filing seeking approval of the rate in Rider No. 18 Rider will . . . encourage (“The potential developers of facilities utilizing renewable resources . . . and provide a reasonably priced market for the output of such NRG Midwest Ex. No. 6. facilities.”) Moreover, the calculation of the avoided cost rate was based upon the estimates utility’s at the time they were approved, not as they may have been presented any number of years later. The development of a QF rate for purchase under the enforceable “legally provisions of Sections 292.304(b)(5) and 292.304(d) allow QFs to choose a obligations” purchase price based on the calculation of a levelized, long-term avoided cost rate calculated at the time the obligation is incurred. They do not require that rates equal avoided costs at the time the power is delivered. In approving rates applicable to PPAs, we recognized that at times the applicable purchase price may be above or below then then-current avoided cost rate. We recognized, as did FERC in promulgating its regulations, the long run, “in and of avoided costs will and nothing ‘overestimations’ ‘underestimations’ balance out” in PURPA requires a evaluation of 1988 Pa. Scrubgrass I, “minute-by-minute costs.” PUC LEXIS 101 at *12; 1987 Pa. PUC LEXIS 153 at *2; Milesburg, AES Beaver Valley, 1986 Pa. PUC LEXIS 53 at **6-7. Inc. v. West Penn Power Company, As to the interpretation of averments regarding its ALJ’s Duquesne’s calculations of avoided cost in and it was Duquesne 1987 Order City of Pittsburgh, (e.g. 1986 and 1988) avoided cost rate that exceeded the Rider then current Duquesne’s No. 18 rate. Since we specifically declined to review the rates in 1987, it is not at all clear that they were necessarily the same calculations presented when we approved Rider No. 18 in 1981. Further, the ALJ references our statement in the that a Duquesne 1987 Order, rate contained in a Commission-approved tariff remained just and reasonable until we determined otherwise, as evidence that we that as [we] gained experience with “foresaw
filing seeking approval of the rate in Rider No. 18 (“The Rider will . . . encourage potential developers of facilities utilizing renewable resources . . . and provide a reasonably priced market for the output of such facilities.”) NRG Midwest Ex. No. 6. Moreover, the calculation of the avoided cost rate was based upon the utility’s estimates at the time they were approved, not as they may have been presented any number of years later. The development of a QF rate for purchase under the “legally enforceable obligations” provisions of Sections 292.304(b)(5) and 292.304(d) allow QFs to choose a purchase price based on the calculation of a levelized, long-term avoided cost rate calculated at the time the obligation is incurred. They do not require that rates equal avoided costs at the time the power is delivered. In approving rates applicable to PPAs, we recognized that at times the applicable purchase price may be above or below then then-current avoided cost rate. We recognized, as did FERC in promulgating its regulations, “in the long run, ‘overestimations’ and ‘underestimations’ of avoided costs will balance out” and nothing in PURPA requires a “minute-by-minute evaluation of costs.” Scrubgrass I, 1988 Pa. PUC LEXIS 101 at *12; Milesburg, 1987 Pa. PUC LEXIS 153 at *2; AES Beaver Valley, Inc. v. West Penn Power Company, 1986 Pa. PUC LEXIS 53 at **6-7. As to the ALJ’s interpretation of Duquesne’s averments regarding its calculations of avoided cost in Duquesne 1987 Order and City of Pittsburgh, it was Duquesne’s then current (e.g. 1986 and 1988) avoided cost rate that exceeded the Rider No. 18 rate. Since we specifically declined to review the rates in 1987, it is not at all clear that they were necessarily the same calculations presented when we approved Rider No. 18 in 1981. Further, the ALJ references our statement in the Duquesne 1987 Order, that a rate contained in a Commission-approved tariff remained just and reasonable until we determined otherwise, as evidence that we “foresaw that as [we] gained experience with
1325156.docx