Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19930831.docx MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING 1:30 p.m., August 31, 1993 In attendance were: Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Lori Mann, Stephanie Miller, Nancy Harmon, Eileen Benner, Jim Long, Belinda Anderson, Joe Cusick, Mary Friddle, Randy Lobb, Tom Faull, Tonya Clark and Myrna Walters. Items from the August 31, 1993 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows. 1.  Mary Friddle's August 27, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Wayne H. Douthit dba Blaine Automotive (Case No. 7913-1) R-V Service & Supply Inc. dba B. J.'s Towing (Case No. 7976-1). Commissioner Smith asked where B J's Towing was located? Mary Friddle replied - Pocatello. Commissioner Smith asked who Leigh Kelley was? Tonya Clark responded. Commissioner Smith asked - what makes us think there is some fitness issue with B J's Towing? Mary Friddle said he only has tow trucks.  Sometimes those can do the hauls (mobile homes) but it could be a problem.  Financial fitness he seems to be okay on.  Financial would not be a concern.  Looking to see if there is enough of a need and can he safely move them, are the issues. Commissioner Smith asked if we couldn't just have a fieldman look at the equipment? Commissioner Miller wondered if we shouldn't have a hearing on the mobile home authority since there is a protestant and since there is a question of fitness. Commissioner Smith said she didn't think protestants could speak to fitness. After discussion, decision was:  hearing on the mobile home authority application but grant the towing authority right away. No discussion on Blaine Automotive - no problem with it. Approved. -2- 2.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated August 30, 1993. Approved. 3.  Eileen Benner's August 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho Universal Service Fund - 1993 Annual Report - Case No. U-1500-174. Recommendation of Eileen Benner was approved - surcharge levels should not change and that the participating companies should reduce their access rates to statewide average and draw the revenue difference, $476,334, from the fund.  Under those circumstances, the fund balance should decrease by $663,524 per year. Approved. Compliments to Alyson Anderson for the quality of her work. Commissioner Miller asked what the amortization amount was? Commissioner Nelson explained.  You have to pay the interest earned but not paid, but it is a small amount. 4.  Jim Long's August 25, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Tariff Filing 93-04-S and Catalog Transmittal Number 93-14-SC Filed 7-16-93 to be effective 9-1-93.  These filings address facilities for radio carriers, restructures and reprices existing offerings and introduces new options. Suspend filing, put out on modified to get comments. 5.  Jim Long's August 27, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Disconnection of Ring on Incoming Calls From Coin Telephone Located in a Halfway House. Commissioner Miller asked - are we cutting people off from getting calls? Jim Long explained how it works.  Don't know whats coming in on payphones. Commissioner Nelson asked - they do have phones where messages can be delivered?   Jim Long said yes, 24 hours a day. Commissioner Miller asked what happens on the other end of the payphone? Jim Long said the payphones will have to be labeled that they will not accept in-coming calls. -3- Don Howell explained the blocking rule.  This section is stuck between those two rules. **Decision was to give them the waiver. 6.  Lori Mann's August 27, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  WWP's Demand Side Management Programs:  WWP-E-93-8/WWP-G-93-7. Tom Faull asked if WWP filed Reply Comments?  He spoke to the low income fund. Commissioner Smith said it was her understanding it was a State of Washington issue only.  One thing she noticed that was different was on Pages 6 and 7 of the Decision Memo.   It speaks to avoided cost in Washington.  WWP says they are proposed. Tom Faull said he thought they were approved since they usually don't look at them; they submit them as part of their requirements to submit bids.  Same is true for the DSM. **Terri Carlock was in attendance at this time. Commissioner Miller asked - is there one lower income issue or are there two? Lori Mann said they are requesting that a low income program be instituted and that it include zero payment from customers.  Staff supports the law income program itself. Commissioner Smith asked - is the low income program anything except excusing people who qualify from participant programs? Tom Faull said it was more than that. Stephanie Miller explained what she thought we said last time. Nancy Harmon said everyone got more. Commissioner Nelson asked why we don't have some statistics on this?  They haven't shown its necessary because people are not participating.  Thought the company could come up with figures on participating and not participating.  One of the purposes was to save money even if they paid something. -4- Commissioner Miller asked if staff was concerned on social policy implications, or what? Lori Mann said she thought the reason staff was opposed to it was because it had not been discussed yet. Commissioner Miller asked if the staff was concerned that taking these payments to zero would increase lost revenues? Commissioner Smith spoke to the company's proposal. Tom Faull said on lost revenues - thought there were two staff positions.  If we tie this to lost revenues, that hasn't been settled and the other is that some staff feel that everybody who participates and saves money should pay something to be aware of the program. Commissioner Miller asked if their first question was whether there should be a low income program and if there is, should there be payments by low income people? Tom Faull said that was two separate questions.  Staff supports low income programs in general.  It is basically a contribution to the low income agencies which then apply that money to the participants.  It goes through an agency that adds to it. Commissioner Smith said - so if we implement it, state meets the requirements of the CAP agencies? Nancy Harmon spoke to the problems. Commissioner Smith asked - can you implement the low income program and still have the participatory payment? Tom Faull said he thought it could be done but it would be less effective. Commissioner Smith asked about the difference in the programs? Commissioner Miller suggested - essentially say we are not making a commitment on that. Commissioner Smith said she thought lost revenue question was totally separate from this. Commissioner Nelson said - continue participation payment.  Is this all part of WWP's application? Suggested tabling it for a week. -5- Tom Faull said they have a lot of interest in these programs.  If we could solve all the other problems, this one could wait. Lori Mann explained the proposal. Dave Schunke said part of this whole DSM thing, included measurement and evaluation.  Was just wondering, there is a sunset on all or most of this (1 to 1 1/2 years).  When you change the experiment half-way through, wonder how much you gain.  Suggested saying make changes when you have the data. Commissioner Smith said we invited them to make mid-course corrections. Commissioner Miller said he would approve the low income component, would permit it without participant payment but would leave the deferral issue as an issue to be resolved later.  Unsure whether we have made a commitment one way or another on that.  Where the company says lost revenues are going to be material, why make a commitment on it?   Total resource cost test was okay also. Commissioner Nelson said everything else was okay with him except the participatory payment.   Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Nelson about low income "higher amount"? Tell company we approve everything but participant payment and are withholding decision on that for more information. Commissioner Smith asked - do you want to responsd to Potlatch's comments? Commissioner Miller asked - what did they say about Potlatch's comments on minority views. All the participants are aware the wiring is going on. Commissioner Nelson said - could be we might want to encourage more groups to participate in Idaho. Tom Faull said WWP made an effort to get people involved. Commissioner Nelson said he thought #6 was something the issues group could look at. Tom Faull said it thought it was a systems analysis issue, not DSM. -6- Discussed reactive power.  People on the issues group aren't qualified to do that.  Doesn't belong in DIG. Commissioner Smith asked about minority view points? Commissioner Miller suggested saying in this order we appreciate any groups that have minority views, to make them.  They ought to be clearly notified that they have an opportunity. Tom Faull said he thought it was unanimous support by those there. Commissioner Smith said she preferred giving them the duty of justification. Commissioner Miller said he thought more information on low income would be hard to get.  Think that searching for that type of information would be non-productive.  Think it is more judgemental decision.  We can wait and see if more factually information develops, though. Commissioner Smith said perhaps they could make some comparisons. Dave Schunke asked if they are collecting data on participants?  Then you could compare that to ratio of low income or not. 7.  Scott Woodbury's August 25, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Firm Energy Sales Agreement - Idaho Power/Shorock Hydro, Inc. Commissioner Smith said she didn't understand the deductibles. Scott Woodbury explained - deductible is now going up.  There is more exposure to the developer. Tom Faull said the company is planning on submitting an application to change. Commented it is a signed contract.   Scott Woodbury said he thought it was out of the Commission's hands. Commissioner Smith said it looked fine to her. Commissioner Nelson said he didn't understand that this standard had changed.  It is all right with him if its all right with the other parties. -7- Okayed. 8.  IPC-E-92-29 - Earth Power v. IPC. Commissioner Miller said after reading the briefs again he thought the correct approach is to recognize there are two questions (1)  Does the Commission have jurisdiction and (2) should it be exercised if they do? Thought the answers were (1) yes and (2) no. His analysis was: The question of jurisdiction does come from Federal Law.  If you have state authority for rate making, the statute doesn't purport to have geographic limits.  Example of that is Valmy.  Said to him you are driven to have jurisdiction.  In the vast majority of cases, the Commission in which the plant is physically-located should be the Commission that exercises its jurisdiction and all other Commissions should defer to that.  Nevada might decide that Idaho should make the decision.  Or they could decide on joint hearing.  So for him then the question is - should the Commission dismiss the present action without prejudice to be re-filed or just grant motion to stay.  Would prefer to dismiss and it could be re-filed.  That would make a stronger statement to the other Commissions.  Can be dismissed when there are other actions in other states. Commissioner Smith said she would concur with that.  Thought both states had jurisdiction but that you ought to defer to Nevada initially to see what route they want to take recognizing that they may defer to Idaho.  One with primary jurisdiction has first change. Commissioner Miller said that is where most of the environmental concerns are but if the state of the location should concur for whatever reasons that it ought to go to the state where there is primary economic impact, that is how it should be. Commissioner Smith said then said she would execute a motion to adjourned to Executive Session to consider Item 9 - Single State Insurance Registration System and the Supreme Court Case, Owner/Operators v. IPUC. So moved by Commissioner Nelson; seconded by Commissioner Miller.  Adjourned to Executive Session at this time. -8- Minutes of August 30, 1993 Decision Meetings dated at Boise, Idaho, this 3rd day of November, 1993. Myrna J. Walters Commission Secretary mjw 0172M