ORDER NO. 95-1330

ENTERED DEC 19 1995

THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC COPY

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UE 94

DISPOSITION: MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED

Introduction

On October 30, 1995, MagCorp filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding. MagCorp is a magnesium smelting corporation based in Salt Lake City, Utah. MagCorp purchases power from PacifiCorp under an electric service schedule on file with the Public Service Commission of Utah.

MagCorp alleges to have an interest in this proceeding because some of the power it purchases from PacifiCorp comes from sources located in Oregon. It also asserts that PacifiCorp’s operations in Oregon can have a material effect on the price paid by MagCorp for electric power. According to the petition, MagCorp intends to raise issues regarding PacifiCorp’s practices in determining when interruption of service has occurred and procedures used in the allocation of the cost of transmission losses to customers through rates.

On November 16, 1995, PacifiCorp filed a motion to dismiss MagCorp’s petition to intervene. PacifiCorp contends that MagCorp does not have a sufficient interest in this proceeding, because it is not an Oregon customer. It also notes that the interest claimed by MagCorp--how the operation of PacifiCorp’s Oregon power facilities may affect the electric power prices of a PacifiCorp customer in another state--is not a subject of this proceeding.

In addition, PacifiCorp points out that the only issues MagCorp has identified for this proceeding are currently at issue in litigation before the Utah Public Service Commission. PacifiCorp asserts that MagCorp’s attempt to interject its contract dispute with PacifiCorp in this general rate proceeding in Oregon can only serve to unreasonably broaden the issues, burden the record, and delay proceedings.

On November 22, 1995, MagCorp filed a reply to PacifiCorp’s motion. In the reply, MagCorp contends that it has sufficient interest in this proceeding to qualify as an intervenor, notwithstanding the fact that it is not an Oregon customer. It notes that neither the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) nor the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are Oregon customers of PacifiCorp, yet have been granted party status. MagCorp also contends that its intervention will not unreasonably broaden the issues, burden the record, and delay proceedings. It explains that PacifiCorp’s practice in determining when interruption of service has occurred and the company’s allocation in rates of transmission losses are of significant interest to Oregon customers.

Certification to Commission

Pursuant to OAR 860-12-035(1)(i), the presiding officer certifies this question to the Commission for consideration and disposition.

Disposition

OAR 860-13-021 sets forth the requirements and standards for petitions to intervene. Subsection (2) of that rule provides:

If the Commission or presiding officer finds that the petitioner has sufficient interest in the proceeding and the petitioner’s appearance and participation will not unreasonably broaden the issues, burden the record, or unreasonably delay the proceeding, the Commission or presiding officer shall grant the petition. The Commission, or presiding officer, may impose appropriate conditions upon any intervenor’s participation in the proceeding.

 

In this proceeding, the Commission will address a proposed revision to PacifiCorp's Oregon rate schedule and the potential adoption in Oregon of an alternative form of regulation plan. Consequently, these proceedings will focus on the costs that PacifiCorp may pass on to its Oregon ratepayers. MagCorp, however, is not an Oregon customer and will not be charged rates adopted in this proceeding. Similarly, MagCorp’s concerns relating to the interruption of service and PacifiCorp's allocation in rates of its transmission losses, if addressed in this docket, would relate solely to Oregon customers.

MagCorp’s broad assertion that PacifiCorp's operation in Oregon can potentially affect the price MagCorp pays for electricity in Utah is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of OAR 860-13-021(2). State regulatory commissions may evaluate any costs that a public utility asserts should be recovered through rates paid by customers within that state. When dealing with a utility operating in more than one state, regulatory commissions necessarily evaluate the cost allocations made by neighboring jurisdictions. If MagCorp believes Oregon allocations to be improper, it should address that claim to the Utah Commission.

The Commission concludes that MagCorp does not have a sufficient interest in this proceeding to qualify it as an intervenor. In reaching this decision, we are not persuaded by MagCorp’s arguments comparing its interests to that of BPA or NRDC. As part of the federally mandated residential exchange program, BPA must acquire certain amounts of power offered for sale to it by Northwest electric utilities at "the average system cost of that utility’s resources." 16 U.S.C. section 839c(c)(1) (1980). Because each exchanging utility’s average system costs are based on state retail rate decisions, BPA has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Likewise, NRDC is a private, non-profit organization with 2,362 members that reside in Oregon. NRDC’s primary purpose is to promote improvements in environmental quality, including the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. NRDC’s Oregon members will be directly affected by the Commission’s resolution of these matters.

IT IS ORDERED that PacifiCorp’s motion to dismiss MagCorp’s petition to intervene is granted.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________.