Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19910416.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting April 16, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance were: Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Don Howell, Bob Smith, Gary Richardson, Lori Mann, Lynn Anderson, Jack Taylor, Belinda Anderson, Madonna Faunce, Stephanie Miller and Myrna Walters. **In the audience from U. S. West were:  John Souba and Ron Lightfoot.  Also in attendance was Dawna Eliasen of Eden/Hazelton area. Items from the April 16, 1991 Agenda were discussed as follows. 1.  Tonya Clark's April 9, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Vaughn Smith Construction Co., Case No. M-7652-2. Commissioner Miller gave two choices - said on the one hand reconsideration wasn't appropriate, but wonder what we gain with having him refile. Commissioner Smith said she would give him 14 days. After discussion was decided to grant petition for reconsideration, give him 7 days from date of the order goes out. 2.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated April 15, 1991. Approved the items on the agenda. 3.  Lori Mann's April 10, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Evergreen Water's Rate Case Application. Commissioner Miller asked what the company response was to staff's motion? Terri Carlock said she talked to someone at the company before motion was filed. Commissioner Nelson asked if staff usually gives these little water companies some help? Terri Carlock said she sent him the information.  Said Mike Gilmore's concern was running into time constraints, that is why the motion was filed. Commissioner Miller asked if motion should be granted? -2- Commissioner Nelson said he wondered if this wouldn't be a good time to look at a generic situation for small water companies, establish a generic rate of return on some basis by which these small companies could go through an expedited process when they need rate relief. Commissioner Smith asked about returning the filing rather than dismissing it.  Asked if returning it stops the time from tolling? Response was if you dismiss it, time starts over. Decision was:  dismiss it - draft order was okayed. 4.  Eileen Benner's April 11, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice No. 91-6; Combining Switched Access Service Elements. Approved the tariff advice. 5.  Birdelle Brown's April 13, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Contel Advice No. 91-02 Revising Centrex Digital Service. Birdelle Brown said since the drafting of this Decision Memo she has talked to the company about advising the customers.  Said if she were to do it over she would just recommend approval and that is all. Commissioner Miller asked - so we don't need the 21 day time lag? Birdelle Brown said its actually a decrease and notice is not actually required. Approved it as filed. 6.  Eileen Benner's April 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice No. 91-7; USF and Lifeline Surcharge Changes. Commissioner Smith asked how are they going to do refunds? Eileen Benner said she told them she thought they should do a one-time refund.  They could just suspend charging the surcharge until its eaten up.  Could make the company come out a little short. Commissioner Smith said she would be willing to take them down to 1 mill. Don Howell explained how they charge. -3- Commissioner Smith said they didn't reduce it like they were supposed to. Commissioner Miller asked if we knew why they didn't reduce it? Eileen Benner said it just didn't happen. Don Howell said we just haven't had this problem before.  In generic USF order we didn't tell them to file tariffs.  The order didn't specifically say submit a new tariff. Eileen Benner said other problem was the administrator didn't catch it and we didn't know it until we switched administrators.  First they found out in '90 they were charging 0004. The way they come up with the surcharge, they get actual booked revenue and look at actual surcharge and submit it to the fund.  There has never been a cross check to see if their percentage of minutes is accurate.  Finally got 1990 minute use and revenue accounting so that gives her a way to figure what percentage should be.  What we have to do, now that they have a program to pull out actual use, the surcharge people have to use that. Commissioner Smith said - so they overpaid in '90?  Think the solution is to take them to 1/10 of a mill. Eileen Benner asked - for how long? Commissioner Miller asked - do we have any idea if we are just going to adjust the rate, do they know what it will have to be between now and October? Eileen Benner said if you wanted to give it back over the remainder of the year, you would be down to less than a tenth of a percent of revenue.  If they go to the rate they should be it should be 8/10th times the revenue. Lynn Anderson said - could just go to zero for the next 4 months and then could start with the new percentage. Commissioner Miller said going to zero might be the best solution. Eileen Benner agreed. -4- Commissioner Smith asked - is it an overpayment that GTE collected from their customers or overpayment to the USF? Eileen Benner said she thought it was both.  According to Penny White they gave everything to the administrator. Commissioner Miller asked how many dollars that would be? Eileen Benner said $32,000 for 1990, too much. How much in total? Total for 1990 is $171,557.  That is just on total. Commissioner Smith said lets go to zero. Commissioner Miller said with this high percentage of error, what do you think about us having money in our pocket that should not have been collected? Commissioner Nelson said there is no way you can refund it to the right customers. Commissioner Smith said it would be hard to do it fairly.  It would cost too much. Don Howell asked - are we confident that these are correct numbers? Eileen Benner said at least with the minutes given her now we can calculate it.  They are in line with historical.   Commissioner Miller said he would go to zero until October. Eileen Benner said in the meantime we will get as close as possible to truing up the number. Commissioner Miller asked - do we need to do a proposed order? Decision was:  Do an order. Eileen Benner explained what AT&T is doing.  They were supposed to go to .65 and they went to 65%. Commissioner Miller asked if there shouldn't be a uniform policy? Commissioner Smith said they can play games because it is unregulated. -5- Don Howell will do an order.   Lifeline would go from 9 cents to 8 cents. 7.  Mike Gilmore's April 11, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31.B-R-91-1--Rulemaking to Implement Change to Motor Carrier Registration Fees Under Idaho Code Section 61-812. Commissioner Miller asked if we hadn't informally decided we don't have to collect 91 fees? Mike Gilmore said yes. Commissioner Miller said that is what he would like to do. Commissioner Smith said she wondered if we hurt ourselves if we say we are doing this in response to a lawsuit? Mike Gilmore said he didn't think it hurts the defense. Discussed the arguments. Commissioner Miller said it sounded like in the order we can address these - can draft it in such a way. 8.  Belinda Anderson's April 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. MTB-T-90-9 EAS Petition from Eden/Hazelton and Murtaugh to Twin Falls and Kimberly/Hansen. Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Smith what her overall attitude was? Commissioner Smith said she liked Plan II. Commissioner Nelson asked what is our commitment to making this revenue neutral?  That was something that was in the revenue sharing plan. Don Howell explained. Commissioner Miller said - we basically approved revenue sharing with an understanding. Commissioner Smith said - it was the company's position that they wouldn't do revenue sharing unless they got this. -6- Commissioner Nelson said at the hearing he just said if we charge everybody in Twin Falls 50 cents we would be all right.  Looks like that is what we are doing.  Do we get a quicker revolution by approving $4.00 and going forward with rate design case or going with standard EAS and going forward with rate design case? Commissioner Smith asked where are you going to make up the residual revenue? Commissioner Nelson said he was not sure it was fair to charge it from Twin Falls until we decide. Commissioner Smith asked how we were going to do it? Commissioner Nelson said if we went with temporary surcharge for residential and business, you wouldn't be asking Twin Falls customers to pick up  82,000 of the $142,000 that gets picked up.          Would go with Plan II and $4 and $6 and Twin Falls temporary surcharge. $107,000 out of revenue sharing. Commissioner Smith asked how soon EAS could be accomplished. John Souba of U S West spoke to that. Commissioner Smith asked if there needed to be additional facilities? John Souba said no. Commissioner Smith asked what kind of traffic increase they were planning for? John Souba said between 5 and 6 times. Commissioner Miller said if we do do the temporary surcharge it does create strongest incentive to get through a rate design.  Temporary surcharge is probably not a satisfactory long-term answer. Commissioner Nelson said he had less of a problem with Eden/Hazelton/Murtaugh surcharge. Belinda Anderson explained why Twin Falls should pay also. -7- Commissioner Nelson said this is just a temporary thing in order to get the bill paid.  It is not a recognition that they have suddenly expanded into a larger exchange. Commissioner Miller said if you assume the benefit accrues to the smaller community, then the amount seems to be a reasonable spread. Commissioner Nelson asked - why not include everybody, not just Twin Falls? Belinda Anderson explained how surcharge was calcalculated. Commissioner Smith asked - was it considered, Plan I, except increasing Title 62 customers ... why not take it all from revenue sharing?  If we are going to have this general rate revenue, don't understand why we don't just do revenue sharing bookkeeping instead of doing surcharge? Dan Poole responded.  Said attached to the decision memo is a letter prepared by U S West indicating a willingness to work with staff - quoted from the letter. Commissioner Smith asked - is there any disservice done to revenue sharing? Dan Poole said change would have no impact.  Think that this can be done without prejudice to the plan.  May have to look at it as a bank account. Commissioner Smith said the only reason she would do it in this case would be because we are going to look at these rates. Dan Poole said all Company asks is that the Commission make separate decision on Buhl petition.  Look at whats fair for the valley.  What we propose is that we address needs of Eden/Hazelton and then Commission view Buhl petition and say yes or no to that.  If you say yes, then think it is appropriate to look at the whole valley.  Then would propose LCAP or overall look at if there should be surcharges in this state.  If Commission looks at Buhl and says we don't think EAS is appropriate, Company would question generic EAS docket that would require great amount of resources.  We question whether or not you want to get to that decision at this juncture.  We believe a standard will be set in this. Commissioner Miller asked if the petitioners had anything they would like to have considered? -8- Dawna Eliasen responded - would like Commission to consider their petition separate from the others because Buhl has doctors, lawyers, etc.  They are completely different.  (Buhl).  If trhey are all put together, it is not fair.  They are out there all alone and are paying for everything needed and would like to be considered separately.  Then if Commission does something for the valley, will be part of that.  Have nothing, are different. Dan Poole said - Company is not proposing any delay for Eden/Hazelton. Commissioner Nelson asked - what about notice to Twin Falls if we do Plan II? Mike Gilmore said - didn't think they got notice their rates would go up. Commissioner Smith said she was prepared to do Plan I with excess from revenue sharing.  Moved her from II to I. Commissioner Miller asked if there was a notice problem with Twin Falls? Lori Mann said there should be something. Mike Gilmore said question is if someone can question procedure. Commissioner Smith said if we do Plan I and revenue sharing we are okay. Commissioner Nelson said it is fine with him to take it out of revenue sharing. Commissioner Miller said problem he has with Plan I is that it makes it look like revenue sharing is bank account for EAS.  Plan II spreads it around.  Is not sure he wants to make that commitment now. Commissioner Nelson said one of our problems is we made commitment in the revenue sharing case that we would keep it whole. Don Howell said - never thought there would be a credit. Commissioner Nelson said - didn't think it is fair to put that cost on Twin Falls. Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Smith if her choice was Plan I followed by rate design case? -9- Commissioner Smith said - you have made all your commitments and wouldn't do anything to anyone who hasn't gotten notice but there is Commissioner Miller's fear of stampeding EAS petitions. Commissioner Miller said he didn't think we know what our real goal is on revenue sharing.  That is a decision you ought to make as a decision itself and not one made by starting down this track.  Just fear that funding it wholly out of here is a step in that direction.  Understands Commissioner Nelson's concern but rate design case would take care of that. Lynn Anderson said staff does intend to file motion to review general rate design case. Commissioner Miller said opening that door is a pretty big decision. Commissioner Smith said on revenue sharing, wasn't viewing it as anything by insuring .. wasn't creating a fund to do projects with.  Don't think it is a slush fund for doing little projects. Commissioner Miller said there can be competing ideas about what should be done with it.  Think we should decide those kind of fairly.  Am uncomfortable with the way we are inching into this. Commissioner Smith said the only reason this has come up is if the decision to do EAS would have been made prior to '89 it would have been just rolled in. Don Howell said revenue sharing report isn't in yet. Lori Mann asked about $4 and $6?  Why not do Plan III? Commissioner Nelson said he thought we would be better off to implement our standard "rate group". Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Smith said they are at Plan I. Commissioner Miller said he could go along with No. 1.  Would like the order to address the concerns he had mentioned about this huge relatively-speaking revenue sharing but Plan I does seem to be the smallest decision we can make.  It is relatively consistent with their usual approach and it will allow us to look at staff's position for rate design case on its own without feeling compelled to do a rate design case. -10- Commissioner Smith suggested - company will be made whole through revenue sharing accounting practices. Reiterate the commitment made in the revenue sharing order.  It is going to be accounted for in that process whether it is a positive or negative. Lori Mann asked about implementation date? The deficiency is it does mask the cost of EAS which is a definite drawback in her opinion.  That is the current system but it is a legitimate concern. Commissioner Nelson asked John Souba about time line?  June 1? Said in terms of implementation, Plan I is the simplest. Dan Poole suggested doing an order that instructs staff to work on revenue sharing and come up with date for implementation.  Do expect to isolate on these .. will be a two step process.  Can't tell you if it can be done in 60 days. Commissioner Miller asked how long it would take to do a report? John Souba indicated the report could be done in 14 days. Meeting adjourned.         DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of June, 1991.                           PRESIDENT                           COMMISSIONER                           COMMISSIONER ATTEST:                               Commission Secretary 0039M