19911212.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
December 12, 1991 - 9:30 a.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Tonya Clark, Birdelle Brown, Bev Barker, Judy Stokes, Jim LOng, Terri CArlock, Scott Woodbury, Tom Faull, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance from U. S. West were:  Dan Poole, Mary Hobson and Jim Wozniak.
Commission President Marsha H. Smith called the meeting to order.
Items from the published December 12, 1991 Agenda were discussed at this meeting and the minutes from that meeting taken by Myrna Walters, Commission Secretary, are recorded as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated 12-12-91.
Commissioners approved RCD agenda.
2.  Terri Carlock's December 10, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp Stock Issuances - PAC-S-91-1 and PAC-S-91-4, Filing Amendment.
Commissioner Nelson asked Terri Carlock if she saw any problems with the filings?   
Terri Carlock explained waht the company wanted - this provides that information.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought what they were asking for seemed reasonable.  Moved approval.
Commissioner Miller said it was fine with him.
Commissioner Smith concurred.
3.  Scott Woodbury's December 10, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Interconnection Tariff for Non Utility Generation - Schedule 72.
Commissioner Smith said she thought Commission could agree to Point No. 1.
Scott Woodbury asked - do you find that the step-up cost to Colstrip being submitted is a reason to revisit?
-2-
Commissioner Nelson said no - too small an amount.  Think effectively Peter Richardson backed away from that position by not filing a case.
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Miller said it was very difficult for him to get a feel for what is the right answer there or is the wrong answer.  Pretty hard for him to get a sense of what makes sense.
Commissioner Nelson said that wasn't a clear issue.  Didn't think the was it was computed was wrong.  Having trouble seeing why we should change it.  That comes down to Tom Faull's proposal on the non-levelized rates which  certainly is not wrong but might make some sense, but didn't see anyone was dissadvantaged by the way it was done.
Commissioner Miller said he thought Tom Faull's approach did get a little closer to fairest rate for each individual QF.  Agreed with Tom Faull that the additional administrative burden of making that calulation wouldn't be much.  Personally would be comfortable with Tom Faull's proposal on non-levelized approach.  Advantage of that is it does more accurately track costs.
Commissioner Nelson asked - how much of a change will this be for the company?
Commissioner Miller said he thought Willmorth caved in on it.
Commissioner Smith asked how much difference does it make?
Tom Faull replied - most 35 year contracts it would free up some capital at the front end of the project.  Don't know whether a developer would find that significant or not.  Reason there has never been a challenge to O&M and interconnect charge is because its a small number compared to others.  Looking at projects as a whole it is a non-issue.  There is a big difference for short-term contract.  Smaller project will be more disadvantaged.  Short term is 20 years and less.
Commissioner Miller quoted Willmorth's testimony.  Think they kind of gave up on that point.  On rebuttal did say non-levelized is not revenue neutral.
Tom Faull said he didn't understand that and talked to him afterwards.  Reason it was proposed in the first place is that it is not revenue neutral.
-3-
Commissioner Miller said he would vote with Tom Faull.
Commissioner Nelson said he would go along with that change.
Commissioner Smith said okay.
3.  Status of A. W. Brown testimony.
Commissioner Nelson said since he wasn't here to sponsor it, should treat it as public comment.
Scott Woodbury said one additional thing, in Peter Richardson's Motion he suggested that they would still like the Commission address biennial review in this final order.  It would provide some guidance to the industry and the utilities.
Commissioner Nelson expressed his hesitation to be boxed in on this because under their definition, we would be in a new case in about 6 months in a biennial review.
Scott Woodbury said this is not an issue in this case anyway.
Commissioner Smith said - could say it was brought up but don't know what we want to say.
Commissioner Miller said he hadn't really thought about it.
Commissioner Nelson said he was concerned if you found biennial review, about timing.
Scott Woodbury said Peter Richardson has been persistent about this.
**Randy Lobb was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Smith asked - didn't we tell them in a prehearing conference that they could file?
Commissioner Nelson said if you are saying we don't want to look at this every 6 months but periodically we should look at it because things change, there should be a period of certainty before you look at it again.
Tom Faull said current status is we have the process broken down into variable.  Staff and parties are tracking these and if some aspect gets out of wack, the party affected can file with the Commission.
-4-
Commissioner Nelson said there is a reasonable period of time when we assure it was in the ball park.
Commissioner Smith said if they think we have gone too long they can file a petition and get an answer.
4.  USW-T-91-11 - Sally Sun Complaint - STATUS REPORT.
Scott Woodbury said staff met with the company and threw an offer out on the table that if the company would reconnect at no charge for the reconnection, Sally Sun would sign an agreement that she would not place calls to Airmed from her residence phone.  Company wanted an additional term that if she did place a call they could disconnect her again.  At that point staff raises its concern that the company's interpretation of 33.A is not staff's interpretation and staff was questioning right of termination and was not inclined to suggest to Sally Sun that she should give any more rights to the company.  Said he talked to Sally Sun and she wants the agreement short and sweet.  As a matter of courtesy she would comply with the agreement.  Did suggest to the company there are other forums better suited for a few human problems and thought that the University of Utah is proceeding in another forum.  company indicated that they were going to take Sally Sun's proposal to their client, mull it over and get back to staff tomorrow.  Talked about further procedure if its not acceptible to the company and would suggest that the first point would be for both staff and company to brief the applicability of the Rule 33.A in which the company feels it has the right to terminate service.  See how it plays out.  Next milestone is tomorrow when company gets back to him.
**Scott Woodbury will report tomorrow.
Was a question of whether or not to keep the docket open for a period of time.  Sally Sun is prepared to dismiss her complaint.
5.  Mike Gilmore's December 10, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-T-91-10 - The "private line" case for AT&T service between Lewiston and Moscow.
Commissioner Miller said he guessed the Commission was at the point of - we had prehearing conference, AT&T raised its legal defense and proposed settlement, allowed briefing opportunity for staff and reply by company.  
Argument boils down to a question of whether private line service is in one of three possible categories:
-5-
(1)  Outside either Title 61 or 62 because it is not within the statutory meaning of telecommunications; (2)  That it remains Title 61 service under Mike Gilmore's argument and (3) or that it is a Title 62 service.
On the one hand you would think intuitively that legislature probably didn't intend for it to be a Title 61 service.  You wouldn't think they wanted it to remain fully regulated.  At the same time the AT&T argument that its not a deregulated communications service, intuitively doesn't seem right because it is a telephone service.  Presumably we could avoid the question by simply not commenting on our jurisdiction but say the settlement proposed by AT&T seems reasonable.  Outlook for the customers probably wouldn't be any better if we plowed ahead.  On the one hand putting aside the customers' concerns, the question is very interesting from an abstract point of view.  For us to graple with it and come to a conclusion may be something worthwhile.  Don't know if public would benefit by going forward.  
**That in general was Commissioner Miller's synopsis of what is going on in this case.
Commissioner Nelson said if you have to pick your case to fight, you would rather fight with AT&T than Albion.  May not get another shot at AT&T.  But guess he was not anxious to fight it if we don't know for sure what the right answer is.  Am not getting a lot of feedback as to whether No. 2 would be right.
Mike Gilmore said it depends on how you read the statute ... you would be going in two different directions.
Commissioner Miller said it has been one of our policies to read the statute as written and try to interpret it and implement it as written and not rewrite it.  An example is GTE/MCI case, the ultimate outcome of that case was odd in some people's eyes but reading the statute, that is where it took you.
Mike Gilmore said the reason he got it in now is for the company's resolution.  Could hold off on the jurisdiction question.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought AT&T deserves an answer.  Would encourage those residents to accept the settlement and make decision on jurisdiction in the future.
Commissioner Miller asked what the status was of the customers?
-6-
Birdelle Brown said one has accepted settlement.  Three of four are looking at alternative.  Don't think they will do anything until the Commission makes a decision.
Commissioner Smith asked what the benefit was in not deciding the jurisdictional issue as opposed to laying out where you say you deregulate a monopoly service.  The market may eventually respond but we don't know what the outcome will be.  That is the way it is.  Our statute does not deregulate basic service.
Commissioner Miller asked - reach the jurisdiction question and say we don't have jurisdiction?
Commissioner Smith said that is where she comes out.
Commissioner Miller said the question is what would be the benefit of not making that declaration now?
Commissioner Smith said what bothers her is there was intention of service offered at the time.. don't think the legislature had any intention they were taking some service and saying they were no longer telecommunications service.
Mike Gilmore commented - discussions are not enacted.  There wouldn't be one statute for one company and one for everybody else.
Commissioner Miller said the simpler result is it would be Title 62 service.
There is our quality of service authority and "claw back" authority.
Commissioner Nelson said the reason he would say take the settlement offer and do what you are,you have to take a look at overlying access charges which would allow AT&T to serve at a loss or charge new rate.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't think it would make sense to delay.
Commissioner Miller said we could say it is a Title 61 service and you would have a whole rate case with AT&T.
Mike Gilmore said the Feds treat AT&T differently.
Commissioner Miller asked - could Commission informally someway let these customers know that they are not going to get a better deal from us than whats on the table and think about what we want to do about declaring jurisdiction or not.
-7-
Commissioner Nelson said he thought Commission should tell them formally - could bifurcate the matters.
Commissioner Miller said if it was accepted, it would be academic.
Mike Gilmore said Commission opened the case, could speak only to settlement now.
Commissioner Smith said every time we open a case, am not happy with the result, remind her next time.
Birdelle Brown said AT&T wants to implement first leg of the settlement January 1.
Commissioner Smith said to tell them to go ahead.
Commissioner Nelson asked what if we made decision on jurisdiction question?
Commissioner Smith said she thought Commission was going to try to avoid that.
Commissioner Miller said - was just considering whether or not there was some reason besides these customers to discuss jurisdiction.
Question he has is whether we want to say there aren't three categories.
Mike Gilmore said - or say there aren't three categories for those serving before the Telecommunications Act.
Commissioner Nelson said right now don't have enough information on that point.  Haven't really had brief on whether it is a telephone service.
Birdelle Brown said by definition it is not a switched service.  
Commissioner Miller suggested notifying the customers and have Mike Gilmore start on an order.
**Can also tell AT&T to start the first phase of their settlement.
Commissioner Miller suggested getting that done and continue to reflect upon the jurisdiction question.
-8-
Commissioners Smith and Nelson said they didn't think they were going to like the position they will take.
Adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this     day of February.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0079M