19961223_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
December 23, 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, Brad Purdy, Weldon Stutzman, Rick Sterling, Stephanie Miller, Birdelle Brown, Tony Jones, Joe Cusick, Lynn Anderson, Wayne Hart, Ron Law and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Larry Ripley and Ric Gale of Idaho Power Company and Greg Harwood, Attorney at Law; Joe Miller, Attorney at Law and Neil Colwell of WWP.
Items from the December 23, 1996 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated December 23, 1996.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve RCD agenda; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; motion carried.
2. Brad Purdy’s December 17, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. BMR-R-96-1 Abandonment of Rail Line in Whitman, Washington and Latah Counties, Idaho, by Blue Mountain Railroad, Inc.
Commissioners all agreed there was no reason for the IPUC to file.
6. Brad Purdy’s December 16, 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.
Potlatch has filed comments in this case and the Idaho Power Case (IPC-E-96-22). Brad Purdy reviewed those comments. They suggested that the two cases should be combined.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the applications had differences. WWP programs are recovering the money currently and Idaho Power is on a 24-year depreciation schedule. Was ready to approve the termination of the gas program and approve energy efficiency tariff later.
Commissioner Hansen said he didn’t have any problem approving the termination of the gas program. Asked why WWP couldn’t come back with another proposal for electric. Can’t see what advantage that is. If we approve termination of the gas and on the WWP electric - leave that in place, if their attitude changes or customers want to generate a new proposal, why does that have to be compared with Idaho Power? Would just as soon approve this as proposed by WWP.
Approved as filed.
7. Brad Purdy’s December 17, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-96-22 Idaho Power company’s Application to Discontinue its Partners in Industrial Efficiency Conservation Program.
Company’s position is as of the date of the filing to suspend, there were four customers affected (not counting ISU).  There are other people out there that have allegedly worked with the company but haven’t filed yet.
Commissioner Nelson said he was willing to let them withdraw the application but contracts should be honored. Agreed with the company that if the customers leave the system, couldn’t see that they would be required to sign a five-year contract.
Commissioner Hansen said he agreed. Thought Idaho Power Company should terminate the PIE program. Think the value of that has diminished and as we move into deregulation/competition, this could be looked at as stranded investment. Think it is in the public interest to terminate it. Think that customers need to have some time to submit applications, though. Don’t have a problem with a 60/90 days period to let others who have started paperwork to be included.  
**Think there should be a time period.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the number if the commission made today the date?
Brad Purdy replied - nine (without ISU) - four who have not signed. It would make a difference if you allow a certain number of days.
Commissioner Smith asked - are you proposing that people with existing applications be given 60/90 days to finish the process or are you proposing people who do not have applications .....
Commissioner Hansen said you could have some people out there that got involved at putting the package together. Since this filing we know it has jumped from 4 to 9.   That was his concern.
Commissioner Smith said it was a major concern to her how the people perceived they were being treated. For those who have filed applications, would like the company to review them and process them. Company had the ability under the original tariff to reject or not accept filings if they deemed they weren’t appropriate. It indicated they had some discretion.
Wayne Hart explained Idaho Power’s approval and rejection.
Commissioner Smith said she thought everyone who has filed deserves having that process played out. Think they are entitled to that.
Commissioner Nelson said the other five parties who are thinking about it have had two months to get their application in.  
Commissioner Smith said you wouldn’t know if it is just a thought or if they have also expended time and resources. If they are at the end of the spectrum, she wouldn’t be adverse to giving them
some time. If they are not already substantially there, don’t see purpose in giving them more time.
Brad Purdy asked if the Commissioners would take November 1 as the cut-off? Said he didn’t know how the Commissioners felt. If we are going to terminate it anyway... if they are at the point they could have filed but Idaho Power had filed - wouldn’t give them time to dream something up.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought that was reasonable but didn’t know how to accomplish this.
Brad Purdy asked if as a practical matter, could someone get something in in a month? They have to design the project before they submit the application.
Commissioner Hansen suggested limiting it to the nine identified right now.
**Leave it open for two weeks. Only ones you are going to get are those who have dome some work (expended some money and put some time in it).
Okayed by all commissioners.
Brad Purdy asked if the commissioners would allow Idaho Power company to impose the condition “if they take someone else in the future, they are to amortize and repay company”?
**If they go off they have to pay.
Staff asked whether the company should provide criteria for customized services?
Commissioner Nelson said it would be tough to have general terms for customized customers. He would say no.
Commissioner said no to requiring the Company to address other issues identified by the ICIP.
**Lynn Anderson was in attendance at this time.
8. Brad Purdy’s December 17, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UPL-E-96-6 Application of UP&L For Authority to Discontinue Its Residential Weatherization Program.
Commissioner Hansen said he would approve discontinuance. This is not in the energy to low income category.
9. Brad Purdy’s December 19, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-95-15 Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval to Revise Rates, Terms and Conditions Under Which Idaho Power Purchases Non-Firm Energy From Qualifying Facilities.
Went to the questions on Page 9 of the Decision Memorandum.
Commissioner Smith asked  - from a legal analysis, is there anything the Commission needs to reconsider?
Brad Purdy said there was not.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t see any reason to defer action. (regarding Option C until there is more clarity on the role of renewable energy technologies in the restructured market as proposed by IRU?)
Should Idaho Power be directed to list examples of minimum monthly charges associated with alternative generators selling power under Option C to make the charges more understandable?
Until you get a request it is going to be tough to tell.
Does the Commissioner agree with Idaho Power’s proposed monthly charge recovering non-generation related costs?
Commissioner Nelson commented he thought it was a stand-by charge.
Tony Jones said it is everything that would be fixed costs; transmission, distribution, central office, everything that is non-energy related.
Brad Purdy asked - is that already being recovered through line extension charges, etc.?
Tony Jones responded  - not completely.
Commissioner Nelson asked about “second meter”?
Tony Jones said it appears that it is a bookkeeping thing. Commission having on the last visitation of this, decided to keep Option Co, a meter wouldn’t be required under Option C.
Commissioner Nelson spoke to not needing a second meter. If you have a monthly stand-by for non-generation, why would you need two meters?
Ric Gale of Idaho Power commented - on one end you weren’t proposing meters.
Commissioner Smith said she has a concern with the monthly charge. Would like some confidence that these weren’t charges that are being recovered elsewhere. Her question is:  Are the costs already being recovered?
Tony Jones replied he didn’t believe there is double counting on line extension. To that extent, there would be a minimum charge, don’t think it would be double compensating the company.
That is what Water Resources said.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t think they understood monthly versus yearly billing.
Commissioner Smith asked  - isn’t the thought that on any month they could have energy going back and if you evened that out over a year?
Commissioner Nelson said you would eliminate the proposal that if you ended up owing, you wouldn’t just get the non-firm energy payment.
**Leave it the way it is.
Question is: Should Option C be available to only customer under Rate Schedules 1 and 7?
Response was yes.
Last question: Are the certification and insurance requirements excessive?
Insurance: Previously the company did not require it.
Commissioner Smith said it does seem like a lot.
Brad Purdy said it is not clear it is always enforced.
Commissioner Smith said her preference would be to have no insurance requirement until the company has the appropriate amount determined.
It is up to the company.
Engineering requirement: Yes. Didn’t think it was overkill. It is hooking into their system.
End of discussion on Item 9.
Item 10 had been withdrawn from the agenda.
11. Birdelle Brown’s December 20, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Advice 96-18 To Update Language of the Access Tariff, Effective December 20 in Accordance with the Settlement Agreement in Case GTE-T-96-1 and Order No. 26587. and
12. Birdelle Brown’s December 20, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Advice 96-19 To Revise Intralata Toll Service Tariff to Include a Reference to Intralata Primary Interexchange Carrier Selection, Effective December 20 and Order No. 26587.
Both items were approved.
3. Scott Woodbury’s December 9, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UPL-E-95-5 1995 Electric Integrated Resource Plan.
Scott explained the filing. Said he would recommend that the Commission acknowledge receipt of the filing to close it out since we are ready for RAMPP 7 now. Commission can simply acknowledge what matters staff raised and can provide specific comments on those.
Commissioners agreed to accepting the filing, to do it by Minute Entry.
Commissioner Smith commented on demand load forecast and need for more thorough review  - how does that fit with impending deregulation?
Scott Woodbury responded. Said we haven’t required anything further. Have closed the alternative electric case.
Commissioner Nelson said the company is going to have to do planning any way.
Based on that, don’t have a problem with continuing the IRP process.
Commissioner Hansen said he didn’t either.  
Commissioner Smith said she thought the Commission was going to do more than it has done to this point, more oversight?
On reliability, her question was: do we want a company specific study or an industry study with the state, the northwest.......?
Scott Woodbury suggested staff could consider that and present the commission with a memo.
4. Scott Woodbury’s December 10, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-95-8 1995 Electric Integrated Resource Plan.
Scott said Rosebud questioned why its projects weren’t being included. Scott circulated a copy of a letter to the Justice Department about that.
Commissioner Smith commented it “bugged her” when an order speaks to what staff said and says nothing about what the Commissioners think. If we don’t have anything to say we don’t need to go into detail about what staff said. Summarize in the memo but not in the order.
On DSM we have already said we agree with the shift away from grants. (tariff rider issue).
5. Scott Woodbury’s December 20, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-96-8 Banbury Subdivision Agreement for Purchase and Sale Supplemental Option Agreement.
Scott Woodbury explained the filing. Staff has no opinion as to whether a public hearing for public testimony is needed. They would suggest modified procedure for comment and defer the decision until then.
Commissioner Hansen said he would have no problem with modified and extend the deadline.
Commissioner Smith asked if individual notice to the customers could be done, without it being burdensome.
Customers will be notified.
13. Weldon Stutzman’s December 18, 1996 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. USW-S-96-1 Petitions for Reconsideration Filed by AT&T, MCI and Macleod Telemanagement, Inc.
Commissioner Smith commented she would have appreciated getting advice from legal counsel about whether or not we need reconsideration on any items.
Decision meeting was adjourned to go into executive session on Item 13.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 6th day of January, 1997.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary