20120507min.doc

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING

MAY 7, 2012 – 1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Mack Redford and Marsha Smith.

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING on Monday, April 30, 2012. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written.

The next order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA:
2. Grace Seaman's May 1, 2012 Decision Memorandum re: Direct Communications' Advice Letter 12-01 to Eliminate Non-Tribal Link up Support.3. Grace Seaman's May 1, 2012 Decision Memorandum re: Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink's Application for Approval to Amend the Interconnection Agreement with Bullseye Telecom, Inc., Case No. QWE-T-04-30.4. Grace Seaman's May 1, 2012 Decision Memorandum re: Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink's Application for Approval to Amend the Interconnection Agreement with Progressive Paging LLC, Case No. USW-T-00-6.5. Weldon Stutzman's May 4, 2012 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-T-12-03, Review of the Commission's Telephone Customer Relations Rule 502 (IDAPA 31.41.01.502).
There was no discussion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve Staff’s recommendations for items 2 through 5 on the Consent Agenda.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
6. Beverly Barker's May 4, 2012 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint of David Ross Concerning Avista.
Ms. Barker reviewed her Decision Memo. Commissioner Kjellander confirmed with Ms. Barker that it is completely out of the Commission’s control as to when and if LIHEAP and Project Share benefits are applied to a customer’s account. He stated the only issue left is the level pay amount of $149, and he confirmed with Ms. Barker that the level pay amount is set based on annual consumption. Ms. Barker replied that the calculation of the comfort level billing is set by Avista according to the guidelines provided by the Commission, and Avista has comported with those guidelines.
Commissioner Smith stated that in the last paragraph of the correspondence Mr. Ross sent on April 1st, he requests several things, some of which the PUC can’t provide, such as an explanation of what happened to the $749 from his grant, and he also wonders what would have happened if the grant had been applied in a timely manner and if the outcome in the calculation of the comfort level billing would be any different. She said that is a question the Commission should be able to answer. Ms. Barker replied that if the Project Share and LIHEAP payments had come in before the anniversary date of his comfort level billing recalculation, then the level pay amount would have been $149 rather than $187. Commissioner Smith confirmed that the application of the monies to his account now yields the same result as if the payments had been timely received. Commissioner Smith noted that Mr. Ross also wants to know who is specifically responsible for the misplacement of his grant application, which is beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction or ability to determine.
Commissioner Kjellander stated that in considering whether this matter should be accepted as a formal complaint, he didn’t know what more the Commission can do. Commissioner Smith noted that Mr. Ross believes his usage has remained constant, but it is her understanding that the usage actually increased for the 12-month period on which the current comfort level is assessed. She stated that the Commission could confirm his actual usage amounts by requesting from Avista the actual calculations made for the comfort level billing and actual usage numbers for the customer.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if the Commission should hold off on any final decision on the complaint until it has received Avista’s response. Commissioner Smith stated that the Commission could issue an order or send a letter requesting confirmation of the information used to calculate his payment amount. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to hold this matter until clarification is received regarding Commissioner Smith’s question. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.7. Discussion re: Idaho Wind Partners I Late Filed Petition to Intervene, Case No. GNR-E-11-03.
Ms. Sasser reviewed the Petition filed by Idaho Wind Partners. She noted the intervention deadline was September 8, 2011 and Idaho Wind Partners filed its Petition to Intervene on April 27, 2012. Ms. Sasser provided an update as to the case schedule to date and noted there was legal briefing, some discovery and a technical hearing in August yet to come.
Commissioner Smith stated she didn’t have any objection to the Petition to Intervene, as long as they stick to the schedule. She asked if Idaho Wind Partners anticipated filing testimony. Ms. Sasser deferred the question to Deborah Nelson, an attorney for Idaho Wind Partners, who was present at the meeting.
Ms. Nelson replied that her client had just recently learned of the economic curtailment issue that could be applied to their existing contracts with Idaho Power, which is the reason for their late intervention. She stated that they will accept the scheduling order as it exists now, and they primarily want to participate on the issue of economic curtailment in their legal briefing; however, they have not ruled out whether there is an opportunity remaining in the schedule to present additional evidence. She said the only other opportunities for participation other than legal briefing would be rebuttal testimony, some discovery and the hearing. She stated they would be limited to the issues already present in the docket and specifically this one issue of the retroactive application of economic curtailment.
Commissioner Smith confirmed that intervenor testimony had been filed the week before, and it seemed fair to her that if Idaho Wind Partners wanted to present testimony, the Commission should give them a week or ten days to do so instead of hanging back and presenting their case on rebuttal. She said it would be better for all parties to understand Idaho Wind Partners’ position and respond to it, rather than waiting for them to file rebuttal.
Ms. Nelson said she appreciated that opportunity and at this late stage it was unlikely they could produce an expert, but perhaps there was other direct testimony they could present, and they would certainly have legal arguments to present.
Commissioner Smith asked if Ms. Nelson could consult with her clients and get back to Ms. Sasser about filing direct testimony. Ms. Nelson replied that she would be happy to do so.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to grant the petition of Idaho Wind Partners to intervene with the usual caveats and understandings that their participation has to be subject to the scheduling orders that have already been entered. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The final order of business was FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:
8. Deliberation re: Petition for Reconsideration, Case No. PAC-E-12-03.
Commissioner Kjellander stated that item 8 would be deliberated privately.
There was no further business before the Commission and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.

___________________________________ ______________________________ COMMISSION SECRETARY DATE OF APPROVAL

3