The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20000629.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING June 29, 2000 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander. Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order. Welcomed all in attendance. First order of business was consideration of the Minutes of the May 3 and May 8, 2000 Decision Meetings. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes; vote was taken; motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Items 2 through 6 were considered on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any questions or comments on any items on the consent Agenda? Commissioner Smith said on No. 5 - Scott Woodbury's June 27, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Case Nos. AVU-E-00-4/IPC-E-00-07/UPL-E-00-02, her subsequent question was: with regard to the generic case, and the continued reasonableness of rate, the order seems to indicate it is still going? Scott Woodbury said it may have some usefulness because of the Colstrip numbers being available to Avista. Commissioner Smith asked if it was a real case or not? Is the rate adequate? Scott replied it was adequate. No further questions. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, with recommendations made by staff. Called for discussion. Vote taken; motion carried unanimously. MATTERS IN PROGRESS Scott Woodbury's June 27, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. INT-G-00-01 (Intermountain Gas) Purchase Cost Adjustment (PGA) Tracker $36.4 Million (28%) Revenue Increase--Surcharge. Scott Woodbury reviewed the matter. It is a $36.4 million increase. Staff was the only formal party. There were letters of comment. Staff in its comments noted that 60% of the increase is for high gas cost. Spoke to the phase-in. Staff indicates that given the possibility that the prices will remain high, there is too much risk in phasing this in. Staff recommends that the increase be implemented. Commissioner Hansen called for questions. He commented that he did review the gas rates of the Intermountain customers the past few years. Said he had a couple of things he would like to note. In his review, found that in five of the last six years the PGA adjustment has been a savings. The RS1 customer has had rate decreases for 6 years. Thought that was good to bring out at this time since this is such a large increase. Also compared from start of trackers to now - starting in 1985, the rate was 66 cents and going into this adjustment it is at 63 cents. Since 1985 through 1999, the price of gas to RS1 customers is actually reduced by 3 cents. To him overall it has been favorable to the customer. He is not saying the PGA is perfect, might need to be worked on and fine tuned, but think it has been a benefit to the customer, so that even with this increase, IGC is still obtaining gas at some of the lowest prices, if not the lowest, in the nation. IGC is about 50 cents below the California market. Do hate to see this type of increase. It is hard on customers to adjust, especially for the low income users. It is huge but would hope to see a change for the better. Think with what we have in place, if the market changes, the customer will see the benefit; if the prices decrease. He will hate to see the increase as much as anyone but think it is justified. Is concerned with the price on the market right now. Said those were his comments. Commissioner Kjellander said - just as a follow up comment, he would make a motion that with all facts and figures, as a Commission, do not have a choice but to approve the pass-through. The motion would be to approve the tracker, with the $8,393 dealt with later. Agreed with treatment on that and would include that in the motion. Said by comparison Idaho is better off than the rest of the nation. That still doesn't soften the blow. Need more resources closer to home. That is going to take time and it doesn't soften the load for this winter. The consumer who wants to soften the blow is going to have to try to take some proactive measures; shorter showers, check filters, lower thermostats, there are things that can be done. Even with DSM options, there will still be people falling through the cracks. The Company and the Commission need to do what we can to make people aware of who are eligible for the low income assistance. Company has some. There is LIHEAP. Commission needs to look at our rules. It is a painful situation. Everybody here is going to experience the impact. Hope we can help lessen that burden. Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Smith said she would support the motion but wanted to point out that a year ago she asked if we should continue to do this and continue to use this mechanism. The Commission needs to assure that the rates are appropriate and that costs are examined and as they should be and we shouldn't think that this is the only cost we should look at. Don't recall what audit schedule they are on, but think it bears looking at. There was no further discussion. Commissioner Hansen asked if there was an effective date on the motion? Effective date is July 1, 2000. Vote was taken: motion carried. Scott Woodbury's June 16, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. AVU-E-00-01 (Avista) Schedule 51 Line Extension, Conversion and Relocation Tariff Proposed Revisions. (Held from June 20, 2000 Decision Meeting). Scott said this matter came out of the rate case. Primary issue of disagreement is the allowance for residential. Company proposes an increase calculated to recover all incremental costs. Staff recommends a decrease supported by existing rates. Decision matrix was provided. Staff and company are available for questions. Neither party requests a hearing. Commissioner Smith said as she went through this and tried to make a decision, found she had a lot of questions. In fairness to staff and the Company, in considering their proposals, said she would benefit greatly from having a hearing. Even though neither of them requested it, from her personal view, to make a good decision, would like to see the matter set for hearing. Didn't think it would take long for them to file. Made a motion that the matter be set for hearing. Commissioner Hansen called for discussion. Commissioner Kjellander said he thought Commissioner Smith's motion articulated his concern. Was glad she made the motion. Also had questions. Vote taken on motion; carried. Decision Meeting was adjourned. Dated at Boise, Idaho, this _____day of August, 2000. Myrna J. Walters Commission Secretary