The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19910528.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting May 28, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance: Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith. Staff members Mike Gilmore, Lori Mann, Don Howell, Brad Burdy, Tonya Clark, Bill Eastlake, Randy Lobb, Stephanie Miller, Lynn Anderson, Jack Taylor and Myrna Walters. Items from the May 28, 1991 Agenda were discussed as follows. 1. Tonya Clark's May 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: David L. Hatfield dba Timber Logging, M-7667-2. Commissioner Miller asked if there had been any communication since March 15 from the carrier? Tonya Clark said no. They did notification of their rating from law enforcement and if it is less than satisfactory they are required to respond with written update that they have fixed everything. We don't even have that. Reviewed what the order says about getting satisfactory rating. ICC also requires satisfactory rating. Could deny or could issue order as written saying they have 42 days to comply but that puts pressure on Commission to go out and do another review. Would rather get their attention by denying authority. Commissioner Miller said he generally agrees but wonder if we shouldn't do something to find out the status. Tonya Clark said Dennis Hardin babysits all his people trying to help them get into compliance. It is pretty rare to get an unsatisfactory anymore. Commissioner Smith said she would accept staff's recommendation to deny authority. Commissioner Nelson agreed. Would guess Dennis Hardin has followed up on this. They have some obligation to contact us for an extension. Commissioner Miller said okay for these two but would like in the future to know more background before denying them. 2. Tonya Clark's May 15, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Mountain Grain Company, M-7666-2. Denied application. -2- 3. Tonya Clark's May 17, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Dean L. Rowan, M-7671-1. Commissioner Miller said his impression was at least under our current policy that an excess of carriers is not a reason to exclude a carrier, but the alleged safety problem may present an issue. Commissioner Nelson said he thought Commission could probably limit number of carriers in an area if we want to. Commissioner Miller said we can but current policy is not to. Tonya Clark said the order says he has the equipment so since it has been brought to our attention, we should do something. Commissioner Smith said we need to check it out one way or the other. Would there be any value to having a hearing for the purpose of seeing whether we will get public feedback or whether or not there are adequate trucks as part of our other little project? Tonya Clark said it wouldn't hurt. The hearing we are having tomorrow is two-fold. Commissioner Miller said a hearing might not be a bad idea. Discussed schedule in June. Commissioner Miller said he thought a fitness hearing was fine but we should think about the "too many" aspect. Tonya Clark said we could investigate the fitness. Commissioner Miller said here you have a protest. Lori Mann said if an investigation shows there is equipment, the woman could be contacted. Commissioner Miller said can take evidence on the "too many" question. If we are going to restrict on the basis of too many carriers, it is a real change. Don't mind having a hearing because it would give us information on "cutthroat" question. Tonya Clark said if nothing else you could decide on limiting the region rather than statewide. If the hearing didn't result in saying there are too many operators, you could possibly limit area. -3- Commissioner Miller suggested finding a time in conjunction with the other hearings. 4. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated May 28, 1991. Commissioner Smith moved approval. Other Commissioners concurred. 5. Bill Eastlake's May 22, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Tariff Advice 91-1 (PacifiCorp). Commissioner Miller commented to Bill Eastlake that he seemed just lukewarm on this. Bill Eastlake said he called the Company this morning and asked about this. It is now more clear in his mind what they are offering here. Explained. Only thing that didn't exist in days of earlier loans is a walk-thru audit. This pulls the two programs together. Commissioner Nelson said he guessed he was concerned it sounded like they could put a charge on for 20 years. Thought that was an awful long time. Bill Eastlake said as written it does allow that. They assured him a great majority of the stuff would be shorter lived. Commissioner Nelson said after 7 or 8 years the customer looses all value of the installation. Would be real hesitant to go more than 7 or 8 years. Bill Eastlake said it was 15 years in the previous offering. Commissioner Miller said - so this is only for new installation and the shared savings stays with retrofits? Bill Eastlake said yes. But what we have in Idaho they want to change this to a standard loan. They are doing a pilot retrofit based on shared savings. They did not have a specific date to offer that in Idaho. The Oregon tests of that are just underway. Commissioner Miller asked - do you think the shift away from shared savings was that it is not appealing to consumers? Or do you think they want to try for longer? -4- Bill Eastlake said they portray it very much as resistance to shared savings approach. Commissioner Miller asked if we have enough information on this, did Bill Eastlake feel comfortable? Bill Eastlake said what he was more interested in seeing is the market penetration of both. It is something he can't get too excited about but can't see reason to object. Commissioner Nelson said he can't see any reason to object unless we ask them to submit the tariffs saying that this floating interest rate deal was for new customers. Would approve it. Commissioner Smith asked about the 20 years? Commissioner Nelson said he would like to hold them at 15. Commissioner Miller pointed out that this was commercial rather than residential. Bill Eastlake explained what he thought the company response will be. They expect to make some money with it. In 7 or 8 years they wouldn't have made any money. Commissioner Smith said then its okay with her. Commissioner Nelson agreed. Approved effective May 31. 6. Lynn Anderson's May 24, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Advice No. 91-10 - Prohibiting Downgrades. Approved. 7. Bill Eastlake's May 24, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: IPC Industrial Conservation Program - Case No. IPC-E-91-7. Commissioner Miller said he supported Bill Eastlake's only concern. Bill Eastlake said he went back over the proposal. One thing that came through the consultant report is for the people to know the program is out there. -5- Commissioner Nelson asked about approving it and ask for a report in two years? Commissioner Smith said she didn't want to write them a blank check. Would like some boundaries on it. Commissioner Nelson said if we just approved it and ask for a report, we can always question what they are doing. **Will approved by order, with reporting clause. 8. Joint Hearing June 12, 1991 re: IPC Least Cost Planning. Bill Eastlake reviewed the proposal. Decision was to go ahead with the notice. Bill Eastlake said John Willmorth was asking for guidance on IPC's presentation. Does the Commission want the CEO as it was in Washington? Commissioner Miller said he thought that was beneficial for Washington. Having Marshall or Packwood there would be of value. **Need to make wide distribution on the notice. 9. Rose Schulte and Randy Lobb's May 24, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: General Service Provisions of Eagle Water Company. Commissioner Miller said the only question he had was on the 100% for line extension. Randy Lobb said they haven't been doing this. They have only done it on a case by case basis. DeShazo can't abide by a tariff on file now so he has been requiring payment. He has never made any allowance under the 50 ft. rule. It is just a question of whats realistic. Commissioner Smith said her opinion was to put it out on modified procedure, for comment. After brief discussion, was decided to put the matter out on modified procedure. -6- 10. Randy Lobb's May 10, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Quality of Service Complaint from GTE Customers at Weippe. Left on Agenda from last decision meeting for response from Company - GTE has now responded. Commissioner Miller asked if this switch will get changed because of OPUS? Don Howell said no. Randy Lobb said it is not part of OPUS. First step would be to get definition of what commitment means. Whatever units they have used they have used Idaho to establish standard. Commissioner Miller said that is the question - what is the standard? Asked Randy Lobb, with the exception of the old switch, what his opinion was of the status of plant in the area? Randy Lobb replied it actually looked pretty good. But the kind of problems customers indicated, would not really be a function of the plant in the ground but function of switching. They indicate the switch is operating properly. Company seems to think the underlying reason is they want new technology. Commissioner Smith asked if there was anyway we could check this ourselves? Is there some kind of monitoring we can require of the company? Randy Lobb said they could at least do a comparison study on a regular basis. Commissioner Nelson asked how applicable the same report as in Priest River, would be? Randy Lobb said company indicates they have only had one outage. It appears any problems would be within the customer loop. They have digital radio. Lynn Anderson suggested sending Randy Lobb up there for a week and make test calls. Randy Lobb said there were 180 customers who signed the petition, you don't know if these complaints were isolated, whatever, maybe further investigation and documentation of when the problems actually occur, other things may have affected the line. Said his experience with these types of problems is if you go out and monitor, you don't find a thing. -7- Commissioner Miller asked about a survey of the people who signed the petition? Randy Lobb suggested monitoring some of the customers. Appears the switch is going to be in there for a long time. Think they have the right type of CPE. Commissioner Smith asked how much would it cost to upgrade it to digital? People need to know how much it will cost before they ask for it. Randy Lobb said they will want to know the cost to them. Commissioner Miller asked how many of these switches are still in the system? Don Howell responded - between 15 and 20. Commissioner Miller asked if these problems exist where the others are and if we order upgrade will we have a lot more problems on our doorstep? Randy Lobb said he thought it was the personality of the switch. Some have more problems than others. These people may be no worse off than others. Commissioner Miller asked Randy Lobb what he would recommend? Randy Lobb said besides getting more information on how this switch works as to useages, number of customers, etc., order company to make more studies on the switch to see if it is working properly, maybe there are complaints about notice. Company should do study on echo problem. Think it should be more customer-specific, rather than exchange. Would like to know what the company is capable of doing on this switch. Observation studies would be a good start. Would like to talk to a couple of the customers. Commissioner Smith said she voted for further staff investigation and report to the Commission. Commissioner Miller suggested a letter from Randy Lobb to the petitioning group so they know what we are doing. Say we got initial report but it was not sufficient and we are going to get further information. **Wait on formal case until Randy Lobb does more staff investigation. -8- 11. Scott Woodbury's May 23, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: GNR-W-90-1 - Island Park Water Company; Elk Creek Water Company. Scott Woodbury gave a review of the situation. There are still about 150 people and quite a few subdivisions that have elected to not split off and Strobel is left with customers. Consumer Division has fielded some complaints regarding the quality of service, there are broken lines, there are some areas company cannot get into to make repairs. People for the most part want to know what the Commission wants to do. Talked to Strobel's attorney and they would prefer Commission not take jurisdiction over them. It is Strobel's intent to bow out and divest himself of all operation by next year but don't see how he can do that. No one is willing to take over. If he is operating as a water company there are restraints against him just leaving it. Commissioner Miller asked how many people are in the first two transactions? Jack Taylor responded - 60%. Commissioner Smith said - so all three are what % of the customers? Jack Taylor said 60% - all three of them. Commissioner Miller asked - after we get these three divested, how many subdivisions or associations does that comprise? Jack Taylor said 8 out of 23. Commissioner Nelson commented there is the potential for a lot more customers. Randy Lobb said he got a call from one of the customers in Shotgun Subdivision that Strobel was going to sell. Commissioner Smith said if they continue to collect money for water service, they are a water company. Commissioner Nelson said it looked like we have an obligation to do something about the 125 customers. Commissioner Miller asked if we couldn't have Scott Woodbury talked to Sharp about this? -9- Scott Woodbury spoke to the customer letter regarding charges. These people who have sent in a letter were willing to pay $50. They have yet to reach any resolve with Strobel but they have tendered $100 for two years and the company says they haven't received it. Said his communication to that lady was that was a contract made between herself and Strobel and if we assert jurisdiction it will be prospectively. Guess we could continue working with Strobel to try to get the rest of the customers to form associations but don't anticipate there will be much success with the other people. So don't know what would be gained in delaying requirement that he apply for certificate and go ahead and determine a rate structure. Suggested Jack Taylor work with the accountant. Randy Lobb said it looks like the contract language gave Strobel choice of conveying to the owners when he wants to do. Sounds like he can abandon the system and say you take it over. Scott Woodbury said if the bottom line is he is running it as a public utility, we would step in and regulate and would say that provision would be of no effect. Don Howell asked if we want to push him into turning the system over? Scott Woodbury said you have people who don't want to assume responsibility for the system. Commissioner Smith said she didn't think we have a choice. It is a utility. Jack Taylor said there is a very strong feeling by one of the groups that Strobel has stashed a lot of money in Europe and he will be moving back there. There is a strong feeling he will leave sometime. Commissioner Nelson said he feels like we need to regulate it but am not anxious to. Jack Taylor asked - is there a lower limit of numbers when you do not regulate? Commissioner Miller said - so the question is is it one utility or 19? Commissioner Smith said she thought Commission needed to require him to file for a certificate by July 15 with all systems that are not deeded to homeowners associations. -10- Scott Woodbury asked - want staff to work with the company on tariffs and rates? Mike Gilmore said you probably could get away with a zone on the charges. Commissioner Miller said he would encourage staff to look at some rate that wouldn't require cost of service, etc. (rate that would be palatable to the customers). 12. Scott Woodbury's May 24, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Petition for Reconsideration of A. W. Brown in Case No. IPC-E-90-20. Scott Woodbury said there has been some extensive interrogatories in the complaint action and he talked to Bart Kline about how he was going to frame his responses. Were more appropriate in the complaint case. It appears the issue raised by Arkoosh is not totally without merit. He wasn't a party to the avoided cost cases. The interconnection charge is not a separate line entry in avoided cost. It appears where it shows up in some cases is in the wrong place. It should be under transmission and shows up under general plant. IPC is negotiating with some developers using Schedule 72 useage. If it were stayed, don't see where they would be disadvantaged. They could negotiate separately on that same basis. There are a number of options. Arkoosh favors a hearing and that matters be stayed pending final order in the complaint action. That is not the favored alternative of IPC. They prefer that the tariff remain in place. Arkoosh at this point has only asked for reconsideration. Other way would be to open it up for comments of the parties. Taking this out of the context of avoided costs, the larger process is troublesome. There were some assumptions made by the parties and think maybe WWP and UPL/PPL might have concern if we were to make a determination that interconnection costs are not part of avoided cost because then what do we do with them? Think there were so many roundings and rolled together numbers in avoided costs and it appears when looking at Tom Faull's estimate that what we are talking about is .2 of a mill in the avoided cost price. Some of the assumptions just regarding interest are affected 5/10th of a mill or you are talking about a small piece of the puzzle. Think you would be hard pressed to look for a record to support determination that interconnection charges were included. Don't know how to ask for additional comments. We would only get in one piece of the puzzle, that would be the opinion of staff and IPC. Don't know if Commission would want to involve other utilities in this case. -11- Commissioner Nelson asked - isn't it a factual determination? Scott Woodbury said - think that Willmorth is sure, avoided cost seems to be a melded together cost (Valmy/ Colstrip) and interconnection costs are included in Valmy. It will require some investigation to determine that. Commissioner Miller asked if we have a hearing set in the complaint case? Scott Woodbury said looking at the 90 day completion for the filing of petition for reconsideration, that throws you into the 19th. Arkoosh is willing to let it slide until after complaint action. Commissioner Miller said he wondered if after the complaint hearing we would have a better feel for that. It might be hard to resolve it on written comments but would there be anything that would help us by waiting? Don Oliason said the primary issue in the complaint case is overcharge, don't know that it concerns interconnect at all. Scott Woodbury said Arkoosh originally asked if interconnect charges were appropriate at all. It is not so much whether they are appropriate but whether we have included them in avoided costs (if we have applied them appropriately). Think the complaint action does deal primarily with overcharge. Commissioner Miller said he thought Commission should approach it by hearing. Leave the tariff in effect now. Scott Woodbury said he was wondering what can be accomplished in a hearing. It would appear the record is set in the avoided cost case and that has to be the basis in whether or not interconnect charges should be included. Think comments are more appropriate. Commissioner Miller said having a hearing where you can ask questions and have the opinions be subject to question, as opposed to what somebody says on paper. Scott Woodbury asked - do you want this to occur before the complaint action? **Commissioners decided that would be difficult. -2- Commissioner Miller asked if it couldn't be about the same time as the complaint action? Decision: Set for hearing July 11 after A. W. Brown hearing. Scott Woodbury asked about how to handle the interconnection question for the other utilities? Do we want to notify the other utilities that it could have generic implications? Commissioner Nelson said you would almost think they would want to be parties to it. Commissioner Miller suggested - could identify the issues, send notice to the world and ask for interventions. Scott Woodbury said it appears that the effect on rates would be almost nothing. Almost whats needed is clarification from the Commission as to what was included in avoided cost case. Commissioner Miller said - would feel much more comfortable after having gone through hearing. 13. U. S. West's Objection and Motion to Stay and the Motion, Objections and Opposition to Motion filed in Case No. USW-T-91-2. Commissioner Smith said she would suggest that Commission convene a prehearing tomorrow at 1:30 to get all the parties together to hammer out a new schedule on this. Would like to accommodate U. S. West, give everyone an opportunity to argue and tell them in person how we are going to rule. Commissioner Miller said he agreed to give them an opportunity to speak and decide on a schedule. **Notice of Prehearing Conference will go out. Meeting adjourned. Continued on next page ........................ -13- DATED at Boise, Idaho this day of July, 1991. PRESIDENT COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Commission Secretary mjw 0048M