Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19910219.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting February 19, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance: Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha Smith; staff members Mike Gilmore, Tonya Clark, Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Lori Mann, Gary Richardson, Jack Taylor, Belinda Anderson, Bev Barker, Birdelle Brown, Don Oliason, Bob Smith, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Mary Hobson representing U. S. West, Jack VanValkenburgh, ACLU, Michael Keyes, private citizen, members of the public and the media.   Items from the February 19, 1991 Agenda were discussed as follows. 1.  Tonya Clark's February 5, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Per Vehicle Interstate Filing Fee. Mike Gilmore said if you want to have it out there, would set it at a small amount and it would not be a source of refunding. Commissioner Miller said it was their opinion refund was a general fund obligation. Commissioner Nelson asked if it was a choice of 1 or 2 from Decision Memo? Commissioner Miller said the only problem with doing it now was, it could be used as an argument against the Commission in the court case.  If we set the annual obligation at 10+2, and collected 25, do we create a refund argument? Mike Gilmore said he didn't think there will be that many refunds. Commissioner Smith said the worry is if there is a refund obligation, how would it be calculated? Mike Gilmore said if we lose there, it will be years before we know the obligation. Commissioner Miller gave what he thought their argument would be - want to be sure we don't give them the $12 argument - the refund obligation would be $13. Commissioner Nelson said that would affect only the one truck owner. Tonya Clark asked how long we can wait? -2- Mike Gilmore said if you want to wait until after March 14 you can make it retroactive.  There will be very few trucks to sign up.  It would show the legislators that the delay was pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Commissioner Miller said he wondered if it would create a problem by moving ahead now. Commissioner Smith said you can't know what would have been charged. Mike Gilmore said the answer was based on federal law. Commissioner Smith said we can now choose to collect something else. Commissioner Miller said it just creates problem of clouding it up. Commissioner Smith said her concern was in dragging our heels before the legislature. Commissioner Nelson said if we wait until after the March 14 hearing, the session would be over.  Don't know if we want to wait until then.  Would just as soon set the fee now. Commissioner Smith agreed - set the fee now. Mike Gilmore asked if there wasn't a commitment to the legislature? Commissioner Miller said we are in a cycle where practically no one is paying.  Can go ahead.  Do the order in a way that protects the Commission in any way you can. Mike Gilmore suggested effective immediately or back to the date of the signing of the bill. *Commissioners agreed to date of signing of the bill. **Keep basestate program the same this year.  Next year's should change base state.   2.  Don Howell's February 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Union Pacific Proposed Abandonment of a Portion of the St. Anthony Branch. Commissioner Nelson asked if we have talked to any farmers or shippers over there? -3- Tonya Clark said no.  Have ordered a shipper list from Charlie Clark. Commissioner Miller said he assumed Idaho Code applied to exemption. Commissioner Nelson said he thought we should take a look at it. Don Howell said the North Side hearing was an exemption.   We did the Bunker Hill exemption.  Had hearings on both. Commissioner Miller said Commission could go ahead and set a hearing and determine who should go.  Asked if it could be done by the 13th?   Don Howell gave the timing.  Don't have a lot of time.  Anticipate they will give PUC notice on the 3rd and file with the ICC on the 13th.  They have to publish the Federal Register notice within 10 days of the notice.  Everything runs from the publication date.  In 30 days it is effective.  Commission has free days on March 5 and 6. **Get hearing set and then decide who will attend. Tonya Clark asked if Commissioners would feel comfortable in not having a hearing, based on informal? Commissioner Nelson said he thought it should be set for hearing to see what responses we get.  With only two weeks to go until the hearing, should do something pretty quick. **Ask people who intend to show up to let Commission know whats going on.  Explicitly notice people that no hearing will be held unless we hear from them. Commissioner Smith said the question is whether anyone will show up. It is two miles at the end of the Rexburg line. Commissioner Miller asked if we want the railroad to come? Don Howell commented there is a new superintendent in Pocatello. **Will issue notice of hearing, contingent upon public indicating they will participate. -4- 3.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated February 19, 1991. Commissioner Nelson commented Commission should give some consideration to not giving statewide authority when it is obvious they do not intend to provide statewide service. Commissioner Miller said he though it would have to be rulemaking to limit it.  There is an executive order setting out regions.  Unless you make a showing of true statewide, it would be limited to economic region you are serving. Mike Gilmore said the PUC rules have three transportation regions. Commissioner Miller said if it is to be changed, should be through rulemaking.  Will not do it for now. Approved agenda. 4.  Eileen Benner's February 5, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  GNR-T-90-9; Mountain Phone Company - Application to Process Calls to Operator ("O") on a Pay Telephone. Belinda Anderson said the question asked by Commissioner Nelson at the last decision meeting was, when it gets to a U. S. West operator, does that operator know the location?  Said the answer is no. Commissioner Nelson said he sees it as a problem then. Then the person on the payphone has to know where they are. Lori Mann asked how this works for other AOS providers? Commissioner Miller said he thought that was the way it always was - the AOS operator knows where it is.  If you dial O you get a recording. Mike Gilmore said that was different from other AOSs. Belinda Anderson said this one is different, it just drops it to U. S. West operator in an emergency. Commissioner Nelson asked why Eileen Benner thought it was okay? Belinda Anderson said she would guess that from her perspective, U. S. West never knows where you are anyway. -5- Commissioner Nelson asked if it was in Boise, if you push 911, they will be dispatched? Belinda Anderson thought so if they were labeled phones. Commissioner Nelson asked if all the phones in a 911 area are labeled that way? Belinda Anderson said they are supposed to be. Commissioner Nelson said he guessed he didn't have a problem then. Commissioner Smith said she would then move approval of the filing. Other two commissioners concurred. 5.  Mike Gilmore's February 13, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Scheduling of FMC Complaint that it has been overcharged by Idaho Power--Case No. IPC-E-90-22. Commissioner Miller said he wondered if there was something to do rather than just a hearing before 3 Commissioners because it is a complicated engineering question.  Isn't that the problem? Mike Gilmore said he reads it as Idaho Power Company strong-arming. Don Oliason said the issue is whether this represents a metering error or a human error. Commissioner Miller said he wondered if it wouldn't be a perfect circumstance for staff to investigate and make recommendations and then have a hearing on the recommendation. Mike Gilmore said he thought a lot of it is a legal issue.  See a lot of legal issues in it.  In Ripley's answer was a statement that total error was less than 2%.  Would like to have Idaho Power state position in a prehearing before the Commissioners.  That would speed settlement. Commissioner Nelson said if we just hear overcharging, would we get into meter versus human error? Mike Gilmore said yes. Commissioner Miller suggested we could go with prehearing conference. -6- Commissioner Nelson said he would like some analysis of this 3,000:5 transformer, etc.   Commissioner Miller said he didn't want to spend days litigating this. Mike Gilmore said one of the reasons would ask for prehearing is that Roethe was pretty confident things should be set out. **Decision was:  prehearing conference to see where it is. Commissioner Smith asked how they found the error? Don Oliason explained.  It was an Idaho Power engineer that found it. Mike Gilmore commented he was surprised they accepted the 3 years. **Decision was:  Prehearing conference notice. 5A.  Letter from Washington Commission regarding WWP least cost planning review. Commissioner Miller said he wanted it put on the agenda to see what the Commissioners have in mind.  Could review the electricity plan in the morning and the gas plan in the afternoon. Commissioner Smith asked if it was an open case in Washington now? Commissioner Miller said no. Mike Gilmore asked if we should initiate a formal case when they file their plan? Commissioner Miller said yes. Commissioner Smith said she didn't have a clear idea of what we are going to do at the hearing. Commissioner Miller asked Bill Eastlake about the format? Bill Eastlake said evidently Washington doesn't plan a large presentation by staff but do want to leave time open for questions from intervenors and the general public and the staff will have a short list of questions. -7- Commissioner Miller said it is review of the company plan and no one else is expected to file testimony. Mike Gilmore asked what the Washington Commission will do, formally approve it? Asked if we were planning to have hearings with the other Commissions? Commissioner Nelson said he liked the idea.  Might open the door to do other things down the road. Decision was:  Open formal docket and let the company know. 5B.  Jack Taylor's February 12, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  CUC-E-91-1, Citizens Request for Purchased Electric Power Tracker Increase. Commissioner Nelson said he thought if Jack Taylor said it was in good order we should accept it. Commissioner Miller asked Jack Taylor if it looked straight forward to him? Jack Taylor responded.  Said it is strictly energy cost pass-thru.  They are identical numbers in the FERC filing.  It looked very straight forward.  They took pre-approved rates out of their previous case and simply added this 27 mills per kw.  It looks real clean. Approved the pass-thru. 7.  Lori Mann's February 5, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Tamarack Village Complaint; Case No. GNR-W-90-2. Don Oliason said he has made an informal investigation and the situation is similar to what is set out in the written material.  In actuality there are two water systems.  One has seven customers.  Explained what the complaint was against the Neers.  Mrs. Neer indicates they will take care of the problems.  In the case of the other system, the ownership is in question.  It is known as the Leidt Water System.  That is the name of the person who owned it.  It is a 17-customer system.  Sold water system to Mr. Harper under contract.  Mr. Harper failed to make payments.  Leidt is trying to get the ownership back.  It is clouded.  Two people from the homeowners association are presently collecting fees from the Leidt system and they are being put in an escrow account.  The homeowners association is sort of running the business.  It appears to be okay for now.  If Mr. Leidt gets ownership back, he will fix up the system. -8- Commissioner Smith said if he is smart he will sell it for $1.00. Don Oliason said Mrs. Oliver would like the homeowners to own it, Mr. Oliver would not.  Encouraged homeowners to do that. Commissioner Miller asked where that leaves the Commission? Don Oliason said he wondered if it wasn't possible to wait to see what happens. Lori Mann said she thought the homeowners are trying to get it resolved. Don Oliason said he didn't know how long it will take Mr. Leidt to get the system back. Commissioner Miller asked about the association? Commissioner Smith asked if Commission needs to get their concurrence to put this on hold?  Asked why not tell them we will hold it because it appears they are working on their own problems and tell them we will hold it until they ask us for something more. Don Oliason said he thought in talking to them they don't really want to be regulated.  Think they would be receptive to a message of waiting to see how they can work it out themselves. Commissioner Miller suggested dismissing it without prejudice asking for new facts.  If they are amiable, would dismiss it. Commissioner Smith said yes.  As long as they understand that we are not ignoring them and that they are comfortable with us not doing anything further. Don Oliason said he will give them some personal attention. 8.  Lynn Anderson's February 6, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE InterLATA Toll Discounts, GTE-T-89-7. Commissioner Smith said she wondered - there didn't appear to have been any customers contacting us about this.  Do we have any customer input  in this, why are we looking at this? -9- Lynn Anderson said it is holdover from their last rate case. Commissioner Smith asked if it was a designated issue?  Did any customers bring it up? Lynn Anderson replied there have not been any petitions filed. Commissioner Miller said the thing he wondered about is do we want to go to all the effort of getting a MFJ waiver and all the other activities associated with this if the ultimate result is achieving something no customer particularly cares to have?  Asked Lynn Anderson if he had some sense of that? Lynn Anderson said he was confident there are customers who will subscribe to it. There are customers who will subscribe to it if the company notifies them it is a possibility.  Right now they are offering interLATA MARC but haven't advertised it. Commissioner Smith asked if there are any alternative carriers on these interLATA routes? Lynn Anderson said not that he knows of. Commissioner Miller asked what do these call volumes tell us on Page 3?  First two are very large.  Others aren't.  How do these compare to other exchanges we were comparing up there? Lynn Anderson said Commission has granted EAS on 3.  Denied at 20.  It is a matter of choice. Commissioner Nelson said he was going to guess they are high from Setters because there is a business there.  Setters does have EAS with Spokane. Commissioner Miller asked if there was something short of ordering GTE to seek the waiver, something else we should do in determining real customer demand for these services or are you just intuitively sure? Lynn Anderson replied - could do a customer survey.  There are only 30/40 in the exchanges other than Setters.  Can contract them. Commissioner Smith asked about the likelihood of Judge Greene granting a waiver? -10- Lynn Anderson replied he thought you just had to jump through hoops. Commissioner Smith said if you do a customer survey, you are just going to raise customer expectation.  Wouldn't do it if you aren't going to order GTE to get a waiver.  Have been away from waivers too long, don't know how they work, how long to process, etc. Mike Gilmore said he handled the first one.  It turned around pretty fast, but that was before AT&T's request. Commissioner Smith asked if the company went through any footwork in DC, before they made the request? Don Howell said the whole idea of the report was to see if there were restrictions of equipment or billing.  GTE says some services are incompatible with their billing system. Commissioner Smith said if they get a waiver, say get PAC. Don Howell said it has been cut into Idaho and Washington residents.  We asked how they would bill that out. Commissioner Smith asked what the answer was? Don Howell said he didn't know. They said there was a LATA restriction.  Said they could do PAC.  Bottom line is:  is PAC what the Commission wants? Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Nelson what he thought? Commissioner Nelson said he was real reluctant to ask GTE to get the waiver if there is no customer request.  If we did do it, don't know if the company is going to bill it out.  That wouldn't be our problem, but it is a problem. Discussed the March 19-20-21 trip north. Commissioner Miller asked about the case number? Don Howell explained what the case number was. Commissioner Miller asked Lynn Anderson what he would think about having some kind of a conference with the company when Commission and staff are up north, on this topic?  To discuss it further? -11- Commissioner Nelson said he thought it was a good idea. Commissioner Smith asked Lynn Anderson about GTE's response on what they could get without waiver, is it unsatisfactory? Lynn Anderson said yes, it is unsatisfactory. Commissioner Nelson said there are some areas that cost so much to bring in. Don Howell said Commission is to get a report in August. Decision was:  Set up under this case number, an informal conference, on the record. 10. Report by Bev Barker on meeting with U. S. West concerning Caller ID line blocking. Commissioner Miller reported the most recent activity on this item was when Commission instructed Bev Barker and her staff to meet with company for the purpose of devising a procedure to make line blocking available where there was concern for personal safety.  Would ask Bev Barker to report back to us on the results of that effort. Bev Barker said staff met with U. S. West on Friday and came up with an agreed-upon procedure that both the company and staff would follow and indicated she had described it on the attached handout .  Described the procedure to be used and indicated also attached to the copy of the letter is the form that will be provided to people who indicate they have a concern over their personal safety.  That is the form that the company will be using.  Can briefly go over the points staff will be looking at when requests come in.  Company has appointed some people who will be well trained and knowledgeable on Caller ID and they will field the calls. Commissioner Miller asked if they were local people in Boise? Bev Barker replied they were.  They would be looking at problems of personal safety.  If the customer wants line blocking, then the customer will be sent the form and there will be a letter explaining the options to make sure that the customer does understand the alternatives.  Within 3 days of receiving that form from the customer, the company will look at the information provided, evaluate and decide whether or not to grant line blocking.  If they grant it, it will be put in place immediately.  If denied, they will be told they can come to the Commission.  Company will then -12- provide information to the staff if the people come to the Commission.  Then staff has to review it on an expedited basis.  If staff decides there is a reason to grant the exemption, then we will talk to the company and try to persuade them to grant an exemption.  If company agrees exemption will be granted.  If company disagrees, then what we will do is come to the Commissioners and give them the information that we have on what been provided to us about the situation, and see what we need to do to go from there.  Decision will be up to the Commissioners then.  That is secondary level of appeal for the staff.  If the customer disgrees with the staff's decision to deny line blocking, with staff and company concurring, then we will advise the customer that they have the option of appealing to the Commission.  In order to expedite the process, don't want to advise of a formal complaint, but decided to put the information together and get it to the Commission internally and let you decide on that issue.  Again there is another souce of appeal for the customer.  Given the fact that there is some very personal information involved, the Consumer Division Staff would just be providing that information to the Commissioners.  Anything written up would be provided to the company and the customer.  It wouldn't be a decision memo or anything that would be published.  Would like to keep that as confidential as possible. Commissioner Smith asked if that was allowed? Mike Gilmore said that would be considered investigatory records under the Act. Commissioner Miller said there should be some internal procedure to see that they don't get wide distribution. Bev Barker said that was the information in a nutshell. Commissioner Nelson said he was curious about what Bev Barker thinks of this. Bev Barker replied that there is a lot of disagreement among the staff whether or not Caller ID is a great service.  Since Commission has decided that personal safety consideration was the problem, this is a good way at getting at that without putting pressure on the customers to see what their major problems are.  It is a routine-enough process that it will be easy to implement.  Are just taking normal dispute process and expediting it. Commissioner Nelson asked if this would cover the "personal safety" question? -13- Bev Barker replied - yes. Commissioner Miller said to keep in mind that this is a trial for 6 months.  By not interfering  with or attempting to stop the trial, feel that at the end of the 6 months trial period, will know a lot more about how many see it as valuable, how many have fears about invasion of privacy.  Right now there are a lot of people who feel it does invade their privacy.  Will know a lot more at the end of the trial.  For the moment, putting aside the jurisdiction issue, was concerned during the period of trial - wanted a safety net to see that this trial did not result in any personal harm.  Suspect that on a permanent basis, statewide, that this case by case method may be inadequate.  When it is offered here in Boise for a trial period, if we do it case by case, can be more comfortable in thinking that allowing trial to go forward, with this in place, won't be putting people at risk.  Then can later decide if line blocking should be provided on some basis, for those with non-published, etc. or if we have any jurisdiction.  Asked Commissioner Smith if that was generally how she felt about the trial? Commissioner Smith said yes, generally.  She commended the staff for doing this. Bev Barker said staff and company would welcome any input from the Commissioners. Commissioner Smith asked about the letters given to staff? Mary Hobson of U. S. West responded.  Company has been trying to contact the people.  Intention is to ask each of these people to fill out the form. Bev Barker said her concern was that the same criteria be used consistently. Commissioner Smith said her concern was with how they were applying it in specific cases. Bev Barker replied there was a disagreement as to what was a safety risk. Lori Mann said no one wanted to talk about a "reasonable standard". Commissioner Smith said she wasn't concerned about standard but how it was being applied. -14- Bev Barker said what we agreed to do was in two/three weeks, once there have been some applications received, sit down and review them and see the disposition and see if we are tracking along the lines we have agreed to.  In a couple of weeks should have at least 20/30 processed we have already identified. Mike Gilmore asked about staff/company certification versus customer certification. Commissioner Miller said a lot of it is do we have jurisdiction to require more than we have required in these circumstances?  We have required this procedure now, company has voluntarily acquiesced in it but probably if it ever came to a serious dispute would say we don't have jurisdiction to order what we have done.  Wonder whether we want to discuss jurisdiction to do any more than what we have done or whether we want to find some other way to discuss that.  Have received the briefs.  Don't have discussion of jurisdiction as a topic on the agenda.  Want to discuss it now?  Would you like to collect your thoughts? Commissioner Nelson said he thought Mary Hobson wrote a pretty good brief.  Think that he hasn't changed his opinion very much.  Can regulate some safety if we can show that health and safety is an issue.  Thought that Mary Hobson's analysis of the statute showed it was limiting. Commissioner Smith said she concurred with Commissioner Nelson but the company is arguing on our ability under 61-302, the company seems to take a more strict view of jurisdiction than I would.  Under their argument that we can't order anything different until we have a factual case, don't think we have to wait for people to be seriously injured before we say what you are doing is not good enough.  That is why I think we have jurisdiction and authority to implement what Bev Barker and the company have done to date and make sure that when they are offering a basic local exchange package that it is offered in a way that doesn't impair customer safety.  Agree up to that point.  Think their argument is more limited than I would argue. Commissioner Miller said there is the thought that says Commission can assume jurisdiction if Commission believes there is safety concern to customer.  Can assume jurisdiction if we have reason to believe there is safety problem.  Don't have to get killed before we can do something.  Do think that we have pushed our jurisdiction to its limit.  The definition of basic local service is quite clear and think it is significant that it is persuaded by basic (essential).  Clearly that basic means basic.  In -15- common sense English it is hard to see that Caller ID is basic.  We had also talked about considering blocking to be a separate service and find it to some use, find it to be basic because there is no competition.  After thinking about it am quite sure that Deregulation Act would not require a finding of competition for prerequisite of deregulation.  That is my understanding of how the Act is put together.  So it is clear that if we are going to assert jurisdiction we are on pretty tentative grounds and since we have required per call blocking and per line blocking on personal basis, don't believe that a called party might use it for improper use, given our limited jurisdiction, don't think we can order line blocking now.  Considered that perhaps we should assert our jurisdiction to maybe more than we are entitled to.  Like Governor fending off nuclear waste at the border.  Think what distinguishes that from us is he is compelled because Department of Energy has acted irresponsibly.  Company has not acted irresponsibly.  Don't think we need to step beyond that.  On one hand it might be popular to do that but don't think it would be reasonable or justified.  Think my personal opinion is if I could do it mayself would require it, but don't think we have that jurisdiction and shouldn't assert it. Commissioner Smith said she was hoping that one of the things we will learn during the course of the trial, that  first the number of people who want blocking will not come to fruition, just think that they (the company) see that as much of a "bogeyman as other people see the other side of that.  Will wait and see how it turns out. Michael Keyes asked the Commissioners - if Commission had jurisdiction would you require line blocking? Commissioner Miller said that was his personal opinion.  Would not commit other Commissioners. Michael Keys asked - would they be willing to offer that? Commissioner Miller said he would not ask them.  Would think it was important for us to give an idea of our point of view on the jurisdiction.  Initially didn't think we would come to that conclusion until the end of the trial but thought the disadvantage of that is that decision would come when the legislature  was not in session and you couldn't do anything about it.  Will let you know now. -16- Commissioner Smith said - Lori Mann will do an order that parties can take to the Supreme Court, or to the Legislature to do what they have to do.   Commissioner Miller said Mr. Keyes letter raises the question of Caller ID under MFJ decision.  Could argue either way on that.  Since Caller ID has been in Bell Atlantic territory for years, it must not fall as information service. Michael Keyes said the offering in Boise is the only one like it in the country. Commissioner Miller said whether it is or isn't the enforcement of the Judgement is a Federal matter and we have no ability to move one way or the other. Meeting adjourned.         DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of March, 1991.                           PRESIDENT                           COMMISSIONER                           COMMISSIONER ATTEST:                               Commission Secretary 0024M