HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021015_297.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
LYNN ANDERSON
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
KEITH HESSING
BEV BARKER
TONYA CLARK
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:WELDON STUTZMAN
DATE:OCTOBER 9, 2002
RE:CASE NO. IPC-02-9; APPROVAL OF DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS IN
SCHEDULES 24 AND 25 (IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS), IDAHO POWER
On August 20, 2002, Idaho Power Company filed an application requesting approval
to revise Schedules 24 and 25 for electric service to irrigation customers. The Commission
issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure on September 11, 2002
establishing a period for the filing of written comments. During the comment period, written
comments were filed by the Commission Staff and the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Inc. (Irrigators).
Pursuant to Schedules 24 and 25, Idaho Power may collect a deposit from irrigation
customers who have two or more late payments of $100 or more during a 12-month period. The
Company proposes to change the criteria to require a deposit from customers having two or more
reminder notices, rather than late payments, for unpaid balances. The proposed change allows
customers 45 days instead of 30 to pay their bills without incurring the requirement of a deposit
in the following year. The second change proposed by Idaho Power is to use a formula that
relates deposit amounts to the electrical characteristics of the pump and motor and the
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Company s irrigation rates rather than determining the deposit amount based on one and one-half
times the previous year s highest monthly billing. According to Idaho Power, past billings are
not necessarily indicative of bills for the upcoming year, since crop rotation and weather
conditions may playa part in determining electric use during the next growing season. Idaho
Power asserts that its proposed changes are intended to be dollar neutral in the aggregate.
In its written comments, Staff supports the changes proposed by the Company. Staff
noted that the new deposit formula produces the same total of irrigation deposit revenue for the
Company, although some customers will pay more under the proposed methodology, while
others pay less. Staff supports the new calculation because it establishes a uniform methodology
to determine deposit amounts, it is difficult to manipulate, and lends itself to automation. In its
written comments, the Irrigators simply stated that they "do not oppose Idaho Power s proposed
revisions to the deposit requirements for irrigation customers.
Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed changes to the deposit
requirements in Schedules 24 and 25 for Idaho Power irrigation customers.
Commission Decision
Should the application of Idaho Power to revise deposit requirements in Schedules 24
and 25 be approved?
( ~
Weldon Stutzman
vld/M:IPCEO209 ws2
DECISION MEMORANDUM