4. ORA Investigation and Settlement

ORA's investigation addressed the overall impact of Southwest's proposed acquisition on the rates of Avista's existing customers, the quality of service that those customers can expect, and the operational and financial ability of Southwest to serve the California territory it intends to acquire.

Based on current tariff schedules of the applicants, Southwest's Northern California Division base margin residential rates (non-gas costs) are higher than Avista's base margin residential rates for South Lake Tahoe. In the application, Southwest committed to maintaining South Lake Tahoe as a separate rate area and stated that it would not seek to consolidate base margin rates in a future rate case until it can show that consolidation would provide an overall benefit to customers.

To provide further assurance that base margin rates will not be affected, the settlement agreement provides that Avista's existing base margin rates will remain unchanged until new rates are established in a future general rate case. Further, the parties agreed that Southwest within 30 days would file, and ORA would support, a separate application that would continue Avista's base margin rates in the South Lake Tahoe service territory for an additional two years beyond 2007. Currently, the test year for Southwest's next general rate case is 2007. In its filing, Southwest will ask authority (1) to extend the test year until 2009 and (2) to implement attrition adjustments in its Northern and Southern California Divisions for 2007 and 2008 consistent with the method approved by the Commission in Southwest's last general rate case (Decision (D.) 04-03-034). Any such attrition adjustments will not be applicable to base margin rates for the South Lake Tahoe service territory being purchased by Southwest.

The settlement agreement provides that the base margin rates for Avista's South Lake Tahoe service territory will remain unchanged for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. ORA comments that this rate freeze will result in significant economic benefits for customers, since the most recent estimates of consumer price increases over those years are 2.2% in 2005, 1.3% in 2006, 1.7% in 2007 and 1.9% in 2008 (based on November 2004 forecasts of Global Insight, U.S. Economic Outlook). According to Southwest's witness, the rate freeze also provides an incentive for Southwest to operate as efficiently as possible.

Southwest originally proposed that it not be foreclosed from seeking in a future rate case to recover the acquisition premium related to this transaction, although it pledged that no such recovery would be sought until it could demonstrate acquisition-related savings in the cost of service. The acquisition premium (the difference in the purchase price and the net asset value of the property) is approximately 28%.

ORA opposed potential future recovery of an acquisition premium, citing Commission practice to exclude for recovery from customers any premium paid by a utility to acquire another utility's operations. According to ORA, this practice reinforces the policy that ratepayers should only have to pay the original cost of the property first devoted to utility service.

The parties agreed that a request for recovery of the premium would likely be controversial and litigious. The settlement agreement negotiated between the parties provides that Southwest will not seek Commission authority to recover the acquisition premium in this or in any future regulatory proceeding.

The application requests that the Commission, in its order approving this transaction, include a finding that the costs of Avista's natural gas purchases were prudent up to the date of the Commission's decision. Southwest explained that it needed assurances that it would not be held liable for any potential gas purchase cost disallowance for the time it did not own and operate the South Lake Tahoe system.

In D.95-10-045, as modified by D.97-04-047, Avista's Purchased Gas Cost Adjustment (PGA) mechanism was suspended and set to zero. This suspension was in place from April 1997 through December 2000. Since Avista bore all the risk of gas purchases during that period, ORA in its analysis began with gas purchases made by Avista from January 2001, when the PGA was reinstated. ORA reviewed information provided by Avista regarding its gas purchasing practices and strategies, including detailed cost information, sample invoices, and recorded monthly PGA account activity. Avista provided information to ORA through October 2004 and is to continue to provide updated documentation as additional information becomes available.

ORA states that it identified no specific issues related to Avista's gas purchasing that it intended to pursue through litigation and concluded that it did not intend to propose any ratemaking adjustments to Avista's PGA account for the relevant period of January 2001 through October 2004. ORA states that it will continue to review Avista's gas purchasing data for the period November 2004 through the conclusion of this proceeding and will advise the applicants and the Commission of the results of its review.

Based on ORA's investigation, our order today concludes that Avista's
gas purchases were prudent for the period January 2001 through October 2004. Avista testified at the settlement hearing that its procedures for gas purchase will be unchanged for the period October 2004 through the date of this decision, and we conclude that, barring some unlikely development, the purchases during that period also are prudent.

The applicants propose that Southwest be allowed to consolidate its natural gas purchases for the South Lake Tahoe customers with its existing northern California gas purchases. Southwest operates in both northern Nevada and northern California. Both of these service areas use similar mixes of interstate capacity and supply sources, allowing Southwest to purchase the natural gas portfolios for both areas concurrently. According to applicants, the consolidation of the gas purchases for South Lake Tahoe with Southwest's existing natural gas purchases for northern Nevada and northern California should result in greater efficiencies and economies of scale.

ORA states that the proposed consolidation of natural gas purchases is reasonable, should be approved by the Commission, and should become effective once the transfer is approved. It adds that although the number of natural gas pipelines and suppliers is limited in the Tahoe Basin area, the purchasing power from the combined portfolios could potentially increase the number of suppliers bidding to supply natural gas to the area and may lead to lower prices for ratepayers in the long term.

In addition, the parties in the settlement agreement recommend that the Commission authorize Southwest to include the Avista service territory in Southwest's July 2005 PGA rate change. At that time, the gas cost and gas cost-related balancing accounts will be merged, and all of Southwest's northern California customers would pay the same cost for gas. The parties also recommend that, in the event the Commission authorizes Southwest to implement a gas cost incentive mechanism in its pending application (Application 04-11-009), the mechanism should be applicable to the South Lake Tahoe service territory.

Our order today adopts these proposals as reasonable.

The applicants seek Commission authorization to use Southwest's terms and conditions contained in its California tariffs in lieu of the terms and conditions now contained in Avista's California tariffs (except for base margin rates). The applicants state that the terms and conditions in both sets of tariffs are virtually identical.

Specifically, applicants ask that Southwest's California Tariff Rules Nos. 1 through 22 be applicable to the South Lake Tahoe customers in lieu of Avista's currently effective California Tariff Rules Nos. 1 through 21. The Preliminary Statements and Rate Schedules in the existing Avista tariffs would remain in place in order to maintain the rates currently paid by Avista customers.

ORA states that it has examined the tariffs and agrees that there are no significant differences. The Southwest tariffs in fact offer additional service choices to customers. Accordingly, ORA recommends that Southwest should be allowed to substitute its California Tariff Rules for the existing Avista California Tariff Rules. We agree.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page