*1
their
that States
may
requirement
other defenses
eral
approach,
there
of
certain decencies
outrageous police
prosecutions respect
available based
tactics.
law,
Hampton
States,
process
In
of
v. United
conduct. Due
U.S.
civilized
(1976), though
48 L.Ed.2d
principle, pre-
96 S.Ct.
generative
historic
majority
the Court
confining,
of
reaffirmed
thereby
defining, and
cludes
“subjective”
theory
entrapment,
sepa-
precisely
of conduct more
these standards
majority concluded
either due
say
convictions cannot
than to
process
or the
principles
supervisory
Court’s
offend ‘a
about methods that
brought
by
”
could,
powers
“police
where there is
overin-
justice.’
sense of
volvement
...
reaching
in crime
a demon-
Therefore,
I
the defendant
conclude
outrageousness,”
strable level of
bar convic-
trial
failure
by
court’s
prejudiced
tion. Hampton, supra, at 1653 n. 7.
S.Ct.
jury
instruct
properly
adequately
Indeed,
conduct of
police
should
entrapment
his defense of
present case, albeit on a moral rather than
addition, regardless
receive a new trial.
physical level,
on a
recalls the words of
defendant,
trial,
in a fair
of whether
California,
Justice Frankfurter
Rochin
might might not
his defense
prevail
or
342 U.S.
72 S.Ct.
compelled proceed- to conclude that
ings by which this was obtain- conviction
ed do offend some fastidious
squeamishness private sentimentalism combatting energetically.
about crime too
This is conduct shocks the con- into Illegally breaking priva-
science. .the cy struggle open petitioner, COMPANY, UTAH POWER & LIGHT there, his mouth and remove what Appellant, the forcible extraction of his stomach’s proceeding by contents —this course of agents of government obtain evidence UTILITIES PUBLIC IDAHO is bound to offend even hardened sensi- COMMISSION, Respondent. bilities. are methods too close to the They Application of UTAH In the Matter permit rack and the screw constitu- Ap- COMPANY & LIGHT POWER tional differentiation. Proposed proval Electric Rate “It long since ceased be true Regula- Service and Electric Schedules process due of law is heedless of the tions. means which otherwise relevant and credible is obtained. This was evidence 13267. No. not true even before the series recent of Idaho. Supreme Court principle the constitutional cases enforced not base convictions States 14, 1983. Dec. confessions, verified, much upon however are obtained coercion. These decisions exceptions compre- arbitrary their right
hension States fashion
own rules of evidence for criminal trials. sports in our constitutional
They are not general princi-
law but of a applications gen-
ple. They only instances *2 Merrill,
Wesley Merrill, F. of Merrill & Pocatello, appellant. Jones, Gen., Atty. Thomas,
Jim E. Lynn Gen., Gilmore, Sol. Deputy Michael Atty. Gen., Boise, respondent.
SHEPARD, Justice. This is an appeal Light Utah Power & Company from orders of the Public Utilities (Nos. 14430) denied in Utah part request Power’s for a rate increase. Utah Power requested hike, 52.49%rate granted by only to the commission extent of a rate increase of 13.3%. The issues raised here were previously treated in Power & Utah v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 282, 629 P.2d 678 (1981) LI). Utah Power and the & {UP basis of the stipulated that the instant appeal substantially identical to parties’ that of UP & hence request briefing for extension of the instant case the outcome of UP & pending L I was granted.
Here, a formula challenges Co. Federal calculating (3rd Cir.1953) used commission in (emphasis F.2d Power, rate base of Utah which formula original).” turn, essence, determines allowable Also, and simply put, Citizens rate increase. Specifically, Utah Power as- Comm., Util. Idaho Public Util. Co. that the serts commission erred adopting 110, 115 (1978), an “average year rate base” rather *3 Court stated: base;” using a rate “year end the utility’s represents “A ‘rate base’ the commission refusing erred include original depreciation cost minus of all the rate progress, base construction work in justifiably by utility used use, property held future for and certain providing services to its customers. Utili- inventories; coal that the commission erred charge ties are allowed to customers rates adjustment requested of a allowance yield a certain re- percentage for Utah and opera- Power’s maintenance utility’s turn on the total investment. tion; that the commission erred in rejecting Thus, rate base larger use of attrition factor in rate base charge rates utilities can higher formula; and that the commission wrongly customers.” reduced the proposed allowance interest on the We company’s equity. return hold case, proposed instant Utah Power In the that the erred in its calculation a of 1977 and year proposed historical test base, of the rate all since asserted a end rate test year use of base pertain errors to the commission’s method adopted as a year. The commission 1977 base, figuring briefly analyze rate we test but refused use a year, historical that term. base, opting instead for an year end year
In Intermountain Gas v. Idaho Public rate base formula. average Commission, 97 Utilities Co. Idaho Public Util. Citizens Util. 775, 778(1975), the P.2d Court defined “rate 172, Comm., supra, 99 Idaho 171 — base” as follows: 117-118, approved the we reviewed and capital “The rate consists of the base average year use rate base: utility upon invested which the average adopted “The Commission just to a fair and company entitled average year An year rate base. return. Federal adding the test by year base is calculated Co., 591, Natural Gas 320 U.S. Hope closing year rate base to the test opening (1944). L.Ed. There S.Ct. by two. by dividing rate base and Citi- components to Intermountain’s rate two the Commission erred zens claims that utility plant and the work- base: net average year adopting an net ing capital. utility plant The a will not allow Citi- rate base capital company which the has invested return in the reasonable zens to earn a utility consisting of plant, gas in the argues that Commis- future. Citizens plant in service and construction work end rate adopted should have sion depreciation progress, less the reserve base, or even value rate current and the amount customers have con- ... year rate base future tributed to the in aid of con- company review appellate purpose working struction. The Idaho Pub- by the of decisions this Court company has invested capital which the at the' is ‘to look lic Utilities Commission utility, consisting cash needs ‘ fixed deter- the rate effect of overall sum which the of an “allowance the return mine whether supply needs its own Gas Intermountain just.’ reasonable enabling it to purpose funds for the Utilities v. Idaho Public they arise Co. obligations meet its current 775, 782 P.2d operate economically and to efficient- the record reviewing (1975). After ly”.’ Natural Gas Alabama-Tennessee this case we cannot say adoption granting ments. reduces by the the average year Commission of the cost of the electric when it line, rate base ... resulted in unreasonable comes lessens the need for future unjust increases, generates overall return for needed in- badly Citizens. Consequently, construction, ternal cash hold that for additional Commis- sion’s use of the average year earnings. rate base and creates better quality was not error.” wit- witness Holbert and Irrigators’ Staff famil- Springer repeated equally ness asserts the valua that al- counter-arguments, iar namely, tion of its assets and liabilities should have lowing company to earn a return been set as day last of the chosen destroys in progress construction work test year, since that end speedily, the incentive finish work most accurately reflected the value of those on the which is puts ratepayers a risk physical assets available to and used for stockholders, born and cre- properly benefit of the customers of the pres- a mismatch who ates between those *4 during the period the new rates future, who, ently pay and those in the would be in effect. hand, On the other will benefit from the electric when plant argues commission that the average year it becomes used and useful. rate base formula better matched the com clear its made pany’s expenses, revenues to since the com position on issue in orders. recent mission determined that Utah Power’s data See, Utah Application of Power & submitted on the a year basis of end rate Co., U-1009-83, Case No. IPUC Order base contained certain mismatches between I]; No. 13448 of Application costs and [UP revenues. company While the No. Company, Idaho Power Case U- contends that such a “mismatch” is insignif 1006-17, No. 13714. We are IPUC Order icant and that no compa “windfall” to the steadfastly opposed the inclusion ny formula, results from the use of that in rate We that CWIP base. find nevertheless, conflicting evidence was method of an allow- providing alternative this'point, and we note further that Utah ance for funds used during Power construction did conform commis (AFUDC) just sion’s is and and requirement reasonable does that the data be clarified deprive and Company anything corrected. We find no error in the use of which it is would be average Nothing commission’s entitled. We formula. hold that the use served further discussion of this mat- average year rate base and ter.” permissi
ble and within the discretion of the commis I, In & L we held that the value of UP sion. That discretion the Huntington plant under construction will not be disturbed. required to be included in base, a conjectural spec- since it was not
Utah Power
assigns
next
error to
Id.,
284,
adjustment.
102
at
ulative
Idaho
refusal of the
commission to include
(PHFU), and there ruled
recoup
rates
measurable,
Utah
is entitled to
in its
known
must be reflected in
costs,
but the actual amount
in Citizens Util.
overhead
Similarly,
the rate base.
company
compensate
Util.,
necessary
Idaho at
supra,
Public
Co.
Idaho
addressed to the sound discretion
117,
the Court reiterated
commission,
and absent
abuse
return on
right
to collect a
company’s
discretion,
ruling
the commission’s
prudent
investments. No
necessary and
Idaho
set
Boise Water
Corp.
aside.
the same rule
why
reason is
out
pointed
P.2d
Comm’n,
Public
Util.
in the instant case. We
should not obtain
v. Idaho
(1976);
Intermountain Gas
expenditures for
deem
the company’s
Comm’n,
P.2d
Public Util.
from an
necessary
PHFU are
desirable
here,
(1975).
On the record
we cannot
standpoint,
they
since
allow the
economic
say that there is
absence
evidence
advantage
oppor-
take
of land
company to
re-
ruling in this
support the commission’s
might otherwise be unavaila-
tunities that
gard, and it is therefore affirmed.
ble,
escape
purchasing
allow
con-
inflationary prices,
and are
commis
It is next asserted
rates in the long
ducive to lower customer
rejecting
appli
Utah Power’s
sion erred
Hence, that
commis-
portion
run.
allowance” of 3.85%.
cation for an “attrition
refusing
incorporate
sion’s
decision
portion
set
agree
We
aside
PHFU into the rate base
erroneous
an attrition
ruling denying
commission’s
set aside.
rate base formula.
factor in the
next asserts that
the com-
regula-
defined
In UP & L this Court
*5
disallowing
in
its coal stock-
mission erred
tory lag or attrition:
in
formula.
piles
the rate base
Utah
has been
lag or attrition
“Regulatory
proposed that the
include in the
commission
the
of return
a ‘decline in
defined as
* * *
working
approximate-
calculation of
when the
[occurring]
earned
1,500,000
company
of
which
ly
tons
coal
and
than
revenue
faster
expands
on
includ-
hand on December
expan-
by
by
is
inflation and
caused both
180,000
stockpiled
of coal
ing some
tons
do
programs which
construction
sionists
Emery
plant,
end for use in the
which
comparable reve-
additional
generate
The commis-
go
on line in mid-1978.
Id., 102
nue.’
[Citations.]”
adjustments
compa-
sion
two
made
at 680.
P.2d
First, the
elimi-
ny’s proposal.
commission
Here,
commission did not rule
stockpile
portion
nated
of
coal
any
experiencing
was not
attrition
company
anticipation
in 1977 in
was available
& L we re-
lag.
In UP
regulatory
Second,
startup
Emery plant.
of the
of the
refusal to award
versed the commission’s
adjusted
it
which it
inventory,
coal
allowance, stating:
attrition
excessive, to a level which
found to be
actu-
argues
past
that their
“Utah Power
to operate
would
allow
have
equity
al
return on common
rates of
load,
days
at normal
rather
plants for
per-
level of the rates
never
risen
days
per
capacity.
at 100
cent
rate of
A
the Commission.
mitted
for the
Clearly,
stockpile
a coal
is not
aby Commission
return authorized
base,
in
Emery plant
includable
level of revenues.
any
of
guarantee
a
as to
theory
under
that allows CWIP
views exist
Conflicting
the same
[Citation.]
au-
to earn an
in the rate base. To the extent
failure
and PHFU
a
whether
itself,
final
is,
order
to in
and of
the commission’s
refused
thorized
Neverthe-
it
stockpile
clude
a
in the rate
test
attrition.
of
[Citations.]
rates
continuing high
argues
less,
The
further
it is clear that
set aside.
damaging
are especially
of
exceeded its discretion
inflation
the commission
impact
utilities.
power
electric
powers when
refused to include
ary
public utilities
all
great
inflation
sought by
total
inventory
amount
coal
normally
as will
cap-
permit
because their endeavors are
it to earn a return on the
ital intensive and involve assets with rela-
value of the
which it
employs
long
In-
tively
useful lives.
public,
convenience of the
equal to
[Citation.]
is particularly painful
flation
to electric-
being
return generally
made at the same
they
since
most
power utilities
are the
time
general part
and
the same
capital-intensive
in the United
industry
country on investments and other business
States.
undertakings
[Citation.]
are
attended by corre
zone of
duty
[*]
to set
Commission has the
[*]
rates
reasonableness.’
[*]
return
[*]
within
power
[*]
[Citation.]
a
‘broad
[*]
sponding
Field Water Works &
Public
willing to J. Pro consider such an and allowance for Tern., attrition or regulatory in concur. lag any event. We do not state that an attrition allowance Justice, DONALDSON, concurring Chief be mandatory now every public in utili- and dissenting. order,
ty rate but we hold that the order issue is opinion except here unclear as I in to the reason for the concur most Further, denial. that part commission at which states that construction time of this did order not have work in in- progress (C.W.I.P.) the benefit should be opinion our in UP I. & L Hence the cluded in the rate base. The alternative commission’s order respecting pro- attrition or method which the chose of Commission regulatory lag aside, is set and on remand during an allowance for used viding funds the commission is directed to reconsider the just is and Which construction reasonable. matter attrition or lag, method to use was the Commission accordance with UP & L I. ex- decide it their realm of since is within its pertise. should substitute This Court Utah Power also asserts that opinion that of Commission’s. it allowing commission erred a 13.5% only return on I equity calculating Again, my special Pow as stated concur- Utah er’s argued, rate base. It is & agree, Light Company and we rence in Utah Power Commission, public utility 102 Ida- entitled to such rates Idaho Public Utilities 282, 629 (1981), determining
ho
P.2d 678
and
for itself what
ing
decision
it,
(which perhaps
have
should either
allowed the items of
if it were the Commission
is),
in a
progress
plant
construction work in
and
would have included
(an
held for
use or
As I stated in UP & L the Court’s
regulatory lag
future
base.
if
allowance).
function is to determine
the overall rate
attrition
allowed
Commission is reasonable
means,
this
the Commission could
By
or
just,
not whether
when
necessity
having
hopefully avoid the
given item is
be
any
included
the rate
hearings every few months. This would
base:
a savings
everyone
of time and effort for
“ ‘The standard to be
applied
appel-
concerned.
of utility
late review
cases was articulat-
ed
Intermountain Gas
BISTLINE, Justice,
Co.
Idaho
concurring and dis-
Commission,
113,
Public Utilities
97 Idaho
senting.
(1975):
holders on property to the extent it in the relieves nicely included is undepreciated,1 whether or all risks con- prop plant investors of normal erty struction, requires hapless ratepay- included in rate base and but paid plant receiv- pay shareholders. ers to return on the before Today’s decision can ing any Requiring lead benefit. the Commission inequitable result of having ratepayers pay to include CWIP in the base shifts plants line, yet shareholders, with the risk of investment selling thereafter all or a portion belongs, of the where it generating properly unsuspecting, capacity of the plant now, Court, line, courtesy before it and unprotected comes on thereby pocketing the gain ratepayers. from the sale returned
to the shareholders our per decision in Boise to- It is clear that until Water, supra. day, was entitled to an exercise of discre-
Requiring determining tion in whether to include Commission to include CWIP in rate base. clear Equally base also CWIP in a inequitable leads to allocations between it that the Commission did not abuse customer classes. UP L,& energy allowing which sells discretion in not such a factor to jurisdic- several tions, changes go plant into that base. among allocations jurisdictions every year. HELD FOR PROPERTY FUTURE USE accounted for percent & L’s UP sales 1976; 1977; percent percent 15.3 today The that property Court holds held 1978; 1979; percent 15.9 per- and 14.7 (PHFU) for future use must be included in Thus, cent in 1980. allocating CWIP before when rate base known and measurable. plant comes on line can often authority reasoning will The the Court sum- inequitable result misallocation of the mons for this conclusion untenable plant jurisdictions. me, between admittedly expert An examina- leave no of an tion of above figures public demonstrates that regulation field utilities brethren, if CWIP was included in the at a my fellow loss. paid Idaho customers would have First, LI, Court states “In UP disproportionate amount of the service that supra, question plant with the dealt later would have been received other (PHFU) held for future use and there ruled jurisdictions. PHFU, measurable, when known required
The Commission should not be
to must be
in the rate base.” Unfor-
reflected
CWIP in
tunately,
page
include
the utilities’ rate base for
the Court cites no
the final reason that
and I have not
located the
proposed
proposition
yet
inadequa-
come on
example quite
may
never
line. An
statement
therein —which
home
cy
close to
is the
Plants
did there hold
my part.
WPPSS fiasco.
Court
*8
will probably
line,
failing
and 5
never
erred in
come
the Commission
they
but
adjustments
been included in
rate base certain
the
include in the
800,-
small,
generating plants depreciate slowly,
retaining
1. Because
shareholders
all but
the
gain
depreciation
in
gain.
attributable to
the case
000 of the
very
plants
the sale
the two Hunter
was
for “known and
adequately supports
to the 1976 test
data
changes,
language
the exact
decision to not allow this item
measurable”
Commission’s
in UP
L’s
result
is
being:
rate base. Such a
I,L
by
mandated
our decision in UP &
adjusted for
data should be
“Test
contrary
Court
posited by
as is
changes
measurable
where
known and
today.
are shown to be
changes
reliable
(Citations omitted.) The Com-
certain.
for
Secondly,
purported
foundation
.
all
should include
base
mission
it
its conclusion
is said that:
which are
with reasonable
proven
items
“Similarly,
Utilities Co. v. Ida-
Citizens
certainty
justifiably
to be
used
Commission, supra,
ho Public Utilities
providing services to
custom-
171,
117,
Idaho at
579 P.2d at
the Court
ers.”
the company’s right
reiterated
to collect a
284,
I,L supra,
UP &
that PHFU must be included necessary collect right return on base, stated that “We have examined Utah that the Com- prudent investments but held Power’s other assertions of error $8,000 in including [one mission erred in not which was that PHFU should included balances re- minimum account checking the rate them to be find without low utility to obtain base] in order for the quired merit.” P.2d at 681. Id. at excluding from the loans and in interest machine billing the cost of a rate base Court, L The in UP & reiterated anticipated Court held to be only customers should have doctrine that reliable change and known both utili- “justifiably for items used pay that: only and certain. The Court stated services,” ty providing applying the doc- need for should include only pay trine that customers proven The rate base all items which items used and useful. Commis- those used justifiably L’s certainty sion in the case denied UP & reasonable present providing in PFHU services.” request for seven million dollars expenditures that: finding P.2d 110. Id. at elimi- proposed “Staff witness Holbert by statement made This the same item from base nation of this entire which, as dis- I,& supra, Court in UP grounds it not represent does the Commission supra, prohibits cussed plant which now used and useful. any items any including in the rate it is charged This current properly Second, the Commis- not used and useful. addition, ratepayers. Holbert testified same “rule” why the point did out sion of numbers in this breakdown apply in this case: should not category approximately reveals that $4 this case ‘that submits & L] “[UP rights, million is for mineral million $2 which was issue the identical presents Naughton unit 4 in Company’s # Utili in Citizens by this court considered complex, and million for future substa- $1 Public Utilities Company ties v. Idaho rights.” tion R., p. 69. not con did (1978), 'id. at 47. Citizens use. But fact, for future held found, as a matter sider The Commission identical argues that requested by Company the PFHU expenditures to minimum ratemaking purposes L to were UP & be included that Citizens account balances checking This expenditures. and useful used to maintain. required finding is not controverted Court *9 no testimony legal might cites in the record or it is perceive Commentators well that authority for its equation property which its bounds and oversteps this Court for future use with held minimum check- uncon- acts and thus jurisdiction outside ing account balances. Court found stitutionally setting rates. checking that bal- Gtizens account integral ances were an part STOCKPILE COAL to they structure because allowed take it portions on dissent from those my Based advanatage of low interest rates when that opinion holds the Court’s needed, i.e., the Court found that these CWIP to be includ- required and PHFU balances had been and would be-used and base, ed in the I also dissent contrast, useful to the ratepayers. By portion opinion from of the Court’s that none of the land interests included stockpile that a coal holds Company’s property held for future use includable in the rate Emery plant is then had been dedicated to construction theory “under the same that allows in progress, work let alone dedicated to in the rate PHFU base.” to Company’s service customers. “The Company’s property for fu held ture use was not at time of the hear ATTRITION ALLOWANCE ing and had never before been of service order setting aside Commission’s to the ratepayers. may It be in the fu respecting lag, or regulatory attrition hand, ture. On the other it be sold Court that “Albeit the commission states service, before it placed and the regarding stated certain conclusions at- Company’s shareholders would then be trition we discern that the com- problem, gain entitled to all from sale under likely unwilling mission to consider Water.[2] holding Court’s in Boise regula- an allowance attrition or Until these properties are dedicated to tory any event. We do not state that lag service of the ratepayers, Commission mandatory attrition allowance will be may exclude them from rate base.” order, utility rate hold every public but we Brief, Respondent’s p. 53. that as to the order at issue here unclear Lastly, the premises Court its conclusion I to reason for the denial.” confess
that PHFU must included in &UP L’s being at a loss to see how the Commission rate base on the fact “deem[s] could any have made decision clearer expenditures company’s for PHFU are what evidence the is able Court necessary and desirable from an economic discern that “likely standpoint, since they company allow the to consider such an allowance for unwilling take advantage of opportunities land bene- lag.” attrition or For the might unavailable, otherwise be allow the interested, fit of the Commission’s those escape purchasing property at are here set out in findings conclusions inflationary prices, and are conducive full: lower customer rates in long run.” It is in this statement is found the basic “V. ATTRITION ALLOWANCE error in the Court’s logic it is for this —that requested “Utah Power & addi- Court to policy make deem what is tional rate relief the form of best for the utilities —a function heretofore what.it Assuming labels ‘attrition allowance.’ firmly vested in the Commission. It is not case been the final Order this province super-Commis- Court’s to be August sion but released merely determine whether $9,791,000 Commission has alleged abused its discretion set- a need for additional ting confiscatory Assuming unconstitutional rates. in rate a release date of relief. supra regarding ratepayers, 2. See the discussion the re- ed to shareholders rather than to quirement gains today’s opinion paying who under they depreciated extent are not must be credit- PHFU. *10 clear, the October attrition allowance this does ac- makes Commission $32,001,000. jumps to additional Pre- cept Company’s making the method of the sumably, actual release date war- would al- Consequently, these calculations. Throughout rant still further relief. this rate re- percent 6.72 of legedly ‘disastrous’ case & L difficulty UP has some meaningless. turn in Idaho is what means defining precisely ‘attri- separate fails to “Secondly, Company As the brief Company’s post hearing tion.’ out the contrib- various causes admits, the candidly record times defines earnings. of ute to erosion In of of problem earnings in terms erosion example, experienced a severe Company due rapid expansion inflationary to in an explosion due in one of plant outage to era, ‘regu- while at other times it focuses on By own admis- Huntington its Units. its latory lag.’ example, Company For witness sion, which was exacerbated this event Mr. Colby place empha- seemed to exclusive time, drought at the prevailing conditions sis problem on the of regulatory so-called lose Company caused the to $7 lag: thought ‘There is no of it compensat- addition, million revenue. In gross ing Only for future inflation. severe and abnormal Company experienced lag, as I The Company understand it.’ major losses to a coal strike unusual- due brief, contrast, ‘the problem states that is, long point as Dr. ly duration. of a utility’s inability one earn observed, every failure Fitzpatrick just allowed or determined and reasonable to earn the rate which authorized due of return due to economic or causes lapse of time realizing effective relief.’ to attrition. added.) third (Emphasis yet a formula- difficulty arises from the “Yet third a tion, problem the brief separates out of ‘attri expansive definition Company’s ‘attrition’ ‘regulatory lag’ from that brief, go its would Company, tion.’ The says that only latter ‘accentuates’ definition a to include this so far as former. ‘the it takes for com factor such as time to be appears bottom line that Utah in the need for recognize pany feels has ‘attrition’ occurred filing for rate increas ‘delays in crease’ and Company whenever fails to earn items, within purely es.’ These has of return which the Commission control, deemed not are then management just As determined be and reasonable. responsibility’ ‘a of fault question to be
n this, wit- prime example Company in an problem be ‘an inherent but rather to Colby nesses and Hoskins both stressed area of con and an expanding economy that, to be fact they, alleged what dur- This utility.’ growth struction and 1977, the a 13.5 ing Commission allowed Company cannot not do. The simply will whereas, Idaho, percent equity return ‘attrition,’ from man everything label 6.72 Company only percent. earned no time At of God. agement error acts this problems “There are numerous separate out attempted to Company approach. First, re- Company’s rate of alleged its which cause the various factors figure turn is no better than the calcula- return, to rate of failure to earn allowed upon Company tions which it is based. The factors, to pinpoint quantify these based,, calculates Idaho rate of return economic which, sophisticated in any those (1) the among things, upon other use of to ‘attrit sense, truly attributed might pro- year-end inflated base without demonstration, ion.’1 Absent match; (2) forming year’s revenues to to shoulder and has failed base; (3) the inclusion of in rate alleging the proof carry its burden Held inclusion Plant for Future Use The Com allowance.’ ‘attrition need for an base; (4) the exclusion of pre-1971 deficien a revenue has demonstrated pany investment tax credits from its nothing more. cy, structure; (5) an overstatement note that As percent. workings capital by nearly opportunity this “We take insensitive is not discussion each of these items above this confronting hardship economic the utilities format, forces tions subject jurisdiction our in these inflation- production numerous requests prolongs n have, ary times. We when the occasion proceedings beyond what would oth- these it, granted warranted relief to com- interim necessary. erwise *11 panies facing emergency situations. See above en- approaches, repeatedly Co., Application of No. Idaho Power Case hearings, dorsed witnesses these U-1006-117, 13158; Order Appli- IPUC No. implemented in before already being cases Co., cation Utah Light Power & Case No. adequate We them this Commission. find U-1009-73, IPUC Order 12275. No. cope problems with the of attrition addition, can be lag problems “In the Idaho when such legislature, by regulatory 61-622, find, significant. amendment of We Idaho Code set shown § case, outside limit of nine has present Light months for Commission that Utah Power & relief, requests deliberation on proving for borne its the existence of burden thereby manifesting its concern for has demon- deficiency, a revenue but prompt disposition of rate cases. This stat- significant prob- strated existence utory protection, combined right with the as either regards lem attrition relief, petition provides for interim rate ‘attri- Company’s for an lag. request adequate safeguards against $9,000,000 tion allowance’ between problem of regulatory lag. $32,000,000 is therefore denied. acceptable framework, encourage generally 1A definition of attri- “Within this industry applied tion as to the is as when rate relief filing by Company timely follows: note, necessary. example, We per is the It decline cent earned its next rate has filed replacement items due to price higher experienced during No. those case—Case levels U-1009-100 — installed; original plant were when items being released. week this Order very plant at a also comes about additions to present contrast This is in marked higher average exist- unit cost than the cost of seven months case which was filed almost ing units. determination after Commission’s first The 1958 of Railroad National Association report of annual Utilities Commissioners rate relief. Company’s need for proceedings, pp. 156.” omitted.] [Footnote R., pp. 80-83. “Moreover, we have tolerated the use
partial test years in the submission of rate
cases. For example, in Case No. U-1009-
100, just recently filed with this Commis-
sion, Utah Power & Light has submitted seven and, months actual data the case Idaho, progresses, Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE of replace the forecasted data other five months of its test year with actual numbers. MOLINELLI, Robert Defendant-Respondent.
“A final problem word. Whatever ‘regulatory lag’ may be said to exist No. 14363. largely Company’s making. own Supreme Court of Idaho. These proceedings were extended to and prolonged beyond the seven normal month Dec. 1983. period because the Company continues relitigate, case, each and every issues
which this Commission adopted firm
policy positions. These issues include the
rejection of a year-end rate base without
proformed revenues and the exclusion from CWIP and of Plant Held By filing applica-
Future use. continually