19920707.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
July 7, 1992 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson; staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Gary Richardson, Belinda Anderson, Birdelle Brown, Mike Gilmore, Mary Friddle, Eileen Benner, Tonya Clark, Jim Long, Lynn Anderson, Syd Lansing, Jim Long and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance was Mary Hobson from U. S. West.
Items from the July 7, 1992 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
2.  Brad Purdy's June 11, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-E-92-2 - Approval of Revised Tariff Schedule No. 25:  Extra Large General Service - Idaho.
Brad Purdy reminded the Commissioners why the matter had been held - he was waiting to hear from Potlatch Corporation.  Conley Ward, their Attorney, said you really have problem with rate relationships and don't think this is the way to go.  But didn't offer suggestions as to how to change the rate relationship.
Commissioner Miller said in a general rate case, all the company tariffs are open.  So between now and general rate case and if Potlatch has a better way to deal with it, they can come forward them.
Commissioner Smith said the amended language looked fine to her.
Other Commissioners concurred.
3.  Don Howell's July 1, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Staff and GTE Agreement to Reduce the Company's Optional Calling Plan Rates--Case No. GTE-T-92-1.
Commissioner Nelson said he would recommend approval.
Commissioner Miller said it looked fine to him also.  Didn't know this was going on.
Don Howell said when the commission set new MARC plans, you choose the company rates and agreed upon rate design, saying lets try it for a year and check the revenue then.  A years time went by and company didn't file report.  Then two months later filed a report.  Told them you are making more, they said they were losing.  It was a requirement in the prior order that we look at revenue..also said we would not do anything with outstanding EAS until we gave the MARC Plans I and II time to work.
-2-
Commissioner Smith said this has been going on for two years.
Commissioner Miller said some exchanges have pretty high buy-up.
Don Howell said they are all the ones where we have EAS petitions.
Okayed by all three Commissioners.
Commissioner MIller asked about when the dispute about making money or not was going to be resolved?
Don Howell said in the next rate case.
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
4.  Don Howell's July 2, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Dismissing Interstate Telephone's Complaint against U. S. West for Lack of Prosecution, Case No. MTB-T-90-5.
Don Howell brought the commissioners up to speed on this.  Haven't heard from Interstate since April.
Okayed the dismissal.
5.  USW-S-92-1 - U. S. West Revenue Sharing Case.
Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell if the time has expired for filing of responses to Staff's Request to Late-file Exhibit?
**Was decided the time did not expire until July 13 - will hold until after the 13th.
Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Miller how he was going to proceed since he was the chairman of the case?
Commissioner Miller replied that the procedural history and background are well known.  Said Commissioners, after receiving briefs, etc. discussed the application yesterday under the newly conferred right of private deliberation.  As a result of that, Don Howell was asked to prepare a proposed order for Commissioners to review and vote on at an open meeting.  Now have that proposed order so guess that brings Commissioners to voting on the order and Commissioner comment by anybody that wants to.
Commissioner Nelson said he would make one light comment that if we say under DISCUSSION, ..."expressing our approval, with some reservations", somewhere in here we should say what those reservations are.
-3-
Don Howell said one of the reservations was the third year of the plan, can conceptually approve it and wait a year to finally approve.
Another reservation was there is no mention of the issues in the briefs - competition and cross-subsidization.  How those are addressed in the subsequent order or in a final order may take some additional discussion and the ability to look at a draft of the order.
The other thing that the order doesn't talk about is the alternate toll route.
Commissioner Nelson said that is not part of our approval.
Don Howell said if Commissioner Nelson has concerns with the language...
Commissioner Nelson suggested saying our reservations revolve around these two or three items so we are actually saying what our reservations are instead of leaving it to the reader's discretion.
Commissioner Smith said this was a really hard case for her.  Was torn on the one hand between continuing what I would consider to be the necessary and important evolution of the telephone system in our state and on the other hand, the struggle that you want the lowest rates you can to keep more people on the line.  Lifeline doesn't apply to people under 60 and we do have a significant economic problem in rural communities.  Was torn here.  Thought the company's presentation was a little bit confusing when it mixed in unregulated with the regulated.  Once I got those separated out, decided what we are doing is improvement to the end user, it will benefit our ratepayers.  Was especially mindful of Fothergill and Phillips in this case.  Where she deviated from them is, believe there is a demand now for people who want to hook up their computer modems and fax machines to their residences and small businesses.  That is important and it is growing.  Did not, Consumer Federal of America sent us their Consumer Views and they stress the importance of home computers, E mail, etc., for consumers.  So, believe this orderly development of the network is in the public interest, so would approve it on that basis.
Also studied MCI's concerns and arguments.  Believe that this type of improvement in the loop will assist rather than impede competition because if end users have enhanced ability to use advanced technology they will be able to choose their provider and will enhance the ability of the
-4-
providers.  Basically other comment to MCI would be that the legislature in our state has given telephone companies the opportunity to be in the competitive market and they are free to invest and spend capital how they choose.  Whatever U. S. West is planning to do on its unregulated side is beyond our ability to control and direct and they are allowed that under state law.
With her numerous editorial changes, will sign the order.
Commissioner Miller said he had many of the same thoughts as Commissioner Smith.  Do think that communications technology is important and useful and will be increasingly so.  Is trying to integrate that into his private life.  Is something based on person experience.  
This is though, the first time we have used revenue sharing money for anything other than billing credit and as testimony and briefs indicate, there are some underlying policy issues that the Commission needs to have an understanding on or come to conclusion on and are now the first time we have had to face them.  Those include the making and effect to be given to the statutory... to cross subsidy - how that should be implemented or considered by the Commission.
Third question is the best use of the money in comparison with other alternatives presented when evaluated in our goal of universal service and promoting competition.  From our oral discussions it wasn't clear our answers will be the same and it is one of those things you can't know until you start putting words on paper and discussion from there.
For today, my preference would be to show did not vote and will reserve my vote until I see how the proposed order deals with those issues and then I will know how to vote.
Commissioner Smith said so in your mind, the discussion of subsidy and who owns the money, will influence your decision?
Commissioner Miller said those are significantly important issues to him.  They are directly related to the ultimate outcome.
Vote was two to 0ne - Commissioner Miller voting no.
1.  Mary Friddle's July 1, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Rulemaking with Regard to Elimination of Bingo Stamp Program for Calendar Year 1994.
-5-
Commissioner Smith said she had a number of additions, but other than that they looked fine.
Commissioner Miller said just general on comments - seemed like there was an awful lot of underlining on the comments.  Don't know if that was to add emphasis.  Excessive use of underlining is unnecessary.
Commissioner Smith said perhaps bolding of italics would look better.
Mike gilmore suggested proportional spacing.
Substantively it looked fine.
Commissioner Smith said one general comment was whether or not if we are we going to file comments with other agencies is something we should decide at decision meeting or if it could be done at another time?.  They are not cases we are deciding.
Mike Gilmore said he wanted to reread the opening meeting law.  Thought it would be similar to a City Council Resolution.
Adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 26th day of August, 1992.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0113M