19980421_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
April 21, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Cheri Copsey, Keith Hessing, George Fink, Randy Lobb, David Scott, Ron Law, Stephanie Miller, Bev Barker, Birdelle Brown, Rick Sterling, Joe Cusick, Terri Carlock, Tonya Clark and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Michael Creamer, Attorney at Law and  Larry D. Ripley, Attorney for Idaho Power Company.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.
Items listed on the published April 21, 1998 Agenda were considered as follows.
First item on the agenda was approval of the Minutes of the March 31, 1998 and April 8, 1998 Decision Meetings.
Since the Minutes had previously been reviewed by the Commissioners, Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hansen noted that Items 10 and 11 from the Matters in Progress section of the agenda have been moved to the agenda for the next decision meeting, April 29, 1998.
Items 2 - 6 listed on the Consent Agenda were considered.
Commissioner Smith had a comment on No. 3 - Scott Woodbury’s April 17, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-98-5 (Washington Water Power Company) Waiver-Schedule 51; Developer Deposit. Said as long as the decision is out by May 18 in order to give the developer the time he needs, so long as this can be done within that time frame, she would move approval of Items 2 - 6.  
Vote taken on the motion was unanimous.
7. Brad Purdy’s April 15, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-98-3; Application of Idaho Power Company for Authorization to Update its General Rules and Regulations Relating to the Prairie Service Area.
Brad reviewed the decision memo. Also reviewed staff comments. Staff recommends that if the Commission approves the application in this case, that the Company be required to provide a more detailed notice to its customers disclosing the new account initiation fee, field collection-charge and reconnection fee.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the application subject to the notice requirement proposed by staff which Idaho Power has apparently approved.
Commissioner Hansen asked for discussion. Hearing none, vote was taken on the motion; it carried unanimously.
8. Brad Purdy’s April 16, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-93-10 Idaho Power Company vs. New Villager Condominiums-Procedural Motions.
Scott reviewed the decision memorandum; said the only matters to be resolved today are the procedural matters. (1) Whether to reschedule the hearing and (2) whether to allow New Villager to incorporate transcript of the district court proceedings in which this matter was litigated. Said that since he prepared the decision memo, has had the opportunity to speak to counsel for New Villager and it is now New Villager’s position that perhaps a hearing would be appropriate in this case. Idaho Power had suggested foregoing a hearing and simply resolving this matter on written briefs with reference to trial transcripts. New Villager now thinks there might be benefit if parties were allowed to cross examine the witnesses at the hearing which it looks like there will be only 3 or 4 witnesses. Commission needs to decide on cancelling of current hearing  and at some point have to decide if the Commission wants live testimony or if the Commission feels comfortable receiving briefs on the trial transcript.
Commissioner Hansen asked for comment or questions.
Commissioner Nelson commented. He would be in favor or vacating the April 29 hearing. Think  the matter should be held to discuss the record that the Commission will allow in.  Allowing in the entire record of a court case is pretty voluminous. Think that could be cut back some. Maybe there are certain portions that could be allowed. At least that sounded like what they were asking.
Brad Purdy said what Idaho Power Company is suggesting is submission of the entire transcript and in briefing, would refer to portions of that transcript.   Would rely on the parties to decide relevancy; but the entire transcript would be part of the record.
Scott said Idaho Power’s concern is that New Villager is only asking for portions of the testimony and Idaho Power feels there may be other portions necessary.  
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t know how voluminous the transcript was. Asked Larry Ripley, counsel for Idaho Power about the volume of the court proceeding?
Mr. Ripley replied he did not know how many pages it was. He wasn’t the attorney on the court case.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the hearing could be vacated and discuss the other issues?
He then made a motion to vacate the April 29 hearing.
Commissioner Hansen said he would like to ask a question regarding foregoing the April 29 hearing. Where this has already been thru the courts, he has a hard time realizing what the benefit or gain would be to further hearing. Personally thought Idaho Power Company made a good
proposal. It would give parties ample opportunity to address the issues. Asked staff if cross-examination of witnesses was really beneficial in this case?
Brad Purdy replied he thought it was in this case. In a sense this was litigated below, but in a sense not. Explained the Supreme Court Ruling. The Court said we are not going to rule on any finding the district court may have made regarding safety. This is a legal easement, property right matter. Idaho Power was not foreclosed from going to the PUC for safety. The Court gave it to the PUC for the safety matter. There was testimony and evidence on it but no ruling was made. It is an issue we do usually rule on. Having a few witnesses here to answer any questions the Commissioners have and be subject to cross examination would be beneficial in his opinion.
Commissioner Hansen asked for discussion on the motion to vacate the April 29 hearing.
Hearing none, vote was taken; motion carried unanimously.
12. Idaho Power Company Power Cost Adjustment Filing - IPC-E-98-5, filed April 15, 1998.
Brad said he is asking in the decision memo if the Commission wishes to put this application out on modified procedure? At this juncture, staff is not aware of any problems or issues.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to put the matter out on modified procedure.
Commissioner Nelson had a question - asked how many days would be allowed for comment?
Brad Purdy suggested thru May 8; proposed effective date is May 15. Said when this procedure was set up initially, knew it was a squeeze. To a large extent the Commissioners have to rely on staff analysis. It would need to be put on the May 11 agenda to be considered by May 15.
Commissioners Nelson and Hansen then voted in favor of the motion; it carried unanimously.
Under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS -
13. Brad Purdy’s April 16, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. FIL-T-97-1 Application of Filer Mutual Telephone Company for Disbursements from the Idaho Universal Service Fund.
Brad reviewed the matter. Said Filer petitioned for reconsideration indicating that the FCC has now issued an order which makes the PUC order somewhat moot. Filer’s recommendation is that the Commission withdraw portions of the order. Brad said he didn’t think that was feasible. Commission had an application, a signed order, etc., could not withdraw portions of the final
order. Suggested the Commission could instead affirm the order recognizing the right of Filer to file in the future for USF disbursements and litigate these issues again.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the final order should stand the way it is. It doesn’t prejudice Filer. The order does not address lost access charges. As Filer contended, those numbers will change. They would be different today and would be different after issuance of rehearing order. These are numbers that will always change. Don’t see that they are prejudiced. The 60% is not agreeable to Filer,  but we know that could change also. If they applied again it would change. Would affirm the prior order and say Filer regards it as moot. They can relitigate. Think the Commission should just affirm their prior order. Put that in the form of a motion; to affirm the prior order and deny the petition for reconsideration and tell Filer that they can file anytime and relitigate the issues.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hansen repeated that Items 10 and 11 will be held until the next decision meeting.
Meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 23rd day of April, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary