The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19910812.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting August 12, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance were: Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members, Mike Gilmore, Lori Mann, Don Howell, Bev Barker, Tonya Clark, Belinda Anderson, Keith Hessing, Syd Lansing, Gary Richardson, Brad Purdy, Jack Taylor, Randy Lobb, Pat Corpus and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Lea Cooper and Scott Burnum representing ACLU and ICC and Dan Poole, Jim Wozniak, Wendy Carver and Mary Hobson of US West. Also in attendance were members of the media and the general public. Matters from the August 12, 1991 Agenda were discussed and acted on as follows. Began with Item 11 - Discussion of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law suggested by Parties in their Briefs and Reply Briefs in Cases USW-T-91-2&6 (CALLER ID). Commissioner Miller said during the last deliberation, reached decision which seemed reasonable by the three Commissioners and was supported by material in front of them. In the meantime, at least Commissioner Smith, supported by the rest of the Commissioners, has thoughts on the right outcome there. Put it back on the agenda to discuss again, recognizing that we had come to one decision in the public forum and if it differed materially, would cause question mark; so should conduct discussion to get to conclusion. Commissioner Smith said her thought after last Monday's meeting was that Commissioners had gone way beyond the scope of the notice in this case and what we told everyone we were reconsidering. Were reconsidering jurisdiction and were reconsidering whether or not the CALLER ID service was trace and trap. Ended up with a $12 charge for line blocking. That was way beyond where we said we were going. There is nothing in the record to support any particular number for a price for that service. No one had an opportunity to provide input as to what that number should be. Think we should back up and hold at the decisions we said we would make and leave for the future, other decisions on pricing of line blocking. Went back and reviewed a couple of orders where on two occasions we asked company to provide report at the end of the trial process and we indicated we would use that report for basis for analyzing per-call blocking and per-line blocking to determine what is appropriate. Until we see that report we should make our decisions on reconsideration issues and not expand beyond that. Said that is where she stands. -2- Commissioner Nelson said he agreed with Commissioner Smith, but don't think we are quite as out of line as she thinks we are. In analyzing line blocking, was response to U. S. West offering of monthly fee. Agree that decision we came to didn't have support. Think that their question is now what to we do with this $3.50 per month? Think we all still agree that it is more properly a one-time fee rather than monthly but we don't have anything to base that on. Asked Commissioner Miller if he had a suggestion as to what to do in the interim? Commissioner Miller said if we wait for the report, then what happens? Presumably the company will transition to permanent offering. Wonder about the timing. If we wait for the report and get it August 30, and then the service continues on under some terms and we take another 30 days to make our decision, what about the overlap? Commissioner Smith said she sees the company as being fairly responsive to our suggestions. Would like to strongly suggest in our rehearing order what we would like to see and see what they respond and handle complaints in the interim. Don't have a clearer idea than that. Am still struggling with the concept of saying a service is outside the scope of our economic jurisdiction and then set out price. Commissioner Miller said he was not sure how far back you want to go? Do you want to still say we have jurisdiction over comfort, safety and convenience? Commissioner Smith said yes. Then question was whether we have jurisdiction, we answer that question. Commissioner Miller asked - are you ready to say per-line blocking should be available for a one-time fee? Commissioner Smith said she was ready to say per-line blocking be available, would prefer one-time, or annual review to see if it is still needed. Hump she is trying to get over is do we have the authority to pick the number? Am trying to put meat on our decision of protecting health, safety, of Title 61 customers without doing damage to economic deregulation of Title 61. Commissioner Nelson said it is a problem. What should be done in the interim? We could accept the company filing until we determine something else is appropriate. Commissioner Miller said, or the order can contain suggestion. -3- Commissioner Smith said the order should contain suggestion, in any event. If she were a consumer and had to choose in the interim, would rather pay $3.50 rather than go through screening process. **Agreed the process for trial period has outlived its usefulness. Commissioner Miller said he was satisfied that a regulatory approach is not the right approach and it should be a consumer choice. Is still comfortable with our jurisdiction on safety and comfort and per-line blocking ought to be available and am still comfortable with one time charge. We received some correspondence today from people that objected to the one time charge. Said in his mind, though, if per call blocking was not available, per line should be free. But with per call free, that seems to protect the basic privacy needs of most people, and for others, market approach or a price associated with service is not unreasonable. Agree that we don't have very good basis for the $12 charge, neither factually and frankly, we did not carefully consider what we were doing at that time. Commissioner Smith said she agreed with Commissioner Miller's analysis of per call, etc., ACLU proposed that cost basis would be consideration for fee. Would like to give that to the company. Am still thinking that is the best way of pricing the service. Commissioner Miller said cost is a phony word. Reason he didn't like the monthly charge is that once its installed there is no recurring charge. The affordability aspect of the rate wasn't a concern at the $12 level because he thought it would meet most affordability tests. Hope that it turns out that on a cost basis, that it would turn out to be $12 rather than higher number and would not make us try to litigate cost. So hope that the cost number comes out in this range to avoid further problems. Commissioner Smith said she didn't think you will find any number. Am not thinking that any number that ultimately the company or we call out, will be free from controversy. Don't think any part of this service will be free of controversy. Commissioner Nelson said he did think for the vast majority of people, it is not a safety issue and when you look at a service ... we can only be a social agency to a limited point and we shouldn't be causing cost to other subscribers. Hopefully whatever price we arrive at, if there are people who cannot afford that, there are other agencies that can help them but we will have to base it on cost. -4- Commissioner Miller said that is the other option, can make it free. Commissioner Smith said that puts us at issuing an order that answers the questions posed in our reconsideration order. Commissioner Miller said that includes everything up to the $12. Where do we go from there? Commissioner Smith said we see the company report, get feedback from people interested up to here. Commissioner Nelson said in the meantime, do we accept the $3.50? Discussed status quo until the end of the trial period. Commissioner Smith said even if we don't like the price in the U. S. West filing, it is better than what there has been. Commissioner Miller said at this point it is $3.50 a month. Lets say we get the report and then based on that we are contemplating some additional forum? Commissioner Smith said maybe in the meantime the company would take our order to heart and institute a one time fee. Commissioner Miller said he wondered what the practical problems would be with monthly, then go to the one time charge? Discussed one time of $15 going into effect October 1. In September pay $3.50, then that voids the $15 charge. Commissioner Smith said she thought the charge should apply prospectively. Commissioner Nelson said we were trying to make a decision responding to the $3.50 charge and we got ahead of ourselves. Couldn't commit to anything right now. Lori Mann suggested blocking should be available and not set the fee. Commissioner Smith said company needs chance to respond. See if they still want to charge $3.50 a month or one-time fee but think service should be available in the meantime. -5- Commissioner Nelson said he would propose that Commission restrict the $12 decision and save that for another day. In the interim, will go forward with the company's filing, and if we make a change to it, will have to decide then what happens with those customers who sign up in the interim. Mike Gilmore said there is no charge in the interim until August 24. Commissioner Miller said another thought is, do we need to wait for these reports? At the time the requirement of filing a report was issued, we also made determination that we would defer jurisdiction decision. As it turns out we had hearings and heard from the company's marketing witnesses and we know the subscriber information and the blocking request information. Think we have all thought about this in great detail and think we all know what we want to do as the final order, so do we need to wait for the report? Commissioner Smith reviewed the reconsideration order. Commissioner Nelson asked Jim Wozniak of U. W. West if there was a report coming? Jim Wozniak replied yes, there is a report coming. Don't have the date, but think Company can do it in a reasonable amount of time. Were hoping that Commission would be flexible enough to leave pricing and structure to the company and let the company come back and see how flexible we might be considering the Commissioners' concerns. Commissioner Nelson said if company came back to Commission with number that is reasonable, would adopt it without trying to refine it. Jim Wozniak said company has listened carefully to what Commissioners have said. Company has done a lot of reexamination. Are going to attempt to address the concerns. Would like to know what the concerns are and leave structure and price up to company and react to what company brings in. Report would support what company says and will try to clarify that. Then if other proceedings are necessary, can do that too. Commissioner Miller said he guessed the idea of Commissioners expressing in the order what we have expressed here and letting company make some responsive filing, has -6- some merit. Guess his current thinking is still the same, that a monthly charge of any amount isn't the right way to price it but a one time charge is. Making a filing with monthly charges isn't going to attract his attention but do need to get to the one time charge the right way. Say we issue an order kind of like that, asked if company knew what their offering would be? Jim Wozniak responded for the company. Think we need to huddle again. One concern he had is any attempt to monitor an interim amount and then go to a one time charge and go back and credit, would be a very complicated process. Commissioner Miller said when we get to our final order, anyone who has line blocking at that time is grandfathered. They get it without paying whatever the new charge is. Commissioner Smith said she guessed she would have to know how many people got it and when. What she hoped Jim Wozniak is saying is that in the next 12 days they might file new price list. Commissioner Nelson said that could cause a lot of sign-ups at current rates. Jim Wozniak responded. Said product people think it could be a temporary need, thus the monthly charge. What company is struggling with is some room for flexibility and customer to control the status of their line. Am asking for some time to resolve what do we do before August 24 on the questions on the filing. Commissioner Miller said for purposes today, we could go back to our previous decision and leave it where it was up to the $12 charge. Then we will see what happens. Had hoped to get to a decision, announce it, have a rule and then have the matter resolved to avoid attracting consumer concerns. Commissioner Nelson said we can only do that if we reach a decision this week. Lori Mann asked about the filing of the company. **It is informal only. End of discussion on Caller ID. 1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated August 12, 1991. Approved. -7- 2. Tonya Clark's August 2, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Joan's DMG, Inc., Lewiston, Idaho. Tonya Clark asked that the matter be taken off the agenda at this time, until Harman gets back to her on the judgement against the carrier. 3. Tonya Clark's August 8, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Reed Gibby dba Evard Partnership, Burley, Idaho, Case No. M-7679-1. Commissioner Smith said she would move that Commission deny application of Gibby. Other Commissioners agreed. 4. Tonya Clark's June 26, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Robert and Sheryl Baker dba Roadrunner Towing, Inc., Ontario, OR, Case No. M-7678-1 (resubmitted for August 12 Decision Meeting). Tonya Clark said she talked to Conley Ward about this. Told him she thought Commission would approve Roadrunner unless they heard from him. Discussed why the matter was held. Commissioner Smith said she would deny the protest and grant the matter. Other Commissioners agreed. 5. Don Howell's August 8, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Motor Carrier Hearing Concerning Dean L. Rowan, Case No. M-7671-2. Commissioner Nelson said he heard it and would grant the permit. Other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Nelson said could say that the testimony of the parties did not show that the protestant's operation was going to be materially harmed or adversely affected and that Mr. Rowan had 8 or 9 letters of support expressing a need for another carrier in the area and he had one of the better looking financial statements for truckers. Of significance, think we can accept that there are currently 11 carriers available in the area so it wasn't a matter of 2 versus 1 but 11 versus 12. -8- Tonya Clark asked about the entire state? Commissioner Nelson said he wants northern Idaho only but can leave the area if he wants. Commissioner Miller asked what the rationale was for territorial limit? Commissioner Nelson said it gives a handle on the number serving in various areas. If you grant statewide, you don't know how many in each area. Don't think you can make that determination in general commodities but can for heavy hauling, etc. Don Howell said the statute uses the word "territory". As long as he originates or ends in northern Idaho, is okay. Commissioner Miller said maybe in this particular case it is okay. Guess the report being done on the surveys sent to the carriers is going to help decide whether or not to get into entry, etc. As a matter of philosophy, think there should be open entry. Am not wild about getting into hampering entry. Commissioner Nelson said he thought it would be a step toward regulation of entry. Would be step in determining where you need more carriers, etc. Commissioner Miller said unless it demonstrates a factual reason for entry regulation, am for free market. Mike Gilmore spoke to dividing the state into three territories. Commissioner Miller said this would be a step back from statewide. Commissioner Smith said personally she could go with northern Idaho. It is a question of more accurately defining area where service is actually being offered. If he specifically stated that he is not going to run to Blackfoot to get a load, he has de facto amended his application. Don Howell explained the application. Commissioner Miller said limited to this circumstance, northern Idaho would be okay. -9- Commissioner Nelson said we are not proposing a change in entry level in this order. Commissioner Miller said no need to give him more than he needs. Approved. 6A. Beverly Barker's August 8, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Boise Water Tariff Revisions - Case No. BOI-W-91-1. Commissioners approved tariff as modified by staff. Beverly Barker said company will refile revisions after they get the okay. 7. Mike Gilmore's August 1, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Final Version of Motor Carrier rules Revision--Case No. 31.B-R-91-2. Commissioner Miller said he read the rules, thought they were well done but is not voting for random drug testing, but will not write a lengthy dissent. On the one hand can see you have obligation to put in place rule when it is found to be reasonable but think random drug testing is an intrusion on people and that given all the other efforts we are making at safety, through employer testing, accident testing, other types of testing, should only go to random if there is strong evidence that the personal intrusion is warranted by a compelling governmental interest. On the record we got, couldn't get to that conclusion. Don't like it. **Will write something but not much. Commissioner Nelson said while he thought the original rule was adequate and was not pleased because it doesn't include alcohol, got directive from legislature that it would probably be changed so am going that way to avoid controversy. Commissioner Miller said we could punt the ball to the legislature by not adopting random drug testing and they could make that decision. Would not stand in their way. Commissioner Nelson said he thought after that hearing, in writing rule this way, would be picking fight with them. Commissioner Miller asked if they even had a quorum? It was only a few members of that body. Legislators received their information and they play different from us. -10- Commissioner Nelson said it included both chairmen of State Affairs Committees. Mike Gilmore asked how Commissioners wanted to handle getting the word to them? Commissioner Miller suggested a letter from the Commission President to the Committee members. Other Commissioners agreed. 10. Brad Purdy's August 8, 1991 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-91-5. Commissioner Miller said the bottom line was to approve contract, to not adopt any general rule for allocation in similar circumstance, try to limit to the extent possible to the economies in this case and authorize the staff to discuss it with the Washington staff, ideas about the bigger picture allocation problems. Commissioner Smith asked if we want to make our approval of the proposed allocation limited to the contract, if a different method is agreed to by both states? Or would that be too much uncertainty and the whole thing would unravel? Commissioner Nelson said it was his initial opinion to approve it as is, and put the onus on Washington to come up with different acceptable idea if they have one. Commissioner Smith said her thought was if what the 2 states came up with was better, go with that. Commissioner Nelson said - could approve it as written unless the two staffs agreed on something different. Stephanie Miller said as far as WWP and Potlatch are concerned, WWP doesn't care who they get it from, just so they are made whole. Commissioner Nelson said he got the feeling the whole negotiation came to, they gave Washington as good a deal as they would accept. They tried to get a balance. Stephanie Miller said Washington could say we are not accepting any cost. Tom Faull said we are assuming Washington will accept the proposed deal. If you put a condition in the approval that approved rationale between two, don't think that would hurt the acceptance possibility. They don't care. If you did that and changed contract to that, it would be okay with WWP. -11- Commissioner Smith asked if it would be worth the trouble? Or should we just approve it as proposed? Tom Faull said better allocation to Idaho would be a benefit, but think it might be slim. Brad Purdy said could condition it on approval by Washington Commission. Commissioner Nelson said he couldn't imagine Washington agreeing to a worse deal for themselves than is in the contract. Commissioner Miller suggested just approving it. Put the ball in Washington's court. If it turns out that in trying to arrive at general methodology, that new method might be better, can always go back and change it if two states agreed... Stephanie Miller said the reason staff brought up negotiation with Washington was because of the whole idea, not just this one contract. Tom Faull said primarily, negotiations of PacifiCorp raised the issue. Commissioner Miller asked Keith Hessing it if was his recommendation that this not run through PCA? Keith Hessing said if you passed it through PCA, would pick up more expenses than revenue. It wouldn't ring true with what they were telling us should be the result of this contract. It just happens to be a quirk in the way PCA picks up accounts. It picks up jurisdictional revenue but it wouldn't pick up the increases in the retail revenue. Increase in the amount the company would receive for power Potlatch would ordinarily take. It picked up a piece of it but not all of it. Commissioner Nelson said he thought it should go through PCA because we are talking about PURPA - it should include revenue also. Keith Hessing said he thought you could do that. It was a position that would have been hard to articulate. Don't think it is an accounting nightmare as much as it would have been somewhat difficult to explain. After discussion, Commissioner Smith said she thought none seemed to be the correct answer. -12- Commissioner Nelson explained what benefit of PCA was to be. Keith Hessing said the particular accounts are specified in the PCA order and revenue is not one of them. Commissioner Miller said so you would have to work with the company to see how to make exception to that general formula in this account to capture retail? We would have to modify the PCA order then. Stephanie Miller said it wouldn't be a simple calculation no matter how you looked at it. Keith Hessing said if nothing is an option, could do review. Stephanie Miller said if company needs more revenue, they will be out from under the rate moderation order and they can come in for increase and we can look at overearnings. Commissioner Miller said it sounds like it would be difficult to get it into PCA and the rate reduction will be captured in a rate case any way. Always conceded that PCA was on wholesale level so had not strongly thought of the PURPA aspect. **This contract is the only one of its kind. **Write it at zero. Staff will work with Washington on big picture for future for other circumstances. Meeting adjourned. Signatures on next page .................. -13- DATED at Boise, Idaho this day of September, 1991. PRESIDENT COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Commission Secretary 0059M