19930104.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
January 4, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Tonya Clark, Mary Friddle, Gary Richardson, Belinda Anderson, Don Oliason, Randy Lobb, Bill Eastlake, Syd Lansing, Madonna Faunce, Keith Hessing, Joe Cusick and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance was Woody Richards, Attorney at Law.
The following are minutes taken at the Decision Meeting, of discussion on matters listed on the January 4, 1993 Agenda, as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated January 4, 1993.
Approved.
2.  Mike Gilmore's December 30, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Issues Presented by Canyon Transportation's Provision of Transportation Services to Medicaid Recipients.
Commissioner Smith said to tell Canyon Transportation they are a contract carrier and have Allan Killian inspect their equipment.
Commissioner Nelson said he couldn't think of any exception he falls under.  Asked about Item 2 of the AG's letter - regarding "nonprofit basis".
Mike Gilmore responded.
Commissioner Miller asked if Scovell is willing to accept that he is a contract carrier?
Mike Gilmore said he thought he would have a problem with it.  
Commissioner Miller said if he wants to contest it, he would have the right to speak to whether or not he should be exempt.  He can come in and rebut it.
Commissioner Smith said we would have to have a process for that.
Commissioner Miller said the way we should phrase it is - based on information provided to us and our determination of the circumstances.
3.  Don Howell's December 29, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  BN Abandonment of Trackage in Moscow, Idaho - Case No. BN-RR-92-1.
-2-
All three Commissioners agreed with the "do nothing" approach.
4.  WWP Cases WWP-E-92-5/WWP-G-92-2 -FAS 106 accounting treatment of retirement benefits other than pensions.  Held from December 21, 1992 Decision Meeting.
After brief discussion, was decided this matter should be put back on the agenda for the next decision meeting, giving parties time to respond to Motion to Augment Record in this case.
5.  Scott Woodbury's December 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Swift Creek vs. Idaho Power - Case No. IPC-E-90-18 and 7.  Scott Woodbury's December 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-26 - Termination of Firm Energy Sales Agreement - IPCo/Swift Creek.
Scott Woodbury spoke to Conley Ward's response.  Swift Creek didn't oppose the motion.  Recommend dismissal without prejudice.
**Acknowledge termination of the contract.
Commissioner Miller said since Swift Creek didn't oppose the termination, first point that since the other parties to the proceeding don't contest it, don't know if this is the appropriate case to decide contractual rights.  Continue to disagree with Scott Woodbury that it belong in court, not here.  Said his view is we have this regulatory scheme that governs relations between utilities and cogenerators and just because part of that includes a contract, doesn't necessarily mean all the matters in that piece of paper are beyond our jurisdiction and are appropriate for a court.  Still can't see the sense of having regulatory scheme administered by a court and by us, too.  Said his thoughts aren't clearly developed.  Since the other parties to this case don't dispute the request for order terminating, that would be his choice and would hold open the question of jurisdiction until it is brought before the Commission.
**Agreed to that.
6.  Scott Woodbury's December 28, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-G-92-3 - Gas Tracker.
Commissioner Miller said it looked like according to the staff audit these are the numbers.  Asked Scott Woodbury and Madonna Faunce if Commission shouldn't rethink the tracker mechanism?
-3-
Scott Woodbury said the magnitude isn't any greater than if it went the other way but are going to revisit the tracker the end of June or the first of July.  
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
Dave Schunke said he thought the question was tracker procedure - differences are due to other than tracker in this case.
After brief discussion, application was approved.
8.  Mike Gilmore's December 29, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  PUC Actions Required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486.  
Matter was discussed briefly.  Commissioners want to talk to a wide range of people on this.
Commissioner Miller said it might be worthwhile for staff to make assignments on the Energy Policy Act.  Commissioners need to know which staff members are assigned to what areas.
Dave Schunke said staff will divide it up and their names and areas they are working on will be given to the Commissioners.
**Matter is to be held from the agenda for a couple of weeks.
9.  Bill Eastlake, Stephanie Miller, Dave Schunke and Don Oliason's December 29, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Bell Rapids Conservation Project.
Held for now.
10. Mike Gilmore's December 31, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Withdrawal of Staff Motion to Initiate Complaint Against American Inmate Phone Systems (AIPS) - Case No. GNR-T-92-1.
Withdrawal of Staff Motion to Initiate the Complaint was granted.
11. Mike Gilmore's December 31, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Continued Validity of IPUC Order No. 14961 with Regard to Idaho Power's 10% Interest in Boardman and Refinancing of a Sale/Leaseback Transaction.
Mike Gilmore had drafted a proposed letter of response.
-4-
Agreed to the response.
12. Scott Woodbury's December 30, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Firth Project) - Case No. IPC-E-92-30.
Commissioner Miller asked - both parties essentially agree, is that right?
Scott Woodbury said Idaho Power Company was the one suggesting they wouldn't oppose petition for grandfathering.  He thinks the procedure is inappropriate.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the trigger wasn't to take care of that?
Scott Woodbury said he thought Idaho Power was feeling a bit guilty about this.  That was Fall of 1991 - Spring of '92 the contract was negotiated and they didn't'request contribution.  Ferree indicates that if Swift Creek were to come back they would look seriously at contributions.  Firth is a little paranoid because they also have the Rupert and Glenns Ferry projects.  It is also aware that Meridian will be filed shortly.  It thinks it is going to get caught out in the snow and have the rates adjusted once more.  Think the change in negotiation posture is a result of rethinking the matter, giving it closer scrutiny.  Until you get a filed contract, things change.  So at what point do we say you are still negotiating but we are willing to lock you in?  Think that would be establishing bad precedence.  Right now request for grandfathering, either they have a signed contract which is unfiled or they have a complaint on file alleging that the utility is not negotiating fairly.  That is not the case here.
Mike Gilmore said those criteria haven't changed.
Commissioner Miller said all we have at this point is a petition and a reply.  Don't think he had enough grounding in this to know.
Scott Woodbury said - could look at other cases where they filed UPL/IPC petition but still we don't have a lot of project speculation to determine that the parties have negotiated the terms.. don't have a contract.  They haven't filed all the other terms.  Guess what they could do is file a contract with a contingency subject to negotiation.  That might be a better way for them to go about keeping their place in the que.  TaLKing to Kline he is of the opinion that this continuing negotiation process is going to be position of FERC to convince the Company they are wrong.
-5-
Given what Idaho Power knows about their system, don't think staff would recommend approval of that.  Staff looked at upgrade when we did FMC/Meridian Gold case about the equities of spreading those to the customers and decided that was not appropriate.
Commissioner Miller asked who Firth's attorney is?
Scott Woodbury said he is in Colorado.
Commissioner Miller said he would feel better about having a prehearing conference to see what the parties want.
Commissioner Nelson said he was really taking a hard line position that that was the reason for the trigger.  These people do not seem to be to the point where Commission would grandfather rates.
Commissioner Smith said we have been really strict about grandfathering.  Thought  we insisted on a signed contract or the reason they did not was the utility's failure to bargain in good faith.  They seem to be bargaining here.
Scott Woodbury said he has communicated staff's position to the petitioners.
Commissioner Miller said - could deny this and in the order cite what the rules are.  They can get themselves within those rules.
Mike Gilmore said he thought it was "not ripe enough".
**Decision was to not issue declaratory ruling at this time.
13. Joe Cusick's December 31, 1992 Decision Memorandum re:  Tariff Advice 92-11-N; US West's Introduction ofDigital Switched Service (DSS) in Northern Idaho.
Approved.
14. Scott Woodbury - Case No. IPC-E-92-28 - FAS 106 - Discussion of Procedure.
Scott Woodbury said the application was not completed until December 30.  Want to know what the Commissioners thoughts are.  Will do a notice of application but want to know where the Commissioners want to go with this - modified or hearing?
-6-
After brief discussion, was decided to delay the notice of application of the filing until the WWP FAS 106 case is decided.
Discussion went back to Item 9 - Bell Rapids Conservation Project.
Commissioner Smith asked when this project was to be finished?
Don Oliason replied - April 1993.
Commissioner Smith asked - haven't we generally deferred conservation costs?
Terri Carlock said originally they were deferred.  Haven't been considered for sometime.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the concern is it has been so long between rate cases.
Commissioner Smith said if we went with staff, it is the first time we haven't deferred conservation costs, isn't it?
Commissioner Nelson said we are deferring it 3 years if we go with staff.
Terri Carlock said it would be treated like anyother plant.  As soon as the project is on line they would begin amortizing it.  If they need additional rates then they could file a rate case.
Commissioner Nelson asked - do you think we have reached the time when we should put a time limit on deferring that?
**Power quality program was deferred a year.
Commissioner Miller said she understood the staff concern.  They were correct to raise this.  These alternatives to rate cases are bad precedent.  Is concerned, though, that it is a relatively sudden departure of a practice that we embarked on.  We tried to give the company incentive for conservation.  Told them we wanted them to do it.  That is why Idaho Power has come to us with each project and asked that we sign off on them.  Am kind of torn.  Think we are taking the right course.  Where we have made this commitment to conservation and have been willing to accept that deferrals are a necessary regulatory treatment, am somewhat hesitant to make this sudden 90 degree turn.  We have let them continue conservation.  If we are going to change our policy, don't know if this is the right time or way to do it.
-7-
Commissioner Nelson said problem is we got everything piece meal.  This is a fairly large project for a conservation project.  Wouldn't be opposed to putting a limit on how long we will defer it.  Should give Company some notice that it is time to begin putting a limit on what we will defer, given timing between rate cases.
Commissioner Miller said - don't mind raising the issue in the order.  Say we are going to have to look at this in someway.  
Commissioner Smith said - say if we don't have a rate case in house before the end of '93, we will have to question these deferrals.
Allow this but don't know if we can allow anything else unless they file.
Mike Gilmore spoke to testimony in PCA case.  Asked if COmmissioners want to put them on notice for "all deferrals"?
Don Oliason asked if WWP DSM was a large conservation effort, far larger than this one?
COmmissioner Miller said to him getting deferrals for conservation hasn't been that hard to swallow given the different type of resources.  We went through this conservation when we got the first deferral, talked about conflicting priorities.  His impression was we were going to do what we had to do to get conservation done.
Bill Eastlake said - think message Idaho Power got was - defer it, accrue interest on it, never put a date certain on it for amortization.  It may be possible to leave it as it is as an unintended benefit and get away with calling that incentive.  Say we already gave you something.
Commissioner Smith said we don't want to discourage whatever good will towards conservation we have established but don't think it is inappropriate to give cautionary language that we anticipate it would be solution between rate cases to true it up.  In the near future may have to look at these deferrals.
Mike Gilmore asked about a date certain?
**Commissioners decided they don't want a date on it but say the time is coming.
Commissioner Miller said the deferrals have always been
-8-
subject to review for prudency.  The longer it drags on, the less prudent it would be.  That is good rationale.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 12th day of January, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw
0136M