20020626Shurtz Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECEIVED illFILED
ZOITZ JUN 26 AM 9: '3
(41
11);1\ pi ; CuTIliTIES COi'lf'"iI SSW~i
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Intervener: Timothy 1. Shurtz
411 S. Main
Firth, ill 83236
June 23 2002
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DABA UTAH POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF
CHANGES TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE
SCHEDULES.
) CASE NO. PAC-02-
) ORDER NO. 29034
Respectfully, petition the honorable commission to reconsider their majority opinion in order no.
29034; under commission rules of procedure rule 341. For the following reasons I feel that the
commission order 29034 should be reviewed:
1. As to the BP A Credit, that should be treated as a separate issue not connected with this case.
Whether it was negotiated or given to the Idaho Customers of Utah Power should have no baring
on the amount of the monies given to Utah Power in this case.
2. Hunter Plant Failure-is still under ligation to my knowledge in other jurisdiction. Would it
not be wise and prudent to treat this cost of the Hunter Plant Outage as a separate expense, that
could be charged to the customers after all the other jurisdiction have litigated this occupancy?
This also brings up the question of the "Most Favored Nation" clause in the stipulation. I would
ask that the commission clarify any enunciate the meaning of this clause in this case.
What does the "Most Favored Nation Status" mean? If other jurisdiction rule against or limit
recovery of these cost, is the company going to be directed by the commission to pass on any
benefits that the customers may be entitled to under this clause in the stipulation.
Also one of the problems with the Hunter Costs and the assessing of excess power costs in
general is because these costs and issues were lumped into one charge to the customers, how is
the commission going to separate these costs should under the "Most Favored Nation" clause
other jurisdiction limit the amount of recovery in theirjurisdiction. I feel that the 22.7 million
dollars should be itemized as to what the customer is specifically paying for. I would also point
out that while the irrigators and I participated in the negotiation process, in the proposed
stipulation the customers were vastly under represented in this case, despite the best efforts of
myself, the irrigators, and the commission staff.
3. The rate moratorium-while I appreciate the honorable commissioners that voted in the
majority for defining what the rate moratorium was I feel that larger issues were not resolved on
this issue. The public, I feel was mislead by representations made to them by the company
through the media and through their law makers, as to what the benefits of the rate moratorium
were. I also feel that had this the benefits of this rate moratorium been clarified for the public
there would have been a continued opposition to the merger. This misrepresentation by company
officials caused the public to forego farther legal remedies they could have taken, had they
understood the interpretation of the rate moratorium would have been as defined by the
commission. I continue to feel that while the commission can only rule on the evidence before
them, they may also rule on what the responsibility of the company is through the presentations
given through the media and through individual law makers on this issue. Ultimately, because
the misinformation the company gave to the public, we gave up major rights to redress the merger
based on their presentations. The Utah Power customers, believed that the rate moratorium was
more than what the honorable commission decided it was. So I feel that in supporting
Commissioner Hansen s dissenting opinion, all excess power cost during the two year rate
moratorium should be thrown out.
4. As to the company s lack of notification in this excess cost recovery case, I find the
commission s actions in fining Utah Power 1 087 720 dollars, a very good start in holding public
utilities accountable to its costumers. However, when you look at the potential fine that could
have been imposed, accessing them 1% of their potential liability does not equal the 50-65% of
the recovery of cost of what the Utah Power customers are going to be asked to pay. For
example, a $20.00 credit per customer is to and extent equitable for the small consumer, but for
commercial class of customer $20.00 does not even begin to cover the losses that they will suffer
because of the lack of notification. I must believe that many other customers would have been
more involved had Utah Power followed commission rule 102 and notified the customers of their
potential liabilities. I feel that the fine levied on Utah Power should be equal to the potential loss
of revenue suffered by the customers because of this lack of notification. Again, the rights of the
customers of Utah Power were diminished by lack of action by Utah Power. As to the companies
presentations stating that it put its intent to recover cost and other presentations at its company
offices in its service territory, I can say as a customer in the Shelley area, they specifically name
their Operations office as one of the sites where the public could have gained information on this
case. I would like to point out that at the Shelley office a customer is greeted at the door with
signs stating that you cannot pay your bill here. This has been the case for the last few years. The
notations alone discourages people from entering the building and accessing any information the
company may have posted there. My question to the commission is, do the other Utah Power
locations discourage customer inquires at those locations? as the Shelley location does. Finally, I
believe the company did post the information at their field offices. However, if those offices are
not used, such as, Shelley to transact customer business-the customers would not normally have
access to that information. They would naturally not be able to access that information because
the customer normally does not use that office to pay his/her payments to Utah Power.
Ultimately, the customer s rights were severely impaired by Utah Power s failure to provide
proper notification as required in commission rule number 102, so therefore, the libility of the
company should be equal to that of the customer.
To sum up my petition to the commission for reconsideration, I would site the dissenting opinion
of Commissioner Hansen and also the fact that the Hunter Outage is still under litigation in other
states, and the lack of identification of what the nature of the cost in the recovery of excess power
cost is. Also the lack ofthe clarification of the Most Favored Nation concession given to the
customer in this stipulation caused me as a customer great dissatisfaction. I feel that this case was
one of misinformation and lack of information from the very beginning. I feel you must hold Utah
Power greatly responsible for their lack of communication concerning this case; and should
reconsider what is a fair and equitable settlement in this matter. I also feel that the rights ofthe
public and customer were curtailed by this information. It is up to this honorable commission to
redress the many damages suffered by all the customers of Utah Power because of the
unintentional or intentional misinformation or lack of information by Utah Power.
Respectfully,
TJS/mfs
Certificate of Service by mail
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 2ld.- day of June, 2002, I caused to be served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated above, and addressed to the following:
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Secretary
472 W. Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
Eric L. Olsen
Racine Olsen Nye Budge & Bailey
O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ill 83204-1391
Doug Larson
PacifiCorp
201 S. Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
Randall C. Budge
Racine Olsen Nye Budge & Bailey
O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ill 83204-1391
James R. Smith
Monsanto Company
O. Box 816
Soda Springs, ill 83276
Anthony J. Yankel
29814 lake Road
Bay Village, OH 44140
John Eriksson
Stoel Rives LLP
201 S. Main, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Scott Woodbury, Assistant Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Secretary
472 W. Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
tc:Furtz