19930923.docx

MINUTE OF DECISION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Lori Mann, Tonya Clark, Gary Richardson, Birdelle Brown, Eileen Benner and Myrna Walters.  
Items from the September 23, 1993 Published Agenda were considered as follows.
1.  Brad Purdy's September 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-W-93-1, Twenty Mile Creek (Complaint filed by members and customers of Twenty Mile Creek Water Association, Inc.)
Commissioner Miller said on the record we have, it is not a public utility and the basic reasons for that are that from what he could tell of the record, putting aside the grocery store and other things, that are ambiguous to us, there are only 6 customers who are non-members.  The non-member customers get water only because of their relationship with a member.  So for him, it is hard to find a "general holding out to the public for hire finding".  Nothing keeps an association from selling water.  If the company is originally chartered as a co-op association, you should deem that until someone deems otherwise.  It is what it was originally.
(1)  Ought to assume that legal documents are what they are.
(2)  Shouldn't go about converting private into public just because you think it would be fun to do.  If there should be a special burden of proof on someone making you conclude that circumstance is not performance, didn't think they got that done.  Concluded they are not a utility.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought they also took as much precaution as they could to try and maintain their status.  Agreements seemed pretty clear they were special agreements for a limited time, it was never their intent to hold themselves out to the general public.
Commissioner Smith said she agreed with both of the other Commissioners.  In regard to the users whose use is not consistent with the articles of incorporation and by-laws, they have an action against the board that is outside the by-laws and articles and that is not an action to take up before us.  Didn't think there was anything we have any jurisdiction over.
**No jurisdiction.
-2-
Commissioner Miller asked - what did we contemplate in terms of getting an order out?  His impression was they are due in Court tomorrow.  It may be helpful to have something that they could have in their hands for the judge.  
**Thought the Sept. 24 date is not the court date.  Staff is to check to see if something is needed in writing.  Thought Memo had a good foundation for the order.
**Keith Hessing, Dave Schunke, Bill Eastlake and Randy Lobb were in attendance at this time.
2.  Birdelle Brown's August 31, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  U S Long Distance Application for Exemption from IDAPA 31.51.01102 Requiring Emergency Service to Access Local Exchange Companies - Case No. GNR-T-93-17.
Approved staff recommendation.
3.  Brad Purdy's September 16, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. UPL-E-93-6:  Procedural Handling of Utah Power & Light's Tariff Advice.
Brad Purdy proposed modified procedure.  
Decision was:  suspend and put out on modified.
4.  Brad Purdy's September 17, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-E-93-2; Staff's Motion to extend Deadline to File State Curtailment Plan.
Extension granted.
5.  GTE Tariff Advice 93-16, Elimination of Zone and Mileage Charges.
Approved.
6.  USW-S-93-4, U S West's Request for approval of a late payment charge.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it would be fair to both sides to allow the comments to be filed.
**Grant both motions - these are all the comments filed by everyone.
Commissioner Smith said she still had the same question she had originally - do we have any authority to allow or prohibit late-payment charges on Title 62 services, whether they belong to U. S. West or anyone else.  Insofar as bills are composed of '62 amounts, they could do anything they wanted.
-3-
Commissioner Miller asked - assume that is true, where does that get you?
Commissioner Smith said it gets her to saying you can add charges for Title 62 but would like 60 days late on '61s.  Know they attempted with the $55.00 amount to try to get to a point where people have had or in theory would have had basic local service but since it includes all charges that people who would have this and more, would get it in the first few days of the billing period.
Commissioner Nelson said in applying late payment charge it would be impossible to pull out various charges.
Commissioner Smith said she is not responsible for the billing system they have chosen.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't know how you would build a program to distinguish this.
Birdelle Brown said when they carry that forward all they have to have is two numbers - regulated and unregulated.  Don't understand U. S. West's billing cycle, so it is not a professional opinion.
Commissioner Smith asked about bill readings?
Commissioner Nelson said he was of the general opinion that the amount that they are going to exempt would cover local service.  If he was late, he was late on more than local service and as to all of the other charges on there, those are, to the point where U. S. West is buying the local and don't know what their contracts call for or...was sure they receive something for doing that, but don't know they remove the customer of the obligation to use somebody else's money and they shouldn't be compensating a phone company when they don't pay their bill.  Think when you get into disputed amounts where it is agreed there is a dispute, that its a legitimate dispute, not just an argument, that they should not be charging interest.
Commissioner Smith asked about staff point - in applying interest charges to itself?
Commissioner Nelson said if you are deciding they could charge on unregulated and not on regulated... it would be difficult.
Commissioner Smith said if you decided to make a late payment charge, why did you leave that out?
-4-
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the dispute was legitimate.  Thought that when we were talking about payment arrangements, assuming there is no dispute over the bill, they are just late.  In most instances it is probably because they cannot pay.  Thought where the last payments apply it is only U. S. West charges, think that was what the $55.00 was to charge.  Most of the service of large amounts are from bills that have high toll.
Commissioner Smith said he had two thoughts on staff proposal.  Yes, that is probably right because they already have a process in our rules.  (2)  Some customers would have preferred the option of paying interest rather than being pressured for payment.  Explained the Cal Davis/WWP matter.
Commissioner Nelson said one thing you could consider is you might allow the late payment charge except those under ITAP.
Commissioner Miller said - started with the premise contained in the company filing that the purpose of the proposed charge is not to assist as a collection tool but is designed to compensate the company for use of borrowed funds.  Secondary rationale being that the revenue generated from this would help fund reduced access and toll.  So went to secondary rational first.  Question for him was whether it was good policy to fund Title 62...by reductions to Title 61 service, recognizing this would all follow through revenue sharing.  On the one hand can see argument for that, it would reduce access, reduce toll.  Reduction of toll rates to the citizens and reduction to access.. will result in other benefits.  On the other hand the other side of the argument is somewhat along the lines of staff argument that Title 62 service and regulated are presumably.. company does have the prerogative to set rates at market rates.  Purpose of deregulation is to hopefully get better prices and efficiencies through market forces more by shifting revenue for unregulated to regulated and by shifting from non to regulated you create the false impression that competition is working when you are just shifting revenue responsibilities from unregulated to regulated.  Think our statutes recognize that in subsidy for Title 61/62.  Even though we don't know enough to know if it it is two subsidiaries.  Came to the conclusion that staff was correct that we should...on their own merits, in taking into account Title 62.  That brought him back to the merits of this new charge.  For initial filing, it was a cash flow issue.  Said his tentative conclusion was based on the record we have, there isn't a sufficient record to establish the need for a late payment charge.  That is where he came out.
-5-
Commissioner Nelson said it is a fairly close call for him.  On the other side of the argument, there is the fact that when they buy those accounts, they know there will be some uncollectables... is this reasonable on its face, given this block of money that isn't subject to late charge, is it reasonable to charge?  Think it is.  Thought reply comments of staff were interesting saying cash flow actually increases.
Commissioner Smith said he came down to the point of not being opposed to late payment charge that is applied in an appropriate manner.  With respect to Title 62, they can do whatever the market will bear.  Did not want a late payment charge for Title 61, the first time you are late.  If the company could devise a system where the Title 61 portion is carried out 45 days or 60 days or whatever is reasonable, could say after that length of time you are entitled.  People shouldn't string you out that long.  Didn't think for her the $55 cuts it.  There are too many people that already have a bigger bill than that.
Commissioner Nelson suggested:  reject this and invite them to come in with a plan that would incorporate those features.
Decision was to deny Advice 93-3-S, ask company to redesign it.
Commissioner Miller said he would look at it when it comes in again.
7.  Discussion of Idaho Power Company closure of Shoshone Offices.
Commissioner Smith showed the petitions she had gotten so far.  Said her reluctance has been that she really believes that this is something within the purview of the company management but on the other hand there might be some benefit to go there and listen to these folks and let them tell us about their service, whether it is adequate, whether company has made adequate provisions to serve them in a manner that meets statutory requirements.
Commissioner Nelson said perhaps staff can get together numbers about visits to the office.  Sounds like the customers are being given an option to pay bills.
Commissioner Smith said it is a very sensitive area for this community.
-6-
Commissioner Miller said given the volume of public interest, we have to have a hearing.  Think we should make it clear in the notice, and at the start of the hearing that the scope of our inquiry is limited to quality and adequacy of service.  Am sure this is an emotional matter.. nobody likes to see their town shrinking like Shoshone is and when you use your utility office, it is the final blow that you as a town is shrinking.  Would like us to express some sympathy with that but also make it clear of what our authority is.  Get that message out.  Keep the testimony limited to that question.
Commissioner Nelson asked if it is natural gas service in that area, it would be interesting to see if IGC has an office.
Commissioner Smith said she would draft a letter to those writing in.  She will emphasize the jurisdiction question.  Looks like it will be November till a hearing can be scheduled.
8.  Terri Carlock's September 21, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp's Request for $750,000,000 Debt; Case No. PAC-S-93-3.
After brief discussion of staff recommendation no. 1 - application was approved.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 29th day of November, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0175M