28055.docx

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONIN THE MATTER OF PACIFICORP FOR APPROVAL OF REDUCTIONS IN BPA REGIONAL EXCHANGE CREDITS. ))))))CASE NO. UPL-E-99-1NOTICE OF APPLICATIONNOTICE OF MODIFIED PROCEDUREORDER NO. 28055YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that on April 30, 1999, PacifiCorp, doing business as Utah Power & Light Company, applied to the Commission for approval of a revised Electric Service Schedule No. 34 reducing the exchange credits provided to customers through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) regional exchange program.PacifiCorp states that in the 1996 BPA rate case, BPA substantially increased the price charged to investor-owned utilities exchanging power under the residential exchange program. The exchange credit provided by BPA to the customers of exchanging utilities is based on the difference between the average system cost of the exchanging utility and BPA’s pf exchange price. The increase in the pf exchange price reduced the exchange credit available to exchanging utilities by roughly half. This reduction, PacifiCorp contends, would have resulted in net price increases for UP&L’s exchange customers in Idaho over approximately 10% for residential and 30% for irrigation. Congress, in Public Law 104-46, directed BPA to increase the credit paid for the BPA fiscal year beginning October 1, 1996, above what it would have paid under the new pf exchange price. Congress also suggested that BPA negotiate with the exchanging utilities to phase out the exchange program over the remainder of the contract period ending June 30, 2001. UP&L submitted tariffs for the exchanging customers that reflected the congressional action in Tariff Advice No. 96-09. These tariffs included the 4.8% increase for residential customers and the 14.1% increase for irrigation customers resulting from the decrease in the exchange credit.During the latter part of 1996 and early 1997, PacifiCorp entered into negotiations with BPA to phase out the exchange in accordance with the congressional directive.PacifiCorp reached a settlement agreement with BPA in May 1997 providing for a fixed payment screen totaling $47,693,863 for UP&L’s customers. The settlement allows UP&L to distribute the money in accordance with any method approved by this Commission. UP&L ultimately filed for a temporary surcredit for the irrigation customers in Case No. UPL-E-97-2 providing for an 8% reduction for that class in the 1997 irrigation season. The Commission approved the surcredit in Order Nos. 26904 and 26973 and directed UP&L to address the issue of the allocation of benefits between the residential class and the irrigation class before any future surcredit would be considered.During the latter part of 1997 and early 1998, UP&L representatives met with interested parties to address the allocation of the exchange benefits over the remainder of the exchange contract. As a result of these discussions, UP&L proposes to phase out the remaining exchange benefits with annual reductions over the next three years with the reductions occurring just prior to the irrigation season in 1998, 1999 and 2000. The reductions will result in 3.35% net price increases for residential customers and 8% net price increases for irrigation customers each year. PacifiCorp contends that these increases would allow UP&L to provide some level of exchange benefits through the end of the exchange contract period for the residential class and through September 2000 for the irrigation class.PacifiCorp contends that, in the absence of a settlement, the residential class would have expected to receive $17.9 million from October 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001. The irrigation class would have expected to receive $23.5 million over the same period. These figures represent 43% and 57% of the total $41.4 million, respectively. The proposed phase-out PacifiCorp contends, will result in the residential class receiving $20.6 million and the irrigation class receiving $27.1 million.PacifiCorp states that Case No. UPL-E-98-3 was the first step in the phase-out. In that case, the Commission approved a 3.35% increase for residential customers. The 8% irrigation occurred with the expiration of the surcredit that was in place during the 1997 irrigation season. The current filing, the Company contends, is the second step in the phase out. The 1998 irrigation season resulted in less energy consumption than was forecasted due to wetter than average conditions. Consequently, the amount of BPA credit distributed was less than forecast reducing the increase required for irrigators in 1999 to 4% from the 8% originally planned. The total effect of the changes proposed by PacifiCorp in this case result in a net annual increase to qualifying customers of $2,052,000. Of this amount, the increased residential customers is $1,172,000 increasing bills by an average of 3.35%. For irrigation customers, the average bill increase will be 4%. PacifiCorp requests that the Commission process this filing under Modified Procedure. The proposed tariffs contain an effective date of June 1, 1999. The Commission Staff agrees that modified procedure is appropriate in this case.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Application together with supporting workpapers, testimonies and exhibits, have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Commission offices.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this case will be held pursuant to the Commission’s jurisdiction under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and that the Commission may enter any final Order consistent with its authority under Title 61.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this matter will be conducted pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has determined that the public interest may not require a formal hearing in this matter and will proceed under Modified Procedure pursuant to Rules 201 through 204 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.201 through -.204.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that any person desiring to state a position on this Application may file a written comment in support or opposition with the Commission within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Notice. The comment must contain a statement of reasons supporting the comment. Persons desiring a hearing must specifically request a hearing in their written comments. Written comments concerning this application shall be mailed to the Commission and the Applicant at the addresses reflected below:COMMISSION SECRETARYIDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONPO BOX 83720BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074Street Address for Express Mail:472 W WASHINGTON STBOISE, ID 83702-5983ANNE E. EAKIN, VICE PRESIDENTREGULATIONPACIFICORP825 NE MULTNOMAH, SUITE 800PORTLAND, OR 97232(503) 813-6065 TELEPHONE[phone] FAXJOHN ERIKSSONSTOEL RIVES LLP201 S MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-4904(801) 578-6937 TELEPHONE[phone] FAX
All comments should contain the case caption and case number shown on the first page of this document.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that if no written comments are received within the time limit set, the Commission will consider this matter on its merits and enter its Order without a formal hearing. If written comments are received within the time limit set, the Commission will consider them and, in its discretion, may set the same for formal hearing.
O R D E RPacifiCorp has requested an effective date of June 1, 1999. Because of other constraints on the Commission’s time, it will not be possible to issue a ruling on PacifiCorp’s Application prior to that time. Consequently, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-622, the proposed effective date of June 1, 1999, is hereby suspended for a period of thirty (30) days plus five (5) months or until such time as the Commission issues an Order in this proceeding.THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may file a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order. A petition to review may request that the Commission: (1) rescind, clarify, alter, amend; (2) stay; or (3) finalize this Interlocutory Order. After any person has petitioned for review, any other person may file a cross-petition within seven (7) days. See Rules 321, 322, 323.04, 324, 325 (IDAPA 31.01.01.321 –325.)DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this day of May 1999.DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENTMARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONERPAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONERMyrna J. WaltersCommission Secretaryvld/O:UPL-E-99-1_bp.doc