20110930final_order_no_32371.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
September 30,2011
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN TUE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR THE )CASE NOS.AVU-E-11-O1
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )AVU-G-11-O1
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND )
NATURAL GAS SERVICE IN IDAHO.)ORDER NO.32371
________________________________________________________________________________________________
)
On July 5,2011,Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities filed an Application seeking
authority to increase the Company’s general rates for electric and natural gas service in Idaho by
averages of 3.7%and 2.7%,respectively.If approved,the Company’s revenues for electric base
rates would increase by $9 million annually.Company revenues for natural gas would increase
by $1.9 million annually.The Company requested an effective date of August 5,2011,for its
proposed electric and natural gas rate increases.On July 14,2011,the Commission suspended
the Company’s proposed August 5 effective date for a period of thirty (30)days plus five (5)
months.Order No.32292.The Commission also subsequently granted intervention to four
parties.
On August 17,2011,the parties convened a settlement conference to discuss the
possibility of settling some or all of the issues in this case.As set out in greater detail below,all
of the parties subsequently executed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that resolved the
entire case.The parties recommended that Avista be allowed to increase its annual electric
revenues by $2.8 million and its annual gas revenues by $1.1 million.The parties agreed to
spread both the electric and natural gas rate increases on a uniform percentage basis.The
specific electric and gas rates for individual customers will vary by class.
Based upon our review of the Application,the settlement,the testimony of the parties
and the public comments,we approve the Stipulation and Settlement as set out in greater detail
below.
BACKGROUND
A.The Company’s Application
In its Application,Avista requested an increase in electric base rates of $9.0 million,
or 3.7%.The Company requested an increase in natural gas base rates of $1.9 million,or 2.7%.
Avista’s Application stated that its proposed revenue increases are driven primarily by an
ORDER NO.32371 1
increase in net plant investment (including return on investment,depreciation and taxes,and
offset by the tax benefit of interest).The Company also cited increases in distribution,operation
and maintenance (O&M),and administrative and general (A&G)expenses,partially offset by a
reduction in net power supply and transmission expenditures.The Company requested an
overall rate of return of 8.49%with a proposed 10.9%return on equity.
As part of the overall proposed increase,the Company’s Application requested an
increase in the electric service basic/customer charge from $5.00 to $5.50 per month.The
monthly bill for a residential customer using an average of 956 kWh per month would increase
from $83.81 to $86.87 per month,an increase of $3.06,or 3.7%.Avista’s Application proposed
an increase in the natural gas monthly customer charge from $4.00 to $4.50 per month.The
monthly bill for a residential customer using 62 therms per month would increase from $60.76 to
$62.91 per month,an increase of $2.15,or 3.5%.
B.The Parties
In its Notice of Application dated July 14,2011,the Commission established a
deadline for intervention.The Commission subsequently granted intervention to four parties.
The parties in this case and their respective counsel are listed below:
Avista Corporation:David J.Meyer,Vice President &
Chief Counsel of Regulatory &
Governmental Affairs
Commission Staff:Kristine A.Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Forest Group,LLP:Dean J.Miller
McDevitt &Miller LLP
Clearwater Paper Corporation:Peter J.Richardson
Greg M.Adams
Richardson &O’Leary,PLLC
Idaho Conservation League:Benjamin J.Otto
Community Action Partnership Brad M.Purdy
Association of Idaho:
ORDER NO.32371 2
C.Course of Proceedings
On July 14,2011,the Commission issued its Notice of Application and set a deadline
for intervention.Order No.32292.The Commission also suspended the Company’s proposed
increases for a period of six months pursuant to Idaho Code §S 61-622 and 61-623.The parties
held a settlement conference in this matter on August 17,2011.All parties attended and
participated in the settlement conference.As a result of the settlement negotiations,all parties
agreed to resolve and settle all issues raised in this proceeding.On August 26,2011,the parties
filed a Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Settlement.The Motion urged the Commission to
adopt and approve the Settlement Stipulation in its entirety.The Motion requested that the
Commission consider the settlement at the time of the technical hearing.On September 9,2011,
the Company and Staff each filed testimony in support of the Stipulation and Settlement.
The Commission conducted both a public hearing and a technical hearing in Coeur
d’Alene on September 13,2011.No customers testified at the public hearing.At the technical
hearing,Avista witness Kelly Norwood and Staff witness Randy Lobb testified in support of the
Stipulation and Settlement.Based upon the Settlement,the parties moved and the Commission
ordered that the testimony in support of the Stipulation and Settlement be spread upon the record.
Tr.at 8,37.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY
The Commission received approximately 26 customer comments regarding the
proposed increase in Avista’s electric and gas rates.The vast majority of these comments were
from residential customers.The commenters strongly oppose any increase in rates.Many
customers explained that they are retired and/or operating on fixed incomes and cannot afford a
rate increase.Several commenters expressed that they believe the Company needs to operate
leaner and show more compassion to its ratepayers in our difficult economic climate.
One customer attended the public hearing on September 13,2011,in Coeur d’Alene.
No customers testified.
THE STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT
Following the settlement conference,all of the parties executed the Stipulation and
Settlement resolving all of the issues raised in this proceeding.Stipulation at ¶1.The
Stipulation provides that annual revenues for Avista’s electric and natural gas service may
ORDER NO.32371 3
increase by $2.8 million (1.1%)and $1.1 million (1.6%),respectively.The revenue increases
would be uniformly spread among the customer classes and be effective October 1,2011.
Limitation on Effective Date of Any New Rates Established by Subsequent General
Rate Filing.As part of the settlement,the Company agrees that it will not seek to make effective
a change in base electric or natural gas rates prior to April 1,2013,by means of a general rate
filing.(Any filing of a general rate case prior to April 1,2013,may not request an effective date
prior to April 1,2013.)This will not prevent the Company,however,from otherwise seeking to
implement other rate changes affecting the rates billed to customers,including,but not limited
to,adjustments under the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)mechanism;Purchased Gas Cost
Adjustments (PGA);DSM tariff rider adjustments;etc.
Cost of Service.As part of this rate case,the Company prepared an analysis of a
peak credit method of classifying production costs,allocating 100%of transmission costs to
demand,and allocating transmission costs to reflect any peak and off-peak seasonal cost
differences on a weighted 12-month basis.The parties have agreed to exchange information and
convene a public workshop,prior to the Company’s next general rate case,with respect to the
method of allocation of demand and energy among the customer classes,such as the possible use
of a revised peak credit method for classifying production costs,as well as consideration of the
use of a 12 Coincident Peak (CP)(whether “weighted”or not)versus a 7 CP or other method for
allocating transmission costs.This workshop will also address the merits of inclining or
declining block rates for service Schedules 11,21,25 and 31.
Rate Spread/Rate Design.The parties agree that the increase in base revenue would
be spread to all electric and natural gas rate schedules on a uniform percentage basis.The
settlement provides that the current residential electric basic charge of $5.00 per month will be
increased to $5.25,and the residential natural gas basic charge of $4.00 per month will be
increased to $4.25.
Customer Service-Related Issues.(a)Funding for Outreach for Low-Income
Conservation.The parties agree to annual funding of $50,000 for purposes of providing low
income outreach and education concerning conservation (representing an increase of $10,000
from previous funding levels).This amount will be funded through the energy efficiency tariff
rider (Schedules 91 and 191),and will be in addition to the $700,000 of low-income
weatherization funding currently in place.
ORDER NO.32371 4
(b)Collaboration on Low-Income Weatherization.The Company and interested
parties will meet and confer prior to the Company’s next general rate filing in order to assess the
Low Income Weatherization and Low Income Energy Conservation Education Programs and
discuss appropriate levels of low-income weatherization funding in the future.
Net Impact of All Proposed Revenue Adjustments on October 1,2011.By separate
filings not a part of the Settlement Agreement,several other rate adjustments are proposed to
also take effect on October 1,2011.With respect to electric service,these proposed adjustments
include the following:an increase of $2.2 million for residential exchange credits for residential
and small farm customers (Schedule 59);a decrease of $15.5 million in Schedule 66 Power Cost
Adjustment (PCA)rates.In addition,an increase of $8.7 million for the previously-approved
adjustment for deferred state income taxes (DSIT)in Schedule 99,as part of the settlement
approved in Case Nos.AVU-E-10-01 and AVU-G-10-01 will take effect on October 1,2011.
After taking into account the settlement-proposed increase of $2.8 million in electric general rate
revenues,the net overall reduction resulting from all of the proposed aforementioned
adjustments,if approved as filed,would total approximately $6.2 million.The following table
summarizes these proposed revenue adjustments:
Electric —October 1,2011 Revenue Change
Schedule 99 —DSIT Increase $8,698,844
Schedule 59 —Residential Exchange $(2,207,088)
Schedule 66—PCA Decrease $(15,5 17,483)
GRC Rate Increase $2,800,000
Total Revenue Change $(6,225,757)
With respect to natural gas service,the following rate adjustments,by means of
separate filings,are proposed to take effect on October 1,2011:an increase of $0.8 million in
Schedules 150/155 for Purchased Gas Costs (PGA);and a decrease of $2.9 million in demand-
side management (DSM)tariff rider Schedule 191.In addition,an increase of $0.5 million for
the previously-approved adjustment for deferred state income taxes (DSIT)in Schedule 199,as
part of the settlement approved in Case Nos.AVU-E-10-01 and AVU-G-10-01 will take effect
on October 1,2011.After taking into account the settlement-proposed increase of $1.1 million
in natural gas general rate revenues,the net overall decrease resulting from all of the proposed
aforementioned adjustments,if approved as filed,would be $0.525 million.The following table
summarizes these proposed revenue adjustments:
ORDER NO.32371 5
Natural Gas —October 1,2011 Revenue Change
Schedule 199—DSIT Increase $470,423
Schedule 150/155 —PGA Increase $776.190
Schedule 191 —DSM Decrease $(2,87 1,236)
GRC Rate Increase $1.100,000
Total Revenue Change $(524,623)
THE TECHNICAL HEARING
The Commission held its technical hearing in Coeur d’Alene on September 13,2011.
The Commission Staff and the Company presented testimony in support of the Stipulation and
Settlement.
1.Avista.The Company’s Vice-President of State and Federal Regulation,Kelly
Norwood,testified in support of the Stipulation.Mr.Norwood stated that the Stipulation,if
approved by the Commission,would resolve all issues associated with calculation of the
Company’s requested revenue requirement,all issues related to rate spread and rate design,and
provides additional funding for low-income energy efficiency education.Tr.at 11.He noted
that the Stipulation and Settlement is not contingent on any specific methodology for individual
components of the revenue requirement determination.However,Mr.Norwood explained that
the Stipulation does specify annual power supply cost levels for the Power Cost Adjustment
(PCA)mechanism,future treatment of costs associated with the Palouse Wind power purchase
agreement and deferred accounting treatment for non-fuel operation and maintenance costs
associated with the Company’s thermal generating plants.Tr.at 17.
Mr.Norwood explained that under the terms of the settlement,Avista would be
allowed to implement revised tariff schedules effective October 1,2011.designed to recover
$2.8 million in additional annual electric revenue,or a 1.1%increase.Avista would also be
allowed to implement revised tariff schedules effective October 1,2011,designed to recover
$1.1 million in additional annual natural gas revenue,or a 1.6%increase.The parties also agreed
to annual funding of $50,000 to CAPAJ for low-income outreach and education concerning
conservation (an increase of $10,000 from previous funding levels and funded through the
energy efficiency tariff rider).Mr.Norwood emphasized that the October 1,2011,effective date
is an integral element of the Stipulation as part of the overall negotiated resolution.Use of an
October 1 date will also synchronize with several other rate adjustments proposed to take effect
on that date.Tr.at 18.
ORDER NO.32371 6
Mr.Norwood also noted the parties agreement to meet and confer prior to the
Company’s next general rate filing to assess the Low Income Weatherization and Low Income
Energy Conservation Education Programs and discuss appropriate levels of low-income
weatherization funding in the future.Mr.Norwood represented that all parties support the
overall increase and agree that the Stipulation represents a fair,just and reasonable compromise
among differing interests and points of view and is in the public interest.Tr.at 29.
2.The Staff.The Utilities Division Administrator,Randy Lobb,encouraged the
Commission to adopt the Stipulation and Settlement.He testified that the settlement provisions
represented a better outcome for customers than could reasonably be anticipated through
litigation.In particular,“Staff believes the base rate increase and stay-out provision in addition
to the other settlement terms represent a reasonable resolution of this case and a good deal for
customers.”Tr.at 43.
Mr.Lobb explained that Avista originally proposed to increase annual base electric
revenue by $9 million or 3.7%and increase annual base natural gas revenue by $1.9 million or
2.7%.“The Stipulated Settlement provides for an increase in annual base electric revenue of
$2.8 million or approximately 31%of the original request.The Stipulated Settlement provides
for an increase in annual natural gas revenue of $1.1 million or 58%of the Company’s original
request.”Tr.at 41.Moreover,when base rate increases are combined with other electric and
natural gas rate adjustments either pending before the Commission or proposed for filing,the net
effect is a 2.4%decrease in billed electric rates and a 0.8%decrease in billed natural gas rates.
Tr.at 40-41.
Mr.Lobb explained that the Stipulation does not specifically identify revenue
adjustments or an authorized return on equity (ROE)because,“[wJhile the Settlement parties
generally agreed on a reasonable level of revenue,there was considerable disagreement on the
individual adjustments proposed to reach that revenue level....Rather than specify an ROE
that all parties could not support,the Stipulation simply specified an overall revenue requirement
that could be fully supported.”Tr.at 46.Mr.Lobb stated that the proposed settlement resolving
all issues and agreed to by all parties to the case is in the public interest,is just and reasonable
and should be approved by the Commission.Tr.at 39.
ORDER NO.32371 7
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
A.Standards ofReview
In this case,all of the parties have signed the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
Our Procedural Rule 276 recognizes that the Commission is not bound by the parties settlement
agreement.IDAPA 31.01.01.276.The Commission will independently review any settlement to
determine whether it is fair,just and reasonable;in the public interest;or otherwise in accordance
with law or regulatory policy.Id.Furthermore,the proponents of a proposed settlement have
the burden of showing that the settlement is reasonable,in the public interest,or otherwise in
accordance with law or regulatory policy.IDAPA 31.01 .01.275.Our settlement rules permit the
Commission to convene an evidentiary hearing so that the parties may develop a record in
support of a proposed settlement.In this case,Staff and Avista offered testimony at the technical
hearing that addressed the settlement.Pursuant to Rule 276,the Commission may accept,reject,
or amend a proposed settlement.IDAPA 3 1.01.01.276.
B.commission Findings
In this case,the parties advocate that the settlement is just and reasonable,and in the
public interest.The parties assert that the Stipulation and Settlement represents a reasonable
resolution of disputed issues and that it is in the public interest for the Commission to approve
the Stipulation and Settlement.
Based upon our review of the Stipulation and Settlement,the testimony supporting
the Stipulation,and the public comments,we find that the record is comprehensive and further
proceedings are not necessary.After reviewing this record,we find the Stipulation and
Settlement is fair,just and reasonable.The Stipulation represents a reasonable compromise of
the positions held by the parties and we find it is in the public interest.IDAPA 3 1.01.01.274-
276.We appreciate the diligent work by the parties on the settlement and their ability to resolve
all of the issues in this case.We note that the Stipulation and Settlement represents a significant
reduction in the requested revenue increase.Moreover,the stay-out provision prohibiting any
new electric or natural gas base rate increase prior to April 1,2013,provides an extended period
of rate stability that might not otherwise occur.
Accordingly,we find it reasonable to authorize Avista to increase its jurisdictional
electric base rates to recover an additional $2.8 million in annual revenues.This represents an
overall average increase in base electric revenues of 1.14%.In concurrent filings,we also
ORDER NO.32371 8
approved rates that reflect an increase in the residential exchange credit for residential and small
farm customers (Tariff Advice No.ll-04-E)and a decrease of $15.5 million in Schedule 66
PCA rates (AVU-E-1 1-03).In addition,an increase of $8.7 million for the previously-approved
adjustment as part of the settlement proposed and approved in Case Nos.AVU-E-l0-0l and
AVU-G-10-01 will take effect on October 1,2011.Thus,the net effect of all adjustments is a
2.4%decrease in billed electric rates.
We further find it reasonable for Avista to increase its jurisdictional natural gas base
rates to recover an additional $1.1 million in annual revenues.Also in concurrent filings,we
have approved the following natural gas service rate adjustments scheduled to take effect on
October 1,2011:an increase of $0.8 million in Schedules 150/155 for Purchased Gas Costs
(AVU-G-l 1-04)and a decrease of $2.4 million in demand-side management (DSM)tariff rider
Schedule 191 (AVU-G-1 1-03).In addition,an increase of $0.5 million for the previously-
approved adjustment as part of the settlement proposed and approved in Case Nos.AVU-E-10-
01 and AVU-G-10-01 will take effect on October 1,2011.Thus,the net effect of all proposed
adjustments is a 0.1%decrease in billed natural gas rates.’
The Stipulation and Settlement also contains provisions for non-revenue issues such
as discussion regarding cost-of-service and rate design issues,and considerations regarding the
cost-effectiveness and funding of the Company’s low-income weatherization program.We
encourage the Company and all interested parties to actively participate in cost-of-service and
rate design workshops.Given the current economic climate,we strongly endorse discussions
regarding the cost-effectiveness and funding of the Company’s low-income programs that could
further assist customers in reducing their monthly bills.
Finally,we find that it is reasonable that Avista implement the rates contemplated in
the Stipulation and Settlement effective October 1,2011.Following the issuance of this Order,
Avista shall prepare and submit new electric and natural gas rate schedules consistent with this
Order.
‘In Case No.AVU-G-1 1-03,the Commission approved a decrease of $2.9 million in the Company’s DSM tariff
rider,Schedule 191,instead of the $2.8 million proposed by Avista.Order No.32366.As a result,the net decrease
in rates as a result of all natural gas service adjustments is slightly less than what was anticipated by the parties tothiscasewhentheSettlementandStipulationwasfiledwiththeCommission.
ORDER NO.32371 9
INTERVENOR FUNDING
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code §61-617A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165.Section 61-6l7A(1)declares that it is the “policy of
[Idahoj to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before this Commission so that
all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings.”The statutory
cap for intervenor funding that can be awarded in any one case is $40,000.Idaho Code §61-
61 7A(2).Accordingly,the Commission may order any regulated utility with intrastate annual
revenues exceeding $3.5 million to pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for
legal fees,witness fees and reproduction costs not to exceed a total for all intervening parties
combined of $40,000.
On September 26,2011,the Idaho Conservation League (ICL)filed an Application
for Intervenor Funding.ICL is a non-profit organization that works to protect Idaho’s
environment.ICL’s views represent its members and supporters who are ratepayers of Avista,as
well as those who have an interest in promoting energy efficiency throughout Idaho.Application
at 2.ICL advanced discussion and encouraged Avista to withdraw its request to decrease the
energy efficiency rider and limit the residential basic charge increase to $0.25 for both electric
and gas customers.In addition,ICL proposed workshops to discuss the merits of inclining or
declining block rates for Schedules 11.21,25.and 31 prior to the next general rate case.ICL
requested $3,625 in intervenor funds.Application,Exhibit A.
On September 27,2011,Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
(CAPAI)filed an Application for Intervenor Funding.CAPAI is a non-profit corporation that
oversees numerous agencies who work to offset the causes and conditions of poverty throughout
Idaho.Application at 8.CAPAT proposed and advanced discussion regarding an increase of
$10,000 to the Company’s existing Outreach for Low-Income Conservation Education program.
Id.at 5,Stipulation and Settlement at 8.CAPAI also actively participated in discussions
regarding the stay-out provision preventing another base rate increase prior to April 1,2013.
CAPAI requested $10,885.16 in intervenor funds.Application,Exhibit A.
Rule 162 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content
requirements for a Petition for Intervenor Funding.The petition must contain:(1)an itemized
list of expenses broken down into categories;(2)a statement of the intervenor’s proposed finding
or recommendation;(3)a statement showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are
ORDER NO.32371 10
reasonable;(4)a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship
for the intervenor;(5)a statement showing how the intervenor’s proposed finding or
recommendation differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff;
(6)a statement showing how the intervenor’s recommendation or position addressed issues of
concern to the general body of utility users or consumers;and (7)a statement showing the class
of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared.IDAPA 31.01.01.162.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed ICL’s Application for Intervenor Funding.We find
that the intervenor funding request filed by ICL comports with the procedural and technical
requirements of the Commission’s Rules.We find that the participation of ICL materially
contributed to the Commission’s decision.Specifically,ICL vigorously defended its position
that electric energy efficiency rider funding should be tied to efficiency potential,not used to
offset a proposed rate increase.ICL also proposed further discussion among the parties on rate
design issues.As a result,the Stipulation provides a commitment by the parties to discuss and
review rate design issues prior to the next general rate case.ICL’s participation added a unique
and well-informed perspective to the record.We find that the recommendations of ICL differed
materially from the testimony of Commission Staff and provided important contributions to the
Stipulation and Settlement.
The Commission has reviewed CAPAI’s Application for Intervenor Funding.We
find that the intervenor funding request filed by CAPAI comports with the procedural and
technical requirements of the Commission’s Rules.We further find that the participation of
CAPAI materially contributed to the Commission’s decision.Specifically,CAPAI’s
participation led to an increase of $10,000 to Avista’s Low-Income Conservation Education
program.CAPAI also took an active role in stay-out discussions.CAPAI’s participation lends
an experienced and distinct perspective to the record for the benefit of Avista’s low-income
customers.We find that the recommendations of CAPAI differed materially from the testimony
of Commission Staff and provided significant contributions to the Stipulation and Settlement.
This particular case was resolved by way of settlement and not litigation.ICL’s and
CAPAI’s involvement required the investment of considerable time and resources to effectively
participate in and address the issues of concern to the general body of ratepayers.We find it fair,
just and reasonable to award ICL intervenor funding in the amount of $3,625.We further find it
ORDERNO.32371 11
fair,just and reasonable to award CAPAI intervenor funding in the amount of S 10,885.16.We
find that the public interest is well served by such awards.We find the itemized costs of ICL and
CAPAI to be reasonable and recognize that the cost to these non-profit organizations of
participating in this proceeding constitutes a significant financial hardship.ICL’s and CAPAI’s
participation was professional and valuable.We also find that the allocation of ICLs and
CAPAI’s time and efforts were cost-effective.
The Commission finds that the intervenor funding awards to ICL and CAPAT are fair
and reasonable and will further the purpose of encouraging “participation at all stages of all
proceedings before the Commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair
representation in those proceedings.”Idaho Code §61-617A(1).Both ICLs and CAPAI’s
award shall be chargeable to the electric residential customer class (Schedule 1).Idaho Code §
61-617A(3).
ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities is an electric utility subject to the
Commission’s regulation under the Idaho Public Utilities Law.Idaho Code §61-119 and 61-
129.The rates of all its tariff schedule gas and electric customers in the State of Idaho are
subject to the Commission’s regulation pursuant to the power granted under Title 61 of the Idaho
Code and pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,IDAPA 31 .01.01.000 et seq.,
including specifically Rules 272 through 280 pertaining to settlements.
Based upon the record,we find that the Stipulation and Settlement is reasonable and
is in the public interest.We further find it reasonable for costs associated with power purchases
from the Palouse Wind project to be accounted for in the Company’s PCA until such costs can
be incorporated in general base rates.We also approve the use of deferred accounting treatment
for non-fuel O&M costs associated with the Company’s thermal generating plants in order to
address the large variability in these costs from year-to-year.
We strongly encourage the parties to actively participate in the cost-of-service,rate
design,and low-income program workshops set out in the Stipulation and Settlement.We look
forward to proposals in future filings that result from such collaboration.
ORDER NO.32371 12
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion by Avista and Staff for approval of
the Stipulation and Settlement is granted.The Commission approves the Stipulation and
Settlement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avista is authorized to recover $2.8 million in
additional annual base revenues for electric service and $1.1 million in additional annual base
revenues for gas service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company file new electric and natural gas base
rate schedules in conformance with the authorized revenues set out in this Order.The change in
electric and natural gas base rates is effective for service rendered on and after October 1,2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties comply with all of the terms and
conditions contained in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order.Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-626.
ORDERNO.32371 13
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise.Idaho this 3c
day of September 2011.
PAUL ELLANJR.PRESIDENT
MACK A.REDFORD.COMMiSSIONER
CE-
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
O:AVU-E-11 O1 AVU-G-11 -Olks2
ORDERNO.32371 14