20001211.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2000 - 1:30 PM

In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha Smith, and Paul Kjellander.

Commissioner Hansen called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of items 1 -7 on the CONSENT AGENDA. He asked if there were any questions or discussion on any of the seven items. Commissioner Hansen clarified that Staff had made a recommendation for approval of item 5, and he moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. There was no discussion on the motion and it carried unanimously.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Scott Woodbury's December 8, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Schedule 24--Voluntary Curtailment, Extra Large General Service. Case No. AVU-E-00-10.

Mr. Woodbury explained the matter had come up rather quickly. He said Avista Corporation, based upon forecasted cold weather in the region and tight regional energy supplies, submitted to the Commission on Friday, 12/8, a proposed new schedule for the buy-back of power from Schedule 25 industrial customers. He explained that since making the filing on Friday, however, the Company decided to withdraw the proposal and instead substitute a proposed rule change in order to institute the buy-back option. He stated he had provided the Commission with a new Decision Memorandum, replacing the one he had prepared Friday. He reviewed the Memorandum and Staff's recommendations. He noted that Bruce Folsom of Avista was present, had reviewed Staff's recommendations, and had indicated Avista was prepared to comply with the recommendations.

Commissioner Hansen welcomed Mr. Folsom and asked if he would like to make any comments or add anything. Mr. Folsom stated he had nothing more to add and that Mr. Woodbury had done a good job summarizing the filing. He said Avista appreciated the Commission taking the filing on short notice and appreciated the flexibility the Commission was demonstrating from a process standpoint.

Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Folsom what would occur if a customer was buying back power and there was an involuntary black out. He replied that the Company intends for the transactions to be relatively short-term in nature--basically one day to two weeks--and the agreements will probably be rollover-type agreements going for one to three days at a time. Mr. Folsom stated that in the event there were black outs, the Company would still honor the agreement. He noted the Company had a lot of internal discussion and their account reps told them it would be a sticking point in talking with their largest customers, and so rather than make it an issue, it will honor an agreement as written, recognizing it is for a limited duration. There was no further discussion and Commissioner Smith moved for approval of Avista's proposed rule change with an effective date of December 12th. The motion carried unanimously.

Discussion then moved to the next item:

Bev Barker's December 8, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Avista Request to Revise Miscellaneous Electric Fees and Practices. Advice No. 00-03-E.

Ms. Barker reviewed her Decision Memorandum regarding Avista's request to revise and institute six changes in its non-recurring charges for electric customers. She explained the proposed changes and noted that Staff recommended approval of all the changes except for the return visit charge, in which case Staff proposed a $50 charge instead of a $65 charge. She stated that all charges are avoidable, non-recurring, and are made on a per incident basis, and for those reasons, Staff didn't feel there was a need to treat it as a formal case or under modified procedure. She said customers will be notified in the next billing to let them know the charges have gone into effect, if that is what the Commission approves.

Commissioner Smith said she was trying to understand how the return visit fee would work. Ms. Barker clarified that the first visit is free, but the Company will charge for each subsequent visit it has to make. Commissioner Smith asked why Staff had a problem with $65, which is below the cost to the Company. Ms. Barker said the Company is proposing a $55 charge on the gas side, and to keep the charges similar, she recommended a $50 charge for both.

Commissioner Hansen asked if Idaho Power and Pacificorp had similar policies. Ms. Barker replied that Idaho Power is the only other company that has a similar charge, and it charges $35 for return trips involving the installation of temporary service and $50 for return trips for installing underground cable. There was no further discussion. Commissioner Smith moved for approval of Avista's request to revise its miscellaneous electric fees and practices, substituting in place of the proposed $65 charge a $55 charge. The motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Hansen proceeded to the last item on the agenda under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:

Lisa Nordstrom's December 8, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Application of Intermountain Gas Company for Authority to Increase Its Rates for Service. Case No. INT-G-00-2.

Commissioner Hansen stated the Commission would deliberate in private on the matter and then adjourned the meeting.

Dated at Boise, Idaho this 16th day of January, 2001.

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary