20140422Comments.pdf

KARL T. KLEIN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO, 5156
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W, WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5918
Attorney for the Commission Staff
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA
CORPORATION'S APPLICATION TO UPDATE
ELECTRIC LINE EXTENSION SCHEDULE 51
AND ALLOWANCES.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. AVU.E.I4-02
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission comments as follows on Avista
Corporation's Application to update Electric Line Extension Schedule 51 .
BACKGROUND
On March 14,2074, Avista Corporation applied to revise the Company's Electric Line
Extension Schedule 51 applicable to new residential, commercial, and industrial customers'
services. The proposed changes are to take effect on May 1,2014.1
COMPANY APPLICATION
In the Application, the Company proposes to revise line extension costs based on updates
to the Company's Construction & Material Standards as well as an updated actual average cost
of all material and labor used in line extensions during 2013. The Company also proposes to
' The Company initially filed its Application as a Tariff Advice. But the Company and Staff later agreed that it
would be better to process the flrlling as an Application to afford interested persons an opportunity to comment on
the proposed changes.
STAFF COMMENTS APzuL 22,2014
update the electric line extension allowances that apply to new residential, commercial, and
industrial customer's services. The current allowances were set in 2001. See Order No. 28562
(Case No. AVU-E-00-01). For purposes of calculating the revised allowances, the Company
says it used an embedded-cost methodology to ensure that investment in distribution/terminal
facilities for each new customer will equal the embedded costs of the same facilities used to
calculate base rates. The Company says the new customer would pay any costs above the
allowance as a contribution in aid of construction. The Company says it calculated the
embedded costs by using the cost-of-service study from its most recent general rate case
(AVU-E-12-01) as updated to reflect the approved settlement agreement in that case. The
changes to the proposed allowances are, in summary:
Service Schedule
Current
AIIowance
Proposed
Allowance
Schedule Individual Customer (per unit)$ 1.000 $ 1,600
Schedule Duolex (per unit $800 sL,275
Schedule Multiplex (per unit)$600 $975
Schedule lll2 (per kwh)$0. l 0703 $0.13766
Schedule 21122 (per kWh)$0.06000 s0.l 1657
Schedule 31132 (per kWh)$0.6000 $0. l 9689
The Company says that for residential developments, the proposed changes to
Construction & Material Standards, construction costs based on2013 average costs, and
increased allowance per residential unit results in a lower payment for developers and builders.
In summary:
Residential
Filing - Development Summary
Total Cost per Lot
Less: Service Cost
Developer Responsibility
Developer Non-refundable Payment
Developer Refundable Payment
Builder Payment
Developments
2013
$1,716
469
st-247
s247
$ 1,000
$469
2014
$ 1,598
485
s1.113
$ r,l r:
0
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
STAFF'REVIEW
Staff thoroughly reviewed Avista's Schedule 5l Tariff revisions. Besides conducting its
normal annual review of the Company's proposed line extension cost updates, Staff also
analyzed the proposed line extension allowances that were last updated in February 2001. Based
on its analysis, Staff proposes several adjustments that have been validated by the Company.
The following is a summary of Staff s findings.
Analysis of Line Extension Costs
Staff reviewed line extension costs, which include Tariff Construction Costs and Cost
Reduction Credits for developeribuilder-performed services. Staff s proposed adjustments
decrease total builder and developer average cost by 7% from $1,716 per lot to $1,596 per lot.
This decrease in total builder and developer costs is driven primarily by a73Yo reduction in
primary distribution cost, even though the costs of secondary distribution, transformers, and
service drops have increased over costs included in the current tariff. The developers' average
cost decreases by 38%o-from $1,793 to $1,1I I per lot-and the average builder's cost increases
by 3Yo, or $ I 6 per lot, for the cost of a service drop over current rates. The table below
summarizes these changes:
Change in Developer and Builder Cost
2013 lo 2014 Revised
Secondary Distribution Cost 255
311
424
470
308
470
53
159
21o/o
51o/oTransfurmer
Total Weighted AW Cost (Trenching by Dewloper) ' 1,793 1,405 1,111 (682) -38%
Trenching Credit (546) (292) 0 546 -100%
Total Dercloper Cost 1,247 1,'l'13 1,111 (136) -11o/o
Sen,ice
Tot'al B
Cost 3o/o
-7o/o
Comparing the cost of current and proposed construction costs and cost reduction credits
(shown in Attachment A) was difficult this year because the Company has changed how it
calculates those costs. First, proposed construction costs for developments no longer include the
cost for Company-provided trenching, recognizing that developers have always been required to
perform their own trenching. As a result, cost-reduction credits for developer-provided trenching
are no longer needed. Staff does not believe this changes the average cost methodology set forth
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
in Commission Order No. 28562. However the change does provide benefits by: (l) adding
clarity to line extension quotes provided to developers, (2) streamlining the Company's internal
quotation process, and (3) making the development of annual updates for Schedule 51 tariffs
more efficient and clear.
During its review, Staff discovered trenching-related costs that should have been
removed from the Company's average underground primary and secondary distribution costs.
The Company persuaded Staff that a cost for inspecting the trench, which was included in the
original trenching cost, should remain. These adjustments slightly increase the underground
primary and secondary credits of $0.13 and $0.21 per lot, respectively. With Staff s adjustment,
$546 of trenching credits were completely removed with about the same reduction in total
weighted average cost.
Second, the Company updated the Tariff to reflect current approved National Electric
Safety Code (NtrESC) Construction and Material Standards. In many cases, the NESC update
fundamentally alters the standard design of installations by changing the type of material, the
amount of labor required, and the composition of individual cost components included in Tariff
Construction Costs.
Third, the Company started using a standard design as the cost basis for Tariff
Construction Costs that formerly accounted for multiple designs. In a few cases, this change
recognized that "one-off' designs were rare, (e.g., service pole charges were removed from
variable overhead service charges). But this transition was primarily driven by more consistent
and stringent NESC standards. For example, primary and secondary underground installations
must now have conduit in all jobs, which eliminates variations not requiring conduit.
Finally, the Company shifted several individual cost components from one tariff cost
category to another. For example, the transformer cost now includes the incremental cost to
install the transformer, while the current charge only includes the cost of the transformer itself.
Staff believes this change is appropriate.
For these reasons, Staff focused its analysis on comparing individual components of
Tariff Construction Costs to similar-cost components from the prior year. Staff also looked at
the composition of individual cost components within each Tariff Construction Cost and
reconciled them with the previously described changes.
Of the individual component costs that were comparable, the largest impact was due to
the cost of transformers increasing the average cost per lot by 51%. Depending on the size and
STAFF COMMENTS APzuL 22,2014
type, transformer cost increased from2-6Yo. In addition, fixed cost previously included in
primary distribution has shifted to the cost of transformers; and of those costs, more rigorous
NESC standards have further increased costs. Also, the average size of transformers installed
last year has increased, which impacts this year's average cost. Staff believes these increases are
reasonable.
Most of the difference between current and proposed distribution and service cost per lot
is due to a change in the average length of installations. For example, the cost per lot for
underground primary distribution is reduced by about 73oh and much of this reduction is caused
by a 50o/o decrease in the average length of an installation. This can be attributed to a trend
toward more compact developments in Avista's service area. On the other hand, the cost per lot
to install underground secondary distribution and service lines has increased because the
installation lengths have grown, increasing the per lot cost of those installations.
Staff believes the Company's proposed Tariff Construction Costs and Cost Reduction
Credits, with Staff s proposed adjustments as described above and included in Attachment A, are
reasonable and should be approved by the Commission.
Analysis of Allowances
The purpose of the allowance is to credit developers and builders for upfront distribution
and terminal facility line extension costs that are currently recovered through base rates.
Allowances for line extension costs were last updated in 2001 in Case No. AVU-E-00-01. The
method Staff proposed in that case is the same as the method proposed by the Company in this
year's Application. Staffls main concern in the prior case was that raising the amount of the
allowance beyond embedded costs would put undue upward pressure on base rates. If base rates
increase due to higher revenue requirements driven by new customer-related distribution cost,
existing customers would subsidize new growth and new customers would not pay the full cost
of new distribution facilities from which they benefit.
As shown in the table below, the Company is proposing to increase all allowances, except
Schedule 31132, ranging from29Yo (Schedule lll12) to 94o/o (Schedule 21122). Since the
Company used Staff s proposed calculation method from the last line extension case
(AVU-E-00-01), the proposed allowances are about equal to the fully embedded cost of the same
facilities used to calculate base rates for each customer class. Because of this, and because 12
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
years of growth and inflation have affected the total embedded cost, Staff believes the proposed
increases are reasonable.
Staff does not believe the Company's calculation properly removed the cost of a service
meter. The Schedule 51 Line Extension Tariff does not include service meters because the
Company recovers their cost through the customer charge. The Company's calculation of the
proposed allowances includes the full revenue requirement for recovery of a meter, yet the
Company only backed-out the cost of the meter from the estimated line extension investment.
Staff s adjustment eliminated the meter revenue requirement from the allowance calculation.
The proposed allowances in the last column of the table below reflect Staff s adjustment.
Service Schedule
Company's
Current
Allowance
Company's
Proposed
Allowance
Staff s
Proposed
Allowance
Schedule I Individual Customer (per unit $ 1.000 $ 1,600 $ 1.ss0
Schedule 1 Duplex (per unit $800 $1,275 $1,240
Schedule 1 Multiplex (per unit)$600 $975 $930
Schedule llll2 (per kWh)$0. r 0703 $0. r 3766 $0.12868
Schedule 21122 (per kWh)$0.06000 $0.1 1657 $0. I 1 874
Schedule 31132 (per kWh)$0.6000 $0. l 9689 $0.t9279
The calculation of allowances with Staffls adjustments is included in Attachments B
through E. Staff used inputs from the cost of service and weighted cost of capital approved in
the last general rate case (AVU-E-12-08) to determine the allowable investment on a cost per
customer basis for new residential customers (Schedule 1) and on a cost-per-kilowatt-hour basis
for new general (Schedule I I or 12), large general (Schedule2l or 22) and irrigation (Schedule
31) customers.
Using the residential customer allowance calculation illustrated in Attachment B as an
example, the net plant (plant in service minus accumulated depreciation) of $1,387.16 per
customer of both distribution and terminal facilities is used to calculate the return on investment
portion of the revenue requirement. This includes a retum of common equity of $106.69 which
hasbeengrossedupfortaxesusing aL57 gross-upfactor,andacostofdebtof $41.68. When
this sum is added to the depreciation expense per customer of $62.05, it produces an average
revenue requirement of $210.42 for distribution plant and terminal facilities for a residential
customer.
6STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,20T4
The resulting revenue requirement is the amount of revenue the Company will receive
through rates from an average new customer to fully recover distribution and terminal facility
(minus the service meter) investment currently embedded in rates. But this revenue requirement
is based on investment that has been partially depreciated and does not represent the cost of new
investment. To account for this difference and the Company's authorizedrate of return, Staff
divided the sum of the rate of return after gross-up of 10.6960 , and the current weighted average
depreciationrateof2.85l4Yointotherevenuerequirement of 5210.42. Staffdeterminedthe
Company can invest $1,550 in new distribution plant and terminal facilities (minus the service
meter) for each new residential customer without putting upward pressure on base rates.
Staff believes the Company should review and seek to update allowances at more regular
intervals so the magnitude of changes is gradual and better represents distribution-plant and
terminal-facility costs embedded in base rates. Because the method for calculating the allowance
is based on inputs from the last general rate case, updates to allowances would only need to
occur whenever a new general rate case is processed and new base rates are established. This
could occur during the annual Schedule 51 Line Extension Cost updates already ordered by the
Commission.
Payment Impact for Residential Developments
With the $1,550 per lot allowance recommended by Staff, the first $1,111 is applied to
the total developer cost, eliminating it completely and representing a 100% reduction from
current rates. The remaining $439 of the allowance would be a credit to builders against the
$485 cost of a service drop for each lot. This reduces the builder's remaining cost to $46 per lot
for a90Yo decrease from current rates. These impacts are summarizedinthe table below:
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
Developer and Builder Cost lmpact
2013 to 2014 Revised
Per Lot Cost ($)2013
2014
Comnanv Filino
2014
Revised (No Trenchinq $ Difference % Difference
Total Dewloper Cost
Allowance (not to exceed cost)
Remaining Dewloper
Total Builder Cost
Left-o\er allowance
1,247
1 ,000
3%
nla
(1 36)
111
1,1 13
1,1 13
0
485
485
1,111
1,111
247
469
0
0
485
4s9
(247)
16
439 '
Remaining Builder Cost
Total Allowance
Total Allowance Used
469
'l ,000
1 .000
1,600 1,550't,598 1 ,550
-9070
55%
55o/o
\423)
550
550
Unused Allowance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the revised 2014 Schedule 5 1 tariff construction costs and cost
reduction credits contained in Attachment A, and the following allowances against the cost-of-
service line extensions for each of the different classes be approved and made effective on May
1,2014:
Service Schedule
Schedule I Individual Customer (per unit)
Schedule I Duplex (per unit)
Schedule I Multiplex (per unit)
Schedule llll2 (per kWh)
Schedule 21122 (per kWh)
Schedule 31132 (per kWh)
Allowance
$ 1,550
$1,240
$930
$0.12868
$0.1 1874
$0.19279
Staff also recommends that the Company submit allowance updates (using the method for this
case) for review and approval by the Commission with the annual update of Schedule 51 line
extension costs after each general rate case.
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
Respecttully submitted this Z Zd day of Apr il2[l4.
Technical Staff: Mike Louis
Kathy Stockton
i:umisc/comments/avue I 4.2kkmlkls commcnts
Karl T. Klein
STAFF COMMENTS APRIL 22,2014
c.l
I$
Iulto
:Z H
o E-E o-qlnzl) r.
H e?HR!(E::+<oad
erlHH$$ sE$$lH
H$l^qq5 flEl"nl'rlol 'rlol Iplsl plsl
I+l ql ^lFl \f\f@F(O Fl O6(f)|lr)ol <o r 6 t- 6 0l \f st d)lroNI ot oi d ci ci ci Nl ot ni ; r;la;
9l El- e--- 9l gl* o ul-ol9l olgl IFlgl El,sl Ior urEl
Iral "rl
I
H; S H E I H3 ; algal EI^ -ltttrtI<l<llFIFIIolollo'Nr
I
sr8 3I5 R Pr8 b 8l;
+lr * c'i ..i;
flX s Sls:lErrEIEIIEIEII:l:llRlRllE88ER EeslqptEE."s- StEBgl8bl bl N NlsNrNrl
9. IsrI --666 *--l9-,9o€€"9 -,9991J '=l u q '=l L L LlI sl 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. sl 8. 8. 8.1
G^l5 blE ^^E ^EEl{J (D (1) = (D : ll: EEEEE EE:I8.,_EE83: .3Hil
* -€IE E s: E -€ls =
E-lEilIEE=Ee ilE3rle s,rg e E E z f,li= ilg;lE E;5E ,, c, c.o,q, ol o o = = o ol .= o rlloolooooo olooolEBIo El:lir-l
sa;rssF iasssl-g tEl O'E (D E E ^- ol O O Olborr-l (/)(L(/)o-(L EEI(/)aolJE U l;
= E t E ar t }i u u orcLC C C C C I-' C E CIJE gggg* s gggl.3EsEssss lsEeels6Elsssss #PissslP
sNrit-
O)o?
@N.
N
ci
d(ONrr$(o(O@$(ONF (')$El9 q n q q a \ q c\ \ q \ q q
=llr) F- co o N t- (o o) o) @ o @ @ s::l F (O - @ l.r) O F O) @EIN \i $ (O tr) N O)>{e to 6i- (o NLIrllOJ
Elololsl
ol(\al
g o .,., o o o oIITEEEEEEEtEtEtEtOl .x (U .x (! O .x.x O .I (U .x (U.a O .=Ol tr- > u- > > tr tr- ) t! > LL > u- > l!
aa^ b-(E(E(s(!ccfr FF E ff,oo P
S g T FE E g E T FE E; X P g E
E,[lE E oioaos E E E t3s E E 3 E
ts
2 poEEE..)ppE-;cccccccc(rrff:Jfflffo EHHHEE9eeeeeeee!+- O O O O O o Pg)PPS,StS,9PEort€€€€€€6ddd666dd
FFI ooooooflf,fllf,ll
s\
I
sssssssssstf)tOrONF-N-lr)OGitrj;ci d;<o-roo(r)(r)(OF N NNOtt
I
(r)NF-@@SOO)(o@O(O$rtOOrr(O@O)r.i;<.i+ci+;ci-oi
-$ @ N rf) (f)O)r (O N
str)dN
(oo
C;@
N
8ts Ntrl N -ol 'l 'C
;l sl'rlol
&l st
slFl +-Ol ui6Nl orci ni
:l Els
Fl Slol
.+l
(')so) o)(o.f
@o)c.i
(ONr-sld)(o6S(OF-F_,@ o) $ o) o) $ t- ro N F- (o F-gtdl tf) F- O O N F- (O O) O) @ O 66l - (O r @ tO O - O)'-lN $ st (o tr) N
itls () N F (f,ttsl
-lolArl
OrN@(O(ONNO(o@lr)@tr)ios @ t- 6 ro o) o) o (o (o o) o o, o rr)
-,+ 'd ai N + <.i d oi $ F- oi N oi N dIl - $ $ si co F (r) (r, Obl @_ (o_ ro_ @_ @_ 6l N F--Nl $ N r F N
o o o o o'= o o o o o o o o F
-.€€€€€ =BE.p€€€€€ ='=l r u_El 6) 6) o (r) d, o o o o o o o o o o)ll o- o o o o o- o- o- o. o. o o o- o- o.
c\l
I$
tr)
r!> g
=4 E(.) E*E O-Q]EAI) r.
H !2hNPG.!:+<oad
g
JE(,Eoo
i
Eo!oot
oSo6od)dqoo
co,E6tdOs
foofi$(
ooF
NOOF(!.q
Ol'(ooo. c!t@
(o
oooooo
No-
NN.
N
ooF
@ Nlt)F OOr- oni6 it(oOr
NIo
N
NNooto.
o
ot
od
$@
Io1/}
oo
ci
o
g
ooo
o(,
=
!;ooJ
EE
bHFI
o oo(o N!t6 0(o; o;o oN'i $.\
t
NNo
l'-N
(o
Egc=
5Hl"- [
o oN! qq6 (91..O tlrt
o\o6
c
,9fc!o
ob
o ooo oF-s" N. c!
N F'Ooool.-oo6 0iOr
o
tood
c,4,fco(!PU
6
m o@N (oO
o rttF- Ot6F
(I)(o
o\t
tli.toa
Elo
oozoo
o
ooooIN
ul
l
o
ch
0x
- ttJz6z Ef([ ;0*tr^L
oooz d.o
o
F
ooocooxul
o
Eo
f(j
o(L
o-qE8fLx-uJo-z6
E FT
^ trO* f -Lo o0)z to o
oF
Eo
Efio
!
s.oo,Ii
Hdd66noo0E:3oTr!oo0)
UOU
E$EBEEnx3J
fo
*Sr*.io@o)oosqqdFi.iHmNtHo6
.,i
PPPPPlfflSoooo o
NSEsEN.\;"\8-.oodotnod-:6rovn60dooo306j doiqRr. F.qH m-: o
:(H
i
'a
6U
ocLo
;;;.nl^lDdo0- 9. @. FloNd6ooodHNd r
6H(,rd
Pfotr
.oocoNrn.,to\cld(oo(oo{!4NF.d.jdi^id"lrti'cood<todmu)md d Ndtjj
sE $
.3ga r:f;E iu'!
EglgIgi#;f,ilIiIIEIgiiiii
P,eEU -b =U; Efi 5IL = Er lAg; ,PE: r.isqEn [Ef;E g uHxEp
E5g ;:BE,! : !|itF!
.9 :,s x E i : t ! I ElI ig I
e,E;gEg:!E s|:pEp
utg
JTIos(Jvl
I
o
Lo
3I
a
Io!o,9 or
rlf >l
=t Elde Etri Eteo 6l
r^ <h <lt lJ> ll <ll th 4h
N
Is
Ird
..,J C\J> g24 E0) E*E O.Q:
€6E*t8#3
N
IfEo!oo
Eocoo
(os
bEJq(?)o(v)r
6F
B6>t([o
Epco<t
6
oF
o (oo
FFO
FF(ON-o@ l'.OO. O. l'.-o$ro
rlo@
(ot.N
'ri
o
oF
OFNOFOooci ci
ot
ci
\iN
o
ci
@N
ci0
Noo
c,o
Eo
ooooo
c,
ooooo
ci
ooO
o
o
ooo)
(0oq,N
citi
oNffio
ctti
ooIo{^
co
E
oo
s
(,
.oo
33
Eg
E'6,ooFI
loooo$NFj oiooo-t
tt
@@
oto(0_
otN
otot-
EU
E5.o([Ft!
rNOFoooooo
(?)oNo
c,
o$oo
ci
,9
fC.oO!o-o
5
IOFOo NoN- (o- $-N OO(o ooo" o- o-
@OrN
(ooo
F.o(v)
$
.9
.O(E
![
.9o
NOoooooocio
(oto@oo
o
oo
(o
@oooo
E
o
oo.E
oa
o
ooo
@q
N
I
uJItr
0,a
;OJ
0.x
- tlJo_
-OE Ef_s :0^tro)-aoo ooz to
6
E
ooo
oox
uJ
!o
Eo
o
o
oo
oaig(Lx
- tlJo-1oE EE.s :6
^EO- aao o0,z to
6
oF
otrfio
;
Eo!I
P
o
"\ N)(mtrno\rO ONd)Nrlng 91a;.iuioq*.: MN Nor{
)J)ooo!!s
(ol,+oI\oOoq100.{FlNOrlm(oOrl.nm(o
oo' oil\
o}mrnmr{to\+o0mNnN|,)!iOOF{OFil,o'lqqqqqdiooooOO.{
!o
EEI
:_[
PPP9Pf f lf foooo. osss! E
"\xx.\NNxhx..OOr{OtnOrl-io1YlonO00OOolF{to5 doiqRF. F,.fi m-:Y\t
otIo
GU{/} v} .(Av) vl v) {} lh {>I
3-v!
OJc
r.{ P'nEgu
J!ot(Jta
I
oIco
3ON
feb.1Eo,90
(!f
i'i oi69l/)
oJ*gP &tro coo oox ExuJ i6
lE'!ix
- u t! rv -_ '6 i!'o 'O Ph,f,PEE:
iE FfrfrU.ri'r !;; I
rEltti*E;(Jl ooXc<(:gl;; E c l:g,
tlEEEnPg
Fouc)*rrEl oog: Efi Er El es;
Hiii,IigIgIftIIiHggIgigIlgI
c{
I$
Ir!
:> H
o E-E 9 -a.lEAI) .t,E sg.i!$.:l+<OoDd
NN
NI:to
oo
Eo
a,o
oo
(!J
oSo(o(.)oroqNO()r
aa
E6>t60E9c([<tr
6
oF
$@o(,loooootrl coAioloN(o(oN; F.oN
Eoocoo
o
.oF
moE3ooci ci
otoo
o
(o
oo
€
ciq
lo
ocj6
Eo
oooooo
oooooo
ooo
0)
o
ooI
t
or-{d
c,{,
lnIi{o
ct
orlO
oriota
Eo
E
6o
!
o
-ooi3?
EU
E5.o(EF I.L
r rtOFFcootoor.- Jorr l-Ooo(f)O-
(r)o..
t'-a
E9?
E6.(l)(l,Ftr
e8oooooo
@\t
C,
NNooo
.9fa.o(EEo-o6
(,rovt$ro$s@NNo@Nlo lo.oj ooi(o
oo@oot
o)
c
.9
.o6tso-o6
rFN-o)to ooo ooci oo
o)(')
o
ci
No
d6
oa
o
ooo
@cN
uJ
f
0)--2i8.0-x- tlJo-1OE EEo- E0
!!go croz to
E
P
oooc
0)ox
UJ
0)
Eo
ofo
0)(L
0)6
E8"(Lx-uo-z-oE EE(! :6^trO-.=oo ooz to
(,
oF
0,tr!ro(,
sttt!]9
4
Pfo
EXr.o,r;$f\F{6f\Ulq.'1dd+em(\t N
PPPYYJJ=fJoooo occc c c
NISXXXXXIXX-.c)O-O!nOr{-lor(oyl^Loo600o)dtoo
5 ddiqPF: Fi9ii m-: oYstd
6.:oGU
fffoootrss
omd(oor<tiomOo).i(o6NO
N00FlF{(orroid(o r'{
ac
cndNmO.rEr.a tnOd)F{st(o14CO; s88888*='r cicjcjcic,cjiict
(,(!
oU {/l vl vl <tt {> ct v} v}\</t .tt1tt </t <l>
Fl|n
o
l!o.c(Jo
I
oI
o
3ON
=NfqoF
E:
of
d9
O(JU(,
S o oE Eu0ol o
oU !b : ;l ; ?o-o $.e':?g HE E'r El q sE gE**gEE *EEE iE ;l -i i
iEl,lliigIfuEEiHggigigfugIg;*iiig
No
=Ir!
sr> gP-4 Eo tr*E O-QJEAI)),HsrHi.ltr6a+<U(,d
Nc)
(.,
o
tto
oo
o)
'a
Efo
o;e\t(o\t6)@q()c)
@tr
=6>t
r!O:sco<x.
(E
oF
@oNN@(',t-O(rr(Y)o- rt
lo\tsrioN
ot
@\iN$t-s_
(!
oF
o)rtF-r @Nl'-. r OFOOo oo
@Noo
@No
c,ID
t(rlooo0
8oo
c,
ooooo
ci
oooooo
oo
o,
o)
=oooJ
o
orr{o<tt
orY)tY)(l,ociv)
e6rlndov)
tro
E
o
E
IU
Et!]s
E3-=troo(!FtL
$@oNN.\INNON|r)O(o@NN.
@
(r)
rf,toN
EE-=troo(!FLL
(,NOrooooci d
No(,)oo
lovood
c
.9fc!(!!&.oo
rOONO(,N@(f)
- c.i@Nto(oo@(f)
Ni
o(f,oo
N.
c
.9fc-o(!
,9o
r()l')(orOooci cj
N
$
o
(o
$lo
c,
slo
ciq
tla
o)o,E
C)a
o
a
Ooo
N
uJl
tU6;c)
LX
- tlJ(,) -zoE FE(E :oo =p--o0rooz tro
(5
oF
ooocq)
x
uJ
o)
Eo
ofo
0)
o_
oa
=o:oIx
- tlJo-LO
-Z6.E-oL o.:oooEO
c(E
0-
d)z
6
E
tr(,
a
0,
g
(!
3
-9a
P5o5
8No+mNlnIn+NN|JlCr!d.iriqMNN
PPPPPf5fffooo.o o.trtrctrcxxxxxxxhNN..OOd()LoOFr-:ot(olvlJ)rno600otr{(oo)5 doigRF: r.q,..l (n-: o:rrd
\At'a
6(J
llfo"ooccc
lr)d+rlstNNols-.tN-.j(OFINNIJI T\ d) Ho)NNJ
f*:
orNN+t F{}qcoa rimtncONto6N
5 dOOOOO;d! dcicjdcidi-io
oo-
0.,U v> v! v) v) v) {/) v! vlI
{/a v}v} v) l/I
lng
5E'otIq
I
oItro
3ON--msq:il,9;
G=
dq
OlJ(J Ut
F g o, , cL Hfr f
,g:lBiiIs:g;EEgfl*egiisisignltEEEI
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 22ND DAY oF APzuL 2014,
SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF, IN CASE
NO. AVU-E-14-02, BY E-MAILTNG AND MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE
PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
DAVID J MEYER
VP & CHIEF COUNSEL
AVISTA CORPORATION
PO BOX3727
SPOKANE W A 99220-3727
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
PATRICK EHRBAR
JOE MILLER
AVISTA CORPORATION
PO BOX3727
SPoKANE W A 99220-3727
E-MAIL : [e-mail]
j [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE