20040929Final Order No 29599.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 29 2004
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF PACIFICORP'
APPLICATION TO ADD CLARIFYING
LANGUAGE TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE
REGULATION NO. 12 LINE EXTENSION RULE)
AS PERTAINS TO APPLICANT -BUlL T LINEEXTENSIONS
CASE NO. P AC-O4-
ORDER NO. 29599
On July 16, 2004, PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp; Company)
filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission requesting changes to its Electric
Service Regulation No. 12 - Line Extension Rule. The stated purpose of the Company s filing is to
add clarifying language to Regulation 12 regarding the availability of the "Applicant-Built Line
option and payment responsibility for engineering charges for "large complex or speculative
developments.
On July 30, 2004, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Modified
Procedure in this matter. The Notice invited written comments by August 27, 2004. The
Commission Staff was the only party to file comments. Based upon our review of the Application
and comments, the Commission approves the proposed changes.
THE APPLICATION
The proposed revision to Regulation 12 Section 5(a)1 , Applicant-Built Line Extensions
adds language to explicitly state that the applicant-built option only applies to new construction and
is not available for "relocations, conversions from overhead to underground, going from single-
phase to three-phase or increasing the capacity of facilities." PacifiCorp contends that the proposed
clarification reflects the Company s long-standing practice. In conjunction with the foregoing
change, the Company is also proposing to add clarifying language to the definition of an
Extension" as set forth in Regulation 12 Section l(d), excluding circumstances where a line has
been removed, at customer request, within the prior five years. Finally, the Company proposes a
change to Regulation 12 Section 1 (c), Engineering Costs, clarifying that "large complex or
speculative" extensions are to be defined from the sole perspective (or judgment) of the Company.
The purpose of this last change is to avoid disputes between the Company and the customer as to
whether a development is "large, complex or speculative.
ORDER NO. 29599
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff recommends that PacifiCorp s proposed changes to electric service Regulation
No. 12 be approved as filed. Staffs Comments can be summarized as follows:
Availability of the Applicant-Built Line Option
The purpose of the Company-proposed changes to Rule 12 9 5(a)1 and Rule 12 9 l(d),
Staff contends, is to more clearly distinguish rules as they apply to new line extensions as opposed
to relocations or alterations of existing lines. Staff believes that the proposed changes accurately
reflect the manner in which PacifiCorp has interpreted and applied the rules in the past. Staff also
believes the Company s interpretation of the rules is reasonable and that the proposed language
changes make this interpretation clear.
As set forth in Staff comments, Staffnotes as follows:
In response to a Staff production request asking why PacifiCorp restricts the
applicant built line extension option to only new line extensions, the Company
cites safety and liability concerns. PacifiCorp points out that working within
proximity of energized power lines is a clear safety risk. The Company
contends that hand digging is required within 2 feet of an insulated buried line
and that Idaho s overhead line safety act limits contractors from working
within 10 feet of a standard distribution line. PacifiCorp admits that not all
relocations require such work, but notes that many do. The Company believes
that the safety risk and potential for liability resulting from electrical contact
that could occur by qualified or non-qualified individuals who are working
under the direction of an applicant is higher for relocations and alterations
simply by virtue of the fact that more of that work would be in closer
proximity to energized facilities than is the case with construction of new line
extensions.
PacifiCorp also cites the potential for claims against the Company due to
failure to provide service to other customers on the line during construction.
At a minimum, in addition to connecting the new line to the grid, relocations
or alterations have the additional requirement of de-energizing the old line
switching load and removing the old line. This additional work requires
additional coordination and greater exposure to problems according to the
Company.
Staff believes that PacifiCorp s long standing practice of restricting the applicant built
option to only new line extensions is based on sound reasoning. Staff contends that safety should be
kept paramount and understands the liability concerns of the Company.
ORDER NO. 29599
Responsibility for Engineering Charges-Large, Complex or Speculative" Development
PacifiCorp has informed Staff that on occasion, customers have disputed payment of
engineering charges for proposed developments that are "large, complex or speculative.
PacifiCorp s rules do not require that engineering charges be advanced when developments are not
judged to be large, complex or speculative. The dispute generally boils down to differences of
opinion between the customer and the Company as to whether the proposed development is, in fact
large, complex or speculative." The proposed tariff change to Regulation 12 9 1 (c) will permit the
Company to use its own judgment in deciding whether the "large, complex or speculative" standard
is met.
Staff believes it would be very difficult to define in the tariff precisely what constitutes
large, complex or speculative." Furthermore, Staff believes a precise definition is unnecessary.
Each line extension is unique, and the possible circumstances associated with each one would make
it nearly impossible to develop tariff language where virtually no judgment needed to be exercised.
Staff believes this is one instance wherein the Company should be allowed to exercise its judgment.
Staff believes the language proposed by the Company is acceptable.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed the Application and the recommendations of
Commission Staff. The Commission continues to find it reasonable to process the Company s filing
pursuant to Modified Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.204.In its filing PacifiCorp proposes to add
clarifying language to its Regulation No. 12 - Line Extension Rule pertaining to Applicant-built
line extensions and payment responsibility for engineering charges for "large, complex
speculative" developments. Based upon our review of the proposed changes and the comments, the
Commission finds that the proposed changes to Regulation No. 12 Sections l(c), l(d) and 5(a)(1)
are reasonable. The addition of clarifying language avoids utility-customer disputes and conforms
the tariffs to existing line extension practice. The Commission further finds the proposed changes
shall be effective 30 days after the Application was filed, or August 16, 2004.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over PacifiCorp dba Utah Power
& Light Company, an electric utility, pursuant to the authority granted by Idaho Code Title 61 and
the Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
ORDER NO. 29599
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby approve the proposed changes to
PacifiCorp Service Regulation No. 12, Section 5(a)1 (Fourth Revised Sheet No. 12 R.9), Applicant-
Built Line Extensions, Section l(d) (Fifth Revised Sheet No. 12 R.2) Extension and Section l(c)
Engineering Costs (Fifth Revised Sheet No. 12 R.1) for an effective date of August 16 2004.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7) days
after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code 9 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this :l.lJf'"
day of September 2004.
J (/d.
PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT
ML.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~ell
Commission Secretary
vldlO:P ACE044 sw
ORDER NO. 29599