HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041220min.docIDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2004 – 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Marsha Smith and Dennis Hansen.
Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA. Commissioner Kjellander noted that item 4 needed to be moved to Matters in Progress. There were no objections. Regarding item 8, Commissioner Smith commented that she supported approval of Idaho Power’s Irrigation Peak Clipping Program but hoped the company would take seriously the request by the irrigation community and the staff recommendation that the program incorporate as much flexibility as possible. She said irrigators have a wide range of needs and interests and to realize the full benefits of the program, flexibility will be important. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Michael Fuss’s and Joe Leckie’s December 20, 2004 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Application of Stoneridge Utilities for Authorization for a DEQ Loan, Case No. SWS-W-04-1.
Donovan Walker reviewed the Decision Memo. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion for conditional approval pending receipt of payment and proof of publication before the final order is issued. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Weldon Stutzman’s December 14, 2004 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power’s Application to Recover Costs of Its Cloud Seeding Program, Case No. IPC-E-04-24.
Mr. Stutzman reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith commented that she supported Staff’s recommendation to include the program in the PCA because the analysis showed that benefits exceed the cost. She stated that given the large amount of money involved, Staff should also analyze other demand side management programs and do cost comparisons to see if the money could be better spent. She stated that although the analysis might be difficult, it is important to ask the question.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the company has paid for the program the last two years, and if the Commission were to disallow it, if the company would go ahead with it for a third year. Mr. Stutzman replied that the company has funded the program entirely but he thought the company would discontinue it at some point if it could not recover the costs.
Commissioner Kjellander moved for approval of the program with the comment that we have opportunities going forward to look at demand side management and energy efficiency as they relate to non-wires alternatives. He stated he would like to see the projects happen with the knowledge of other projects so we can look at actual project comparisons to see if they make sense. He made a motion to approve the treatment the company is looking for but also recognize that we will want to see results before we approve any more projects like this and see comparisons with other possible uses of this kind of money. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kjellander stated that the only other item on the agenda was under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS and the Commission would deliberate on it privately. He then adjourned the meeting.
DATED this _____ day of December, 2004.
_______________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
2