ORDER NO. 95-1169

ENTERED NOV 8 1995

THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC COPY

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UM 564

DISPOSITION: APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

Background

On November 23, 1992, in Order No. 92-1673, the Commission required Pacific Power & Light (Pacific), Portland General Electric, and Idaho Power Company to file proposals for mechanisms to remove disincentives and provide incentives to acquire demand-side resources (also called demand-side management, and abbreviated to DSM in this order). The utility companies complied, and Pacific’s proposal has been under consideration in this proceeding, Docket No. UM 564. In Order No. 94-320, the Commission approved Pacific’s DSM cost recovery and incentive mechanism. The Utility Reform Project (URP) had filed a complaint opposing Pacific’s proposal, and Order No. 94-320 referred the complaint to the Hearings Division for processing. On July 28, 1995, the Commission issued Order No. 95-800, finding tariff schedules filed by Pacific to be just and reasonable and in compliance with Commission Order No. 94-320, and allowed them to remain in effect as provided in Order No. 94-320. On October 2, 1995, URP filed an application for reconsideration of Order No. 95-800. On

October 17, 1995, Pacific and the Commission's staff filed responses opposing the application.

In Order No. 95-800, the Commission adopted a plan of estimating energy savings for commercial and industrial customers based on contracts between Pacific and its customers. The individual contracts were not put in the record of the proceeding, but the Commission approved a plan under which contracts will be evaluated as needed, including during the review of any proposed rate change.

In its application for reconsideration, URP argues that the Commission should not base revenue requirement calculations on contracts not put into the record. URP also argues that it sought to obtain copies of the contracts during discovery, without success.

OPINION

OAR 860-14-095(3) permits reconsideration or rehearing if the applicant shows that one of the following exists:

(a) New evidence which is essential to the decision and which was unavailable and not reasonably discoverable prior to 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 URP raises in its application for reconsideration were raised by it prior to the issuance of Order No. 95-800. The Commission carefully considered them before issuing that order. The Commission remains persuaded that the system of having its staff review the subject contracts as necessary is reasonable. The process would not be enhanced by having the contracts made a part of the record in this proceeding. In addition, the subject contracts will be used to estimate certain energy savings. Order No. 95-800 did not authorize a change in rates from those contracts. When Pacific requests that any energy savings based on those contracts be included in rates, URP may challenge the estimated savings.

URP has failed to show that any of the grounds listed above for reconsideration of Order No. 95-800 exist.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the application for reconsideration of Order No. 95-800 filed by the Utility Reform Project is denied.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________. 

A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order pursuant to ORS 756.561. A request for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed with the Commission within 60 days of the date of service of this order. The request must comply with the requirements in OAR

860-14-095. A copy of any such request must also be served on each party to the proceeding as provided by OAR 860-13-070(2)(a). A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to ORS 756.580.