19980331_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
March 31, 1998 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Ron Law, Keith Hessing, George Fink, Scott Woodbury, Rick Sterling, Randy Lobb, Joe Cusick, Bev Barker, Don Howell, Stephanie Miller, Birdelle Brown, Terri Carlock, Tonya Clark, Bill Eastlake, Dave Schunke and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Thane Twiggs of Idaho Power Company, Skip Worthan and Mike McGrath of Intermountain Gas Company; Joe Miller, Attorney at Law; Jerry Healy of United Water Idaho; Richard Mollerup, Attorney at Law; and Sharon Ullman, UWI Customer/Consumer Advocate.
Commissioner Hansen called the decision meeting to order.
Matters listed on the published March 31, 1998 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed and acted upon as recorded herein.
1. Minutes of March 23, 1998 Decision Meeting - minutes had previously been reviewed by the Commissioners and corrections made.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected; motion carried unanimously.
Items 1 - 9 are listed on the Consent Agenda of the Decision Meeting Agenda.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were questions or comments regarding any of these items, from the other Commissioners?
Commissioner Ralph Nelson made a motion approving all items on the Consent Agenda; motion carried unanimously.
10. Scott Woodbury and Keith Hessing’s March 9, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Intermountain Gas Company Complaint/Investigation of Alleged Anticompetitive, Preferential and Discriminatory Practices. (Held from March 11, 1998 Decision Meeting).
Scott reviewed the decision memo and said the company has filed a response. Staff believes a formal docket should be opened to consider the issues. Would now suggest that the allegations should be reviewed by the Commission in a public forum. Would prefer that it develop policy and not be an adversarial proceeding. Company has proposed filing an application.
Commissioner Hansen had a question. In reviewing Mr. McGrath’s letter he states that IGC developed standards for competitive practices and submitted those to the staff in May of 1996 for review by staff and comments. Company stated that they have not as yet received any comments
from the staff and so they have been following those standards. Asked what staff has done about the recommendations that were submitted to them and where are we at on that?
Scott replied company has filed standards with the Commission. The staff does not agree with everything that was suggested. Staff feels that had the company been following those standards the customer concerns would not have arisen. Company says they have been following those procedures; staff would not agreed.
Commissioner Hansen asked if staff ever got back to the company?
Scott replied staff did not get a “hard copy” back to the company but there have been discussions.  Have marketers now that were only knocking on the door then.
Commissioner Nelson said based on what Mr. Woodbury represented as to how the process should go, he would be in favor of those recommendations and would ask the company to file an update of the proposed standards on competition and Commission could address that when it comes in.
Commissioner Smith commented she thought it was time, the world is a different place, and everybody needs to understand what the process and rules are and think it is appropriate to have a proceeding to do that. The Company has made a good faith offer to file a formal application on its proposed standards and we can go forward;  and she wants to go forward only, not backward.  Said in terms of having a proceeding, if we have one based on the company’s filing and go forward on how business should be conducted in the future is what she is interested in.
Commissioner Nelson said he would make a motion to hold this decision memo in abeyance and ask the Company to file something by May 1.
Commissioner Hansen said he would be in agreement that we are not concerned about prior allegations against the company, we are looking to go forward.
Commissioner Smith asked if the company thought 30 days was reasonable?
Skip Worthan  of IGC responded indicating that 30 days was reasonable in which to file an application.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. Brad Purdy’s March 23, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. M-8346-1 Application for Authority to Transport Passengers of Class-Act Limo Service.
Brad reviewed the matter. Commission considers insurance and safety and Excaliber has not put either of these matters at issue.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought that once Class Act was made aware that they needed to file an application they have done this and he would move that the Commission approve this application and ask staff in 6 months to do a compliance review for safety and insurance.
Motion carried unanimously.
12. Scott Woodbury’s March 26, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-97-6 Motion to Compel--Sharon Ullman Response--United Water.
Scott reviewed the matter.  
Commissioner Hansen asked why this was such a trade secret? What is being asked for?
Mr. Healy of United Water was present and responded to the questions. It is not a matter of the information being secret. Everything with respect to United Water payroll is part of the workpapers on record in this case. The company participates in this cross-industry salary and benefit survey and it is a consortium that agrees  to provide information and agrees  to keep the work product confidential and that is an implicit agreement in Western Management Groups. It is an agreement that United Water has agreed to abide by that they will not disclose information and neither will the other participants. Companies will provide data, receive the survey results, use it but are prohibited by agreement from disclosing  information from other companies. United Water agrees to abide by that.
Commissioner Nelson said if it is part of the agreement in participating in the survey that the results are kept confidential, then he would move to deny the request of the intervenor.
Commissioner Smith said she would support that motion noting that certainly compensation that United provides to its employees is an issue in the case but don’t believe that the information sought here is critical to the issue and don’t think the intervenor is impeded in any way.  
Vote on the motion was 2 yes - Commissioners Nelson and Smith and Commissioner Hansen voted no.
13. Scott Woodbury’s March 26, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-98-3 MOPS II Pilot--Proposed Tariff Revisions.
Scott reviewed the matter. He has talked to the company regarding timing.  They asked for an April 25 effective but would like it as soon as possible; no later than May 12. That would give 21 days for comment.
Commissioner Nelson recommended putting it out on modified with a 21 day comment period.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 7th day of April, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary