Opinion ID: 2631746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Petitions for reconsideration are filed with the PUCN

Text: After the PUCN issued its order, the BCP and the Nevada Coalition of Commercial Energy Consumers filed separate petitions asking the PUCN to reconsider the amount awarded to Nevada Power. The BCP also filed a petition for clarification, requesting that the PUCN clarify that the Merrill Lynch contract, for which a disallowance was provided, serves as a proxy for prudent business practices Nevada Power should have undertaken. In other words, the BCP claimed that the Merrill Lynch contract was an example of the type of contract Nevada Power could have reached with other providers from 1999-2000. The PUCN denied both the BCP's and the Nevada Coalition of Commercial Energy Consumers' requests to reconsider the amount awarded to Nevada Power. However, the PUCN clarified its original order in two significant ways. First, the PUCN clarified the Merrill Lynch disallowance, explaining that the Merrill Lynch deal serves as a proxy for prudent business practices that should have been pursued by [Nevada Power]. This was apparently meant to underscore the PUCN's point that Nevada Power would not have incurred the costs reflected in the Merrill Lynch disallowance had it entered into a transaction like the one Merrill Lynch was offering. Second, the PUCN made a monetary adjustment to its original order due to overwhelming concerns regarding the impact on southern Nevada. In the original order, the PUCN established a repayment schedule with an amortization period of 36 months to lessen the impact of added costs on customers. On reconsideration, the PUCN recognized that the impact on Nevada Power's cash flow requirements for the summer months should have been considered when calculating Nevada Power's repayment schedule. In response, the clarification order authorized a one-cent increase to the deferred accounting adjustment electricity consumption during the month of June 2002. [19] After the PUCN issued its clarification order, both Nevada Power and the BCP filed petitions for judicial review in the district court. Nevada Power argued that in examining its application, the PUCN failed to recognize a presumption that Nevada Power's practices led to prudently incurred costs, and the BCP argued that the PUCN improperly ignored its own finding that Nevada Power had engaged in colossal mismanagement when it allowed Nevada Power to recoup any losses at all. The district court denied both petitions, and both parties now appeal.