Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920224.docx MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1992 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance were: Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Lori Mann, Scott Woodbury, Belinda Anderson, Jim Long, Lynn Anderson, Don Oliason, Syd Lansing, Allan Killian, Gary Richardson, Don Howell, Eileen Benner, Birdelle Brown, Bill Eastlake, Dave Hattaway and Myrna Walters. The following are Minutes transcribed from notes taken by Myrna Walters, Commission Secretary. Matters considered were as follows. 1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated February 24, 1992. Commissioner Ralph Nelson moved approval. Other Commissioners concurred. 2.  Jim Long's February 17, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE #92-3 Boundary Change between Tensed (Bluebell) and Plummer-Worley Exchanges. Commissioner Smith said her question was how many of the neighbors will want it too? Jim Long replied - none. Okayed the filing. 3.  David Hattaway's February 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Average Unit Cost Update for Line Extension Tariff Schedule 71. Commissioner Nelson commented it looked like if we go along with this the customer is paying a lot more. Dave Hattaway said that was right. Commissioner Miller asked why Commissioners don't have to approve this? Dave Hattaway explained.  Quoted from the order cited in his decision memo.  The average unit costs were to reflect closer to actual. Mike Gilmore reviewed it.  Said the system allowed for frequent updates.  Has concerns that the customer service -2- rep preparing the quote, everyone is going to look at the 106% and will asked if they have to pay that?  On the other hand, if he were a contractor and had to pay it, would be looking at it. Commissioner Nelson asked if this was strictly with land developers? Dave Hattaway said it was any customer who needs line extension. Commissioner Nelson said he would assume if we haven't had any complaints they are handling it. Dave Hattaway explained what boring costs are.  They are across the road - under the pavement. Commissioner Smith commented it is quite a large increase. **Randy Lobb was in attendance at this time. Commissioner Miller asked Dave Hattaway if he followed up on this, how much work would it take to conclude satisfactorily? Dave Hattaway said he knew what the information is he would like to look at, but doesn't know how readily available it is. Commissioner Miller suggested approving everything but that and give them 2 weeks to provide supporting information.   Commissioner Smith said they want it March 2. Commissioner Miller asked if there were people who had been paying the $15 who will now get a $115 bill or is it more likely to be people who wouldn't have perception of this increase? Dave Hattaway said the folks who are doing the developing have been working with the costs and may be very well aware of it. Commissioner Nelson explained what Mericle said they have to do. Dave Hattaway explained the difference between pushing and boring. -3- Commissioner Nelson said it looked like this cost is a projection.  Guess he would move to approve this and let Dave Hattaway monitor it to see how it is going along and if we get a complaint then look at it. Commissioner Smith said the problem is you have to come up with the money upfront.  Makes sense to pay the charge that is incurred but the numbers are a price list which is an identifier. **Bev Barker was in attendance at this time. Commissioner Miller asked - when you get down to the boring costs and there is a difference, how is the number determined?  Don't understand the mechanism contemplated here. Mike Gilmore said they have always been worked out in the past. Commissioner Miller said if Commissioners have to make a judgement, don't know if we have enough information or the right process. Dave Hattaway said their concern is that they are not recovering boring costs, but as to actually getting information, am not sure either. Mike Gilmore explained that was to prevent the maneuvering around of costs - set up this review. Commissioner Nelson asked if we have been reviewing this? Dave Hattaway said yes.  Between 1988 and 1990 they did not come in. Commissioner Nelson asked if they had actually made refunds? Dave Hattaway said it is in their guidelines.  They have been following those guidelines. Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commission had had any complaints on this? Dave Hattaway said not yet. Commissioner Nelson said they lets approve it and see if we get complaints. Commissioner Miller asked Dave Hattaway about the 62% and the 106%? -4- Dave Hattaway explained.  When company gives bid and its not in a development, tariffs calls for a rate, initially will put in $40,000 and as his project proceeds and he starts to get money refunded, the 106% is what they put up.  62% is what remains.  Those numbers will change until the tariff gets into the fifth year when the company starts absorbing dollars that aren't subject to refund. Commissioner Miller asked about boring costs? Commissioner Smith asked if decision was: Commission was going to let it go unless someone complains? Dave Hattaway said he could look at the numbers in the orders.  Why do you collect it from everyone and say to some people you don't get it back? Commissioner Miller asked Dave Hattaway if the $115 was an accurate number because of Ada County restrictions? Dave Hattaway said yes.  Power County also has similar requirement and City of Chubbuck. Commissioner Smith said she would feel better if they had a schedule for the counties having more costs and one for the others. Commissioner Miller said for the counties with restrictions it is probably all right but why should rural Elmore pay that? Dave Hattaway said Mr. Mericle's Memo spoke to two different tariffs. Don Oliason asked about other companies' costs as a comparison. Commissioner Smith said she would suggest that we ask Dave Hattaway to check back with the company on the two-tariff idea. Dave Hattaway said they weren't receptive to that idea when he advanced it to them.  Given the rates the way they are that is the case now.  Don't see any reason why they can't do two tariffs.   Agreed that if they would bring in a lower tariff for the areas that don't require this it would be appropriate. Commissioner Miller said Dave Hattaway is to tell the company that even if they don't like the two tariff idea, Commissioners do. -5- Dave Hattaway said his feelings on the average costs is they will get an experience factor. Commissioner Nelson asked - do you go back and charge if you run over? Dave Hattaway said no.  But someone could compute it. Commissioner Smith asked why they haven't done that? Dave Hattaway didn't know. Commissioner Smith asked Dave Hattaway to talk to the company about the two-tariff idea. Matter will be held until Dave Hattaway reports back. 4.  Mike Gilmore's February 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Rulemaking proposing final rules for telephone service from institutions of confinement - Case No. 31.D-R-91-1. Commissioner Smith asked about AT&T's comments where they say "any one of these", would that work on something like that?  Thought or meant or. **Didn't approve the restriction. Page 3 - MCI. Mike Gilmore explained that MCI didn't participate so customer of record was a phrase they weren't familiar with. Commissioner Miller asked if Mike Gilmore couldn't make that part of the comments, not the rule itself. Okayed. AT&T comments. Splashing. Mike Gilmore said he thought AT&T was right. Discussed outlawing splashing. Said to the best of his knowledge no one in the institutions splash. **No splashing. -6- Rule 11.2. Commissioner Miller said:  charge for local calls could be clarified for U. S. West. Belinda Anderson said sometimes companies file tariffs where they pick up per minutes on local calls also.  Also have long distance charge. Mike Gilmore suggested saying "total charges". Belinda Anderson said some companies are actually redefining local. Commissioner Nelson asked - so if they make a local call it is not a flat rate call? Belinda Anderson explained reason U. S. West brought this up was because they take these complaints. Commissioner Miller said he thought U. S. West's suggestion on their clarification to Rule 11 was okay. Agreed. Page 6 - 11.7. Commissioner Miller said he would accept U. S. West's clarification. Belinda Anderson spoke to Dave Schunke's suggestion about setting out the rates upon request. Commissioner Miller said for now, accept the clarification. Agreed. Page 7. Commissioner Miller said he thought Commission could go ahead with the change and make MCI happy. Commissioner Nelson said he liked it the way it is. Commissioner Smith said she thought 1 and 2 should be and, and then or before 3. #2 is a non-pay situation. Agreed with Commissioner Smith. -7- 5.  Lori Mann's February 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  ALB-T-89-2 and MTB-T-89-9; Staff Motion for Extension of Time. Commissioner Miller asked if this matter was previously set for hearing? Lori Mann said it had not. Commissioner Miller asked what the anticipated hearing date was? Lori Mann said she was anticipating sometime in April. Commissioner Miller said he was anxious to get to this case but was not sure how anxious U. S. West was. Lori Mann said staff and company are meeting this week.  Don't think it will be long before the hearing.  At most staff will probably only need 2 weeks. Commissioner Miller asked if the only reason for extending the time is the proprietary issue, is there still a need to have time extension? Lori Mann said yes.  There were two reasons. Commissioner Miller said to keep pushing on this and don't let it slip. **In attendance at this time were:  Terri Carlock, Madonna Faunce and Stephanie Miller. 6.  Scott Woodbury's February 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case Nos. WWP-E-92-1/WWP-G-92-1 - Demand Side Management (DSM). Commissioner Smith said she had a question on Page 3 - asked about the signature?  Said as fast as her renters come and go, know you just have to catch the first occupant.  What happens three months later? Commissioner Nelson said if you have the owner and the occupant, and one putting a charge on the meter, hopefully you are okay. Scott Woodbury said the subsequent renter will be bound. Commissioner Nelson said he thought the 78% efficiency standard was pretty low. -8- Scott Woodbury said when you look at Schedule 190, it is above 90 for furnaces and they are also talking about providing rebate for 6 points above CFC water heaters, the higher efficient equipment is out.  The test case required higher efficiency but now they are going back to the lower.  That is the number they are requesting. Commissioner Nelson asked - why have the lower number in here now? Scott Woodbury said he guessed that was the difference staff and company had. Commissioner Nelson said with the availability of service, what is the minimum allowed now? Dave Schunke said he thought 78 was the minimum federal standard. Commissioner Nelson said he though we needed to talk about that.  Other question on Page 3 was if the charge is appearing as separate line item on the bill, is there any kind of a lien? Scott Woodbury said the company has indicated that they don't want to proceed along those lines.  When the property changes hands, they will be notified of what the prior agreement was.  When property changes hands it is not going to come due.  As far as a lien, if there is a failure to pay, it will only fall under company's default provisions.   Commissioner Nelson asked - do you know what the standard is? Scott Woodbury said he didn't know what it was. Commissioner Smith asked if Commissioner Nelson wanted a hearing?   Commissioner Miller asked if we know about the Washington filing?  How are they going to proceed? Bill Eastlake said he thought staff was leaning towards a hearing but Commissioners have to make that final decision.  Heard about half the Washington staff thought 76% was too low. Commissioner Miller said he thought the company should be complimented for this filing because it illlustrates the company has come a long way in its work in this area but would like to have a hearing to explore some of the issues staff raises. -9- We previously bounced off of but not conclusively decided on lost revenue.  Don't like to make that without an opportunity to talk to witnesses about that.  Same is true of energy kicker.  Made some vague assurances, but this is the first time someone has tried to take us up on it.  Need to come to a firm decision on how to go about figuring out avoided cost for natural gas.  We have not worked our way through that.  On the bottom of Page 8 there are other issues identified.  Think those are all appropriate for hearing. Scott Woodbury said staff talked to company and provided them with copy of the memo.  The company prefers modified procedure and comments only.  If it goes to hearing what they would be proposing is putting on a panel of witnesses similar to what they have done before.  As far as filing testimony, the testimony will look a lot like their application unless the Commission directs them to address and flesh out to a greater detail the policy issues which the Commission wants to identify as their primary concern. Commissioner Miller said generally we are responding to the summary decision and haven't read in detail the application.  Don't know if there is enough there to take place of testimony or not. Scott Woodbury said there are a number of policy issues presented and the Commission can determine the best way to explore those.  Comments don't provide Commission with opportunity to ask questions.  There are certainly advantages to going the hearing route but that is a long proceeding and was also asked to stress that one of the purposes in trying to get this into place is to meet the construction season. Commissioner Smith asked if there would be any advantage to having  a workshop type hearing.  Maybe we could invite the company in just to talk about it.  It would be something in between a hearing and paper comments.  Could have a dialogue with someone. Commissioner Miller said he guessed the advantage of a real hearing is before the hearing you get a chance to get different views and think about it and you can come to the hearing prepared to answer questions or resigned to not having to answer questions.  That is a more informed approach than to just having someone chat.  That depends on our ability to know what the issues are without any real preparation.  If you don't have the advantage of prefiled testimony it is just what you have in mind.  If it is relatively simple things it is okay.   -10- Commissioner Miller asked Bil Eastlake, if you were going to be the staff witness on some of this stuff, in order for you to develop testimony and analysis helpful to the Commission, do you need anything more from the company, what testimony from them or could you file an analysis based on what you have? Bill Eastlake said we have sent them two lists of requests for additional information which was not available with the original filing.  Think most of that additional information has solved technical questions we had.  Am not quite sure how to get to the policy decision of lost revenue.  Haven't been able to convey accurately to the company why he was uncertain about it.  Their answer as to why we should have lost revenues is because others have it.  Haven't been able to figure out the specific way to ask that question so they could provide something specific for us to respond or we could let something out for them to respond.  Equity kicker is a policy issue and don't need additional information for that. Commissioner Miller asked - where are we on avoided cost for gas methodologies? Bill Eastlake said it was his feeling that avoided cost for gas is just being developed and don't think this is the time or place to worry about it.  There is indeed no good procedure to figure it out.  There are many states wrestling with it.  It is a bit premature to get into that question.  Had not been formally involved in that. Dave Schunke said there is a question of whether or not you need that resolved before you can make these other determinations.  If you make that determination, it is a question as large as the whole question before you.  It would most certainly put you behind schedule.  You would not meet the construction schedule for this year if you were to decide to resolve that first.  WWP and most of the LDCs started meetings last fall to try to address avoided costs for least cost planning.  It is a huge problem.  It is not something they expect to solve in a matter of months. Commissioner Miller said he guessed we could in effect treat the company's application as it is testimony and not require further testimony to be filed.  That would save one step.   Commissioner Nelson said - then have staff develop their issues and have hearing.  Asked how long that would take? Dave Schunke said Bill Eastlake will be putting together most of the testimony and think it would be 4/6 weeks. -11- Bill Eastlake said he thought April 1. Commissioner Miller said there are others here we could hear from.  (Read from the service list).  It would be interesting to see if it brings people out or not. Randy Lobb asked - did you eliminate the avoided cost gas issue? Don't know who would address that. Dave Schunke said if that needs to be resolved before solution of the other issues, that could not be resolved in 4/6 weeks. Don Oliason said he wondered if there is avoided cost in the gas industry. Commissioner Nelson said he would like to see Commission get to a decision on this program fairly soon and if we have to fine tune, we could. Had pilot program last year.  Could approve parts of this fairly soon without addressing lost revenues. Scott Woodbury said in talking to Dukich, he indicated that if the commission wants testimony from them on identified policy issues they can prepare that fairly quickly (within 2 weeks).  Think it would be helpful to have that. Commissioner Miller asked if we were going to try to identify issues, what would they be? Asked about lost revenue on Page 7. Scott Woodbury said it really applies more to the gas part of the DSM.  Company has indicated that if they were separated, it would speed things along. Commissioner Miller said - could decide on gas cost of service later.   Scott Woodbury said there are other issues, and it is important to the company.  If that were the only thing holding up approval, they are not going to hang their hat on it. Commissioner Miller said he was so sure we were going to have a hearing, didn't come prepared to make decision.   -12- **Commissioners want to read application - hold matter for now. 7.  Eileen Benner's February 21, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  USW 92-1-S - Increase to Basic 911 Local Access Rates. Approved. Will reconvene on Wednesday, February 26, 1992. Meeting adjourned.         DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of March, 1992. Myrna J. Walters Commission Secretary 0093M