20070302Decision memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:CO MMISSI 0 NER KJELLAND ER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:FEBRUARY 28, 2007
SUBJECT:ROCKY MOUNT AIN POWER'S REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE
FILING OF ITS INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN, CASE NO. PAC-
07-
On February 23 , 2007, Rocky Mountain Power filed a "Motion" to postpone the
filing of its 2006 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Rocky Mountain Power is a division of
PacifiCorp and serves more than 65 000 electric customers in southeastern Idaho. Rocky
Mountain s IRP was scheduled to be filed in December 2006 but the Company now requests
permission to file its IRP no later than May 30, 2007.
BACKGROUND
The biennial IRP is a planning document that generally sets forth how electric and
gas utilities intend to meet the energy requirements of their customers over the next 10 years. In
Order No. 22299 the Commission directed each electric utility to file a biennial IRP that analyzes
its customer base, load growth, supply-side resources, and demand-side management (DSM)
resources. In December 1998, the Commission issued Order No. 27835 directing Rocky
Mountain to file its IRP in December 2000 and every two years thereafter.
THE MOTION
In its Motion for Extension, Rocky Mountain states that the delay in completing and
filing its 2006 IRP is attributable to two primary reasons. First and foremost, Rocky Mountain
and PacifiCorp are still in the process of integrating themselves into the MidAmerican Energy
Holding Company. In March 2006, the Commission approved MidAmerican s acquisition of
PacifiCorp. Order No. 29998. As part of the integrated operating company, Rocky Mountain
states that it has just finished its "first long-range planning cycle under (MidAmericanJ." Motion
DECISION MEMORANDUM
at 2. PacifiCorp indicates that it intends to incorporate the outcome of MidAmerican s planning
process into Rocky Mountain s IRP.
Second, Rocky Mountain notes that it is currently in the process of drafting a request
for proposal (RFP) to procure additional long-term resources for 2012. While an RFP does not
require prior approval from this Commission, such prior approval is required for Utah and
Oregon. Rocky Mountain reports that its Utah RFP is currently under review but Oregon has
rejected the draft RFP. Rocky Mountain asserts that additional time for filing the IRP is
necessary so that the RFP can be reflected in the IRP filing. Id.
Consequently, Rocky Mountain makes two requests. First, it asks that the
Commission approve an extension oftime to file its IRP to no later than May 30 , 2007. Second
the Company requests that the filing date for future IRPs be adjusted to coincide with its business
planning cycle with MidAmerican. Rocky Mountain requests that future IRPs be due no later
than the last business day of March on a biennial basis beginning in 2009.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission grant the new filing dates for Rocky
Mountain s present and future IRPs. Given the administrative nature of Rocky Mountain
request, the Staff recommends that the Commission treat the Company s Motion as a petition
requesting modification of an existing Order. IDAP A 31.01.01.053. Staff believes there is good
cause to grant the requested relief without further notice or Modified Procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to grant Rocky Mountain s Motion to postpone the
present IRP filing until no later than May 30, 2007? Does the Commission approve that future
IRPs be filed no later than the last business day of March beginning in 2009? Does the
Commission find that there is good cause to approve the request without further notice or
Modified Procedure? Does the Commission wish to address any other issue?
Don Howell
blslM:PAC-O7-
DECISION MEMORANDUM