19961202_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
December 2, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen. Also in attendance were staff members Scott Woodbury, Weldon Stutzman, Brad Purdy, Susan Hamlin, Tonya Clark, Ron Law, Stephanie Miller, Terri  Carlock, Joe Cusick, Bev Barker, Keith Hessing, Randy Lobb, Gary Richardson, Bill Eastlake, Birdelle Brown and Myrna Walters; and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law, Jeanette Bowman of Idaho Power Company, Ron Lightfoot of U S West and Sharon Ullman.   
Commission President Ralph Nelson called the meeting to order.
Matters on the December 2, 1996 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated December 2, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the Regulated Carrier Division Agenda; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; Commissioner Nelson concurred.
2. Brad Purdy’s November 27, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Request for Vision Waiver for Brad Wright (BFI Waste Systems).
Commissioner Nelson commented - without a federal waiver program, there isn’t anything we can do.
Commissioner Hansen said the Commission has to stay with the same rule that was in effect for Walter Taylor in January.
Since there isn’t a procedure for the state to grant it, it must be denied. Commissioners all agreed.
3. Brad Purdy’s November 27, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Request for Extension of Conditional Permit from Via Expeditors, inc.
Commissioners agreed to an extension until April 1997.
4. Jim Long’s November 18, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Tariff Advice 96-04-S which makes minor text changes.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation; Commissioners Smith and Nelson concurred.
5. Jim Long’s November 29, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Budget Call Long Distance in its Title 62 Filing offers Deaveraged Intra/Interlata Rates and Request an Exemption from the Existing Averaging Requirement.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the reasoning behind the deaveraged rates?
Jim Long replied that everything set out in the decision memo was the information he had.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t think it could be approved with what we have.
Commissioner Hansen said the Commission hasn’t approved them in the past, so he would move to deny the filing.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; Commissioner Nelson concurred.
6. Birdelle Brown’s November 29, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GVNW Letter dated November 13 to transmit Fremont Telecom Tariff, effective November 15, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the tariff, Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; Commissioner Nelson concurred.
7. Birdelle Brown’s November 29, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Advice 96-16 to Provide a Satisfaction Guarantee and Flexible Packaging for SmartCall Services, effective December 4, 1996.
Commissioner Nelson asked if grand fathering this is an issue where reselling or interconnection is concerned?
Birdelle replied she hadn’t thought of it as that - it is raising their rates for new customers. Do we really care?
Commissioner Smith said in review - instead of getting a package for $5.00 you now get it for a 40% discount and you can choose other provisions. You make up your own package and you get a 40% discount.
Commissioner Nelson said he would vote to approve it but with reservations.
Commissioners Smith and Hansen said they would also approve it.
It is going to be confusing to the customers - but they can take advantage of the discount.
8. Susan Hamlin/Weldon Stutzman November 20, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Application of Citizens Telecommunications Company, Phoenix Fiberlink of Idaho, Inc. and GST Idaho Lightwave, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Local Service; Case Nos. CTC-T-96-1 and PFI-T-96-1; and GST-T-96-1.
Commissioners wondered since the companies had made the appropriate filings, could they meet the test and orders could be issued?
Susan Hamlin responded staff thought it was best to put them out on modified rather than go directly to an order.
Commissioners approved putting the applications out on modified procedure.
9. Susan Hamlin’s November 27, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: USW-T-96-14/CTC-T-96-2 Joint Application of Citizens Telecommunications Company and U S West Communications Inc. for Approval of an Agreement for Resale Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(e).
Commissioner Smith clarified what the Commission findings are in this matter.  
Decision was to put it out on modified procedure.
10. Brad Purdy’s November 15, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-19 Application for Declaratory Order Determining That Risk Management Transactions Are Not Securities Subject to Title 61, Chapter 9 of the Idaho Code.
Commissioner Smith said she would vote no - that they are not securities.  
Commissioner Hansen said because of the competitiveness he would not require Idaho Power to file with the Commission.
Commissioner Smith said she agreed. If staff wanted to, they could review them.
All three commissioners agreed.
11. Brad Purdy’s November 25, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-20 In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of an Extension of the U. S. Department of Energy Special Contract.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the application; Commissioners Nelson and Smith concurred.
12. Scott Woodbury’s November 16, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. CAP-W-96-2 Request for Interim Rate Relief.
Commissioner Smith asked what the purpose of the hearing was?
Scott said in review: the last time we had a Capital case and we had interim rate request, modified was suggested. Seemed to be the concern of the commissioners to have a hearing in a rate change in this matter. In this particular case the Commission wanted the public brought into the decision-making process and staff thought setting up an evening hearing allows the customers to participate to a greater extent. Didn’t know what comments will be filed.
Commissioner Said asked how this fits with the water quality issue?
Scott explained. Said he also wasn’t sure what the tenor of the staff comments will be.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought a night hearing was appropriate or could go with modified.
Commissioner Hansen said he felt any time the Commission possibly can, we should give the public a chance to voice their opinion. At the last hearing on Capitol, people testified to poor water quality. Would like to hear if they will pay for this. Wonder if they are supportive of the proposal of the company. Don’t see it as a permanent fix. They may have to put up more. Wouldn’t mind having a public hearing.
Commissioner Smith said she thought having a public hearing was fine but her concern is if we have a hearing on these expenses the public won’t distinguish it from the water quality hearing. Is this one hearing or will there be two? Customers do need hearing. Just wanted to know what the hearing will be about, what information will be available?
**One hearing on the rate increase was suggested and have it cover the prior expenses and ongoing expenses. (Temporary rate increase for the program)
Commissioner Smith suggested that staff discuss the matters and make recommendation to the Commissioners, if it could come together in time for interim rate relief.
Gary Richardson suggested this could be handled by a meeting with staff and key customers since there are three issues: interim, 35% general and water quality.
Commissioner Nelson commented that was good input for staff toward their recommendation.
**Matter will be held until next decision meeting.
13. Scott Woodbury’s November 19, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-96-2 (M&M) UWI Request to Withdraw Application.
Approved.
14. Scott Woodbury’s November 19, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-23 Amendment to Electric Service Agreement for Micron.
Decision was to go modified procedure.
15. Scott Woodbury’s November 22, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-96-5  Oyler v. United Water.
Commissioner Nelson said the Commissioners had two proposals and he thought the company’s was the most reasonable.
Scott Woodbury clarified - the company’s proposal to write off half (follow their current policy).  So the Commissioners are saying the meter is operative and the water passed through the meter?
**Don Oliason was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Hansen asked if in the staff investigation did they determine that the property owner there does get involved in turning the different valves on and off, is that a responsibility he has? He quotes in his letter a conversation he had with an examiner form United Water.  
Said his question of staff is: If that statement is true and that is what United Water people are saying, then you are looking at a huge amount of water. Didn’t see an explanation yet that says what happened to the consumption and any reasonable proof of where that water went. If they say it entered the irrigation system, he is saying that is not likely it could happen.  
Don Oliason responded. The valve positions he (Don) observed would not allow water to go from United to the customer. When he was out there there were enough valves closed to not let water go through.  
Commissioner Hansen asked if the homeowner had to make adjustments to the valves?
Don Oliason said the person who blows out the system would - but all he could speak to was what he observed - the valve positions when he was out there.
Scott Woodbury commented - there are five valves that have to be open, although it seems improbable that they were all open, it appears the water went through meters and no one knows where it went. Can’t say with certainty it went to the irrigation system.
Commissioner Hansen asked - could you have a meter malfunction and then be okay?
Don Oliason said not to his knowledge.
Commissioner Nelson said evidently water went through the meter and now the company has paid to pay half. I am going to go with the Company.
Commissioner Smith said it is hard but the meter testing at 96% is showing less going through. Know that the public policy we were trying to preserve was meter reading is what we have to go with. What we do know is that the water went through the meter and it appears to be in the bounds of accuracy. It seems logical then to use the company’s policy for adjusting these bills and try to ameliorate it. If we start down the path of saying you don’t have to pay even though the meter says this, we are going down a dangerous path. Whether their policy is the right way to fix things, it does preserve their policy.
Commissioner Hansen said looking at consumption, if you say because there are some concerns, we will take your highest consumption (September 1995) which is about 1/3rd, could see them saying, pay that.
Commissioner Nelson said it is unfortunate there is no right answer.
Randy Lobb commented there were two other customers in this subdivision that had the same situation and they settled for half.  
Commissioner Nelson repeated it is unfortunate but didn’t know what else the Commission could do. Would approve the company proposal.
Scott Woodbury asked if the Commissioners wanted to comment on disconnection.
**No dicta on who owns what - abide by policy, but offer payment arrangements.
Commissioners agreed to company proposal.
16. Weldon Stutzman’s November 27, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Revised Version of Arbitration Procedures.
Commissioner Smith asked what changed?
Weldon responded - bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 - on binding arbitration.
Commissioners approved revisions.
Fully Submitted Matters.
17. Scott Woodbury’s November 26, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-16 Rosebud’s Motion.
Commissioner Nelson said he would reject the petition for rehearing but there are issues he would address - if you have subsequent changes in utility cost; public interest and what legal enforcement is and what there lock-in was.
Commissioner Smith asked if there were any issues that needed to be beefed up? If we have an order not ready to go to the Supreme Court, lets to rehearing, if not lets go to the Supreme Court.
Scott Woodbury said there were some areas where he would like a more complete record.
Commissioner Nelson asked what those issues were?
Scott said (1) statutory right of appeal (2) project-specific IRP calculation from the company. With response to any of the issues on clarification, don’t see those as critical, as to public interest that ties into the IRP calculation. Those are the three issues.  
Owen did bring up the issue of constitutional depravation of rights on reconsideration. We don’t address that and that is perhaps more appropriate for the Court.
Perhaps also as to what the Commission felt when it issued the respective obligations of the parties...whether Idaho Power was under a duty to provide a contract containing those rates and if the letters can be anticipated as provided them, was it incumbent upon Rosebud to bring it back to the Commission?
The issue of right of appeal is somehow put in limbo and can’t be altered. That is what Owen suggests. Said there were a number of issues he would like to see a more complete record on. Essentially Rosebud filed, Idaho Power responded and both parties said it was fully submitted Commission didn’t get to ask questions.
Order is to be drafted for the Commissioners’ review.
18. UWS-S-96-4 (U S West EAS Case) Sharon Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration.
Commissioner Hansen said he felt the Commission order was responsible and the evidence was evaluated fairly. Were careful to weigh the testimony from the hearings. Thought we were conscientious of those who had different views and made sure they were considered and based on the way we handled that, would have to vote to deny reconsideration.
Commissioner Nelson said he would grant reconsideration on Ms. Ullman’s statement that the Commission instructed the staff in violation of our Rule 273. Think if she feels that, we should give her an opportunity to present that.
Commissioner Smith said she thought petitions for reconsideration should deal with the substance of the order. Other issues out of that can be handled outside reconsideration. Also believe the Commission order rests on evidence and all views were considered. There were a number of letters from each of the cities opposing this. In every single EAS we have ever done, that has always been the case.   Commission doesn’t reimburse lost toll. The benefits of the EAS’s are not just individual personal monthly gains, it is bigger than that. There are benefits that will be realized by the communities regardless of what happens to your individual bills. On the school district issue, Kuna bounds many areas. The rate proposal and the fact that no business rates were raised are rate case issues and will be considered there. The difference in customer classes will be made then. They wont be implemented prior to when the rate case is out so if there are perceived inequities, they will be dealt with in the rate case, so she would deny reconsideration of all the issues.
Petition for reconsideration/rehearing was denied.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of December, 1996.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
.