19941005_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 5, 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, Tonya Clark, Syd Lansing, Gary Richardson, Don Oliason, Madonna Faunce, Judy Stokes, Rose Schulte, Randy Lobb and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Jeanette Bowman of Idaho Power Company, Neil Colwell of WWP and Peter Richardson, Attorney at Law.
Items from the October 5, 1994 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed as follows.
1.  Weldon Stutzman's September 22, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-94-18; Idaho Power's Application for Approval of Contract with U S Air Force to Construct Photovoltaic System.  (Held from 9-26-94 Decision Meeting).
Weldon said the reason the item was held was to try to get an answer to the question raised - why was this filed as a formal case?  Said it primarily was filed because the company wants to clearly establish jurisdiction (resolve any question of PC jurisdiction).
Commissioner Miller asked if the staff will be taking a position when it goes modified?
Commissioner Smith said we don't have jurisdiction over contracts.
Weldon said depending on how specific the answers are to the interrogatories, even if it goes out modified, still could pull it back.
Commissioner Miller said there have been contracts where the question of jurisdiction comes up.  There is this theory - if the relationship underlying paper is a contract, is a ratepayer/utility relationship, just calling it a contract - wouldn't mind looking at the question.
Weldon said there was some urgency to get it done before October 1 but that time has past.
Decision was to send it out on modified procedure.
2.  Brad Purdy's September 26, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Letter of Tim Ridinger, Mayor of Shoshone, regarding changes to the Idaho Power District Office.
Commissioner Smith said based on the letter from the Mayor, do we want to do anything?  The letter was more a status report than a complaint.
Commissioner Nelson commented about the traffic that goes through there - the irrigators were all in there before 8 in the morning so they could go to work.
Commissioner Smith asked the other commissioners if they wanted to do anything?
Commissioner Nelson said he would like to note it.
Commissioner Miller said he didn't know if there would be any value in a letter from the Commissioners to the Company saying although we don't have an open case, there are some problems to resolve and encourage informal contact with the Mayor.
Brad Purdy suggested saying we will monitor complaints or calls and if the service appears to be diminishing, we will possibly look at reopening the case.
Commissioner Nelson suggested further wording.
Was decided to send two letters - one to the Mayor and one to the Company.  Brad Purdy will draft the letters.
3.  Scott Woodbury's October 4, 19894 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-E-94-8  Schedule 51 Line Extension Tariff.
Scott Woodbury reported that he had requested a list of the builders that the company had conversations with, with respect to the proposed revisions.  Wanted phone numbers but they didn't have them.  Got addresses.  Talked to a developer from Spokane.  WWP has a mirror filing in Washington state.  He does some significant building in Idaho.  He has an alternative proposal in Washington and wants to present it here.  Doesn't need hearing, just wants a docket.
Matter will be sent out on modified procedure.
3A.  Eileen Benner's October 4, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Tariff Advice No. 94-07-S, Zone Charge Credit, Case No. USW-S-94-2.
Filing was approved.
3B.  Motion of Commission staff in PPL-E-93-5/UPL-E-93-7 and IPC-E-93-28 - (Avoided Cost Cases) - Request to withdraw filed testimony and submit substitute testimony.
Scott Woodbury said he has had conversations with the parties.  Sent out a letter asking them to get back to him.  None have indicated any problem with the proposal.
4.  Terri Carlock's October 3, 1994 Decision Memorandum re:  Idaho Power Company Short-Term Debt Authority - IPC-E-94-17.  
Approved the filing.
5.  PPL-E-94-1/WWP-E-94-1  Sale and Transfer of Properties from Pacific Power to Washington Water Power.
Commissioner Nelson was the case chairman.  Has the original order in-hand.  Said today the Commission is going to approve the sale from PPL to WWP.  Have made some modifications on some terms such as the acquisition premium and BPA credit.  Have made modification in the and distribution and allocation of 1 1/2 million gain to customer classes as per credit - distribute and allocate BPA credit to customers.  The authorized acquisition for the period is 3 years instead of 5 1/2.  Would have three additional tariff schedules frozen at 1% below existing rates.
In addition, the map that was submitted is accepted per the language in the body of the order.
Commissioner Smith said from her point of view the Commission struggled very hard to strike a balance between needs of the utilities and what was fair to the ratepayers in the Sandpoint District.  Were very concerned that there were apparent open and obvious violations of existing tariff.  That is a matter of great concern.  When the tariffs are on file, people should be able to rely on those.  While $82,000 seems like a large amount of money, it will be finally determined in a Show Cause hearing where WWP will have an opportunity to demonstrate compliance.  Overall the sale will be good for the customers of the Sandpoint District.  Will be able to incorporate this into their existing service and provide good service to the customers.  Commission has struck a good balance in the terms of the order.  It will be a good deal for the customers of Sandpoint.
Commissioner Miller said he concurred.  WWP established their ability to provide good customer service.  Agree that as originally proposed, the balance between companies and ratepayers needed to be adjusted.  Readjustments are not unfair to the share holders or customers.  From the standpoint of the company and its ratepayers, we have struck the appropriate balance.  This had additional elements that we wouldn't often have to be dealing with (competitors or people who live close to it).  Even though we have a variety of reasons we weren't able to adopt all the recommendations of the advocacy, of the protestants, as Commissioner Smith said, one of the things we are trying to accomplish here is the reduction in the level and magnitude and disputes and disagreements and turmoil in the area.  Even though we couldn't adopt some of the remedies, the Commission's intention to propose a severe penalty for conduct that has contributed to that generally sorry state of affairs, should add a lot to the ability in the future because the Commission has indicated they cannot tolerate tariff violations.  So the civil penalty is linked to the goal of promoting reasonable relations between the utility and others.  In that sense, it has a good sense of promoting good conduct in the future.  Commission will make it clear that tariff violations are serious.  Said he concurred in the order.  Thought staff advocacy was very good and the advocacy of the intervenors.  It shed light we wouldn't have otherwise gotten.
Meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 20th day of October, 1994.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
100594.min