19940103.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
January 3, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Weldon Stutzman, Gary Richardson, Madonna Faunce, Joe Cusick, Tonya Clark, Stephanie Miller, Randy Lobb, and Myrna Walters.
Also in attendance was Patty Nichols of Idaho Power Company.
Items from the January 3, 1994 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated January 3, 1994.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval.
Other Commissioners concurred.
2.  Joe Cusick's December 22, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice No. 93-23  Change Interest Paid on Deposits to 3%.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval.  Other Commissioners concurred.
3.  Belinda Anderson's December 30, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE's Tariff No. 93-24 to Make Text Changes in the Former Filing 93-14 effective September 28, 1993.
Approved.
4.  Brad Purdy's December 23, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-93-10; Idaho Power's Request to Terminate Service to Villager Condominiums.
Commissioner Nelson asked why we didn't wait on this?
Brad Purdy said there are two associations.  Explained it is for only one association.  One they have reached a tentative agreement with.  Other association will be voting.  Can set it for comment long enough in advance.  Explained what Idaho Power had filed.  They feel confident it is going to settle.  His concern is he didn't want Commission to be in danger of overruling that.  You could right off the bat say this is the issue, and set it up for briefing or you can wait for John Kurtz' response.
Commissioner Smith asked - with regard to the New Villager, IPC lost in court and they are now saying we want you to say underground is not safe.
Brad Purdy explained the Supreme Court Decision.  Said they are asking to allow disconnection because the underground is less safe, etc.  The associations have taken the position
-2-
that the safety issue was litigated at the District Court level.  Supreme Court has said it is not a safety problem.
Commissioner Nelson said most of the questions he had would be considered in a brief.  
Commissioner Miller said he didn't think modified procedure was correct in this case.  Would rather establish new comment time and go from there.
Brad Purdy asked if he could issue a notice with briefing dates?
Commissioner Miller said he would like for them to tell us what the issues are.
Make Kurtz do the work.
5.  Weldon Stutzman's December 28, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Firm Energy Sales Agreement - Idaho Power and Contractors Power Group, Inc - Case No. IPC-E-93-25.
Commissioner Nelson asked if this was really a non-firm energy rate they are signing on for?  Or is it just what the monthly average is?
Commissioner Miller said he has the same question.  Maybe there is a non-firm purchase for a little while.  
Held item until Tom Faull could attend to answer questions.
In attendance at this time were Bill Eastlake and Bev Barker.
6.  Weldon Stutzman's December 29, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-93-29 - Amendment to Firm Energy Sales Agreement between IPC and J. R. Simplot Company.
Approved.
**Tom Faull was now in attendance.
Was asked about the Contractors Power Group Agreement.
Said the non-firm rate is tariffed.  They sign up for 5 million and anything over that is at the existing rate.
Commissioner Nelson asked - is this non-firm rate going to be specific enough to avoid contract disputes?
Response was affirmative.
Approved.
-3-
7.  Rose Schulte's December 29, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Boise Water Customer Charge for Connecting Service Line.
Commissioner Smith asked about the difference in meter size and the charges.
Rose Schulte replied they have always charged this way.  
Randy Lobb said the problem arises when an individual requests service and needs line extension, they have to pay for the service and placement of the meter box, but if no line extension is required, he would not have to pay for it.  Theoretically an individual could request a line extension... then he could come back in and give him a free meter box and installation.  Question is:  how far back should company go to refund this?
They agreed it is not proper to charge one type of customer and not the other.
Commissioner Nelson asked if they were planning a correction to this in the current rate case?  Is the tariff wrong or is their procedure wrong?
Randy Lobb said the tariff doesn't say they should do it.  Have just been doing it.
Commissioner Nelson asked if they intended to have it in the tariff or have they been charging by mistake?
Randy Lobb said the answer is yes and no.  They intend to charge customers and never have.  If a line extension is required, they intend to charge developers.  They realize that for an individual customer the situation is different.  They are not a developer.  They never thought about it.  They never paid enough attention.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the 3 years?
Rose Schulte said they volunteered to go back a year.  She pointed out the statute says three years.  We have been doing that for a longtime.  For 1993 they had 4 others.  Thought that would be an average of a years time.  Each one was $430 to $479.
Bev Barker asked if Commission wanted them to dig through their microfiche?
Rose Schulte said they are not charging for it in the future.
-4-
Commissioner Miller said if the company has consented to our acting on this, a rule is a rule and they should go back and make the refunds.  His only hesitation is if the company hasn't agreed, don't think you can order refunds without giving them an opportunity to give their side of it.
Rose Schulte provided a copy of the decision memo to the company.  Kathy Shiflett agreed that the company would abide by what the Commission said.
**Go back 3 years.
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 20th day of January, 1994.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0187M
mjw