19940520_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
May 20, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Lori Mann, Scott woodbury, Weldon Stutzman, Eileen Benner, Belinda Anderson, Jim Long, Gary Richardson, Bev Barker, Keith Hessing, Joe Cusick, Terri Carlock and Myrna Walters.
Also in attendance were:  Jim Wozniak, John Souba and Pat Stewart of U. S. West; Walt Sorg of GTE and Blair Strong of WWP.
Items from the May 17, 1994 Agenda were discussed and acted up as follows.
1.  Joe Cusick’s May 12, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Advice No. 94-03-S 94-04-N Introduce 60 day Product Guarantee for Residence Customers.
Approved staff recommendation.
2.  Birdelle Brown’s May 11, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice 94-05 - Switched Data Service.
Approved.
3.  Birdelle Brown’s May 11, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice 94-06 Introducing CENTRANET Class, Calling Number Identification Delivery, Remote Activation of Call Forward and VIP Alert.
Approved.
4.  Birdelle Brown and Jim Long’s May 13, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Contract for Centranet and ISDN with the University of Idaho.
Commissioner Nelson said as long as we got separate accounting on this contract it looked okay to him.
Commissioner Miller asked what do we do with special contracts?  What does this signify?
Eileen Benner responded.  said part of this is rates that are tariffed; part is deviating from the tariff and some are not offered on common basis.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the commission regularly received and approved special contracts.
Birdelle Brown said she could find rules and regs but couldn’t find any procedures anywhere.
Commissioner Miller asked if approval carried with it a finding that it is not discriminatory and that for ratemaking purposes the revenue is adequate?  Including all those things?
Birdelle Brown said changes could only be made if they were fund to be discriminatory, etc.
Commissioner Smith asked if it gave the Commission the right to change rates?
Commissioner Miller said he was just curious about whether he would approve contracts in the sense of making findings that they are fair, etc.
Commissioner Smith asked if commissioner Miller wanted this to be treated any differently than we treated electric contracts?
Commissioner Nelson said it is a 5-year/4 month contract, don’t know how much we put ourselves at risk on this.
Birdelle Brown said the Code says the PUC can change contracts.
Commissioner Miller asked Eileen Benner for her thoughts.
Eileen Benner said staff has reviewed the rates.  Cost recovery seems to be adequate.  If you do want to approve it, they feel comfortable approving it.  These are services that cannot be provided by other service providers.  If something came up, Commission could make new findings.
Think it is a good idea to have it on file and recognize that it is all right to charge different rate from the tariffs.
Commissioner Smith asked if there were some provisions on termination liabilities?
Birdelle Brown spoke to the equipment.
Commissioner Miller said he supposed we could do an order approving it as long as the order says we don’t really mean it.
Commissioner Nelson said staff had asked for language on separate accounting - that is appropriate.  Approved that.
5.  Lori Mann’s May 13, 1994 Decision Memorandum re: Discovery Request in Boise Water Rate Case; Case No. BOI-W-93-3.
After brief discussion, Commissioner Smith said she thought this was just between the parties until they have asked us to do something.
Commissioner Miller said his opinion was a motion to compel would be a waste of time because our order granted it.
6.  GNR-T-94-01 - Complaint & Petition for Declaratory Order against Upper Valley Communications, Inc.
Commissioner Smith reviewed the chain of events.  Question is:  Where do we go from here?
Commissioner Miller said his assessment is we do have jurisdiction to decide the dispute.  Knows he is a fanatic on this point, beyond that he is fearful of deciding cases before we have a full record.  Reviewed what we have.  Think in the interest of good decision-making and in fairness to both parties, and particularly the respondent, that there ought to be some sort of an evidentiary record that would permit a decision based on a record rather than allegations of who is probably right.
Commissioner Smith said she thought we should just schedule hearings (one question is whether Upper Valley is providing MTS).
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there was more to be done.  They alleged it but it seemed that there was more to do.
Commissioner Miller said another thing to consider is this case is ripe for appellate purpose.  Think we should have a good factual record.  Would be in favor of getting more information...wouldn't take a huge hearing.  If the company would file verified testimony that sets forth their view of the world and the complainant can file verified testimony that responds and sets out their view of the world.  Then without too much cross examination you could decide it.
Lori Mann asked if staff should file testimony?
Commissioner Smith said schedule it for hearing.  Deny immediate disconnect and also would not rule on Upper Valley's request.  Keep parties status quo.
Commissioner Miller said on the jurisdiction question, we are deciding that we have jurisdiction to determine the interconnection and appropriate tariff arrangements between U S West and alternative providers so if next time when we get a complaint or dispute between U S West and competitive access provider, U S West wouldn't be able to come and say you don't have jurisdiction to decide.  We are saying we have jurisdiction over arrangements with alternative providers.
Decision was:  hearing in Boise.
Commissioner Miller said - on staff testimony question, our usual approach is since it is a private dispute between two parties, they ought to be able to represent their own interests.  If there are policy things that the Commission should know about, that would be appropriate for staff.  Staff wouldn't need to come to their own conclusion on who is right or wrong on the facts.
7.  Scott Woodbury's May 12, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-94-3  Cancellation of MGC Firm Energy Sales Agreement (Replacement) WWP Firm Energy Agreement.
Commissioner Smith reviewed the case.  On page 5 of the decision memo - yes, to modified procedure.  City of Meridian's position on tax consensus is probably not an issue that should drive our decision.
Scott Woodbury commented he wasn't sure what Forrey's position is and on whose behalf.
Next question:  is it reasonable to treat the application as presenting two transactions for consideration?
Yes was the answer.
Commissioner Smith said - assuming we want to approve cancellation and buy-out, why did we then take the additional step of approving the WWP contract because ordinarily the companies make their own determination on acquisitions without advance approval.  Was wondering why we didn't just decide the cancellation issue and leave it to the companies as to how to plan resources.  If they think it is prudent, they can do it.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think we would be approving it in the same sense as a CSPP.  Prudence would be something you decide in a rate case.
Don't treat the substitute contract in any way.
Commissioner Miller asked Keith Hessing how we had dealt in the past with wholesale contracts with a utility?
Keith Hessing said generally they file those with the Commission but we don't generally approve them.
Commissioner Nelson asked if this wouldn't be any different than the Idaho Power contract with Utah munies?
Keith Hessing said we don't usually get into their resource acquisitions.  We review them later for prudence and ratemaking process.
Commissioner Miller said he thought that was the general approach.  Were their specialties in this case?
Keith Hessing said he thought the reason we approve and defer costs on CSPPs, is because we are in the position of ordering them to sign contracts but we are saying we will make you whole on the deal.  Can see that they want rationale for buying Meridian.  On the face of it it looked reasonable, the savings,...think we are far enough into the IRP process that once they have cancelled Meridian, they should be making more acquisitions based on what they see as their cheapest resources.  Since we are not approving the IRP, don't know why we would specifically approve this.  We don't have any real information that one is following the other.  Although it may be.
Commissioner Miller said he thought he agreed we don't know any reason to defer from their normal procedure on inner-utility contracts.  If someone wanted to make an additional showing that we should do something different here, the door is always open.
Commissioner Nelson said this is an opportunity resource that came available and they went for it.  Compared to what options were available under resource acquisition schedule, this looked like the next good resource.  On paper it looked quite favorable. Asked if there was any reason to approve this at this time?  This is a management decision.  Would approve the application to cancel Meridian Generating contract.  Assume that by doing this we are cancelling all the Afton litigation.
Bart Kline of Idaho Power who was in attendance at this time said as far as he was concerned he thought so.
Agreed by all three commissioners to approve cancelled contract but not rule on replacement contract at this time.
8.  Scott Woodbury's May 13, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-31 - Rosebud v. IPCO - Petition for Reconsideration.
Commissioner Nelson asked - all they are saying is, is this a final order?  Said he thought it appeared to be final on some issues and maybe not on others.
Commissioner Smith said Idaho Power must calculate and offer a rate the way we told them to calculate, nothing more, nothing less.
Commissioner Miller said he was going to rely on the company saying they intend to comply with the call of the decision but in this case we did set out further things to happen before the case is to be concluded and that was to happen within a relatively short period of time.  Thought we could make the order interlocutory.  Allow those things to occur based on the representations that they will occur.  If they don't occur, we can take appropriate action.  It is in our interest to have it remain open .
Commissioner Nelson said if the party who would appeal this case doesn't want it final, lets make it interlocutory.
Commissioner Smith agreed.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the parties knew certain  things were decided.  This does not signal any backing off on the firmness of the commission decision.  It does create a better procedure arena, though.  
Commissioner Smith said on Rosebud's petition, they are reading more into the order or maybe they are restating the law even though it doesn't apply here.
In Paragraph III, we do have the authority to issue but we haven't issued.
Commissioner Miller said the decision was pretty clear.
9.  IPC-E-94-8 - Idaho Power Company's Revised Average Unit Cost (Schedule 71).  
Commissioner Nelson said it looked like company and staff have worked out accounting agreeable to both parties and agree to that.
Brad Purdy said the first ordering paragraph will remain the same.
**Approved the change requested by the company.
10. Idaho Cable TV Association Pole Attachment Complaint against WWP- Case No. WWP-E-94-3.
Scott Woodbury reported that WWP does intend to file a response.  Said Don Howell had suggested a prehearing conference.
Commissioner Miller asked if a prehearing conference could be set sometime in the future and schedule it so the company response would be received before that.
Agreed.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 26th day of May, 1994.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
052094.min