ii.. rC/REtlRFQ Methodology RAte f111109 ►ockage Selrctod :cho0ults
. . .•s^ ^^:^ • ^ • : ^^.^ • ^
_ ^:- • • • A:^^
^•.• ~
w.r .
^•
. . . •:-+ :
^. •: R. r • •1: r rr^ . . Y /y ^1j • ^ R M • • ^w4 ••r
7 ^ • r• r n r ♦ 60 4^ Y b•^
• •^►
^ ^.• ^.•^i M :
• E ./y^ ^ ► ^ ^ ^ y1 s•^ X ^.^^ ^w n ^ : F i Y♦ ^ ^^R ^Ca N1 - ....:^R :^...^ _ . r• ! • 4w R •. . x ^:^`r R • M • to G ^ • .^ .. ►wn filE Y' • • T
• ^^ •.A^^+ • Y . N - • ♦ ♦ • r^ .. ^ ^^s :.^ ^•s... ^ ^ ^ ^ • M r •
•^f sm • ^. ^^- ^ •^- ^^-^ • s ^ ^ ^^
` ^ r ^ M • ^ ^` .
:^^ ^^: •
•M • • •. ^r
^ A1 A d M i A • . v to
It't4 II. ►C/RfYRFQ MetAoOeiogy Rata Ft1 III ►ack-,gs .,.elected tt:.x0utas
0017ow u^rn^ o ro^^ oo"wr ^r- 0-71a "CERI►l ZMCWE TAiQi ^ASE ! ^f t TAX 1lTMm J IrOi- TME TEt' 1►EAR EMM MEMBER „• OW (T►IDUv►wi Of DEiILIN)
LINE NC. OElGRIPTJOtr ARCUM (s3 (6)
^ IIETU11h REDNErrED mf0f23 aEDucT, P I1tTE11EtT OCFE115E (A) (15T^iTE) 3 AMORTIZATION of IMVEFTKi TAx OMIT (15,M3
Kr Of VIRUS MO,-D16t1►LJIED TI1tIN6 CIFFERENM6 one QTfrERs ^ ADDITIOW ►l CEPREcIsTJON 1Pttp6 5 NFT ADDITID^:F to KiEMEt SEE 6 FPECIaI DIVIDEND OED=10a (41) 7 GT eEk ► 1383) .^.^... 6 IM.VmE Ai'TEF tM=4E TR= N7,4c: f TAU FACTOR (1/.64 TJME6 .*) C.V1tS1152 •---•-r._. 10 FEDERAL INCOME TAXES SEFDQE ITS iSSra,66 11 AMORTIZATION of 2wvEETNT TAtc OMITS (160570) tP FEDERAL IICOItE TAXES at MTEt ImtEN ..^..^...^
Mttk A° MtTE "SC of ! Ercetrg'i ( WHIM" of i.Tj , TIKE. THE 1r?'ISMtEv AYEIKCE CM of OM of i.i?i (W!-^::.t F, Fyae P;
II44". II. ►c/RFI►REQ NetA"olesy Ratt I'tttap ►ackaDe ie1ectto icoQu1ls - /eMiutr N
wvsten Ltgi+t1op t Pe"r Company At,justaont to irate lkets/pti TOses Far the Test Too? loose aess.asr sit IM (Ttieussnss or potlersl
j.{M Ile, bescr/►tlen rvnt
! Tstst Opanttep revonws ter the test year. Si M•q6,KID s#Rjvsts+t Not"r surrent rstss (icNMvlo &S Pirs 11
t iress resrtpts to tatter 11) 1 own . ^.^.^ S lees receipts sea as swvate0 irnfrr snrrsnt iettr ^T.!►Ot
t arses receipts tea prr books «....._.^•^ ^ MJvstasnt to orssi recslptE tax wafer surrood rates ^fw tt
^ Tstst epsrsttnp rsvarwsc tcr tnts test lost-, of atjusts: under p0*0poss0 rstss (tcnea.+ts As Pete 1) S•tme9t6
^ iress receipts tea teeter (1I 1.OtSt ^.^w...^ ^ $ross receipts tax as "Jvatee urger prepsse0 rates inss receipts son vnesf cvrrent rates V •iof ^ ....^....^.. 1L r►QJust.rr*t to #ross rectlpts tsa wafer p epcsse retss (t1•^a1; ► .s---
11) great re:r* pts &*I factors
gross retsipts tax For books qS.3si
Tstet epsrstSnv r&vorwt per books p. W3.lit .....,... ^ gross ratelpts %&A totter sss ^s
11•261 II. PC/REVREQ Methodology ft^mduts 04 Rate Filing Package Selected Schedules papa sor s
Mwttae L1lhttee 9 Pomp Company mJmeftent to Stau Freachima, Taxes Per W, "i wwrt TM► t+de0 December Ine up ITme"Ma at met late)
Lime No, ^MM^t^M Amount
t^1 IO)
TwsbLa capital per basket
1 COMMOn Stock IM v597 1? -97
^ Retained se rattlei 1,1la,60 I preferred stock iR1,i46
4 Deferred Investment to credit iOtt 1 as 6 Property Inewponce Reserve s,W, e INur1et end Domagett Reserve (1 ,m) 7 Tetat 2,5759 4"
t Tax per f1,000 6.E6
I Adjusted state franchise tom 18,771
10 Franchise taxes charged to operating expense during the toot year 16M8 .^.^^. II Adjustment to state fre"him taaes ( Lim i- liss 40) t!i 1768
11-27 III. HOW TO RUN PC/REVREQ Revision i81.3 12/87 III. Now to Run rC/REYREQ The PC/REVREQ Main Menu Options
The win menu options ATT" , CALC, DIi^,, V;.SE, FILE.'I LE, ' tltPORT, Pi: X NT, and QUIT are present when the PC/REYREQ program is invoked. The e#n oenu options may also be called up at any time by pressing the '/' key, as In LOTUS 1-2-3. Also analogous to LOTUS 1-2-3 Is the way win unu options are selected. An individual option may be selected by moving the reverse video block to the option using the left and right arrow keys (or the '+' and '-' keys) and then p-essing 'Enter' to invokc the function. Altea-.0&^vely, the option may bf selected by pressing the key corresponding to the first letter in thE option's name. (Press 'D' to select 'DIR'.) To cancel the main menu or any of its individual options, press the 'Esc' key. The program begins data entry mode when you escape from the m`ic: menu. You may toggle the 'Kum Lock' key and use the numeric key pad tc enter numbers. Notice, however, that the cursor control keys are then lost until the 'Num Lock' key is toggled off. For convenience, when the numeric key pad is in use, the `+' key may be used as an 'Enter' key to accept data and advance to the next item. This feature is intended tc speed up the entry of numeric data into the PC/REVREQ program.
To summarize: 1. '/' invokes the main menu 2. 'Esc' cancels the main menu or any of its options 3. 'Num Lock' toggles between the numeric and cursor keys 4. 'Enter' & '+' advance to next data entry item
III-1 :.. y Revision #87.3 12/87 III. How to Run PC/REVREQ The Main Menu Attach (ATTACH) Function
The ATTACH function is used to move among tlire^tories on trte-structured floppy and hard disks. PC/REVREQ can only deal with files that are in the current directory. This directory is %aned in the upper left corner of the PC/REVREQ screen. To list files or Import data O-AW, Wit ir another directory, you must attach to that directory first. The ATTACH function asks for the new path Raft of the requested directory and then makes that path name the current directory if it is a valid path name (it must exist). The minimum valid path name that ATTACH will accept is a drive 'tatter and a colon. Several exampl es of patf, names are: 1. AA for driki A's root directory. 2. B:\STF for crive B's. STP directory (however Drives A and B are floppies and don't usually have directories) 3. C:\REVRrQ\LIMSTONE for the LIMSTONE directory which is under PC/REVREQ which is on the C drive.
If the ATTACH function beeps at you then something is wronc. directory will not The current be changed and you will have to try the ATTACH function again to move your current directory.
III-2 Revision #87.3 r ` ^► 12/87 III. Kow to iwn PC/REVREQ The Main NM Calculate (CALC) Function
The CALC function is used to calculate the PC/REYREQ solution matrix from the input data. It will beep and not calculate if any of the input items are missing or out of range. The CALC func#6ion must be perforwi before the PRINT function may be used to create the PC/REYREQ output r"ort.
111-3 Revision /87.3 12/87 III. Now to Run PC/REYRCQ The Main Menu Import ( IMPORT) Function
The IMPORT function is used to get data from a previously saved PC/REVREQ file and place it in the solution matrix. You must supply the name of a '.REV' filt which exists in the current directory. If no such file exists, then the program will beep. You should use the DIR function tc examine the current directory for files which end in `.REV. Once a file has been imported, use CAIC and then PRINT to get the PC/REVREQ output report from this imported file.
111-6 I .
Revi:ion 12/87 I I I. How to Run P',,^ ^:EYREQ The Mein Mani, Print iPRIh'Tj Function
The PFINT function is uscd to generate the output report from the solution matrix. The program will beep at the user if the solution malrix his not been generated by the CALC function. If the user sslects `PR.Itr'► ', the report begins printing tenediatelr on the NS-DDS default printing device. If the user selects "FILE', the user is proopted for an Ms-DOS fileni^ft. Pt;'REVREQ will automatically append •.PRT' to this filenaw and place it in the current directory. To print the `.PRT' file, the user selects `QEl.T' and then issues a DOS command such as:
PRINT A:LIMESTONE.PRT
PRINT C:\MALI\REVREQ.PRT
*** CAUTION ***
When the `.PRT' file is sived it will overwrite an existing re,ort of the sL;ae name and the exis'ing file will be lost.
III-7 ^,. Rev`slon /87.3 12/87 I I I. Now to Run Kr,'REYREQ The Main Menu Directory (DIR) function
The DIR function is used to list the current directory. The current directory is always displayed in the upper left hand side of the RC/REYREQ screen. Te list e directory other than the current dirsctory, first ATTACH to the directory (making it the current directory) and invoke the DIR function.
111-4 . . Revf t<^.. : 87. ^ 22/81 III. Now to Run PC/REYRFQ The Main Menu Erase (ERASE) Function
The ERASE function deletes all Input data. Once this function is tnvoked,'. either input new data or IMPORT a data file.
III-5 . Revision N87.3 12/87 III. Now to Run PC/REYREQ The Main Menu Quit (QUIT) Function
The QUIT function is used to exit from the PC/REVREQ program. The user then returns to DOS in the current directory.
111-8 . . Revision #L?I.3 12/87 III. Now to Run PC/REVREQ The Main Menu File (FILE) Function
The FILE function saves the input data in the current directory either on fl%.I,py or ha-., d disk. The user my supply any MS-DDS acceptable I-character file name. The program will automatically supply the suffix .REV' to PC/r-.'REQ data files.
*" CAUTION ***
If the input data is s^vtd wittF the same name as an existing f^ 'Oe, then the existing file will be overwritten and lost.
III-g Revision iE7.3 12/87 III. Now to Run PC/REYREQ Special Functions Fl Function The F1 function key invokes a special escalation input made in PC/REVF:EQ. The mode may be selected by pressing F1 any time the user has the cursor on a data item that is a member of an input array (CWIP, AFtlDC, ITC, CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES, DEBT AFUDC, RETURN ON COMMON, RETURN ON PREFERRED, DEBT COST, FIT RATE, FIXED 06M, YARIAB161 W, FUEL, or TAX DEPRECIATION). The p-,09ram asks for an initial v::1ue and an escalation rate and then fills in the array values froa: the current cursor position to the end of the input array. The us!r may cancel the operation at any time by ressing the ESC key. Note that supplying an initial value Van escalation rate of zero will fill the arrt*- with a constant (the initial value).
F2 Function
The F2 function key selects a menu of standard tax depreciation schedules in PC/REVREQ. The user may move among the different selections by using the left arrow and right arrow ( assuming the NUM LOCK is toggled off) or by using the `+' and `•' keys. The user selects the item that is hi ghlighted b^ pressing the RETURN key. The program will then automatically fill the TAX, DEPRECIATION array with the appropriate data. Alternatively, if the user wants to cancel the operation, the ESC key may be used.
F3 Function The F"s functi on key selects a special COMMENT data screen. The user may enter up to ten (1 0) lines of eighty (80) characters each. These comments are stored in the `.REV' data file with the rest of the input data. The comment data screen works as a mini word processor. That is, the INS and DEL keys on the numeric keypad may be used along v^ith the arrow keys and the home key: INS When insert is invoked, characters will be entered at the current cursor lo:.atian and push existing characters to the right. Characters which fall off the screen are lost. DEL The cfiaracter at the current cursor location is deleted and characters to the right of the cursor are moved to the left. UP ARROW The cursor is moved up one line. DDWN ARROW The cursor is moved down one line. tEF ARROW The cursor is moved to the left one character. RIC67-1 ARROW The cursor is moved to the right one character. ND'o-.:. The cursor is moved to line 1, character 1. BACKSPACE The character to the left of the cursor is deleted and the cursor i: moved to the left or:t character. SPACE BAF. The character to the right e^' the cursor is deleted and • tie cursor is moved to tht right one character. E.,C or F3 V,1 1 en,6 the comments aht take the user back to the P4/REVREQ program.. III-10 r ♦ ► ^ .y r Public Utility Commission of Texas Marta Greytok Chairman 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard - Suite 400N Austin, Texas 78757 -V2/458-01W Jo Campbell r n , y Commissioner . ` ` ^ .. 4 ^ 3 ° 3 Bill Cassin Commissioner Dec:+^mber ^2,^ 1988
TO ALL PARTIES OF-RECORD
RE: Docket No. 7931--Application of Houston Lighting and Power Company for Approval of Standard Avoided Cost Calculation for the Purchase of Firm Energy and Capacity from Qualifying Facilities
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find a copy of my Examiner's Report and Proposed Order in this docket. The Commission will consider these at an open meeting scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, at its offices at 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard in Austin, Texas. Although you are welcome to attend the meeting, you are not required to do so. A copy of the signed final Order will be sent to you shortly thereafter.
Exceptions to the Examiner's Report shall be filed by noon, Friday, January 6, 1989. Replies shall be filed by noon, Wednesday, January 11, 1989. Because there are no issues in dispute, the time periods for exceptions and replies are rather short. A party desiring more time may file a request that the case be postponed until the next regularly scheduled final order meeting.
Pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 21.43, requests for oral argument must be made in writing, filed with the Commission, and served on all parties of record by 5:00 p.m., January 11, 1989. If a request for oral argument is made, parties may call Ms. Lisa Ruedas at (512)458-0266 after 9:00 a.m. on the day before the final orders meeting to learn if oral argument will be allowed by the Commissioners. The Commissioners may still have questions that they want to address to the parties even if no request for oral argument has been granted. If oral argument is allowed at the final orders meeting, the Commissioners may delay their decision until the following day.
On December 30, 1987, HL&P filed its standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualifying facilities, pursuant to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h). Six parties, Occidental Electrochemical Corporation, Enron Cogeneration Company, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Dow Chemical Company, CoGen Lyondell, Inc., and the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC), intervened in the case. OPUC did not participate in the settlement discussions. All other intervenors along with HL&P and the General Counsel were able to reach a complete stipulation on all issues. The most salient feature of the stipulation is its determination that HL&P will not have any avoided capacity until the year 1997. The ALJ recommends approval of the stipulation.
Sincerely,
i'^ AKa;^Trostle Administrative Law Judge
DOCKET NO. 7931
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING AND § PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD § AVOIDED COST CALCULATION FOR THE § OF TEXAS PURCHASE OF FIRM ENERGY AND CAPACITY § FROM QUALIFYING FACILITIES §
EXAMINER'S REPORT
1. Procedural History
On December 30, 1987, Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) filed its standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualifying facilities, pursuant to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3).
Judge Shelia Bailey Kneip scheduled this docket for a joint prehearing conference on February 23, 1988, with several other avoided cost dockets. Judge Mark W. Smith presided over that joint conference. At the conference, HL&P provided proof that it had given notice of its filing and of the conference itself to all known cogeneration and small power production facilities operating within its service area and to all intervenors in Docket No. 6064, its previous avoided cost filing docket. Motions to intervene filed by Enron Cogeneration Company ( Enron), Occidental Electrochemical Corporation (DEC), Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC), Dow Chemical Corporation (Dow), CoGen Lyondell, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC), and the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) were granted at the conference.
In the Prehearing Order of February 25, 1988, which followed the conference, intervenors and the staff were each ordered to file a list of any disputed issues in this case by October 17, 1988. CoGen Lyondell, Dow, OEC, TIEC, and the General Counsel filed lists of disputed issues. HL&P filed responses on October 27, 1988.
The case was reassigned to examiner J. Kay Trostle. A settlement conference, at which all parties except OPC appeared, was held in this docket on October 31, 1988. The parties in attendance were able to settle all disputed issues and reach a complete stipulation, signed copies of which were filed during the settlement conference. Exhibit E to the stipulation was filed on November 21, 1988. A copy of the parties' prehearing memorandum and DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 2
stipulation which summarizes and supports the terms, conditions, and calculations is attached to this report as Examiner's Attachment A. The portions of the stipulation containing the terms, conditions, and calculations themselves are not attached due to their size.
On November 1, 1988, OPC filed a motion to withdraw its intervention but conditioned the withdrawal on the Commission's acceptance of the stipulation. In light of OPC's failure to participate in the settlement conference, which was mandatory pursuant to Examiners' Order No. 2, OPC's motion to withdraw is granted.
H. Jurisdiction
HL&P is a public utility as defined in Section 3(c)(1) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp. 1988). The Commission has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to Sections 16(a) and (g), 35, and 37 of PURA.
III. Discussion
P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3) requires electric utilities to file a standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions by December 30, 1984, again by December 30, 1987, and every two years thereafter. In accordance with the rule, the first avoided cost dockets were filed in December 1984. This docket is from the second round of filings (December 1987) and was resolved by a settlement. Rule 23.66(h) instructs the hearings examiner to conduct a settlement conference in an attempt to encourage the parties to negotiate disputed issues and agree upon a standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for purchases by the electric utility of energy and capacity from qualifying facilities. The examiner does not, however, participate in the actual negotiations which are conducted by the parties off the record. DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 3
In its open meeting of March 21, 1985, the Commission ruled that the avoided cost cases are to be a substantive review of the applicants' filings. As stated in the Examiner's Report in the first avoided cost case to go before the Commission, Application of Houston Lighting & Power Company for Approval of Standard Avoided Cost Calculation for the Purchase of Firm Energy and Capacity from Qualified Facilities, Docket No. 6064, 11 P.U.C. BULL. 871 (December 2, 1985), the review and approval of the filings require the determination of three matters: (1) that the filings meet the technical requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h); (2) that affected persons have an opportunity to challenge the underlying data, the calculations, and the proposed terms and conditions; and (3) that the proposed ceiling payments will not exceed the applicant's avoided costs.
Exhibit E of the stipulation sets forth the terms and conditions that may be applicable to purchase arrangements between HL&P and qualifying facilities, as required by P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(C). The terms and conditions are the same as those approved by the Commission in Docket No. 6064, with two minor modifications, set out on page 3 of the stipulation. All parties agree that the compromise terms and conditions reached are reasonable.
Exhibit B of the stipulation sets forth by year the amount of capacity in excess of HL&P's own installed generation or generation purchased according to a legally enforceable obligation that HL&P will require for the next ten years and the percentage of that capacity to be provided by qualifying facilities, as required by P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(D). HL&P does not forecast the need for any capacity until 1997, when it expects 155 MW to be required. The amount of additional capacity requirement to be provided by qualifying facilities, if any, shall be determined by HL&P after reviewing the generation and supply-side options, prices and reliability factors available to HL&P to meet the capacity requirement forecast for 1997. DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 4
Exhibit C of the stipulation sets forth the data sources and assumptions for HL&P's avoided cost calculation. Exhibit D of the stipulation sets forth the program logic used to determine the avoided capacity costs, as required by P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3).
Exhibit A of the stipulation shows the net present value of the avoided capacity costs of HL&P and the expected net present value of the energy costs associated with the type of fuel to be used in the avoidable unit, calculated in accordance with P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(A) and (B). Exhibit A also shows the estimate of the cost of a deferral of the avoidable unit, in accordance with P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(E).
The examiner finds that all affected persons have had the opportunity to participate in this docket and to challenge HL&P's filing. Consistent with the letter and spirit of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66, stipulation was encouraged and an agreement was reached. The settlement of the docket included the concurrence of the staff and the general counsel, whose expertise was exercised on behalf of the public interest. Accordingly, proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 states that the agreement is in the public interest, in reliance upon the diversity of interests of the parties and the charge of PURA Section 8(c)(7).
The stipulation states that it satisfies the requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h). The examiner concurs. Pursuant to Section 13(e) of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA), which allows for the disposition of cases by settlement, the ALJ recommends approval of the parties' stipulation as HL&P's standard avoided cost filing.
III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The ALJ recommends that the Commission adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 5
A. Findings of Fact
1. HL&P filed its standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity for qualifying facilities on December 30, 1987.
2. HL&P gave notice of its filing to all known cogeneration and small power production facilities operating within its service area and to all intervenors in Docket No. 6064, its previous avoided cost filing docket.
3. HL&P, Enron, OEC, TIEC, Dow, CoGen Lyondell, and the General Counsel participated in this proceeding.
4. The parties were able to settle all disputed issues and reach a complete stipulation.
5. All affected persons have had the opportunity to participate in this docket and to challenge HL&P's filing.
6. The stipulated avoided cost filing meets the technical requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h).
7. The proposed ceiling payments stipulated to by the parties would not exceed HL&P's avoided costs.
8. The participation by intervenors Enron, OEC, TIEC, Dow, and CoGen Lyondell, and the review of HL&P's filing by the Commission staff, resulted in the stipulation of the parties.
9. The stipulation is in the public interest because it is based upon an agreement between parties with diverse interests, including the general counsel who is charged by the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp. 1988) with protecting and representing the public interest, and because the settlement was reached in accordance with the procedures, guidelines and requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66. DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 6
B. Conclusions of Law
1. HL&P is an electric utility as defined in Section 3(c) of PURA and is subject to Commission jurisdiction pursuant to PURA Sections 16(a) and (g), 35, and 37.
2. HL&P was required by P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h) to file a standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualifying facilities.
3. HL&P gave adequate notice of this filing pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 21.25 and Examiners' Joint Order No. 1--Notice of Prehearing Conference.
4. The parties' stipulation fulfills the requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3).
5. The parties' stipulation should be approved as HL&P's avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualifying facilities pursuant to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h).
Respectfully submitted,
a 4 . Y OST E ADMINI RATIVE LAW JUDGE ,4 APPROVED on this the day of 19=8.
pIdL` W. PHILLIP A HOLDER DIRECTOR F HEARINGS nsh 7 EXAMINER'S ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 7931
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON * LIGHTING;& POWER COMPANY * PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISgION FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD * AVOIDED COST CALCULATION * FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM * OF TEXAS ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM * QUALIFYING FACILITIES *
PREHEARING MEMORANDUM AND STIPULATION
1. The Parties and the Commission Staff (hereinafter
referred to collectively as the "Parties") have reached this
Prehearing Memorandum and Stipulation ("Stipulation") as part of
their affirmative obligation to participate in the Settlement
Conference, held on October 31, 1988, in this proceeding pursuant
to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3) and prior Orders in this docket.
This Stipulation reflects compromise, settlement and
accommodation among the Parties, and all Parties agree that no
one of them shall be bound by any portion of this Stipulation
outside the context of the Stipulation as a whole. The
Stipulation is binding on each of the undersigned parties only
for the purposes of settling those issues relevant to this
docket.
2. The Parties stipulate that on December 30, 1987, HL&P
filed an Application for Approval of a Standard Avoided Cost
Calculation and Terms and Conditions for the Purchase of Firm
Energy and Capacity from Qualifying Facilities as required by
SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3). It is the purpose of this Stipulation to
supersede and replace the provisions of said filing in light of
the discussions had and agreements reached in the settlement conference. As to each of these sections, the Parties agree as
follows:
A. The avoided capacity and energy costs associated with
the surrogate unit (Malakoff), the net present value (1997) of
the avoided capacity costs calculated according to the committed unit basis methodology (excluding the deferral and sunk costs
associated with Malakoff and the associated lignite supply), and the expected net present value (1997) of the energy costs associated with the fuel to be used by the committed unit (P.U.C.
SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(A), (B) and (E)) are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. The amount of capacity, in excess of HL&P's own installed generation or generation purchased according to a legally enforceable obligation that HL&P will require by year for the next ten (10) years and the percentage of that capacity to be provided by qualifying facilities (P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)(D)) are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.
C. A listing of the assumptions and data sources associated with the foregoing avoided capacity cost calculations
(P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)) is set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto.
D. The program logic used to determine the avoided capacity costs (P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h)(3)) is set forth in
Exhibit D attached hereto.
E. The standard terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualifying facilities, which are by
- 2 - reference incorporated herein for all purposes, shall be those approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas ( "Commission") ^ - . in Docket No. 6064, with the following exceptions:
(1) The following sentence shall be added to the preamble to the terms and conditions:
HL&P and the Cogenerator may each seek to modify the general form and substance of this document, and any individual provision hereof, including, without limitation, price, remedies for breach and liability for negligent acts or omissions, during the negotiation of final contract terms applicable to a specific project.
(2) To reflect the final order of the Commission in
Docket No. 7044, all references to GENSOM as the methodology for calculating HL&P's nonfirm energy rate shall be modified to reflect the methodology approved by the Commission in Docket No.
7044 for calculating the nonfirm energy rate paid cogenerators.
Within fifteen ( 15) days of the execution of this Stipulation, HL&P shall provide all Parties with a copy of the terms and conditions approved in Docket No. 6064 conformed to reflect items ( 1) and (2) above. The revised terms and conditions shall be incorporated herein as Exhibit E.
3. The Parties stipulate and agree that for the purposes of this filing only, the General Counsel will withdraw from its list of disputed issues the Staff's disagreement with HL&P's unadjusted peak demand forecast and IiL&P's demand side management adjustment to its peak demand forecast. By withdrawal of these disputed issues, the Commission Staff does not waive its rights
- 3 - to object or challenge in any fashion HL&P's unadjusted peak demand forecast or HL&P's demand side management adjustment to
its peak demand forecast in any future proceeding. General Counsel's withdrawal of these issues does not constitute approval or precedent regarding HL&P's unadjusted peak demand forecast or
HL&P's demand side management adjustment to its peak demand forecast in any future proceeding.
4. The Parties stipulate and agree that by entering into this Stipulation they do not waive their rights to negotiate and/or dispute any provision of the standard terms and conditions including, without limitation, those provisions included in
HL&P's original filing in this docket and the disputed issues filed by any signatory hereto, in future proceedings.
5. The Parties stipulate and agree that the following should be included in the record of Docket 7931:
(a) Affidavit of S. W. Naeve; and
(b) Affidavit of W. B. Cummings, Jr.
The purpose of this paragraph 5 is to provide evidence and basis for finding of reasonableness of this Stipulation.
6. The Parties stipulate and agree that for the purposes of this proceeding all other issues not specifically addressed in this Stipulation are hereby waived or deemed resolved through compromise and negotiations.
7. The Parties stipulate and agree that the matters which have been compromised and settled are all consistent with
- 4 - . f . ^
t' .
P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66 and the Parties jointly agree that an
order should be entered in this docket approving this Stipulation
in all respects.
8. All-signatories hereto reserve any rights they other-
wise have in the event the Commission does not adopt this
Prehearing Memorandum and Stipulation in its final order in
Docket 7931. In addition, all parties hereto reserve the right
to file written exceptions, present oral argument, and otherwise
defend the terms of this Stipulation in the further event the
Hearings Examiner fails to endorse the terms of this Stipulation.
9. The undersigned signatories state that they have full
authority to enter into and bind the entities they represent by
this Prehearing Memorandum and Stipulation.
EXECUTED on this 31st day of October 1988 by all Parties
participating through the conclusion of the settlement conference
held in Docket 7931 by and through their undersigned duly
authorized representatives.
HOUSTOW tIGHTING & POWE ^'COMPANY
By: Name:
Title:
- 5 - .^, ',-
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
B y : 4
Name:_&e_f V d, SLoCuAn
Title: ^QDu^ti ^se^B^^^ ^DunS^l
OCCIDENTAL ELECTROCHEMICAL cnRVnunmrnu
By:
Nar
Til
ENRON COGENERATION
By:. _,_ ^ N& - 001 Name: Magoadjor- p- Rott Title: -. A4&-naq
TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
By. • 1. 9tA a W!^oy Name: C f Yg A a ruo
Title: /iTT^PI'^l.y
DOV
By :
Nat
Title: ^Q^ .• ^^/o^ ^^ry
- 6 - DOCKET NO. 7931
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING AND § PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD § AVOIDED COST CALCULATION FOR THE § OF TEXAS PURCHASE OF FIRM ENERGY AND CAPACITY § FROM QUALIFYING FACILITIES §
PROPOSED ORDER
In public meeting at its offices in Austin, Texas, the Public Utility Commission of Texas finds that the application in this case was processed, in accordance with Commission rules and applicable statutes, by an administrative law judge who submitted an Examiner's Report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, which report is hereby adopted and made a part hereof. The Commission further issues the following Order:
1. The stipulation signed by the parties to this docket is APPROVED as Houston Lighting and Power Company's standard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy from qualifying facilities, in compliance with P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h).
2. This is a settled case involving an agreement between the applicant, the Commission's general counsel and intervenors. By accepting the settlement in this case, the Commission is not endorsing or approving the forecasting methodology or results of any one party. The agreement as a whole is found to be reasonable, but no principle or method supposed to underlie the agreement shall necessarily have precedential value in any future case. COGEN ONDEL', I C By: + C^^
Name:
Title: U lCo C ^N & $1 bEn; j
- 7 - DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930,j7931y 7932, 7933, 7934; 7935, 7965, 7966
APPLICATION OF CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § OF TEXAS FACILITIES (Docket No. 7928) §
APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7929) §
APPLICATION OF TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7930) §
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7931) §
APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7932) §
APPLICATION OF WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7933) § APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7934) §
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7935) §
APPLICATION OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7965) §
APPLICATION OF GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST § CALCULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM § ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED § FACILITIES (Docket No. 7966) §
EXAMINERS' ORDER NO. 2 ORDER AND NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCES
A joint prehearing conference was convened in the above captioned dockets on February 23, 1988, at which time appearances were made by the following parties and representative
PARTIES REPRESENTATIVES Central Power & L ight Co. (CP&L); West Milton Lorenz Texas Utilities Co. (WTU); Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO) El Paso Electric Co. (EPEC) Michael McQueen Texas-New Mexico Power Co. (TNP) Michael Shirley ORDER NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, PAGE 3 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 AND 7966
Houston Lighting & Power Co. (HL&P) Alice Adams Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS) Jerry Shackleford Texas Utilities Electric Co. (TUEC) Dan Bohannon Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) Martha Terry Gulf States Utilities Co. (GSU) Stephen Feldman Enron Cogeneration Co. (Enron) Marianne Carroll Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC) Scott McDonald WingTex Energy Corp. (WingTex) and Occidental Electrochemical Corp. (OEC) Thomas Anson CoGen Lyondell Louis Zimmerman and Bruce Morris Dow Chemical Corp. (Dow) Scott Hartshorn Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative (RCEC) Earnest Casstevens Tex-La Electric Cooperative (Tex-La) Mark Davis City of El Paso Nanette Williams Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) C. Kingsbery Ottmers General Counsel Paula Mueller
The motions to intervene filed by the following entities were granted in the indicated dockets at the prehearing conference:
DOCKET INTERVENORS 7928 - CP&L Enron, OPC and TIEC 7929 - EPEC Enron, OPC and City of El Paso 7930 - TNP WingTex, Enron, OPC and CoGen Lyondell 7931 - HL&P Enron, OEC, OPC, TIEC, Dow and CoGen Lyondell 7932 - SWEPCO Enron and OPC 7933 - WTU Enron and OPC 7934 - SPS OPC 7935 - TUEC WingTex, Enron, OPC, TIEC, RCEC, CoGen Lyondell and Tex-La 7965 - LCRA Enron 7966 - GSU OPC ORDER NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, PAGE 4 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 AND 7966
Motions to intervene filed by TIEC in Docket No. 7930 and by Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. in Docket No. 7966 were taken under advisement at the prehearing conference. Any comments in opposition to TIEC's motion must be filed by no later than 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 1, 1988. Any comments in opposition to the motion of Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. must be filed by no later than 4:00 p.m., Friday, February 26, 1988.
Each intervenor must file a list of the specific issues which it disputes with respect to each docket in which it has intervened, together with a written pleading setting forth the factual bases for its position. The utility shall then file a detailed response to each issue so raised. Following the filing of that responsive pleading, a settlement conference will be convened in each docket, at which attendance is mandatory for all parties and all expert witnesses which the parties intend to sponsor should the matter proceed to hearing. The following deadlines and settlement conference dates shall apply to this phase of the proceedings:
DOCKET CONTESTED ISSUES RESPONSES SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 7934 - SPS March 1, 1988 March 11, 1988 March 15, 1988 7933 - WTU March 3, 1988 March 14, 1988 March 21, 1988 7932 - SWEPCO March 8, 1988 March 18, 1988 March 22, 1988 7929 - EPEC March 10, 1988 March 21, 1988 March 25, 1988 7966 - GSU March 31, 1988 April 11, 1988 April 15, 1988 7935 - TUEC April 18, 1988 April 28, 1988 May 2, 1988 7930 - TNP May 9, 1988 May 19, 1988 May 23 , 1 988 7928 - CP&L October 3, 1988 October 13, 1988 October 17, 1988 7965 - LCRA October 10, 1988 October 20, 1988 October 24, 1988 7931 - HL&P October 17, 1988 October 27, 1988 October 31, 1988
All pleadings must be filed and served upon the parties by no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date indicated. The settlement conferences will commence at 10:00 a.m. on the dates indicated above and will continue day for day until adjourned by the presiding examiner. To the extent that the above schedule fails to reflect scheduling preferences of specific parties to these proceedings, such preferences have been rejected by the undersigned examiners for want of merit. ORDER NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, PAGE 5 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 AND 7966
At the conclusion of the settlement conference, the parties shall provide the presiding examiner with a written stipulation and supporting memorandum specifying those issues which have been resolved and those which remain in dispute. The stipulation and supporting memorandum must fully set forth the rationale and underlying data necessary for the examiners and the Commission to verify how each element of the avoided cost calculation was derived and how each element satisfies the criteria set forth in P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.66(h). Should the examiner subsequently find the stipulation and/or memorandum deficient for these purposes, supplemental filings may be required. Further, should it prove necessary, an evidentiary hearing may be convened to elicit clarifying testimony with respect to particular aspects of the stipulation.
Pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 21.83(a), notice is hereby given that a prehearing conference will be convened at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 5, 1988, at the Commission offices at 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Austin, Texas, in Docket Nos. 7929, 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, and 7966, for the purpose of establishing additional procedural deadlines and hearing dates for those dockets in which all contested issues have not been fully resolved by written stipulation of the parties through the settlement conference process. Similarly, notice is hereby given that another prehearing conference will be convened for the same purpose in Docket Nos. 7928, 7931, and 7965, at 10:00 a.m. on November 3, 1988, at the Commission's Austin offices. Additionally, notice is hereby given that a prehearing conference will be convened for the same purposes in Docket No. 7930 at the Commission's Austin offices immediately following the conclusion of the settlement conference in that docket.
In Docket No. 7930, TNP shall file its response, if any, to Wingtex's Motion to Require TNP to Amend its Filing to Cure a Material Deficiency by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 1988. Any reply by Wingtex to that response shall be filed by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 1988. The examiner will enter an order based upon the written pleadings shortly thereafter. ORDER NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, PAGE 6 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 AND 7966
In Docket No. 7934, SPS shall file and serve upon the parties, by no later than 4:00 p.m., Monday, March 7, 1988, the application and data upon which the interim avoided cost calculation in Docket No. 7288 was determined.
Absent a convincing demonstration of good cause, motions to intervene in Docket Nos. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 or 7966 filed after March 1, 1988, will not be entertained by the examiners.
Except as otherwise set out above, the parties to the above captioned dockets shall be permitted five working days following receipt of any motion to file a written response thereto, and the movant shall be permitted three working days following receipt of a response to its motion to file a written reply to the response.
For the convenience of the parties a service list for each of the above captioned dockets is attached to this order. Each party is, however, responsible for updating its copy of the service list as may be neccessary to reflect future interventions and/or withdrawals.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, on this the 2ls day of February 1988.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
CHARLES J. SMAISTRLA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
A^x BECKY BRU ER HEARINGS EXAMINER
"V• 'l^ HOWARD V. FISHER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ORDER NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, PAGE 7 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935, 7965 AND 7966
SHELIA B. KNEIP ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CORNELIA M. ADAMS HEARINGS EXAMINER
^st,.^,^, PAULA CYR A MINI RATI E AW J DGE
MARK W. SMITH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
MARY ROSS McDONALD ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SERVICE LISTS FOR AVOIDED COST DOCKETS SERVICE LISTS
Docket No. 7928 -- Application of Central Power and Light Company:
Central Power and Light Company Milton E. Lorenz, Jr. Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1200 CCNB Center North 500 North Water Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78471
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Texas Industrial Energy Consumers Jonathan Day Rex D. VanMiddlesworth Alton J. Hall, Jr. Mayor, Day & Caldwell 1900 RepublicBank Center Houston, Texas 77002
Docket No. 7929 -- Application of El Paso Electric Company:
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
City of El Paso James P. Maloney P. 0. Box 982 El Paso, Texas 79960 Docket No. 7930 -- Application of Texas-New Mexico Power Company:
Texas-New Mexico Power Company Trisa A. Weakley/Randy Ownby P. 0. Box 2943 Fort Worth, Texas 76113
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Cogen Lyondell, Inc. Louis S. Zimmerman Fulbright & Jaworski 600 Congress Avenue Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 lustin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Wingtex Energy Corporation Thomas K. Anson Hays & Anson 2700 One American Center 600 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701
Docket No. 7931 -- Application of Houston Lighting and Power Company:
Houston Lighting and Power Company H. W. Roesler Cogeneration and Small Power Production Department P. 0. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Cogen Lyondell, Inc. Louis S. Zimmerman Fulbright & Jaworski 600 Congress Avenue Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 Dow Chemical Company L. Scott Hartshorn P. 0. Box 3387 Houston, Texas 77253-3387
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Occidental Electrochemical Corporation Thomas K. Anson Hays & Anson 2700 One American Center 600 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Texas Industrial Energy Consumers Jonathan Day Rex D. VanMiddlesworth Alton J. Hall, Jr. Mayor, Day & Caldwell 1900 RepublicBank Center Houston, Texas 77002
Docket No. 7932 -- Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company:
Southwestern Electric Power Company Milton E. Lorenz, Jr. Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1200 CCNB Center North 500 North Water Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78471
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759 Docket No. 7933 -- Aplication of West Texas Utilities Company:
West Texas Utilities Company Darwin L. Breeding P. 0. Box 841 Abilene, Texas 79604
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Docket No. 7934 -- Application of Southwestern Public Service Company:
Southwestern Public Service Company Sam R. Hunter P. 0. Box 1261 Amarillo, Texas 79170
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Docket No. 7935 -- Application of Texas Utilities Company:
Texas Utilities Company R. S. Nickels 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Wingtex Energy Corporation Thomas K. Anson Hays & Anson 2700 One American Center 600 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 ♦
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
Texas Industrial Energy Consumers Jonathan Day Rex D. VanMiddlesworth Alton J. Hall, Jr. Mayor, Day & Caldwell 1900 RepublicBank Center Houston, Texas 77002
Rayburn Country Electric Earnest Casstevens Cooperative, Inc. McGinnis, Lochridge Kilgore 919 Congress Avenue 1300 Capitol Center Austin, Texas 78701
Tex-La Electric Cooperative Mark C. Davis of Texas, Inc. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1400 MBank Tower 221 W. Sixth Street Austin, Texas 78701
Cogen Lyondell, Inc. Louis S. Zimmerman Fulbright & Jaworski 600 Congress Avenue Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701
Docket No. 7965 -- Application of Lower Colorado River Authority:
Lower Colorado River Authority Martha V. Terry P. 0. Box 220 Austin, Texas 78767
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Enron Cogeneration Company Marianne Carroll Attorney at Law 5750 Balcones Drive, Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78731 Docket No. 7966 -- Application of Gulf States Utilities Company:
Gulf States Utilities Company W. J. Jefferson P. 0. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704
Public Utility Commission of Texas Paula Mueller General Counsel Division 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 450N Austin, Texas 78757
Office of Public Utility Counsel C. Kingsbery Ottmers 8140 Mopac Westpark III, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759 ^ DOCKET NO. 7931 APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING AND PUBLIt,-,UT-j,TY COMMISSIN , , , POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF STANDARD AVOIDED COST CALCULATION FOR OF TEXAS THE PURCHASE OF FIRM ENERGY AND CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED FACILITIES
EXAMINER'S ORDER NO. 2
NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER
On February 2, 1988, Examiner's Order No. 1, Order and Notice of Prehearing Conference, was entered in the above styled and numbered docket, containing therein the following clerical errors:
1. On page 1 of the Order, the filing date of Houston Lighting and Power Company's (HL&P's) application is incorrectly reflected as December 30, 1988 and should instead read December 30, 1987.
2. On page 5 of the Order, the docket number at the top of the page is incorrectly reflected as 7933 and should instead read 7931.
3. Also on page 5, the second line in paragraph 8.b. incorrectly reads "offices in Austin and Abilene, Texas," and should instead read: offices in Austin and Houston, Texas.
It is therefore ordered that the corrected date, docket number and language set forth above be substituted nunc pro tunc for the errors on pages 1 and 5 of Examiner's Order No. 1.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS on this the ?44 day of February 1988.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
SHELIA BAILEY KNEIP ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J DGE
nsh
` . .s .
DOCKET NO. 7931
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING § PUBLIC UTx^11Y COMMsISSt(^N
& POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF § '-''- - ^ I STANDARD AVOIDED COST CALCULATION § OF TEXAS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRM ENERGY AND § CAPACITY FROM QUALIFIED FACILITIES §
EXAMINER'S ORDER NO. 1 ORDER AND NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE
On December 30, 1988, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) filed an application for approval of a stan dard avoided cost calculation and terms and conditions for the purchase of firm energy and capacity from qualified facilities, as required by P.U.C. SUBT. R. 23.66(h)(3). The Commission has jurisdiction over the application pursuant to Sections 16(a) and 37 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (the Act), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp. 1987).
Pursuant to_P.U.C. PROC.-_R. 21.83, a joint pr-ehearing conference will- be conducted in this docket and--other similar pending dockets_ on Tuesdayr February 23, 1988, beginning at 10:00 a.m., at the Commission offices located at 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Austin, Texas.-The following matters will be taken up at the prehearing conference:
1. Any motions to intervene filed with the Commission and served upon the parties on or before February 17, 1988;
2. Discussion and adoption of a master schedule governing the conduct of proceedings in the avoided cost dockets through completion of the settlement conference phase;
3. Any other matters which may aid in the simplification of the proceedings and the disposition of any issues in controversy, including the stipulation of uncontested matters.
As a master schedule is being adopted in these proceedings in recognition of the burden which these dockets would impose upon the limited resources of ORDER NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 7931 PAGE 2 the Commission staff were the dockets to be handled simultaneously, the examiners intend to accommodate to the extent possible the preferences of general counsel regarding the order in which the dockets will be taken up, and the timeframe in which the merits of each filing will be addressed. Therefor, for the purpose of providing a focus for discussion at the prehearing conference, general counsel is DIRECTED to file and serve upon the parties, by no later than February 12, 1988, a proposed master procedural schedule reflecting the staff's scheduling preferences. Comments in support of or in opposition to general counsel's proposed procedural schedule must be filed and served upon the parties by no later than February 19, 1988. The proposed schedule, as well as any alternate proposals, should incorporate the following procedural framework:
1. After the expiration of a reasonable amount of time for discovery, general counsel and each of the other parties shall by a date certain file a list of the specific issues disputed by that party, together with a written pleading setting -forth the factual bases upon which- the party relies in support of its position.- The utility shall then be a)loted a specified period of time in which to file a similarly detailed response. = These pleadings are intended to ensure that all parties understand the precise areas of dispute and the bases for the positions being taken, in advance of the commencement of settlement negotiations.
2. A settlement conference will be convened in each docket shortly after the above pleadings have been filed and served upon the parties. Attendance at the conference will be mandatory for all parties, as well as for all expert witnesses which the parties intend to sponsor should the matter proceed to hearing. At the conclusion of the settlement conference, the parties shall file a written memorandum and stipulation listing those issues which have been resolved and those which remain in dispute.
3. Following completion of the settlement conferences in each of the avoided cost dockets, a second joint prehearing conference will be convened for the purpose of establishing a master hearing schedule for