19970519.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
May 19, 1997 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen; Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Scott Woodbury, Weldon Stutzman, Bob Smith, Don Howell, Stephanie Miller, Ron Law, Keith Hessing, Randy Lobb, Carolee Hall, David Scott, Tonya Clark, Bill Eastlake and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance was Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Commissioner Hansen called the meeting to order.
First item on the agenda was consideration of the April 28, 1997 Decision Meeting Minutes. Minutes were approved unanimously.
2. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated May 19, 1997.
Ron Law reviewed the matters on the agenda - 3 temporary applications and 5 permanent applications handled by modified procedure.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the RCD agenda; seconded by Commissioner Smith; approved unanimously.
3. Carolee Hall’s May 16, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Advice 97-06-S To Provide EAS to the Pocatello and Idaho Falls Areas effective May 23, 1997.
Carolee indicated that staff had reviewed the tariff and they recommended approval. Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the filing; seconded by Commissioner Smith, passed unanimously.
4. Carolee Hall’s May 16, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: The Addition of Enhanced Call Forwarding Options to Gem State Utilities; dba Pacific Telecom, Inc. (PTI), Existing Custom Calling Services.
Carolee reviewed the filing. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the filing; Commissioner Nelson seconded it; passed unanimously.
5. Weldon Stutzman’s May 14, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Approval of Applications of Phoenix Fiberlink of Idaho, Inc. (Brooks Fiber Communications of Idaho, Inc.) and McLeod Telemanagement, Inc. for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity; Case No. PFI-T-96-1 and Case No. MTI-T-96-1.
Weldon reviewed the matters; staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the two certificates; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; passed unanimously.
6. Scott Woodbury’s May 14, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: WWP-E-97-3 PCA Rebate ($2,639,000).
Scott reviewed the filing. Staff recommends modified procedure.
Commissioner Smith asked about doing the two rebates separately.
Keith Hessing explained that a third number couldn’t be put in place along with the other two.
Commissioner Smith asked if the rates were too high? (Base rates) What happens, when does the other one go off?  
End of August was the response.
Commissioners unanimously approved putting the matter out on modified procedure.
7. Scott Woodbury’s May 14, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-96-4 United Water.
Scott reviewed the matter - it is intervenor funding requested in a United Water Case.
Commissioner Hansen asked if in the past the Commission has granted intervenor funding to an individual?
Scott replied - not to his knowledge. This is the first time Sharon Ullman has requested it. There is nothing to prohibit an award of funds if a party contributes to the decision reached. The statute encourages participation, participation the Commission looks forward to, participating as a party of record. Ms. Ullman participated in all discussions with respect to settlement negotiations and she has always shown an interest in United Water cases.
Commissioner Smith asked about Micron, do they have a tariff for service?
Joe Miller, Attorney for United Water responded - they take service as a tariffed customer but do have a contract for line extension. With respect to their general services, they are a tariffed customer.
Scott added that Ms. Ullman complained that the Coalition of Users was representing the backbone customers. Noted that it is not necessary that they represent the general body, they are representing their own interest. Assign the costs of intervention back to those classes. In this case there aren’t classes or customers, only the amount.
Commissioner Smith pointed out that the Coalition of Customers’ application was incomplete in that it didn’t state the costs (the hourly rate) being charged by the participants. In the future it needs to be a complete application.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion that $1,000 be awarded to Sharon Ullman and $12,000 to each of the other two participants.  
Commissioners unanimously supported the motion.
Scott Woodbury explained why United Water had not objected to the requests for intervenor funding  - it was part of the settlement.
8. Scott Woodbury’s May 14, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-97-4 Amortization of Certain General Plant Accounts Request for an Accounting Order.
Scott went over the application briefly. Staff recommends approval and will note Commission has ordered similar treatment for WWP.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion that the filing be approved; seconded by Commissioner Smith; passed unanimously.
9. Scott Woodbury’s May 15, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. INT-G-97-2 Integrated Resource Planning Guidelines Requested Revisions.
Staff recommends modified procedure.
Passed unanimously.
Scott interjected that the Company had originally asked for a June 1 effective date. They have agreed to allow 30 days for comment, with an anticipated effective date of July 1.
10. Scott Woodbury’s May 15, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-97-4 Power Purchase Agreement W/Rayonier.
Scott asked that the matter be held for a week - Company had indicated they may vacate the case.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to hold the filing; seconded by Commissioner Nelson; passed unanimously.
11. Scott Woodbury’s May 15, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: MNV-W-97-1 Morning View water Company Inc. (Idaho Falls) Letter Request for Rate Case.
Staff is working with the company - filing is incomplete at this point in time.
Commissioners approved unanimously a stay of the proceedings.
12. Scott Woodbury’s May 16, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-96-8 Amended Certificate application--Banbury/Spyglass.
Scott Woodbury reviewed the matter. Said the parties are not in total agreement about what should be done. They are in agreement with the dollar amount. It is the company’s request that the Commission provide them an indication of approval that that amount is appropriate. It is staff’s recommendation that they would support it in the next rate case. There is that difference.  Another issue is the phase-in of rates. Went over staff recommendation on those.
There was a discrepancy in the numbers on staff’s schedules attached with respect to rates. The company is requesting under the Eagle United Water rates moving to 14.74 per month which is about $5 a month difference. It is an increase of about$ 7 to$ 8 in staff’s recommendation versus $5 for company. Phase-in is an integral part of the Banbury matter, if it is not approved, the agreement could fail.
Commissioner Nelson asked how staff came up with the number?
Randy Lobb explained - used the escrow to decide amount under current line extension.
Commissioner Nelson said that amount should produce enough revenue to make a rate of return.
**$137,600 is the correct amount.
Commissioner Smith asked if they were penalized because they had a separate irrigation water system? Commission is trying to encourage people to do this.
Commissioner Hansen commented - comparing the quality of water they are currently receiving versus prior, has the staff investigated the quality of water of United system in this area? Within 2 miles of this area is where Commission had some complaint about high manganese, iron, etc, wonder if there will be any difference?
Randy Lobb  said the staff has no information on the water quality. Did not investigate the wells closest to Banbury. Most of the water quality problems are closer to the river. Staff did not look at the current  water quality or try to anticipate the quality of water they will receive.
Commissioner Hansen said according to the testimony, this is quite an exclusive area and if they have complaints of stain, wondered if that issue had been brought forward.
Randy Lob said these customers have asked for this service.
Commissioner Smith commented she understood staff ‘s position on hook-up fees but does the company disagree ? Didn’t know if the company cared either way.
Scott Woodbury said it is staff’s belief that when the company reduced the purchase price, they said that part of their reasoning in reducing that amount was the collection of these fees - 465 and 783. That was just based on a conversation he had with Joe Miller.
Joe Miller said when the company agreed to the reduction in the purchase price, it anticipated it would also receive revenue from hook up fees. So it was material to the Company. Company recognizes that the tariffs have changed and there is an argument on the way of looking at them, they are in the ground now.  It is only a matter of when you collect the fees. Company believes that there wouldn’t be a major discrimination problem.   In candor, if the Commission believes there is a huge problem with hook-up fees, company would proceed without that (would not let that cause the transaction to fail).  As much assurance as the Commission can give for the purchase price in rates (future rate filing) - company asks  that that amount be allowed.
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t understand the bullet about “Immediate Rate Base Treatment”.
This is just a question of proof in the next case. They are not getting money.
Scott Woodbury said he thought this Commission didn’t want to discuss these outside a rate case.
Commissioner Smith said even if we say we are approving the rate base amount, nothing happens immediately. This is just a question of proof in the next case. As long as $14,480 comes out of the 32 lots.
Commissioner Nelson said he was not sure what the situation is with the 32 lots.
Company is asking for approval of this and to collect old rather than new.
Under the new, fees are paid at the time of hook-up.
Randy Lobb said under staff  proposal the customer is to pay whatever the fee is at that time because we won’t know when those customers are hooked up.
Commissioner Smith said if they hook up 10 years from now who knows what they are getting.
Commissioner Nelson said he would move approval of the certificates and indicate that if the staff supported $137,600 that he has no reason to oppose that and would assume it is reasonable.  
Don’t have problem with phase- in of the rates because all the numbers have been done assuming
United Water’s rate causes no harm to other customers. Think it would be fair that
the 32 customers hook up at the applicable rate at the time.   
Commissioner Smith commented there has already been a lot of the give and take in this matter, to get it settled.
Approved the matter unanimously.
Item 13 was a fully submitted matter to be privately deliberated - Scott Woodbury’s May 16, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UPL-E-96-5 Declaratory Ruling-Reconsideration.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 21st day of May, 1997.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary