19990416sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
STEPHANIE MILLER
DON HOWELL
TONYA CLARK
MADONNA FAUNCE
GEORGE FINK
BEVERLY BARKER
DAVID SCOTT
WORKING FILE

FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY

DATE: APRIL 16, 1999

RE: CASE NO. AVU-G-99-1 (AVISTA)
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

On April 6, 1999, Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities—Washington Water Power Division (Avista; Company) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting approval of proposed Standards for Competitive Practices (Standards).
The Standards, the Company states, are being filed in compliance with the Commission’s Order No. 27908 in Case No. WWP-G-98-4. In that Order the Commission approved the Company’s proposed experimental natural gas benchmark mechanism (gas benchmark), under tariff Schedule 163, together with the consolidation of the Company’s gas procurement operations under its affiliate, Avista Energy. In its Order the Commission stated that “customers may benefit from rules of conduct that promote full and fair competition”, and required the Company to file standards for competitive practices similar to those adopted for Intermountain Gas Company.
The proposed Standards will govern the relationship, transactions and dealings between Avista Utilities and Avista Energy regarding the gas procurement and management services provided by Avista Energy under the gas benchmark mechanism in tariff Schedule 163. Therefore, the Company has proposed in this filing to include the Standards as part of Schedule 163.
The Company requests that the Commission approve the revisions to tariff Schedule 163 to include the proposed Standards for an effective date of May18, 1999. Implementation of the gas benchmark mechanism, including all provisions of Schedule 163, will occur on the first calendar day of the month following receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and execution of the agency agreement between Avista Utilities and Avista Energy (estimated implementation date—June 1 or July 1, 1999).

Commission Decision
Although the Company’s Application is silent on this issue Staff recommends that the Application in Case No. AVU-G-99-1 be processed pursuant to Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submission rather than by hearing. Reference Commission Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.201-204. Does the Commission agree that Modified Procedure is appropriate?

Scott Woodbury
Vld/M:AVU-G-99-1_sw