HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001621_jh.docDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
BILL EASTLAKE
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
MICHAEL FUSS
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
TONYA CLARK
WORKING FILE
FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND
DATE: JUNE 21, 2001
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AN ORDER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR STREET LIGHTING SERVICE BETWEEN IDAHO POWER COMPANY AND THE CITY OF KETCHUM AND FOR APPROVAL OF TARIFF SCHEDULE 32. CASE NO. IPC-E-01-21.
On June 12, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed an Application requesting that the Commission issue an order that would approve the Electric Service Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Company and the City of Ketchum for street lighting service and the associated rate Schedule 32 that provides for the monthly charges for this service.
Currently, Idaho Power provides the City of Ketchum with street lighting service under rate Schedule 41, “A”—Overhead Lighting—Company Owned System. Idaho Power provides this service through 88 street lighting fixtures. The City of Ketchum has requested that Idaho Power provide this service utilizing a shielded light fixture that is not provided for under Schedule 41. Accordingly, the parties have entered into the Agreement to provide for this service. Under the Agreement the City of Ketchum will pay Idaho Power $4,140 for the removal of existing Company-owned street lighting fixtures. The Agreement also provides that the Company’s costs to install shielded light fixtures will be included in the monthly per lamp charge that the City is responsible for. Finally, because of the uniqueness of these fixtures the Agreement provides that if the City requests their removal then it must pay Idaho Power for any removal cost plus the cost of the fixture.
The Company states that the monthly charges for shielded street lighting service will be defined by lamp wattage in Schedule 32 and will be slightly greater in cost when compared to the standard fixture now provided through Schedule 41. Idaho Power also contends that Ketchum has agreed to the charges included in Schedule 32.
Idaho Power states that because the costs of providing this service will be recovered from the City of Ketchum through the Agreement it does not impose additional costs to any of the Company’s other customers. Accordingly, the Company believes that this Agreement and rate Schedule 32 are in the public interest and should be approved by the Commission.
Idaho Power requests that its Application be processed using Modified Procedure under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION:
Does the Commission wish to process Idaho Power’s Application by Modified Procedure under the Commission’s Rules and issue Notice of the Application and Notice of Modified Procedure?
John R. Hammond
Staff: Michael Fuss
M:ipce0121_jh
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1