19910614.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
June 14, 1991 - 11:30 a.m.
In attendance were:  Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith; and staff members Brad Purdy and Myrna Walters.
Topic of discussion was the Motion for Order Compelling response to Interrogatories filed by Mr. Tom Arkoosh on behalf of A. W. Brown in Case No. IPC-E-91-2.
Responses in question were Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
Commissioner Miller's proposed answers (copy attached) were reviewed.
Commissioner Nelson said he agreed on Nos. 12, 13 and 14.
Said on No. 16, question is how much is maintenance charge part of another case?  Didn't think that is the way Idaho Power does things.  You have 8/10/15 broad categories or equipment.  It isn't like telephone where you go through each thing and depreciate it out.  Asking them to put an economic life on everything is creating new work.
Commissioner Miller said their answer tries to explain how they do do it.
Commissioner Smith said they say they assume a 33 year economic life.
Commissioner Nelson said Tom Arkoosh's whole argument has to be that they are charging too much depreciation to get to .7.  Think they answer the question satisfactorily there.
Commissioner Miller said you don't make them respond to B because it is more generic thing having to do with all the other projects.  Might be okay in tariff case but don't know how much it means in Brown case.
Commissioner Nelson said there is a greater burden here and it is not pertinent.  Either .7 is proper based on cost and depreciation or it isn't.
Commissioner Miller said he thought you would consider the burden.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't know what more Idaho Power ought to answer in this one.  Don't know how it is incomplete.  One thing she would like to do is to prevent the refiling of these questions in the other case.  When we
-2-
say this is in the other case, give hand signal to Idaho Power that when Arkoosh asks they wil know what they have to file so Arkoosh won't file in that.  **Gave Brad Purdy the wording on this, for the order.
Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19.  Will all have the same problem.
Commissioner Nelson said on 19, thought on cost as determined by the company that there was probably someway Idaho Power assigned overhead on labor, overhead labor at so much an hour so they could go through how costs were figured.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it probably was.  This question goes to Tariff 72 whereas Brown is not under 72.  He is under a special contract.  So his complaint arises out of his contract, not the tariff.  That seemed to clearly be in the tariff case.
Commissioner Nelson said okay.
Commissioner Miller said they ought to be able to answer that.  Will have that answer at the end of the case.
Brad Purdy said on No. 16, this is actually a three-part question.  With respect to O&M in general and whether .7 is an accurate calculation, do you consier that an issue in this case or Sub 20?  With respect to general question of O&M rate, is that at issue in his complaint?
Commissioner Miller said to the extent those were used for calculation to Brown, then it is in the complaint case,  if we interpreted the question that way.  They ought to provide any calculations that relate to him.
**Discussed the order breaking this case out from Schedule 72.
Brad Purdy said to the extent the O&M costs are built up, so will the O&M.  Percentage has only to do with the equipment he got.  On the one hand you could say if one is overpriced, the other one will be too.
Commissioner Miller said he may be saying in the frontend of the arrangement there may not be any actual maintenance occurring.  May have timing problem.
Commissioner Smith said on No. 18, thought Idaho Power was probably right.
-3-
Commissioner Miller said he would say if that question was proposed in the other case, we would go along with a deposition.
Commissioner Smith said they are saying tell us why.
Commissioner Miller said it would be fine with him to say that.
Brad Purdy said we did say this is the proper subject for deposition.
Commissioner Smith said and it is for another case.  It is covered under deposition rule, unless they have published it.
Brad Purdy asked if he should notify the parties today of the decisions?
Decision was he should.
Meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
        DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of August, 1991.

PRESIDENT

COMMISSIONER

COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Commission Secretary
0050M