19950620_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
June 20, 1995, 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Don Howell, Weldon Stutzman, Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Bev Barker, Randy Lobb, Bob Smith, Gary Richardson, Eileen Benner, Joe Cusick, Wayne Hart, Keith Hessing, and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance was Jeanette Bowman of Idaho Power company.
Items from the June 20, 1995 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated June 20, 1995.
Commissioner Smith moved approval of the RCD Agenda.  Other commissioners concurred.
2.  Brad Purdy's May 30, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-W-94-1 - Goldan, Inc., water company.  (Held from 6-1-95 Decision Meeting)
Commissioner Nelson asked what the next step was?
Brad Purdy said issuing a show cause order was the next step.
Commissioner Smith questioned after the order is issued, are we going to fine these people $2,000 a day?  Wonder if they would respond better to a Commission order than a staff request?
Commissioner Nelson asked what the other choices were?
Brad Purdy said there were no other choices - thought it had to be an order to compel.  
Commissioner Smith said we should be prepared to go forward in this case.
**Will draft an order.
3.  Jim Long's June 2, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho, Advice ID-95-03  Requesting an increase in the ITAP Surcharge.
Commissioner Smith said she would move approval of this item.  Commissioner Nelson said he agreed.
Commissioner Hansen said he had a concern.  To him this is a tax. Taxing people indirectly by raising rates to help out the poor or whatever, he objects to this concept.  Realize it is handled in other areas by other companies and it is a standard thing but would like to go on record not supporting it.
Commissioner Nelson explained how the ITAP surcharge works.  They get $7.00 off their local phone bills - have to be over 60, at poverty level, head of household, etc.  Also said the Legislature passed this years ago - in '87.  Explained there are two methods for the companies to recover the amount.  
Commissioner Hansen said he just didn't agreed with it.
Commissioner Nelson said he supports the method Citizens proposes here and would allow them to recover their cost.
**Will be done by Minute Entry.
**Will see if Commissioner Hansen wants to dissent in the Minute Entry.
4.  Jim Long's June 8, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Century Telephone of Idaho, Advice 95-2, Introduces New Station Features it Identifies as Advanced Calling Services.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the $5.00 call trace charge was, is it per call?
Jim Long replied it was.  In his conversation the company said they would do whatever the Commission said, but $5.00 covers the cost.
Commissioner Nelson said he was not very interested in holding this up, would like to approve it and ask staff to take a look at that price and see if it is in the ballpark.  Is so much more than others are charging.
Commissioner Smith said you can ask for a manual trap and trace for free.
Jim Long said they thought the number was insignificant - perhaps 5 requests a year.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't care.
After brief discussion, approved it as filed.
5.  Birdelle Brown's June 9, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Inland Tariff Revision Dated 6-6-95 to Include the Lenore EAS to/from Lewiston and Lapwai.
Approved.
Commissioners asked that it be noted that the company finally completed this.
6.  Wayne Hart's June 15, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Petition/Complaint of Mr. Lynn Stevenson and Approximately 80 Co-signers from the Atlanta Area Complaining about the length of the disruption in Telephone Service to the Atlanta Area.
Commissioner Hansen asked how many customers were involved in this?
Wayne Hart replied there are 72 customers of the telephone company - 7 of the petition signers were Atlanta residents, the others were guests.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the company had mailed out any information to the customers?
Way Hart said they sent out a newsletter.  Company says they will be putting out a second newsletter.  They have the person in Atlanta that is manning the plow.  They have not mailed this information to the customers.
*Dave Schunke and Madonna Faunce were in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought dealing with this informally was the way to go at this time.  Is in favor of staff doing an investigation.
Commissioner Hansen said with the weather conditions that we have had, unless we have an indication that the company isn't serious about establishing service, what good would a hearing do?  What would be accomplished with a public hearing if it is "nature" caused?  Said from what he has read they are doing what they can.
Wayne said he didn't think the community believes the company anymore.  Giving them an opportunity to demonstrate that they are sincere, would build some more understanding.
Brad Purdy asked if the company hadn't indicated that the type of tower they have isn't appropriate for this service.  The community is concerned this will happen again and again.
Way said the company is making plans on design.
Commissioner Nelson said he saw this as an opportunity for good will.
Commissioner Smith said also it is an opportunity to show people that we don't ignore them when they contact us.  Call it a meeting, not a hearing.  Give them some assurance that we are here and they have a problem and the company is working on it.
Staff is to go to Atlanta as soon as they can get in there.
7.  Scott Woodbury's June 9, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-95-3  Alternate Distribution Feed and Related Surcharge--Deer Point.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't agree with disconnecting for non-payment.
Commissioner Smith said ordinarily in the case of electric service, people pony up the money or they don't get service.  It is different from an ordinary line extension.  Think this is a little different from directory assistance, etc.  It is directly related to the service they are getting.  
Commissioner Nelson commented - don't want this to be a statement we were headed another direction, but would approve the proposal as submitted.
Commissioner Smith said she didn't see a need for individual contracts.  Thought tariff was adequate.
Scott Woodbury said 23 of the customers were in agreement.
8.  Scott Woodbury's June 15, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-95-6  Application to Amend IPCO Certificate No. 272.
Matter will go out on modified procedure.
9.  Idaho Power Company's 1995 IRP - IPC-E-95-8  Discussion re:  Procedure.
Scott Woodbury explained this particular case was filed June 1.  Company is putting off the avoided cost filing until the 17th.  Wasn't certain as to whether the June 1 filing was a stand-alone or if it would be tied to the IRP.  Would recommend doing notice of filing for the June 1 filing and can review it when the avoided cost filing is made or could defer until that is filed.
Filing will be under two different case numbers.  Company has assured Scott that avoided cost will be a separate filing.
It is a report filing.  Why we issued notice of filing in WWP was a concern that these filings were getting lost.  That is why it was issued a case number, etc.  It is not particularly addressed in the rules.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought we should issue a notice of filing.  It is not what he expected.
Scott Woodbury said on the last integrated filing it was a joint hearing with Oregon and Idaho Commissions.
Commissioner Nelson said where we have decided to use this filing for setting avoided costs, think a review of it should not be delayed.
Commissioner Smith said she guessed the company is saying they don't have to - they are stand-along filings.  Thought we should
notice it.  Let people know it is in-house and they can start looking at it.
Randy Lobb said he thought it was good to notice it.
Commissioner Smith asked if we should ask for comments?
Scott Woodbury said he would suggest deferring any further procedure until we look at the avoided cost filing.  Haven’t seen an advance draft of the filing.
Decision was to do a notice of filing on the IRP only.
10. Weldon Stutzman’s June 16, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WSM-W-95-3; Warm Springs’ Application to revise and increase rates charged for water service; Request for postponement.
Weldon was asked if this delay would prejudice anyone?
Weldon replied the company wouldn't get the increase as soon as they would have - but they have asked for the delay.
Commissioner Smith asked if the company understood?
**Will wait for amended application before setting comment period.
Granted the extension of time.
11. Bev Barker’s June 16, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  KRPL, Inc., vs GTE Northwest  Case No. GTE-T-95-1.
Commissioner Nelson asked if staff thought there was anything further the Commission needed to know?
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t think the matter was resolved.  Think staff should go up and find out why people didn’t have service in the middle of the afternoon on weekdays, so we have an answer, so GTE can’t waffle around.
Commissioner Nelson spoke to how many calls were being received.
Commissioner Smith asked if we have someone who can go up there?
Don Howell asked if we didn’t know what GTE has and how many calls they can handle without blocking?
Randy Lobb said he didn’t know if it is at the switch or KRPL, think it should be pretty straight forward.
**Will hold this matter and will await report from Randy Lobb.
Asked staff to investigate the situation.
Bev Barker commented what staff indicated to the parties, was amenable while staff conducted its investigation.   Everyone agrees there is a question that needs to be resolved.
U S West engineers looked at it.
Jim Long said GTE still  believes it is the radio station but they are leery of pushing because of the community interest.  The station did make some changes.  There are still problems when contests aren’t being run, though.
Commissioner Hansen said he didn’t mind looking into this but didn’t want to be on GTE if what they have is sufficient.  Don’t think we should get involved in this if their standard is the same as other phone companies in the state.  Can’t see us going in there and getting into a battle in Moscow.  If we look at it, would like to know what we have in other areas.
Bev Barker asked if there was anything different about GTE’s switch?  Station isn’t experience problem anyother time of the day.
Don Howell commented the number of attempts goes up dramatically with redial, etc.
Randy Lobb will look at it.
**Follow it for a couple of months.
12. Lori Mann’s June 16, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Packsaddle Development Corporation; Case No. GNR-W-95-1.
Commissioner Smith said she thought staff should go to Driggs.  do an informational meeting, explain rate proposal and try to talk the homeowners into forming an association.
Bob Smith said he talked to a customer.  Asked his opinion about reaching a settlement?  Potential for formation of homeowners association?  He indicated there is a potential for settlement of the case but thought forming an association would take a year or so.  In the interim, felt we would probably end up taking jurisdiction.  Told him that if anyother neighbors had comments he would be glad to take those comments to the Commissioners.  He did get some calls.  Basically they were along the same lines.  They all indicated they would like to see an informal approach first before, formal, but the potential for immediate formation of a homeowners association is slim.
Commissioner Smith asked what an agreement would be?
Bob Smith said - a rate agreement.  Another letter was mailed out to the customers about a rate change May 1 to $43.00.  At this point they were told the Commission has not assumed jurisdiction.  
Commissioner Nelson said he thought that when staff went over, they need to be told they either get us (regulation) or their own agreement.  The $6.00 rate is a pipedream if we are regulating.
Commissioner Hansen commented he knows the owner.  Think it was a new experience for him.  He probably started developing before he got information and advice on how to handle this.  Wonder if we wouldn't be better off to go ahead and conduct hearing and then down the road you would have the homeowners, in a year or so, go together and take it over.  Was just wondering if you can really bring them together.  They are looking for some leadership.  
Commissioner Smith said if the company is going to start charging the rate the staff advocates, then the customers are better off if it is a public utility, etc.  That is much better for the customers than to agree informally that they will pay that rate.  Would be in favor of saying we have looked into it, we will issue him a certificate, if necessary, will have a hearing on the rates.  Doubt the company is in a position to put on a case and doubt the customers are either, though.  Think we need to notice the proposed staff rates.
Commissioner Nelson said if in the near future you have a meeting with those people, explaining what you have recommended and discussion of formation of a homeowners association...
Bev Barker suggested a meeting just prior to the hearing.  Then you have informed people at the hearing.  Have sent quite a bit of information to all customers.  One of the representatives of the customers has received the Commission's Rules.  They have the information available.  All the customers have the report.  The biggest problem is trying to get them to concentrate on the issues we have jurisdiction.  Bob Smith has tried to make clear where jurisdiction stops.
Commissioner Smith said her only concern is that we are basing this recommendation that the company should be a utility on the recommendation of an auditor, not an attorney.
Don Howell commented - they meet the '129 test.
Commissioner Nelson asked if a hearing should be noticed up?
Commissioner Smith suggested issuing an order stating this is a public utility and we need to evaluate rates and charges and bring it into compliance with rules and regulations.  Not allow a rate increase until we are done.  Should still tell the company what they need to charge while we have the hearing.  What should be charging?  
**Was decided to go back to the $28.00 per month rate.  New rates will be set after the hearing.
**Company should refund anything over the $28.00 per month.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 29th day of June, 1995.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
062995.min