20040712Hirschkorn Rebuttal.pdf

" - ,
L '
~ ~' ....
1 t"
, ,
. L_
""~".
2nil~ JUt I fH~1 fO= 3 t1
DAVID J. :MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEFCOUNSELFO~rl' i L.!) rUbLiC
REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFIfArlts TitS COf'"1!"1ISS10N
VISTA CORPORATION
O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, W ASlllNGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF THE APPUCA TION
OF A VISTA CORPORATION FOR THE
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS CUSTO:MERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. A VU-04-
CASE NO. A VU-04-
REB UTI AL TES TIM 0 NY
BRIAN J. IllRSCHKORN
FOR A VISTA CORPORATION
(ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)
Please state your name, business address and present position with the
Company.
My name is Brian J. Hirschkom and my business address is 1411 East Mission
A venue, Spokane, Washington. I am the Manager of Pricing in the Rates Department.
Mr. Hirschkorn, did you file direct testimony in this Case? If so, what
area(s) did your direct testimony address?
I filed direct testimony in this Case that discussed the Company s proposed
spread of the general increases for electric and natural gas service among its general service
schedules, as well as the proposed rates within each of the schedules. I also provided
information regarding the Company s proposal to reduce the level of the present PCA
surcharge by extending the recovery period, and information associated with electric service
to Potlatch's Lewiston Plant, and the basis for the proposed rates for service to the Plant.
What is the scope of your rebuttal testimony in this proceeding?
My rebuttal testimony in this proceeding will address certain rate spread and
rate design proposals contained in the direct testimony of Staff witness Schunke, Potlatch
witness Peseau, and Coeur Silver Valley witness Yankel.I will also address several
proposals made by Staff witnesses Hessing and Fuss related to revenue and rates.
Additionally, I provide minor revisions to the Company s original rate spread and rate design
associated with the proposed general electric increase based on the proposed revisions to the
Company s cost of service study, as discussed in Company witness Knox rebuttal
testimony. Lastly, I provide guidelines that the Company recommends the Commission use
in the spread of the approved revenue requirements in this Case.
Hirschkom, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
Are you sponsoring any exhibits to be introduced in this proceeding?
Yes. I am sponsoring Exhibit No. 30, which I will discuss later in my
testimony.
Electric Rate Spread & Rate Desitm
Have you examined the Staff's proposed spread of their recommended
general electric revenue increase?
Yes. Staff witness Schunke describes the Staff's proposed general increase by
rate schedule. He uses the results of the cost of service study prepared by Staff witness
Hessing, who accepts the Company s original study presented in this Case with the revenue
adjustments proposed by the Staff. The results of the Staff's cost of service study are
presented on a slightly different basis as compared to the results presented by the Company.
The Staff presents the results of its study based on a revenue to total cost ratio, with the total
cost for each schedule including the Staff's overall proposed rate of return. The Company
study provides the resulting rate of return for each schedule, which assumes all other costs
have been offset by the revenue received from customers. While the Staff's presentation of
the cost of service results is reasonable, it should also be examined with the rate of return
results provided by the Company. As a comparative example, a revenue to total cost ratio for
a specific schedule could well exceed 80%, but produce a rate of return less than zero
(negative).
Have you prepared a comparison on a relative rate of return basis (rate
of return by schedule divided by overall rate of return), of the Staff's proposed rate
spread and the Company proposed spread?
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
Yes. Column (d), page 1 of Exhibit No. 30 shows the relative rate of return by
schedule based on the Company s proposed spread of the original requested general revenue
increase of $35.2 million. As set forth in my direct testimony, the Company proposed a
spread of the proposed increase that resulted in a movement in the relative rate of return
mwroximately half way toward unity (1.00). This is illustrated on page 1 of Exhibit No. 30
by comparing columns (c) and (d). Column (e) shows the relative rates of return based on the
Staff's proposed rate spread and their overall recommended general increase of $23.
million. A comparison of columns (d) and (e), the results of Company s and Staff's proposed
rate spread, shows generally similar movement in the relative rates of return toward unity.
However, the results for Potlatch's Lewiston Facility show no movement in relative rate of
return under the Staff's rate spread.
In Company witness Knox s rebuttal testimony, she proposes two
revisions to the Company s cost of service study, one which revises the allocation of
common costs and the other which revises the allocation of primary distribution costs,
related to Coeur Silver Valley witness Yankel's testimony. The result of these two
revisions increases the present rate of return for Schedule 25 customers (including
Potlatch's Lewiston Facility), and decreases the rate of return for other schedules. Is
the Company proposing to revise its original rate spread recommended in its direct
testimony based on these cost of service revisions?
Yes. Based on the significant increase in the present rate of return for
Schedule 25 that results from these revisions, the Company is proposing to reduce the
original proposed general increase for that Schedule from 27.4% to 25.5%. Including the
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
Company s proposed PCA reduction, the net proposed increase for the Schedule is reduced
from 15.0% to 13.1 %. The reduction in the proposed increase for Schedule 25 is offset by an
additional increase to Residential Schedule 1 of 0.3%. These proposed revisions are
highlighted (outlined figures) in columns (f) and (h) on page 2 of Exhibit No. 30. No other
changes are proposed to the original general increases proposed by the Company for the other
schedules.
Do these proposed revisions result in a movement in the rates of return of
approximately one-half toward unity, as originally proposed by the Company?
Yes. Column (f), page 1 of Exhibit No. 30 shows the relative rates of return
by schedule with the revisions to the Company s cost of service study. Column (h) shows the
relative rates of return after application of the proposed increases shown in column (h) on
page 2 of Exhibit No. 30, including the revisions to Schedules 1 and 25. As shown in column
(h) on page 1, the relative rates of return move approximately half way toward unity, which is
consistent with the Company s original proposal.
Has the Company made adjustments to the Staff's cost of service study to
reflect the revisions made by Company witness Knox?
Yes. I have estimated the impact of the revisions discussed by witness Knox
in the Staff's cost of service results, which I will utilize below.
The Company s original requested general increase was $35.2 million. It
has reduced its requested increase in its rebuttal testimony to $31.1 million. Do you
recommend a guideline that the Commission could use that results in a movement of
one half toward unity re2ardless of the overall approved increase?
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
Yes. Based on the Company s (revised) proposed revenue increases by
schedule, shown in column (g), page 2 of Exhibit No. 30, I divided the revenue increase for
each schedule by the original overall request ($35.2 million), which results in a ratio of the
revenue increase proposed for each schedule. These resulting ratios are shown in the table
below and in column (k), page 2 of Exhibit No. 30.
Com~ Recommended Spread of Al!Proved Revenue Increase
Residential Schedule .401
General Service Schedule 11 101
Large General Service Schedule 21 236
Extra Large General Schedule 25 076
Potlatch (Schedule 25)155
Pumping Service Schedule 31 017
Street & Area Light Schedules 41-014
Total 000
Applying these ratios to the Staff's overall proposed revenue increase results in
revenue and percentage increases by schedule shown in columns (1) and (m) on page 2 of
Exhibit No. 30. Application of the resulting revenue increases by schedule under both the
Company s original proposed increase of $35.2 million and the Staff's overall proposed
increase to the respective cost of service studies results in the relative rates of return shown in
the following table:
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
Relative Rates of Return by Schedule - Co. & Staff Proposed Revenue Requirement
Company Proposed Staff Proposed
Present Rates Revenue Re uire.Revenue Re uire.
Residential Sch. 1
General Service Sch. 11 1.96 1.48 1.51
Lge. General Service Sch. 21 1.68 1.33 1.33
Ex. Lge. General Service Sch. 25
Potlatch Sch. 25 1.19 1.09 1.10
Pumping Service Sch. 31 1.48 1.23 1.23
Street & Area Lights Schs. 41-
This information is also shown in columns (f), (h) and (i) on page 1 of Exhibit No. 30.
As shown, application of the proposed rate spread ratios in the table on page 5 to both the
Company and Staff overall revenue increase amounts results in nearly the same one-half
movement toward unity in the relative rates of return for each schedule. Therefore, the
Company recommends that the rate spread ratios in the table shown on page 5 be applied to
the general increase approved by the Commission.
What changes is the Company proposing to the rates within Residential
Schedule 1 and Extra Large General Schedule 25 to result in the rate spread revisions
discussed earlier?
Page 3 of Exhibit No. 30 shows the Company s revised proposed rates for
Schedules 1 and 25 , with the changes shown in bold. This Exhibit is similar to page 6 of
Exhibit No. 20, filed in my direct testimony, and the rates within the two Schedules can be
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
compared between the two Exhibits. As shown, the rates for each of the two blocks
contained in Residential Schedule 1 have been increased by 0.02 cents per kwh compared to
the proposed rates in my direct testimony. For Schedule 25, the first block energy rate has
been decreased by 0.244 cents per kwh and the second block rate has been increased by 0.002
cents per kwh compared to the original proposed rates for the Schedule. The proposed
changes to the rates for Schedule 25 was an iterative process that maintained the original
proposed revenue increase for Potlatch's Lewiston Facility and resulted in the reduction in
the proposed increase for other Schedule 25 customers.
Depending on the overall general electric revenue level approved by the
Commission in this Case, how would you propose to adjust the rates within the
Schedules, given the rate spread methodology discussed earlier?
Starting with Residential Schedule 1, if the Commission approves the
Company s proposed increase in the monthly basic charge from $4.00 to $5.00, I would
propose that the rates for the two energy usage blocks be adjusted on an equal cents per kwh
basis from the proposed levels shown in column (e), page 3 of Exhibit No. 30. However, if
the Commission does not approve an increase in the basic charge, I would propose that a
higher percentage increase be applied to the present first block rate (0-600 kwhs), as
recommended by Staff witness Schunke, on page 10 of his testimony.
With regard to General Service Schedules 11,21 and 25, the Staff agrees with the
Company s proposed increases to the minimum and demand charges under those Schedules.
The Company recommends that the proposed energy rates within those Schedules be adjusted
on a uniform percentage basis from the proposed rates for Schedules 11 and 21 , shown in
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
column (e) on page 6 of Exhibit No. 20, and for Schedule 25, as shown on page 3 of Exhibit
No. 30.
For Pumping Schedule 31, the Company proposes that the rates be adjusted on a
uniform cents per kwh basis, and for Street and Area Light Schedules, all rates be revised by
the overall increase applied to the Schedules.
Other Electric Issues
On pages 10 and 11 of Staff witness Schunke s testimony, he recommends
that the Residential basic charge not be increased from the present level of $4.00 per
month to $5.00, as proposed by the Company. He states that the basic charge should
not recover any fixed plant costs and references Commission Order No. 29505 in the
recent Idaho Power Case to support his proposal. Does the Company still propose to
increase the basic charge in light of Mr. Schunke s testimony?
Yes, it does. With all due respect to the Commission s recent Order, the
Company believes that the basic charge should recover more than meter reading and billing
costs. There is a meter and a service line on the customer' s that is dedicated to serve
that customer. It is appropriate for the basic charge to cover the cost associated with plant
(meter and service line) that is on the customer s Q!QPerty and dedicated to serve that
customer, as well as meter reading and billing costs. As shown in column (e) page 7 of
Exhibit No. 20, these costs exceed the $5.00 basic charge proposed by the Company.
With regard to the Company s proposed two energy block rate structure
for General Service Schedule 11, on pages 12-14 of Mr. Schunke s testimony, he
recommends that the Company s proposal be accepted for now. However, he also
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
recommends that in the Company s next general case, this rate structure be eliminated
and that customers served under Schedule 11 be divided into two schedules, those with
demand meters and those without. Do you have any concerns with regard to Mr.
Schunke s recommendation to create these two schedules in the future?
Not at this time, however, as stated by Mr. Schunke, the Company does not
have all the information at this time to implement such a change in rate structure. Over
16,000 customers are served under this Schedule and, as pointed out by Mr. Schunke, a study
is needed to assess the effects of separating those customers into two rate schedules. The
Company will conduct such a study prior to its next general filing, provide the results of the
study to the Commission, and collectively assess whether Mr. Schunke s proposal should be
implemented.
On pages 21 and 22 of Staff witness Hessing s testimony, he agrees with
the Company s proposed PCA rate reduction methodology, however, he proposes using
the actual PCA deferral balance, rather than the estimated balance provided in the
Company s direct Case. Do you agree with Mr. Hessing s recommendation?
Yes. The PCA rate reduction could be based on recovery of the most recent
actual deferral balance over the next two years. The Company used an estimated balance and
implementation date in its direct testimony, as that was the best information it had at that
time.
On pages 22-24 of Mr. Hessing s testimony, he also recommends that once
the present PCA balance is recovered, that the PCA rate spread methodology for any
future rebates or surcharges be changed from the present uniform percentage spread
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
across the schedules to a uniform cents per kwh to all schedules. Do you agree with Mr.
Hessing proposal?
Yes. From a cost causation viewpoint, an equal cents per kwh application to
all schedules is more appropriate than the present methodology. I also agree with Mr.
Hessing s proposed timing of the change in methodology, when the present deferral balance
is recovered.
Turning now to Potlatch witness Peseau s testimony, on pages 45 and 46
of his testimony, he recommends that a separate rate schedule be established for
Potlatch's Lewiston Facility. Do you agree with his recommendation?
Mr. Peseau' s recommendation does have merit, especially as rates are moved
closer to the cost of providing service in the future. In the Company s direct filing, I have
proposed a two-block rate structure for Schedule 25 that partially addresses cost of service
and fairness issues between large Schedule 21 customers and Schedule 25 customers (pages
21-25 of my direct testimony). That rate structure also reflects the lower cost of providing
service to Potlatch's Lewiston Facility as a Schedule 25 customer by pricing the majority of
their usage at the lower tail-block rate. As a result of the changes to the Company s cost of
service study discussed earlier, in order to accomplish the same relative movement toward
cost of service and maintain Potlatch as a Schedule 25 customer, the reduction in the
proposed general increase for Schedule 25 (from 27.4% to 25.5%), had to be accomplished
entirely through a reduction in the first block rate. If rates are to move closer to cost of
service in the future, it will become more difficult to design Schedule 25 rates that maintain
Potlatch's Lewiston Facility as a Schedule 25 customer.
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
If the Commission created a separate rate schedule for Potlatch'
Lewiston Facility as a result of this proceeding, would the Company alter its
recommended revision to Schedule 25 energy rates, as discussed earlier?
Yes. If the Commission created a separate schedule for Potlatch, I would
propose that the original proposed energy rates for Schedule 25, shown in column (e), page 6
of Exhibit No. 20, be reduced by a uniform percentage to yield the revised overall increase
for the Schedule.
On pages 44 and 45 of Mr. Peseau s testimony, he also recommends that
the rates for all service schedules be moved to full cost of service (unity) in this Case if
the overall increase is less than 10%. If the overall increase exceeds 10%, he
recommends that all schedules be moved to unity over the next two years. Do you agree
with this proposal?
No. I believe that the cost of service study is a primary guide to be used in
establishing rates and the Company s proposal to move approximately half way toward unity
as a result of this Case is appropriate. Even though cost of service should be used as a
primary guide, the testimony in this Case has shown that one or two adjustments in cost
allocation can significantly change the results of a study. Further, with the changes that have
occurred in the electric industry and may continue to occur in the future, unforeseen events
could affect current costs and cost allocation. Therefore, I don t believe that it makes sense at
this time to establish a schedule for further rate adjustments based on a current cost of service
study.
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
Turning now to Coeur Silver Valley witness Yankel's testimony, on pages
10-15 he essentially states that the proposed demand charges under Schedule 25 are too
low and that the proposed rates for Schedule 25 do not send a strong enough price
signal for customers to improve their load factor. Do you agree with this portion of Mr.
Yankel's testimony?
I do agree with this portion of Mr. Yankel's testimony, however, I believe the
Company s proposed increases to the demand charges under Schedule 25 are appropriate in
this Case. The Company is proposing over a 20% increase to the demand charges under
Schedule 25, which exceeds the overall increase for the Schedule (net of PCA reduction).
agree that Schedule 25 demand charges should be further increased, but in reasonable
amounts over time.
Within pages 10-15 of his testimony, Mr. Yankel also states that Coeur
Silver Valley has the highest energy usage and the highest load factor of the customers
served under Schedule 25 (except for Potlatch) and that the proposed rates for Schedule
25 do not reasonably reflect this fact. Do you agree?
No. Page 4 of Exhibit No. 30 shows the proposed increase for each of the
present Schedule 25 customers based on the revised rates shown on page 3 of Exhibit No. 30.
As shown, Coeur Silver Valley would receive the lowest increase (10.3%) of any customer
and significantly less than the overall increase for the Schedule (13.
%).
Natural Gas Rate Issues
On page 19 of Mr. Schunke s testimony, he proposes no change to the
present basic charge under Gas General Service Schedule 101 (residential and small
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
commercial), which is presently $3.28. Does the Company still believe its proposed
increase to $5.00 per month is reasonable?
Yes. As stated on page 39 of my direct testimony, the present basic charge of
$3.28 has been in effect since 1989. Obviously, the cost of providing service has increased
over the past fifteen years. As previously stated, the Company believes that the basic charge
should recover a reasonable level of costs that are dedicated to provide service to a customer.
The Company believes these costs not only include meter reading and billing, but also the
cost associated with providing a meter and service line. As shown on page 4 of Exhibit No.
23, the average cost associated with these expenses is well over $9 per customer per month.
Increasing the basic charge to $5.00 per month in this proceeding is not unreasonable.
Does the Staff support uniform customer (basic) charges for residential
electric and natural gas service?
Yes. Staff witness Parker states on page 6 of her testimony that "Uniform
customer charges are certainly easier for customers to understand and for the Company to
administer." Witness Parker goes on to state "Although the Staff supports uniform customer
charges, Staff does not support the Company s proposed increase to $5.00." Witness Parker
also discusses customer opposition received to the Company s proposed increases in
customer charges. However, it should be noted that customer charges of $5.00 or more per
month are common for other utility services such as telephone, water, sewer, etc.
Given the Staff's overall proposed gas revenue increase, do you have any
other concerns with the Staff's proposed rates for the Company s gas service schedules?
Hirschkorn, Di - Reb
A vista Corporation
Yes. As stated on pages 41 and 42 in my direct testimony, the rates for
General Service Schedules 101, 111 and 121 provide a distinction for customer placement on
a schedule based on usage. The Staff's proposed rates under Schedules 111 and 121 changes
the present relationship between the Schedules and could cause additional customer shifting
between rate schedules. Further, the Staff's proposed minimum charges for Schedules 111
and 121 incorporate current PGA gas costs under Schedule 150, regardless of the customer
usage. The Company believes that it is more reasonable to increase the fixed minimum
charge under those Schedules by the increase in margin, as described in my direct testimony,
and bill the present Schedule 150 rate only for those therms used by the customer. The
Company s proposed rates incorporate the present Schedule 150 rate in the block usage rates
under those Schedules and as an additional variable charge to the monthly minimum charge.
Would you propose to use the rate design methodology described on
pages 41 and 42 of your direct testimony, regardless of the level of the approved gas
increase?
Yes.
Have you revised the Staff's proposed rates for Schedules 111 and 121
based on the Staff's proposed increase to those Schedules and the parameters you
addressed above?
Yes. Page 5 of Exhibit No. 30 shows a comparison of the rates proposed by
Staff and the rates the Company would propose to produce the same level of revenue for
those Schedules and meet the parameters addressed above.
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
On page 11 of Staff witness Fuss' testimony, he proposes an adjustment
that increases current gas revenue and decreases the Company s proposed revenue
requirement by $23,000. Do you agree with his proposed adjustment?
appropriate.
Other Issues
Yes. I have discussed this adjustment with Mr. Fuss and agree that it is
On page 17 of Mr. Fuss' testimony, he proposes that the Company add a
tariff sheet that shows the actual billing rates under each schedule by summarizing the
base tariff rate and all other applicable (adder) rate schedules. Do you agree with his
proposal?
Yes. In fact, the Company presently prepares such a summary sheet for
internal purposes and revises it each time rates change. Filing a summary sheet with this
information would provide the Commission and other interested parties with a quick
reference to the Company s actual billing rates.
On pages 7 and 8 of Staff witness Parker s testimony, she recommends
elimination of the Company s present charge of $4.00 for reconnecting an additional
service at a premise where more than one service (electric and gas) have been
disconnected. Do you agree with her proposal?
I believe this proposal is reasonable and the Company would make the tariff
changes set forth in her testimony if approved by the Commission.
Does that complete your rebuttal testimony in this proceeding?
Yes, it does.
Hirschkorn, Di-Reb
A vista Corporation
-.. . ,
DAVID J. :MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COUNSEL FOR
REGULA TORY AND GO VERN:MENT AL AFF AIRS
VISTA CORPORATION
O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, W ASlllNGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF A VISTA CORPORATION FOR THE
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS CUSTO:MERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. A VU-04-
CASE NO. A VU-04-
EXlllBIT NO. 30
BRIAN J. HIRSCHKORN
FOR A VISTA CORPORATION
ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SUPPLE:MENT AL MATERIAL
AV
I
S
T
A

U
T
i
l
i
T
I
E
S
ID
A
H
O

-

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
RE
L
A
T
I
V
E

R
A
T
E
S

O
F

R
E
T
U
R
N

B
Y

R
A
T
E

S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E

-

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y

R
E
V
I
S
E
D

C
O
S
T

O
F

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

S
T
U
D
Y
YE
A
R

E
N
D
E
D

D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R

3
1
,

2
0
0
2
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l

C
o
s
t

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

S
t
u
d
y
Re
v
i
s
e
d

C
o
s
t

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

S
t
u
d
y
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Pr
e
s
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
s

P
r
o
p
.

R
a
t
e
s

Pr
o
p
.

R
a
t
e
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n

t
a
g
e
Pr
o
p
.

R
a
t
e
s
Pr
o
p
.

R
a
t
e
s
Li
n
e
Ty
p
e

o
f
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
As

F
i
l
e
d
As

F
i
l
e
d
As

F
i
l
e
d
Re
v
i
s
e
d
of

T
o
t
a
l
Co
m
p
a
n
y
St
a
f
f
No
.
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
Co
m
Co
m
by

S
t
a
f
f
Co
s
t

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Re
v
.

R
e
Q
u
i
r
e
.
Re
v
.

R
e
ui
r
e
.

R
e
v
.

R
e
ui
r
e
.
(a
)
(b
)
(c
)
(d
)
(e
)
(f
)
(g
)
(h
)
(i
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
0.
4
2
0.
4
0
1
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
10
1
La
r
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
23
6
Ex
t
r
a

L
a
r
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
07
6
Po
t
l
a
t
c
h
O.
15
5
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1.
4
8
01
7
St
r
e
e
t

&

A
r
e
a

L
i
g
h
t
s
41
-
01
4
To
t
a
l
00
0
Ex
h
b
i
t

N
o
.

3
0
A
v
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

A

V
U
-
04
-
Pa
g
e

1
o
f

5
AV
I
S
T
A

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E

B
Y

R
A
T
E

S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
ID
A
H
O

-

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
12

M
O
N
T
H
S

E
N
D
E
D

D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R

3
1
,
2
0
0
2
(O
O
O
s

o
f

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Co
m
p
a
n
y

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

R
e
a
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
St
a
f
f

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

Re
e

u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Co
.

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Co
.

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

C
o
.

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Sp
r
e
a
d

o
f
Sp
r
e
a
d

o
f
%
S
p
r
e
a
d

o
f
Li
n
e
Ty
p
e

o
f
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Un
d
e
r

P
r
e
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
St
a
f
f
St
a
f
f
No
.
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
Ba
s
e

R
a
t
e
s
(.
1
)
as

F
i
l
e
d
as

F
i
l
e
d
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
(a
)
(b
)
(c
)
(d
)
(f
)
(g
)
(h
)
(i
)
(j
)
(k
)
(I
)
(m
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
$5
2
,
64
8
$1
3
,
93
7

26
.
$1
4
13
4
26
.
$9
,
87
8
18
.
40
1
$9
,
25
5
17
.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$1
6
21
2
$3
,
56
0
22
.
$3
,
56
0
22
.
84
6
11
.
10
1
33
3
14
.
La
r
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$3
4
80
4
$8
,
29
5
23
.
29
5
23
.
47
3
12
.
23
6
$5
,
4
3
9
15
.
Ex
t
r
a

L
a
r
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$1
0
,
4
7
5
87
0

27
.
4

%

$2
,
67
0
25
.
10
0
20
.
07
6
75
3
16
.
Po
t
l
a
t
c
h
$2
7
69
6
$5
,
46
3
19
.
$5
,
46
6
19
.
$4
,
11
6
14
.
15
5
$3
,
58
0
12
.
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
54
9
$5
9
7
23
.
4
%
$5
9
7
23
.
$3
4
5
13
.
01
7
$3
9
1
15
.
St
r
e
e
t

&

A
r
e
a

L
i
g
h
t
s
41
-
$5
0
0
26
.
$5
0
0
26
.
$3
2
1
17
.
01
4
$3
2
8
17
.
To
t
a
l
$1
4
6
,
24
8
$3
5
,
22
2
24
.
$3
5
,
22
2
24
.
1
%
$2
3
,
07
9
15
.
00
0
$2
3
,
07
9
15
.
(1
)

E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
l
l

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

r
a
t
e

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s

Re
f
l
e
c
t
s

o
n
l
y

b
a
s
e

t
a
r
i
f
f

r
a
t
e
s
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.

3
0
A
v
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

A
V
U
-
04
-
Pa
g
e

2

o
f

5
VISTA UTILITIES
IDAHO - ELECTRIC
REVISED PROPOSED RATES FOR SCHEDULES 1 & 25
Present General Proposed Proposed
Base Tariff PCA&Present Rate PCA Net Billing Base Tariff
Sch. Rate Billin Rate Increase Decrease Increase B!!!!Rate
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)
(g)
(h)(i)
Residential Service - Schedule
Basic Charge $4.$4.$1.$1.$5.$5.
Energy Charge:
First 600 kwhs $0.04555 $0.00700 $0.05255 $0.01323 ($0.00520) $0.00803 $0.06058 $0.05878
All over 600 kwhs $0.05303 $0.00853 $0.06156 $0.01323 ($0.00673) $0.00650 $0.06806 $0.06626
Extra Laroe General Service - Schedule 25
Energy Charge:
First 500,000 kwhs(2)
All over 500,000 kwhs(2)
Demand Charge:
000 kva or less
Over 3,000 kva
Primary Voltage Discount
Annual Minimum
$0.02874
$0.02874
$0.00616 $0.03490
$0.00616 $0.03490
$0.01275 ($0.00336) $0.00939 $0.04429
$0.00548 ($0.00336) $0.00212 $0.03702
$0.04149
$0.03422
$7,500 - $7,500 $1,500 - $1,500 $9 000
$2. 25/kva - $2.25/kva $0.50/kva - $0.50/kva $2.75/kva
$0.20/kva - $0.20/kva - $0.20/kva
Present: $406,140 plus $0.00616/kwh Proposed: $528,040 plus $0.00280/kwh
$9,000
$2. 75/kva
$0.20/kva
(1) includes all present rate adjustments: Schedule 59 - Residential Exchange Credit
Schedule 65 - Centralia Credit, Schedule 66 - PCA Surcharge & Schedule 91 - DSM Rider
Exhbit No. 30
Avista Utilities
Case No. AVU-04-
Page 3 of 5
Avista Utilities
Idaho - Electric
Proposed Increase for Schedule 25 Customers - Revised Rate Spread
Based on 2002 Usage
Coeur Silver Valley Inc.
Univ. of Idaho - East Campus
Univ. of Idaho - West Campus
Hecla Mining
Potlatch-St. Maries
Blount Industries
Stimson Lumber - CDA
Three Rivers Timber
Clearwater Forest Industries
Potlatch-Post Falls
Coeur D Alene Resort
J D Lumber Co.
Stimson Lumber - Priest River
Tri-Pro Cedar Products
Percentage
Increaseill
10.
11.
11.70/0
11.70/0
12.
13.
14.
15.1 %
15.
16.00/0
17.10/0
17.40
17.
18.
Average Increase 13.1 %
(1) Includes all rate adjustments (PCA, DSM, etc.
Exhibit No. 30
Avista Utilities
Case No. A VU-04-
Page 4 of 5
AVISTA UTILITIES
IDAHO - GAS
COMPANY PROPOSED REVISIONS OF STAFF RATE DESIGN
FOR GAS SCHEDULES 111 & 121
Large General Service Schedule 111
Staff ProDosed Rates ComDanv ProDosed Revisions
1 st 200 Therms - 78.190ctfTherm
Next 800 Therms - 76.379ctfTherm
Over 1 000 Therms - 66.182ctfTherm
1 st 200 Therms - 81.316ctfTherm
Next 800 Therms - 76.379ctfTherm
Over 1 000 Therms - 66.125ctfTherm
Minimum - $156.38/Month Minimum - $108.26/Month
plus 27.186ctfTherm
Large General Service Schedule 121Staff ProDosed Rates ComDanv ProDosed Revisions
1st 500 Therms - 77.103ctfTherm
Next 500 Therms - 76.379ctfTherm
Next 9,000 Therms - 66.182ctfTherm
Over 10,000 Therms - 64.313ctfTherm
1 st 500 Therms - 80.334ctfTherm
Next 500 Therms - 76.379ctfTherm
Next 9,000 Therms - 66.125ctfTherm
Over 10,000 Therms - 64.246ctfTherm
Minimum - $385.51/Month Minimum - $265.74/Month
plus 27.186ctfTherm
(1) Rates include Purchase Gas Adjustment Schedule 150 / Exclude all other
rate adjustments
Exhibit No. 30
Avista Utilities
Case No. A VU-04-
Page 5 of 5