20110407order_no_32220.pdf

Offce of the Secretay
Servce Date
April 7, 2011
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) CASE NO. PAC-E-IO-07
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO )
ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES ) ORDER NO. 32220
)
BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2010, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain" or
"Company") fied an Application for authority to increase the Company's general rates for
electric service. On February 28, 2011, the Commission issued final Order No. 32196 setting
final rates in this case.
On March 11, 2011, Community Action Parership Association of Idaho ("CAP AI")
submitted a timely Petition for Clarfication/econsideration of Commission Order No. 32196
pursuant to Commission Rules of Procedure 325 and 331, et seq., IDAPA 31.01.01.325 and
31.01.01.331.
On March 18,2011, Rocky Mountain submitted a Cross-Petition to CAPAI's Petition
for Clarfication/econsideration pursuant to Commission Rules 325 and 331. On March 23,
2011, CAPAI filed a Reply to Rocky Mountain's Cross-Petition to CAPAI's Petition for
Clarification/econsideration.
CAPAI PETITION FOR CLARFICATION/RECONSIDERATION
In its Petition for Clarfication/econsideration, CAP AI argues that the Company has
mischaracterized the $50,000 expense for the Low-Income Conservation Education program as a
"one-time" commitment. CAPAI Petition for Clarfication/econsideration at 1, 14. Instead,
CAP AI asserts that the education program found in the Commission-approved settlement
agreement in Rocky Mountain's last general rate case (P AC-E-08-07, Order No. 30783) is an
ongoing, anual program to be fuded by the Company. CAP AI stated that the record in the
present case, including Staff testimony offered by Mr. Curis Thaden, confirms its interpretation
of Settlement Order No. 30783 and the annual fuding obligation to the low-income
conservation programs. ¡d. at 4-5.
ORDER NO. 32220 1
CAP AI acknowledged that it has not implemented the conservation education
programs in a timely maner but "this fact has been and is being aggressively remedied by
CAPAI." Id at 7. CAPAI requests that the Commission intervene and clarify that the program
should be fuded on an anual basis so that CAP AI can take on the "challenge of competently
administering the program in a maner consistent with the spirit and intent of the 08-7
Stipulation (Settlement Agreement)." Id CAPAI emphasized that anual funding for
conservation education is consistent with the fuding obligation previously approved by the
Commission for Idaho Power and A vista. Id at 10-11.
Rocky Mountain answered CAP AI's claims by fiing a Cross-Petition for
Clarification and Reconsideration. Rocky Mountain asks the Commission to "reject CAPAI's
position that the Company committed to ongoing, anual fuding of $50,000 for the Company's
Low-Income Conservation Education program . . . and issue a finding that the funding
commitment was for a total of $50,000." Rocky Mountain Cross-Petition at 1-2. The Company
remarked that "CAPAI had more than adequate notice of Rocky Mountain Power's position
regarding the Conservation Education program in Case No. PAC-E-08-07.. .." Id. at 5.
Moreover, CAP AI has been delinquent in developing and deploying the funds already allocated
to the conservation program. Id at 2-3.
CAP AI responded to Rocky Mountain's Cross-Petition and reiterated its argument
that the Commission should issue an Order declaring that conservation education programs
should be fuded by Rocky Mountain on a yearly basis. CAPAI Reply at 5. Addressing Rocky
Mountain's allegation that the agency has failed to implement the conservation education
programs in a timely manner, CAP AI noted that "RMP has never made any formal fiing with
the Commission regarding the alleged failure of CAP AI to properly implement conservation
education." Id at 4.
CAP AI did not request a formal hearing on reconsideration.
COMMISSION DECISION
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 "within twenty-eight days after the filing of a
petition for reconsideration the Commission shall determine whether or not it wil grant such
reconsideration, and make and enter its order accordingly. If reconsideration be granted, said
order shall specify how the matter wil be reconsidered(.)"
ORDER NO. 32220 2
The Commission has determined that resolution of CAP AI's Petition and the
Company's Cross-Petition requires us to thoroughly review the record in this matter. i Given the
complexity of the issues, the Commission needs additional time to review this matter. Based on
CAP AI's representation and our own determination, we find that the record in this proceeding is
sufficient for the Commission to resolve CAP AI's Petition. Accordingly, the Commission shall
grant CAP AI's Petition for Clarification/Reconsideration for the limited purose of determining
whether the $50,000 for Low-Income Conservation Education programs referenced in the
Commission-approved settlement in Case No. P AC-E-08-07 represented an anual award or a
"one-time" payment.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CAPAI's Petition for Clarification!econsideration
is granted. The Commission wil review the record and issue its decision in this matter in
compliance with Idaho Code § 61-626(2).
i Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification that address other issues in this rate case were also fied by
Rocky Mountain Power and Monsanto Company.
ORDER NO. 32220 3
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission at Boise, Idaho this 7 t"
day of April 2011.
PAUL~~
~¡j~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
O:PAC-E- I 0-07 _np3 _ CAP AI Clarification
ORDER NO. 32220 4