20000121sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
DON HOWELL
BEV BARKER
BILL EASTLAKE
GEORGE FINK
WORKING FILE

FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY

DATE: JANUARY 21, 2000

RE: CASE NO. IPC-E-00-1 (Idaho Power)
SCHEDULE 24 IRRIGATION SERVICE--PROPOSED REVISIONS

On December 10, 1999, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for authority to revise its electric Schedule 24 tariff for irrigation service effective August 23, 2000. Proposed Schedule 24 (legislative format) attached.
The Company contends that its filing is an effort to streamline and improve procedures, to maintain and promote customer satisfaction, and to more efficiently utilize the Company’s resources.
The following changes to Schedule 24 are proposed:
Deposit Requirements
Under the Company’s proposal the existing Seasonal Advance provisions of Schedule 24, which were designed to protect the Company against loss from unpaid irrigation bills, will be replaced with a revised deposit provision. The deposit provision, the Company contends, will continue to protect against losses from unpaid irrigation bills but will provided advantages to both the irrigation customers and the Company.
Irrigation customers will benefit by being required to pay a smaller amount at the beginning of the irrigation season. In most cases, a deposit of either the previous year’s highest month’s bill, or an estimated monthly bill, multiplied by a factor of one and one-half (1.5) will be a smaller dollar amount than a Seasonal Advance. Idaho Power will benefit by more efficiently utilizing its resources. Adoption of the Company’s requested irrigation deposit procedure in lieu of Seasonal Advances, the Company contends, will result in processes which are more consistent and uniform with the Company’s other non-residential customers. Consistent and more uniform processes will require less training, supervision, and technical support costs. Customer-oriented innovation will also assist the Company in attaining its goals of customer service and customer satisfaction.
The Company contends that the deposit requirement offers a further advantage over Seasonal Advance in protecting the Company from unsatisfactory customer payment practices — i.e., a history of biennial flip-flopping between payment protection for the Company one year and no payment protection the succeeding year.
Interest on Deposits
The Company requests that the interest rate to be paid on deposits from Schedule 24 customers be the same as that paid on deposits for residential and small commercial customers. Reference Utility Customer Relations Rule 106.02.
Prepayment Option
Customers participating in this option are permitted to pay a $12.00 prepayment for their November through April customer charges with their October monthly payment. Customers choosing the prepayment option do not receive a monthly billing for the prepayment period unless there is a balance owing on the account. Noting a significant yearly decrease in participation and an increasing percentage of those exercising the prepayment option who are using energy in the out-of-season period, the Company requests the elimination of the prepayment option.
Preferred Due Date Provision
The preferred due date provision was added to Schedule 24 when the year round irrigation program was adopted in 1996. Under this provision customers, particularly those with multiple accounts, are provided the opportunity to specify a single due date for all of their irrigation bills. Since the year-round irrigation program was adopted, the Company reports that it has fully implemented its Summary Billing Provision. This option allows customers to receive a summary of charges for multiple accounts in a single bill. This Summary Billing option, the Company reports, has become the preferred option for those customers desiring to have a single due date for multiple accounts and requires less administrative work for Company personnel. The Company requests that the preferred due date provision be eliminated for Schedule 24.
Service Connection
In order to bring more consistency to the Company’s termination and deposit requirements, once the out-of-season begins, the Company proposes that its standard termination procedures be followed for those irrigation customers who have outstanding account balances. However, customers who have had two or more late payments of $100 or more but who pay their accounts in full prior to having service disconnected, will not as a matter of routine have their service disconnected at the end of their pumping season. Rather, customers in this category will be required to pay a deposit by March 1 of the following year in order to remain connected for service during the irrigation season. The Company requests that sub-section 2 (Late Payments) under the Service Connection section of Schedule 24 be deleted.

The Company requests that the proposed revisions to Schedule 24 be approved effective February 10, 2000 with service under the schedule effective August 23, 2000, the first meter read date for the September billing period. This procedure, the Company contends, will allow the 2000 irrigation season to be completed under the Schedule 24 provisions that are currently in place and will allow the Company sufficient time to notify its customers as to the changes in Schedule 24 that would be in effect at the end of the 2000 irrigation season and to get its internal systems and processes revised.
The Company requests that its Application be processed pursuant to Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submission rather than by hearing. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.201-204.
Commission Decision
Staff has no objection to processing this case pursuant to Modified Procedure. Staff recommends, however, that the proposed February 10, 2000 approval date be suspended so as to provide sufficient time (30 days) for submitting comments. Does the Commission agree that a suspension of the proposed approval date and Modified Procedure are appropriate? If not, what is the Commission’s preference?

Scott D. Woodbury

bls/M:ipce001_sw

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1