Loading...
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