19970908_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
September 8, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Scott Woodbury, David Scott, Birdelle Brown, Ron Law, Tonya Clark, Stephanie Miller, Rick Sterling and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were John Souba of U S West and Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company.
Items from the September 8, 1997 Published Agenda were discussed and acted upon as recorded herein.
Commissioner Hansen welcomed those in attendance and called the decision meeting to order.
First item considered was No. 1 under Consent Agenda - Weldon Stutzman’s September 3, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GTE-T-97-10; Joint Application of Nextel Communications and GTE Northwest for Approval of Wireless Interconnection Agreement.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation on this item; motion carried unanimously.
2. Birdelle Brown’s August 29, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Advices 97-12-N, 97-13-N and 97-14-N to Revise its Termination Liability Assessment for contracts, Private Line Transport Services and Advanced Communications in Northern Idaho; effective September 7, 1997 (Held from September 3, 1997 Decision Meeting).
Commissioner Nelson said his concerns were the same as they were last week. All of those costs are recovered up-front in the contract and U S West says they need a penalty. Don’t see how they are damaged unless the customer leaves.
Birdelle Brown agreed that was her feeling. Could not, however, retrieve the documentation that shows that the costs for those services were recovered up front.
John Souba of U S West spoke to the filing.
Commissioner Nelson asked for an example of competitive services under this?
John Souba said there is competition in all three sections of the tariffs .
Commissioner Nelson asked if there are competitors for those services up there?
John Souba said he was not able to speak to that for Northern Idaho but didn’t think there was any area where there isn’t competition.  It is less in northern Idaho than here.
Commissioner Nelson asked why the customer would discontinue service unless he feels he wasn’t getting his money’s worth?
John said the company’s concern over establishing this is because they have found competitors who say -  we will accept that financial obligation,  so you can sign up with us. That is the reason why the company feels current language does not protect them.
Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her that this is an  instance where they can either  pay under a  tariff or sign a contract. Think U S West should be able to negotiate this if that is the route the customer wanted to go. Made a motion to approve the tariff filing.
Commissioner Hansen said there is motion before the Commission for approval. He sees this as anticompetitive  as we move into the telecommunications market, or its a way a company can avoid competition.  Doesn’t see a need right now that it has to be addressed.  Is concerned that in the area of competition,  it is an issue of quality of service and they are getting penalized for leaving the system.  Asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner Nelson said if there is actually competition for this service he could support this - they could have the option of contracting with the competitor. Asked Birdelle Brown if in her mind there was competition for this service in Lewiston?
Birdelle said in her mind there is none there.
There was no further comment - Commission had a motion before it.
Vote was 2 opposed; 1 aye. Motion failed.
Commissioner Hansen asked for a motion on what the Commission was going to do on this?
Motion failed, filing is disapproved.
Commissioner Nelson said he would have to see something that showed competition in this area to change his mind.
3. Brad Purdy’s September 3, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-97-10 (Idaho Power’s Application regarding proposed changes to Schedule 86).
Brad Purdy reviewed the memo. Matter went out on modified procedure; only staff commented.  Rates under proposal would be slightly higher. Staff believes that the proposed methodology is fair and reasonable and recommends approval.
Commissioners had no comments.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve staff recommendation; motion passed unanimously.
4. Brad Purdy’s September 4, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. M-8195-2. Staff motion For Order to Show Cause Against Mr Loren Troyer, dba Sea Breeze Trucking.
Brad reviewed the memo. Carrier never completely complied with requirements but certificate was issued conditioned upon receipt of  a satisfactory compliance review. Staff has not been able to pin this person down to conduct a compliance review. Staff now asks that the Commission give him to a date certain for a compliance review or be subject to the consequences outlined in the decision memo.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion that Mr. Troyer be sent an Order to Show Cause.
Brad added  - for the information of the Commissioners that the time for anyone to respond has elapsed.
Vote on the motion was taken: it passed unanimously.
Rulemaking Matters:
5. Don Howell’s September 3, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Amending the Commission’s Safety and Accident Reporting Rules, Case No. 31-11.01-9701 and
6. Scott Woodbury’s September 4, 1997 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. 31-1201-9701 Notice of Proposed Rule Making Systems of Accounts for Class A and B Water Utilities.
Scott reviewed both memos, in Don Howell’s absence. Commission proceeded in both cases under the APA. Notice was published in the Administrative Bulletin. Deadline for comment has passed. Senate/House Committees reviewing rules has filed no objection. Staff filed additional comments in the system of accounts case  recommending approval. With respect to recommendations of staff, they would recommend the Accounting  Rules become effective July 1, 1998 following the next legislative session. For the Safety Rules, staff recommends they be effective April 1, 1998 rather than the July 1, 1998.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff why they were recommending an April 1, effective date for Safety Rules, rather than the standard July 1 date?
Scott said he thought the earlier the most recent safety  rules were adopted the more advantageous.
Stephanie Miller spoke to the fact that for safety rules  we are in limbo until the new ones are in effect. It is not the same situation with the accounting rules.
There were no further questions.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the Commission approve both sets of rulemaking and said it was beneficial to use the April 1, 1998 effective date on Item 5 and July 1, 1998 on Item 6.
Vote was unanimous.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 11th day of September, 1997.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary