19961007_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 7, 1996 - 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, Susan Hamlin, Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Gary Richardson, Keith Hessing, Terri Carlock, Ron Law, Bev Barker, Tonya Clark, Ron Law, Joe Cusick, Don Oliason, Stephanie Miller and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company; Jim Wozniak of U S West and Sharon Ullman, consumer.
Items from the October 7, 1996 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
Commission President Ralph Nelson called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated 10-07-96.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approved item 1; Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion; Commissioner Nelson concurred.
2. Susan Hamlin’s September 26, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-T-96-4  Proposed Procedural Order, Summary of Comments. (Held from 9-30-96 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Hansen said he thought staff had brought up some good comments.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it would be helpful to have this set out with the proposed language and the comments made by the parties beside each section.
**Susan Hamlin will do a draft order setting all this out.
Matter will be held at this time.
3. Bev Barker’s October 3, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint Against United Water by Dr. Dick L. and Reta J. Oyler.
Decision was to send out a summons.
Commissioner Hansen asked who was responsible for the “valve configuration” mentioned in the complaint?
Company will be asked to respond to that.
4. Bev Barker’s Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Advice No. 96-06 Off-Site Meter Reading Service.
Commissioner Nelson commented he thought the proposal was reasonable.
Commissioner Hansen asked if this wouldn’t have a benefit for their cost in reading meters? There is talk of one proposal or the other. He thought both. Could have the option of both. Asked if that was a problem, giving the customer a choice?
Commissioner Smith said she thought customers at these rates would pay for this in 3 years and thought it was kind of a short time to recover investment for monthly charge. Would go for installation with more modest monthly. don’t want to leave the company with stranded investment but on the other hand, $6.95 a month is a lot (forever). IF they want to charge that, it should come off after a certain period of time.
Commissioner Nelson said on the other hand if the customer doesn’t want it there is only a $25 charge to take it out.
Bev Barker commented the company was reluctant on the surface to do anything but what it originally proposed but do think that if the Commission would suspend the advice and instruct staff to talk to the company they would be willing to do that.
Commissioner Nelson said this is an optional service so a three year recovery is not a risk to the customer so he was going to go along with it.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought he would like staff to talk to the company to make it a little more attractive. Think we should try to make it as marketable as possible.
Bev Barker said their requests to do it have come from people who could pay a premium rate and combining it with recovering costs as soon as possible, so they came up with this proposal.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it was worth talking about.
**Suspend the effective date of the filing; staff and company will talk.
5. Weldon Stutzman’s October 3, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Requests from Preston and Montpelier Telephone Exchange Customers for Inclusion in the Southeast Idaho EAS Region.
Commissioner Hansen said with the support the Commission has received, think we should give it a chance to be considered to see how the parties feel about it. Including it with the proposed regional now, put it out on modified, if we get negative comments then we can initiate an investigation but think personally the public support meets most of the criteria we have set. Don’t have a problem going with the first alternative.
Commissioner Smith said she thought that was a good way to start. Will find out the level of
opposition. Asked if we have enough information on pricing, though. Do we have anything official in the notice that has been filed by the company?
Weldon said we do not at this point. Could propose it at existing rates.
Commissioner smith said she didn’t want to put that out unless it is going to be what they will get.  
**Needs its own case number. Set up a case.
Weldon Stutzman said if the proposal is to do anything but include it at proposed rate schedule we will need something more from the company. Think we can get that from them. Would then have a proposal to send out. Staff will work with company to put something together.
Commissioner Smith commented - whether this would meet the commission’s standard for EAS, suppose that would be part of the comments filed by staff.
6. Scott Woodbury’s October 4, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-95-2 Garden City Exchange Petition for Clarification.
Scott Woodbury commented he thought that the company had already asked for this language in their petition for reconsideration. Don’t consider the language they cite as being ambiguous.
The Commission can, if they wish, move this to fully submitted and discuss it there or direct him how to respond. If Commission thinks other parties should have the opportunity to comment, don’t know if that is appropriate, they are asking direction of the commission.  
Asked if the Commissioners found the language to be ambiguous or do they want to provide the change.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t have a problem with the language but doesn’t object to the clarification either.
Scott Woodbury said his recollection is it was discussed by the Commission and what they are asking for the Commission had indicated no, wait until it is at risk. Parties had submitted testimony challenging the acquisition amount and it should be contributed plant..
Commissioner Nelson asked - isn’t the company’s concern here that nothing will be allowed in rate base?
Scott Woodbury said the Commission didn’t try to draw lines. Said it will be taken up in a general rate case. Now they are asking for partial assurance.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought in the rate case it was pretty well defined. Now do you go into an explanation of “no”.
Commissioner Nelson read from the order.  
Scott Woodbury said on reconsideration the company was asking for reassurance now. Commission said no, you have to wait for a rate case.
Commissioner Smith said when they came in for the certificate, what we said was that we think it is prudent because we don’t preapprove any rate base number. think it would be inappropriate.  Said she voted yes because she thought it was a prudent think to do based on the underlying agreements and realigning of territory, and in the rate case they can ask for anything, and they the burden of proof.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought there was a danger to give them assurance now. Majority of the Commission approved this because it was determined it was prudent and reasonable, what more can we say? Exact amount cannot be decided until you come to ratebase that amount.
Scott Woodbury is to draft order reaffirming  prior order.
7. Case No. WWP-G-96-3
   PGA Tracker File date 9-30-96
   Annual Revenue Decrease ($2,339,000)
   Requested effective date: 11/01/96
   Discussion re: Procedure - No Memo (SW)
Scott explained the matter. Saiud if Commission follows last year’s procedure where a 20 day comment period was used, it would be beyond the date of the next decision meeting.
Appears there is good reason to shorten the comment period. Comment period will be shortened.
8. U S West’s Response to Commission’s Order to Show Cause - Case No. USW-N-95-2.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought the company had shown some effort here.   Would remove the 5%, don’t think it is that effective right now. Don’t have a problem removing that. Would civil penalty as is. Think that we are okay right now for the present and let U S West see what they can do in the next 3 months. Review it in three months.
Commissioner Nelson said he was opposed to that. Doesn’t think it is acceptable to leave the fine where it is. Proposals from the company are the same as he has heard for 5 years. Want to see proof.
Commissioner Smith said he was opposed to doubling the fine in the first place. Said he would rather they put that money into providing good service. Wouldn’t increase the fine. Our point was to get their attention. think they are as worried about it as we are. Look forward to seeing the trend line in the next three months. If it is not on the upward trend, we will do something else.
**Report due sometime in December.
9. Terri Carlock’s October 3, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Company’s 1995 Earnings Compliance Filing, Case No. IPC-E-95-11.
Commissioner Nelson commented he thought staff had done a good job coming up with a number.
Commissioner Smith said she did need help with Pac-Hide. Her question is: why isn’t the Pac-Hide money below the line? Why isn’t that their money.
Terri Carlock said it should be their expense. Explained the offset. We did not claim the revenue from Pac-Hide. They are proposed to offset these two. Company provided more information as to what this recovery was and staff and company were then able to agree.
Approved.
10. Terri Carlock’s October 3, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Washington Water Power Company Extension of Existing Short-Term Debt Authority, Case No. WWP-S-92-3.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approved the filing; Commissioner Smith seconded it and Commissioner Nelson concurred.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 8th day of October, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw