HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041220_1037.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:DECEMBER 14, 2004
RE:A VISTA'APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CUSTOMER
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN LIGHTS, INC., CASE
NO. AVU-04-
On November 3 , 2004, Avista Corporation filed an Application seeking the
Commission s approval of an Agreement between Avista and Northern Lights to exchange an
existing customer. The Agreement between the parties is being submitted for the Commission
approval pursuant to the provisions of the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (ESSA) and
specifically Idaho Code 99 61-333(1) and 61-334B. On November 22, 2004, the Commission
issued a Notice of Modified Procedure soliciting comments regarding the Agreement. Only the
Commission Staff submitted comments and it recommended approval of the Agreement.
THE APPLICATION
In their "Agreement to Release Customer" dated September 22, 2004, A vista and
Northern Lights propose to exchange one customer. More specifically, Northern Lights will
allow Avista to serve Jerry VanOoyen located at 43 Gun Club Road in Sagle, Idaho. Mr.
VanOoyen is currently a Northern Lights customer. His property is encompassed by a new
development known as Summer Haven. In accordance with the ESSA, Avista will provide
electric service to the new development. Consequently, the parties have agreed that it would be
more efficient for Avista to serve Mr. VanOoyen in the future.
Northern Lights and Mr. VanOoyen have executed a "Termination of Service
Agreement" dated September 9, 2004. This latter agreement calls for Northern Lights to remove
its facilities used to serve Mr. VanOoyen so that Avista may serve him.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff recommended that the Commission approve the parties' Agreement. Staff
noted that the exchange of the customer requires the parties to seek an "exception" to the anti-
pirating provisions of Idaho Code 9 61-332B. Staff supports the exception request and notes that
the exchange of the single customer avoids duplication of facilities and promotes harmony
between the two adjacent suppliers. Consequently, Staff recommended that the Commission
grant an exception to the anti-pirating provision of Idaho Code 9 61-332B and find that the
exchange of customer is in compliance of the goals of the ESSA codified at Idaho Code 9 61-
332(2).
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission find it reasonable to approve the Application and the
Agreement to exchange the single customer?
2. Does the Commission fmd that discouraging duplication and promoting harmony
among the two suppliers warrants an exception to the anti-pirating provision of Idaho Code 9 61-
33 2B?
Don Howell
Vld/M:A VUEO406 dh2
DECISION MEMORANDUM