Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061027Decision memo.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:CO MMISSI 0 NER KJELLAND ER COMMISSIONER SMITH CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF FROM:DON HOWELL DATE:OCTOBER 24, 2006 SUBJECT:ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'PETITION TO CONFIRM THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PAYMENT STRUCTURE OF ITS SCHEDULE 21 LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM, CASE NO. PAC-06- On September 1 , 2006, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power filed a Petition seeking a declaratory order that the Company s current funding structure for its Low-Income Weatherization program (Schedule 21) is just and reasonable. In Order No. 30139 issued October 3, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition and established a deadline for intervention. The Commission directed that after the Commission Secretary had issued the Notice of Parties, that the Commission Staff conduct an informal prehearing conference with the parties to establish a schedule for processing this case. The parties (Rocky Mountain, Staff, and Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI)) conducted their informal conference on October 24 2006. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE The parties agreed on a proposed schedule. Commission adopt the following schedule. The parties recommend that the December 6, 2006 Deadline for discovery requests December 20, 2006 Deadline for Staff and CAP AI prefile testimony January 10, 2007 Deadline for Staff/CAP AI rebuttal of each other (if necessary) January 24, 2007 Deadline for PacifiCorp s prefile rebuttal testimony February 2, 2007 Technical Hearing in Boise DECISION MEMORANDUM The parties also agreed to convene an informal settlement conference prior to PacifiCorp s rebuttal testimony. The purpose of the settlement conference would be to determine if the parties can settle some or all of their differences. The parties also agreed on several issues related to servIce. More specifically, the parties agreed to a 10-day response period for discovery requests and to serve just one hard copy of discovery on the Commission Secretary. The parties also agreed to serve each other with discovery and prefile testimony by electronic mail. To conserve resources, the parties also agreed to serve the Commission with an original and four copies of all prefile testimony. COMMISSION DECISION 1. Does the Commission adopt the proposed schedule to process this matter? 2. Does the Commission concur with the parties' recommendation to submit one hard copy of discovery on the Commission Secretary and to submit an original and four copies of prefile testimony? 3. Anything else? Don Howell bls!M:PAC-O6-1O dh DECISION MEMORANDUM