20030507Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
CO MMISSI 0 NER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:APRIL 30, 2003
RE:AMENDMENT OF THE SERVICE TERRITORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
VISTA AND KOOTENAI ELECTRIC, CASE NO. A VU-03-
On March 11 , 2003, Avista submitted an amendment ("Amendment No.) to its
existing Service Territory Agreement with Kootenai Electric. In Order No.29217 the
Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure soliciting public comments on the parties
amendment to their Agreement. The only comment received was submitted by the Commission
Staff recommending approval.
THE APPLICATION
On December 26, 2002, A vista and Kootenai agreed to amend their existing Service
Territory Agreement approved by the Commission in Order No. 28681 issued in March 2001.
More specifically, Avista requested that the Commission review and approve two changes to the
Agreement. First, the parties propose to change the name of "The Washington Water Power
Company" to "A vista Corporation dba Avista Utilities.
Second, the parties proposed to delete Section 7 of the underlying Agreement. This
section included provisions to determine which of two electric suppliers would serve a
development when build-out of the development intersects a competing supplier s service line.
The parties assert that Section 7 is ambiguous and they have agreed that it should be deleted in
its entirety. In addition, Section 6 of the Agreement currently allows a developer to utilize the
same electric supplier throughout all phases of a development regardless of the presence of a
competing supplier s intersecting electrical lines.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff recommended that the Commission approve the amendments to the parties
Service Territory Agreement originally approved in Order No. 28681. The Staff noted that
Idaho Code ~ 61-333 requires the Commission to review, approve or reject Service Territory
Agreements between cooperatives and public utilities. The Staff also maintained that deletion of
Section 7 of the Agreement removes an ambiguity.
Commission Decision
Does the Commission find that the two changes to the Service Territory Agreement
recognize Avista s new business name and remove an ambiguity? Does the Commission find the
changes consistent with the purpose of the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act, i., to promote
harmony, discourage duplication, and stabilize the territories and consumers served by electric
suppliers?
Don Howell
VldlM:A VUEO301 dh2
DECISION MEMORANDUM