19911220.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
December 20, 1991 - 11:00 a.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson; and staff members Brad Purdy, Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Lori Mann, Lynn Anderson, Eileen Benner, Dave Schunke, Judy Stokes, Tonya Clark, Terri Carlock, Tom Faull, Bev Barker, Syd Lansing, Jack Taylor, Pat Corpus, Don Oliason, Jim Long, Birdelle Brown, Gary Richardson, Stephanie Miller and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance from U. S. West was Dan Poole and Ron Lightfoot.
The items listed on the December 20, 1991 Agenda were considered at this decision meeting.  Minutes were taken by Commission Secretary, Myrna Walters and transcribed by her as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated 12-20-91.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval of the Regulated Carrier Division Agenda.  Commissioners Smith and Miller concurred.
Discussion then went to Item 13 - Scott Woodbury's December 18, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Sally Sun vs. U S West - USW-T-91-11.
Commissioner Nelson said he had had a change of heart on this since the last meeting in that he didn't believe it would be fair to permanently disconect her (Sally Sun) for this.  Temporary disconnection was okay but as we go down the road to where it becomes more and more permanent, another solution has to be found, perhaps in court litigation or some other forum.  Although U S. West says we have a developed record to make decision, there is a lot we don't have knowledge of before a decision to deny a phone permanently can be made, such as how available is blocking at Airmed, how applicable would it be to local calls only, don't know if Airmed has other numbers available; don't know extent of their calls and it would appear Airmed has called party disconnect.  When they hang up it disconnects here.  While we have U. S. West's statement as to their complaint, we don't know to what extent this is a problem.  Sally Sun has said she won't make phone calls from her home.  Think at this point if she is willing to agree she won't make the phone calls, would be pretty tough to deny her a phone.
COmmissioner Miller said he thought that the company legitimately is in a real predicament when they get an allegation from a credible source, disaster services or
-2-
medical services with allegations of harassing conduct so the company has a real quandry with what to do with this and how far they should go with the investigation to determine the factual basis for the information they are receiving, how much information should they require before taking action.  It is a legitimate problem for the company.  But think the way to solve the problem is for us to conclude at this point our rules don't permit disconnect for "harassing conduct" and to construe that rule as he suggested last time.  Would require reconnection on condition she not do it for communications with Airmed.  Then if I understand the company's desire on how to handle problems like this, would  suggest we ask the company to file a petition for rulemaking to address that.  Give broad advice based on this case isn't what we should do.
Commissioner Nelson said almost every situation is going to be unique.
Commissioner Miller said the easiest way to get out of this would be to say there isn't authority to disconnect for harassment under our current rules.  If we need to have a rule on that, the industry should come to us on how to address it.
Scott Woodbury said the company is characterizing it as condition immediately dangerous to life, health and safety and think that is the distinction.
Commissioner Miller said he understood that.  At this point thought he knew what this rule means and don't think it means conduct associated with use of phone.  If we wanted to brief that question, would be open to that.  Think it would make more sense to construe Rule 3.3 in that way and leave it to addressing dangerous "conditions", dangerous property or equipment.
Commissioner Smith asked about a remote controlled bomb being dangerous and falling under this?  Is not willing to say there is "never" any use of the phone that would fall under this.  Would like to avoid speaking to that.  Tell the company to just reconnect local and if they can't, that is their problem.
Commissioner Miller said he was not willing to deny her any interexchange service.  It is only one type of call in question but don't cut her off from long distance all together.
-3-
Commissioner Nelson said he wasn't ready to define the rule on this case.  She is willing to sign saying she won't call.  If there is a problem, then we can look at it again.
Discussed keeping her local service.
Scott Woodbury said staff did some discovery in this matter and company has responded.  With the communication system that the University has, they can block calls only at substantial expense.  It is a Centron system but there are three - 800 lines that they use so they rotate.  They only have one operator.  Company indicates that based upon service now provided, they do not have the ability to limit her to just local service without also providing her 800 because they are billed to other parties.
They can't deny access to 1+.
Lynn Anderson said they said under their current service they don't have that.
Dan Poole from U. S. West explained the way local-only works.  Local only is "no charge" calls.  1+ blocking only blocks those that would incur a charge.  Gave reason for that.  One is the phone company repair number.
Commissioner Smith asked if you could deny 1+ service to a certain area code?
Dan Poole said no.  The company does not have a problem with the Commission directing that this service be reinstated (with all service) based on whatever conditions Commission finds appropriate.  Simply want out of the middle of this.  The emergency-provider is saying their service is being impaired.  Question before the Commission is how do you want folks to react?  If the Commission is comfortable ordering the reconnection, fine.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't have any problem with saying hook her up but what if she does it again?
Scott Woodbury said staff has a problem with disconnection if she does it again.  
Commissioner Smith asked where the Commission was if she violates a Commission order?
If Commission conditions and she makes the call, where are we?
Scott Woodbury said he didn't think it should be a condition of reconnection.  Think for the Commission's
-4-
information the University of Utah is pursuing this matter with the Boise City attorney's office.   Has always been the position of the staff that the courts have available more options than this Commission has.  Can appreciate the company feeling it has some obligation to its customers but don't think that the company is resolving the problem that it is experiencing.
Commissioner Miller said that is why he would like to see this addressed in rulemaking.
Scott Woodbury said he knows that the emergency dispatch service for 911 gets many calls that they view as crank, they are able to resolve them.  If we provide another way besides going to the city, and can call the phone company, it is going to be a quick way to get termination of the service.
Commissioner Smith said either we think this woman needs to be hooked up or we say because she agrees to not make calls, we hook her up.  We need to say one or the other.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think we want to be in the position of going after her for violating a Commission order after the phone is hooked up.  Am having trouble getting past the point where I think we can't permanently disconnect her because she is making phone calls Airmed thinks she shouldn't make.  We haven't had a hearing.  Think it is the wrong forum.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it could be the right forum if we did a rule change.  We do have a very limited ability to control people's behavior and shouldn't try to.  So if we conclude a condition that she not make these phone calls, we are likely to find ourselves in another difficult circumstance from the company itself and we are no better capable of making decisions than the company is.  So what we have to do is acknowledge in the order her expressed willingness not to do this and accept that and encourage her to abide by her pledge but that we can't make continued service contingent upon her adherence to the pledge.
Commissioner Smith said - then that would reinforce the finding that future disconnection isn't the answer if the behavior continues.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think we could make that finding with our existing rule.  
-5-
Commissioner Miller said we are ordering reconnection because we don't think the disconnection is a solution to the problem.  Think Airmed is pursuing the proper forum (City of Boise).
Commissioner Smith asked - so you don't think it is a safety problem?  Assuming everything they argue is true, we are making that finding.  
**It is like a summary judgement.
Commissioner Nelson said the fact is they have 3 - 800 lines, she can only tie up one.  If everything they allege is true, still wouldn't disconnect her phones.
Commissioner Miller said you are making a factual finding that based on these facts, it wouldn't rise to a dangerous condition.  Think he is saying this is the wrong rule to apply to these facts.  Don't think this rule is intended to address use of the phone in a hazardous way.  There is no rule that permits disconnection for this.
Commissioner Nelson said - could say even if there was, don't see this as dangerous, etc.
Mike Gilmore said they are both findings this rule doesn't apply.  Explained what he thought Commissioner Smith said.  Are saying this is not the rule applied to these types of situations and maybe we should have a rule.
Commissioner Smith said this is our disconnection rule.  She doesn't fit in this rule for disconnection.
Commissioner Nelson said even if the rule didn't apply, we don't apply it here.
Commissioner Smith said you are both saying she doesn't fit.
Commissioner Miller said - there may be some reason for ... people can be disconnected for the way they use their phone and he is saying under this rule we cannot disconnect for this.
Bev Barker said the company has conditions in their tariff.
Discussed the reasoning behind the rule.
Decision was:  Connect the service.
-6-
2.  Syd Lansing's December 17, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Accounting for Post-Retirement Benefits.
Commissioner Nelson asked if it is amortization over 20 years?
Syd Lansing replied yes - it is Option II.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't have a problem with that.
Commissioner Miller asked - all we are asked to do here is approve letter from Stephanie Miller?
Commissioner Nelson said yes - .
Was okayed by all three commissioners.
3.  Syd Lansing's December 17, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West North - Depreciation.
Commissioner Smith asked if this was what we just did for U. S. West South?
Syd Lansing said it makes them consistent.  Makes them both in the same study.
Questions on Page l.
Commissioner Nelson said yes to Questions 1 and 2.
Commissioner Miller asked if part of our reasoning for this was revenue sharing in the South and there isn't revenue sharing in the North?
Commissioner Nelson said yes but think there is a real inconsistency in doing that.  Said ELG would still be a ratemaking issue.
Commissioner Miller said North has been on ELG, so we are just continuing status quo without further approval.
Okayed.
4.  Lynn Anderson's December 18, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West - Northern Advice No. 91-10-R.
Commissioner Smith asked Lynn Anderson if this was just doing the same for PNB and US West?
Lynn Anderson said yes.
Okayed.
-7-
5.  Belinda Anderson's December 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. POT-T-91-2 Potlatch's Tariff Filing.
Discussed the matter.
Belinda Anderson explained why the company wanted the rates.
Okayed.
At this time Commissioners adjourned and went into legislative session to reconvene on Monday, December 23, 1991.
Dated this 5thday of February, 1992.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
Minutes of Decision Meeting
December 23, 1991 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Stephanie Miller, Lynn Anderson, Jim Long, Birdelle Brown, Bev Barker, Terri Carlock, Randy Lobb, Don Oliason and Myrna Walters.
Following items from the December 20, 1991 Decision Meeting were discussed at this time.
6.  Terri Carlock's December 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Washington Water Power Accounting for Pension Costs.
Approved filing.
7.  Lynn Anderson's December 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Spirit Lake EAS Petition.
Commissioner Smith said she thought this should be incorporated with GTE-T-89-7.
Commissioner Nelson said he would like call patterns into Spokane also.
Lynn Anderson said it should be possible to get individual routes.
Commissioner Smith suggested having a hearing but not in January or February.
**Suggested meeting with staff.
Lynn Anderson said he didn't mind a small meeting and inform people of procedures but was not in favor of a public meeting with staff only.  Think they get the wrong impression (there is customer confusion).
Explained what he didn't like about the meeting format.
Commissioner Miller asked if they were valuable at all?
Thought it was useful to inform the public.  Don't know if you need the entire community there.
Seems likely if staff is too friendly, too closely involved, there would be the problem of misconception.  It could lead the group to think they might not have to present as much of a presentation at the hearing.  They get the impression that their group is tightly linked with the staff.
-9-
Commissioner Smith suggested raising those questions on what staff's role is in these cases.
Commissioner Miller asked Lynn And;erson what he thought Commission had left to do with respect to Coeur d'Alene getting metropac calling arrangement for the part of the state?
Lynn Anderson said it looked like these toll carriers are working as well as he predicted  (good).  That is not going to negate the need for future EASs but should help to reduce requests.
Commissioner Miller asked - what potential EASs are still out there?
Lynn Anderson responded - Bayview and Spirit Lake.
Commissioner Nelson asked about Hoo Doo Valley?
Commissioner Miller agreed it should be rolled into the existing case and Commissioners hear it as soon as possible.  
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Smith said there are questions as to what staff's role is on these EAS requests.  Maybe we shouldn't encourage anything more proactive until we decide.
Commissioner Miller suggested putting it into the case today (the Spirit Lake petition), start trying to find a hearing date and get together informally with the telecommunications staff to see what their role should be.
**Staff is to choose a date for the informal meeting.
Discussed whether or not to have one or two hearings.
Don Howell explained the one-year trial period (purpose of that).
Commissioner Smith asked what was in this case - GTE-T-89-7?
Don Howell responded.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't think we should go up there and hold a hearing until decision is made on 89-7.
-10-
9.  Mike Gilmore's December 18, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31.D-R-91-1 The Telecommunications Relay Rulemaking.
Commissioner Smith suggested that a paragraph needed to be added about USF - gave Mike Gilmore her suggested sentence.
**Don Howell will work on it.
12. Randy Lobb's December 16, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Quality of Service complaint from Customers at Weippe.
Commissioners discussed moving Weippe up on the upgrade schedule.
Randy Lobb said we have schedule for depreciation purposes only.  That is the only place the Commission has it.
Don Howell said they have it on a 10-year schedule.
Randy Lobb explained switch replacement scheduling.
Commissioner Nelson suggested response saying that company is making a reasonable effort but that they should try to schedule this as soon as possible because it is the squeaky wheel.  Then talk to them about it.
Randy Lobb said he wasn't convinced that the switch replacement was the total solution.  A lot of it may be old equipment and low levels of maintenance.
Don Howell asked - then is the problem outside plant or central office?  Asked when it was scheduled for OPUS?
Commissioner Smith asked about putting a switch technician out there on this.
Commission isn't ready to jump on them.
**Do need current information.  Wait to take further action at this time.
Commissioner Miller asked if there were any customers who would go berserk - just so long as customer don't get the impression that we are just letting the company off the hook.
**Eileen Benner in attendance at this time.
-11-
Commissioner Nelson spoke to moving the time up.
**Will be trouble reports - Don Howell will ask the company for them.
10. Eileen Benner's December 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  31.D-R-90-1 - Creation of Rules Concerning Telephone Service Outages.
Eileen Benner explained the matter.  Commission said okay to a workshop.  Workshop was held.  Another set of proposed rules went out in August.
Commissioner Miller asked - so this proposal is non-controversial with the exception of Conley Ward?
Eileen Benner explained what GTE and U S. West's positions are.
Commissioner Miller asked if U. S. West had seen this draft.
Eileen Benner said it at least sets some standards.  Gets us some data.
Commissioner Miller asked if all we would be deciding today is to put these out for comment?
Said he could do that.
Agreed.
**Put them out for comment.
14. Tom Faull's December 17, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-91-14, Application for Adjustment of Avoided Cost Rates(previously the "trigger" Case); Establishment of New Load-Resource Schedule for Avoided Cost Determinations.
Commissioner Smith asked - "are we done"?
Commissioner Miller said he thought we were.  Would like to not say anything about biennial review.  It is not really an issue in this case.
Asked Tom Faull with his hands on this industry that you will know when its time?
Tom Faull said even if he didn't, someone else will know.  Think the Commission's position on this issue has been made clear and think it is the right decision.
-12-
Appendix A will change.  There is no controversy.  
15. Brad Purdy's December 19, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Emergency Service Agreement - Idaho Power Company and Sun Valley Company - Case No. IPC-E-91-25.
Commissioner Nelson asked about Schedule 19?
**It was spoken to.
It is essentially a three-month contract.
Discussed Sun Valley wanting to own their own facilities.
Don Oliason said they will save 1.7% per month being charged by Idaho Power Company.
**Brad Purdy said company doesn't care if they get an order of letter accepting the filing.
**Will be approved by Minute Entry.
Extra Item was the matter of the Sargent Well Company petition of customers.  Customers ask that Sargent Well Company be a regulated utility to provide them with water service.
Commissioner Nelson asked if all customers signed?
Randy Lobb said yes.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't have a problem with it.
Other commissioners concurred.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 5th day of February, 1992.

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0081M