HomeMy WebLinkAbout19930125.docx
MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
January 25, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Don Howell, Don Oliason, Tom Faull, Gary Richardson, Mary Friddle, Tonya Clark, Randy Lobb, Jim Long, Eileen Benner, Lori Mann, Stephanie Miller, Joe Cusick, Syd Lansing, Jack Taylor, Beverly Barker, Birdelle Brown and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Walt Sorg from GTE and Conley Ward, Attorney at Law.
Items from the January 25, 1993, published agenda, were discussed as follows. The following are Minutes transcribed from notes taken at the Decision Meeting by Myrna Walters, Commission Secretary.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated January 25, 1993.
Commissioner Smith said she had a question about an item on the RCD Agenda. Asked how it happens that Freight Management System is here for temporary and permanent authority, both on the same agenda? Why give them temporary and permanent both at the same time?
Mary Friddle responded to the timing problem.
After discussion, was decided to grant the permanent only. Filing fee for temporary authority will not be refunded. Problems that delayed the issuance of the temporary were the fault of the applicant, not the Commission.
2. Union Pacific's Freight Agencies at Aberdeen and Nampa - Case No. UP-RR-91-3.
Decision Memorandum is not completed. Item is to be put back on the agenda for the next decision meeting.
3. Don Oliason's January 20, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: Revised Electric Service Regulations for Utah Power & Light Company - Tariff Advice No. 92-5.
Commissioner Smith asked about Page 2 - Regulation 7 - if the customer requests a meter test, etc., if it has been longer than 12 months, is it free?
Don Oliason said it was.
-2-
On Page 1 - Change of Occupancy Notice - is it written or oral, or does it matter?
Don Oliason said he didn't recall.
Beverly Barker said you have to call the company and tell them you are changing responsibility.
Regulation No. 3 - Electric Service Agreements.
Commissioner Smith questioned the notice.
Asked if it had anything to do with service facilities?
Beverly Barker said it was different.
Commissioner Smith asked about the last block on Page 1 - No availability of facilities language. Said it was unacceptable for the company to take out all the facilities without the customer being notified that this could happen.
Beverly Barker said she thought that was part of the discussion. It is the company's practice but it is not in the tariff.
Commissioner Smith asked Beverly Barker to contact the company about giving notice on this.
Was decided there should be a policy on this.
Item was held at this time.
4. Lori Mann's January 21, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: ITA's Surcharge Application; GNR-T-92-14.
Commissioner Smith said on Page 1, she would exclude Albion because of their rate investigation because it doesn't make sense to include a company when you are already investigating their rates.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the statute precluded revenue requirement recovering expenses.
Commissioner Smith said her view of what it means is the companies were not initially required to include cost of service. It didn't relieve the PUC of their obligation for just, fair and reasonable rate and doesn't mean pass-thru. If companies are already overearning they couldn't require more.
Discussed prompt action.
Companies were concerned that they not be required to submit cost studies when they wanted to recover this amount.
-3-
Commissioner Nelson said on Friday he couldn't see any way that without doing some sort of revenue requirement analysis, we could turn them down.
Commissioner Smith said she would exclude Albion because of the on-going rate investigation and would exclude the companies that want out. Then looking at staff comments on Page 3, they have already done a thumb nail sketch and concluded which companies show a need. For them, would increase their USF take without increasing end user cost. For Gem State, don't know. Would probably do staff recommendation on that, too.
Mike Gilmore said the statute does not preclude Commission from doing it but does preclude them to file.
Commissioner Smith said - or use this as spring board.
Mike Gilmore said - or relying on another company analysis.
COmmissioner Smith said to pass it through for a company where you already have an investigation going on, is not wise.
Commissioner Miller said it was okay with him.
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Smith asked if we wanted to say anything about companies that started charging before it was authorized?
**Clearly do not want it put separately on the bill.
Commissioner Miller said perhaps we should find out the story on Inland.
Conley Ward, Attorney at Law, spoke to this. Said he surmised that the company saw the application go in and he filed proposed tariffs. Then assumed it was approved. They are crediting it back this month.
Commissioner Smith asked if there was a reason why they put it in as a line item?
Conley Ward said he suspected it is the way it is done in the state of Washington.
-4-
Commissioner Miller asked if the tariffs are written that they contemplate a line item increase?
Discussed the tariff.
Commissioner Smith suggested that the Commission specify that Gem State is authorized to increase local rates. Others will be USF charges. Whatever needs to be done to make sure this does not appear as a separate surcharge on the bill is her desire.
Eileen Benner explained what staff had in mind - surcharge until the next USF true-up.
Commissioners want it handled the simplest way - effective with February bills if it can be done.
Commissioner Miller said regardless of how it is billed, his feeling is these costs should be part of the company's cost of doing business like other costs, surcharge implies figuring out cost of service and then adding this on. Regardless of how you bill it, it is not the surcharge type expense. It is a normal cost of doing business.
Eileen Benner asked if the order should speak to future filings for ADA compliance?
Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her you have to do some kind of earnings investigation before you add on.
Eileen Benner asked about future assessments? Think they ought to have to ask. Expect them to file an analysis from their annual reports to see if they even need it.
Mike Gilmore said they run the risk of having it denied.
Commissioner Miller asked if there is any rulemaking this could go into?
Discussion went back to Item 3 - UPL tariffs.
Bev Barker said she had a question on procedure. Because line extension policies are going to change considerably, wonder if it shouldn't be put out on modified procedure? Company says they have put it out for comment. The rest of the tariff is wording changes only. Wonder about modified procedure. They propose February 1 effective date. If we want to put it out on modified, it will have to be suspended.
-5-
Commissioner Smith said line extension should be put out for comment. Think we should suspend it and put it out on modified procedure. Be explicit in our notice about changes and ask for comment.
Commissioner Miller asked about putting the whole thing out for comment - could we approve part of it? Let everything except Regulation 12 go into effect?
Don Oliason responded to Regulation 3 also. Said UPL is agreeable to wording - after notification of property owner and last customer of record in that rule.
**Decision was to just suspend Regulation 12 - Company will send in new language for Regulation 3.
5. Birdelle Brown's January 21, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: Petition Submitted by Leon Residents to Change Telephone Companies.
Commissioner Smith said her thinking is these companies should sit down and talk about moving these people. Wondered how many of the "yellow dots" on the attached map, signed the petition?
Birdelle Brown said she didn't know what the correlation is.
Commissioner Miller said if Inland has a certificate to serve, how could we change these customers over?
Commissioner Smith said - we couldn't but the companies could sit down and consider it. There might be some room for trade.
Birdelle Brown spoke to the calling volumes (primarily to Moscow). She called and talked to a number of Leon residents.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the names should be correlated - think it is worth looking into.
Commissioner Miller said when Commission goes up for Troy/Moscow hearing, could have a hearing to see if we can get some sense of this from the people. Do think we should let them know this idea of changing phone companies isn't the remedy.
**New Case number - ask for response.
-6-
Lori Mann said staff is trying to find out from the company about call volumes - is it just a few people driving them up.
6. Scott Woodbury's January 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-93-1 - Amendment to Power Sales Agreement Birch Creek Hydro Electric Project.
Scott Woodbury explained the amendment. Suggested that staff contact the company again and have them walk staff through it. They do use .1206 discount rate from '83.
Commissioner Miller asked - staff can get within $500?
Tom Faull said it was insignificant. Could be a timing matter. Thought it was in the model.
Scott Woodbury said the developer has already paid the amount to Idaho Power Company.
**Was decided to approve the amendment at this time.
7. Don Howell's January 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: GTE's Petition for Expedited Rulemaking Regarding Physical Collocation.
Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell about his APA interpretation.
Don Howell explained.
Mike Gilmore said it could be done as an emergency rule.
Don Howell said if you do an emergency rulemaking you have to make a decision on the "physical" colocation. Could in a proposed order, have comments before a final decision before rulemaking.
Commissioner Miller said he didn't know what the correct policy was. If you are going to do an emergency or proposed rule, should know what you think is correct before you start.
If you propose it one way and get to the end of the deliberation point and decide something else, if the final rule is very different from the proposed, do you have to resubmit the rule?
Mike Gilmore said you can't bring in new subject matter. You should have the freedom to go 180 degrees the other way, though.
-7-
Don Howell said there are two procedural things. (1) Most RBOCs have asked for a stay. Stay has not been issued. Also, several states and NARUC have asked the FCC for a waiver of this date because legislatures are just starting their sessions and also hasn't been a decision on that waiver request, either. They did not grant reconsideration based on those dates.
Commissioner Smith asked if the FCC has denied "physical" and "virtual" colocation? Think they have to define both of those.
Don Howell said he thought the terms were defined. He didn't have the full text of the FCC order.
Commissioner Miller said we don't know what the right answer is (policy wise). Think the right policy is that the LECs should offer to interconnectors, connections as good as they provide for themselves. Whether that is accomplishable, don't know. Don't know what equipment it takes to get that connection.
Said he was not sure the way GTE proposed the rule, recognizes the complexity of accomplishing the "quality of interconnection of interconnectors and its competitor".
Commissioner Smith said in usual rulemaking, you would get together in workshops and proceed from there but are in a bind, timewise. Could start work on it and leave it to GTE to deal with the emergency. Am willing to provide a forum. But don't know what the answer is.
Commissioner Miller said that works well when you know who the parties are. In this case you need the connectors too.
Commissioner Smith suggested mailing a letter to all Title 61s and 62s.
Don Howell said there is a notice problem. There may be some knowledge of who they are.
Walt Sorg of GTE said they are obligated to have the interstate tariff filed for the physical colocation and they will do that. On interstate side, would there be any comfort in filing with the FCC, saying given all these issues, we need more time? California Commission indicated you have given states little or no time, wonder if joining in that course would help?
-8-
Commissioner Smith said she was willing to provide a forum in Idaho. If GTE had filed in November, we would have a lot more time than filing now. Don't know if you got to FCC with details, seems to her it is better to show them deadlines instead of going empty-handed.
Don Howell said NARUC is suggesting Commissions write in to say we can be ready by such and such time.
Commissioner Smith repeated if this had been filed sooner after the October ruling, it would have helped. When it comes in January 19, it is hard.
Conley Ward, Attorney at Law, reminded the Commissioners that final rules can be revisited and amended. Question doesn't affect his companies directly, but Commission may have a lot of money at stake for colocation and you may give up jurisdiction on the local side, if not careful.
Commissioner Smith asked if his theory was we should adopt any rule - it can be changed later?
Don Howell said that is why he suggested a proposed rule. Suggested saying what the FCC says.
Mike Gilmore said he thought Commission should call it a rule. Should stick it in the rules for Title 62 companies.
Commissioner Miller said if we shoot for issuance of a rule by the 15th of February, and comments, will that meet the requirements? Asked if informal meetings would fit that or not?
Mike Gilmore said if an order proposed it and it was distributed widely, yes.
Commissioner Miller said - so, envision an order initiating rulemaking, invite participation in workshop and issue an order?
Commissioner Smith suggested also accepting written comments.
Mike Gilmore said - order could acknowledge receipt of petition, receipt of proposed rule of the company, say it will be discussed at workshop. If staff had alternative, include that.
**Cover ourselves procedurally.
-9-
8. Mike Gilmore's January 21, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: Davis Complaint against Idaho Power - Case No. IPC-E-92-24.
Approved dismissal of the complaint.
9. Mike Gilmore's January 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Request for Order Concerning Refinancing in Connection with Sale/Leaseback of Coal Unloading and Handling Facilities at Boardman--Case No. IPC-E-93-3.
Approved.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 29th day of January, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0139M