19960917_3.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
September 17, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen. Also in attendance were Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Weldon Stutzman, Susan Hamlin, Tonya Clark, Ron Law, Randy Lobb, Wayne Hart, Keith Hessing, Gary Richardson, Joe Cusick, Stephanie Miller, Dave Schunke, Terri Carlock, Syd Lansing  and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Ron Lightfoot of U S West and Bart Kline and Larry Ripley of Idaho Power Company.
Items from the September 17, 1996 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated September 17, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation on all items on the RED agenda; Commissioner Smith seconded it; carried unanimously.
2. Ron Law’s September 13, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: All Season Excavating & Snow Removal - M-8156.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to accept the request for a six-month extension for the suspension of his permit. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; carried unanimously.
3. Christopher B. Simpson and Simps 4 Inc., dba Bald Mtn. Taxi.
Commissioner Hansen said he had a question. Said he thought it was appropriate to take legal action, but wanted to ask Ron Law a couple of questions?
Ron Law said he first wanted to mention that this was not his decision memo. PUC has had problems with this particular individual. There is an outstanding warrant in Twin Falls on this carrier. These people applied for authority and went through the process. Got the order. Failed to meet requirements. Finally withdrew. It is not like this person is new to the business. It is someone who knew what was required. Reason we are involved now is we have had complaints.  Want to know why this person can advertise, etc. He would suggest sending a cease and desist order.  
Commissioner Nelson asked why we would send them a show cause order before filing a complaint?
Weldon Stutzman replied - only reason to do that would be to insure that we have given him every opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the reason would be to have a Commission order rather than going to court with that rather than without it.
Don Howell said there has never been a PUC order issued in this matter. Many years ago we decided it would be better to set out the facts in a PUC proceeding rather than going to District Court first. Explained how a show cause order works. Can take those filings to District Court.  
Commissioner Hansen asked if we have to have an order?
Don Howell explained why we do PUC action first.
Commissioner Hansen said he understood there was correspondence on him.  
Ron Law said we have done some things to insure that they are in fact operating inappropriately without authority. If this is the policy, why was a letter sent, how long do we drag these things out? Staff is willing to go by whatever policy the Commissioners decide. Need to answer appropriately when these inquiries come in. Need to know exactly what we can and can’t do.
Commissioner Smith said she wouldn’t give him all kinds of time.
Commissioner Nelson said he would suggest a show cause on a short time frame.
**Schedule a hearing.
Commissioner Smith said if staff is already to go, schedule hear.
**Will give him 14 days.
Commissioner Hansen said he would go along with it but he did think there was enough evidence to go forward; but if we are going to get going in 14 days he would go along with that.
Don Howell said up to now the actions have been taken by the staff, not the Commissioners. There has never been a hearing to allow him to respond. In the long term, it is going to be faster to bring show cause hearing.
Approved.
4. Bob Smith’s September 4, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Caravell Water Complaint & Investigation (Small Water system near Bayview, ID.)
Commissioner Nelson asked why we waited six months?
Terri Carlock responded - they have indicated they want to turn it over. That would be the time frame to allow them to form an association or district and get on the ballot. That was the only reason for the time frame.
Commissioner Smith asked if any of the lawyers had look at this? Perhaps this is not a public utility? Isn’t there some case law where if you are not holding yourself out to the public, you are not a public utility?
Scott Woodbury responded it hasn’t been structured as a small water company. This was brought to the attention of the commission as a complaint.
Commissioner Smith commented it is so limited an area there is a good argument for it to not be a public utility.
Scott Woodbury said Legal will explore that. Said he thought Bob Smith’s analysis was correct.  What staff has asked is: these are the result of our findings but provide us time for something other than regulation.
**Would like to be confident we should be regulating before we do that.
Decision was to set it over for the 30th and provide Commission with analysis.
5. Birdelle Brown’s September 9, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GVNW Letter dated August 27 to Revise Cambridge Telephone Company’s Local Rates in Compliance with Order No. 26263.
Commissioner Smith moved approval.
Commissioner Hansen asked if this would cause a reduction in USF funding? Was thinking something has to change to offset this.
Joe Cusick said they do show an increase in the average residential line which should reduced the USF funding. Staff will check and verify it.
Approved.
6. Birdelle Brown’s September 9, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Tariff Advices 96-12, 96-13 and 96-14 to Include the New 888 Access Code for INWATS Service to the local, toll and access tariffs effective October 1, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the filings. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; Commissioner Nelson concurred.
7. UWI 8-29-96 Letter request to extend facilities into uncertificated area.
Matter was held at this time.
8. Scott Woodbury’s September 13, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No IPC-E-95-17 Arkoosh/Faulkner vs. Idaho Power Contract variable rate methodology.
Scott Woodbury explained the matter. Commented he thought time got away from Arkoosh. Correspondence does support that he would like to go forward with this. Requested another conference be set. In checking the calendar, thought it could be set for October 8 at 1:30 p.m.
Commissioner Nelson asked - shouldn’t we bring some information forward?
Scott said he had a discussion with Mr. Arkoosh regarding procedure. suggested a petition for clarification. He thinks that is something that should be discussed at the conference. Scott is just asking Commissioners’ preference on this, a more specific filing, perhaps?
Commissioner Nelson said he thought when we had the prehearing, he wanted some time to file something with us to show why the order didn’t apply to him.
Scott said both have contracts which have some variable rate language. Commission made the subsequent change in the variable rate in Idaho Power’s next rate case. Appeared PUC was using different standard in calculating the rate. Was also in the initial determination of the variable rate, Commission had referenced a prior order of Idaho Power’s rate case and the parties and staff have actually gone back into that case and looked at it, where the 7 mill number came from we are at a loss. So that was the initial rate in the contract. We reset it. We can show how it was calculated.
Commissioner Nelson asked - isn’t it up to Mr. Arkoosh to show hy that isn’t correct?
Scott replied he thought Mr. Arkoosh wants some direction from the Commission. Scott suggested a petition for clarification. He requested instead, a prehearing conference.  
**Also before the Commission is Idaho Power’s petition to dismiss.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought Mr. Arkoosh had had plenty of opportunities to come forth.   A prehearing conference would give him time to come back with justification. Think he would be in favor of dismissing the case.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t know what would be accomplished by another prehearing conference.
Commissioner Smith suggested Mr. Arkoosh file a memo setting out why he thinks he is right. Idaho Power could reply. He could have rebuttal if he thinks it is necessary. Also was not in favor of another prehearing conference.
**Will ask for memo from Mr. Arkoosh.
9. Case No. IPC-E-96-16 Rosebud/Mtn. Home Enforceability of Commission Orders.
Both parties contend that they provided the Commission with enough information to make its decision and suggests that nothing further is required either along the lines of hearing or briefing.  In all fairness, perhaps they are right, but we do have a new body of commissioners. Commissioner Hansen is sort of new to the Rosebud history. It may be that the issue is relatively straight forward as the orders suggest. Seems like it just says Commission issued the order, it was appealed, Supreme Court said Commission was right. Now they say fine, we want those rates. There are a number of ways to look at it. More traditional way to do look at it is the law of the case. Go back to Commission orders. Was he required to file a bond to keep those rates? The intervening public interest argument is that the Commission has subsequently determined that the rates awarded were no longer just and reasonable.
Commissioner Nelson said - would have to find that he was grandfathered.
Commissioner Smith commented all we are trying to decide now is procedure.  
**Decision was there was no need for further information - will consider it fully submitted and go forth with a decision.
11. Keith Hessing’s September 13, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Pacificorp-UPL Tariff Advice 96-9 Decrease in the BPA Credit.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approved the filing.
Commissioner Hansen said he was opposed. Realize the system the way it is, but they have known over the years (Pacificorp) that this was coming and thinks there are things that could have taken care of the impact of this. Can’t justify passing this on by a stroke of the pen. Don’t have a lot of justification, but doesn’t want to support it.
Was approved two to one. Commissioner Hansen dissented.
12. Wayne Hart’s September 13, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Clarification of Decision in Case No. IPC-E-96-2 Idaho Power’s Year-Round Irrigation Proposal.
Commissioner Nelson said in reading the order it says that anytime anybody asks to connect or disconnect without 10 days notice, they could be charged a fee. Company filed tariff on this. Said he was thinking more of a reconnection when the matter was discussed. It seemed to him that in the fall when they are disconnecting, wouldn’t have the personnel problem but don’t know that.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought the question was how they interpreted it, a single fee or a double fee? Don’t think we were looking at double fee. Thought we meant one fee of $30.00.
Commissioner Smith said she had the same reaction - when we were discussing it we were only talking one $30 fee. When people want disconnected and they call the company and say we want to be disconnected, don’t know the timing. Same principle applies on disconnect or reconnect.
When you are demanding a certain time, you should bear the cost. Don’t think it was what we thought of. We did only speak in terms of reconnection on short time frame. Didn’t think we were discussing two charges. Don’t think we talked about disconnection.  
Commissioner Nelson said he would go along with this if the customers are told there will be a charge on reconnection.
Commissioner Smith said to avoid the wrath of the customers, customer information will be critical.
Gary Richardson commented that when he was doing the news release, the maintenance disconnect wasn’t real clear either.
Wayne Hart said the Company will spell that out.
**Customer education is important.
Commissioner Smith said from her point of view the continuation of this tariff is still in an experimental stage and if it doesn’t work for the company or irrigators complain, we should sit down again and tweak it so it works for everyone.
Company filing will be approved.
13. Sale of U S West’s Afton Exchange to Union Telephone Company and silver Star’s Competing Applications, Case Nos. USW-S-93-5 and SIL-T-93-1.
Commissioner Smith asked - if Silver Star believes that they have a legitimate argument yet to make under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that they are able to provide service, why would we jump to do it? Why don’t we wait to see if they are correct. They think because it wasn’t completed before the Act that they have the right to compete. Why would we now take up a proceeding to certificate 30 customers in Idaho while they are still arguing in homing that they can compete in this exchange because sale wasn’t concluded and U S West is providing service?
Don Howell responded one of the reasons is because Silver Star didn’t have the opportunity to make those comments to this commission on modified. It was also his understanding that the parties are in discussion currently and there will be a stipulation regarding U S West’s rights. Without talking more about the stipulation, maybe the best thing is to hold this for 30 days.
Commissioner Smith commented about the modified procedure.
Don Howell said the problem is we haven’t seen the stipulation and it was his understanding that the parties were to file that Friday and it isn’t here. Could notice it out and see what they file.
If we do it on modified, could instruct the parties to make arguments in their comments.
**Decided to give them 14 days. They can ask for hearing if they so desire.  
14. Brad Purdy’s September 9, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-17.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to go modified and suspend the effective date. Other commissioners concurred.
15. Brad Purdy’s September 9, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-18: Application of Idaho Power to Include Capacity Purchases in Power Cost Adjustment Mechanism.
Brad Purdy commented staff may have some issues with this but at this point, would recommend handling it on modified.
Commissioners approved modified.
16. Susan Hamlin’s September 11, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Utah Power & Light Company’s Application for Approval for Modifications to its Line Extension Tariff--Scheduling.
Commissioner Smith’s suggestion for place for hearing was either Lava or Rigby. Need to go ahead with this but if January or February are proposed times for hearings, will need to discuss locations.
Said discussions will be held.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 27th day of September, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
19960917.min