20060515min.doc

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING

May 15, 2006 – 1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander and Dennis Hansen. Commissioner Smith was absent and excused.

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA, items 1 - 10. Regarding item 1, Commissioner Hansen asked why the change to the tariff is needed. Beverly Barker replied that the proposed change is necessary in order to comply with commitments PacifiCorp made in the settlement agreement. She said there have been instances when there weren’t any federal matching funds available and the community action agencies simply weren’t able to do the weatherization. In other words, there were jobs that the agencies could not complete because there were no federal funds available to match the utility’s funds, and the tariff change would allow them to weatherize more homes in the event that there is no federal funding available.

Commissioner Hansen asked if there is any information or documentation on projects that have not been able to qualify or receive federal matching funds. Ms. Barker said there is no actual documentation as to the number of homes the community action agencies couldn’t weatherize because of the limitation, but the community action agencies have consistently represented it is a problem and it was brought up within the context of the PacifiCorp sale case.

Commissioner Hansen noted there is a total of $3 million available in federal weatherization funds statewide with $633,317 being allocated to agencies based in Pocatello. He said in our case, we have approved $150,000, so it is hard for him to see how our $150,000 wouldn’t be used up way before the $633,000 is used up. He stated that he is confused as to how the feds would be unable to pay the 50%. He said he is also curious if elimination of the $1500 average cap would decrease the number of participants each year. Ms. Barker replied that there could potentially be fewer homes weatherized but perhaps a greater investment in those homes. She said there are now some homes where they have not been able to maximize their weatherization investments because they are trying to keep the average amounts down. She stated that if there is no average investment limitation, then they can weatherize to the fullest extent of the cost effective measures for that household. Commissioner Hansen said he recalled testimony at one of the hearings that there are a lot of projects out there that qualified but they couldn’t do them because they didn’t have funding. He asked Ms. Barker if she saw a danger if the feds have an average cap of $2744 but we do not have a cap. Ms. Barker replied that at this point in time, Staff is comfortable monitoring the situation to see where the average goes. She said she didn’t anticipate the average getting as high as the federal limitation, but she thought it would rise above the $1500 that is currently set. She said Staff knows it will rise but not how high it will rise. She stated she didn’t think the company would object to setting a higher cap than the $1500 cap it has now. She said the community action agencies and PacifiCorp have discussed setting a cap of $2200, similar to what Idaho Power has. She stated there is a danger it could get higher but she didn’t think it would exceed the federal limitations. She added that Staff is willing to take a “wait and see” approach, monitor what the company reports in its next DSM report, and then see if a cap needs to be re-imposed or be free-floating like Avista’s.

Commissioner Hansen made a motion to hold the item and gather more information before approving it. Commissioner Kjellander stated he supported the motion, and because the Commission is taking a little more time to look at it, he wanted to know what impacts we would see on the program if we were to increase the cap to $2200 and up to $2700, such as the number of households participating or number of additional projects that might be possible within the higher caps. He said he was leaning toward a cap of some kind and we could try to determine an average or at least have something in place. He asked Staff to look at that and to look at a cap for Avista as well. He said this could be an opportunity to develop something that is universal throughout the state. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken on the motion to hold the item and it carried unanimously.

Regarding item 9, Commission Kjellander noted the item would be “accepted for filing” rather than “approved for filing” in accordance with Commission rules relating to franchise fees.

Regarding item 10, Commissioner Kjellander asked a few questions about what is happening to the green tariff funds, and in particular how much money the green tariff program is generating. He said when the Commission looked at the program several years ago, it was before we were moving forward with all the PURPA contracts. He said when the program was approved, he recalled discussion about the ultimate goal being to actually purchase power produced within the borders of Idaho, and he thought most of the money now being spent was on power coming in from out of state. Mr. Hart replied that he thought the funds could be spent either way. Commissioner Kjellander said he wanted to look at some innovative things such as how the money could be used to firm up wind, and he asked Staff to gather more information.

Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items 2 – 10. There was no discussion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

There were no further items on the agenda and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.

DATED this ______ day of May, 2006.

____________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY