19931108.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
November 8, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Tonya Clark, Scott Woodbury, Lori Mann, Randy Lobb, Tom Faull, Bill Eastlake, Joe Cusick, Weldon Stutzman, Syd Lansing, Bev Barker and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Tim Stivers, Woody Richards, Attorney at Law and Walt Sorg of GTE.
Commissioner Smith asked about not getting the regulated carrier division memorandums until this morning.
Bob Horton responded.
Commissioner Smith said to remind the Division that Commission has a 24-hour rule.  Will not be taken up on Monday if the information is not to the Commissioners 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
Will take up Item 2 today, anyway.  
1.  Cascade Lake Excursions, Inc., dba Long Valley Bus Company - M-8020-1.
Commissioner Smith asked Tim Stivers if he wanted to add anything else to his written comments?
Tim Stivers replied that he may not understand the new descriptions, if it constitutes anything put on the bus, he didn't have a problem.
Commissioner Smith asked - temporary to transmit passengers and equipment would be what his client wants?
Tim Stivers said yes.
Bob Horton said he had only one problem with this.  Passengers and baggage..the other was passengers and equipment in charter service.  Equipment would not be tendered in a charter.  What staff had earlier recommended was that the description for express was not supported by, in his understanding of what express usually meant and the additional explanation and a conversation with Mr. Metz would suggest that the applicant has shown that express is justified.  He is not interested in transporting general commodities as a freight carrier.  That is the only other thing to decide at a hearing on the permanent.  He didn't feel he would need that.  Other item was to try and describe limos.  As opposed to an airport vehicle and transport them to downtown hotel, etc.  Didn't feel he had justified a limo, in our thinking.  In a phone conversation Metz indicated he didn't want to do that either.
-2-
Tim Stivers said the main problem is the Commission has not defined their new authority descriptions.  He has asked for that to be described.  Indicated he represents a lot of taxis in Nevada.  Limo service is granted by the Nevada PSC and that is unrestricted as to numbers.  Limos become whatever.  We don't have an active definition of limo.  If he wants to put on a station wagon, is that going to be a limo?  Is interested in the temporary going through and we can resolve... is interested in what he can do.
Commissioner Miller asked - for today's decision, granting temporary authority as clarified by Bob, would be adequate?
Tim Stivers said no.  The equipment would only be the incidental of a charter.
Bob Horton said he needs express and he has justified it to this point.
Passengers and express are adequate.
Commissioner Nelson asked - does he have equipment to transport people?
Tim Stivers replied he has two busses.  He has two vans and a passenger vehicle also.  He has not added those in right now.  Right now he only intends to use the busses but will add the others as necessary.
Commissioner Nelson said he would recommend temporary for passengers and baggage, passengers and equipment in charter service, express parcels.
**Passengers and express gets it all.
Tonya Clark commented it is not appropriate to put in the vehicle description.
Commissioner Nelson said he would move approve of the rest of the items on the November 8, 1993 Regulated Carrier Division Agenda.
2.  Mary Friddle's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Request from Caldwell Transportation, Inc.
Commissioner Miller said he wondered procedurally what the right thing to do was - something more than revoking voluntary suspension because the company is adding a new route.  Seems like you need an order amending their authority to add Bogus Basin and return commuter.
-3-
**Amend our order that approved the request for suspension,  order to reinstate the authority and add the new authority.  Make it contingent upon the signing of the contract.
Commissioner Miller said someone needs to look at it for procedure.
3.  Scott Woodbury's November 3, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-29 -- Earth Power Energy & Minerals, Inc.  Petition for Reconsideration/Cross Petition for Reconsideration.
Commissioner Miller said his initial thought was either it would be better if we deny the reconsideration of Earth Power and have them if necessary file a new complaint because the pleadings were very jumbled in the last case, to re-establish that case... complaint didn't set forth what it was relying on and assume it was prepared without legal help.  What we need is a properly-prepared complaint and assume that if there is a grandfathering question we could say for grandfathering purpose, this new case could relate back to the first complaint.
Commissioner Nelson said - or we could say we consider grandfathering in their negotiations.
Commissioner Miller said allow them whatever has occurred to this point will not be counted against them regarding grandfathering.  Regarding Idaho Power stuff, would defer all of that until we have the new complaint with everything properly set up procedurally and then we can decide what we are going to do with their request.  Just get a new case started and see what goes.  That is what he thought.
Deny the petition for reconsideration and invite them to refile - specifically set out what they want.
Agreed.
4.  Scott Woodbury's November 3, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-E-93-7  Petition for Declaratory Ruling.
Commissioner Nelson said he would rather stay out of this.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the staff comments along with the brief of the petitioner were adequate to persuade him that there should be a declaratory ruling affirming the points on Page 2 of the Decision Memorandum.  It is not a public utility.  This is not public utility property.  Therefore there can't be a sale of public utility property.
-4-
Commissioner Nelson said when it was looked at earlier it was found that it only generates a couple of months a year.
**John Souba of U S West was in attendance at this time.
5.  Birdelle Brown's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Advice 93-09-N to Replace Existing I.P.U.C. 13, Private Line Transport Services Tariff, effective November 14, 1993.
Approved.
6.  Don Howell's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Consolidating the U S West-Union Telephone Case to Purchase the Afton Exchange and Silver Star's Request for an Expanded Certificated Service Area, Case Nos. USW-S-93-5 and SIL-T-93-1.
Commissioner Smith explained Don Howell's proposal.
Commissioner Miller said Commission could grant this notice of consolidation that is proposed and if sometime later there is need to serve it on the "world" we could do that.
Commissioner Smith commented it is not new territory.
Approved.
7.  Lori Mann's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE's Caller ID Tariff; Case No. GTE-T-93-3.
Commissioner Nelson had a question on staff's recommendation of $1.00 for call trace.  Should it be cost based?
Birdelle Brown replied - GTE submitted some cost analyses that were not cost based, but market based.  Based on some of the things we have talked about before on call trace, is the only reason for charging for call trace.  With manual, it is a lot more work and they don't charge for it.  They have new automatic and they now want to charge for it.  Only reason for the charge is to keep people from abusing it.  Difference is $2 or $1.  $1 seems to be the going rate.
Commissioner Nelson asked what standard staff thought the Commission should be applying here - cost or market?
Birdelle Brown said that was tough.  Have tried to look at GTE as it was based because they are regulated.  The last GTE tariff we talked about - if they are making a profit, the rates are okay.  Thought then it was okay for it to be market based.  Based on that conversation, didn't challenge this.  Are not sure they are covering cost.
-5-
Commissioner Miller said he didn't have a problem with call trace pricing.  If you assumed the total revenue requirement had to be covered by each of the services, that wouldn't be true.  On per transaction basis it is price.  From a pricing philosophy point of view, think pricing call trace as low as we can is a good idea.  Liked the $1.00.  Question he had was whether staff's recommendation on Star 67 question was to withhold approval of the tariff until that is solved which apparently Washington has done or to approve the tariff with recommendation that the company try and get this problem fixed within a reasonable time.
**Eileen Benner was in attendance at this time.
Birdelle Brown explained staff's recommendation.  Said staff would like to encourage GTE to get this thing done.  Would like to see U S West do it also.
Commissioner Smith asked if there have been any complaint on how this works?  Asked if U S West had that?  Said the way U S West is offering it if you have line blocking, that is it.
Birdelle Brown explained the GTE offering.
Commissioner Miller said he now doesn't understand what he thought the problem was.
Birdelle Brown said GTE when they introduced their product in Washington and Oregon, had it so a *67 would toggle, the opposite of what you had prescribed to.  So they withdrew it in Oregon and Washington withheld it.  There are a number of services coming up where people won't accept if it is blocked.
Commissioner Smith asked what they want to do in Idaho?  Same as U S West?  
Staff wants to encourage them to come up with another code that would unblock line blocking.
Questions:
#1 - Yes.  $2 - Yes.  #3 - Yes.  #4.  Okayed - adequate customer education.
#5 - Encouraged.  and #6 - No.
8.  Lori Mann's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Boise Water's Application to Revise its Certificate; Case No. BOI-W-93-2.
-6-
Commissioner Miller said he thought it was fine with all the caveats of staff.
Commissioner Nelson asked - how can you argue it isn't prudent to serve customers?
Randy Lobb explained the new well is just for fire protection for the Birds of Prey area.  There should be some recovery.
Approved.
9.  Lori Mann's November 4, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Federal Electric Utility Ratemaking Standard Dealing with Integrated Resource Planning in PURPA Section 111(d)(7); Case No. GNR-E-93-3.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought what we did on integrated resource management was adequate.
Commissioner Miller said he had two topics on this one.  Liked the discussion on the renewables and just wanted to be sure staff felt the approach suggested here (general encouragement) is really enough or if we should think about set asides like Monsanto or other more agressive approaches to renewables.  Maybe Bill Eastlake could discuss that.
Bill Eastlake said personally he would like to see it mentioned because it offers more force to our insistence that they be looked at more seriously .  Is real hesitant to require certain amount.  Monsanto seemed to be the strongest way of saying it without requiring it.  That is a way to put the policy position a little stronger.  At this point the thing we need in Idaho is a little bit more Idaho-specific explanation of what resource is and if it is cost-effective.  The other utilities have just given us 8-year old Power Council analysis and said it is not cost effective.  Don't like the prejudice of we have to have renewables right now.  Think word from the Commission would get them to looking harder.
Commissioner Miller asked - so do you think the standard needs to be rewritten or should we comment on that?
Bill Eastlake replied - make that formal statement in any case before us that deals with resource options for the future.  Looked back over the 22999 order - there is no mention of any renewables, that is the place it would go.  That brings up another question that has been of some confusion.  That is whether our resource planning order needs to be in a set of rules at some point in future.
-7-
Mike Gilmore seemed to be thinking that way.  That would be a place to put in renewables.  Instead of using an old order for the basis of that.  
Commissioner Miller asked Bill Eastlake if he thought the Commission needed to do anything right now?  It is something to keep our attention on and the utilities.  Another point of discussion is the question of what is the effect of the filing of a plan and the language in our proposed standard that filing doesn't constitute approval or disapproval.
Said then in the text of our decision memo, we have language that tells utilities to ignore planning document... this also goes to Benner's point where he says if they are given the force of law they don't really have the requirement that the plan be implemented which is required by statute.  The statute says the plant has to require implementation.  Don't know how to handle this.  It is a requirement that a plan be implemented.  On the other hand we don't question them.  How can we require them to be implemented?  It is overstating it to say we are encouraging utilities to ignore the plans but not by much.  That is his concern.
Bill Eastlake said he didn't think Commissioners could be talked into force of law for ratemaking purposes.  Do the best you can, do it in a public way.  Look at renewables.  Think we missed the opportunity in the Rathdrum case.  They heard about integrated plan is a plan.  Only thing accomplishes what you want is Commission being consistent.  Am comfortable with it the way it is.
Commissioner Nelson said you could require that the plan be implemented and still allow for changes for pertinent decisions made later.  You could allow for exceptions.
Bill Eastlake said "must be implemented" is saying preapproval.
Commissioner Smith said if that is the document they are using to test, that is implementation.  Don't have same level of concern that Commissioner Miller has.  Is not inclined to give the force and effect of law.  Don't think we need this language encouraging them to deviate.  Say when you deviate, you have to have the reasons why you did.
Bill Eastlake suggested making reference to changes.
Commissioner Miller said on the bottom of Page 5, language would need to be modified extensively.  Just want to be sure that the planning for regulatory purposes, through integrated resource plan is the same as the real plan.  
-8-
Was convinced that that is what is happening at WWP.  This Rathdrum thing didn't just pop into their mind.
Bill Eastlake said - need to ask when something comes in if it is part of the original plan.  
Commissioner Miller said he would like to see some language that replaces language on the bottom of page 5.
Commissioner Smith asked if Commissioners wanted to adopt definitions suggested by Idaho Power Company.
Commissioner Miller asked - didn't we decide not to, for some reason.  Is this the second time we have been through this?  Thought there was a reason why we didn't do that the first time.  Thought it was that we thought by doing that it would help Idaho Power improve on their argument that integrated resource was part of its Resource Planning?
Bill Eastlake responded.
Commissioner Miller said he thought we should overlook it.
10. Lori Mann's November 3, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Federal Electric Utility Ratemaking Standard Dealing with Investments and Conservation and Demand Management in PURPA 111(d)(8); Case No. GNR-E-93-4.
Decision was it is correct as is.
11. Lori Mann's November 4, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Federal Electric Utility Ratemaking Standard Dealing with Energy Efficiency Investments in Power Generation and Supply in PURPA Section 11(d)(9); Case No. GNR-E-93-5.
Okayed.
12. Terri Carlock's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Annual Determination of the Interest Rates on Deposits Collected from Customers for the Calendar Year 1994.
Approved.
13. Terri Carlock and Eric Werner's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Intermountain Gas Company Reauthorization of Existing Debt Line - Case N. INT-G-93-3.
Approved.
-9-
14. Lori Mann's November 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. USW-S-92-3; Bannock County EAS.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the proposed order did a good job of putting in what happened at the hearing plus putting in the Commission's inclinations.
Lori Mann talked to U S West about Rate Group I change.  Mary Hobson was contacted about that.
John Souba said there may be a slight delay.  Said billing people are saying it is not a simple table change.  There are also impacts.  They have a request into the programmers and don't have an answer on implementation date.  Need 10 days to get implementation date.
Commissioner Smith asked if the billing problem was they could increase local rates but couldn't take off the toll?
John Souba said yes.  Company is asking for 10 days for implementation plan - create toll free on one day and implement on the next.  Would provide both those dates if he could have 10 days.
Commissioner Smith asked for implementation of toll free by Christmas.
Order will provide for a plan in 10 days.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 28th day of December, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0183M