19920318.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
March 18, 1992 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Gary Richardson, Belinda Anderson, Tom Faull, Terri Carlock, Bev Barker, Allan Killian, Bill Eastlake, Don Oliason, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters.  **Also in attendance was Ron Marshall, complainant, in Item 6 on the attached agenda.
Items considered are those listed on the attached agenda and minutes are from notes taken and transcribed by Myrna J. Walters, Commission Secretary.
6.  Brad Purdy's March 17, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Ron Marshall vs. Boise Water Corporation.
Commissioner Smith said staff has asked if we need to have a hearing and if not, do we have enough information to made decision in this matter.
Commissioner Nelson said it didn't seem like a hearing is necessary in this case.  Said his question in all of this is:  it doesn't seem like the water line needs to be changed to sell the property but that complainant sees a problem in finding a buyer.  That is not something that has occurred yet.  Unless the issue gets raised by a buyer, how do we know that?
Commissioner Miller said he was unsure about the correct proceeding.  In a normal complaint case, you would get a complaint, an answer, and decide whether or not to go to hearing.  Would like to know if Mr. Marshall would like to submit anything else to the Commissioners or if he thinks that everything that could have been said is in front of us.  Want to make sure everything he wants to say gets said.
Mr. Marshall:   Said his father-in-law is afraid that with the easement on the adjoining property, when he wants to sell, perhaps water won't be supplied to his property.  The owner of that property may decide to develop the property ... and they could be without water.
Commissioner Smith assured Mr. Marshall that that wasn't a concern.  A private facility can't prevent service.
Mr. Marshall:  There really isn't any other property in the area that would or could be developed that is not already taken care of for water.  Is proposed for townhouse site, the sign has been there at least a year and they have an easement behind them.
-2-
Commissioner Nelson said he wondered if Boise Water is going to let them hook-up to townhouses from that easement.
Randy Lobb said there has been no formal request for service from those people.  Cited a case where customer wanted to get service and there wasn't a line.  Said in this case these people already have water line and easement.
Commissioner Miller asked if there was an order in that case?
Randy Lobb said there was a letter, don't know about an order.
Commissioner Nelson commented it was tough to know what exactly the situation is.
Commissioner Smith said to Mr. Marshall - you don't really need to do anything right now.  Don't think the easement or water service is in jeopardy to this house.  If it ever becomes a problem, look at development.  Don't see a need to have anyone do anything different.
Mike Gilmore said Boise Water Corporation will have to figure out how to get the line there.
Commissioner Smith said burden could be on the company then.
Said unless there is more argument, would vote to dismiss the complaint.
Commissioner Miller said with the understanding that it could be brought back anytime that the facts develop that it was necessary to resolve the problem.
Commissioner Smith said based on her belief that the service is not in jeopardy at this time, they will always have to have water service provided to that house.
Commissioner Miller said - may have to decide sometime in the future to reconfigure.
Mr. Marshall asked if he understood it - that in the future when someone might try to cut off water to the property, Boise Water would have an obligation to serve?
Commissioner Smith said no one can cut off the right to have Boise Water serve.
Mr. Thompson asked if he could get a letter stating something to that effect?
-3-
Commissioner Smith informed Mr. Marshall that he would get an order to that effect.
Randy Lobb asked what "obligation to serve" means?  With regard to how a lot will be served, there is some confusion.
Mike Gilmore asked if the tariffs meant reconfiguration or new?
Randy Lobb said you are basically saying construction in the future will determine if service has to be served?
Commissioner Smith said if they decided for other reasons to put a line down Fargo.
Mike Gilmore said he knew the tariffs apply to new service, don't know about reconfiguration.
Randy Lobb explained his concerns. This seems to be a case of applying the tariff or not.
Brad Purdy explained what could happen.  Can't say what Boise Water would say.
**In attendance at this time were:  Pat Corpus, Birdelle Brown and Dave Schunke.
2.  Belinda Anderson's March 17, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West North Advice No. 92-2-N For Shared Outward WATS.
Commissioner Nelson asked if this change holds promise for increased rates due to competition?
Belinda Anderson said other companies could change but U. S. West will not.  They are going to do intralata like interstate.
Commissioner Miller asked - who gets to choose what interlata carrier carries the call?
Belinda Anderson said - carriers will make that choice.  They're going to ballot all their customers.
Commissioner Miller asked - is it part of a company-wide toll?  Any problems anywhere else?
Belinda Anderson said - not to her knowledge.  Gave example of who the information would go to and asked if they would like to be on the ballot.  There may be initial upfront costs.
-4-
Commissioner Miller asked - the outward wats and outward subscriber then participate in this ballot?
Belinda Anderson said yes.
Okayed.
3.   Scott Woodbury's March 16, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Firm Energy Sales Agreement, IPC-HBHC - First Amendment, Case NO. IPC-E-92-8.
Commissioners okayed amendment.
Commissioner Nelson asked what engineers thought?
Does this change the demand or amount Horseshoe Bend has to generate without penalty?
Tom Faull said it changes amount but didn't know why they bothered at all.
4.  Scott Woodbury's March 16, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. PPL-E-91-3 - Complaint Gow vs. PP&L.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the company was responsive except for No. 3.
Scott Woodbury said we can do nothing now until after the April meeting and ask them what procedures they have in place.
Can tell them to follow up.
Dismiss complaint.
5.  Scott Woodbury's March 17, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-5(U-1006-187) IPCO Request for Termination of Firm Energy Sales Agreement with Twin Eagle.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't understand the difference between terminating the agreement for ratemaking purposes and terminating the agreement period.
Scott Woodbury explained.
Commissioner Miller said as time goes on there could be circumstances in which a company will want to terminate a contract for one reason or another and question is whether it should go to District Court and we speak to ratemaking purposes and planning.  Or the other way it could work is
-5-
that as those disputes are going to occur, the Commission could say we have current jurisdiction to decide those and this is the best place for them to be decided.  Said his thinking on it is - think we have that authority.  PURPA is quite clear that state commissions have the authority to resolve the disputes between QFs and utilities so we have the authority to control that relationship.  The fact that we have chosen to put those relationships into contract, doesn't necessarily mean it is purely a legal matter that has to be resolved in district court.  In the A. W. Brown case, the court disposed of it pretty quickly by saying Commission has authority to regulate that relationship.  In the course of regulating that relationship doesn't mean it is beyond the scope of the Commission.  If there is some possibility that these terminations could come up, seems it would be better for everyone to have it resolved in one place by one entity rather than having suits here and there and no consistent results.  That is his opinion.  Think those matters need to be decided here.
Scott Woodbury asked - how do you distinguish Twin Eagle from Afton?
Commissioner Miller said - it is a concurrent jurisdiction.  Asked if we ever said to IPC and Afton, we won't settle that dispute here.
Mike Gilmore said Commission initially decided that once a contract is signed, the issue of disputes should be decided in district court.  As to historic...found jurisdiction decisions should be in district court.
Scott Woodbury said Brown has never had a contract.
Commissioner Smith asked Mike Gilmore about Commissioner Miller's decision?
Mike Gilmore said he thought the question of material breechs of contract are far from the Commission's initial decision.
Scott Woodbury said this is pretty clear cut.
Commissioner Miller said it depends upon your perspective, if you think of this as a relationship with an electric utility performing obligations under our rules and federal statutes, and if you think control of that regulatory agency should be regulatory agency rather than court, depends on whether you view it primarily as relation of two parties, or relationship between regulated utility and a supplier of energy under regulatory scheme.
-6-
Commissioner Nelson asked if this wouldn't change our boilerplate language about solving disputes under contracts?
Commissioner Miller said as he understood it, explained what Scott Woodbury did.
Commissioner Smith suggested just granting the application and not saying anything.
Move we have a very brief order approving their application.
*Agreed to by all Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 30th day of April, 1992.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw
0098M