Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920831.docx MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING August 31, 1992 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance were: Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Tonya Clark, Mike Gilmore, Birdelle Brown, Belinda Anderson, Scott Woodbury, Tom Faull, Eileen Benner, Mary Friddle, Jim Long, Syd Lansing, Gary Richardson, Bill Eastlake, Randy Lobb and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were:  Dan Poole and Ron Lightfoot from U. S. West and Robert Aldrich and Bob DeShazo from Eagle Water and Frank Thomas from the Eagle newspaper. Commission President Marsha H. Smith called the meeting to order.  Said she had a request to consider Item 16 first.  Said the Commission's order in this case is not yet prepared to be issued today so it will have to be issued consequently.  Commissioners are prepared to discuss how they feel about the cases and what the ultimate decision will be. Chairman of the Cases (EAG-W-91-1 & EAG-W-92-1), Commissioner Nelson, led the discussion.  Read the summary.  Having read that, said it was his general impression that the new well would be a real benefit to the system assuming it comes in at the gallonage it is predicted it will.  Said the current customers will benefit without additional cost to them, that the developer and the homeowners would benefit from that with adequate water at some cost to them and that it was generally agreed that the city was not ready or able to serve those lots southwest of the Farmers Union Canal not in Eagle Water's certificated area and this is a small area and the well would be able to serve that area.  Order will discuss that. Is concern with water pressure problem in all area of the service area and Commissioners are feeling that those concerns need to be addressed in the immediate future.  Don't know how that will exactly be done yet.  Beyond that don't have anything further right now. Commissioner Miller said he was sorry that the order wasn't in a form to be released today but the combination of events beyond our control, etc., made it impossible to get a final order out today.  When it is finalized, he will be prepared to sign it.  On the legal arguments on the effect on the City of Eagle's ordinances, etc., without attempting to summarize the order, will respond.  The Company and the staff and Boesiger should be congratulated for trying to find an innovative solution to the problems.  Work of the staff is to be commend and would like those thoughts noted in the minutes.  The most difficult part of the case -2- was the expansion into the two acres on the other side of the canal.  Reasons for voting not to expand now, does relate to the quality of service problems at this time.  We are hopeful that the well and other activities will solve those problems.  Until those are solved, company should not focus on expansion.  Said his contemplation is we have ruled against the City of Eagle legal issues.  If there is a subsequent application to serve, the only question will be serving old and serving new.  Unless he is satisfied that there is adequate service to the existing territory, it will be hard to get his vote for expansion of the territory.  Think we are trying to say to the Company - we appreciate the initial solution to these problems but until we are satisfied the problems are solved, we can't approve expansion.  If the problems are solved, could vote for that.  Those are just personal comments and the Commission's rationale will be adequately set forth in the order. Commissioner Smith said she would just add that she was most concerned by the public testimony at the hearing.  Think the customers who testified that it is the PUC's job to see that they are adequately served are correct.  The evidence shows that this well will go a long way to adding better service to current customers.  If there are still problems after the new well is in, it will be the company's obligation to investigate these and determine whose problem it is.  If it is the Company's, take measures to get it fixed.  People are entitled to adequate service.  The order will reflect her feelings on this.  Would encourage Company to work with staff and get all the customer cooperation you can to start a conservation program.  That will be a benefit to the customers and the Company. 1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated August 31, 1992. Commissioner Nelson moved approval. Okayed by other Commissioners. 2.  Mary Friddle's August 26, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  General Plastics, Inc. Commissioner Nelson said he asked for the financial statement.  Was concerned about the statement but might be able to settle some of the problems with the $104,000 amount...but what bothers him is the current assets versus current liabilities for this which indicates that even without the problem of inequity, the company has more current liabilities than assets.  Think that would prevent him from signing the order giving them authority. -3- Commissioner Miller said he thought that what throws their liability out of whack is their payment to the parent company.  We don't know what that is. Commissioner Nelson said that it was the parent company putting in operating capital and taking a note back.  Even without that there are more liabilities than assets.  Their accounting is cash basis.  Had a conversation with Mr. Timm.  Told him his concerns on the temporary.  They didn't do anything to address the concerns expressed to him.  Apparently we don't have a final safety review until they get their authority.  Asked what the purpose of the temporary was if we don't do the safety review? Tonya Clark responded.  Said the temporary is granted because of the urgent need. Commissioner Smith asked - if you had an application for permanent, they wouldn't do the safety rating then either? Commissioner Nelson said he thought a safety review should be done during the temporary.   Tonya Clark explained. Commissioner Nelson said he thought this raised problems with the procedures.  Thought temporary should require some urgency. Commissioner Smith said she thought staff needed to review our procedures. Commissioner Nelson said on this particular case, could not sign an order granting authority until they got their financial statement in order. Commissioner Miller said he was willing to grant the authority. Commissioner Smith asked when the temporary runs out?  Asked if they were only hauling for their parent company?     Mary Friddle said the only letter of support we have is the one from the parent company.  Then in their financial statement it didn't look like they are doing very much other sales. Commissioner Miller said he didn't disagree with what Commissioner Nelson said.  We need to be analyzing our policy on entry.  Big problem with this is if we are going to have a balance sheet test, if we are going to require positive net worth balance sheet, could support those. -4- But we don't have a current policy that says any of these things.  In general terms our policy has been toward relaxed entry and we have approved entry of carriers with negative balances.  So have hard time distinguishing here, unless we have changed our policy. Agree we need to look at the way we do safety.  But here where the carrier's balance sheet is undoubtably the result of events and policies of the parent company, it seems less important - don't disagree with what Commissioner Nelson is driving at, but don't want to deny this permit when we have on similar facts, granted permits. Commissioner Smith said for her because the basic business of this carrier is for hauling for its parent and they can make their balance sheet look like they want it to, they just didn't do it, will sign an order giving them authority.  Would feel different if it was a stand alone carrier with this kind of balance sheet. Commissioner Miller said - but if we want to take this up on a more general basis, would be willing to do that. Commissioner Smith said she thought it would be very beneficial for us and the carrier to know what kind of financial fitness we require.  Think there should be rulemaking or policy statement. 3.  Brad Purdy's August 27, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Status of Gillingham Transport, Inc.:  IPUC Permit No.M-7665-1. Commissioner Smith said she thought we should issue a complaint and have a hearing as quickly as we can. Other Commissioners agreed. 4.  Brad Purdy's August 18, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. SOU-W-92-1, In the Matter of the Application of South County Water Company for Approval of a Main Extension Contract for Roan Meadow Drive. Commissioner Smith asked if there was anyone who thinks this should not be approved? Commissioner Nelson said he thought asking the Company to revise line extension might be an overreaction to a temporary situation.  Believe it will be an isolated incident.  Looks like the Company is trying to react to temporary situation and it ought to be approved. -5- Commissioner Miller said he guessed we really don't have a feel for how often this will happen in the future? Randy Lobb said there are as lot of 1/2 acre lots.  It is a rural suburban area.  One of the facts that added to it was loss of well water.  One hundred feet is somewhat rare in Boise Water service area but not in South County area. Commissioner Miller said we could suggest to the Company to work with staff or examine the possibility of a tariff revision.   Randy Lobb said he thought the company would be agreeable to that also. Commissioner Miller said the other question he had on the refunds was, what is the timing? Randy Lobb explained - ten years. Okayed. 5.  Mike Gilmore's August 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Second Start-Up Assessment for TRS Administrator. Commissioner Smith asked Mike Gilmore if he had talked to the companies? Mike Gilmore said he had. Commissioner Smith said she had a real concern with when this starts up, how are we going to make other companies pay?  U S West and GTE will have credits to start with.  It is going to have to be sorted out in the rulemaking.  Let the companies know that they should be ready to respond to how this initial money should be spoken to. 6.  Eileen Benner's August 24, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho Universal Service Fund - 1992 Annual Report; U-1500-174. Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her that the fund is going in the direction we anticipated, don't think we should speed it up. Commissioner Miller said if we took access charge change it will still be okay. Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think it should go any lower.  MIght have to pay out money.  Think right now it is as far as he wanted to go.  Would leave it where it is. -6- After discussion was decided to leave the USF status quo. Accepted the report as is. Commissioner Miller said to pass his compliments on to Alyson Anderson. 7.  Idaho Power Company's Tariff Advice No. 92-2 - New Tariff Offering - Payment for Power Quality Audit. Approved. **Scott Woodbury did Minute Entry for Commissioners' signatures. 8.  Brad Purdy's August 26, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-17:  Idaho Power Company's Application for Approval of a Solar Photovoltaic Tariff Under a Pilot Program. Three choices - page 6 of the Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith said personally she didn't want to suspend it.  Think it is a needed service that has found its nitch and company should roll it out. Commissioner Miller spoke to the anti-competitive market.  Need to be sensitive to the unique nature of this program, prefer to sign an order granting it rather than having it go into effect.  Is concerned about deferring these external program costs and potentially recovering them from ratepayers generally, thus providing subsidy for service provided below cost.  Thought a reasonable compromise would be to allow the deferral as an indication of our support for renewables but at the same time, say to the company that they should not really count on these not being recovered... should know that they will have to recover their costs in the rates.  That would be an incentive to minimize those costs. **Don Oliason was in attendance at this time. COmmissioner Nelson said - take a little harder look at pricing in the front end. **Commissioners approved addition of staff recommendation. 9.  Belinda Anderson's August 27, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Val Brown's Request for a Formal Complaint Against U S West. -7- Commissioner Smith asked Belinda Anderson what she envisioned - hear her complaint or do rulemaking? Belinda Anderson replied - to look at it in rulemaking.   Commissioner Nelson asked if Commission had had more complaints on this? Belinda Anderson said she was only familiar with Inmate. Commissioner Smith said - thing that struck her on Page 2, was that her disconnection was not in compliance with our ruling.  It wasn't conveyed to her. Belinda Anderson said when they are communicating verbally... it goes back to what constitutes a dispute.  That is why we wanted to look at it generically.  Explained the confusion by Val Brown.  Said the inmate provider called her. Commissioner Miller said he was thinking we could either approach this as kind of a big solution basis or small solution basis.  (1)  Could undertake rulemaking - open it up with general concerns (do workshop arrangement) or (2) could work it out internally first and do proposed revision.  Either way you go, that process is going to be somewhat lengthy.  Looked to him like the real problem is what is the definition of undisputed.  Think the Commission could do an interpretation or have Mike Gilmore draft a section on undisputed to describe this type of situation, that any communication should be considered a dispute for these processes. Belinda Anderson said she thought Bev Barker would know the answer on this. Commissioner Smith asked if it would be beneficial to hold this until Bev Barker gets back? Belinda Anderson said she would prefer the "big" fix and have workshops.  It is her belief that it is complicated. **Find out when we last did this. Dan Poole of U S West said there is a significant factual dispute here. **Will hold the matter until Bev Barker returns. 10. Lori Mann's August 27, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Elk City Petition for EAS to Grangeville; Case No. GNR-T-92-5. Commissioner Smith commented - the last time Commission -8- denied EAS without public hearing, had a few unfavorable editorials. Commissioner Miller commented it was probably dangerous to deny without hearing. Commissioner Nelson said he did think a hearing probably indicates expectations.  Thought he would be inclined to dismiss the petition without hearing, nothing the differences that came to light in the last hearing. **Call volumes are not in the record, though. Mike Gilmore said if you are going to take note of what is in the previous hearing, you have to give notice. Commissioner Smith said you do raise expectations with a hearing, but think you can't just go listen to one and not the other. Commissioner Miller said our threshhold isn't set out. Commissioner Smith said we could say we looked at it and there aren't high enough numbers. Commissioner Miller said we don't have any clearly-defined threshhold for hearing or not.  Don't think we would be obligated to have hearing every time there is an EAS petition but do need threshhold. **Will have hearing in this case. **At this time considered Item 4A - Selection of TRS Provider. **Bob Dunbar, TRS Administrator, was in attendance at this time as was Stephanie Miller, Utilities Division Director. Commissioner smith said there were two bids to provide TRS equipment - one from Sprint and one from a small company in Hamilton, Nebraska.   Bob Dunbar said he went back to Hamilton County Nebraska because of the two bids.  The advisory committee thought the Nebraska bid was the stronger bid and the cheapest.  Said what he found out in Hamilton was that the town of Aurora got into a slump.  It is a town of 3500.  He worked with Phil Nelson, President and the Vice-President.   They told him that the Idaho business relating to the relay system is important to them.  Described the premises of the Company.  Said work force appeared contented.  They handle about 10,000 calls a month.  Average call is 7 minutes.  Didn't -9- consider themselves a small independent phone company or small relay.  Feel they are aggressive.  One concern he did have is if they have a disaster, this is the only facility.  They have generator back-up.  They had everything we asked for in the bid.  They would like to get the Idaho business. Commissioner Miller said in a different context, we developed a relationship with someone who was in a national company, then after he got the deal he didn't pay any attention to us.  When they are in a national firm, what was your impression on what risk we might have along those lines? Bob Dunbar said they had a conversation about rural presence.  They have gone to that in Nebraska.  Found best way is to handle it through a person.  It is not subcontracted out.  They addressed a couple of issues. Commissioner Miller asked what impression did you get about dealing with the hard of hearing, etc.? Bob Dunbar replied - they wouldn't take anything for granted. Asked them about bringing on a hard of hearing person. Commissioner Smith asked - would it be their intention that their point of presence would be a contact person here? Bob Dunbar said outreach is an ongoing situation forever. Commissioner Smith asked if their billing facilities were adequate? Bob Dunbar said yes.  Equal access to any carrier is a problem but billing arrangements are being hammered out. They have a contract with an organization that helps with the billing.  The 900 service is a problem because no one knows how to bill that. Commissioner Smith said it would be her suggestion that we adopt the industry board recommendation of Hamilton and because of the investigation.   Bob Dunbar said on certification, they have it ready for signature. Commissioners will sign. 11.  Back to Lynn Anderson's August 27, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  EAS Petitions from Marsh Valley, Oneida County and Franklin County.      -10- Commissioner Smith asked what Springfield petition was? Lynn Anderson said it was the one the Commissioners decided to have a hearing on. Commissioner Miller asked - on Franklin and Oneida you have not had a response? Lynn Anderson said that was right.  He did send them the decision memorandum.   Commissioner Miller suggested having Lynn Anderson write and tell them that if they didn't respond we will dismiss it. Commissioner Smith said she thought Lynn Anderson had already done a good job with his first letter. **Decision was to do nothing further on Oneida and Franklin Petitions. 12. Eileen Benner's August 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Tariff Advice No. 92-7-S; Filed 7-29-92.  Middleton Exchange Rate Group Classification Upgrade. Approved. 13. Terri Carlock's August 26, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp Pollution Control Refunding Bonds, Case No. PAC-S-92-4. Approved. 14. Terri Carlock's August 26, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Washington Water Power Company's Preferred Stock Issuance $35,000,000, Case No. WWP-S-92-2. Approved. 15. Terri Carlock's August 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Washington Water Power Short Term Debt of $220,000,000 Case No. WWP-S-92-3.          Approved. Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 27st day of October, 1992. Myrna J. Walters Commission Secretary 0119M