20030509Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:MAY 9, 2003
RE:CASE NO. PAC-03-7 (PacifiCorp)
PETITION OF DEL RAY HOLM
On April 24, 2003 , Del Ray Holm (Petitioner) filed a Petition with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting an Order requiring PacifiCorp dba Utah
Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp; Company) to provide cost data for installation of
underground power lines and related facilities. Petitioner has an interest in farming operations in
eastern Idaho located within the UP&L service area and desires to install underground electrical
lines and transformation equipment in replacement of overhead lines which service irrigation
pivots.
Petitioner requests a Commission Order directing UP&L to comply with Petitioner
request for cost itemization, including specifications for required equipment in order that
Petitioner and Del Ray Holm & Sons Farms can "intelligently and appropriately seek alternative
bids" which meet the specifications of UP&L for the installation. Petitioner requests expedited
action because of the impending irrigation season.
On April 29, 2003 , the Commission issued Notices of Petition and Scheduling in
Case No. PAC-03-7. On May 2003 pursuant to scheduling, PacifiCorp filed its Answer to
the Petition of Del Ray Holm and filed also a Motion to Dismiss.
PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner has requested not a line extension, but a conversion of
existing overhead distribution lines to underground lines. In conjunction with this request
Petitioner seeks a Commission order requiring the Company to provide certain detailed cost
information. The Company contends that Petitioner s Consultant, Carl Palmer, has already been
DECISION MEMORANDUM
provided with an itemization of the costs and credits for PacifiCorp s Labor & Vehicle, Material
Material Salvage and Accrued Depreciation, which provide the basis of the total costs for the two
underground conversion proposals that are the subject of Petitioner s request. Even if Petitioner
had the option of hiring someone else to convert the Company distribution lines to
underground, which option, the Company contends, is not available under existing rules
PacifiCorp contends that Petitioner has already been provided sufficient cost data for its
evaluation. Accordingly, the Company states there is no need for the Commission to order the
disclosure of detailed item-by-item cost information. Preparation and disclosure of detailed cost
itemization such as that requested by Petitioner, the Company further contends, would be an
unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the Company. The time and expense that would be
incurred in such an effort, the Company contends, is not warranted.
PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner is requesting cost information for the purpose of
seeking and evaluating "alternative bids for the conversion of PacifiCorp s overhead
distribution lines to underground lines.However, PacifiCorp notes that Petitioner and its
Consultant are operating under the mistaken belief that they have a right under existing rules to
have someone else perform overhead to underground conversions ofPacifiCorp s facilities. No
such right exists for conversions and relocations, although PacifiCorp s Electric Service
Regulation No. 12 does include a provision for "applicant-built line extensions.
Under Electric Service Regulation 12, a line "Extension" is defined as "a branch
from, a continuation of, or an increase in the capacity of, an existing Company-owned
transmission or distribution line. An extension may be single-phase, three-phase or a conversion
of a single-phase line to a three-phase line. The Company will own, operate and maintain all
extensions made under this regulation." Company Answer, Exhibit A. Pursuant to Regulation
, Section 5(a)(1), "an Applicant may contract with someone other than the Company to build a
line extension." The Electric Service Regulation, the Company notes, does not include any
provision allowing a customer to have someone other than PacifiCorp perform an underground
conversion of its facilities. Petitioner s Consultant, the Company states, was advised that a
conversion such as that proposed by Petitioner is not a line extension under Regulation 12. With
respect to conversions, Regulation 12 provides that when an Applicant or customer requests the
replacement of existing overhead distribution facilities with comparable underground facilities
the Applicant or customer must elect to either provide all trenching and backfilling, imported
DECISION MEMORANDUM
backfill material, conduits, and equipment foundations required by PacifiCorp, or pay the
Company to provide those items. See Regulation 12, Section 6(a). The regulation does not
allow the customer to elect to perform the electrical installation or to provide all the electrical
equipment for which Petitioner seeks a cost breakdown, nor does Regulation 12 require the
Company to provide any cost breakdown. Arguing that the Company is following its tariffs and
that Petitioner is requesting information that is not required under its tariffs, PacifiCorp requests
that the relief requested by Petitioner be denied and that the Petition be dismissed.
Commission Decision
Del Ray Holm has filed a Petition with the Commission requesting disclosure of
detailed item-by-item cost information related to Petitioner s proposal to convert certain existing
overhead distribution lines to underground lines. PacifiCorp contends that it is complying with
its electric service regulations and that it has no obligation to supply the requested information.
Does the Commission believe that the established record in Case No. P AC-03- 7 is sufficient to
resolve the issues raised without further procedure? If so, should the Petition be granted; or
should the Petition be denied and dismissed? If the Commission does not have sufficient
information, how does the Commission wish to proceed?
Scott Woodbury
Vld/M:P ACEO307 _
DECISION MEMORANDUM