19930625.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
June 25, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members, Scott Woodbury, Don Howell, Tonya Clark, Randy Lobb, Treva Pline, Beverly Barker, Syd Lansing, Birdelle Brown, Joe Cusick, Gary Richardson Marge Maxwell, Jim Long, Keith Hessing, Madonna Faunce, Eileen Benner, Stephanie Miller, Don Oliason and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Walt Sorg of GTE and Woody Richards, Attorney at Law.
Commissioner Smith called the meeting to order.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated June 25, 1993.
After brief discussion, Agenda was approved.
2.  Keith Hessing's June 18, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Prairie Service Area Tariff - Idaho Power Tariff Advice 93-2.
Company submitted revised tariff.  Took off the effective date of July 1992.  They did revise that language.  Asked for effective date of July 6.
Commissioner Smith asked about notice to the customers?
Keith Hessing responded.  Said he didn't understand that there would be anyone who would comment.
Commissioner Miller asked what the Prairie Transition Board is?
Keith Hessing responded.  Thought it represented prior owners of the system (Prairie Power).
Commissioner Miller said on that assumption, he would approve the tariff.
Approved.
In attendance at this time were:  Bill Eastlake, Don Howell, Belinda Anderson and Tom Faull.
3.  Joe Cusick's 6-21-93 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice No. 93-09 - Service Performance Guarantee.
Commissioner Smith asked if we wanted to do our own press release or ask the company to put something out?
Commissioner Nelson said that was also his question.
-2-
Joe Cusick said GTE will be doing a customer information notice; will be doing bill inserts.  
Okayed company notification.
4.  Beverly Barker's June 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Proposed Revision to UP&L's Electric Service Schedule No. 14, Temporary Service Connection Facilities.
Commissioner Nelson said it appeared to be appropriate.
Approved.
5.  Marge Maxwell's June 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  David Foutz's Complaint.
Staff was asked - is the question just whether or not to go formal?
Commissioner Smith explained to Mr. Foutz who was in attendance at this time, the unusual procecure if you want it to be a formal complaint.
After brief discussion of the matter, the Commission Secretary was instructed to do a formal complaint and summons to be issued to Idaho Power Company.
6.  Don Oliason and Bill Eastlake's June 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp Tariff Advice 93-PL.
Commissioner Smith asked if this needed modified procedure or notice of any kind?
**Dave Schunke was in attendance at this time.
Bill Eastlake said he thought this was an "housekeeping" change.
Only question was on Page 2 - asked what modeling was?
Bill Eastlake explained the terms.
Approved.
7.  Scott Woodbury's June 16, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case Nos. IPC-E-91-20/IPC-E-93-9 Falls River Hydroelectric Project Firm Energy Sales Agreement-First Amendment.
Commissioner Smith asked if the comments convinced him to do anything different?
-3-
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the issues raised were outside the Commission jurisdiction and financing was appropriately addressed by Idaho Power.
Commissioner Miller said his thoughts were just about the same.  Think it is appropriate with the transactions with affiliates at the right level than with non-affiliates, so it was appropriate to require additional cap adjustment.  Thought it was materially provided.  Gives assurance or information.  And whether the project is good or bad, from management point of view of whether or it should be built is beyond us.
Commissioner Smith asked if the Stegelmeirs' concerns about a hearing should be addressed?
Scott Woodbury said he thought Commissioner Nelson's response would take care of that.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the order should speak to that so there wouldn't be any question in the future as to why the Commission didn't do more.
Scott Woodbury spoke to the last point about putting cap on amounts.
8.  Scott Woodbury's June 18, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Avoided Cost Rate--Adjustable Portion Annual Revision and Updated Calculation Case Nos. WWP-E-93-5; IPC-E-93-12; PPL-E-93-2/UPL-E-93-2.
Tom Faull said he thought it all looked good.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it looked correct.
Scott Woodbury said he has heard from all the utilities.
Approved.
9.  Scott Woodbury's June 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-G-93-3 - Gas Tracker.
Commissioner Smith said it appeared that even if there was a hearing held these are not costs we can do anything about.
Commissioner Nelson said it looked like everyone was pretty much in favor except for the Group for Responsible Growth.  Thought the opposition was because of insufficient knowledge of what it included.
-4-
Commissioner Miller said he knew it was small consolation to the ratepayers for us to say that this cost is due largely to federal policy, but that is all we can say.  In this trigger, will Potlatch acknowledge as much by saying in this case they don't object to the pass-thru?
Commissioner Nelson asked - doesn't Potlatch benefit by this?
Commissioner Miller said it seems like it could but they do get some increase here.  Did think Potlatch raised an interesting point that he didn't really know how to evaluate and that is the question if whether trackers are in whole or part a good mechanism for the future and if they are because of uncontrolled costs from supplier, and if the environment is changing to multiple suppliers with LDC having ability to control cost by forcing alternative suppliers, then if that is what the environment really is, than can see Potlatch's point of it being inappropriate because it gives no incentive to behave competitively and doesn't produce any consumer benefit or that competition should benefit.  Is just basing this all on Potlatch's brief and don't know beyond that, his own knowledge, to what extent that might be true.  It is at least a question to be looked at further in some way because if the world has changed to the extent set out here, can see definite argument either in whole or in part, need to do something besides trigger costs through.  Raised enough of a question that it was interesting.
Commissioner Smith said that Scott Woodbury said we might want to investigate a generic case.  Asked if enough time has elapsed for it to be fruitful?  FERC hasn't yet acted on Northwest's application from last fall.
Commissioner Miller asked Madonna Faunce what she thought?
Madonna Faunce said she is willing to look at it.  WWP does have two sources.  IGC only has Northwest.  May have some other problems besides competition in IGC.  Other item is guess you can go out and make certain contracts, or have one year opener on price, to be negotiated.  Prices fluctuate widely.  Do you penalize the gas company because prices fluctuate due to weight, constraint on pipelines, etc., these are all questions.  Said she thought the only thing you could really look at is the cost of gas itself, in the transportation rate.  
Dave Schunke explained the company can reduce the fixed cost.
-5-
Madonna Faunce said Intermountain takes storage from areas owned by the pipeline.  Transportation is figured into that to and from.  Storage is somewhat more expensive unless you can use it wisely.  
Commissioner Miller said there has been this huge shift to the demand charge.  That does seem unavoidable but the other side of it is the commodity part of the gas rates we pay is now wholly at the control of the company.
Madonna Faunce said they can choose.  Gave examples of choices.  Said there are a number of options to go with, but there is the mandate that they have to have the supply available.  They pay a demand charge to make sure that gas is available.
Stephanie Miller said she thought after we do gas IRP, will be in a better position to decide where we are.  Think WWP has an incentive to keep gas costs low because they could loose these customers.
Commissioner Miller asked what the schedule was for gas IRP hearing?
Commissioner Smith said it is in September.
Commissioner Miller said he would like in the order to put the company on notice that we think Potlatch's comments do raise questions that merit further thought and we will get to them at the IRP case and we will be in a better position after that case.
Commissioner Miller said if we knew with more certainty what that number is going to be, would say as soon as it is known, make the adjustment, but we don't know what that is.
Commissioner Smith asked if anything could be said about the price going up after their switch from electricity to gas.  Asked if there was anything in the record to support saying it is still a good decision to change.
Bill Eastlake said he thought the company spoke to putting out something to that effect to their customers.
10. Mike Gilmore's June 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Letter from Larry D. Ripley concerning Jerome County Ordinances.
Commissioner Smith said she was not quite sure what we could do.  County might be misdirecting this.  Maybe they should be directing it to the electric inspection.  They shouldn't put a sticker on it until after the inspection.  Seemed to be a better point to her.
-6-
Commissioner Miller said he didn't think it would be wise to make general declaration.  In the future may want to do something after the RFP case.
Commissioners do not want to have policy.
11. Mike Gilmore's June 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-T-92-8.
Commissioner Nelson said it seemed to him that when this trial period was first set up there was a fair amount of objection to it.  Wonder how long a trial was necessary... what were they contemplating when they asked for a year?
Eileen Benner explained why the request.  Company just hasn't gotten ready to get it rolling out yet.
Commissioner Smith said part of the delay was because we wanted something more.
Eileen Benner explained what the trial information should be.  It is just in the order we mention the trial date.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it was not unreasonable.
Granted the extension.
13. Don Howell's June 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Formal Complaint Concerning International Telephone Calls from Inmate Payphones.
Commissioner Miller asked - do you think we are a little short on jurisdiction here?
Don Howell said no.  Was just suggesting putting it off to someone who had jurisdiction.
Commissioner Smith said clear, logical reason to be denied is because AT&T is the carrier.  Said she was not in favor of sending a summons.
Don Howell said he has confused our blocking with AT&T's.
Commissioner Smith asked - is there any out, here?
Don Howell said just because someone asks for a formal complaint doesn't make it formal.
Commissioner Miller said - ought to find out what country he wants to call and see if AT&T can accommodate.
-7-
Commissioner Nelson said as long as we have determined we don't have jurisdiction, we could tell him to contact the FCC.
Commissioner Smith said the institution may not give access.
Said to say your problem is with the institution and the FCC.
Don Howell explained what FCC would do if they got it.  Said he would recommend the FCC handling it.
Said he (inmate) is only complaining because this carrier can't complete overseas call.
Commissioner Miller said the problem really isn't AT&T doesn't have arrangements with Germany, it is that the institution won't let any international calls go out.
Belinda Anderson explained it is hard to know.  We don't look into international.
Commissioner Miller said if it is a question of what access a guy here behind the wall can get to the outside world, then thats a different question.
Eileen Benner said operator screens any calls to be made from those phones.  As far as billing arrangements, that can't be the problem.  It is AT&T's decision.
Belinda Anderson said she had never heard of any facilities that allow collect overseas calls.
Don Howell said it would be good to know what is applicable for future reference.
Commissioner Miller said a summons to AT&T would get the Commission some more information on this.
Don Howell said he would call Barnes and tell him we don't just want a "no jurisdiction" answer.
Discussed who to serve the summons on.
**Decided to initially serve AT&T.
Continued on next page.....
-8-
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 13th day of September, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0162M