20010424.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
APRIL 24, 2001 - 1:30 PM

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

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. He noted that the first item on the agenda, APPROVAL OF MINUTES, would be held until next week. Since there were no items on the CONSENT AGENDA, the first order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Scott Woodbury's April 20, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Tariff Schedule 92—All Customer Electric Energy Buy-Back Program. Case No. AVU-E-01-06.

Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith asked why the Staff felt modified procedure is necessary and if there are problems or issues the Staff wanted to comment on. Mr. Woodbury replied that Staff does have questions and has issued a production request. Mr. Lobb added that since it is a new program, Staff felt it is important to give anyone who wants to comment the opportunity to do so. He said Staff also wanted to ask the company some questions to make sure they understood how and what the company is going to do, so staff felt modified procedure with a comment period is appropriate. Commissioner Smith asked if it would work just as well to approve the program with the understanding Staff would continue to ask its questions and make adjustments if necessary. Mr. Lobb replied that if the Commission wanted to go that way, Staff could certainly use that approach. Commissioner Kjellander asked if the start date of the program would be May 15th. Mr. Woodbury replied that the company also has a filing in Washington, and the company would want to coordinate its media campaign to occur at the same time in both states.

Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Commission grant preliminary approval to Avista's tariff schedule 92 and coordinate the roll out of the program with the approval that would be forthcoming from the Washington commission so it starts in both states at the same time. She added that if there are considerations or adjustments that need to be made to the program, such as accounting or any other issues that might come up, those issues will be addressed as soon as Staff files its comments. She stated it would also be good to have public comment but she wouldn't want it to unnecessarily delay implementation of the program. She said she would like a notice to go out asking people to comment before the starting date of May 15th.

Commissioner Kjellander asked if there needed to be any reference to lost revenue in the motion. Mr. Woodbury replied that the company is asking to recover lost revenue, both above the 5% threshold and below the 4% threshold. Commissioner Smith said that was an issue she didn't want to decide until she has the Staff comments, so to add to the motion, the matter of lost revenue was still at issue. There was no further discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.

Scott Woodbury's April 20, 2001 Decision Memorandun re: Golden Dawn/Barberton Petition for Installation of Individual Meters. Case No. UWI-W-01-01.

Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen stated that he gathered from the company's letter filed earlier in the day that the company would like the opportunity to meet with the customers and Staff in order to reach a resolution or come to some kind of agreement. He stated he would like a response from the company as to whether it wanted the opportunity to meet further with customers and Staff. Greg Wyatt of United Water said they had made the offer in hopes they could reach a common ground agreement if they could have the opportunity for a meeting. He said Mr. Woodbury had stated it very clearly in that the issues seem to be clear but sometimes other issues can come up that might make it open for settlement and the company didn't want to close the door on that possibility.

Commissioner Kjellander noted that one of the options is to spread out the cost of the meters among all of United Water's customers. He asked for clarification as to if the 51 cent fee would be for one year or if it would be an ongoing fee. Mr. Woodbury replied it would be ratebased. He stated Staff is concerned that if the Commission decides to spread out the cost of the meters among all customers of United Water, it could set a precedent. He noted there are other unmetered, flat-rate systems, such as Capital Water, which has 3,000 customers, and it is a possibility United Water could acquire that system at some time.

Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her that the customers need to be informed of their realistic options, which are: (1) Stay as they are now. (2) Be changed over to the tariffed flat rate of $54.29 bi-monthly with the understanding that prior to the next rate case the company will install meters and that the expense will be ratebased, which would mean a rate increase for every United Water customer, or (3) Install meters and pay for it either through a three-year surcharge of about $70 bi-monthly per customer or pay $1,095 up front to have a meter installed. She said it seemed to her that the next step is to find out if there is an overwhelming or significant interest in any one of these options as opposed to the others, which can be done through meetings with the customers or through a notice and comment period. She said one way or another, she wanted to know what the customers think it is worth to have meters. Commissioner Kjellander asked if her comments were in the form of a motion, and she replied that they could be and she would so move. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith stated she would like a clarification on the motion and asked if Staff would be going the notice and comment route or the meeting route. Mr. Woodbury said he was intending to set up a workshop with a comment period to follow, and the Commissioners indicated their agreement. Commissioner Kjellander then adjourned the meeting.

Dated this _____ day of May, 2001.
_____________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY