19910325.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
March 25, 1991 - 10:00 a.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha Smith; staff members Mike Gilmore, Bev Barker, Birdelle Brown, Eileen Benner and Myrna Walters.
Items discussed at this decision meeting were:
1.  Mike Gilmore's February 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31.D-R-89-1--Rulemaking Concerning Operator Service Providers and Pay Telephones.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the importance of mirroring rules of the FCC is?
Mike Gilmore said he thought the FCC wouldn't be out here enforcing them.
Commissioner Nelson asked if we could enforce FCC rules?
Mike Gilmore thought not.
Commissioner Miller didn't think we could adopt by reference FCC because they speak to interstate.
Rule 8 -
8.2 - Notice to Customers on Rate Changes.
First question is:  LECs only or "telephone companies"?
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think that would be a problem for LECS.
Mike Gilmore said he thinks all Title 62 companies have obligation under this statute.
Commissioner Smith agreed; as did Commissioner Miller.
Answers to the questions were:  Yes, no, yes.
Rule 9.
Commissioner Miller said as a general matter, what do Commissioners think about mirroring federal rules as much as possible?
Commissioner Nelson said he wondered about consistency benefits?
-2-
Commissioner Miller said there may be places where we want to do differently but for convenience to industry, it would be easier if they knew they were like the FCC's with exceptions.  So they wouldn't have to comply with two different sets of rules, that basically we are doing the same thing.
Commissioner Nelson said to the extent we agree, it would be easier to mirror them.
Mike Gilmore said we gave explanations also.
Commissioner Smith said on Page 6 that was her proposal, to use FCC technical and then add in our explanations.
Commissioner Miller said we didn't limit ourselves to interstate, did we?
Commissioner Smith suggested just dropping reference to interstate.
**Take out that reference.
Discussed FCC definition of LECs.
Mike Gilmore spoke to what it leaves out.  We wanted to have Bev Barker's people be able to help customers when they don't understand their LEC bills.
Commissioner Miller asked if that was the only reason to include them in this rule?
Mike Gilmore said many contract these services out - that is another reason for the rule.
Commissioner Miller said the question he has is, if the intention of the rule is to avoid abuses by the AOS, if that is the true purpose of that, why is it necessary to subject LECs that don't have that history of abuses to some kind of burdensome requirement?
Bev Barker said the LECs didn't object to this.
Mike Gilmore said he thought perhaps Conley Ward liked it because his clients could use it to assure good carriers.
Bev Barker said the other companies wondered why they would be treated differently than the LECs.
Commissioner Nelson said he wondered about discrimination.
-3-
Bev Barker said generally they already practice this.
Commissioner Smith said her answer was yes.  Thought there ought not be special categories.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought that consistency will apply when we get into other questions.  If we are going to talk about everyone doing it the same way ...
Commissioner Miller said there is a difference between LEC and an ITI type company that is really a totally different animal in his mind.
Mike Gilmore said he thought for public relations policy it would be a good idea.
Birdelle Brown questioned the definition of OSP including LECs.
Mike Gilmore said LECs do need rules on emergency rule requirements.
OSP customer definition - FCC definition was approved.
c.  Telephone Caller.
    Yes.
d.  Privately-owned payphone.
Commissioner Nelson said he had heard the definition was good.
Commissioner Miller said to work this out the best way you can.
**Will refer them to Rule 10.
9.1 - Posting of Information.
Commissioner Smith said she liked our original posting requirement.
Commissioner Nelson questioned what good the address did?
Page 8 - ii to be included.
Page 9 - Commissioner Smith asked - do customers have a choice of an interlata carrier, particularly in GTE's area?
This is more than payphones only.
-4-
Mike Gilmore said 9.1 only speaks to payphones.  Said reasons GTE didn't pick up on it was because it wasn't in our original proposal.
Commissioner Smith said what got her was the wording "right" to access.  They may have the ability but don't think it should say "right".
Mike Gilmore suggested it being LATA specific in the rule.
Eileen Benner suggested contacting GTE to see if they have a problem with it.
Mike Gilmore said he thought there was plenty of time for reconsideration.
Commissioner Nelson said he would be uncomfortable with doing something different than what it says in the statute.
Decided to change customer to caller.
Commissioner Miller asked what Commission decided on the GTE LATA problem?
Said we could put it as Mike Gilmore proposed and call their attention to it.
Eileen Benner suggested wording.
Mike Gilmore suggested saying except as allowed by state law.
Agreed.
Bev Barker asked about FCC posting of consumer affairs numbers?
**Do not include it in the regulations.  It is a federal matter.
Last sentence on Page 9.  Needs to be posted but AT&T wouldn't need to know about it.
Commissioner Smith said to say OSPs have to quote OSP billed rates and charges.  That should take care of AT&T's concerns.
**Will add a sentence to include charges by hotel.
-5-
Rule 9.2 Access Required.
Jails will be removed from this.
Top of Page 11 - Will be handled separately.
Commissioner Miller said if we are taking out jails, how much are we removing?  Halfway houses?
Thought definition of institutional exceptions was good.  That lists what is excluded from this.
Access to Emergency Services - Page 11.
Commissioner Miller said his initial thought was we have devised a standard and procedure for dealing with those problems and our exemption process seems to have worked reasonably well, so in the absence of some big need to do it differently, would stick with what we are doing.
Commissioner Nelson said he would too.  Those people are familiar with the process now.  Larger OSPs are providing emergency services.
Eileen Benner said she thought ours doesn't provide standard for time elapsed.  It wouldn't say in the application you should tell us how long it takes.  FCC says immediately connection.
Rules say there are no exceptions to access to 911.
Discussed whether or not using "emergency" should be written into this.
Commissioner Miller said he thought since we approved in the past we would not require immediate access to be a change.
Mike Gilmore said now there is a federal requirement.
Bev Barker said you could define "immediate".
Eileen Benner said other states to require that in their exceptions.
**Thought our rule should say 911 goes directly to the LEC.
Commissioner Miller asked what we are going to do on access to emergency services?  Use "immediate" or use federal standard in its entirety?
-6-
Commissioner Smith said originally thought just retain our procedure.  Think we should make it clear you should be able to dial 911 but don't know how you do that in a hotel.
Commissioner Miller said he wondered about addressing it only in the payphone rules?
Eileen Benner spoke to what our rules say now.
**Will use caller rather than customer.
Page 13 - U. S. West Comments.
Commissioners thought the way it was worded now is sufficient.
**Mike Gilmore will draft something and run it by everyone.
Access to Other Carriers
Commissioner Miller asked about FCC rules?
Mike Gilmore said they are now proposing to block access to 10xxx unless it is a dialing sequence that bills 1+10xxx.
Mike Gilmore read from the federal register.
Said FCC will be adopted in 36 months.
Commissioner Miller asked if it wasn't a capacity problem?
Commissioner Smith suggested giving them a time and have them ask for an exemption.
Mike Gilmore suggested grandfathering existing but not allowing any new ones.
Allowing you may block 10xxx0.
Grandfather in terms of federal law.  "No new equipment can be installed without it".  After April 1992.
Page 17 - Termination of Service to Call Aggregators.
Thought they should terminate only on PUC order.
Mike Gilmore said the feds are imposing loss of revenue rather than terminations of service.  Thought it should be "some direction from the Commission".
-7-
Commissioner Miller asked if we want to enforce the FCC withholding of payments?
Commissioner Smith said she thought you need a combination of both.  But termination should only be by PUC order.
Decision:  Mirror the federal.
Mike Gilmore suggested - could put that system in place for the LECs.  A slight adaptation of federal law.
9.3.
Commissioner Miller asked what would be wrong with using the federal approach on this topic?
Mike Gilmore said he would use that but add our antedote.
Commissioner Nelson suggested applying for a waiver after 3 years.
Eileen Benner said she thought it should be with the provider.  Just have U S West brand their own calls.
They can work it out.
Bev Barker said she thought it should be the providers name used for branding.
Mike Gilmore said if they wanted to use two names we wouldn't object.
Eileen Benner reviewed U. S. West's comments.
9.4 - Page 22.
Should the PUCs regulations require OSP contracts or tariffs with aggregators to comply with all the requirements of both state and federal law?
Yes.
Rule 9.5 - Uncompleted Calls--Splashing.
Mike Gilmore asked if we shouldn't flat prohibit charging for uncompleted calls?
Commissioner Miller said the federal approach would take care of that.
**In non-equal access, you could not knowingly do it.
-8-
It is possible that they could inadvertently bill for an unanswered call.  If they have a few that slip through, it is okay.
Mike Gilmore asked how big a problem we are talking about?
Commissioner Nelson suggested adopting language of I and II.  
Commissioner Smith suggested prohibit but allow a waiver process.
Eileen Benner said she thought federal was good but there should be a mechanism for funding on removal of charges.
**Elaborate on the wording on the refund.
Commissioner Miller asked if there were substantitive differences on the federal approach and ours?  His impression was both rules tried to get to the same place.
Propose language for 9.5.
Rule 9.6 Informational Filings--Information on Bils.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the rule should be parallel with our Title 62 rules.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the big question was can you charge customer more than his own company would charge?
Commissioner Nelson said he thought that would be tough.  Would have to have everyones charges on file.  Don't think he could in good conscience require that.
Commissioner Smith said it was her opinion we should replace our rule with the federal law.
Mike Gilmore said if you read the federal statute it is misleading.
Bev Barker said this was originally negotiated out of what was accepted.  In people's minds if you accept that card you are billing at the card issuers rates.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it was whoever's name is on that call will be billing.
-9-
Eileen Benner said she thought it was a compromise problem.
Mike Gilmore asked that since the feds have muddied the water, do you want to leap into it at all?
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there is going to be a real problem when you say there is competition but you can't bill more than the other company.
Mike Gilmore said we might be better off to not include it.
**Just take out last sentence.  
Commissioner Smith asked about Page 26 - FCC's proposed 47 C.F.R.64.705(b)..
Eileen Benner said she thought it was a good idea to go with FCC on this.
Commissioner Miller asked what this rule accomplishes?
Eileen Benner said this is related to dialing 800 or 950 to get to a carrier.
There is no penalty for accessing these numbers.
**Address credit card billing but adopt this rule.
Question on Page 28 - should credit card companies billing for MTS calls be obligated to provide a toll-free number where billing details may be obtained?
Commissioner Nelson said that goes with your agreement with VISA/Mastercard.
9.7 - Termination of Essential Service Prohibited.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought this may be becoming outdated.  Now people in business have to be more responsible.  Don't think we are having those real abuses.
Bev Barker said you still have people who travel infrequently and experience OSPs and get into trouble.
Mike Gilmore said if you run up $l,000 AT&T bill, you can't disconnect local service.
Commissioner Nelson said he was worried about discrimination.
-10-
Commissioner Smith said U. S. West should not be disconnecting for nonpayment of their toll charges either.  If you have a company where you are making up uncollecteds by rates, I am worried about it.  Am worried about the rates we set.  If these rates are not finding their way into regulated, don't care.
Mike Gilmore said two years ago, local company said they couldn't give you local service only without interlata.  It was because they couldn't disconnect for interlata without disconnecting local.
Eileen Benner said we have considered interlata as essential.
Commissioner Nelson asked about toll blocking?
Eileen Benner said they wouldn't block their intralata toll.
Commissioner Miller asked if Commission couldn't take 313 and apply it here??
After discussion, decided to deny the ITI objection - leave it status quo.
Meeting adjourned.
Reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Started with Item 2 from March 25, 1991 Agenda - Mike Gilmore's March 20, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Draft Order approving U S West Tariff Advice No. 506--Case Nos. MTB-T-90-6 and 31.D-R-89-1.
Commissioner Nelson asked - we don't have any say over how much commission they pay?
Mike Gilmore said he thought we regulated commissions when they were Title 61, when commission was tariffed.
Commissioner Nelson asked - isn't someone putting these captive customers at great disadvantage?  Think inmate is at terrible disadvantage when he is a captive customer and rates he is to pay are set by the sheriff.
Commissioner Miller said person who receives the call who has to pay for the call is at a disadvantage.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it would be better if we stayed out of the commission issue.
-11-
On Page 2 - Paragraph 2 - Commissioners asked that the words "Staff was informed that..." should be added at the beginning of the first sentence.
Page 5 - 1.  Commissioner Smith questioned monopolistic and monopolist.
Commissioner Miller said once the provider is chosen, he is monopolistic.
Page 4 - Commissioner Miller questioned inmates being captive?  Asked if we can issue the order now or should it be held for the new rules?  Can we go ahead without going completely through the rules?
Will discuss rest of rules first.
Item 3 - Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated March 25, 1991.
Approved.
Item 4 - Belinda Anderson's March 14, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Contel's Tariff for Budget Measured Service.
Lynn Anderson was asked if this was a different measured service?
Lynn Anderson replied it is their first offering.
Commissioner Smith moved approval of the filing.
5.  Lynn Anderson's March 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice No. 91-5.
Approved - effective today.
6.  Lynn Anderson's March 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Retention of Cancelled Telephone Tariffs.
Commissioner Smith asked if they were available from the company if we wanted them?
Lynn Anderson said they would have them but the response wouldn't be very positive unless the request came from the Commission.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought they should be kept for 5 years.
-12-
Commissioner Smith said 5 is the answer she had circled.  If we are sure that the pre-divestiture questions have run their course, could throw them out with confidence.  Only hesitation is something requiring seeing pre-divestiture tariff.
Lynn Anderson said question is, should we be the repository forever?
Commissioner Nelson said the number he liked was 7.
Mike Gilmore said if there was a way to segregate, would keep the ones on capital investment.
Commissioner Miller said - could do 10 years.
Discussed how they are organized.
Commissioner Miller said we could let Lynn Anderson and Bill Winiger look through these to see if there was a way to determine how many to keep.
**Lynn Anderson will work with Bill Winiger on this.
7.  Bev Barker's March 20, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Boise Water Tariffs.
Commissioner Miller asked, given the fact that Bev Barker's letter just went out March 20, should Commission hold this matter until next week?
Commissioner Nelson suggested tabling it for a week.
Marsha Smith said her decision was to give Bev Barker the Commission's undivided support but will consider it next week.
Agreed.
8.  Bev Barker's March 21, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Re-Search, Inc., Request for Written Statement Concerning Sharing of Customer Credit Information.
Commissioner Miller said he was a little reluctant to do a letter of endorsement until we decide to go forth on priority information and without knowing a good deal more than we know about this.
Commissioner Smith said our standing rule of thumb is to respond in the same manner in which it came in.  Since it came to Bev Barker, Commission shouldn't respond.
-13-
Mike Gilmore said if U. S. West wanted to know they would ask us.
Commissioner Miller suggested setting it aside until we consider the privacy issue.
**Hold at this time.
Item 10 - Mike Gilmore's March 12, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31.I-R-90-1.
Commissioner Miller asked if engineering staff has looked at these codes?
Mike Gilmore said he checked with Don Oliason as well as Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas.
Commissioner Miller said on reporting of accidents, thought Commissioner Swisher was interested in standardizing the information so we got the same information from each utility because some provide detailed and others only tell us the name and where they died.
Mike Gilmore said the gas companies use something fairly standard since they report to OPS.  Electrics do not.
Commissioner Miller said he listed what he thought should be in the report on his copy of the decision memo.
Don Oliason asked to make a suggestion.  Said in evaluating the purpose of filing with the Commission, what would fall under the Commission's jurisdiction would be unsafe practices of the utility, outdated material or equipment that ought to be changed, etc., in which case assume the Commission could order change in equipment, etc.  So it seems the accident report should be in detail as to cause, what they intend to do to prevent accidents in the future, etc.
Commissioner Smith asked if this was anything that would impair a lawsuit?
Commissioner Miller said the statute stays they re not admissible in court (the accident reports).  Think that is to facilitate more complete reporting.
Mike Gilmore is to work with Don Oliason on details for reporting of accidents.
-14-
3.3  Commissioner Smith thought it should say - Commission may find rather than may decide.
**Will make changes and send order over for signatures.
11. Mike Gilmore's March 13, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31.B-R-91-1.
Commissioner Miller suggested holding this.  There are things we should discuss before they go out for comment.
Mike Gilmore said especially if you are going to make any decisions about geographic or financial fitness.
Held til next Monday.
12. Lynn Anderson's March 8, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  EAS Petition between Buhl and Twin Falls.  (Previously discussed at 3-11-91 Decision Meeting)
Commissioner Miller went over the matter.  Said Myrna Walters was in the process of doing a summons.  Thought it should be put back on the agenda to rethink how it should be handled.
Commissioner Smith said Dan Poole's comment was don't be surprised if the response from the company is we have no objection to EAS because of the position we are put in by a summons.  Petitioners are put in a position of saying we want it and company is in the position of saying yes or no.  Is there a procedure when the company is not immediately on the opposite side of the fence.  Have some sympathy with their thoughts that they not always be perceived as saying you cannot have it.  Also don't want to be in a position of us being the bad guys.
Commissioner Miller asked - you are thinking of some kind of an order opening the case and making them parties?
Commissioner Smith asked Lynn Anderson if it was working with Eden/Hazelton?
Lynn Anderson replied Belinda Anderson was happier about this than he was.  Reported on phone calls from the people in the area.
Commissioner Miller said we could open it in that fashion and then have a prehearing conference.
Lynn Anderson said a workshop is good but not long after that Commission should have a prehearing.
-15-
Commissioner Smith said you use it to educate the people as to what is available also.  Could say a petition is not necessary; complaint wouldn't have to be adversarial.
Commissioner Miller said in order opening case, what should be the next step?
Commissioner Smith said either prehearing or public meeting, but time and place should be set to have something happen.
'**Lynn Anderson is to look at what to do.  Company is to get together their call data, etc.
Lynn Anderson said one thing they did at the first meeting in Eden/Hazelton was to vote on what rates they would be willing to pay.
Commissioner Miller said the thing he worries about is Commission can end up looking bad in this mob effort.
Bev Barker said one of the first things you can do at the meeting is to get who will be representing the large group.
Commissioner Nelson said he would tend to think a staff/petitioner meeting before a prehearing conference would be good.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the order could go out setting time and place.
**Check with petitioning group to see when they can attend.
Commissioner Miller suggested in the order that call volume data be collected in 30 days and then set the meeting.
13. Lori Mann's March 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Privacy Investigation in Telecommunication Services; Case No. GNR-T-90-1; et al.
Commissioner Smith asked about the order being prepared but never issued?
Thought Commission needed to go back to the 19th of April and summarize the comments and decide what we want to do with them and where we want to go.
Commissioner Miller said a number of comments went well beyond Caller ID.  Think a good summary would be a good idea.
-16-
Commissioner Smith said then after that decide where we want to take the case - take more comment, ignore it, issue rulemaking?
Commissioner Miller asked Lori Mann to do a review of the comments.
14. Randy Lobb's March 21, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Proposed Service to Clearview Water Association by Boise Water Corporation.
Commissioner Miller said when we get to the end of the memo, does company proposal for handling this acquisition seem reasonable?
Randy Lobb said yes.  You can argue about revenue to be generated, they do apply tariffs.  Their tariffs have changed and projects like this from now on will require hook-up fees.
Commissioner Miller said he thought a review of the letter by Randy Lobb was helpful.
Asked procedurally, how do we handle this?
Mike Gilmore suggested a letter from Stephanie Miller or an engineer.
Commissioner Smith agreed to having Stephanie Miller respond.  Say it has been reviewed and it is reasonable.
Commissioner Nelson also agreed.
15. Mike Gilmore's March 21, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho Power Level Pay Plan--Case No. IPC-E-90-6.
Commissioner Miller said everyone decided to do threshold in kilowatt hours.
3.  Divisor for Level Payment Amounts.
Commissioner Nelson said if you used weather normalization, would go with company with 12 months.  It does get to the lowest month, it is a voluntary program.
Commissioner Smith said she would go with 12 months.
4.  Refunding of Positive Balances Exceeding Threshold.
Mike Gilmore said you could still have refunds if the weather is warmer.
-17-
**Decided to not make it automatic.
Don Oliason suggested readjusting would be a better way rather than a refund.
Bev Barker said company has monitoring plan in place where the computer kicks out anyone who has 25% variation of what was used for level pay calculation.  If you are building up too much of a credit, it will be kicked out.
Commissioner Nelson asked Bev Barker about her position on refunds?
Bev Barker said she didn't have any objection to automatically refunding them.  
Commissioner Miller said given the small magnitude this appears to be achieving, would that be an argument for forgetting interest one way or the other.
Mike Gilmore said on a typical winter they would show more positive than negative.
Commissioner Smith said she would vote no interest.
Idaho Power rep in attendance explained the company proposal.
Bev Barker said they have 14% of residential customers in Idaho on level pay.
16. Scott Woodbury's March 21, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  INT-G-91-2--Authorization to Modify Energy Conservation Financing Program.
Scott Woodbury said Company rejected Commissioner Nelson's suggestion of tying the program to the meter.
Commissioner Nelson said they also rejected staff's request to go to $850.
Bill Eastlake said their rationale was don't want builders to get wind of this and go with the top cap.  Explained company's proposal.
Commissioner Nelson asked what it cost to put in a gas hot water heater?
Dave Schunke explained why the program wasn't working.  At least they are going the right direction. If we approved it the way it is now and monitored it, there could possible
-18-
be higher numbers.  Could watch and see.  Argument for higher number is people who need this the most would have expensive conversion.
Commissioner Nelson suggested approving this program and monitoring it for a year to show what numbers we get.
Commissioner Miller asked about the 3 year construction period.
Bill Eastlake also said Dave Schunke recommended 3 to 5 years.
Commissioner Miller asked if it was obsolete in 3 years?
Dave Schunke said economically you can show a payback, whether it is new or old.
Commissioner Miller said somehow just junking out facilities that are not at the end of their useful life, I wonder about.
Dave Schunke said that is why he suggested 5 years.
Commissioner Miller said getting there the best way is a concern.
Commissioner Nelson asked if most of the change overs would be when the hot water heater goes out?
Commissioner Miller said only remaining question was is there anything in this that we should put out on modified procedure?
**Decision was:  make it effective April 15 - 14 day comment period.
17. Scott Woodbury's March 22, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  WWP-E-91-4--Empire Lumber and Regulus Stud Mill Agreements.
Commissioner Miller questioned "seller 'regulatory out' provision"?
Scott Woodbury said if in fact Commission rules raised the avoided cost at some point and consequently some other agency decided to tighten fuel supply or tax rates were raised, they could use that to opt out of the contract and contract at a higher rate.  Strong said it could be others than the Washington or Idaho Commission, it is a real
-19-
strange provision.  Think utility will incur regulatory expenses.  It is a favorable position for the QF.  Talking to WWP, they indicate you have to look at our negotiated history, Strong said he didn't know if we had ever included this in anyother contract before.  We are talking about negotiated rates here.  They are marginally lower than the calculated rates would have been for unlevelized.  It is only about 1/2 mill.  Orndorff doesn't think his rates are lower.  Told Strong that.
Commissioner Miller said on the surface of it, think it will always be adverse to ratepayers.  They will only be exercised when prevailing price is higher than the avoided cost.  (Then they will try to bail out).
Scott Woodbury said at a minimum because of the contract language ... should request comments from both parties as to how this would work.
Commissioner Miller said he thought he saw where these "regulatory out" clauses have been discussed in other states.
Tom Faull said he would tend to agree with Scott woodbury that there may be some potential problems.  It is entirely at the utility's control.
Commissioner Nelson said you said something earlier about the WF opting out of this and resigning at a higher rate?
Tom Faull replayed - he would still be a QF under PURPA and would qualify.
Scott Woodbury said another problem is there is no criteria for profitability.  Neither is there any overview or consent review by Commission.
Commissioner Miller said at a minimum it would give them a bargaining position.
Mike Gilmore said he thought you could set up ground rulers where you couldn't do the latter.  (Sign with another utility)
Commissioner Smith asked if Commission wanted to get comments?
Scott Woodbury suggested getting comments from the parties.
-20-
Commissioner Smith suggested a proposed order rejecting the contract.
Scott Woodbury said approve the contract but reject this clause.
Mike Gilmore said he thought others should comment.
Commissioner Nelson said what good is the lein if they opt out?
Commissioner Miller said he thought we should do notice and comment so other parties can comment but, should we approve the contract except for this paragraph?
Commissioners Nelson and Smith agreed.
Commissioner Miller said - don't know how critical this is to the agreement?
Mike Gilmore said they can speak to that in the comment period.
Scott Woodbury said rather than making it effective immediately then, if we are accepting comments, make it effective May 1.
Commissioner Nelson said these facilities aren't built yet.
**Nothing to worry about timewise.
18. Don Oliason's March 22, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  IPC-E-90-20 - Schedule 72 Interconnect Tariff Non-Utility Generation; IEPI and A. W. Brown Comments; Idaho Power Response.
Commissioner Miller asked if this could be decided without a hearing?
Scott Woodbury said yes.
Page 4 of Decision Memo - Questions for the Commission.
1.  Does the Commission find that IPC seeks to recover inappropriate interconnection costs?
No.
-21-
Commissioner Nelson said if they use system costs and they have a choice it is correct.
Don Oliason said Brown contends that the things he was required to pay do not fit PURPA.  It is not what the QF is to pay.
Scott Woodbury said there is a question on whether or not IPC is able to charge rates that are not competitive.  To the extent that they rolled in overhead which is maybe greater than (about 30%) that you could go out into the marketplace and obtain equipment matching IPC specs for less.  IPC thinks they have addressed that because we allowed them to do that in some instances, on their side of the box.  Am a little unclear as to what equipment IPC still has the ability to design and fabricate itself.  Maybe Don Oliason has a better handle on this.
Don Oliason said they can design the system but they purchase from suppliers, the transformer, etc.
Scott Woodbury asked if they were adding into this overhead, etc.?
Don Oliason said they do say if the QF can built it cheaper they can get it on contract.
Said his feeling about Brown is he feels he was cheated all the way around, mostly on the rates for energy and because the water isn't producing as much energy as he thought.
Commissioner Miller asked if the price was the dispute?
Don Oliason and Scott Woodbury said the price of equipment.  Tried to separate them out.
Scott Woodbury spoke to the second bullet.
Don Oliason explained it also.
Commissioner Miller asked if our answer was that IPC gives QF choice and also that Dave Hattaway has audited and found them to be reasonable.
Stephanie Miller said it is based on IPC accounting for all of its other system this way.
2.  Does the Commission find that IPC realizes significant profits or any profits in its procedure for
-22-
collecting interconnection costs?
No.
3.  Should the vested interest term be longer than 5 years?  
Scott Woodbury said that is what they are under for residential in Schedule 71.
Commissioner Miller said just reading IPC's reply comments, they seemed pretty persuasive on that.  It is questionable whether AF should be treated as retail.
Don Oliason said he viewed this as not costing ratepayers anything.   Said every cogenerator could be a different situation.
Discussed the 5 year vested interest term.
Decision:  5 years.
'
Question 4 - No.
Question 5 - Couldn't hurt.
Question 6 - No.
Question 7 - If they want this, they can petition for it.
Meeting adjourned to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1991.
        DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of May, 1991.

PRESIDENT

COMMISSIONER

COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Commission Secretary
0032M