19960220_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
February 20, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Weldon Stutzman, Brad Purdy, Scott Woodbury, Carol Cooper, Allan Killian, Stephanie Miller, Joe Cusick, Bev Barker, Bill Eastlake, Gary Richardson, Eileen Benner and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance was David Hoffman, Joe Miller, Peter Richardson, Mary Hobson and Ron Lightfoot.
Commissioner Nelson called the meeting to order.
Matters considered were the following.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated February 20, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the agenda be approved as submitted. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.
2. Ron Law’s February 15, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Request for Vision Waiver for Jeffery Lynn Hahn and 3. Ron Law’s February 15, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Request for Vision Waiver for Walter Taylor.
Commissioner Nelson said he would not grant the waivers in these situations. Commissioner Hansen concurred. Commissioner Smith said on #2, if we had jurisdiction, we could act, but we do not have jurisdiction. Don’t need to act on this. Agreed that on #3, waiver should be denied.
4. Carol Cooper/Susan Hamlin Decision Memorandum dated 2-15-96 re: Petition to Change Rates for U S West Nonpublished and Nonlisted Phone Numbers (Basic Local Exchange Tariff Section 5, Page 90).
Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commission should treat this as a complaint and issue a summons asking for a response?
Commissioner Hansen said a response concerned him. He wasn’t here in 1985 when the last rate case was put together and if this was part of that revenue in that case, it looks like we are trying to break one little item out and go back - can we do this without going into a lot bigger area? Wonder about looking at one little factor in setting rates, this was part of revenue requirement - that is his concern. Could you actually do that with one little aspect of it?
Commissioner Nelson said it certainly is issue but don’t that prevents the Commission from taking a look at it. Was amazed at the amount of revenue it generates. Wondered if in 1985, that amount of revenue was projected?
Mr. Hoffman asked to speak - said he had a couple of brief concerns. Said there are things that if you don’t see them now you won’t be able to take into consideration. U S West has a guaranteed rate of return but think it targets certain individuals for these revenues. Only non-published/nonlisted are being targeted for this revenue.
Commissioner Nelson said this came up a few years ago in Caller ID.
Commissioner Smith said she had some of the same concerns as Commissioner Hansen. there are concerns when there is only one issue, was trying to locate the statute to see if Mr. Hoffman has met the requirement that he should be heard. The revenues would have to be put back somewhere. Gave previous reasons for this charge. Don’t know if we have a record to make that decision on.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought some issues have changed since then. There have been some changes in the way we would look at these charges. His feeling is that he would be willing to take a look at this issue.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought it was an issue the Commission should look at. His concern is he thought it would be difficult to pick this item out without other things being in it.  
Commissioner Smith suggested issuing a summons and getting an answer from the Company.
Agreed to by other Commissioners.
5. Scott Woodbury’s February 16, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. INT-G-96-1 Intermountain Gas Company 1996 Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan.
Procedural question only - Commissioners agreed that modified procedure was appropriate and that the comment period be 60 days.
6. USW-S-96-1 (Grandfathering of Centrex Plus) and USW-N-96-1 (Grandfathering of Centron and Centraflex System 2) (U S West) Decision Memorandum to follow from Joe Cusick.
Commissioner Smith said she would move we suspend the filing from Northern Idaho. Motion seconded and approved.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there was Centrex Service in 1988?
Joe Cusick said there was Centron/Centron Custom. Then they introduced Centrex Plus. It is the same service, packaged a little differently. It is central PBX. It is the same system.
Commissioner Nelson said under 62-605, would appear the Commission has some authority to review such terms and conditions of such service if they are adverse to the public interest and recommend corrective action. Said his question is can we suspend the tariff that has been filed until we do an investigation? When did the filing take effect?
Response was the Title 62 filing would be effective today.  
MCI has offered one route, so we could treat it as a complaint and send a summons.
Ron Lightfoot of U S West spoke to the filing - said the company’s position was that this product was never designed as the “potential” customers laid it out. It was designed as competition to PBXs. Company is coming out with new, redesigned Centrex service and will offer potentially what again is PBX service. Guess it is just curious that we have a complaint from two interexchange carriers who aren’t users of the services today and does the company not have a right to discontinue a service that we may use someday.
Commissioner smith asked - if there was a substitute in 6 months, could the company just pull the tariff?
Ron Lightfoot responded the new products are being used in the maintaining the system in some states. Some states have grandfathered. Iowa and Oregon may have already opened cases.
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t feel she had enough information to decide today, however we can set this up to get more information is how she would like to have it set up.
Wondered if it would help to have a prehearing conference.  
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there was time to deal with it.  
Was a brief discussion on whether or not the Title 62 filing could be suspended?
Joe Miller, Attorney for MCI spoke to the matter - said MCI would be happy to participate in any expedited proceedings or whatever schedule the Commission set up. Could file briefs with respect to the jurisdictional questions and to the extent necessary can produce testimony with respect to the nature of this service and why it is important to the development of potential customers. MCI may want to be a customer of this service very soon. Company would be happy to participate any way the Commission wants to set this up while it is pending would like the services to be accessible. (1) as potential customer may desire to purchase it; (2) although there could be some issue that if you allow it to be discontinued, could it be reinstated, and (3) even if you would later find that the withdrawal was improper, would hope that the status quo could be achieved.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the company would have to be ordered to keep it in or it will disappear.
Commissioner Hansen said he would like to see us get a response from the company and he felt there were some things brought out that needed to be discussed to see how it affect the public interest.
Decision was: suspend the price list filing - suspend the tariff and ask the company to respond.  
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 6th day of March, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
5.