e
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
1
0

of

(
$
4
3
.
58

-

M
a
r
k
e
t
)
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
If

M
a
r
k
e
t

=

$
6
3
.
No
t
e
1
:

Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t
De
s
i
g
n
e
d

a
s

f
i
x
e
d

m
o
n
t
h
l
y
Pa
y
m
e
n
t

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
.
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
/
0

o
f

(
$
4
3
.
58

-

$
6
3
.
58
)
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

$
1
6
/
M
W
h
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

C
o
s
t

t
o

P
a
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p

=

(
$
1
6
/
M
W
h
)
No
t
e
2
:

80
0
/
0

fa
c
t
o
r

t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
un
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
.
St
a
f
f
'
s
C
u
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
Ma
r
k
e
t
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
$C
u
r
t
a
i
l

C
r
e
d
i
t
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
/
0

o
f

(
$
4
3
.
58

-

M
a
r
k
e
t
)
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
/
0

o
f

($
4
~
8

-

Ma
r
k
e
t
)
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
/
0

o
f

Ma
r
k
e
t
St
a
f
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s

r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
th
e

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
If

M
a
r
k
e
t

=

$
6
3
.
58
/
M
w
h
Cu
r
t
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

C
r
e
d
i
t

=

80
0
1
0

of

$
6
3
.
58
/
M
W
h

=

$
5
0
.
86
/
M
W
h
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

C
o
s
t

t
o

P
a
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p

=

(
$
5
0
.
86
/
M
W
h
)
Th
i
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n

a

c
o
s
t

t
o

P
a
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p

t
h
a
t

i
s

$
3
0
.
86
/
M
W
h

hi
g
h
e
r
($
5
0
.
86

-

$
2
0
/
M
W
h

f
r
o
m

B
a
s
e

C
a
s
e
)

t
h
a
n

i
f

t
h
e

l
o
a
d

w
a
s

s
i
m
p
l
y

s
e
r
v
e
d
.