The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20010613.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING JUNE 13, 2001 - 1:30 P.M. In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Marsha Smith, and Dennis Hansen. Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA, items 1 - 10. Commissioner Kjellander asked if there were any comments or questions on any of the items. Commissioner Smith suggested that item 7 be considered with item 17 since they have the same case number, although they are different issues. She also suggested that item 10 be suspended for 60 days. With those changes, she moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS. Commissioner Kjellander recommended that item 11 be moved under the category of Fully Submitted Matters to be deliberated privately. Lisa Nordstrom's June 11, 2001 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-01-3. Ms. Nordstrom reviewed her Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen commented that it is important that all customers receive a notice in their billing and that they have an opportunity to comment if they so desire. He made a motion to suspend the effective date of Intermountain Gas' application and modify the comment deadlines, using the dates proposed by the staff. Commissioner Smith spoke in favor of the motion. She noted it was especially important, given the gas rate increases in the past 12 months, to carefully consider this request and to give people the time to give us their thoughts. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Don Howell's June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Issuance of a Procedural Order to Implement the Provisions of House Bill 377 Which Requires that the Commission Determine Whether Deployed Broadband Infrastructure Qualifies for an Idaho Tax Investment Credit Pursuant to Idaho Code § 63-3029I. Case No. GNR-T-01-10. Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. There were no questions or comments. Commissioner Kjellander moved that the Commission issue the Notice of Proposed Order and await any comments or responses from the parties who might have an interest in filing comments. Commissioner Smith said she wanted to thank whoever drafted the legislation that allowed the Commission to do this by order instead of by rule. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Scott Woobury's June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Firm Energy Sales Agreement—Idaho Power/Emmett Power Contract Termination/Liquidated Damages—Proposed Accounting Treatment. Case No. IPC-E-01-15 (Idaho Power). Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the Company's application. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Scott Woodbury's June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Electric Tariff Schedules 90 and 91—Increase in DSM Energy Efficiency Rider. Case No. AVU-E-01-7. Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. There were no questions or comments by the Commission. Commissioner Kjellander moved for Commission approval of the Company's proposed application with an effective date of June 14th. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Scott Woodbury's June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) Methodology Proposed Modifications. Case No. AVU-E-01-1 (Avista). Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith stated that because of simultaneously filed comments, we don't have the benefit of the Staff's views on Potlatch's recommendation, so she was curious as to whether Staff thought any of those measures were good, should be adopted, or were warranted. Mr. Hessing replied that when Staff looked at Potlatch's recommendation in this case, they didn't feel any of the recommendations were justified, partly because Staff has the opportunity to review all that information on a monthly basis, whereas others don't get to see it or review it in a timely manner. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Hessing if he felt that in spite of the changes, Staff would be able to fully evaluate this methodology. Mr. Hessing replied that this PCA will become largely like the PCA Idaho Power has, although not exactly like it, and that is helpful to the Staff in being able to review it and understand it. He said Staff has some idea of what they think the result will be. Mr. Woodbury stated that Staff also recognizes that there is some reduction in risk with the changes that are being proposed but they don't have a record to recommend any adjustment to the Company's rate of return or revenue. Commissioner Hansen stated he looked at it along the same lines as Idaho Power's PCA, and he liked the idea of the 90%/10% sharing between the ratepayers and stockholders. He said it has the potential to be a good incentive for the Company to try to keep supply costs down and as low as possible. He said he thought Potlatch made a couple of good suggestions and in looking at what we went through with Idaho Power in its PCA during the last go-round, he thought it would be helpful to take a look at it after two years and make sure it is operating as we intended it to operate for both the benefit of the customers and the Company. He said in handling the PCAs in the way we do, he didn't know if he was in agreement with Potlatch that we need full blown hearings, but he supported the proposed PCA adjustment and hoped we would take a look at it after one-two years to make sure it is operating as we intended it to. He moved to approve the proposed PCA adjustment and that the Commission adopt the proposed suggestion that was made by Potlatch to review the new methodology after two years, with Staff's recommendations for the changes that have been made. Commissioner Kjellander asked if there is still some disputed item in relationship to the PGE role within the PCA. Mr. Hessing responded that the company had suggested there was some additional revenue that wouldn't be tracked through the PCA that would have to be included there, and Staff agreed to that. He said he didn't know if that was clear in the Decision Memorandum or not. Commissioner Kjellander thanked him for the clarification. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Michael Fuss' June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Avista Utilities Tariff Advice No. E-01-06, Tariff Schedule 92—All Customer Electric Energy Buy-Back Program. Scott Woodbury's June 11, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Tariff Schedule 92—All Customer Electric Energy Buy-Back Program. Case No. AVU-E-01-6 (Avista). Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Fuss if the Company is just trying to clear up some problems that have become apparent. Mr. Fuss responded there were a couple of problems in that the Company found it had paid customers who had gone out of business, and it had discovered a customer who had switched meters. He said the Company wanted to add some language that was clearer in order to eliminate these possibilities in the future. Commissioner Kjellander moved for approval of items #7 and #17. Regarding item #17, he included in the motion Staff's recommendation to establish a reporting requirement to deal with the issue related to lost revenues, with Staff working with the Company to come up with a satisfactory proposal. Commissioner Hansen confirmed that what the Staff is proposing is the same thing we now have in place with Idaho Power. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Kjellander noted item #11 would be taken up under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS. He then adjourned the meeting. Dated this _____ day of July, 2001. _________________________________ COMMISSION SECRETARY 1 4