20020204.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
FEBRUARY 4, 2002 – 1:30 PM

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

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS. There were no objections and the minutes were approved.

The next order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA, items 2—5. Commissioner Smith said she had a question on item 2 with regard to the recommendation that we not approve the proposed rates for disconnection and reconnection. She said Stoneridge Water had asked for new disconnection and reconnection fees in May of 2000, and she wondered what the current rates are as compared to the proposed rates and what is the downside, if any, in delaying the implementation of new disconnection and reconnection rates. Bob Smith replied that the company has had authorization through its tariffs for a disconnection and reconnection charge but there has never been a rate established. He said the application that was filed included a rate of $50, which is probably the highest rate of any company in the state, but it also requested that it be allowed to continue the minimum monthly charge during the period of disconnection. He said Staff has talked with the company about that and told them it had to be one or the other, but not both, and has asked the company to provide us with the calculation showing us how they arrived at the disconnection charge in order to justify it. He said to date, the Commission hasn’t received that data, so rather than hold up the application pending getting that information, Staff thought they would separate the two issues.

Commissioner Hansen commented on item 4, stating he didn’t have a problem with the Staff or parties involved conducting the settlement conference; however, he wanted to remind the Staff and parties that some of the issues in the case have been brought to hearing in neighboring states and they have been questioned in great detail.

Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve items 2-5 on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Scott Woodbury’s February 1, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Schedule 84—Net Metering. Case No. IPC-E-01-39.

Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Kjellander asked whose proposal it was to increase cumulative capacity from 2.9 MW to 1% of the previous year’s demand. Mr. Woodbury replied that Renewable Energy Advocates made that proposal.

Commissioner Smith said she is in a dilemma because she believes the Commission ought to approve what has been filed for Schedules 1 and 7, but she would also like to see a program for the other schedules. She said she didn’t know if what has been proposed for Schedules 1 and 7 can be directly applied to the other schedules. She stated that further thought probably needs to be given as to how to apply it to customers who have demand meters and other questions that come up. She said she is in a quandary as to handle that, but it would be nice to get part of it off the ground and going and to have a larger program to allow more participants and to be more effective.

Commissioner Hansen commented that net metering is a good idea. He said from the comments we’ve received from Idaho Power customers, all classes want to participate in the net metering, although how much they will get involved in it remains to be seen. He said customers feel there is a lot of benefit in being able to participate. He stated that maybe it will advance generation technology in the future by making this offer available to all customers. He said tariff eligibility should be extended to all customers and in order for irrigation customers to be able to participate, the limit should be proposed at about 100-125 kW. He said in looking at the comments and what other states have done, it would be beneficial to increase the amount of accumulative generation capacity to .5 of 1% rather than the .10 of 1%, so if we have the interest, it would give people a chance, and once the limit is hit, there should be provisions in place so we can review it. Commissioner Hansen said customers desiring to participate should be required to pay any additional costs associated with installing the equipment. He stated Idaho Power was concerned about additional costs, although in other states that already have net metering in place, costs were not an issue.

Commissioner Kjellander said he agrees that we need to look at all customer classes and include all customer classes. He said for Schedules 1 and 7, the 25 kW level is a respectable threshold for residential. He said he would like to see the limit set around 100 kW for the other classes. He stated Staff’s comments regarding the demand meters seem to be reasonable and he would accept them. Regarding a cap, he said that if we took the 2.9 MW as an initial starting point and then reviewed it once we got past that level, if we ever reached that level, that would be a way to come back and look at the issue again with regard to the other classes, although he wasn’t so sure it would work based on some of the concerns we have about additional costs, as pointed out by both Staff and the company. Commissioner Kjellander stated that he could approve the 25 kW level for Schedules 1 and 7 and go with the intent to include all customer classes. As far as what is a fair and reasonable cost of the program for the other schedules, he said he was not ready to pick and choose. He asked if the Commission wanted to hold it or approve Schedules 1 and 7 at 25 kW, including in the order that we want to address the issues for all other customer classes and that we need additional information.

Commissioner Hansen clarified that the motion was to approve the residential schedule and hold the others. Commissioner Kjellander replied that we would include in the order that it’s our intent to create schedules for all other customer classes but we need additional information before we move forward.

Commissioner Smith asked if we could request that the Company file a tariff that would allow participation by other customer classes, giving them a time within which to do that.

Commissioner Kjellander asked if we would also want to direct the company to have a threshold level. Commissioner Smith replied that we could give the company our thoughts and see if it could work around them.

Commissioner Hansen said he liked the idea and thought it would be beneficial to have the company make the recommendation to us; however, he was concerned that if the irrigation class was included--keeping in mind there was agreement that all classes should be included--we would have to go above the 25 kW level of capacity to at least 100 kW. He said we should be sending a message that if we include all customer classes, we are looking at a higher level than the 25 kW. He asked if that would be a problem. Commissioner Kjellander stated it wouldn’t be a problem for him beyond Schedules 1 or 7.

Commissioner Smith said she would support the motion and wanted to make one other comment. She said it is troubling to her that when a customer pays the tariffed rate when the meter goes backward, we are providing an opportunity for people to be subsidized. She said she would want the program to operate so that customers could not get to 0, because if they do, they aren’t picking up the costs of their service. She stated there ought to be a way to work around that with a cap on the payments or a cap on the price paid when the meter is going backward. She said clever people can think of ways to avoid what she sees as being an inappropriate outcome.

There was no further discussion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

There were no further items on the agenda and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.

DATED this _____ day of February, 2002.

________________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY