Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19930706.docx MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING July 6, 1993 - 1:30 p.m. In attendance: Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Tonya Clark, Jack Taylor, Treva Pline, Jim Long, Mike Gilmore, Stephanie Miller, Lori Mann, Syd Lansing, Joe Cusick, Belinda Anderson, Mary Friddle, Eileen Benner and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Ron Lightfoot of U. S. West and Walt Sorg of GTE. 1.  Draft FRA Guidelines concerning Private Railroad Crossings. Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell what his recommendation was on the FRA Guidelines?   Don Howell replied - wanted to inform Commission of what was going on.  Thought it was one-sided on the part of the railroad. Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell if we did rulemaking, would it be contrary to what they are saying here about the private crossing? Don Howell said we could probably by rulemaking define how to eliminate redundant crossings.  There are some states undertaking rulemaking to position themselves to be involved in this kind of activity. Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell if he talked to the railroad about it? Mike Gilmore suggested contacting the Oregon Commission.  They have been active in railroad crossing matters. Tonya Clark said she and Don Howell have talked to the Oregon Commission. Commissioner Miller commented - at least in Idaho we don't do anything now on private crossings. Don Howell said that was correct.  The way they are going to improve safety is by eliminating crossings.  It puts a lot of onus on the crossing user to certify that this crossing is needed and it mandated some of those projected signing and engineering guidelines in the rules.  We have a statutory scheme of arbitrating... whether there should be a legislative change, that is a possibility. -2- Commissioner Smith said we could forward this to our friends Hansen and Woods and consider our duty to be done. Don Howell said the statute does mention private crossing.  Problem is there is no scheme for eliminating any other crossings. Commissioner Miller asked Tonya Clark what she thought? Tonya Clark said at first she thought - why do they care?   Commissioner Smith said she wasn't kidding about sending it to Hansen and Woods. Commissioner N:elson said the comments he would like to see is we want to have the burden of proof on these crossings to be for real reasons... not some unreasonable burden.  It seems to indicate that the user of the crossings will be hard to find.  Think there should be a way to look at those crossings. Don Howell spoke to the railroad not knowing who is using it, etc. ... with public crossings we have a mechanism where the Commission is the arbitrator of disputes.  Don't have that with private. Commissioner Miller said he thought calling this to the attention of our legislators is a good idea.  Do wonder if we should have authority in this area.  Didn't recall a public controversy. Tonya Clark said she suspected the railroad is behind this. Don Howell said in the last 7 years we handled one crossing dispute (and it was public).  Do have statute to assert jurisdiction. Commissioner Smith asked about having comments in the record? Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Nelson if he thought these were unreasonable? Commissioner Nelson said he thought there should be some standards to be reached before the allegation process is started. Don Howell said he was fearful that they would take these proposed rules and there would be a big head of steam behind them.  Eliminating redundant crossings is probably a good idea. -3- Commissioner Smith asked Don Howell to draft a statement and run it by the Commissioners and asked Tonya Clark to draft a letter to the legislators. 2.  Don Howell's June 29, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Inmate Petition to Modify or Amend Telephone Customer Rules 11.9, Case No. GNR-T-93-12. Commissioner Smith asked about getting any of this back under our 62 clawback?  Said these people are probably being ripped off, but by the police. Don Howell said the clawback provision could come into play here. Belinda Anderson spoke to a contract and its wording.  Bannock County goes back to the jail. Commissioner Miller asked - we do have rates on the blocking practices? Don Howell said yes.  Commission could revisit that policy. Belinda Anderson commented they stated technology has changed. Commissioner Miller asked - what would be your advice - if we were going to take it up in some manner? Don Howell said he would initiate an investigation to see where it is a problem, etc.  They are asking for a hearing.  Suggested modified procedure.  Would have to serve each institute of confinement. Mike Gilmore said he thought we had to respond by a workshop, etc.... print notice in administrative bulletin. Commissioner Smith said she thought we should let the OSP people know and see what their standard is. Commissioner Miller asked - did these petitioners set out a proposed rule? Belinda Anderson said if it is a technological question, OSPs would probably say, we can't do it. Commissioner Miller asked - couldn't we just treat it as rulemaking?  (as they suggest).  Get initial comments and see where to go from there. **Do it that way. -4- Commissioner Smith said - focus is - does our rule allow for abuse by providers? Commissioner Miller said maybe we could ask Don to propose rulemaking. 3.  Scott Woodbury's July 2, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-G-93-4 - Natural Gas Service Agreement--Potlatch Corporation. Commissioner Smith asked if the Commission generally requires prior notification of any exercise by the company of contractual rights to cancel and/or extend the term of the agreement? Scott Woodbury responded.  Think that once we approve the contract, our oversight is rather limited but as they have drafted it here, it can continue on out indefinitely.  Talked to Brian Hirschkorn from WWP and discussed staff's concern and he thought in both instances they would be acceptable to the parties.  But the company doesn't want to approve something that the Commission is going to disqualify later as being imprudent. Commissioner Miller said he was trying to see how the ratepayer could be harmed - since this is initially a private deal... Scott Woodbury said he thought we would have a greater interest as they come to the end of their capacity, surpluses, etc.  They indicate it is now about 9 years.  Don't think our review is going to be extensive.  Think they would provide us with regular notice.  Staff would look at it and it could be noted by Minute Entry and put in the file.  Also indicate that in the company's application in the prior order they addressed all the criteria that we once considered for Insamet and Potlatch.  We never made them criteria to use on an on-going basis.  Think they could still perhaps set those criteria.   Commissioner Nelson asked about notification on Page 5 - do we expect it by one of the parties? Scott Woodbury said yes - the company.  Generally the request is... what it would entail is the company providing staff and Commission that they had excess capacity. Commissioner Miller asked - they would have talked to Potlatch before notifying us - before discussing it with Potlatch, they should notify us? -5- Scott Woodbury said yes - think Potlatch will take any extension the company will provide.  Don't want to get into micro management decisions. Commissioner Miller said the notification requirements don't seem highly burdensome, so to do it that way would be fine.  Do have some sympathy for Commissioner Nelson's concern that talking to us before the other parties about contract extensions, if the parties agree the PUC should be notified. Commissioner Nelson said maybe if the parties enter into negotiations to change the terms of the contract, staff should be notified. Commissioner Smith said she thought it should just say if you reach an agreement, notify the Commission. Scott Woodbury asked - if it was just notification, do you think you would have to approve it? Commissioner Nelson asked - couldn't we open an investigation at anytime? Scott Woodbury said we are substituting the 7 year period.   Commissioner Nelson said - lets talk about denial.  Prudence test in the next rate case is how it could be handled.   Commissioner Smith said - but if at any time we thought a contract was detrimental to the customers, could take action. Commissioner Nelson suggested language saying any change to the contract should be submitted to the Commission. 4.  Mike Gilmore's July 2, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Hayden Pines' Application to Construct Rimrock Reservoir, to Collect a Rimrock Reservoir Connection Fee and to Issue and Sell Securities - HPN-W-93-1. Commissioner Nelson said he thought we should suspend and look into this.  Explained why. Commissioner Smith wondered if the reservoir fit with our consultant's recommendation? Commissioner Nelson said he thought we needed more information from the company before accepting the application; information on their capital structure. **Application suspended. f -6- 5.  Lori Mann's July 2, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Pineview Estates' Application to Cancel Its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Approved sending it out on modified procedure. 6.  Lori Mann's June 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  White Bird/Grangeville EAS Petition:  Case Nos. CON-T-91-1 and USW-T-91-1. Commissioner Smith said she had a question on Page 6 - thought the rule on determining character of a line was that if there was 10% interstate it was considered interstate?  Hasn't AT&T got it backwards here?  There has to be 90% or more before it is intrastate? Eileen Benner said - that is right but it is saying the same thing. Commissioner Smith said she was wondering how long it will be before it is a Citizens' exchange? Eileen Benner said they are shooting for December. Birdelle Brown said in view of their transfer of facilities to Citizens, Company suspended decision to lay fibre between Riggins and McCall. Walt Sorg from GTE said he thought that was correct. Commissioner Nelson said he wondered if EAS should be granted first? Commissioner Miller said once we make this decision it is a long term decision.  Unless you had to bale out of Option 4, you would have to go to 1-2-3.  Don't know if there are other reasons to wait for the long term owner to be decided. Commissioner Smith said you'll never know what they have in their planning horizons.  If we subject them to a waiver solution, it could go a lot smoother. Commissioner Nelson said he was wondering if we delay this until after the sale, have we denied Citizens some due process in this? Commissioner Smith said we are giving them more, actually. Commissioner Miller said - you would at least have the option of saying to Citizens, do you have any ideas on solving this? -7- Eileen Benner said their purchase agreement talks about continuing with upgrade plans as decided.  It does say something about if something unusual comes up, before it is proceeded with, parties should talk. Walt Sorg of GTE said GTE has shared this concern with Citizens. Commissioner Nelson suggested doing it and if they don't like it they could petition for reconsideration.  Said he was convinced that White Bird made their case. Commissioner Smith said she thought that made their case also but you can't require the impossible. Commissioner Nelson said he thought 4 was a good option. Commissioner Smith said she thought it was a good temporary solution.   Commissioner Miller said the community of interest showing was strong and perhaps as strong as you will see in any case.  The problem is of any of the funding methods the amount of money collected from the direct beneficiary is around $5,000.  To fund annual revenue requirements ranging from $125,000 to $250,000, for him that fact is still a stumbling block.  When you make a finding of community interest, you are saying it is fair for some utilities in the exchange to make cost support for others.  So you can find a benefit or value to an exchange subsidy because you can find everyone is better off because you do that.  It is much harder when in this case you have to make a finding that the entire rest of the GTE service territory has to pick up a large percentage of the cost of the benefit with very indirect benefit to the rest of the service territory.  Apparently in one case in the past, 50% of the revenue requirement was recovered from the exchange and 50% was rolled into the next rate case.  Seems to him that was several years ago when pricing goals were somewhat different.  It is one thing to pick up 50% and another to pick up 95%.  Given the fact that there is no clear, easy implementation and given the fact that so much of this cost gets recovered by others, and since, given the fact that when you do that it is a very difficult task to keep under the portion or to not do it every other time it came along, it is a difficult one to opt in favor of. Commissioner Nelson asked about % of Eden/Hazelton costs that are being recovered? Lynn Anderson said about 90% from revenue sharing. -8- Commissioner Smith said there is another alternative.  If you believe as AT&T argued that eventually competition is the answer, you could hold this and work on getting those access charges down to a reasonable level and say if you get competition, then come back and see how much it is going to cost.  That is the other alternative, to say as these people did show community of interest, but at the time being, cannot overcome funding problem.   Commissioner Miller asked about the question of Grangeville being equal access or White Bird? Grangeville is, White Bird is not. Commissioner Nelson said in addition to that we are still going to ask for a waiver. Commissioner Smith said she liked imposing the decision on what would work best for Citizens, what would fit into their long-term plan.  Would like to know what they are going to do. **Matter was held at this time. Adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 19th day of October, 1993. Myrna J. Walters Commission Secretary 0165M