19970826_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
August 26, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Ralph Nelson and staff members Tonya Clark, Allan Killian, Scott Woodbury, Bev Barker, Brad Purdy, Carolee Hall, Joe Cusick, Randy Lobb, Rick Sterling, Stephanie Miller, David Scott, Weldon Stutzman, Bill Eastlake, Birdelle Brown and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were: Joe Miller, Attorney at Law, Fred Logan of GTE; Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company; John McFadden, Attorney at Law; Jo Ann Butler, Attorney at Law, Neil Colwell of WWP; Paul Jauregui, Attorney at Law,  Ron Lightfoot of U S West and Alyson Anderson, Administrator of IUSF.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.
Items from the August 26, 1997 Published Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1. Minutes of August 12 and August 14, 1997 Decision Meetings and Minutes of Emergency Decision Meeting of August 19, 1997.
Commissioner Hansen indicated that not all the Commissioners had reviewed the minutes listed,  and they would be held at this time.
On the CONSENT AGENDA, were the following matters:
2. Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated August 26, 1997.
3. Carolee Hall’s August 21, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Advice 97-08-S to Add Filer Mutual Telephone Company to its Magic Valley Local Calling Area; Effective August 29, 1997.
4. Bill Eastlake’s August 20, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho (CTC-Idaho) Tariff Revisions Necessary for Equal Access 1+ Dialing for Toll Service.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve staff recommendations on the three matters on the consent agenda. The motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
6. Brad Purdy’s August 21, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: (Idaho Power’s Application for a Public Purposes Charge) Idaho Power Company’s Petition for Clarification of Order No. 27045; The Industrial Customers of Idaho Power’s Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 27045 and Idaho Power’s Cross Petition for Reconsideration.
Brad Purdy reviewed details of his decision memorandum.
Commissioner Hansen asked for comments/questions of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Nelson commented that he was concerned enough about the prior decisions that he would grant ICIP’s petition for reconsideration regarding Items 1 and 2, but not 3 and then he would grant Idaho Power’s cross petition for reconsideration.
Commissioner Smith asked Brad Purdy if there was something defective in the process the Commission used in this matter that needs to be corrected.
Brad replied that in his opinion there was not. The problem, to the extent that the Commission erred (that he erred), as ICIP pointed out, we issued modified procedure and there was a little bit of a glitch in the wording where we said the Commission would set the matter for hearing.
Idaho Power pointed out that hearing can be defined in a number of ways. Even if you are not sure you have all the information from the procedure used, still don’t think there is a legal requirement for a hearing.   Asked the Commissioners if they had all the evidence needed for the decision?
Commissioner Smith said she reviewed what she thought the Commission was saying to Idaho Power (that decision making would be in the future), and she was having a hard time figuring out what a hearing would cover if the Commission had one. Thought Idaho Power did bring up a good point about rate design alternatives to collect these expenditures as we go forward, or in the future. That part wasn’t adequately developed where the Commission could make a decision and choose something else.
Commissioner Nelson said he was assuming from the ICIP petition that what they would like to present evidence on why we should disapprove the application rather than “punt” which is essentially what we did. And Idaho Power is asking in their cross petition that we decide now rather than defer it and in reading those, don’t mind going back and at least consider deciding now, making a decision.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought since Idaho Power has asked for more clarification that we have left them hanging out there on a limb and they are not sure what is going to happen down the road. In that area he would support that.
Brad Purdy said as he saw the cross petition, if the Commission grants ICIP’s petition, what should be  reconsidered  is what was decided with respect to now versus later deferral. In order to get where you are going , need to speak to ICIP’s petition.
Commissioner Hansen said legally he thought the Commission handled it alright but he is concerned whenever there is a party that feels like they were left out or are confused about the process and feel they didn’t get to speak fully, then he thought the Commission should go back and give them that opportunity. The ICIP stated that they felt like they were going to get a formal hearing and didn’t. Think he would rather be on the side that would give all parties the benefit of
the doubt;  that they get the best shot and present all the evidence and witnesses they felt necessary, before a decision is made.
Commissioner Smith commented she would hate to reopen the issue of the rate moratorium. Would like to be done with that issue.
Commissioner Nelson then made a motion that the Commission grant reconsideration to ICIP on Issues 1 and 2 of their petition and not on Issue 3 and that Idaho Power’s cross petition for reconsideration be granted (whether Commission defers or implements a charge now). Said he was uncomfortable enough to go back and reconsider.
Commissioner Smith asked what was already filed in the case?
Brad Purdy replied - primarily comments.
Commissioner Smith said she was wondering, going forward, since  it looks like  the Commission is going to grant reconsideration, should ICIP now file first, etc.?
Brad Purdy commented if this was something that raises facts and requires evidence or is it a policy matter that can  be handled by oral argument, etc., that this was unclear in his mind.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the Commission was talking about factual matters in considering ICIP’s petition.  
Commissioner Hansen said since there are questions, asked Mr. Richardson if ICIP would like to comment at this time.
Mr. Richardson replied that the Commission has testimony on the record now from those at the prehearing conference, think the other parties should be allowed to file rebuttal and then original parties can file again.
Commissioner Hansen asked for further discussion. Hearing none, vote was taken on Commissioner Nelson’s motion. Commissioners Hansen and Nelson voted aye; Commissioner Smith voted nay.
7. Birdelle Brown’s August 21, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Universal Service Fund - 1997 Annual Report - Case No. U-1500-174.
Birdelle reviewed the decision memorandum. Went over the Administrator’s three options. Staff supports Option III.  
Commissioner Nelson asked for clarification of the $625,317 number in Option II.
Was discussion on that number and whether or not it was correct.
Commissioner Nelson said he liked Option III without increase in residential.
Alyson Anderson commented she was only speaking to access rates.
Commissioner Smith asked her why that was?
Alyson responded that she probably should have netted those out.
Commissioner Smith said her only suggestion was on Cambridge she would prefer to have them take the third step required in the previous order before making changes here. There are EAS petitions in house and would like to only change the rates one time. Don’t like to confuse people with ups and down and options, if these EAS cases are going to get done before another report is due, would hold the adjustment until Commission decides EAS and change rates one time in a year.
Commissioner Hansen asked Joe Cusick if the pending EAS cases would be decided before this time next year?
Joe Cusick indicated they would.
Commissioner Smith commented she had no solution for Inland and Midvale.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the time line was on this?
** Any change needs to be done by October 1.
Was decided to hold this matter until the next Commission decision meeting, scheduled for September 3.
Birdelle Brown was asked to look at Option II and make it clear what the legal requirements were regarding “participating companies reducing their toll access rates to statewide threshold”.  Have an attorney take a look at this.
8. Wayne Hart’s August 21, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Boise Parks & Recreation Request for Waiver to Allow Outgoing Calls Only from Payphone in Ann Morrison Park.
Wayne reviewed the decision memo - went over staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Smith said she would move that staff’s recommendation be approved.
Commissioner Nelson had a question - did they give any instances of intimidation at this phone?  Had they had complaints?
Wayne said he didn’t have an answer, he couldn’t recall.
Motion was then voted on - carried unanimously.
9. Wayne Hart’s August 21, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Process to Provide Waivers to Allow Blocking of Incoming Calls on Payphones.
Wayne reviewed the memo. Set out three requirements to grant exemption.
Commissioner Hansen asked about staff recommendation, asked if other states have a procedure like he is proposing or is it up to the company?
Wayne responded that some have gone to the companies and other require support of law enforcement. In Oregon its up to the company. Two states still had an administrative procedure but it was by staff, not commissioners.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought local law enforcement came at it from a different standpoint then he did, had been hesitant to leave it up to them. The rule adopted some
years ago has good public policy behind it, and he supports that role and exceptions should be just that. Is not excited about changing the way we do this.
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t think anyone is proposing to let it be up to law enforcement but perhaps a standardized policy would be good. She is in favor of staff developing a process to review these kinds of waivers.
Commissioner Hansen said he wouldn’t be opposed to staff having a procedure to evaluate these but also think in each case the Commission should have to approve or disapprove them even though you have a standardized procedure.
Commissioner Smith agreed having them on the consent agenda would be appropriate.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to go with staff’s recommendation to develop a process and once that is developed, handle each application using that method and have that procedure brought before the Commission for approval or disapproval. (Clarified that the Commission is going to approve the process before it goes into effect).
Motion carried unanimously.
10. Scott Woodbury’s August 22, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-97-6 - Washington Water Power Company - PCA Rebate ($2,966,000).
Scott explained that there is another rebate. Company has proposed to just continue the rebate now in place. Staff recommends approval and a continuation of the modified procedure.
Commissioner Smith said staff wanted the company to refile the tariffs even though no rates changed and asked,  if it is strictly administrative, couldn’t the tariffs just be restamped and approve the extension,  we would have to do that anyway and that would save company from having to refile?
Commissioner Nelson said he would support a motion to approve the rebate with the exception of refiling of the tariff.
Approved unanimously.
11. Scott Woodbury’s August 22, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-97-4 - United Water Idaho Inc - Water Supply Agreement with the City of Eagle.
Scott reviewed the matter. Spoke to the letter from Mrs. Chase where she recommends a hearing, as does Eagle Water Company. Went over the staff recommendations.
Commissioner Hansen asked for questions. Does the Commission have the authority or obligation to rule on whether or not (or who) the City of Eagle purchases their water from?
Scott said he didn’t believe so. The Commission regulates United Water. There is quite a difference when Eagle Water  indicates they are willing to provide for $30,000 and it is about 10 times that for United but those are not monies the Commission should deal with. The City fathers make those decisions. The decision as to who should be the city supplier is a matter that is before the City and the City Council.
Commissioner Hansen asked, regarding Mrs. Chase’s concern about her wells, wouldn’t that be a decision that Water Resources should be ruling on?
Scott replied it would.
Commissioner Nelson said he had a real concern here. Wasn’t sure of Commission authority but the agreement he is looking at is between EM2 and a developer and EM2 has never laid pipe and has come up with financing and they are getting hook up fees in an uncertificated area where United will be certificated.  
Scott said EM2 runs the municipal water system and where they came by their money and how they are spending it shouldn’t be a concern of the Commission.
Commissioner Nelson asked - you don’t think if the payoff of that comes from hook ups, that that wasn’t a concern of ours?
Commissioner Smith said her question was: is there anything here for the Commission to approve?
Scott commented there are things to be cautious of.
Commissioner Smith said if all this customer is doing is buying water out of a tariff that we have already approved, what is there for the Commission to approve?
Scott said he thought there was something to be cautious of under the tariff, the appropriateness for this tariff, for their use. This has been represented as a wholesale tariff. The company is purchasing wholesale water supply. The tariff that United has was not for that type of end use. His caution is that it is quite possible that it is something to be examined in the upcoming rate case.
Commissioner Smith asked what there was to approve; Commission is not going to disapprove their taking under the tariff.
Scott indicated that the tariff for the time being is okay and we will look at it in the rate case.
Commissioner Smith asked if this was all in the city limits?
Scott said he was unsure the line was all within the city limits. But the city is the customer. The city will own the line. The city is serving the customers using the water.
Commissioner Smith said her only question was whether the Commission needs to do anything.  Think someone needs to respond to Mrs. Chase so she can direct her concerns about the wells to Water Resources and about the city being in the water business to the City Council and the Mayor. Her concerns about the fact that the City Council acted without adequate notice should be directed to the City Council.
Commissioner Nelson said he was not concerned about the tariff and rate. He thought what we are being asked to approve is the construction of a line through an uncertificated area. There is a contract between a developer and EM2 and the question is what happens when that line is completed. It is apparent that when that line is completed, United will be serving customers in an uncertificated area when we specifically told them not to serve any uncertificated area without a certificate.
Randy Lobb said he was not sure where the development has been proposed. It could occur adjacent to the main line.
Scott said he didn’t know what the city wanted to do with their municipal system. The city can move into that area without Commission approval. City wouldn’t need a certificate.
Commissioner Smith made a motion that an order  be issued that closes the case, thanks the people for commenting, and speaks to staff concerns and let it go at that. Note the concerns are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Commissioner Hansen asked for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Hansen and Smith voted aye; Commissioner Nelson abstained.
12. Scott Woodbury’s Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-97-7 - Washington Water Power Company Proposed Revisions to Energy Efficiency Tariffs. Discussion re: Procedure/scheduling/suspension of proposed effective rate.
Scott reviewed the memo.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
13. Case No. WWP-E-96-6 - Washington Water Power Company - Earth Power Resources v. WWP-Discussion re: Proposed Hearing Date - Friday, October 3, 1997.
Scott indicated that staff and the parties have agreed that October 3 was a possible date for the hearing. Commissioner Smith indicated it was not. She suggested October 9.
Scott will check again with the parties.
14. Use of Revenue Sharing funds by the Western Governors’ University, Case No. USW-S-96-4.
Weldon Stutzman reviewed the decision memorandum in Don Howell’s absence. Staff is recommending opening a docket on this to see what people have to say about the overage.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought it was very clear what the money was approved for. Can’t see any benefit in putting it out for comment. If they can’t spend the money, they can send it back to the Commission and the Commission can decide how to spend it.
Commissioner Hansen put that in a motion; Commissioner Smith seconded it; passed unanimously.
15. GTE Northwest’s Advice 97-06 Requesting Approval to Modify its Service Performance Guarantee Plan, Case No. GNR-T-97-9.
Carolee Hall reviewed the matter. Went over the proposed modification. Staff had recommended approved. AT&T & MCI responded. Staff views it as the customer having a choice and they further recommend approval.
Commissioner Smith had a question of Fred Logan. It has been suggested that the new language allow the customers to use GTE or competing companies (for the credit).
Fred replied that  the company would rather not do that but it could. The calling card could be used for other companies.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the tariff advice and note to the commentors (AT&T and MCI) that the customers should be told that they can dial around and use other carriers for the credit.  
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of September, 1997.
Myrna J. Walters,
Commission Secretary