Re: Avista's Surcharge

["Troy Merrill" <troy1@moscow.com>]

I think this is fallout over Enron and other energy traders inflating the
costs of power the summer before last.  If I understand the skam Avista has
contract obligations to put so much power on the power grid at an agreed
upon price.  Under normal regulated conditions any shortages that result
from that obligation are bought at approximately the same price as that they
sold.  When power became "scarce" and unregulated Avista could not fulfill
their contractual obligations without paying much more than anticipated
because Enron was buying it to sell to California at dramatically inflated
prices.  Write it off as the cost of having Bush in the Whitehouse.

Troy Merrill

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cronin" <jaycron@turbonet.com>
To: ""Vision 2020 (E-mail)" <Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: Avista's Surcharge


> We all received a notice in our most recent Avista bill informing us that
> Avista has filed "a request to continue the existing Power Cost Adjustment
> surcharge of 19.4% for an additional 12 months. The current surcharge at
> the same rate will expire on October 11th.
>
> The notice tells us the purpose is to "recover  excess power costs"
> Avista admits that they are due to collect $23.6 million annually. The
> notice goes on to say, "Avista makes no profit from surcharge revenues and
> actually is required to absorb 10% of excess power costs"  Mmmm.
>
> Why is Avista in such financial trouble?  Will this surcharge become
> permanent?  Are there reasons that justify a customer bailout of Avista?
>
>
> John
>
>
>