19961028_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 28, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Brad Purdy, Susan Hamlin, Weldon Stutzman, Scott Woodbury, Bev Barker, Joe Cusick, Birdelle Brown, Keith Hessing, Stephanie Miller, Randy Lobb, Syd Lansing, Jim Long, Terri Carlock, Bill Eastlake, Dave Schunke, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Phil Obenchain of Idaho Power Company; Peter Richardson, Attorney at Law and Sharon Ullman, Citizen.
Commission President Ralph Nelson called the meeting to order.
Items from the October 28, 1996 Published Agenda, were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Weldon Stutzman’s October 18, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Requests from Preston and Montpelier Telephone Exchange Customers for Inclusion in the southeast Idaho EAS Region. (Held from 10-22-96 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Hansen said he thought staff comments regarding assigning a docket number and initiating an investigation to see if they qualify as an area to be included (for EAS) was his recommendation. U S West questioned whether the calling patterns were a community of interest, this is a case where the community should be given the right to convince the commission that they are part of that community of interest in southeastern Idaho. Would like to give those people a chance to response.
Commissioner Smith said she thought that would be a good first step. Would like a hearing before the legislature convenes.
Commissioner Hansen asked about December 12?
**Specific hearing date will be established- docket will be opened.
Commissioner Smith commented she wondered if a technical hearing is necessary or just a public hearing.
2. Brad Purdy’s October 18, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-17 - Idaho Power’s Application to Amend Schedule 19 to Provide for Special Contract Options to Customers 10 MW and Above. (Held from 10-22-96 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Smith said she would move approval with a couple of spelling corrections.
Commissioner Nelson said he supposed that when we do a cost of service study, may have to do
separate study for these contracts to see if they are a fair rate. Will have to deal with those down the road, but would approve the application now.
Commissioner Hansen indicated he would support it also. Said he commended Idaho Power for initiating this idea to better serve the customers.
3. Bill Eastlake’s October 17, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GTE-T-95-3 - Local Calling Plan.  (Held from 10-22-96 Decision Meeting).  
Commissioner Smith said she hasn’t forgotten Kellogg, Harrison and Pinehurst. She initiated it initially. She is here to make her case. Maintains they ought to be able to call. Would propose that they include Harrison.
Bill Eastlake said she thought it would go into Community Plus.
Commissioner Smith said she would like to know how much money is involved, would presume almost nothing.
Commissioner Nelson asked for information on getting that route included in the local calling plan.
Commissioner Smith asked about Spirit Lake and Sandpoint.
Discussed that exchange.
Unless the staff had some reason to do differently she would go with this.
Bill Eastlake will get more details.
**Recommendations were accepted and it will go out on modified procedure. **Will find out about Harrison, etc.
4. Idaho Power Company Advice No. 96-06 - Offsite Meter Reading Service. (Held from 10-22-96 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Hansen said personally he would go with the $25.00 installation fee and the monthly rate.
Commissioner Nelson concurred.
Commissioner Smith voted no - said her preference was no installation charge.
5. Susan Hamlin’s September 26, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-T-96-4 - Proposed Procedural Order, Summary of Comments. (Held from 10-7-96 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Smith said she had questions. Went over the procedural order.   All providers should be certificated. Currently if you were only providing under 62, you would be under that.  U S West’s question was: relays or whatever, are they treated differently? Didn’t know how we felt about that. Thought all we were trying to do is provide guidelines for local competition allowed by state law, result of this does leave two categories of telephone providers - those who provide to residential and business - 5 lines or less and those who provide other services. U S West thinks they are the same.
Commissioner Nelson said he agreed. If we just provide one certificate, company could expand their offerings.
Joe Cusick said the statute doesn’t require a certificate for 62 service. All we are saying is we are trying to reflect the new order, and set up requirements for that.
Commissioner Smith said if the state doesn’t require a certificate for Title 62, how can the commission? Shall we keep what we have?
Agreed.
Comments on proposed language under service territories. Electric Lightwave was concerned about what “full description” means. They think some of their plans are proprietary and valuable business information - is route specific information needed? They prefer a general network description or list of unencumbered LECs they would compete with. We need enough information to know whether the competition is offering in a particular location. Can see why they are worried about route or routes.
Joe Cusick said that description is a surrogate for their technical competence. That requirement does fulfil that. Reason for the maps and requirements was to evaluate their technical abilities.
**Get technical assistance wording.
Commissioner Smith suggested saying “sufficient description” - adequate to determine service offering in a particular location. Can see why they worry about route or routes.
Joe Cusick said - may have power resellers. One of the other things we were looking at, rather than asking for amendments, would like to have them say - these are the areas we want to serve.
MAPS. Applicants propose only if they are different than area being served locally.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought if they say “as on file” it is okay. They can use U S West files.  
Commissioner Hansen said it seemed like we are asking for a lot of information, are we defeating competition?:
TARIFF FILINGS. Say that requirement does apply here - Rule 111.6.
Commissioner Smith said - would want it to be always current.
*Don’t need U S West change.
Compliance with Commission Rules - Page 6.
ELI wants to ask for a waiver.
Commissioner Smith said she would rather have a statement that says I will ... want a waiver from rules ABC. Have them tell the Commission which are applicable.
Bev Barker said all consumer rules set this out.
**Parallel the language.
Performance Bond and Escrow Account.  - Question was asked: Would there be any advantage to offer either?
Was discussed.
**Decision was to go with escrow.
Page 8 of Procedural Order - Original Certificate and Amending Certificate.
Commissioner Smith asked why the same phrase was put in Rule 111 and Rule 112?
Joe Cusick explained the rationale.
**Decision was it couldn’t hurt to have it in two places.
Staff will make changes to the Procedural Order, as requested by Commissioners.
6. Brad Purdy’s October 22, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: IPC-E-96-20. Idaho Power’s Request for an Extension of its Special Contract with the U S Department of Energy.
After brief discussion, decision was to grant interim approval and put it out on modified procedure.
7. Brad Purdy’s October 23, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: IPC-E-93-10. Idaho Power Company Motion to Dismiss Villager Condominium Association.
Was discussion on why the case will be kept open - why only dismiss the Villager Condominium Association portion of the case.
Brad Purdy said he thought Idaho Power Company wanted it to be on the docket. Don’t know what difference it really makes. A lot of the information in the file will be transcripts from court cases, etc. Thought there may be some economy in not asking to have these refiled.
Commissioner Smith suggested setting Villager free today and if the staff feels strongly, could do Motion to Dismiss the other one. Hesitate dismissing the entire case without giving the parties an opportunity to respond.
8. Brad Purdy’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-18 Idaho Power’s Application to Factor Power Purchase From Arizona Public Service Into the Company’s PCA Computations.
Commissioner Hansen commented - a lot of things have changed since this was negotiated. Price in the contract is not in the public interest.
*Commission doesn’t usually get involved in telling the company where to get their energy supplies. Tell them it is not a term we can approve.
**Reject it.
9. Joe Cusick’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Compliance filing on Local Exchange Tariffs for Purchased Exchanges in U S West Sale Case; USW-S-94-4.
Approved.
10. Marge Maxwell’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Washington Water Power Company’s Tariff IPUC No. 25; Revision to Sheet 58 to Reflect 1% Franchise Fee for Electricity to City of Ponderay and to Remove .25% Franchise Fee on Electricity within City of Post Falls.
Approved.
11. Marge Maxwell’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Washington Water Power Company’s Tariff IPUC No. 26; Revision to Sheet 158 to Reflect New 1% Franchise Fees for Natural Gas within the City of Ponderay and the City of Rathdrum.
Approved.
12. Birdelle Brown’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Petition from Century Telephone Customers to Eliminate Rural Zone Charges.
Commissioner Nelson said his though is: what would an audit say about their earnings?
Terri Carlock responded - said on a company-wide basis it appears they are over earning but Bob Smith has not been able to get information on “Idaho only”. Are still working on that. Most of the information now comes from California, is the problem.
Commissioner Nelson said Century has said “lets wait” - for a longtime now.
Birdelle Brown said the company is scheduled to be audited the first quarter of ‘97. Auditors are now busy working on U S West rate case. Didn’t think anyone would object to an audit mid-year next year.
Commissioner Smith asked if it would speed them along if the Commission said the zone charges are subject to refund after June 1, 1997?
Decision was: adopt staff recommendation to open a docket and negotiate with staff on revenue neutral, let us know what progress staff and company have made. If progress is not made, staff can file a motion.
13. Scott Woodbury’s October 24, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-G-96-3 Natural Gas Tracker - $2.339,000 (8.5%) Net Annual Revenue Decrease.
Commissioner Nelson said it looked fine but wondered about amortizing over two years.
Stephanie Miller said if they stay level you won’t have a refund next year. Explained why the amortization.
Approved.
14. Don Howell/Joe Cusick’s October 24, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Sale of the Afton Exchange to Union Telephone Company, Case Nos. USW-S-93-5 and SIL-T-93-1.
Commissioner Smith said she would note that since the proposed upgrade has already happened, it appears there is no benefit to the sale. Wondered why a two-year rate freeze instead of three.
Joe Cusick said two years is what they did in Wyoming. We are mirroring Wyoming.
Commissioner Smith said given the Telecommunications act of ‘96 we are excluded from giving an exclusive certificate, so she doesn’t have a problem with this.
**Leave Silver Star there for now.
15. Bev Barker/Don Howell’s September 5, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Mediation and Arbitration Procedures for Interconnection Agreements; Case No. USW-T-96-10 and PFI-T-96-2.
Commissioner Smith said it was okay with her except for Page 3 under Arbitrations. Commission will act as an arbitration panel, but would really rather have some provision for these people to hire an independent arbitrator and handle it without the commission being the arbitration panel. We ultimately approve the agreements. They might be better off to go to someone else for an arbitrator. Would like the option of getting their own arbitrator.
**Mirror the language under arbitration.
Commissioner Smith gave her changes to Weldon Stutzman for inclusion in the order.
16. Terri Carlock’s October 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Washington Water Power Company $150 Million Security Issuance, Case No. WWP-U-96-1.
Approved.
FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS
17. UWI-W-96-3. United Water Idaho Rate Case - Decision Memorandum to follow from Scott Woodbury.
Commissioners agreed to go into private deliberate session on this matter.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 30th day of October, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary