19960703_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
July 3, 1996 - 9:30 a.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Susan Hamlin, Bob Smith, Lynn Anderson, Bev Barker, Birdelle Brown, Marge Maxwell, Dave Schunke, Gary Richardson, Ron Law, Tonya Clark and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jeanette Bowman of Idaho Power Company; Joe Miller, Attorney at Law, Tom Dukich of WWP and Conley Ward, Attorney at Law.
Items from the July 3, 1996 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed as follows.
1. Susan Hamlin/Syd Lansing June 26, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Modified Procedure for U S West Revenue Sharing Report - Case No. USW-S-96-3.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to send it out on modified procedure.
Commissioners Hansen and Nelson concurred.
2. Marge Maxwell’s July 1, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Intermountain Gas Company’s Request to Increase “Returned Check Charge”, Tariff Advice No. 1.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the filing. Commissioner Nelson said he was opposed to this filing. Commissioner Hansen said he would support Commissioner Smith’s motion.  Approved two to one.
3. Marge Maxwell’s July 1, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Company’s Tariff Advice No. 96-04 Revision to Schedule 95 to Reflect New Franchise Fee for City of Inkom.  
Commissioner Smith said she would approve accepting this schedule for filing. Commissioners Hansen and Nelson concurred.
4. UWI-W-96-2 United Water Rate Case - $l,ll6,352 or 5.3% increase. discussion re: Procedure. (SW)
Scott reviewed the filing. Application was filed June 19. It contained no requested effective date.  Asked that hearing be held. Company is ready. Company witness even referred to modified procedure. Scott recommended setting it for prehearing conference. Suggested July 17. If not then, would have to be in August. Wanted to get a notice out soon. Other issue is procedurally, the order on hook-up fees said the company should address this in their next rate case. Question is: does the Commission want to direct the company to make a supplemental filing as part of this case or perhaps file a separate case with simultaneous tracking?  
Scott asked Joe Miller, Attorney for UWI about supplemental filing - how long would it take to prepare?
Joe Miller said it was not clear at the time of the filing of the rate case - what should be done on hook-up fees - thought general rate case could proceed.
Commissioner Smith asked what the purpose of the prehearing was  - was more involved than just scheduling? If it is just scheduling, don’t see the purpose of a prehearing. On hook-up fee, if they just supplement the rate filing, whether it is to apply uniform percentage or whatever, then they should get that in and do it all together. don’t see a need for another case.
Scott Woodbury said as far as prehearing, didn’t see anything involved by scheduling.  
**Decision was to allow the company to make their amended filing and notice it up. Expect amended filing to be part of the notice of filing/notice of application.
Joe Miller asked if a notice could go out now setting intervention time.
**Details are to be worked out with the attorney on the case.
As an additional item - Scott Woodbury asked if United Water could file their rebuttal testimony in the Warm Springs Water/United Water case on Monday rather than Friday - hearing in the 16th of July.
Commissioners granted request.
Additional Item - Union Pacific Notice of Intent to Abandon One half Mile of New Meadows Branch Near Weiser - UP-RR-96-1.
Commissioner Hansen asked if this was investigated?
Ron Law reported he visited with the City of Weiser and a Washington County Commissioner and had someone look at the track. There are no shippers. Visited with DOT because Highway 95 crosses it. They have a proposed project that goes through - it will eliminate that crossing. Investigation has not turned up anyone opposed to the abandonment.  
Decision to put out on modified procedure was approved by all Commissioners.
5. Scott Woodbury’s July 2, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-96-2 - Schedule 26 - Experimental Direct Access Delivery Service.
Commissioner Hansen commented he thought there were some issues presented in this Schedule 26 that probably should be addressed before we proceed with this experiment. Think Idaho Power and Potlatch brought up some interesting issues. would feel more comfortable if we investigated this. When we start an experiment - when it is completed Commission should be in a position to act   As Commission haven’t proceeded into the area of competition far enough to start experiments with just certain classes. This is for one particular class of customers, have a concern - we have other classes, commend WWP for coming up with new ideas and we as a Commission have to look at things in a new way - there are changes, but is concerned we are going into an experiment and we are not ready. Would like to see us take a little bit more time to look at the legal ramifications as well as some of the other issues involved. right now is concerned with approving it now.
Commissioner Nelson asked Commissioner Hansen if one of his concerns is that we are not getting the reporting at the end of the experiment - or are you wondering if we have the authority to do it?
Commissioner Hansen said the reporting  at the end didn’t bother him as much as - do we need to make changes in the code, do we look at the design of the rates and where we have issues like that, what involvement would be required from competitors with the rates...being new on the commission, these are the issues he would like to see clarified, plus the fact maybe it will be in the best judgement to take one class at a time but he is worried about moving into an experiment with one class when we haven’t looked at the total picture. When you have an experiment, when it ends, you had better be ready to act and don’t think we are quite ready.
Commissioner Smith said he was kind of where Commissioner Hansen was. Would like more information. Legal issues raised by Idaho Power Company were interesting and think they should be addressed and we could do them quickly enough to not delay the experiment and thought Potlatch had issues to bring up and we are the only forum to do that. Would appreciate having people in the room and have the opportunity to ask them rather than having a paper in front of her.
commissioner Nelson ask - if we are going to do it quickly, wonder about filing testimony?
Commissioner Smith said Potlatch suggested they could file 3 weeks after the company. Washington has approved it and we could sit back and see what would happen there. If Idaho customers want to be a part of this, want to give them an opportunity.
Commissioner Nelson said he was also uncomfortable with some of the issues. Would be in favor of some kind of expedited process; getting some scheduling today. Scott Woodbury could get together with the company and Potlatch and get it noticed.
Tom Dukich of Water Power said the Company is prepared to address price issues at this time. Explained the experiment. There is no cost shifting.   Do like the idea of oral argument to address issues. Reason for the filing was not to solve all the issues. No use solving problems you don’t need to solve. Learning by doing is the best way. Otherwise it may drag on for years. Right now think the legal issues are minimal - there is no harm done to anyone. There is a “no harm” provision. Company thinks legal issues can be addressed. In the interim a lot would be learned from the experiment. Company intent was not to trigger cost of service now. If we are going to do that we will not present this as an experiment.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there were enough questions raised that we can’t approve this today, don’t know that we have enough agreement to schedule, either.
Conley Ward for Potlatch, WWP and staff will discuss further action. Matter will be held at this time.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 10th day of July, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary