19921102.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
November 2, 1992 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members:  Mike Gilmore, Brad Purdy, Stephanie Miller, Jim Long, Randy Lobb, Scott Woodbury, Gary Richardson, Belinda Anderson, Tonya Clark, Eileen Benner and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Walt Sorg of GTE, Mary Hobson and Ron Lightfoot of U. S. West and Conley Ward, Attorney at Law.
Items form the November 2, 1992 Agenda were discussed as follows.
1.  Lori Mann's October 27, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Intrastate Access Charges; Case No. GNR-T-92-10.
Commissioner Smith started the discussion by saying she was surprised when she received staff comments because she thought Commission had hashed it out at the prehearing conference.
Commissioner Nelson said it seemed that one of the things staff talks about is the fact that no request was made to revise local access rates to 125% of the statewide average.  Thought it said "125% of statewide average", it only has to be atleast 125%.  If it is over that, only think causing us to reduce rates is to give relief to that particular company but when we are dealing with access charges there is a broader range of people.  This particular case was initiated to stimulate toll tariff by bringing charges down and having little fairer playing field out there.  None of that reasoning would apply to local rates.  
On the second point in staff comments on earnings question, anytime staff thinks a company is overearning, they have the right to initiate a proceeding.
Commissioner Smith said she thought that was what was talked about at the prehearing conference.  Companies that are overearning should be looked at.  Thought this grew out of Albion EAS.  That is why we concentrated on access.
Commissioner Nelson said when we went through initial case and set USF fund, set a couple companies at more than 125% of statewide average.  Thought it was Rockland where we set them high.
**Don Howell and Keith Hessing were in attendance at this time.
Eileen Benner spoke to how it was set for Rockland. Said they were set slightly higher for Albion.
-2-
Commissioner Smith said she thought statutory requirement is that we fund 75% of the revenue requirement and have discretion on other 25%.
Commissioner Miller said he went back and looked at the transcript of the prehearing and he would like to stick to what was decided at that time.  Read from the transcript.  Said on the facts of this case, the access charges for each of the companies should be reduced, etc.,   Went over what was decided at the prehearing.  Were going to suggest a rulemaking procedure and what would result would be a rule everyone understood.  Said he was comfortable with that decision even though staff has legitimate questions.  Don't think we need to do the hearing.  Can approve the application and again encourage the people who have an interest to try and devise a rule for the future.
Agreed.
**Bill Eastlake and Nancy Harman were in attendance at this time.
2.  Brad Purdy's October 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho Power's Application for an Accounting Order in Regard to its Power Quality Program - IPC-E-92-18.
Commissioner Smith asked Brad Purdy if staff thought this was a utility or non-utility matter?
Brad Purdy said Idaho Power Company raised the issue.  Staff takes the position that this is a non-service thing, we have had this issue in the past.  Past decisions were you don't disconnect for these services.  Company says they will not disconnect for non-payment of these loans.  Will make it clear in the bill that part of this goes for this and part for payment of bill.
Nancy Harman responded how it will be booked.  It will go to the oldest electric bill.
Commissioner Nelson said we all agree the loan is a separate matter.
Discussed the particulars of the repayment.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't have real strong feelings about the way they are doing it.  Doesn't seem simplicity of administration is being followed though.
Commissioner Smith asked what interest rate they are charging?
Brad Purdy responded it was prime plus 2 on some and prime plus 1 on others.
-3-
Commissioner Smith questioned what the company is retaining.  Quoted from the memo.
Stephanie Miller responded customer will pay prime plus 3; will sell for prime plus 1 or 2.
Commissioner Miller said he didn't have strong feelings on this part of this.  If company wanted to keep them rather than sell them as long as there is no adverse effect on other ratepayers, was relatively indifferent on that.  People who take advantage of these, since they are relatively competitive, since there is some competitive market at work, wasn't real concerned about how the financing was done.  Would defer to whatever everybody else thinks on this.  Was interested in the accounting, though.  Whatever staff wants to do on financing is fine.  Regardless of the correct characterization of non or utility, would prefer company not disconnect for non-payment of the financing arrangement for a comparative non-utility service.  But am not wildly excited one way or another.  Preference would be no disconnection, they can keep them if they want to.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't feel strongly either, unless we get complaints down the road.
Discussed accounting treatment of it.
One question was the magnitude of it.  If you accept staff, how much of a difference of money is that?  Would like some sense of magnitude of staff versus company.
Stephanie Miller said they have spend $60,000 to date for training.
Commissioner Smith asked if there was any time pressure on this?
Staff said not.
**Need to know the total estimated expenditures for the program.
Commissioner Miller said if you looked at this in isolation, how much money is involved in the two different treatments?
On a broader level, haven't completely thought through this, on the one hand this is being offered pursuant to a Commission order.  On the other hand, am concerned about ratebasing and deferral and interest accrual idea;
-4-
particularly when the interest accrues at the current authorized rate of return.  And am concerned since companies, this one and others, are presently operating at rates of return that are quite high compared to what would be currently authorized, so they won't bring in rate cases but they will bring in this type of case to jam them into ratebase.  Wonder if we need to say we won't let you do this if you won't bring in a rate case.
Will defer this matter and bring back to decision meeting.
3.  Belinda Anderson's October 29, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE's Tariff No. 92-10 to Offer the Transfer of O-Calls to Participating Access Customers.
After brief discussion, matter was approved.
3A.  Joint Petition for Declaratory Order in UPL-E-92-5; IPC-E-92-22 - addressing whether the Firth Cogeneration Project is entitled to fully levelized, standard power-purchase prices.
Scott Woodbury said his question was how to handle this filing, procedurally.
Said developers would like to submit comments by the 13th; the reply comments by the 25th.  Question whether that is compressing it a little too much.  The utilities would like to respond to staff comments.  Would like to stretch it out a little bit.  Could either do it December 9 or December 16, reply date by the utilities.  Staff reply on the 25th; or staff by December 2 with utilities December 16.
Scott Woodbury said he discussed it with Tom Faull today.
Commissioner Nelson suggested the later dates.
Commissioner Smith asked if there was some rush on this?
Scott Woodbury said company wants it in a hurry.  They have not applied to FERC yet, though.
Approved later dates.  **Gave developer additional week also.
Commissioner Miller said he would like to keep open possibility of hearing on oral argument.
Scott Woodbury said the developers are aware there may be oral argument.
-5-
4.  Further discussion of Mike Gilmore's October 13, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Rockland Telephone Application for Approval of RTFC Loan in Amount of $500,000 - Case No. ROK-T-92-1.
Conley Ward gave a quick synopsis of the matter.  Said order was drafted after last decision meeting.  It was his understanding that the loan would be made without a guarantee from Rockland Telephone itself.  After receiving the draft and after discussion with RFTC, they switched positions.  He then asked to have it back on the agenda for further discussion.  Now has worked his way up to a V.P. and think as of this morning the first draft order will work as drafted.  No further discussion needed at this meeting.
Order will be finalized and sent to Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 23rd day of November, 1992.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0128M