19961104_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
November 4, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were: Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Gary Richardson, Jim Long, Stephanie Miller, Bob Smith, Dave Schunke and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company; Wayne Booe and Ben Hepler of United Water Idaho, Inc., and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Commission President Ralph Nelson called the meeting to order.
Items from the November 4, 1996 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Jim Long’s October 30, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: U S West’s Advice 96-08-R Requests Exchange Boundary Modification between Kooskia and Grangeville Exchanges.
Commissioner Smith asked where EAS was for this customer?
Jim Long responded he would not have Grangeville - that was explained to the customer - he had no problem with that.
Commissioners approved the Advice.
2. Brad Purdy’s October 30, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: UPL-E-96-6 Application of UPL for Authority to Discontinue its Residential Weatherization Program.
Commissioners okayed recommendation to put the application out on modified procedure and also suspend the filing to accommodate the modified procedure.
3. Brad Purdy’s October 30, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Rate Case Nos. WWP-E-96-7 and WWP-G-96-4 Application of Washington Water Power for Approval of Revisions to DSM Programs.
Approved handling the application under modified procedure.
4. Brad Purdy’s October 31, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: WWP-E-94-7 Washington Water Power/Sierra Pacific Merger.
Approved language of the proposed order - case will be closed.
5. Scott Woodbury’s October 30, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-W-96-3 Earl Reamy Water System - Change of Ownership.
Commissioner Nelson asked what documents had been filed?
Bob Smith responded and updated the Commissioners on what has happened since this matter first started. Mr. Reamy was ordered to file for an application for a certificate for his water system. In the meantime the system sold. Current owner will do what is necessary - he has already filed a budget but has not filed an application.
Current owner is to be told to get the application in, will receive an extension of time and in the meantime there is to be no change in rates or charges.
**Commissioner Smith announced that per a directive of a former commissioner, the PUC office will be open on Election Day, November 5, but no official business is to be transacted.
Next item on the agenda was under - Fully Submitted Matters - 6. United Water Idaho, Inc. Rate Case - Case No. UWI-W-96-3.
Commissioner President Nelson announced that the commission has an order ready to be considered which approved a $763,941 or 3.6% across the board increase in current rates for United Water Idaho.
Asked the other commissioners if they had comments in this regard.
Commissioner Smith said there were several contested issues in this matter. (1) issue of leased vehicles and (2) management incentive program. In her opinion, the Commission should not be a substitute for the management of the company. Management of the company chooses how it is going to conduct business; chooses whether to own or lease vehicles and how to compensate its employees. When management went to leasing, must have believed there was savings. If management chooses to make some portion of the salaries at risk, that is a management tool. If the salaries had just been included as is, it would have been a legitimate charge and there wouldn’t have been a legitimate reason to exclude those. Also believe that the $100,000 that went to the Treasure Valley Hydrology Study was appropriate in light of the total cost of $3,000,000. Thought $100,000 was very reasonable. Agreed with Ms. Ullman that everybody should be helping to pay for that and believe they ultimately will be through measures of the county officials. that is how they will get the remaining dollars.
Was concerned about the water quality issues. The Commission is concerned enough that we are going to open a separate case to allow an opportunity for the company to explore all the reasonable ways to reduce or eliminate that problem. Recognize that it is a difficult problem. But the public needs reassurance of that. Think it is an appropriate measure for us to take.
Commissioner Hansen said he disapproved of the increase. The most troubling testimony he had was the quality of water and the company’s reluctance to respond to these conditions. Is concerned that these customers are paying the same for colored water, that it is coloring their clothes, they are paying the same price as those who are getting good water. If the company can’t provide quality water, think the rates should be discounted to those people. Could not accept the management incentive plan, either. Have a hard time giving employees bonuses when there is a water quality problem. Also don’t approve the size of the vehicle fleet. Felt like the company needed better lease/buy analysis. One last comment to the comment was - you have a lot of troubled customers out there. There is a fear whether the water is safe to drink or not. Think the company needs to address those issues. If those areas can be fixed, think people would be willing to pay more for quality water.
For those reasons, he dissented to the order.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 9th day of November, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
mjw