Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19910909.docx Minutes of Decision Meeting September 9, 1991 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance: Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha Smith; staff members Mike Gilmore, Tonya Clark, Jim Long, Bev Barker, Stephanie Miller, Lynn Anderson, Don Oliason, Gary Richardson, Madonna Faunce, Randy Lobb and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance was Woody Richards, Attorney at Law. Items from the September 9, 1991 Agenda were discussed as follows. 1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated September 1, 1991. Approved. 2.  Jim Long's September 4, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West - North Tariff Advice #91-3. Commissioner Miller went over the filing.  Had one question of Jim Long.  Asked - are these types the services that competitive access service providers object to as anti-competitive and has this tariff been filed in any of the bigger states and have they run into any opposition? Jim Long said he has some calls out.  Nothing has come back in.  Equal access probably there would be nobody looking at that.  It is all private line, dedicated facilities, point to point. Commissioner Miller asked - these aren't the type of services competitors would attempt to provide? Jim Long said there is nobody providing any local loops today.  Discussed variable ring.  Wanted to be sure this wasn't that kind of issue. Commissioner Nelson said he would recommend approval. Commissioner Miller said we can bring it up again if Jim Long hears back on some of his calls; if not, approve it. **Eileen Benner was in attendance at this time. 3.  Eileen Benner's September 6, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho USF - 1990-91 Statewide Average Rates. Okayed rates. -2- 4.  Birdelle Brown's September 6, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Inland Telephone Company - Interim Rates - INL-T-90-1.   Decision was to set Inland's rates at level of USF - .11707. 5.  Jim Long's September 5, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  EXECUTONE tariff filing for institutions of confinement, dated August 26, 1991. Commissioner Smith asked if this was just for institutions of confinement? Jim Long said it was. Commissioner Nelson asked - to change this, would we have to say we have authority over pricing and terms, or to reject this? Commissioner Miller asked - what authority do we have to prescribe the substantive contents of Title 62 filings? Mike Gilmore said he thought it was an open field.  Think Commission could say that substantive contents don't include proscription or tort liability. Commissioner Smith questioned wording in the tariff. Commissioner Miller said to say something along the lines that these are not Title 62 services so by not subscribing permissable liability limits, we are not substituting Title 62 service, we are not taking jurisdiction. Said it is initially meaning less because a price list is not a contract between the customer and the utility and anything other than price list is unenforceable. Commissioner Nelson asked - isn't the thought on price lists that it establishes they will not discriminate between customers? Commissioner Miller said - and some public notice value and allows customer to confirm that the rate being charged is the published rate. Commissioner Nelson said this really has no place there, but how do you say that? -3- Commissioner Smith said when they put these in, do they have contracts with the institutions?  Think these are things you negotiate among yourselves when you sign up.  Don't think it has a place in a price list. Commissioner Miller said it is a unilateral declaration.  Don't know if putting it here gives it any legal force. Mike Gilmore said - but they will probably run a bluff, saying it is on file with the Commission. Commissioner Smith said on the one hand don't want to take the attitude that nothing else can be there. Mike Gilmore said - state statute does speak to terms. Commissioner Miller asked what Commissioners' choices were? Commissioner Nelson said - could rely on prior orders. Mike Gilmore said you could take the informal route first.  Have Jim Long write to them pointing out prior orders. Commissioners agreed - write to them.  If they don't comply, bring it back to decision meeting. Mike Gilmore will work with Jim Long on the letter. **Scott Woodbury was in attendance at this time. 6.  Jim Long's September 5, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  EXECUTONE Exemption Filing GNR-T-91-9. Jim Long explained this is result of a gap in our current orders.  Don't have any authorization for prison personnel to monitor calls. Commissioner Smith said it seemed entirely reasonable. Mike Gilmore said - but not prisoners monitoring other prisoner's calls. Commissioner Miller asked - who qualifies as authorized institution personnel?  You would think that would probably include people who are concerned with the safe operation of the jail, but would it include law enforcement investigators listening in on attorney/client phone calls? -4- Mike Gilmore said in Ada County they have separate phones. Commissioner Smith asked -  the Commission wouldn't be changing rules, we would just be telling Executone we approve the exemption? Mike Gilmore said yes - and make a mental note to change our rules. Commissioner Smith said she would grant this exemption. Commissioner Nelson asked - what are they asking for? Mike Gilmore responded.  Jailers want to be able to listen in (monitor calls) except attorney/client calls. Commissioner Nelson said it may be out of our hands but was uncomfortable with it. Mike Gilmore said they want to recognize what the current rule is.  They want exemption to Rule 10.1. **There is a temporary rule effective October 1. Commissioner Nelson said his thought of what is reasonable is in conflict with accepted principles. Commissioner Miller said if the calls to lawyers problem is taken care of, it is okay.  There is a broader range of communications that are confidential, that you shouldn't loose protections either.  The law is clear with respect to conversations otherwise protected, prisoner has no right to privacy on other calls.  As long as there are facilities available for legally-protected confidentiality, okay. Mike Gilmore will work on wording. Commissioner Smith said she didn't understand Exemptions 1 thru 7. Jim Long explained those are the rules they have agreed to abide by. Mike Gilmore will work on eavesdropping rule. 7.  Scott Woodbury's September 6, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. INT-G-91-5 - IGC/CHEMSTAR Gas Service Agreement. Commission Miller commented staff apparently has no substantive problems here. -5- Scott Woodbury said not with what they have agreed on. Commissioner Nelson asked who they are sharing with? Scott Woodbury replied - all customers. Commissioner Nelson said at minimum take it is $15,000 a year and difference between TI-1 and TF-1?  Asked if that was substantial? Scott Woodbury explained.  Company assure us they will not incurr any charges.  They are putting in a new pipeline.  Staff asked what the major difference was between TI-1 and TF-1. Commissioner Nelson said he wondered if the accounting costs are substantial? Madonna Faunce said they are not substantial.  The transportation rate is .02773 on interruptible TI-1.  Approximately .018 by the time you figure in all variable or fixed transportation.  Explained the difference.  In essence if they don't incurr any overruns they are covering some of the demand charges for the ratepayers and they will share that half with the ratepayers.  Any savings they get half, ratepayers get half. Commissioner Nelson said with the assurance that it doesn't cost much to keep track of it separately, it is okay. Madonna Faunce said they didn't object to that.  This will allow Commission to monitor costs without being hurt by trying to find out. Scott Woodbury said the advantage of separate accounting is after 5 years, if they pick up second 5 years, it is also at 5 cents, that is 5 years down the road and Commission will have to assess that.  It is subject to Commission approval. Commissioners approved agreement. Procedure: Scott Woodbury said we can put language in about Commission considering public impact.  Company is asking for October 1 effective date.  Reconsideration language will cover that. -6- 8.  Petition from River Park Plaza subdivision, Post Falls, Idaho re:  power outages. Question is - does Commission want to do anything at this time? Bev Barker gave the background.  It is deteriorating cable.  Company's explanation is during the 80s, put in a lot of cable. Commissioner Nelson asked if it was inferior cable? Bev Barker said that was part of it.  They have tried different ways of maintaining it and it is just not working.  They are having to rip it out and replace it. Don Oliason said in the '70s, electric underground became popular - explained the kind of wiring that was used at that time.  Then in the early 80s, it started to fail.  There is considerable amount of it in the ground. Bev Barker said for some reason, heat causes it to deteriorate faster.  In the summer they have outages of long duration. Talked to WWP about what they are doing in this subdivision.  Work crew is scheduled this week for this subdivision.  Should be completed in two weeks but there are a lot of other areas that may get bumped to next spring.  They normally have four work crews.  This summer they had eleven.  Normal construction budget for cable replacement is $200,000 per year.  This year it was $600,000.  Next year it will be $800,000.  Since '89 they have been doing more.  But, people are fed up.  Question is:  do we want to start a formal proceeding with repect to this subdivision, or see if their plan takes care of it?  Or look at it on a more general basis? Commissioner Miller said perhaps a letter from Bev Barker to Mrs. Whitney explaining repairs will be undertaken this week and we are monitoring them and if they don't get satisfactory result within a reasonable amount of time, contact us again. Bev Barker suggested taking to the Mayor also. Don Oliason suggested asking WWP what specifically they are doing. -7- Commissioner Nelson explained where he thought this subdivision was located. **Get schematic report also. Commissioner Smith said she didn't think Commission should open a case.  Company is aware of the situation and is making an effort.  Unless efforts are not made, let them go ahead. **Letter from Bev Barker is action to be taken now.  Let Commission know if they have not fixed it in 45 days. Commissioner Miller said if we wanted to do something, could have Don Oliason do investigation of the area. Don Oliason said he could explore what they have done and what they plan to do and get some idea of what they are doing in northern Idaho. Commissioner Miller said he wouldn't mind having Don Oliason's opinion of the reasonableness of the company's response, what the situation is, etc. Commissioner Nelson asked if we have gotten a lot of complaint from other subdivisions? Bev Barker said there are less than 10 complaints on file. Commissioner Nelson said the investigation should take into account how many complaints we have gotten. Commissioner Miller said if the system is deteriorating more rapidly, should know that. Mike Gilmore said it would be good to know their replacement schedule. Don Oliason explained why the outages happen.   **Don Oliason is to undertake investigation. **Discussion went back to Item 2 - Jim Long explained further where these tariffs have been filed by U. S. West.  It is a unilateral filing.  Has only been approved in Montana at this time. Commissioner Miller said we might find out if any of the other Commissioners are asking similar questions. Discussed toll deaveraging hearing date - October 2 at 9:30 was date decided on. -8- Commissioner Smith suggested having the utilities provide information on costs. Meeting adjourned.         DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of November, 1991.                           PRESIDENT                           COMMISSIONER                           COMMISSIONER ATTEST:                               Commission Secretary 0064M