19940721_1.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
July 21, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Don Howell, Mary Friddle, Bob Smith, Tonya Clark, Birdelle Brown, Rick Sterling, Bev Barker, Marge Maxwell, Lori Mann and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Wayne Booe and Kathy Shiflett of Boise Water Corporation.
Items from the July 21, 1994 Agenda were discussed as acted upon as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated July 21, 1994.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval.
Other two commissioners concurred.
2.  Beverly Barker's July 11, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Boise Water's Water Conservation Plan.
Bev Barker said the company is looking for input from the Commission on what the Commission feels about the plan on a going-forward basis.  Do you like what they propose and what is the next step?
Commissioner Nelson said as far as addressing revenues and lost revenues, the residential audits go the furtherest in addressing revenues or lack thereof and will be the ones we can actually... the results we can point to as having a causal relationship in the best market.  The other parts of the program such as plumbing codes and school education, can be for them without thinking they will have a big immediate effect on water savings.  Think public information is good program with long term benefits.
**Stephanie Miller and Randy Lobb were in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Miller said there are positive things that can be said about it.  The state of water conservation in Idaho is in its infancy.  This program clearly is the most advanced in the state, which is very positive for this city and this company and the Commission and since Boise Water is unique and for the largest investor-owned water company in the state to do this is not only good for the utility but is good for the Commission as well.  Think the process at this stage is the most benefit.  Think the submission of the plan followed by the staff comments and giving the company an opportunity to think further will lead us to a good direction.  Don't know if we want to beyond that try and work through the staff comments and company responses and decide who is right and who is wrong, and with whom you agree or disagree.  Thought maybe we don't want to do that without more in depth study of it.  Thought the staff comments were thoughtful and appropriate.  There are still some areas where there is not a full meeting of the minds but it is very positive.  Our experience in the energy field with similar plans the first years were at a certain level of quality and after that they were at a higher level of quality.  As time goes on these will also get better and better.  On the whole, think it is a very positive step forward.
Commissioner Smith said she concurred in the program.  Commented  it might be helpful to the company if we spoke to the plumbing code.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it was obvious the company and staff are coming at this in a different direction.  If company sees it as an area where improvements can be made, it may be a lot of effort that by the time it gets passed everybody is in compliance, won't get any measurable efforts.
Commissioner Miller said we say in the last formal case there are two questions - would it be desirable to have an improved plumbing code in place?  Second question is - assuming that Boise Water would pursue that, probably good public policy objective would be - what would be the rate considerations?  Don't know and can't see right now.  Would have to be completely neutral on that point.  Seemed to him that if the company thinks it is worthwhile out of its resources, it would not be up to us to say no.
If they think it is necessary and important to carry out their business, they should go for it.
Commissioner Smith said on account for water, it is something that should be done, don't care what you label it.  On budget, in the last two cases, we have allowed everything.  Their rate case is the proper place to have it reviewed.
Lost revenues were covered in the rate case.
Commissioner Miller said a lot of the areas of different opportunities center around what is conservation.  There is no clear right answer.  Education, plumbing code, etc., are debatable, so if you can get around... will have a different label on it -  so there is not the debate of what is conservation and what is not.  All activities seem worthwhile to him.  As it progresses it will become more clear as to what is conservation and what is good management and are there differences between the two.  Encourage future program either to finish up on what is conservation and what is not, hope to see progress towards more conservation measures and not just good management measures.
Bev Barker asked if the Commissioners were going to issue an order?
Way Booe asked if he might comment.  Said he would like to think he has encouraged conservation in all these years.  Has groped with exactly what is a conservation plan, etc.  Over that time, Kathy Shiflett worked with Commissioner Miller and is doing a lot of work in the State of Idaho and in the west.  Became familiar with programs throughout the west.  Said the company was not here today to say - give us an order, oppose or propose, just want a feeling that what the company has developed is what the Commission wants.  Know what they want to accomplish, think they know how to get there.  Is what they are doing enough, not enough, those are the questions that run through their minds.  Are not expecting an answer.  Just want to feel the pulse.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it was evolutionary and the company was headed in thge right direction and think you will do more in the future.
Commissioner Miller said it doesn't mean they can stop, or have done enough, need further program, etc.
**Staff is to continue to work with Boise Water in this evolution.
Commissioner Miller said he thought staff comments were good.  Though they moved the company in the right direction.
**Terri Carlock and Dave Schunke were in attendance at this time.
3.  Beverly Barker's July 19, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Request from James and Gail Tucker for Extension of Time Period Under Line Extension Rules for Idaho Power.
Commissioner Nelson said if you start considering request from people who come in after the fact we are going to end up discriminating against certain people.  Only some will complain to the Commission.  If we had to consider requests for longer recovery periods before the line was every put in we would have basis to go from.  Seems it is really tough after the fact to consider extensions.  In this case this is not your usual subdivision.  Don't know where he is in the que; how much of the total extension he paid, can only preliminarily think that if it was worth it for him to do it 2 years ago he must have factored in the cost.
Bev Barker said he did think of that.  Thought he was in the same circumstance as Davis.  Now more people have gotten wind of it and are asking Idaho Power Company.
**Randy Lobb in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Smith said the question is - do we have the right rule?
Commissioner Miller asked Randy Lobb what he thought should be done here?
Randy Lobb said he didn't think 5 years was wrong.  If you have a rule, you should follow it because as soon as you grant an extension, people think they should have it also.  Don't know the circumstances of the Davis case.
Commissioner Nelson said in this case all the property was sold at once.  You have a little trouble thinking people won't buy because they will wait 5 years.  $10,000 isn't going to keep them from living up there.  
Bev Barker said a lot of times it is just a matter of who has the money to be first.  Person who has the money says this is going to benefit everyone, shouldn't we share?  Sometimes they don't.  You always have the problem of who comes on first.  Picked 5 years because it was a reasonable timeframe to keep track of interest.  Was concerned that Idaho Power's proposal wouldn't be an end to it.
Commissioner Smith asked what the difference was between this and the Davis complaint?  We adopted their settlement.  Was trying to distinguish Davis from someone else.  
Commission didn't give an exception.  Approved a settlement.
They are both the same.  One was an attorney and knew the procedure.
Randy Lobb said he looked at the documents filed by the Tuckers.  It looks like a complaint to him.  Think they are fairly sophisticated.
Decision:  Issue a summons and see what Idaho Power Company responds.
Commissioner Nelson said the real similarity was before line extension was put in, Davis knew they had 10 years and Tuckers knew they had 5 years.
Dave Schunke said if you handle this like Davis, all the other folks that want to complaint, do they get treated the same?
Commissioner Nelson said if we were going to get lots of complaints, we need to look at the tariff.
**Issue the summons.
4.  Birdelle Brown's July 19, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice 94-08 to Waive NARC for Conversion of Trunks from Tandem Switched to Direct Trunked or Vice Versa.
Commissioner Smith said if the real message here is you cannot settle interstate calls at intrastate costs, she was all for it.
Birdelle Brown said the real message was that you don't need to put interstate things in your intrastate tariff.
Okayed.
5.  Birdelle Brown's July 19, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Progress Report - Oregon-Idaho Service in Silver City - Case No. ORE-T-92-1.
Commissioner Smith asked what the problem was with the directory?
Birdelle Brown said Jeff Beck wants to write a letter responding.  He doesn't want to sort down that far.  
Commissioner Smith said she didn't see the big deal.
**Letter is to come in from Jeff Beck - will wait on this.
6.  Murray Water Rate Case Application.
Current rates are $12.50.  Want to go to $26.00.
Discussed whether or not there should be a hearing or modified procedure?
Lori Mann said a public hearing might be needed, but not a technical hearing.
Bob Smith explained the concern of the fireflow.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it would be a much better system if there were a pump to fill the water tanks.
Asked about the $4,000 pump?
Bob Smith said he thought there would be additional cost for power also.
Bob Smith was asked about the additional $4,000?
He replied it would be $20 per year per customer.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the revenue requirement question could go modified but if we are going to have a hearing, do the whole thing.  Asked where commission would be if they had a hearing?
Randy Lobb said it seemed to him that you have two groups of people complaining - (1)  rates are too high and (2) water pressure is too low.
Thought the hearing would be an exchange of information.  Staff would let the customers know about pressure.  Then they could provide feedback as to what they would pay.  Are they most concerned about low pressure or about rates?
Commissioner Miller asked if the staff could do that in a workshop?
Lori Mann suggested a public workshop.
After discussion, was decided to send staff to the area for a public workshop.  After it was all worked out, send it out on modified.
7.  
USW-S-94-3.
Approved.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 16th day of August, 1994.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw
072194.min