Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image

News Release
 
PUC Says PacifiCorp Rate Proposal Deficient,
Dismissal Possible Without More Information

 
February 15, 2000 (2000-008)
 
Contacts: Ron Eachus, Chairman, 503 378-6611; Roger Hamilton, Commissioner 503 378-6611; Joan H. Smith, Commissioner, 503 378-6611
 
Salem, OR - The Oregon Public Utility Commission today told PacifiCorp its application for a rate increase is inconsistent with a previous rate setting agreement, and the company must correct the deficiencies and extend the period of investigation of its filing by two months or it will be dismissed.
 
The company must notify the Commission by the end of business on Friday whether or not it will comply with the conditions.
 
Last November, the electric utility filed for an increase in revenues from Oregon operations of $61.8 million, or 8.5 percent, related to the company’s generation and transmission functions. The proposed rate increase to residential customers was 12.8 percent, to take effect on December 6, 2000.
 
The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) asked the Commission to dismiss the filing, claiming it was inconsistent with the regulatory agreement PacifiCorp made with the Commission in 1998 that allowed annual adjustments for the distribution function only. Industrial Customers of the Northwest also supported the CUB’s motion.
 
The CUB maintained that PacifiCorp’s filing violated the agreement because it did not break out costs and revenues for the generation, transmission, and distribution functions. PacifiCorp contended the filing was sufficient because it assigned the same 30 percent to distribution and 70 percent to generation and transmission that was used in the previous agreement.
 
In an order issued today, the Commission agreed with the CUB. However, the Commission declined to dismiss the filing without providing PacifiCorp an opportunity to cure its filing.
 
If the company agrees to comply, it has until March 1, 2000, to file supplemental testimony separating costs and revenues. The company must also agree to extend the period allowed for investigation to give adequate time for review of any new information.
 
"Our previous agreement applied to the distribution function, not to a specified percentage of revenues," Commission Chairman Ron Eachus said. "If the company wants an increase for generation and transmission, it has to break those cost and revenues out separately. They have not done that, but I expect they will now."
 
 
- 30 -