ORDER NO. 97-232

ENTERED JUN 23 1997

This is an electronic copy.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UE 92

Phase II

DISPOSITION: RECONSIDERATION DENIED

On March 14, 1997, we issued Order No 97-104 resolving the weatherization issue that comprises Phase II of this proceeding. On May 19, 1997, Daniel W. Meek, on behalf of the Low Income Consumers Union and Wilma and Ernest Apodaca (together referred to as LICU) filed an application for reconsideration of Order No. 97-104. On May 29, 1997, Idaho Power Company (IPCO) filed a response in which it stated that filing a reply would serve no useful purpose.

In the application for reconsideration, Mr. Meek reiterates allegations of bad conduct on the part of IPCO, and criticizes us for condoning IPCO's alleged bad conduct. IPCO's conduct was adequately addressed in Order No. 97-107, and we will not repeat here our reasons for not condemning and punishing IPCO.

We will take this opportunity, however, to address one argument presented by Mr. Meek. He suggests that Order No. 97-104 established cost-effectiveness as a requirement for low-income weatherization programs in Oregon. The paragraph he quotes addresses the expanded weatherization program proposed by LICU for IPCO in Oregon. LICU and IPCO disagreed as to the cost-effectiveness of the expanded program. In discussing the proposal, we stated that it did not appear to be cost-effective. Our statement was nothing more than a comment on one issue disputed by the parties. We did not establish any policies for low-income weatherization programs in Order No. 97-104.

ORS 756.561 authorizes a party to apply for reconsideration of a Commission order. The Commission may grant reconsideration "if sufficient reason therefor is made to appear." Commission Rule OAR 860-14-095 provides that the Commission will grant an application for reconsideration if the application establishes one or more of the following grounds:

(a) New evidence which is essential to the decision and which was unavailable and not reasonably discoverable prior to the issuance of the order;

(b) A change in the law or agency policy since the date the order was issued, relating to a matter essential to the decision;

(c) An error of law or fact in the order which is essential to the decision; or

(d) Good cause for further examination of a matter essential to the decision.

The arguments Mr. Meek makes in the application for reconsideration are similar to those made previously in his briefs, and do not satisfy the requirements of ORS 756.561 and OAR 860-014-0095 for reconsideration. We are not persuaded to make any changes to Order No. 97-104.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the application for reconsideration of Order No. 97-104 is denied.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________________________.

A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to ORS 756.580.