28897.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA UTILITIES’ POWER CURTAILMENT, COORDINATION,
AND COMMUNICATION PLAN. )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. AVU-E-01-14

ORDER NO. 28897

On August 17, 2001, Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities filed a Power Curtailment, Coordination and Communication Plan with the Commission. The Plan provides in a series of steps the process for Avista to curtail energy use of its customers in the event of emergencies. Idaho statutes require electric corporations to maintain a plan for the curtailment of electric or gas consumption during an emergency, and require the Commission to review the plans to determine their consistency with the public health, safety and welfare, the technical feasibility of implementing the Plan, and the effectiveness with which the Plan minimizes the impact of a curtailment. See Idaho Code §§ 61-531 and 61-532. On September 7, 2001, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure to process the filing of Avista’s Power Curtailment Plan.
During the comment period provided by the Commission in its Notice of Modified Procedure, written comments were filed by the Commission Staff and Potlatch Corporation. Avista submitted informal reply comments in response to the issues raised by Potlatch in its comments.
Staff in its comments recommends the Commission approve the Power Curtailment Plan filed by Avista. Staff noted that the Company’s Plan implements practices normally used by the electric industry to avoid rolling outages. If rolling outages become necessary, “the Plan provides for an orderly, non-discriminatory process to reduce load and to provide notification.” The Plan also “employs both load reduction and increased generation measures to mitigate curtailments.” Staff concluded that the Avista Power Curtailment Plan is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, and is technically feasible and effective.
Most of the comments made by Potlatch relate to the preparation and timing of notifications by Avista in the Curtailment Plan. For example, Potlatch states that the contact of key customers described in Step 3 of the Plan “should not be left to the discretion of sales and marketing managers.” Potlatch asserts that the notification to the PUC in Step 9 of the Plan is “far too late in the process,” and suggests that the PUC should be notified in Step 3. Potlatch also recommends that press releases be prepared and disseminated earlier in the process than described in the Plan.
In its reply comments, Avista responded to each of the issues raised by Potlatch. Regarding the discretion of sales and marketing managers to provide notice, Potlatch pointed out that the Plan does provide for notification to key commercial and industrial customers by fax and that “this is not discretionary nor is it left to the discretion of sales and marketing managers.” Avista stated that it does notify the PUC at the onset of extraordinary events and that the notice in Step 9 relates to mandatory customer curtailment as provided for in the Company’s tariff. (Sch. 70, Part 16 C(7).
After reviewing the Plan and all written comments filed in this case, the Commission approves the Plan filed by Avista. The Plan outlines appropriate procedures for the Company to temporarily interrupt electric service to its customers during emergencies and power shortages. The Plan provides equitable procedures for the curtailment of power, it minimizes adverse effects to customers, and it strives to maintain system reliability. Thirteen procedural steps guide the Company’s response from the time it first identifies the problem until service is restored to normal in the final step. The Commission finds Avista’s Curtailment Plan to be consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Its implementation is technically feasible and it effectively minimizes the impact of any curtailment.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Power Curtailment, Coordination and Communication Plan filed August 17, 2001 by Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities is approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of November 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/O:AVU-E-01-14_ws2

ORDER NO. 28897 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 26, 2001