ARM Raises Issue With Battery Cost Treatment In Oncor DCRF Application
May 18,2018
The Alliance for Retail Markets filed testimony in Oncor's application for an initial Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (a new rider that would be charged to REPs) concerning the treatment of certain battery costs in Oncor's application, and prior orders concerning such costs
ARM noted that Finding of Fact No. 36 in Docket No. 46957 states that Oncor can seek a prudence finding related to the six lithium-ion battery facilities in a future proceeding.
"While Oncor's application does not expressly state it is requesting a prudence finding relating to those battery facilities in this docket, ARM wants to ensure that the treatment of those facilities in the calculation of its requested DCRF rates does not result in an implicit prudence finding or the presumption of such a finding, particularly in view of the prudence requirement included in the definition of 'distribution invested capital' in 16 TAC § 25.243(b)(3)," ARM said
A witness for ARM testified that, "Consequently, if the Commission adopts a final order approving new DCRF rates in this docket, I request that it include a finding of fact that: (1) reiterates the prudence exclusion relating to the six lithium-ion battery facilities in Finding of Fact No. 36 in Docket No. 46957, and (2) states that the approval of DCRF rates in this proceeding shall not be construed as a prudence finding with respect to those facilities."
ARM is not requesting an adjustment to Oncor's DCRF rates in the docket, based on either the treatment of FERC account 363 (Storage Battery Equipment) in the DCRF application or for any other reason
However, ARM reserves the right to address in a future proceeding the appropriateness of incorporating FERC Account 363 in the calculation of Oncor's DCRF rates.