19940809_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
August 9, 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, Weldon Stutzman, Scott Woodbury, Mary Friddle, Madonna Faunce, Stephanie Miller and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Tim Stivers and Barney Hardin, Transportation Consultants; and Patty Nichols of Idaho Power Company.
Matters from the August 9, 1994 Decision Meeting Agenda were acted upon as recorded in these Minutes.
1.  Weldon Stutzman’s July 29, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Petition by IMTA for Postponement of Effective Date of Rule 26.  (Held from 8-3-94 Decision Meeting)
Commissioner Smith commented that HB 2739 passed the House and Senate yesterday which preempted some state jurisdiction.
Commissioner Nelson said he would then delay implementation of this rule.
Commissioner Smith said - she would then postpone the effective date because federal legislation has passed.
Commissioner Miller said given the substantial amounts of votes and the likelihood that it will become law, would seem like pushing forward with process directly in conflict with that would create undue burdens for the industry and would be largely feudal.
Commissioner Nelson asked if it should be delayed indefinitely or to a date certain?
Mary Friddle said there is a state talking of challenging it.  Said it does preempt the Commission on property carriers but not on passenger carriers.
Commissioner Smith said maybe we need to be more specific.  Someone needs to go through the rules and check all the sections.
Commissioner Miller asked how big a part of our business is passengers?
Mary Friddle said 25 or 30.
Commissioner Miller said he didn’t know if it makes sense to subject passengers and not others.
Commissioner Nelson said it seemed like it would make sense to delay implementation for 6 months and see if we want to propose any legislation.
Tim Stivers said you have two 5A bureaus filing rates here and imagine they will continue.
Mary Friddle said the law allows for that to continue.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought we should analyze this.
Commissioner Miller said deferring to a time certain does force an evaluation to occur in a time certain and a re-examination.
Commissioner smith said she thought it had to be more than 6 months.
Mary Friddle said IMTA asks for July 1, 1995.
Commissioner Miller said that was fine with him.  Although his reason is only because of federal legislation.   Am not deferring because of them.  Anytime is fine but to be clear it is because of federal legislation.
Commissioner Smith said her question is - if this becomes law, then some of our rules are in conflict, do we have to do a rulemaking to get rid of them?  If the legislature forces you to pass some other legislation, do we have to do a rulemaking?
Don Howell replied - the cleanest thing would be to clear out the rules which are superseded.  The cleanest thing would be to delete.  Explained it is a legislative mandate.
** Delay implementation until July 1.
2.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated August 9, 1994.
Approved.
3.  PPL-E-94-1/WWP-E-94-1  Kootenai and Northern Lights Motion for Interim Order.
Commissioner Smith listed the motions to be considered at this time.
Commissioner Nelson said in light of the application to transfer this, having a better idea of the certificated area is wise and Pacificorp’s proposal was on the whole a pretty good one.
Commissioner Smith said it appears there is no map.  They should prepare a new map since the old one cannot be located.  Said what she hasn’t figured out is even if you have a map, 61-526 empowers utilities to expand.....  Even though you had a map where they now serve, they have a request for authority to expand.
Commissioner Miller said if we went the map route, it may encompass... it wouldn’t be just what they serve.  Was not sure exactly where he ended up.  But did think the public interest benefits from relative certainty of boundaries and based on the testimony here, could go far enough to say given WWP’s prior action, given some PUC decision, there will be disputes and the Commission needs to take some action before approving the transaction to insure that the opportunity for dispute and uncertainty ....  If that can be accomplished through the process suggested by Pacificorp by preparation of a map with consultation with neighboring utilities, then that would be fine.  Think we should try that.  Is prepared to say now if we can’t get this solved, it is important enough that it should be a condition of approving the transaction.  So if it can be solved through a map, that would be fine.
Commissioner Smith if people like in areas where they have a choice, they ought to be able to make that choice.
Commissioner Nelson said he was certain of getting a map drawn up.
Commissioner Smith asked - do you think that the problems that were brought up about WWP in applying the tariff should be brought up in this case or be a separate case?
Commissioner Miller said from existing customers point of view it is a separate case.  Thought it would be doing everyone a service if we eliminate uncertainty of boundaries, etc.
Commissioner Smith said even if you give them a map, if the statute say you can extend the service, can we take that away?
You would still have the question of whether you are someway limiting the ability as a condition of the sale.
Commissioner Nelson said you are providing some certainty to the terms of the sale if you are providing a map.  Am going to guess PPL won’t cheat themselves when they draw that map.
Commissioner Miller said he thought we needed to try the map process and if we have to, we can take up other problems then.
Commissioner Smith said if you don’t have subject matter jurisdiction, no one can give it to you.  they are proposing the map will be filed by August 30.
Commissioner Miller said he thought the map approach would take care of it.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it was only for PP&L certificated area.
Commissioner Smith said this case is for the sale by Pacificorp to WWP and how a map aids that, is the question.
Commission Miller said you could construct an argument that frankly the Clearwater case... you could indirectly in this case what you couldn’t do in Clearwater.  
Commissioner Smith spoke to it being a condition of the sale.
Commissioner Miller said this is one opportunity to have to address this.
**Decision was - have map drawn up.
4.  Meridian Gold Company v. Idaho Power Company - IPC-E-90-14 Compliance Filing and Interim Agreement.
Does the Commission agree that 3/4 years is a reasonable time.  they used the tax factor we told them to use.
Commissioner Nelson asked - do we want to meddle in contract negotiation to change 7 or 8 thousand dollars on a 1 million 3 agreement.  Either it is okay or it is not okay.  It is immaterial.
Commissioner Miller said staff response would be if you don’t use this new number it is not a big deal, but then Meridian's contribution is understated and ratepayers get stuck with the amount.
Commissioner Nelson said he just didn't think it was material.  It would be incorrect to use 1.3176 and add $8,000 to the contract.
Commissioner Smith asked about the estimate or the actual?
After discussion, Commissioners decided to not increase Meridian's amount.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 18th day of August, 1994.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw
080994.min