20031027min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
OCTOBER 27, 2003 – 1:30 P.M.

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 the CONSENT AGENDA, items 1—4. There was no discussion. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve items 1-4. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

The second order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Lisa Nordstrom’s October 24, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Authority to Increase its Interim and Base Rates and Charges for Electric Service, Case No. IPC-E-03-13.

Ms. Nordstrom reviewed her Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Commission immediately issue a Notice of Application and suspend both the proposed interim and permanent rates; set a prehearing conference for the general rate case on November 13th ; and also set a time for oral argument on the standards for interim rate relief because there is some question as to what standard the Commission should be using when it decides whether to grant interim rate relief or not. She said that intervenors should simultaneously let the Commission know they are going to be intervenors and submit memos on the issue of the standard to be used in interim rate relief, and the Company and Staff should also have the opportunity to submit memos in order to weigh in on the issue. She said if the Commission has questions to ask the parties who have submitted the memos, there will be time set aside on the morning of the 13th. She also made a motion that the Commission set aside on its calendar the dates of December 15 and 16th for a hearing on the interim rate request if it turns out the answers aren’t immediately apparent to the Commission after considering the memos on the legal standard. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.

The next order of business was RULEMAKING:

Don Howell’s October 24, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Revisions to the Utility Customer Relations Rules, IDAPA 31-2101-0301 (IPUC Case No. RUL-U-03-3).

Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on Rule 312 as to what Staff is anticipating that the Company is supposed to do when it hasn’t terminated service at a location where one customer has requested termination but no new customer has requested service—i.e. are they supposed to go to the property or mail a notice. Beverly Barker replied that typically the Company will go to the premises to see if someone is living there, and if there is, and they haven’t attempted to apply for service, the Company leaves a notice. She said that if it is obvious the home is vacant, then they don’t leave a notice, so some judgment is applied.

Commissioner Smith asked what the difference is between the existing language the PUC proposed and Idaho Power’s language in Rules 304 and 603. Ms. Barker replied that the philosophical difference is that Staff is proposing that companies be allowed to mail a notice, recognizing the fact that in practice a number of utilities do mail 24-hour notices, but still requiring the company to attempt to call the customer before final termination or go to the premises to leave a notice. She said what Idaho Power is proposing is that all of that be optional—i.e. the Company would get to choose whether it wants to make a phone call, make a personal visit, or mail a final notice. Commissioner Smith confirmed that under Staff’s proposal, the Company doesn’t have to mail the final written notice, but it has to make a diligent attempt to contact the customer, and that seems to be the same whether our proposed language is used or Idaho Power’s language is used. Ms. Barker replied that the difference is whether or not they are required to attempt to contact the person by phone or in person as opposed to having the mailed notice be a final notice option as well. She said Staff thought that making a phone call is certainly a low cost option for making a last ditch attempt to notify someone before termination.

Don Howell stated that one of the other issues the Staff had about the Company’s recommended language is that the Company’s recommended language talks about the customer’s receipt of the final notice, and unless the Company is going to mail it certified, it would be difficult to prove the customer actually received the notice, so Staff was looking at the “diligent attempt” language, either in person or by phone, versus trying to prove whether or not the customer actually got the 24-hour notice.

Commissioner Kjellander asked if this language comports with similar language we have used in the past. Ms. Barker confirmed that it is the same as what we have in the telephone rules. Staff’s intent was that the language be changed to recognize the fact that some companies do mail final notices and that is allowed, and how that fits into the other notification requirements of the Commission. Commissioner Smith confirmed that the mailing of the final notice does not excuse this last ditch attempt to notify by telephone or in person.

There was no further discussion, and Commissioner Kjellander made a motion that the Commission adopt the proposed rules as pending rules and that we issue the Notice of Pending Rule. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

Don Howell’s October 24, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: The Proposed Amendments to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA Docket No. 31-0101-0301 (IPUC Case No. RUL-U-03-2).

Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memo. Regarding Rule 43, Commissioner Hansen asked if the Idaho Bar Association has any problems with Qwest’s proposal. Mr. Howell replied that he is waiting for the Bar’s counsel to call him back, but he guessed the Bar will see that Qwest’s proposal is an easier solution so he didn’t expect any objections. Regarding Rule 125, Commissioner Kjellander asked if Qwest wants to exchange the word “workshop” for “public hearing.” Mr. Howell replied that Qwest might have missed the meaning or thrust of what a workshop is intended to do—i.e. that it is an informal presentation designed to solicit comments. He said that by requiring the Commissioners’ presence, the right to cross examine and give written testimony, Qwest is making it more akin to a public hearing. Commissioner Kjellander stated that Rule 125 does not preclude the Commission from holding public hearings. Mr. Howell stated that Staff’s intent was to provide a vehicle or process to allow the public to give comment to the Staff and it isn’t meant to supplant the Commission’s public hearings.

Commissioner Hansen said he thought Qwest was making more out of the public workshop than it should be and there could be some confusion between a public workshop and public hearing, but he thought the responsibility rests with the Commission to make sure the public understands the difference and what a public workshop is for. He said going back to Rule 125.01, to him when it says the Staff is there to dispense information concerning the utility’s application and to receive written or oral comments, that means comments the public is making to the Staff, so he didn’t have a problem with the rule as it is, although we do need to be careful as a Commission when we set up public workshops so the public understands it is a workshop and preliminary to the public hearing.

Commissioner Smith made a motion to submit Rule 125 as proposed and regarding Rule 43, the Commission ought to take the recommendation of Qwest, which is an administratively cleaner way to do it. She also wanted to note that regarding public workshops, there is some sense among some members of the Legislature that there is no place in the PUC’s process for the public to influence Staff’s position or participate in Staff’s preparation of its case before it files its testimony, and this is our attempt to be responsive to those concerns. She said if anyone has a problem with the rule as proposed, there will be an opportunity to take it up during the legislative review. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

Don Howell’s October 24, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: Updating the Commission’s Safety and Accident Reporting Rules, IDAPA Docket No. 31-1101-0301 (Case No. RUL-G-03-01).

Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memo. There was no discussion. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to issue the Notice of Pending Rule to be published in the Administrative Bulletin and adopt the proposed rule as a pending rule. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

The only other items on the Agenda were under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS and Commissioner Kjellander stated the Commission would deliberate on those privately. He then adjourned the meeting.

DATED this ______ day of October, 2003.

_______________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY

1