20030620_510.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:JUNE 10, 2003
RE:APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN ELECTRIC CUSTOMER
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FILED BY VISTA UTILITIES AND
KOOTENAI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, CASE NO. A VU-03-
On June 5, 2003 , AvistaCorporation dba Avista Utilities filed an Application seeking
the Commission s approval of a contract between A vista and Kootenai Electric Cooperative to
allocate service territories and consumers.The Agreement was executed pursuant to the
provisions of the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (ESSA) and specifically Idaho Code g 61-
333(1). The "Agreement to Exchange Electric Customers" was executed by the parties on
June 2, 2003.
THE APPLICATION
The parti~s propose to exchange one current customer and realign service areas for
two subdivisions. More specifically, Avista will allow Kootenai to serve Roy Armstrong. Mr.
Armstrong is currently an A vsita customer and has pumping facilities located within the new
Field Stone development. Development of the Field Stone subdivision require Mr. Armstrong
existing service to be relocated underground.
Kootenai's service territory includes the Grayling Estates subdivision (approximately
41 lots) being developed by Prairie Falls LLC. Kootenai agrees that this subdivision may be
transferred to and served by A vista. The Application asserts that it would be cost efficient for
the utilities to exchange the one existing customer and service territories. The Agreement was
also endorsed by Mr. Armstrong and by Prairie Falls, the developer of the Grayling Estates
subdivision.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Idaho Code g 61-333(1) provides that electric suppliers may contract for the purpose
of "allocating territories, consumers, and future consumers. . . and designating which territories
and consumers are to be served by which contracting electric supplier.This section further
provides that the Commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, approve or reject the
customer exchange contract between electric cooperatives and public utilities. Id.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given the Agreement of the parties, the customer and the developer, Staff
recommends that this process be processed under Modified Procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission concur that this matter should be processed under Modified
Procedure?
Don Howell
Vld/M:AVUEO305 dh
DECISION MEMORANDUM