19921022.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 22, 1992 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members:  Mike Gilmore, Belinda Anderson, Tom Faull, Gary Richardson, Jim Long, Randy Lobb, Scott Woodbury, Jack Taylor, Keith Hessing, Madonna Faunce, Beverly Barker, Don Howell, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were:  Woody Richards representing Intermountain Gas Company; Ron Lightfoot of U. S. West, Conley Ward representing Albion Telephone Company and Walt Sorg of GTE.
Items from the October 22, 1992 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated October 22, 1992.
Approved.
2.  Lynn Anderson's September 25, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE(CONTEL) Advice No. 92-05, Changing Wilder's Metropac for calls to Nampa and Caldwell to Toll-Pac and increasing Toll-Pac rates in Homedale and Parma.
Lynn Anderson reported that the GTE Fourth Amended Advice is now okay.  Went over want the service entailed.
Ron Lightfoot of U. S. West explained.  They will have it in both sets of documents - tariffs of both companies - U. S. West and GTE(CONTEL), per Lynn Anderson's request.
Approved.
3.  Jim Long's October 13, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Advice #92-5-N from U S West Company to remove intrastate conference service.
Approved.
4.  Dial Net's October 13, 1992 letter withdrawing Access Long Distance Complaint - Case No. GNR-T-92-3 and Proposed Order granting withdrawal.
Okayed withdrawal - draft order was okayed.
5.  "Minute Entry" closing Case No. GNR-T-92-7, as all parties are now either exempt or in compliance with Idaho statute and Commission administrative rules.
-2-
Approved.
6.  Brad Purdy's October 19, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Joint Application of Citizens Utilities Company and Washington Water Power for approval of the sale of Citizens' Distribution Facilities to Water Power-Case Nos. CUC-E-92-1 and WWP-E-92-7.
Commissioner Smith asked if a hearing has to be held?
Brad Purdy said according to the statute, yes.
**Terri Carock, Birdelle Brown and Eileen Benner were in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Smith asked if Brad thought the public wanted to appear?
Brad Purdy said it will probably be a decrease.
Keith Hessing said it might be an increase for some.
Commissioner Smith asked if the statute would preclude us from holding a hearing?
Commissioner Nelson suggested a hearing in Boise.
Was suggested holding a technical hearing in Boise and provide opportunity for comments.
Commissioner Miller said companies may have interest in strict compliance with the statute so there will not be any procedural problems.  
Brad Purdy will establish comment period in the notice.
Commissioner Miller said if some opposition pops up, may have to move hearing to the north.
Brad Purdy can set out in the notice that if they object to Boise hearing, let Commission notice.
Parties can get together and informally schedule.  Calendar is open week of December 8-10.
7.  Brad Purdy's October 19, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-21-Idaho Power's Application for Suspension of Deferred Accounting Entries.
-3-
Brad Purdy said he contacted many of the major players in the surcharge case and none of them have opposed modified procedure.  Staff thinks they can do their position on modified.  Probably will get some opposition, though.
Commissioner Nelson said modified procedure would probably be okay but need oral presentation on the accounting changes.
Mike Gilmore suggested oral argument.
Commissioner Smith asked if there shouldn't be a hearing to cross examine technical witnesses.  Sounds like modified won't be enough for Commissioners.  Just set it for hearing.
Commissioner Miller said he would prefer a hearing.
Commissioner Nelson said he knew this is a controversial issue with the SEC, etc.  Think this reaches to FASB 71.
Terri Carlock said it is not strictly 71 at this point.
Brad Purdy said he would get together with the company and find a hearing date.
8.  Troy Telephone Company's Motion to Postpone Technical Hearing in Case No. GNR-T-92-4.
Motion is request to postpone technical hearing set for 2 p.m., November 9, but don't want to vacate public hearing.
Commissioner Nelson asked if Commission will have enough information from Troy to have a public hearing?
Mike Gilmore said staff will meet the filing deadline for their prefile of testimony.  Technical hearing will be on costs, etc.
Commissioner Smith asked Walt Sorg about GTE's position?
Walt Sorg responded they were going to join in on the request to delay the technical hearing.
Commissioner Smith said she was always in favor of taking more time and getting the information, but don't want to go to Moscow twice.
Commissioner Miller said he was a little uneasy about holding public hearings in the affected area and technical hearings somewhere else on the chance that the petitioners
-4-
may benefit by the technical hearing.  Public hearing should be more than just an expression of uninformed opinions.  Public should have the opportunity to see the record being developed in the technical hearing whenever possible.  If there is some reason for technical hearing at this time, okay, but don't establish this as a method of doing business.  Public expresses their opinions and if for technical reasons we cannot fulfill their expectations, if that process is here for them to observe or understand, think it is generally a bad precedent.
Commissioner Smith suggested delaying both hearings and holding them in the area.
Jim Long said he thought the Troy Telephone people in Wisconsin could be ready by December, or possibly January.
Commissioner Miller said maybe in this circumstance it doesn't matter.
Jim Long said he talked to the petition carrier and she said it wasn't a problem for her.
Commissioner Miller said it is fine in this circumstance but just wanted to express his general feelings of this procedure.
Commissioner Nelson suggested giving the people some real numbers to talk about.  Early December would be all right.
Mike Gilmore said he didn't think all the questions could be answered today.
Commissioner Smith said - will grant motion to postpone technical and may push both of them back.  If technical can't be done until January, go with November public.
9.  Motion of Commissioner Staff in Case No. GNR-T-92-8 - U S West Petition for Exemption of Portion of Customer Relations Rules.
Granted motion.
10. Bill Eastlake's October 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  UP&L Advice No. 92-3 (revision of Commercial Energy Services tariffs).
Commissioner Nelson commented - it is being done all around us.
-5-
Commissioner Miller said the magnitude of these is very minimal.
Okayed by all three Commissioners.
11. Tom Faull's October 20, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Cases Nos. INT-G-92-04 and 31.I-R-92-1; Unvented Gas Furnaces; Status of Discussions.
Commissioner Nelson asked - we can't do anything more than say we won't enforce Mechanical Code?
Tom Faull said yes.  There is an agency that does mechanical in some areas.  It is only a problem in the area they don't have such.
Commissioner Miller said he always hates to disagree with Tom Faull but in this case was inclined toward IGC.  Reasoning is that if a nationally-recognized standards agency such as ANSI has determined that the device is generally safe, and gave that the offsetting reason for not installing is esthetic problems and some evidence of improper installation or operation, and if you offset against the basic argument that individual consumers should have an opportunity to choose what they want as opposed to a regulatory agency telling them what they should have, if you put consumer choice as first principle, then in his opinion the information that we have indicating possible esthetic problems doesn't bother him.  That is up to the consumer if he has esthetic problem.  Evidence of some safety problems to him didn't offset that it is certified by ANSI.  That is where he came out.
Commissioner Nelson said he guessed he was down to where the question is if we have a rule that says we have adopted the UMC, do we have enough reason to relax or change that adoption?  Or was that adoption misplaced in the first place?  Guess based on this, don't see anything to say it was misplaced in the first place.  Think it is close enough he didn't have a real strong feeling on it.  Feel like we are in the enforcement of a technicality where we don't have the expertise.
Commissioner Smith said that led her to allowing of waivers..it centered around local.. in a jurisdiction where they decided it complied with ANSI, if they decided it was enough, who was she to say it is not.  That lead her to allowing the waiver provided it complied with the other requirement.  Leave it to the local inspecting authority.
-6-
Tom Faull said the only other information he would like to interject is that the reason he thought the ANSI standard wasn't enough was because half of it is for proper labeling.
Commissioner Smith asked if National Fuel Gas Code is any better?
Tom Faull explained what it says.  They do create some moisture, etc.  Personally is not comfortable with labeling as a safety factor.
Mike Gilmore said he was going to suggest adopting the proposal qualifying UMC.  Probably would call it an amendment, not a waiver.
Okayed.
12. Randy Lobb's Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Tariff Advice No. 92-10-S, Revision of Line Extension Tariffs for new real estate additions.
Commissioner Nelson said it appeared to make sense to him.
Commissioner Smith said she was still troubled by who the developer is.
Randy Lobb said he is the guy who subdivides the property and puts in the streets and facilities (gets the lots ready for builders).  County defines it differently than the utility.
Approved the tariff advice.
13. Mike Gilmore's October 13, 1992 Decision Memorandumre:  Rockland Telephone Application for Approval of RFTC Loan in Amount of $500,000 - Case No. ROK-T-92-1.
Commissioner Nelson said it looked good to him.
Commissioner Smith said we have been talking in Telecomm '92 meetings about this.  Said her question is how do you bring more from the company for public offering?  Also asked about the amount?
Conley Ward responded.  Said first of all, didn't want to necessarily take issue with staff view of the statute because that will probably be in his client's benefit.  If you decide this is non-jurisdictional, would open the door to utility financing... We have gone ahead and set up a
-7-
separate corporation for this entity called Starview, Inc.  Was his understanding from discussion with NRTC and financing entity that they will take their security interest against that company rather than Rockland.  Do have a split of not only accounting and operations but legal entities as well.  Spoke to Rockland's fibre optic for schools.  This deal is a very complicated proposition in which Rockland is but a grain of sand.  Programming will be decided on national level.  Said there are competing systems.  It has been around a long time.  There are other entrants in it.  Hughes has the FCC prime slot for the satellite.  The trick of the thing is you pick up the signal over a dish (very small dish).  This should be cable quality to the dish.
Commissioner Miller asked - so you have formed two separate entities, what does that mean to the Commission?
Conley Ward said somewhere along the line he will have to write an opinion letter on this.  His preference would be that this application be approved even though we intend to put this in the subsidiary.  In theory NRTC requires that all participants be individual phone companies.  Would rather not have order denying it.  Spoke to the effective date.  Said he would point out... don't recommend dismissing it because you don't want to look at it, because that would be a precedent of sorts.  His preference would be to grant it or he can withdraw it and put it straight into Starview with the understanding that that is what he is going to do.  At the time, he didn't believe it could be done except in Rockland's name.
Commissioner Nelson asked if Rockland had the $220,000?
Commissioner Smith said she would like approving with safeguards rather than not approving it at all.
Commissioner Miller said he didn't want to deny it thereby having the effect of creating precedent.  At the same time, we do want to be sure that the customers of the regulated operations as much as possible be insulated from risk of unregulated activity.  With respect to the legal question, don't have a firm opinion on that although this is pretty close to communications.  It is not like Cambridge and their pellets.  Do think that this technology has the potential of being valuable to the area and other states so it is encouraging new technologies, even though it is not directly utility operation, it is in the public interest.  Guess it brings him out that he would only consider granting the application if we were satisfied of ratepayer protection and we made it clear that in this unique circumstance that promotion of this technology was worthwhile.  And even
-8-
though this may be another payphone enterprise for them, think it is in the public interest to allow the small companies which have less, to have other opportunities for financial success.  Don't want big companies to have access to other things and little companies not.
Commissioner Nelson agreed Commissioner Miller had some good ideas.
Conley Ward explained that if they get the satellite up,.. if you don't get it up, company is out 10% or $70,000.  See it as being a benefit to residents.  
Commissioner Miller said he had concluded he would like better record on consumer protection and record that would let us find that this is the type of technology that is in the public interest but now Conley Ward says there are time constraints to develop a record through comment, etc.
Conley Ward said he did think if Commission were inclined to take jurisdiction and were going to grant it, could grant it with making a separate company and making it generic.  That would be more than you have with other companies like GTE and U. S. West.
Commissioner Smith said she was inclined to treat it under the anything else clause and build in ratepayer safeguards and keep their hands out of it unless staff thinks adequate ratepayer safeguards couldn't be built in.
Terri Carlock said if they did take the security on the separate company, that builds in the safeguards.
Commissioner Miller asked what would happen if Rockland didn't get authority?
Commissioner Nelson said if the possible loss if $70,000 for Rockland, how much of a hit is it for the company?
Terri Carlock said she thought that would, if it was strictly all of Rockland's money, not Leonard's, the way she looked at it, the full amount wouldn't be coming from Rockland equity.
Commissioner Nelson asked if it was a company balance sheet in their annual report?
Discussed the company numbers.
Terri Carlock said she didn't think company could do it, wanted safeguards for the ratepayers.
-9-
Commissioner Miller said - and if this company is willing to not reach to Rockland for default, it looked pretty safe to him.  Think we should require follow-up compliance filing.
Terri Carlock said we usually provide for filing of agreements in the order.
Conley Ward asked for one of two decisions and can work around safeguards.
Commissioner Miller suggested to Mike Gilmore to put language in it that is satisfactory to staff and Commissioners and have Conley Ward look at it before they sign it.
Mike Gilmore went over the conditions - condition of separate company.
Conley Ward said unless it has to pass thru to Rockland.
**Don't have time condition.
Will be taken from their utility operations.
File proper reports.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 18th day of November, 1992.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0126M