20081014Reply to Greene Tree Comments.pdf

ATLANTA POWER COMPANY INC.
11140 CHICKEN DINER ROAD
CALDWELL, IDAHO 83406
(RECEIVED
.aOCT 14 AMII: 53
IDAHO PUBUr;
UTILITIES COMMiŠS10N
October 14, 2008
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
P.O. Box 82720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
ATL-E-08-02
ATTENTION COMMISSION SECRETARY AND HEAD LEGAL SECRETARY
Enclosed are an original and seven copies of Atlanta Power Company's reply to the
Comments of Greene Tree Incorporated in this case together with a Certificate of Service.
Sincerely,~
Israel Ray
President
Israel Ray
Atlanta Power Company, Inc.
11140 Chicken Dinner Rd.
Caldwell, ID 83406
TeL. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Represantative for Atlanta Power Company, Inc.
REceIVED
2008 OCT , ~ AM II: 53
IDAHO PUBLlr.
UTILITIES COMMIŠStON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
ATLANTA POWER COMPANY FOR AN )
ORDER AUTHORIZING INCREASES IN THE )
COMPANY'S RATES AND CHARGES FOR )
ELECTRIC SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO)
)
CASE NO. ATL-E-08-2
REPLY TO
COMMENTS OF GREENE
TREE INCORPORATED
COMES NOW Atlanta Power Company Inc., ("Atlanta Powet', "Applicant" or "Company")
afld hereby files the following reply to the Greene Tree Incorporated (Greene or Intervenor)
comments filed in this case.
Intervenor has in its comments addressed the energy charges for fuff time residential
and commercial customers. Greene proposes equalizing the energy charges for the two
classes of customers. In its comments, Intervenor quoted the court "In Grindstone Butte Mut
Canal Co. v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, Idaho 175, 627 P.2d 804 (1981) the court defined, in
addition to cost of service, relevant considerations that might justify a difference in rate
treatment as:
"the quantity of the utilty used, the nature of the use, the time of use, the pattern of use,
the differences in the conditions of service, the cost of service, the reasonable efficiency
and economy of operation and the actual differences in the situation of the consumers
for the furnishing of service." 102 Idaho at 180."
Atlanta Power maintains that at least two of these considerations are present. The
nature of use for residential customers is for personal purposes and is a cost of living for them.
Commercial customers on the other hand incur energy costs as a cost of doing business. The
REPlVTO COMMENTS OF
GREENE TREE INCORPORATED 1 OCTOBER 14, 2008
quantity of the utilty used is certainly present. Exhibit No. 13 attached titled "Atlanta Power
Company, Calculation of Average Price Per KWh, Permanent Residential and Commercial, At
Present Rates" demonstrates that the commercial class of customers excluding Greene Tree's
Pinnacle Peaks Lodge use three times the average energy used by residential customers. See
line 13, Column (H). The exhibit also shows the average cost per KWh for these customers is
$0.241 as compared to the residential class average cost of $0.214 per KWh or 12.6% higher
than residential. See lines 4 and 13 in Column (F). In comparison, the Pinnacle Peaks Lodge
uses eleven (11) times more energy than the average residential customer (lines 22 and 26
Column (H)) at an average cost per KWh of $0.192 (Column (F) line 26), or 10.2 % less than
residential.
Intervenor, at page 5 of its comments, uses an example of Idaho Power Company
residential and commercial rates in support of its argument that Atlanta Power Company's rates
are discriminatory. Intervenors own example indicates that the commercial rates on the Idaho
Power Company electric system are twenty-one and one-half percent (21.5%) greater than
residential rates. As demonstrated on the attached exhibit, the average cost per KWh for
intervenor is actually ten percent (10%) less than the average cost per KW for residential
customers. This may suggest that indeed, commercial rates should increase at a greater rate
than residential rates.
:&~
Israel, Ray, President
Atlanta Power Company
REPLY TO COMMENTS OF
GREENE TREE INCORPORATED 2 OCTOBER 14, 2008
AT
L
A
N
T
A

P
W
E
R

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

A
V
E
R
A
G
E

P
R
I
C
E

P
E
R

K
W
h
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

&

C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
AT

C
U
R
R
E
N
T

R
A
T
E
S
(A
)
(B
)
(C
)
(D
)
(E
)
(F
)
(G
)
(H
)
CU
S
T
O
M
E
R
CU
R
R
E
N
T
AN
N
U
A
L
RE
V
E
N
U
E
AV
E
R
A
G
E
Av
g

u
s
e
%
o
f

Re
s

SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
Bi
l
L
S
RA
T
E
KW
h
PR
I
C
E
/
K
W
h
Pe
r

B
i
l
Us
e
1
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

1

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
25
0
2
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
81
.
0
0
86
,
9
3
0
$
20
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
0.
2
3
3
3
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
0
5
9,
8
3
0
$
49
1
.
5
2
$
0.
0
5
0
4
To
t
a
l
96
,
7
6
1
$
20
,
7
4
1
.
5
2
$
0.
2
1
4
38
7
.
0
4
10
0
.
0
0
%
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e

2

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
59
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
14
4
.
0
0
24
,
3
9
1
$
8,
4
9
6
.
0
0
$
0.
3
4
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
1
8
83
,
4
8
6
$
15
,
0
2
7
.
4
8
0.
1
8
To
t
a
l
10
7
,
8
7
7
$
23
,
5
2
3
.
4
8
$
0.
2
1
8
Eli
m
i
n
a
t
e

P
i
n
n
a
c
l
e

P
e
a
k

l
o
d
g
e

2
0
0
6
Re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r

o
f

B
i
l
s
47
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
14
4
.
0
0
18
,
3
9
1
$
6,
7
6
8
.
0
0
$
0.
3
6
8
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
1
8
38
,
0
6
5
$
6,
8
5
1
.
7
0
$
0.
1
8
0
To
t
a
l

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

P
i
n
n
a
c
l
e
56
,
4
5
6
$
13
,
6
1
9
.
7
0
$
0.
2
4
1
Eli
m
i
n
a
t
e

P
i
n
n
a
c
l
e

P
e
a
k

l
o
d
g
e

2
0
0
7
Re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r

o
f

B
i
l
s
47
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
14
4
.
0
0
18
,
3
9
1
$
6,
7
6
8
.
0
0
$
0.
3
6
8
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
1
8
35
,
8
2
9
$
6,
4
4
9
.
2
2
$
0.
1
8
0
To
t
a
l

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

P
i
n
a
c
l
e
54
,
2
2
0
$
13
,
2
1
7
.
2
2
$
0.
2
4
4
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e

P
e
a
k
s

l
o
d
g
e

2
0
0
6
12
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
14
4
.
0
0
6,
0
0
0
$
1,
7
2
8
.
0
0
$
0.
2
8
8
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
1
8
45
,
4
2
1
$
8,
1
7
5
.
7
8
$
0.
1
8
0
To
t
a
l
51
,
4
2
1
$
9,
9
0
3
.
7
8
$
0.
1
9
3
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e

P
e
a
k
s

l
o
d
g
e

2
0
0
7
12
In

B
a
s
e

R
a
t
e
$
14
4
.
0
0
6,
0
0
0
$
1,
7
2
8
.
0
0
$
0.
2
8
8
Ex
c
e
s
s

o
v
e
r

5
0
0

K
W
h
$
0.
1
8
47
,
6
5
7
$
8,
5
7
8
.
2
6
$
0.
1
8
0
To
t
a
l
53
,
6
5
7
$
10
,
3
0
6
.
2
6
$
0.
1
9
2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1,
8
2
8
.
4
2

4
7
2
4
1
%
1,
2
0
1
.
9

3
1
0
.
3
5
%
1,
1
5
3
.
6
2

2
9
8
.
0
6
%
4,
2
8
5
.
0
8

1
1
0
7
.
1
3
%
4,
4
7
1
.
4
2

1
1
5
5
.
2
8
%
AT
l
~
-
0
8
-
2
AT
L
A
N
T
A

P
O
W
E
R

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
EX
H
I
B
I
T

N
O
.

13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-~
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT r HAVE THIS I~/ DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008,
SERVED THE FOREGOING REPLY TO THE COMMENTS OF GREENE TREE
INCORPORATED, IN CASE NO. ATl-E-08-2, BY HAND DELIVERY THEREOF TO
THE FOllOWING:
SCOTT WOODBURY
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720-0074
BOISE, IDAHO 83720
DEAN J. MILLER
MCDEVITT & MillER LLP
PO BOX 2564
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
~
Israel Ray, President
Atlanta Power Comp ny