Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19910903.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting September 3, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance: Commissioners:  Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith; Staff members:  Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Don Howell, Tonya Clark, Jack Taylor, Jim Long, Lynn Anderson, Gary Richardson, Birdelle Brown, Syd Lansing, Bev Barker, Stephanie Miller and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance was Dan Poole representing U. S. West. Matters from the September 3, 1991 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows. 1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated September 3, 1991. Commissioner Smith moved approval of the RCD Agenda.  Other Commissioners concurred. 2.  Jim Long's August 26, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Tariff Advice No. 91-6-S. Approved the filing. 3.  Birdelle Brown's August 29, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. Application for Exemption from IDAPA 31.D.9.a.  GNR-T-91-7. Commissioner Smith said it looked fine to her.   Birdelle Brown explained what O- was. Filing was okayed. 4.  Randy Lobb's August 30, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Bar Circle S Water Company's request for commercial rate. Commissioner Nelson asked if other water companies have different commercial rates? Stephanie Miller said yes. Mike Gilmore said they vary by meter size. Commissioner Nelson asked why it would be more expensive to serve? Stephanie Miller said she didn't know but it is fairly common. -2- Commissioner Nelson asked if anyone talked to the school district about this? Stephanie Miller said she didn't think so.  Randy Lobb talked to Turnipseed.  Once they have him hooked up the cost would become apparent.  At this point it would be just a guess as to what he needs. Commissioner Miller said if he charges the $250 and meter installation, that should be all the upfront costs. Mike Gilmore said Commission ought not to be putting in the fee. Jack Taylor explained that he got the first call from the company.  Mr. Turnipseed just sent in the letter, not the tariff. Commissioner Smith said it looked okay for now. System is located at Hayden Lakes. Mike Gilmore said he would recommend we give him an informal deadline for a tariff.  Sooner or later he would have a tariff in place. Commissioner Miller asked if this is going to be his only commercial customer and if he is going to recover the hook-up fee, why a tariff? Commissioner Nelson asked about capacity? **Okay for now - if he finds he needs more money, he can file. **Commissioner Miller suggested having Randy Lobb communicate with Turnipseed. 6.  Further discussion of MTS Toll Deaveraging by Telecommunications Companies subject to Idaho Code, Title 62 - Case No. GNR-T-90-5. Commissioner Smith said she had questions on the proposed order in this case. Mike Gilmore said having filed the comments, parties are entitled to discuss whether it is an issue Commission can't consider.  If a private party files a comment, would recommend Commission give them a forum.   Commissioner Smith said she wondered about warning them that we don't have jurisdiction. -3- Thought it should be just stated that we don't have jurisdiction. Commissioner Miller said he guessed Commission could leave it in in some manner but provide that at this point we don't think we have jurisdiction to do that. Mike Gilmore suggested a third category to include this. Commissioner Miller said the way it is now we give people the impression that we can do this.  Make it clear to the parties that we know what we are talking about but at the same time we want to give them an opportunity to discuss their issue. Commissioner Nelson suggested recognizing the issue and say it is outside the Commission's jurisdiction. **Eileen Benner and Belinda Anderson were in attendance at this time. Commissioner Smith said she thought this was the order setting out the issues we thought were appropriate in the case.  Don't care if you leave it in if you say under current state law we can't grant relief.  Some acknowledgement of that. **Mike Gilmore will work at rewriting the order. 7.  Lori Mann's August 29, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Buhl EAS Petition:  Case No. USW-T-91-4. Commissioner Miller asked what the procedural history was in this case? Commissioner Nelson explained the petition filing.  Was question in the Commissioners minds if we could skip Filer Mutual. Commissioner Miller asked if they had voted to hold a hearing on this? Commissioner Nelson said he assumed they have calling plans. Commissioner Miller said the question before the Commission is whether to proceed to a hearing or based on information we have now it shouldn't go to hearing. **Agreed that was the next step. -4- Commissioner Miller asked if the call volumes exceed our informal threshold? Belinda Anderson said she was not sure what the informal threshold is.  Said it was 20 here. Commissioner Smith said there was a list.  When Eden/Hazelton was granted, it moved these people up.  She is still where she was before.   Also don't think you should jump over Filer.  They have Metropac. **Tom Faull in attendance at this time. Belinda Anderson said she didn't know the buy-up for Metropac. Commissioner Miller said the problem he had is if you gave it to Buhl you would almost have to give it to any city that is not a county seat. Commissioner Nelson said he thought that is what is being put forth as the standard (being the county seat). Commissioner Miller said he guessed we should go and hear what they have to say.  On the one hand you wouldn't want to inflate their hope but on the other hand there appears to be enough petitioners that they are entitled to tell their story.   Commissioner Nelson said unless the Commission has some sort of disposition we would approve this, if we have gathered the information, why expend further resources just to have a hearing? Commissioner Miller said the value of the hearing is:  people feel they have gotten a fair shot at us and gives them information and if individual commissioners have made up their minds, can explain the barriers.  Think there is some public understanding value that you get out of hearings. Commissioner Smith said she thought there was some value in letting them present their case but it has to be emphasized that there is $400,000 to be taken care of. **Castleford will also be included.  Will shoot for October hearing. Dan Poole said all the Company asks is that the Commission set it up in a non-adversarial procedure.  People can petition Commission and it doesn't need to be in an adversarial position to tell these people no.  Don't want customers to think of the company in this regard. -5- Commissioner Miller said he thought the Commission accomodates that. Commissioner Smith said the company doesn't even have to say anything if they don't want to. Dan Poole said he wondered if the Commission wants the company on the other hand to stand up in support of the petition, either. Commissioner Smith said she had in mind a public hearing where the petitioners can show us the chart and then I can ask how the $400,000 can be paid for and how much people are willing to pay. Commissioner Miller said whatever the company wants to do at the hearing we have no control over.   Mike Gilmore was asked to draft a hearing notice. 8.  Dispositon of Revenue Sharing funds - Case No. USW-T-91-3 - No decision memorandum. Commissioner Miller said Commissioners have had some informal discussions with staff on whether or not in this sharing year there is any option for something other than a monthly or one time return of the sharing money that has accumulated and think he has the sense that Commissioners have come to the conclusion that there isn't this year so we need to get a decision on the record if we are returning money. Commissioner Nelson said he thought that without an identifiable project, it would be very difficult to hold that money and say maybe we will find something next year to do with it.  We are only four months away from having another pot of money and if there is a good project, we can identify the 1991 money to fund it.  Also think there was some discussion that perhaps we should open a joint investigation between staff and U. S. West to see if they could identify some worthwhile projects for next year so we can plan on it now instead of next July.   Commissioner Smith said she thought it would start with an assessment of the network and from there you could see where we are and where we want to be and give people an indication of where we want to be, keeping in mind always that this is ratepayer money and any program we would embark on for upgrade, etc., whatever projects we see as necessary, regardless of where it needs to come from, we don't see this as a windfall. -6- Commissioner Miller said in the initial stage, think we limited it simply to network improvements as being the only possibility.  Only problem is you don't get much hardware for that money.  Also should think of other types of things like USF.  Maybe deaf relay implementation could be a possibility.  Don't want to limit it just to network stuff.  It will be broader than that. **Terri Carlock was in attendance at this time. Don Howell said what we did last year was because of increase from December 1990 to today, will ask company for Title 61 customers today and divide that by the amount.  Will probably be a one time $8.00 return. Commissioner Miller asked Don Howell if there was anything more he needed? Don Howell asked about the new case?  How should it be set up? Commissioner Smith said one starting point might be the study for the legislature. Don Howell asked - do you want to restrict this to the Boise Lata? **Just U. S. West. 9.  Scheduled Decisions on Cases - IPC-E-91-17 and IPC-E-91-18 - Horseshoe Bend Hydro and Marysville Hydro. Scott Woodbury said he thought there should be some distinction made between entitlement and eligibility and he is setting that out in the orders.  Both ask for Commission determination on entitlement of its rates.  Am proposing that be a footnote - quoted that footnote. Commissioner Miller said he thought Commissioner Smith laid out the issue as he was thinking of it.  Questions of whether the participation in the Auger Falls proceeding was sufficient to meet the Commission requirement that complaint be on file would be eligible for pre-existing rates and my conclusion was the participation in that case was the same as complaint proceeding and that simply because it wasn't labeled a complaint wasn't reason to deny them eligibility for those prior rates.  Thought all we were deciding was when they provided the other information they will be eligible for old rates. -7- Scott Woodbury said we are making it just to these two cases.  There are other parties in that case.  At the prehearing conference we asked them to make a self-assessment about expedited treatment.  Expect grandfathering request for Deer Creek (Warren Nelson's project). Commissioner Nelson commented he is not under any time pressure. Scott Woodbury said Peter Richardson also wants grandfathering for the City of Boise. Commissioner Nelson said he thought both of them feel they are entitled to grandfathered rates but are not in a hurry. Scott Woodbury said what distinguishes these two from others is the meeting we held on June 6. Commissioner Miller said those others may be distinguished by how far along they were on negotiations on a certain date.  How far along they are is an issue in grandfathering. Commissioner Smith said all we can do is look at each one when they come up. Commissioner Nelson asked about mentioning the trigger of IPC? Commissioner Smith said it should be mentioned but not in these cases. 10. Gary Richardson's August 30, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Revised Draft Public Information Policy. Commissioner Smith had a correction on Page 5. Mike Gilmore suggested changes on Page 4. Commissioners okayed public information policy with changed listed above. Commissioner Miller asked about effective date. **Will be date of this decision meeting. Discussion went back to Item 5 - Case No. WWP-G-90-2 - Supplier Settlement Payments. -8- Commissioenr Nelson said this was built-up over 5 years. Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her the correct answer was they ought to be able to pass it through unless there is some reason not to.  Liked the calculation Stephanie Miller did showing that the cost associated with the benefit of PGT was $308,833. Stephanie Miller went over her calculation.  PGT accounts for about 35% of deficiency therms.  441,190 times .70 is:  $308,833.  This is how you allocate Commissioner Miller asked - in the rate case where that was an issue, did Commission ever accept staff's 33.6 million benefit number? Commissioner Miller said now. Commissioner Nelson asked if this didn't correspond to Washington's number?  Seems like it is very close. Stephanie Miller said she didn't think company ever questioned our calculations benefits.  It wasn't a disputed amount.  In this case, in her testimony, threw out the l.65 describing the settlement and they didn't challenge the numbers. Commissioner Miller asked if this was a problem from a legal point of view? Scott Woodbury said no.  Backing up away to when we were discussing past deficiency period, think either the 21 msonth or 5 year are subject to flaws and that alternative method is perhaps the way to go.  It is based on strict jurisdictional sharing. Exhibit 10 shows the methodology of the company. Commissioner Smith said she thought they had a point in saying it is unfair to use the shorter period. Scott Woodbury explained Potlatch's position.  It will hit Potlatch harder. Commissioner Miller asked - how do you articulate the rationale for this? Stephanie Miller said:  It would be cost following mechanism.  We have isolated this little point in time where they got benefit.  An argument might be we looked at past only, not future.  This is actually a charge and it has been sitting there accumulating interest. -9- Scott Woodbury said it is really difficult to distinguish past from future (how to quantify).  Future is not known and measurable. Discussed past period/deficiency period discrepancy. Stephanie Miller said WWP doesn't flow everything thru their subsidiary.   Commissioenr Nelson said - haven't spent enough time on alternative methodology that comes up with 1,322,374. Scott Woodbury explained. Stephanie Miller explained how Fran Kahara made adjuatments.  Could accept the 1,260,000 and go from there. Commissioner Nelson said we are overreacting. Commissioner Smith said if we know the number and Washington has already structured out theirs, take the difference.   Mike Gilmore gave his viewpoint on that.  Don't want to say you are bound by Washington. Commissioner Nelson said whether or not the 3,600,000 is real number, this is reasonable.  If we use 1,260,000 and allow them to recover $950,000 as their share ...951,712 was actual number, rounded to $950,000. Commissioner Smith said she guessed customer class thing is beyond her now. Scott Woodbury said as company proposed allocation to work, they would direct bill their largest customers and using that type of mechanism makes a difference using 21 months or 5 years.  But if you just take the aggregate amount and say we are going to flow this thru based on total therms, then what Potlatch's portion is is based on prospective use and not based on any past useage. Mike Gilmore asked - do we know which methodology they would come out better on? Commissioner Nelson asked - wasn't there one method the court didn't like? Commissioner Miller said he still didn't think it is a gas supply cost and it is a liability of the company from '84 and they are asking' 91 customers to pay for it.   -10- Scott Woodbury said at the time company was incurring this liability, they also had increase in their customer base.  They were growing and arguably they were meeting that growth through PGT, not Northwest Pipeline. Stephanie Miller said - using the forward looking method, WWP calculated Potlatch's bill was 479,000. 650,000 was 5 years - 700,000 was 2 years. Commissioenr Miller said he thought the 5 years is still the better approach. Suggested true-up but not for the underrecovery. Stephanie Miller spoke to the risk.  Potlatch contract question defense. Commissioner Nelson said they didn't make a case with him. Commissioner Miller said contract was in final expiration of ... at the same time they settled back liability, it was never ... that would be an oral agreement.  You could consider oral testimony of what parties intended was and weren't bound to stay within bounda of the contract... was insufficient to persuade him there was an agreement to that effect. Commissioner Smith said there wasn't. Commissioner Miller said Potlatch had burden of proof that contract had additional terms that were not expressed in writing.  Would get far enough to say we could consider the oral testimony but considered as finding of fact it wasn't sufficient to establish their position. Agreed to by all three Commissioners. Commissioner Nelson said it was clear from evidence surrounding contract that there were things they didn't want Commission to know about contract. Commissioner Smith said she wanted to give Potlatch the benefit.  Don't they require allocation to class. Commissioner Miller suggested allocating to Potlatch and then equally between other classes. Commissioner Smith said she thought staff ought to think about allocation. -11- Scott Woodbury said on contract defense, the language was in '83 contract but he added into his memo, sayhing language in that limits adjustments as specifically indicated. Commissioner Miller explained.   **Decision was to think about the recovery method a little more. Discussed Island Park hearing dates and Buhl EAS hearing dates. Meeting adjourned.         DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of November, 1991.                           PRESIDENT                           COMMISSIONER                           COMMISSIONER ATTEST:                               Commission Secretary 0063M