20030808Final Order No 29315.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 8, 2003
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
AVISTA CORPORATION DBAAVISTA
UTILITIES FOR AN ORDER APPROVING A
CONTRACT WITH KOOTENAI ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INc. TO ALLOCATE
SERVICE TERRITORIES, A CONSUMER, AND)FUTURE CONSUMERS.
CASE NO. A VU-O3-
ORDER NO. 29315
On June 5, 2003, Avista Corporation 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. In Order No. 29268 the Commission issued a Notice
of Modified Procedure soliciting public comments on the parties' Agreement. The only
comment received was submitted by the Commission Staff recommending approval. After
reviewing the Agreement and the Staff Comments, we approve the Application.
THE APPLICATION
On June 2, 2003 , the parties executed an "Agreement to Exchange Electric
Customers.In their Agreement, the parties propose to exchange one current customer and
realign their respective service areas. More specifically, the Agreement transfers one customer
(Roy Armstrong) from A vista to Kootenai. The agricultural property surrounding Mr.
Armstrong s property is being developed into a residential subdivision to be served by Kootenai.
Consequently, the parties maintain that service to Mr. Armstrong is becoming more difficult and
will be costly to convert his existing Avista service to underground service (to accommodate the
newer phase of the subdivision). If approved, the Agreement provides that Kootenai's service
area will encompass all of Mr. Armstrong s property and eliminate the need for Avista facilities
in the immediate area.
The parties also agreed that the undeveloped part of Grayling Estates Subdivision
(approximately 41 lots) be transferred from Kootenai's service territory to Avista's service
territory. The Application asserts that it would be cost efficient for the utilities to exchange the
one existing customer and the two service areas. The Agreement was endorsed by Mr.
Armstrong and by Prairie Falls, the developer of Grayling Estates Subdivision.
ORDER NO. 29315
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Agreement. Staff noted that the
exchange of the existing customer and territories appear to be a least-cost exchange between the
suppliers. Staff Comments at 2. The exchange of the Armstrong account requires the parties to
seek an "exception" to the anti-pirating provisions of Idaho Code ~ 61-332B. Staff supports the
exception request and notes that the exchange of the customer and service territories also avoids
duplication of facilities and stabilizes the territories of the two suppliers.
Staff also noted that the final phase of the Grayling Estates Subdivision (41 lots) is
closest to Avista s existing service territory. Staff stated that the service territory exchange
appears reasonable because Kootenai's line extension facilities to serve the final phase of the
Grayling Estates would require Kootenai to perform an expensive and time-consuming boring
project under an adjacent railroad right-of-way to put in the necessary feeder line. Consequently,
Staff recommended that the Commission grant an exception to switch Mr. Armstrong s service
pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-334B(1) and find that the service territory swap meets the purposes
and provisions of the ESSA codified at Idaho Code ~ 61-332(2). See Idaho Code ~ 61-333(1).
FINDINGS
Having reviewed the parties
' "
Agreement to Exchange Electric Customers" and the
Staff s supporting comments, we find it is reasonable to approve the Application and Agreement.
More specifically, we find the exchange Agreement is consistent with the purposes ofthe ESSA.
In particular, we find that it promotes harmony among electric suppliers, discourages
duplication, and in particular, stabilizes the territories and consumers served by these two electric
suppliers. We further find that the exchange of the Armstrong account is a reasonable exception
to the anti-pirating provision of Idaho Code ~ 61-332B. See Idaho Code ~~ 61-334B(I); 61-
333(1 ).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. A VU-O3-
may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this Case No. A VU-O3-Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-
626.
ORDER NO. 29315
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this --f1----'
day of August 2003.
Jl~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Hansen Out of the Office
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~"'-
oeU S
ara Barrows
Assistant Commission Secretary
vld/O:A VUE0305 dh2
ORDER NO. 29315